The legal imperative for inclusion, underscored by the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 (CRPD), mandated German mainstream schools to transition from exclusive to inclusive settings. Despite this formal commitment, challenges persist, evident in stable exclusion rates (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). This discrepancy between the legal mandate and on-the-ground practices prompts an exploration of the practical implications and regional variations in inclusive education.

Educational policy and science recognize that inclusion extends beyond the category of disability, encompassing diverse socially constructed differentiation categories. While inclusive education promises to diminish formal exclusion and discrimination by embracing the diversity of all pupils, the reality portrays a stark contrast. There remains a gap between the legal claim to inclusion and the prevailing distribution of students, indicating a complex landscape that extends beyond disability alone; this discrepancy is evident not only in the context of pupils with disabilities but also applies to newcomer students, for example (Plöger i.V.).

Regional disparities in implementing the normative claim to inclusion reveal substantial differences among German federal states (Katzenbach 2018; Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Urban and rural areas present distinct challenges, with the latter often neglected in the discourse on inclusion (Kuhn 2012). This oversight becomes significant as rural regions may lack the necessary personnel for inclusive education, predominantly found in urban areas around university cities challenge (Ottersbach et al. 2016). However, surveys indicate that regular teachers do not feel adequately prepared for its implementation (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Additionally, there is a shortage of teachers and specialized personnel.

Interestingly, rural regions, despite facing obstacles, offer untapped potential for inclusive education. Institutions promoting exclusive practices, such as special schools and secondary schools, are less prevalent in these areas. Leveraging this potential, however, necessitates educators with specialized expertise, often attributed to special needs teachers (Katzenbach 2018). Recognized for their unique training and skills in handling diversity, special needs teachers play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between the formal claim to inclusion and its practical implementation.

Against this backdrop, recent observations in Rhineland-Palatinate, a state in the South of Germany, raise pertinent questions regarding the practical implications of the formal claim to inclusion at the school level. The notable trend of relocating special needs teachers from rural areas to the Mainz metropolitan region sparks an inquiry into the broader regional dynamics impacting inclusive education (cf. https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinlandpfalz/ludwigshafen/versetzung-foerderschulen-demo-100.html). This case study sheds light on the complexities of translating legal mandates into actionable strategies, especially in regions with distinct educational landscapes.

The presentation aims to unravel the nuances of regional disparities in implementing inclusive education, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies that consider the unique challenges and potential each region presents. Through an in-depth analysis, it seeks to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on inclusive education in the German context.

To establish a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and disparities in the implementation of inclusive education in Germany, a thorough literature review was conducted. This review encompassed studies and publications addressing the legal framework of inclusion, regional variations, and the intersectionality of inclusion beyond the disability category. Qualitative insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with principals of schools and teachers across various regions and representatives from the Ministry of Education in Rhineland-Palatinate. These interviews aimed to capture firsthand perspectives on the challenges, successes, and regional nuances in implementing inclusive education. Principals and teachers provided insights into the practical aspects of inclusive education at the school level. For this purpose, principals from schools where special education teachers were withdrawn were selected, as well as principals from schools where these teachers were deployed. Furthermore, the teachers themselves were interviewed. Ministry representatives shed light on policy perspectives, resource allocation, and the overarching strategies guiding the implementation process. Open-ended questions were designed to encourage participants to share their experiences, perceptions, and challenges related to inclusive education. In total, 10 interviews were conducted. The data obtained from interviews underwent qualitative content analysis, following the approach outlined by Mayring (2010). This method allowed for a systematic and in-depth examination of the interview transcripts. The analysis process involved identifying recurring themes, patterns, and conceptual categories that emerged from the participants' narratives. By adopting a deductive-inductive approach, the analysis both adhered to predefined categories derived from the literature review and allowed for the emergence of new themes grounded in the participants' responses. The coding process involved multiple iterations, with researchers independently coding the data and then engaging in discussions to ensure consistency and reliability. The identified themes were then organized into a coherent narrative that forms the basis for the findings presented in this research. This qualitative content analysis facilitated a nuanced exploration of the challenges and regional variations in implementing inclusive education, providing a rich foundation for deriving meaningful insights from the collected data.

In examining the implementation of inclusive education in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, the research reveals a persistent gap between the legal mandate and the practical realities on the ground, indicative of a complex educational landscape. Regional disparities, particularly evident in urban and rural areas, pose significant challenges to the successful realization of inclusive education. Despite the untapped potential in rural regions, characterized by fewer exclusive institutions, the shortage of qualified personnel remains a critical hurdle, exacerbated by the relocation of special needs teachers to urban centers like the Mainz metropolitan area. Insights from interviews with headmasters and ministry representatives provide valuable perspectives on the ground-level challenges and policy considerations. The inadequacy of teacher preparedness, coupled with shortages in educators and specialists, poses significant hurdles to the effective implementation of inclusive education. The withdrawal of special needs teachers from rural areas to address needs in urban centers exacerbates these challenges, highlighting the need for targeted strategies to address regional disparities. The qualitative content analysis of interview data unveiled nuanced insights into the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders. Themes such as the role of special needs teachers, regional resource distribution, and the impact of teacher shortages emerged as critical areas requiring attention. The findings call for a more nuanced understanding of the barriers to inclusive education and the development of tailored interventions that consider regional variations. In conclusion, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse on inclusive education by shedding light on the complexities and regional nuances that shape its implementation in Germany. The results indicate urban inclusion and rural exclusion. Bridging this divide necessitates a collaborative effort among educational policymakers, school administrators, and the wider community. This collective endeavor aims to narrow the gap between the legal mandate for inclusion and its tangible implementation in real-world contexts.

• Hollenbach-Biele, N. & Klemm, K. (2020): Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach zehn Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. • Katzenbach, D. (2018): Inklusion und Heterogenität. In: T. Bohl, J. Budde & M. Rieger-Ladich (Hg.): Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Grundlagentheoretische Beiträge, empirische Befunde und didaktische Reflexionen. 2. aktualisierte Auflage. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik, 4755), S. 123–139. • Kuhn, A. (2012): Behinderung und Inklusion (im ländlichen Raum). In: S. Debiel et al. (Hrsg.), Soziale Arbeit in ländlichen Räumen, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 301-314. DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-18946-8_24. • Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Hrsg), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 601-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42 • Ottersbach, M., Platte, A. & Rosen, L. (2016): Perspektiven auf inklusive Bildung und soziale Ungleichheiten. In M. Ottersbach, A. Platte & L. Rosen (Hg.): Soziale Ungleichheiten als Herausforderung für inklusive Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 1–14. • Plöger, S. (i.V.): Zwischen Inklusion und Exklusion: Anforderungen an neu zugewanderte Schüler:innen im integrativen Modell. Zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaftliche Migrationsforschung.