Inclusive education (IE) refers to identifying and removing barriers that hinder participation and learning of all students within mainstream classrooms (Ainscow, Slee, and Best 2019). In recent decades, the philosophy and policies of IE have evolved from focusing solely on students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) to embracing the needs of all learners, recognising that every student matters regardless of gender, background, ability, ethnicity, language, or belief (UNESCO 2020). However, putting these inclusive ideals into practice remains complex and often contested, particularly in diverse educational contexts with rapidly changing policies, such as those in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Emam and Al-Mahdy 2022; Massouti, Al-Rashaida, and Alhosani 2024). The UAE, known for its culturally and linguistically diverse society, has implemented initiatives to promote equal educational opportunities for all students, including those identified with SEND (Ghaleb, Dababneh, and Al-Zboon 2021). These developments provide a policy foundation for inclusion, yet how schools interpret and operationalise these frameworks remains under-researched. The current study aims to investigate how IE is put into practice in Sharjah Private Schools in the UAE, focusing on how SEND students are identified, assessed, and supported. To guide this inquiry, the study addresses the following research questions:

1.How do case study schools identify, assess, and intervene in support of students with SEND?

2.What challenges and opportunities arise in the implementation of IE?

3.To what extent do these practices reflect the principles embedded in international IE frameworks?

The IE paradigm provides a critical framework for exploring both the challenges and opportunities in implementing inclusion policies, and how these affect SEND students (Deroncele-Acosta and Ellis 2024). To translate inclusion policies into effective classroom practice, education systems worldwide have increasingly adopted structured frameworks to guide inclusion. Among the most widely used are multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and the Graduated Approach, both of which provide practical models for addressing persistent gaps in provision. MTSS is a proactive, school-wide framework that delivers tiered, evidence- based interventions aligned with IE principles (Castillo et al. 2022). At its foundation, MTSS integrates academic and behavioural supports across three levels: Tier 1 (Universal), Tier 2 (Targeted), and Tier 3 (Individualized). While MTSS provides a broad, school-wide framework, the Graduated Approach – widely implemented in the UK and increasingly referenced in international contexts – offers a more individualised, cyclical process of continuous support and review. It follows the ‘Assess, Plan, Do, Review’ model, which emphasises collaboration between teachers, specialists, and parents to tailor interventions to each student’s evolving needs (Castillo et al. 2022).

A qualitative approach was employed to explore staff perspectives on inclusive practices for supporting SEND students. Participants were asked to describe examples of IE barriers and facilitators to this and the impact of policies. By gathering insights from various staff across four schools, understandings of collaboration, leadership of IE, and the policy landscape were captured. Schools following distinct curricula – National, British, American, or Indian – were approached. Selection was based on their active development of IE and prior engagement with researchers, resulting in a diverse convenience sample. While researchers initiated contact with schools, participant selection was carried out by the school principal or head of inclusion. A convenience sampling approach was used, with leaders inviting staff in key roles or those recognised for their inclusive practices. The sample included senior and middle leaders, teachers, and support staff, including shadow teachers (STs), who are parent-funded aides supporting students with significant academic, behavioural, and social needs. All participants were informed about the study in advance and consented to take part voluntarily. In total, 55 individuals were interviewed. Data were collected through a combination of semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups, conducted in November 2024. Focus groups were used when several participants held similar roles (e.g. classroom teachers, subject heads). All were held face-to- face and conducted in either Arabic or English, based on participants’ language preferences. They were designed to capture role-specific insights into inclusive practices in general and interventions for SEND students used in participant’s schools. Data was analysed using Framework Analysis, a method well-suited to large qualitative datasets, enabling comparison within and between schools and supporting collaborative work through a transparent, staged process (Klingberg, Stalmeijer, and Varpio 2024). Framework analysis involves an iterative process of inductive and deductive analysis (Goldsmith 2021). The analytic process followed the systematic steps outlined by Gale et al. (2013). First, the researchers familiarised themselves with the data by reading transcripts multiple times and annotating emerging ideas to capture contextual nuances. Next, a coding framework was developed grounded in the study’s research questions and its conceptual focus on IE practices. This framework was refined inductively to incorporate unexpected but relevant issues raised by participants. Subsequently, all transcripts were coded according to the framework using NVivo software to ensure consistency, traceability, and effective data management. The coded data were then summarised into thematic matrices, allowing for meaningful comparisons across participant groups and school contexts.

Data analysis revealed two overarching themes namely (1) Identifying and assessing SEND students and (2) Unpacking the intervention landscape. These themes were interpreted in relation to the study’s conceptual frameworks, demonstrating how practices align with MTSS and Graduated Approach. All four schools reported systematic efforts to identify SEND students. Initial identification often occurred at the admissions stage, particularly in the three schools that included kindergarten and primary levels using interviews, written assessments, and informal observations. Early identification was emphasised in these three schools. At School 3, for example, the admissions team is trained to observe developmental and behavioural traits in younger applicants as its principal explained. Post-admission, the identification of students with SEND continues through teacher referrals, classroom observations, and informal check-ins. Formal diagnoses from external professionals were required in all schools to justify interventions, accommodations, and external exams provisions. To address high costs, schools serving lower income populations were found to be partnering with certified external centres who provide the services in reasonable costs or allowed parents to obtain evaluations from approved providers in their home countries. The second theme focused on the range of interventions schools implemented to support inclusion and the extent these interventions reflect the principles embedded in international IE frameworks. These interventions fell into three broad categories: academic, socio-cultural, and emotional. Academic support was the most implemented intervention across all schools, with a clear emphasis on improving learning outcomes in core subjects. However, schools faced common challenges, including large class sizes, limited teacher training, and high turnover among STs hired by parents. Socio-cultural was mainly evident through peer-supported interventions. Under the emotional category, all four schools were found integrating wellbeing initiatives within broader pastoral care frameworks, rather than through standalone programmes. Collectively, these efforts aimed to support students’ emotional development, confidence, and inclusion.

Alborno, N., and E. Gaad. 2014. “Inclusive Education in the UAE: A Paradigm Shift in Attitudes and Practices.” British Journal of Special Education 41 (3): 316–328. Al Khalili, T. 2025. “Parents Strategies and Educational Inequality during Economic, Political and Refugee Crises in Conflict-Affected Lebanon.” Asia Pacific Education Review, https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12564-025-10040-7. Al-Rashaida, M., and A. Massouti. 2024. “Assessing the Efficacy of Online Teacher Training Programs in Preparing pre-service Teachers to Support Students with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Classrooms in the UAE: A Case Study.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 24 (1): 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12624. Alzyoudi, M., K. Almazroui, and S. A. Nuaimi. 2021. “Inclusive Education Practices for Children with Disabilities in the United Arab Emirates.” Africa Education Review 18 (1–2): 1–2. https:// hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-educare-v18-n1-a1. Castillo, J. M., N. L. Scheel, J. R. Wolgemuth, J. D. Latimer, and S. M. Green. 2022. “A Scoping Review of the Literature on Professional Learning for MTSS.” Journal of School Psychology 92:166–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.010. Collett, K. 2024. Comparing Young People With and Without SEND and Teaching Staff’s Experiences of ‘Inclusions’ in English Secondary School Classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, the University of Exeter. Emam, M. M., and Y. F. H. Al-Mahdy. 2022. “Building School Capacity for Inclusive Education in the Sultanate of Oman: A Construct Validation of the Inclusive School Climate Scale.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 21 (2): 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020. 1770803. Florian, L., and J. Spratt. 2013. “Enacting Inclusion: A Framework for Interrogating Inclusive Practice.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (2): 119–135. https://doi.org/10. 1080/08856257.2013.778111. Gale, N. K., G. Heath, E. Cameron, S. Rashid, and S. Redwood. 2013. “Using the Framework Method for the Analysis of Qualitative Data in Multi-disciplinary Health Research.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 13:1–8. Ghaleb, E., K. Dababneh, and E. Al-Zboon. 2021. “Inclusive Education in the United Arab Emirates: Teachers’ Perspectives.” International Journal of Special Education 36 (1): 1–14. Goldsmith, L. J. 2021. “Using Framework Analysis in Applied Qualitative Research.” The Qualitative Report 26 (6): 2061–2076. Harris, B., R. Mayes, D. Vega, and E. M. Hines. 2022. “Equity and Access in a Multi-tiered System of Support Framework: The Role of Culturally Responsive Practices.” Multicultural Learning and Teaching 17 (1): 1–16. Khochen-Bagshaw, M. 2020. “Inclusive Education Development and Challenges: Insights into the Middle East and North Africa Region.” Prospects 49 (3): 153–167.