From leadership research to district action: Can self-efficacy mediate between knowledge of policy, school support and teacher attitudes towards inclusive education?

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: research-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Background While research has focused on understanding teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs into general education classrooms, there are lacunae that have yet to be addressed. This study examined the association between perceived self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion among elementary school teachers. The study also examined the role of teachers’ self-efficacy as a mediating variable between knowledge of inclusion policy, perception of school support and teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Methods Teachers (N = 352) working in general or special education schools completed questionnaires assessing attitudes towards inclusion, sense of self-efficacy, knowledge of current policy, and perception of support for inclusive practices. Results Higher perceived knowledge of inclusion policy and higher perceived school support of inclusion were both related to higher self-efficacy regarding inclusion, which, in turn, was related to more positive attitudes about inclusion. Conclusion Our results suggest that point to being knowledgeable regarding local and national policy is important in order to increase feelings of self-efficacy regarding the implementation of effective educational practice. To enhance inclusion, local and national policy must be clearly communicated to teachers. Furthermore, leadership and a supportive school environment are conducive to successful inclusive education.

Study methods

Participants were 352 teachers, mostly female (91.6%), who worked either in general (n = 252) or special (n = 100) education schools. More respondents (58%) had training in general education and 42% were special educators. Teachers’ mean age was 41.5 (SD = 10.48); 61.0% reported having either a BA or BEd degree and 39.0% reported having an MA degree. Teachers had a mean of 15.0 years of experience (SD = 10.15), and 85.8% had taught students with special educational needs in the past. Only 21.6% of teachers reported receiving some type of training regarding inclusion. Finally, 60.6% were homeroom teachers and 39.4% were content area teachers.

Limitations

The strength of the current study is in its examination of teachers in both special and general education settings and in the collection of data from a large sample of schools across the country. One limitation is its focus on attitudes towards inclusion rather than examining the actual practice of teachers working with students with disabilities. An additional limitation was that knowledge about policy of inclusion was measured with a single item. Additionally, this study is based on self-reports which may be susceptible to social-desirability bias. Since our study was anonymous we hope this did not occur. If it did, this would indicate that actual attitudes might be even lower than those reported.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Select one recurring district decision. Publish the decision owner, evidence requirements, consultation process and appeal route; test the process on a bounded low-risk decision. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Track decision time, unresolved objections, documented reasons, appeals and access differences. Review whether the process changes who can participate and who carries the burden. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Shirli Werner; Tom P. Gumpel; Judah Koller; Vered Wiesenthal; Naomi Weintraub. Can self-efficacy mediate between knowledge of policy, school support and teacher attitudes towards inclusive education?. PLoS ONE (2021-09-20). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257657

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.