INCLUSION IN INDIA

Indian educators’ perceptions of

their inclusion implementation
practices in secondary schools
Arnab Kundu and Mary Rice

Inclusive education has been touted as a strategy for providing

educational opportunity in India, but little is known about whether and
how Indian educators provide such opportunities. This study focused
on Indian educators’ perceptions of inclusive practices in their own
schools. A total of 160 teachers and 15 headteachers from randomly
selected secondary schools in the Indian state of West Bengal
participated in the study. Surveys were distributed to collect and
analyse responses. Interviews were also used to learn more about the
views of the school leaders on specific issues concerning learners with
special needs. In addition, classroom observations were conducted to
corroborate survey and interview data. Collected data were analysed
descriptively. Findings revealed that headteachers and teachers
perceived that their schools were not implementing inclusive practices.

Key words: inclusive education in India, students with disabilities in

India, Indian educator preparation, headteacher and teacher support
for specialised learning needs

Introduction
In the wake of the 1994 Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), India
reformulated its policies to support the inclusion of students with disabilities
and other special needs in schools. For inclusion to maximise educational
and personal potential for students with and without disabilities while en-
suring their rights, its implementation is critical (Right to Education Act
2009; Singh, 2016). Unfortunately, implementation of inclusion in Indian
schools has been uneven, or even poor (Tiwari et al., 2015). While educators
[Correction added on 07 January 2020: Second Author Tripti Bej has been removed]

© 2019 NASEN
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12282
in India have received criticism from scholars for their failure to implement
inclusion, previous research has failed to consider their perspectives on
the matter. The purpose of this study was to understand educators’ per-
ceptions of inclusive practices for students with special needs in secondary
schools. The focus area for this study was West Bengal in the eastern part of
the country. As the fourth-largest state by population, West Bengal has 91
million inhabitants (Registrar General and General Census Commission,
2012a). The specific research questions for this study were:

1. Are instructional resources for supporting students with special needs

in secondary schools available?
2. What do teachers perceive they know about the learning needs of stu-
dents with special needs?
3. How do educators perceive their competencies for working with students
with special needs?
4. What building-level policies do educators perceive support students
with special needs?
5. Do teachers perceive that they collaborate to improve the teaching of
students with special needs?

Individuals with disabilities in India

India has a population of 1.21 billion. Approximately 2.21% of the popula-
tion has a disability (Registrar General and General Census Commission,
2012b). About 70% of Indians live in rural areas that are less able to provide
services to individuals with disabilities. In addition, 45% of Indians with
disabilities are illiterate, compared to 26% of all Indians (Registrar General
and General Census Commission, 2012b). Among persons with disabilities
who are educated, 59% complete the Class X (grade 10) course of study,
compared to 67% of the general population (Social and Rural Research
Institute, 2014). Further, nearly 600,000 (28%) students with special needs
aged between six and 13 years do not attend school at all. At a time when
India is trying desperately to achieve universal primary school enrolment,
this is tragic (Social and Rural Research Institute, 2014). Percentages of
students with disabilities who do not attend school at all are even higher
among children with intellectual disabilities (48%), speech impairments
(36%) and multiple disabilities (59%) (First Post Report, 2015). Recently,
intellectuals and pedagogues have expressed serious interest in inclusive
education in mainstream schools (Sanjeev & Kumar, 2007). During that
process of consensus-building, the term ‘special needs education’ came into

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  399
use as a replacement for the term ‘special education’ and ‘students with
special needs’ came to encompass students with disabilities.

Government efforts to promote inclusion in schools

Beginning in the 1880s, special needs education in India operated as a
system of exclusion. The first school for the deaf was set up in Bombay in
1883 and the first school for the blind was built at Amritsar in 1887 (Sanjeev
& Kumar, 2007). Inclusive education in India first emerged during the mid-
1950s. Children with disabilities were placed in mainstream schools but
the major focus was on attendance rather than learning (Sanjeev, 2006).
The Kothari Commission (1964–1966) was the first education commission
to raise the issue of learning for students with special needs. In the Plan
of Action, the commission gave strong recommendations for including
students with special needs in public schools (Gupta, 1984; Jangira, 1995).

The Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) scheme was

launched in 1974. Its goal was to promote the inclusion of students with
special needs in general education schools (Sharma & Deppeler, 2005). The
scope of the scheme included preschool training, parent counselling, and
special training about various disabilities for school staff. The scheme pro-
vided facilities in the form of books, stationery, uniforms, allowances for
transport, readers, escorts and other resources. Despite these efforts, the
IEDC had limited success – only a little more than 100,000 students with
special needs were covered (Sharma & Deppeler, 2005).

The first pilot project on inclusive education in India came from Project
Integrated Education for the Disabled (PIED). PIED was launched in
1987 as a joint venture of the Ministry of Human Resource Development
(MHRD) and UNICEF to strengthen the implementation of the IEDC.
After the launch, there was a shift in strategy, from a school-based approach
to a holistic approach (Sharma & Deppeler, 2005). Under PIED, there was
a significant increase in the number of children with disabilities with a
range of severity that enrolled in school (Singh, 2016). The PIED scheme
came to be regarded as laying the foundation for inclusive education, at
least in principle (Madan & Sharma, 2013). Later, the National Policy on
Education (1986) and the Programme of Action (1992) provided additional
guidance for integrating students with special needs with other groups of
students. Unfortunately, during this era of inclusive consciousness, none
of these efforts paid attention to children with non-physical disabilities or
other special needs that were not technically disabilities.

400  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
Early policies aimed at supporting students with non-physical disabilities
came in the 1990s. In 1997, the philosophy of inclusive education was added
to the District Primary Education Programme (Varghese, 1996). The prin-
ciple of inclusion as part of special needs education shifted the responsi-
bility for failure or learning difficulties from the children to the school.
Soon after, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) was launched in 2001. The
SSA established a zero-rejection policy modelled after policies in the USA.
In 2006, India launched the National Policy for Persons with Disabilities,
which further strengthened the resolve to move forward with inclusion as
a stance for education (Social and Rural Research Institute, 2014). In 2009,
the IEDC was revised and renamed Inclusive Education of the Disabled at
the Secondary Stage (IEDSS). The updated scheme indicated that students
with disabilities who had completed eight years of elementary schooling
could also complete four years of secondary schooling in an inclusive en-
vironment. Evaluations of IEDSS showed an increase in enrolment in sec-
ondary education in 11 states from 2010 to 2012 (Bhan & Rodricks, 2012).
Finally, in 2010, India implemented the Right to Education Act, to add
additional support for inclusive education and to include students with a
wider range of disabilities (Bhan & Rodricks, 2012).

Previous studies on the implementation of inclusion in schools

Teachers have been given the primary responsibility for implementing
pro-inclusion special needs education policies (Boyle et al., 2012; Burke &
Sutherland, 2004). Therefore, teachers – and what teachers know and can
do – facilitate or restrain the implementation of the policies (Avramidis
et al., 2000; Burke & Sutherland, 2004). Further, successful implementation
of inclusion reforms depends on three factors: (1) policies that support
inclusive education (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996); (2) adequately trained
educators (teachers, paraprofessionals and school leaders (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002; Forlin et al., 1996); and (3) an on-going commitment to
the provision of support, including additional resources and special needs
education experts as educational consultants for classroom teachers and
school headteachers (Moore et al., 1998).

Unfortunately, teacher training institutes in India have a reputation for

providing limited initial preparation for learning to teach students with
special needs in inclusive ways (Sharma et al., 2009). Indian teachers have
students with special needs in their classrooms, but there is the potential
that they are not making opportunities for them to participate meaning-
fully in school life (Sharma & Nuttal, 2016). It is not clear whether teachers

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  401
who are not inclusive simply do not know about inclusion, or do not yet
understand why they should be inclusive.

A potential remedy for the lack of teacher preparation for inclusive edu-
cation is post-certification professional development (Sanjeev & Kumar,
2007). However, professional development is most useful when it identifies
concerns and addresses attitudes for teaching inclusively, and there is little
evidence professional development is designed in this way in India (Sharma
& Das, 2015; Sharma et al., 2009).

Thus, teachers in India have been unable to implement inclusive practices.

In one study in schools in Delhi, teachers agreed with the premises of in-
clusion but were not motivated to make them a reality (Tiwari et al., 2015).
Another study of teachers in Gurgaon, India, revealed that teachers wanted
to be inclusive, but they had a number of concerns. The teachers were afraid
that being inclusive might alter the regularised school routines; they won-
dered whether having students with special needs in classrooms would be
disruptive to the other students; and they doubted they would ever have the
necessary skills to make changes in their classrooms and schools (Yadav
et al., 2015). These studies highlight the need to ask educators what re-
sources they perceive they have, as well as soliciting their perceptions of
what they have been able to do to promote inclusion. Such understandings
will lead to important next steps in teacher preparation, professional devel-
opment and local policy.

Methodology
We wanted to learn about the perceptions of instructional resources, teacher
knowledge and competencies, local policies and collaboration patterns in
schools in West Bengal in India. Several qualitative methods were used
to gather information. These methods included surveys, interviews and
observations.

Sites and participants

Study participants were 160 teachers and 15 headteachers from 15 randomly
chosen secondary schools in India, mentioned below. Names are disguised
in accordance with research ethics (see Table 1).

The Ministry of School Education of the state of West Bengal authorised

access to the schools. Ethical considerations regarding voluntary participa-
tion, interviewing procedures and confidentiality issues were addressed via
letters sent by the research team to each school headteacher.

402  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
 Table 1: Institutions, headteachers and teachers observed

Institutions No. of teachers No. of headteachers

School 1 9 1
School 2 17 1
School 3 13 1
School 4 8 1
School 5 9 1
School 6 10 1
School 7 12 1
School 8 9 1
School 9 11 1
School 10 9 1
School 11 10 1
School 12 9 1
School 13 12 1
School 14 7 1
School 15 15 1
Total no. 160 15

Data collection
A survey was administered to all 160 teachers via email. Educators had
14 days to respond to the survey. Data from 147 surveys were included in
the statistical analysis. This represented a response rate of 91.9%, which
is very high. This high response rate may indicate that educators do care
about inclusion as a concept in their schools. Demographic data about the
participants are presented in Table 2.

The survey elicited teachers’ views about the availability of learning re-
sources and management policies regarding students with special needs. A
pilot version of the survey was initially administered to a limited number of
participants with similar characteristics to the study population to estab-
lish the effectiveness of the designed tool. Testing the survey design helped
ensure that terms were easily perceived, as well as verifying validity (that is,
checking the items were asking what we wanted to learn). The survey had
five sections, on the following subjects:

1. availability of instructional resources in West Bengal secondary

schools to support students with special needs;
2. headteachers’ perceptions of teacher knowledge about students with
special needs;

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  403
 Table 2: Demographic data for study participants

Demographic Frequency %

Gender
Male 110 75
Female 37 25
Age
20–30 50 34
31–40 49 33
41–50 20 14
More than 51 28 19
Teaching level
Secondary school 147 100
Disabled family member
Yes 5 3
No 142 97

3. teachers’ own perceptions of competencies for teaching students with

special needs;
4. local policies to support students with special needs;
5. the extent of collaboration among teachers in West Bengal secondary
schools to teach students with special needs.

These were carefully mapped to match the research questions. Respondents

were asked to rank each of the 11 statements on a five-item Likert scale
to avoid forced choice bias. Respondents were invited to make additional
comments on inclusive education via an open-ended question, if not cov-
ered by the previous questions. The triangulation of multiple data sources
and the examination of multiple perspectives helped to ensure trustworthi-
ness. Other provisions to enhance credibility included member checking,
peer debriefing and prolonged engagement onsite (Patton, 1990).

An interview schedule for the school headteachers complemented the infor-

mation teachers provided on issues of resource availability, school manage-
ment policies and teacher competencies in the context of teaching students
with special needs. A list of topics appears in Table 3.

A majority of the schools enrolled only a few students with special needs
(Table 4). When asked about this situation, headteachers explained that
most students with special needs are still placed in special institutions in
India, especially those who have a disability with severe effects on health
and quality of life.

404  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
 Table 3: Interview schedule for school headteachers

Overall difficulty in implementation of inclusive education

Lack of skilled special educators in schools
Deficiency of competency of mainstream teachers
Non-adapted environment in schools for learners with students with special
needs
Negative attitude of mainstream parents towards inclusive education
Lack of special materials and equipment (resource classrooms)
Absence of awareness among mainstream pupils about inclusive education
Transportation problem
Unstable financial system
Technical barriers (non-adapted facilities)
Negative attitude of the society towards students with special needs and their
inclusion

Classroom observations conducted in the institutions confirmed the asser-

tions of the headteachers that there are few learners with special needs in
the schools. Additionally, observation appointments were used to examine
the equipment and resources available in various schools and determine
how they were used during teaching. Four to five full-day visits were car-
ried out at each school, resulting in a total of 25 semi-structured interviews
and 20 observations in multiple settings such as classrooms. These included
pull-out sessions, break time, and even school assemblies. In addition, field
notes on brief exchanges with students were recorded.

Additional documents collected for analysis included disability plans for

individual students, worksheets, assessments, teachers’ schedules, lesson
plans, and leaflets on school events and activities. A data collection plan
was developed and monitored using an electronic database to ensure that
all procedures were replicated at each site.

Data analysis
To analyse the survey data, IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription version
1.0.0.800 was used. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation)
were used to evaluate teachers’ responses. To analyse the qualitative data,
a coding system was implemented in several steps (Saldaña, 2015). The first
step involved repeated re-readings of the data by two members of the re-
search team to identify a set of initial codes. The initial codes were then
distilled into a small group of themes by these same two researchers. Next,
links were made between the themes and the research questions by all three
research team members. Finally, the themes were examined for the ways in

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  405
 Table 4: Summary of numbers of students with special needs in site schools

Autism
spectrum Orthopaedic Hearing Visual Learning Emotional Other health
Institution Total disorder impairment impairment impairment impairment disorder impairment

School 1 33 0 0 8 8 8 2 7
School 2 43 7 7 2 5 10 4 8
School 3 30 2 3 7 8 9 3 8
School 4 27 3 2 4 3 5 3 7
School 5 41 5 5 8 7 8 0 8
School 6 50 6 6 10 9 10 2 9
School 7 41 2 2 10 8 10 2 11
School 8 41 5 3 8 7 9 0 9
School 9 50 4 6 10 8 10 2 10
School 10 39 2 5 9 7 8 0 8

406  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019

School 11 55 5 4 7 9 9 2 9
School 12 41 5 5 8 8 7 0 8
School 13 53 5 5 9 11 11 2 10
School 14 5 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
School 15 52 6 6 10 8 10 2 10

© 2019 NASEN
which they confirmed or refuted the descriptive data. When discrepancies
emerged, the data were re-examined by the entire research team. If, upon
re-examination, there were still discrepancies, both perspectives are repre-
sented in the findings (Hines, 1993).

Findings
The findings of this study address the initial research themes and topics.
Each question will be attended to in turn. Where possible, research
questions are supported by data tables.

Question 1: Are instructional resources for supporting students with special

needs in secondary schools available?
Teachers’ responses related to this issue are summarised in Table 5. In
the survey, 66.1% of the respondents claimed they did not have resources
and instructional facilities in their schools to support students with spe-
cial needs. On whether other suitable physical facilities needed to support
students with special needs in the classroom were available, 60.6% of the
respondents said ‘no’. Table 5 further indicates that the majority (70%) of
the respondents disagreed with the assertion that their schools have special
services and materials that are appropriate and available to students with
special needs. Only the question of ramps had a marginally larger positive
response (53.1% of respondents said ‘yes’). However, follow-up interview
data suggested that ramps were the only access resources the schools had.

Table 5: Availability of instructional resources in schools

Yes No

Resources and facilities in schools Frequency % Frequency %

My school has sufficient resources 53 33.1 107 66.9

and facilities to support students
with special needs.
Classrooms and other physical 63 39.4 97 60.6
facilities at my school are well
suited for supporting students with
special needs.
My school makes special services 48 30 112 70
and materials available to students
with special needs.
My schools has barrier-free access 85 53.1 79 46.9
for students with special needs
through infrastructure like ramps.

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  407
The majority of the headteachers indicated there was a lack of instruc-
tional materials for students with special needs (60.6%). Interviews with
headteachers revealed a lack of skilled special needs education and general
education teachers. Headteachers confirmed the lack of special materials
and equipment and inadequate financial support for schools during in-
terviews. Seventy percent of the respondents said no materials were avail-
able. Classroom observations corroborated a lack of basic equipment in
schools. For example, some schools lacked a handled ramp for walking or
wheelchairs.

The study further sought to identify assistance provided to the school ad-
ministration and communities from the Ministry of Education for students
with special needs. Table 6 shows a summary of these findings.

Few respondents (31.9%) had received preparation to teach in inclusive

classrooms. Most educators also said that the only professional develop-
ment they received was two days of training at the nearest block cluster
resource centre. A teacher remarked:

‘In those training camps, eating gets priority over training. Basically,
no practical gain is achieved except some theoretical definitions of [stu-
dents with special needs], inclusive education, etc. Reality is completely
different than what we are taught in those camp trainings.’

Table 6: Reports of facilities and support from stakeholders

Types of facilities and support Frequency %

Teacher preparation 51 31.9

Parental support 2 1.2
ICT 5 3.1
Boarding facilities 2 1.2
Seminar 2 1.2
Removal of architectural barriers 15 9.3
Disability plans (i.e. individual education plan) 0 0
Identification services 10 6.3
Monitoring and evaluation 2 1.2
Universalisation of elementary education (access, 62 38.8
enrolment and retention)
None 11 6.8
Total 160 100

408  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
The teacher’s description of the professional development event as a camp
seems to suggest a unidirectional learning trajectory for teachers, rather
than a co-operative learning opportunity. Further, there is little sense that
the events are taken seriously as opportunities for teachers to improve their
practice.

On the question of universalisation of elementary education, a clear major-

ity (38.8 %) of the respondents indicated that their school follows universal
access and retention in their schools. For questions regarding modern fac-
ets of inclusive education (ICT, disability service plans, parental support,
boarding facilities, monitoring and evaluation), the respondents replied
negatively. In addition, a small percentage (6.8%) also replied that no facil-
ities or support was provided at all.

Question 2: What do teachers perceive they know about the learning needs of
students with special needs?
Headteachers were asked about teachers’ background knowledge about
teaching students with special needs. Only 31.9% indicated that they had
any kind of initial preparation for teaching students with special needs.
However, some headteachers added that teachers use general classroom
management techniques for students with special needs during the
interviews. They mentioned that some of the teachers planned remedial
lessons for students or allowed additional time or alternative instruction
when needed.

Classroom observations conducted in the selected secondary schools re-

vealed that some teachers did use differentiated learning or a multisensory
approach to teach students. For example, in an English class at school 5,
students read aloud. Also, some teachers summarised the main points on
a chalkboard at this school. However, in the same school, it was also ob-
served that some of the teachers did not provide any specifically designed
materials or learning activities to students. Teachers’ responses about their
knowledge for teaching students with special needs can be found in Table 7.

In the survey, 42.5% of respondents indicated that teachers in their schools

were knowledgeable about teaching learners with special needs. However, a
majority (57.5%) of the respondents said ‘No’ to the statement: ‘Teachers at
my school are knowledgeable about students with special needs’. Similarly,
76.3% of the respondents said ‘No’ to the statement: ‘The school is ade-
quately staffed with teachers who can support students with special needs’.

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  409
A majority (61.9%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement:
‘Teachers at my school focus more on the average learners and often ignore
slow and struggling learners’. Regarding strategies for students with special
needs, such as providing positive behavioural support, only 9.4% and 13.1%
responded positively.

Question 3: How do educators perceive their competencies for working with

students with special needs?
Teachers were asked whether they were competent to teach students with
special needs. Self-assessment responses from the teachers appear in
Table 8.

Table 7: Assessment of teachers’ knowledge in supporting learners with

special needs

Yes No

Pedagogical knowledge Frequency % Frequency %

Teachers at my school are 68 42.5 92 57.5

knowledgeable about students
with special needs.
The school is adequately staffed 38 23.8 122 76.3
with teachers who can support
students with special needs.
Most teachers at my school have 2 1.3 158 98.7
received preparation to teach
students with special needs.
Teachers at my school focus more 61 38.1 99 61.9
on the average learners and
often ignore slow and struggling
learners.
Teachers at my school provide 15 9.4 145 90.6
positive behavioural support.
Teachers instruct on social skills as 21 13.1 139 86.9
well as intellectual skills.

Table 8: Teachers’ perceived competence levels

Are teachers competent? Frequency %

Yes 100 62.5

No 60 37.5

410  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
Interestingly, 62.5% of the respondents believed that they were competent
in teaching students with special needs. However, 37.5% of the respondents
indicated that they did not have relevant competencies for teaching stu-
dents with special needs. The responses are indicated in Table 9.

Overall, the mean assessment of various teaching strategies indicated that

28 (17.5%) of the respondents rated themselves as having the necessary skills
to teach students with special needs. Further, 61 (38.1%) rated their ability
as ‘good’ while 49 (30.6%) described their abilities as ‘fair’. The remaining
22 respondents (13.8%) considered themselves inadequate to teach students
with special needs. In other words, teachers reported generally that they
had the necessary competencies (64%) and abilities (about 56%) to teach
students with special needs. In addition, an overwhelming majority, 123
(88%), stated they did not receive any formal training for students with spe-
cial needs. When asked whether teachers would like to receive assistance to
teach students with special needs, a majority of the respondents (109; 78%)
answered affirmatively.

Question 4: What building-level policies do educators perceive support students

with special needs?
Questions about school management policies in the context of supporting
learners with special needs were asked. The responses are shown in Table 10.

A narrow majority (51.3%) of the teachers indicated that their classes were
inclusive. Similarly, 47.5% of the respondents reported that school manage-
ment supports the use of learner-specific instruction to accommodate the
learning styles of students. However, a large number of respondents (76.2%)
claimed that the Ministry of Education officials played no role in helping
their schools to support students with special needs.

There were some inconsistencies in the responses. For example, only 33.8%
of respondents agreed that their school had an effective programme for peer
support, tutoring and mentoring of students with special needs. However,
for the statement: ‘In my school, struggling learners often repeat classes in
order to improve their performance’, a majority (77.5%) of the respondents
disagreed. Yet in another reversal, a majority (69.3%) of the respondents
disagreed that their schools had a system for identifying, assessing and
planning for students with special needs. From these responses, it can be
interpreted that students with special needs are not repeating classes, but
they are not being supported in other ways either.

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  411
 Table 9: Self-reported skill ratings for providing inclusive education

Very good Good Fair Poor

Skill Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Identify complex learning 32 20 49 30.6 53 33.1 26 16.2

needs
Plan and prepare for students 20 12.5 37 23.1 67 41.9 36 22.5
with special needs
Assist struggling learners 26 16.3 57 35.6 57 35.7 20 12.5
Enrich learner performance 51 31.9 54 33.8 41 25.6 14 8.8
Create warm and motivating 44 27.5 70 43.8 37 23.1 9 5.6
learning atmospheres
Support learners with diverse 26 16.3 72 45 42 26.3 20 12.5
needs
Provide personalised feedback 26 16.3 66 41.3 50 31.3 18 11.3
Leverage student interest 27 16.9 66 41.3 52 32.5 15 9.4
during lessons
Acquire learning materials 23 14.4 70 43.8 49 30.7 18 11.25
that suit different
instructional needs

412  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019

Organise learning activities 23 14.4 67 41.9 51 31.9 19 11.9
for students with special
needs
Use ICT to address all 23 14.4 63 39.4 52 32.5 22 13.8
learners’ needs
Create teaching materials that 18 11.3 50 31.3 42 26.3 50 32.5
meet the varying needs of
learners
Overall self-assessment 28 17.5 61 38.1 49 30.6 22 13.8

© 2019 NASEN
 Table 10: School management policies in relation to students with special
needs (N = 160)

Yes No

Statements Frequency % Frequency %

My school hosts both general 82 51.3 78 48.7

education and students with special
needs.
My school’s administration supports 76 47.5 84 52.5
the use of learner-specific
instruction to accommodate learner
preferences.
Ministry of Education officials play 38 23.8 122 76.2
an important role in helping my
school support learners with special
needs.
In my school, struggling learners 36 22.5 124 77.5
often repeat classes in order to
improve their performance.
My school has an effective programme 54 33.8 106 66.3
for peer support, tutoring and
mentoring students with special
needs.
My school co-ordinates with local 21 13.1 139 86.9
NGOs to support students with
special needs.
My school has a system of identifying, 53 33.1 107 66.9
assessing and planning for students
with special needs.

It was also noteworthy that 86.9% of the respondents replied negatively re-
garding assistance from NGOs as a strategy to enhance support for stu-
dents with special needs. On this issue, one teacher said the following:

‘What is [an] NGO? We never heard of any such organisation or have

ever received any type of help from them for our disabled children nor
did ever any NGO come to our school with any policy support for stu-
dents with special needs.’

These responses suggest that assistance from NGOs is not happening or

that the NGOs are not making it clear who they are when they come to offer

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  413
support. In other cases, NGOs might go to schools, but they do not offer the
schools the type of support that educators think they need.

Question 5: Do teachers perceive that they collaborate to improve the teaching of

students with special needs?
Educators were asked to assess the quality of their collaborative efforts to
foster inclusive teaching. Table 11 shows the teachers’ responses to these
items.

The majority (64.4%) of the respondents indicated that headteachers and

teachers in schools held discussions with the aim of supporting all learners
(64.4%). However, 60.6% of the respondents said ‘No’ to the statement: ‘In
my school, teachers work in teams to prepare adequately for students with
special needs’. Similarly, the majority (69.4%) of the respondents also said
‘No’ to the statement: ‘My school collaborates with the community and
other agencies to support students with special needs’. From this, we can
conclude that collaboration as a practice for supporting students with spe-
cial needs is underdeveloped.

Discussion
This study investigated perceptions of knowledge and skills for Indian edu-
cators in supporting inclusive practice at the secondary level. Educators in
West Bengal generally perceived that the physical infrastructure and in-
structional resources were inadequate for supporting students with special
needs. They also did not perceive that they had received adequate special-
ised training, and they probably overestimated their general competence,

Table 11: Assessment of collaboration among teachers (N = 160)

Yes No

Collaboration Frequency % Frequency %

Principals and teachers in my school 103 64.4 57 35.6

hold discussions with the aim of
supporting all learners.
In my school, teachers work in teams 63 39.3 97 60.6
to prepare adequately for students
with special needs.
My school collaborates with the 49 30.6 111 69.4
community and other agencies to
support students with special needs.

414  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
given what we were able to observe at their schools. These findings are in
accordance with findings from previous studies on this topic (Das et al.,
2013). Educators also indicated that school management policies regarding
students with special needs were not comprehensive enough to be inclusive.
Finally, even though teachers and administrators held regular meetings,
collaborative efforts fell below expectations.

Practical implications
Public awareness of disability and the need for inclusion must be a top
priority (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Students with special needs should
be able to rely on schools for learning, but this is unlikely to occur without
inclusive practice. Next steps should attend to leveraging potential resources
and professional preparation and development.

Practical implication 1: Leveraging potential resources

In cases where resources are merely under-utilised, more conscious efforts
are needed to co-ordinate. This is especially important for schools and
NGOs. Educators indicated that they lack people to trust – from educational
administrators to NGOs. Therefore, learning about the collaborative
process for practical and research purposes seems critical. Educators in
this study seemed to fall short in their abilities to put their good intentions
into practice. Although they generally reported competence, observational
data failed to capture a wide occurrence of advanced or even adequate
techniques for supporting students with special needs. Additional survey
responses also revealed specific weaknesses with regard to instruction and
classroom management, although some practices, such as retention, did not
seem to be occurring. Each of these is important for teaching the full range
of students with disabilities.

Practical implication 2: Preparation and support for headteachers and teachers

While deeply-rooted attitudes are difficult to change, long-term success
depends on a shift in these attitudes (Burke & Sutherland, 2004; Boyle et al.,
2012), particularly in relation to advocacy. Educators were perfectly content
to let students with special needs stay out of school or remain in separate
institutions rather than making plans to enrol them in mainstream schools.

In addition, the long-term success of students with special needs also de-
pends on the ability of teachers and headteachers to develop skills for
working with students with special needs. Self-criticism and analysis will
be important aspects of the process of change. Stakeholders should be pre-
pared for conflict, and potential chaos (Fullan, 1993). After all, even though

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  415
the teachers affirmed that they were not using inclusive strategies, they still
rated their competencies as high.

During preparation and professional development, secondary school

teachers need access to models of inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2000; Burke
& Sutherland, 2004). This might need to come from collaboration with
universities who work with prospective and practising teachers, as well as
through international collaborations with countries that are further along
in achieving inclusive environments in secondary schools. Specific topics
for such initial preparation and professional development include identi-
fication, tutoring, monitoring, differentiated supports, disability support
plan writing and implementation, and recognising and eliminating archi-
tectural or physical barriers (UNESCO, 2009). Online professional devel-
opment might also be an option where internet access is available. However,
it is critical that topics focus on working directly with students, rather than
just telling teachers what the laws are (Rice, 2017).

Research implications
Based on these findings, it is clear that more research is needed that focuses
on how to increase inclusive education for students with special needs in
West Bengal and India as a whole. In the following subsections, specific
topics for research based on the findings of this study are highlighted.

Research implication 1: student perceptions

Information about student perceptions is needed. For example, female stu-
dents have been highlighted as a historically underserved population (Saikia
et al., 2016). However, teachers and headteachers did not speak specifically
about girls’ needs in the study. Future research aimed at female students’ per-
ceptions and their suggestions should prove informative and useful.

Research implication 2: teachers’ and headteachers’ perceptions of shared and

differentiated responsibilities
Interview data revealed that teachers felt some responsibility for supporting
students, but also possessed little understanding of the ways in which
headteachers could support teachers in being more inclusive (Sharma & Das,
2015). Further, there are other stakeholders, such as families and the learners
themselves, who might contribute to this conversation about who might
do what to secure and ensure an inclusive learning environment. Findings
from this work can also serve as a starting point for monitoring the pace of
inclusion in India and in other countries working to embrace inclusion.

416  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
Research implication 3: Literacy rates in India among students with
special needs
While there is little information available about the handful of students
with special needs in schools, it would still be worth knowing whether
students with special needs that attend schools and even finish secondary
education have higher literacy rates than those who did not attend at all.
This is critical since headteachers and teachers discussed inclusion without
a clear framework for how inclusion might support literacy. Other types
of learning were also overlooked, but since India has a chronic illiteracy
problem, research on literacy is especially needed. Specifically, more
research is needed on how certain practices and experiences do (or do not)
support the development of literacy across India’s many languages as well.
Literacy instruction and research should also include digital and online
literacy, when infrastructure and other resources allow for this (McAlvage
& Rice, 2018; Rice et al., 2018).

Research implication 4: Teacher education

Adequate teacher education is crucial, and an effort needs to be made to
determine best practice in inclusion. Without a more complex understanding
of the meaning of inclusion for all learners, gathering teachers into
‘camps’ will make little difference (Panda, 2005). Studies might consider
practices that bring teachers together into virtual spaces to learn (Rice,
2017). Researchers could also seek out exemplary teachers and describe
their practices. Also, researchers could develop protocols and practices for
supporting headteachers in supporting teachers through university–school
partnerships.

Policy implications
The lack of accountability within schools was striking, and has major policy
implications. Educators were adamant that they were not receiving support
from higher levels of educational administration. One reason for this may
lie in the wider national accountability structure. Currently, responsibility
for children’s education is shared between the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment (MSJE) for students with special needs and the MHRD
for those without. If inclusive education was dealt with by one ministry
alone, possibly the MHRD, then the implementation of inclusion could be
clarified and promoted. In the meantime, the absence of accountability
mechanisms will continue to result in poor policy implementation. Within
the schools, there is little accountability as well. It seemed unclear to the
educators who was supposed to ensure that students with special needs
were enrolled, identified and served. The answer is that this work is shared

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  417
among special needs education professionals, general education teachers
and headteachers.

Also problematic is the fact that the Persons with Disabilities Act (1995) has
no legal enforcement mechanism (Alur, 2002). Perhaps additional policies
could also attend to building a disciplined inspection network charged with
regular external monitoring and evaluation. Building reliable assessment
and strong enforcement mechanisms will increase the chances that imple-
mentation will eventually succeed (Tiwari et al., 2015).

Conclusion
This study investigated the level of preparedness of teachers and
administrators to use inclusive practices in secondary schools in West
Bengal. The study revealed that physical infrastructure and instructional
resources are inadequate for supporting learners with special needs. Further,
there was a general lack of specialised training for teachers, and therefore
there are not enough teachers with a sufficient pedagogical knowledge
base for teaching students with special needs. School management policies
regarding students with special needs seemed insufficiently comprehensive
to serve all students. Even though teachers and headteachers seemed to
be holding regular meetings, collaboration among them fell below their
expectations and needs improvement. Overall teachers and headteachers
in West Bengal have been insufficiently vigilant about inclusion. Few had
accurate and complete understandings of the inclusion process and thus the
result of non-implementation is predictable, and only to be expected.

Currently, inclusive education in West Bengal is conceptualised as ramps

for wheelchairs. Schools can do better than that. The study provided infor-
mation regarding inclusive education implementation in India, including
the challenges that educators encounter even when they support inclusion
as a goal. Let us continue conversations about inclusion in India, as well as
in other countries, as they begin their journey to make their schools inclu-
sive for all.

References
Alur, M. (2002) ‘Introduction’, in S. Hegarty and M. Alur (eds), Education
and Children with Special Needs: from segregation to inclusion. New Delhi:
Sage.

418  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) ‘A survey into mainstream
teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special edu-
cational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority’,
Educational Psychology, 20 (2), 191–211.
Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002) ‘Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/
inclusion: a review of the literature’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 17 (2), 129–147.
Bhan, S. & Rodricks, S. (2012) ‘Indian perspective on child’s right to educa-
tion’, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 367–376.
Boyle, C., Topping, K., Jindal-Snape, D. & Norwich, B. (2012) ‘The impor-
tance of peer support for teaching staff when including children with spe-
cial educational needs’, School Psychology International, 33 (2), 167–184.
Burke, K. & Sutherland, C. (2004) ‘Attitudes toward inclusion: knowledge vs.
experience’, Education, 125 (2), 163–172.
Das, A. K., Kuyini, A. B. & Desai, I. P. (2013) ‘Inclusive education in India:
are the teachers prepared?’, International Journal of Special Education, 28
(1), 27–36.
First Post Report (2015) ‘In India, high percentage of kids with disabilities
still out of school: UN’, First Post, 21 January [online at https​://www.
first​post.com/livin​g/india-makes-progr​ess-bring​ing-child​ren-schoo​ls-un-
20567​45.html].
Forlin, C., Douglas, G. & Hattie, J. (1996) ‘Inclusive practices: how accept-
ing are teachers?’, International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 43 (2), 119–133.
Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces: probing the depths of educational reform.
London: Falmer.
Gupta, S. K. (1984) ‘A study of special needs provisions for the education
of children with visually handicaps in England and Wales and in India’.
Unpub. report of associateship study. London: Institute of Education,
University of London.
Hines, A. M. (1993) ‘Linking qualitative and quantitative methods in
cross-cultural survey research: techniques from cognitive science’,
American Journal of Community Psychology, 21 (6), 729–746.
Jangira, N. K. (1995) ‘Rethinking teacher education’, Prospects, 25 (2),
261–272.
McAlvage, K. & Rice, M. (2018) ‘Access and accessibility digital and online
learning: issues in higher education and K-12 contexts’, Online Learning
Consortium [online at https​://onlin​elear​ningc​onsor​tium.org/read/ac-
cess-and-acces​sibil​ity-in-online-learning].

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  419
Madan, A. & Sharma, N. (2013) ‘Inclusive education for children with dis-
abilities: preparing schools to meet the challenge’, Electronic Journal for
Inclusive Education, 3 (1), 4.
Moore, C., Gilbreath, D. & Maiuri, F. (1998) Educating Students with
Disabilities in General Education Classrooms: a summary of the research
[online at https​://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt​ext/ED419​329.pdf].
Panda, P. (2005) ‘Responsiveness of pre-service teacher education programme
towards inclusive education in India: appraisal of curriculum dimensions
and practices’. National Council of Educational Research and Training
paper presented at the Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 2005,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Registrar General and General Census Commission (2012a) ‘Provisional
population totals: West Bengal’ [online at http://www.censu​ sindia.gov.
in/2011-prov-resul​ts/prov_data_produ​cts_wb.html].
Registrar General and General Census Commission (2012b) ‘Population
enumeration data’ [online at http://www.censu​ sindia.gov.in/2011c​ensus/​
popul​ation_enume​ration.html].
Rice, M. (2017) ‘Few and far between: describing K-12 online teachers’ on-
line professional development opportunities for students with disabilities’,
Online Learning, 21 (4), 103–121.
Rice, M., Deschaine, M. & Mellard, D. (2018) ‘Enlarging opportunities for
online and blended learning that serves diverse students’, Journal of Online
Learning Research, 4 (2), 117–121.
Right to Education Act (2009) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act [online at mhrd.gov.in/sites/​ upload_files/​mhrd/files/​
up-
load_docum​ent/rte.pdf].
Saikia, N., Bora, J.K., Jasilionis, D. & Shkolnikov, V.M. (2016) ‘Disability di-
vides in India: evidence from the 2011 census’, PlosOne, 11 (8), e0159809.
Saldaña, J. (2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanjeev, K. (2006) ‘Inclusive education: a hope for children with special
needs’, Bihar Times, 11 November [online at http://www.bihar​times.in/
artic​les/sanje​ev/inclu​sivee​ducat​ion.html].
Sanjeev, K. & Kumar, K. (2007) ‘Inclusive education in India’, Electronic
Journal for Inclusive Education, 2 (2), article 7.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996) ‘Teacher perception of main-
streaming/inclusion’, Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 59–74.

420  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN
Sharma, U. & Das, A. (2015) ‘Inclusive education in India: past, present and
future’, Support for Learning, 30 (1), 55–68.
Sharma, U. & Deppeler, J. (2005) ‘Integrated education in India: challenges
and prospects’, Disability Studies Quarterly, 25 (1) [online at http://dsq-
sds.org/artic​le/view/524/701/].
Sharma, U., Moore, D. & Sonawane, S. (2009) ‘Attitudes and concerns of
pre-service teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into
regular schools in Pune, India’, Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
37 (3), 319–331.
Sharma, U. & Nuttal, A. (2016) ‘The impact of training on pre-service
teacher attitudes, concerns, and efficacy towards inclusion’, Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (2), 142–155.
Singh, J. D. (2016) ‘Inclusive education in India – concept, need and chal-
lenges’, Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English
Language, 3, 3222–3232.
Social and Rural Research Institute (2014) National Survey on Estimation of
out of School Children, 2014 [online at https​://mhrd.gov.in/sites/​upload_
files/​mhrd/files/​upload_docum​ent/Natio​nal-Survey-Estim​ation-School-
Child​ren-Draft-Report.pdf].
SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) (2001) Department of Elementary Education
and Literacy, MHRD, India [online athttp://www.ssa.nic.in].
Tiwari, A., Das, A. & Sharma, M. (2015) ‘Inclusive education a “rhetoric”
or “reality”? Teachers’ perspectives and beliefs’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 52, 128–136.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)
(1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special
Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)
(2009) ‘Policy guidelines on inclusion in education’ [online at http://unesd​
oc.unesco.org/image​s/0017/00177​8/17784​9e.pdf].
Varghese, N. V. (1996) ‘Decentralisation of educational planning in India: the
case of the district primary education programme’, International Journal
of Educational Development, 16 (4), 355–365.
Yadav, M., Das, A., Sharma, S. & Tiwari, A. (2015) ‘Understanding teachers’
concerns about inclusive education’, Asia Pacific Education Review, 16 (4),
653–666.

© 2019 NASEN British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019  421
Address for correspondence:
Mary Rice
Assistant Professor of Literacy
222 Hokona Hall
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
USA
Email: maryrice@unm.edu

Article submitted: December 2018

Accepted for publication: July 2019

422  British Journal of Special Education  Volume 46  Number 4  2019 © 2019 NASEN