From Policy to Practice: Inclusive Education Implementation in Rural Mainstream Elementary Schools for Learners with Special Needs

This study evaluated the implementation of inclusive education practices in 14 mainstream public elementary schools in the San Agustin District, Division of Surigao del Sur, during School Year 2024–2025. Specifically, it examined the demographic profiles of teachers and schools, the level of implementation of inclusive education practices among teachers and school heads, school performance indicators, challenges encountered, coping mechanisms employed, best practices observed, and the enhanced inclusive education framework developed from the findings. The study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were gathered from 145 teacher-respondents through survey questionnaires and documentary analysis of school performance indicators, while qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions and key informant interviews with selected teachers and school heads. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, whereas qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis.
Findings revealed that inclusive education practices among teachers and school heads were generally rated as Mostly Implemented. Teachers demonstrated strengths in collaborative professional development, while school heads exhibited strong personal and professional attributes and interpersonal effectiveness. Despite these positive practices, schools continued to face challenges related to limited resources, insufficient training opportunities, inadequate facilities, lack of specialist support services, heavy teacher workload, and weak parental involvement. To address these concerns, teachers and schools employed differentiated instruction, individualized learner support, peer collaboration, continuous learner monitoring, stakeholder partnerships, and adaptive classroom strategies to meet the diverse needs of learners with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. The study further revealed no significant relationship between the level of inclusive education implementation and school performance indicators. Based on the findings, the INCLUDE Framework was developed to strengthen teacher capacity, inclusive leadership, learner support systems, parent-community collaboration, resource provision, and learner progress monitoring. The study implies that strengthening institutional support, expanding professional development opportunities, and fostering collaborative partnerships among schools, families, and communities are essential for sustaining effective inclusive education practices, particularly in rural elementary schools implementing inclusive education programs.

Inclusive education; learners with disabilities; mainstream elementary schools; rural education; differentiated instruction

1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and becoming a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Capangpangan, S. E., Tango-an, J. M., & Lumapas, R. Z. (2023). Teachers’ preparation and support in the implementation of inclusive education for learners with exceptionalities. International Journal of Inclusive and Sustainable Education, 2(6), 244–273. https://doi.org/10.51699/ijise.v2i6.2148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Congressional Commission on Education. (2024). Miseducation: The failed system of Philippine education: EDCOM II-year one report. https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2024/02/EDCOM-II-Year-One-Report-PDF-022924.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2025). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (7th ed.). Pearson Education. (Verify publication status: advance/official release required) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Department of Education. (n.d.). Learner Information System help: Official school forms. https://lis.deped.gov.ph/help [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Department of Education. (2021). DepEd Order No. 044, s. 2021: Policy guidelines on the provision of educational programs and services for learners with disabilities in the K to 12 basic education program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DO_s2021_044.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Department of Education. (2022a). DepEd Order No. 023, s. 2022: Child Find Policy for Learners with Disabilities towards inclusive education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DO_s2022_023.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Department of Education. (2022b). DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022: Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DO_s2022_024.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2022). Profile for inclusive teacher professional learning. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/TPL4I-profile [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Feng, Y., Yang, X., & Liu, Y. (2025). The impact of school leadership on inclusive education literacy: Examining the sequential mediation of job stress and teacher agency. Behavioral Sciences, 15(11), 1572. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15111572 (Verify indexing status) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ghosal, J., et al. (2023). Development, validation & pilot testing of a questionnaire... Indian Journal of Medical Research, 157(5), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_3570_21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hyassat, M., Al-Hassan, O., & Al-Zboon, E. (2024). Special education teachers’ perceptions of parental involvement. Education Sciences, 14(3), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kivirand, T., et al. (2022). Enhancing schools’ development activities on inclusive education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 824620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.824620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lambrecht, J., et al. (2022). The effect of school leadership on implementing inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1752825 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mishra, P., et al. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. National Privacy Commission. (n.d.). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. https://privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Nowell, L. S., et al. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Paju, B., et al. (2022). Collaboration for inclusive practices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(3), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869087 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Pit-ten Cate, I. M., et al. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(S1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Republic Act No. 11650. (2022). An Act Instituting Inclusive Education for Learners with Disabilities. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11650_2022.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. San Agustin District Office. (2024). District inclusive education profile and school performance indicators for SY 2023–2024. Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sharma, U., et al. (2021). Measuring inclusive practices among pre-service educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103506 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tenny, S., et al. (2022). Qualitative study. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470395/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Tsindos, T. (2023). Focus groups. In D. Ayton et al. (Eds.), Qualitative research: A practical guide. CAUL Open Educational Resources. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report: Inclusion and education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373724 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UNICEF. (n.d.). Inclusive education. https://www.unicef.org/education/inclusive-education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. UNICEF Philippines. (2024a). Education. https://www.unicef.org/philippines/education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. UNICEF Philippines. (2024b). UNICEF Philippines hopeful for renewed focus on learning recovery. https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/unicef-philippines-hopeful-renewed-focus-learning-recovery-children-new-school-year [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Willems, I., et al. (2023). Questionnaire reliability and validity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Woodcock, S., & Anderson, J. (2025). Conceptions to classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 8, 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Woodcock, S., et al. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Woodcock, S., et al. (2025). Teacher self-efficacy and professional development. Professional Development in Education, 51(3), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2267058 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. World Bank. (2025). Inclusive education. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/inclusive-education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Wray, E., et al. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Yada, A., et al. (2022). Meta-analysis of teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Yusoff, M. S. B., et al. (2021). Questionnaire development and validation. Education in Medicine Journal, 13(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar