Navigating Barriers and Building Pathways: Inclusive Education for Children with Special Needs

Problem statement

The problem thus lies not in the absence of vision or intent, but in the persistent barriers that obstruct inclusive practices at the classroom, school, and policy levels. These include, but are not limited to, negative attitudes of teachers and school staff, inadequate training, insufficient assistive technology, and a lack of collaboration between schools and families. A recent review by Al-Shehri (2021) emphasized that despite increasing awareness, teachers in cities like Jeddah still report low confidence and preparedness in handling inclusive classrooms. Furthermore, logistical and architectural obstacles, such as a lack of ramps, elevators, or adapted instructional materials, contribute to a continued marginalization of students with physical and cognitive disabilities in regular schools.

Given these challenges, there is an urgent need to examine how inclusive education is being practiced and perceived in Jeddah. This research study is therefore designed to explore and quantify the attitudes, experiences, and perceived barriers among key stakeholders: teachers, school administrators, and families of children with special needs. A quantitative approach is essential to generate statistically significant findings that can inform policy adjustments and future training programs.

Research objectives

The primary objectives of this study are twofold. First, it seeks to identify and analyze the key barriers to implementing inclusive education in public and private schools in Jeddah. This includes both structural and attitudinal obstacles. Second, it aims to quantify the attitudes of educators and parents toward inclusive practices, whether they perceive inclusion as beneficial or burdensome, and under what conditions it can be effectively realized.

Research questions

To achieve these objectives, the following research questions guide this inquiry:

This study not only builds upon existing national and international literature but also attempts to fill a significant gap in localized, empirical knowledge about inclusion in Jeddah. Its results contribute to a more informed conversation on how best to operationalize inclusive education within Saudi Arabia’s broader educational reforms under Vision 2030. Ultimately, the study aims to empower policymakers, school leaders, and educators with actionable insights so that inclusive education in Jeddah becomes not just an aspiration but a lively reality for all children.

Inclusive education in the Arab world

In the Arab region, the implementation of inclusive education has gained traction over the last two decades, especially in light of commitments made under international conventions. However, inclusion remains a policy ambition rather than an entrenched educational practice in many countries. Cultural attitudes toward disability, traditional teaching methods, underdeveloped support services, and a lack of specialist training are frequently cited as barriers across the region.

In a landmark study, Alnahdi et al. (2019) examined the evolution of special education in Saudi Arabia, highlighting both legal advancements and practical challenges. He notes that although the Saudi government has enacted legislation to support inclusive education, implementation across schools remains inconsistent due to a lack of coordination between ministries and inadequate funding for necessary resources such as assistive technologies and classroom aides (Alnahdi et al., 2019).

Teacher preparedness is a major obstacle throughout the Arab world. Many general education teachers report low self-efficacy in dealing with students with disabilities due to insufficient training. Alkhunini (2025) emphasized that in countries like Oman and Kuwait, teachers often lack access to professional development focused on inclusive strategies, which leads to a dependence on special educators and creates a parallel rather than integrated model of education (Alkhunini, 2025). Furthermore, societal beliefs, shaped by religious, cultural, and familial expectations, can either support or hinder inclusive practices, especially when disability is seen as a source of shame or stigma.

Family involvement is another area of concern. In many Arab countries, there is limited collaboration between schools and families of children with disabilities. Parents often feel excluded from educational planning and decision-making processes. Khalil and Yasmeen (2020) point out that in the MENA region, awareness of inclusive rights and services is still limited among families, and many lack the confidence or knowledge to advocate effectively for their children (Khalil & Yasmeen, 2020). Despite these challenges, there have been promising reforms in the region. Countries like the UAE and Qatar have made significant strides in enacting inclusive legislation, investing in teacher training, and creating specialized support centers. However, scalability and sustainability remain pressing issues. The Arab world presents a complex mix of progressive policy intentions and deeply entrenched structural and cultural barriers, lessons that are highly relevant for the case of Saudi Arabia and, more specifically, for urban centers like Jeddah.

Specific case of Saudi Arabia and Jeddah

Saudi Arabia’s inclusive education journey has been significantly influenced by its national development blueprint, Vision 2030, which explicitly mentions enhancing education for all, including individuals with disabilities. The Ministry of Education has initiated several programs to integrate students with special needs into mainstream schools, encouraged the development of resource rooms, and established centers for special education services. However, these efforts have encountered mixed results in terms of execution at the school level.

Jeddah, as one of the Kingdom’s most populous and diverse cities, represents both opportunities and challenges in the realm of inclusion. On one hand, it hosts several modern schools that are well-resourced and innovative. On the other hand, many schools lack the physical infrastructure, trained personnel, and inclusive leadership required for successful implementation. Research by Alsolami (2025) investigated the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing the academic skills of students with mild intellectual disabilities in Jeddah. The study found positive outcomes in student performance when AI tools were used for personalized learning, particularly in reading and mathematics. However, the study also revealed that such tools were used in only a handful of elite schools, reflecting systemic inequities in access to educational technologies (Alsolami, 2025). The effectiveness of using artificial intelligence in improving the academic skills of school-aged students with mild intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Research in Developmental Disabilities. Other studies have echoed similar concerns. Alrawkan (2022) conducted a multi-study review across Saudi public schools and found that although policy documents highlight inclusive goals, there is often a lack of practical guidance and accountability mechanisms at the school level (Alrawkan, 2022). The situation in Jeddah mirrors this national picture; school leadership plays a decisive role in determining the degree of inclusion, and in many cases, school principals lack the training to lead inclusive transformations.

Teacher attitudes continue to pose a major challenge in Jeddah’s schools. Many teachers view inclusive education as an additional burden due to a lack of support, training, and time. Teachers expressed willingness to support inclusion but cited structural issues like overcrowded classrooms, lack of differentiated materials, and minimal collaboration with specialists as hindrances (Alqahtani, 2017). Teacher perspectives on full inclusion of students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabian high schools. Indiana State University. These findings are consistent with Alshehri’s (2023) research in Jeddah, which highlighted that both general and special education teachers experienced frustration when working in isolation rather than as part of a collaborative inclusion team (Alshehri, 2023). Furthermore, despite increased investment in infrastructure, many schools in Jeddah still lack essential accessibility features such as ramps, elevators, and adapted furniture. Curricula also remain rigid and exam-focused, making it difficult to implement the flexible, differentiated instruction that inclusive education demands. In this context, there is a critical need for systematic reforms that address not only policy but also practice, from leadership and teacher development to parental engagement and curriculum redesign.

Theoretical framework

This study is underpinned by two interrelated theoretical frameworks: the Social Model of Disability and Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Together, these perspectives provide a comprehensive understanding of the systemic, environmental, and social factors influencing inclusive education for children with special needs in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

The Social Model of Disability asserts that disability is not caused by an individual’s impairments but by societal barriers, physical, attitudinal, and institutional, that restrict participation and inclusion (Shakespeare, 2013). This model reorients attention away from the child’s condition and toward the responsibility of educational institutions to remove obstacles to learning and participation. Within this framework, exclusion is viewed as a product of inflexible curricula, inaccessible buildings, and insufficient teacher training, rather than a consequence of the child’s disability. This perspective aligns with the aims of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which emphasizes the creation of inclusive environments that promote equal access to education and societal integration for individuals with disabilities (Alnahdi et al., 2019). In the context of this study, the Social Model provides a critical lens for identifying how school systems in Jeddah may perpetuate exclusion through their structures, policies, or lack of accommodations. It also informs the need to evaluate the attitudes and readiness of educators to shift toward a more inclusive paradigm.

To complement this, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory provides a dynamic view of how multiple environmental systems interact to shape a child’s educational experience. Bronfenbrenner (1979) describes development as occurring within nested systems: the microsystem (e.g., child, family, teacher), mesosystem (interactions between school and home), exosystem (school policies, professional development), and macrosystem (cultural values, national policies). In Saudi Arabia, these levels are evident in the interaction between national education reforms, school leadership, family engagement, and teacher beliefs. For instance, a child’s success in inclusive education may depend not only on their teacher’s practices but also on the school’s infrastructure, family involvement, and the Ministry of Education’s policy support. Together, these two frameworks allow for an analysis that is both structural and contextual. They inform the study’s design by emphasizing the importance of assessing barriers across multiple levels, from teacher attitudes and school environments to broader cultural and policy frameworks.

Participants and sampling

The study targets four main stakeholder groups: schoolteachers, special educators, school principals, and parents of children with and without special needs. A total of 550 participants (N = 550) were selected from schools located across the three main regions of Jeddah, North, South, and Central, to ensure geographic and demographic diversity. To achieve a representative sample, the study uses stratified random sampling. Stratification is based on school type (public, private, and international) and geographic location. This method ensures that subgroups are proportionally represented, increasing the generalizability of the findings (Bryman, 2016). Within each stratum, participants are selected randomly from a database of schools provided by the Ministry of Education in Jeddah. The stratified approach also mitigates sampling bias and improves external validity.

The inclusion criteria for participation include:

Instrumentation

The primary tool for data collection is a structured, self-administered questionnaire, developed based on previous validated instruments used in similar contexts (Forlin & Sin, 2010; Alkhunini, 2025). The questionnaire is designed to measure three core constructs:

Each section of the questionnaire uses a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Likert-scale-based items are commonly used in educational research to assess subjective variables, such as attitudes and perceptions, and are conducive to both descriptive and inferential analysis (Boone & Boone, 2012).

To ensure content validity, the draft questionnaire was reviewed by three experts in inclusive education and psychometrics from King Abdulaziz University. Minor revisions were made to align item wording with cultural norms in Saudi Arabia. A pilot study was conducted with 30 participants to test the clarity, reliability, and internal consistency of the instrument. Based on the pilot data, Cronbach’s alpha values for all subscales exceeded 0.80, indicating strong reliability.

Ethical procedures and data collection

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research Ethical Committee at Northern Border University, Saudi Arabia (Approval Reference: NBU-DSR/IRB/2024/128). All participants were adults and provided with written informed consent prior to participating in the study. No minors were involved in this research.

Data was collected through both online and paper-based formats to maximize accessibility and response rates. Online surveys were distributed via official school emails and parent groups, while paper versions were distributed to schools in under-resourced areas without stable internet access. Surveys were available in both Arabic and English, ensuring linguistic inclusivity. Participants were assured of their anonymity, and all data were stored in password-protected files accessible only to the research team. The data collection period spanned six weeks, with regular follow-up reminders sent to participating institutions to ensure sufficient response rates across all strata.

Data analysis

Quantitative data collected through the structured survey were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The analysis began with descriptive statistics to summarize participant demographics and central tendencies of the core study variables. Frequencies and percentages revealed a balanced sample distribution: 56.55% of participants were female, and 43.45% were male. In terms of roles, teachers made up the largest group (43.27%), followed by parents (27.09%), special educators (20.55%), and school principals (9.09%). Geographically, participants were fairly evenly distributed across North (31.82%), South (33.64%), and Central Jeddah (34.55%).

The descriptive analysis showed that attitudes toward inclusive education had a relatively high mean score of 3.85 (SD = 0.80), translating to approximately 76.95% positivity. Perceived barriers had a moderate mean score of 2.90 (SD = 0.82), indicating a notable presence of structural or pedagogical constraints, while institutional support yielded a mean of 3.23 (SD = 0.84) or 64.51%, suggesting room for improvement in support mechanisms.

To examine subgroup differences, inferential statistics were applied. A one-way ANOVA tested whether attitudes differed across professional roles. The results indicated no significant differences across groups (F = 0.25, p = 0.8612), suggesting a broadly consistent perspective on inclusive education irrespective of professional designation. Additionally, a t-test comparing attitudes by gender revealed no statistically significant difference between male (M = 3.79) and female (M = 3.89) participants (t = -1.35, p = 0.1779).

A correlation matrix was computed to assess the relationships between the three key constructs. Weak correlations were observed: attitudes were slightly negatively correlated with institutional support (r = -0.07) and slightly positively correlated with perceived barriers (r = 0.07), while institutional support and barriers were negatively related (r = -0.04). These low correlations prompted further modeling to understand the predictors of inclusive attitudes.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether barriers and institutional support significantly predicted attitudes toward inclusive education. The results revealed that neither variable had a statistically significant predictive effect when modeled together: barriers (β = 0.066, p = 0.1097) and institutional support (β = -0.059, p = 0.1435). While directionality was observed, the findings suggested possible multicollinearity or confounding interactions not captured through linear regression.

To further clarify the directional influences and account for standardized relationships, a Path Analysis was performed using standardized variables. This model showed stronger and statistically significant relationships. Perceived barriers negatively predicted attitudes (β = -0.270, p < 0.0001), while institutional support positively predicted attitudes (β = 0.431, p < 0.0001). These results provided robust evidence that, when properly scaled and modeled, the institutional and structural context plays a crucial role in shaping stakeholders’ perceptions of inclusive education.

Overall, the statistical analysis confirmed that while demographic factors such as gender or role do not significantly affect attitudes toward inclusion, perceived institutional support and the presence of barriers exert meaningful influences. The use of Path Analysis clarified these relationships more effectively than traditional regression, offering deeper insights into the systemic factors driving inclusive education in the context of Jeddah.

All statistical analyses were conducted at a 95% confidence level, and effect sizes and p-values were reported to ensure transparency and scientific rigor. These findings were interpreted in light of the existing literature and policy landscape of Saudi Arabia, providing empirical grounding for recommendations and future action.

The demographic data in Table 1 show a balanced gender distribution, with 56.55% female and 43.45% male participants, indicating diverse gender perspectives in the study. The largest respondent group was teachers (43.27%), followed by parents (27.09%), reflecting strong representation from those directly involved in inclusive education. Additionally, participants were fairly evenly distributed across North, South, and Central Jeddah, enhancing the geographic representativeness of the findings, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

The descriptive statistics in Table 2 indicate that respondents generally hold positive attitudes toward inclusive education, with a high mean score of 3.85 (76.95%). However, the mean score for perceived barriers (2.90) suggests that moderate obstacles still hinder effective implementation. Meanwhile, institutional support scored 3.23 (64.51%), reflecting a moderate level of support, which may not be sufficient to fully facilitate inclusive practices. These findings highlight the need to strengthen institutional frameworks while addressing existing barriers.

The ANOVA results in Table 3 reveal that there is no statistically significant difference in attitudes toward inclusive education across different respondent roles (teachers, special educators, principals, and parents), as indicated by an F-value of 0.25 and a p-value of 0.8612. This suggests a broad consensus across stakeholder groups, indicating that despite their differing roles, participants generally share similar perceptions about inclusive education.

The independent samples t-test in Table 4 shows no statistically significant difference in attitudes toward inclusive education between male (M = 3.79) and female (M = 3.89) participants, with a t-value of -1.35 and p = 0.1779. Although females reported slightly more positive attitudes, the difference is not meaningful at the 0.05 significance level, suggesting that gender does not significantly influence perceptions of inclusive education in this sample.

The correlation matrix in Table 5 reveals very weak relationships between the three variables. Attitudes are slightly positively correlated with barriers (r = 0.07) and slightly negatively correlated with institutional support (r = -0.07), while barriers and institutional support show a very weak negative correlation (r = -0.04). None of these correlations suggest meaningful linear relationships, indicating that the variables may interact in more complex, non-linear ways, justifying the need for advanced modeling like regression or path analysis.

The regression analysis in Table 6 shows that neither perceived barriers nor institutional support significantly predicts attitudes toward inclusive education. The coefficient for barriers (β = 0.066, p = 0.1097) and institutional support (β = -0.059, p = 0.1435) both fall above the conventional 0.05 significance threshold, indicating that these variables do not individually explain meaningful variance in attitudes within a linear model. While the intercept is statistically significant, the predictors’ lack of significance suggests that other factors or more complex interactions may be influencing attitudes, which warrants further analysis through path modeling.

The path analysis in Table 7 reveals that both barriers and institutional support are statistically significant predictors of attitudes toward inclusive education when modeled together using standardized coefficients. Specifically, perceived barriers have a significant negative effect on attitudes (β = -0.270, p < 0.0001), suggesting that as barriers increase, positive attitudes toward inclusion decrease. Conversely, institutional support shows a strong positive influence on attitudes (β = 0.431, p < 0.0001), indicating that greater support enhances favorable views of inclusion. The intercept is not significant, as expected in a standardized model. These findings confirm the value of path analysis over simple regression, revealing robust causal pathways between institutional dynamics and stakeholders’ attitudes, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Path analysis model predicting attitude.

Implications

The results of this study have several significant implications for education policy, school practice, and teacher development within Jeddah and, more broadly, Saudi Arabia. First and foremost, the finding that institutional support strongly predicts inclusive attitudes underlines the urgent need for systemic reform. Schools cannot achieve inclusiveness through isolated efforts; rather, they require coordinated support in terms of leadership, funding, infrastructure, and legal enforcement. Ministries and school districts should allocate dedicated resources toward inclusive policies, such as the provision of assistive technologies, hiring of qualified special educators, and retrofitting of physical environments for accessibility (Ahmed, 2021).

From a policy perspective, these findings advocate for a national inclusion strategy that goes beyond rhetoric to include measurable indicators of progress and compliance. For example, educational authorities can adopt performance frameworks similar to those used in countries like Finland or Canada, where schools are evaluated based on inclusion benchmarks. Policy must also include clear mandates for data collection on students with disabilities, a current gap that hinders evidence-based planning in Saudi Arabia (Alzahrani, 2021). In terms of teacher development, the study’s findings clearly support calls for enhanced pre-service and in-service training in inclusive practices. While attitudes are generally favorable, the presence of barriers and only moderate institutional support suggests that teachers may lack the skills or confidence to implement inclusive strategies effectively. Courses on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), differentiated instruction, and behavior management should be embedded into teacher education programs (Sharma et al., 2012). Furthermore, professional development should be ongoing and supported by mentoring and communities of practice within schools.

Another critical implication concerns parental and community involvement. The strong representation of parents in the study underscores the importance of family-school partnerships in achieving inclusive education. Policies and programs should encourage schools to engage parents in individual education planning (IEPs), decision-making, and awareness campaigns that reduce stigma and foster inclusive values (Alnahdi et al., 2019; Slee, 2011). Lastly, the moderate score for perceived barriers suggests a need for infrastructure development, not just physical infrastructure such as ramps and sensory rooms, but also administrative and curriculum. Inclusion cannot succeed in an environment with rigid curricula, inflexible assessment systems, and minimal psychological support services. This is particularly true for districts like South and Central Jeddah, where population density may place additional pressure on already stretched resources.

Limitations

Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. The geographic specificity of the sample, which focused solely on the city of Jeddah, limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions in Saudi Arabia. While Jeddah is a major urban center with diverse demographics, rural and remote areas may present entirely different challenges and opportunities in implementing inclusive education. Future studies should consider including participants from a broader cross-section of the Kingdom to enhance representativeness. Another limitation is the use of self-reported data, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Participants might have overreported their positive attitudes or underreported the presence of barriers due to cultural sensitivities or perceptions of institutional scrutiny. Although the anonymity of responses was maintained, qualitative follow-ups such as interviews or classroom observations would provide a more nuanced understanding of actual practices.

Moreover, while the study utilized robust statistical analyses, including regression and path analysis, it relied on observed variables and did not explore latent constructs. A more advanced SEM approach using latent variables might uncover deeper structural relationships and mediating effects between variables such as teacher efficacy, school leadership, and inclusive policy implementation. Future research should integrate such models and possibly include longitudinal designs to assess change over time. Lastly, the instrument used, although validated, was standardized and structured, possibly constraining more contextual or culturally nuanced responses. Future studies might include open-ended questions, or mixed method designs to capture the richness of experiences from diverse stakeholders, especially students with disabilities themselves, whose voices are often underrepresented.

Recommendations

Based on the findings, several recommendations are proposed to strengthen inclusive education in Jeddah and similar urban areas of Saudi Arabia. First, institutional support systems should be reinforced through consistent funding, leadership commitment, and clear, inclusive education policies, along with adequate resources, assistive technologies, and trained staff. Second, teacher preparation and professional development must be enhanced by integrating inclusive pedagogy, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and classroom differentiation into training programs, supported by ongoing mentoring. Improving infrastructure and accessibility is equally important; schools should be upgraded for physical and sensory access, especially in high-density districts such as South and Central Jeddah. Families and communities should also be actively engaged through partnerships and awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and promote acceptance. Moreover, national monitoring and accountability systems should be established to track inclusion indicators and ensure equitable service delivery. Expanding research into rural and remote areas will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges associated with inclusive education across the country. These measures may help bridge the gap between policy and practice, fostering a more inclusive and equitable education system aligned with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.