Inclusive education has become a core principle of education systems worldwide, anchored in international agreements such as the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD, 2006), and further reinforced by the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). In Switzerland, this international commitment has been translated into national initiatives, including the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, 2002) and the Special Education Concordate (EDK, 2007). Despite these legal and policy frameworks, recent observations by the (United Nations, 2022) indicate that Switzerland continues to lag behind in the implementation of inclusive education, with many students with disabilities still facing substantial barriers to participation.

This persistent gap between policy intentions and school-level realities reflects the tension between knowing and acting. Inclusive education is widely established as a policy principle, yet it is inconsistently enacted in everyday school practice. Its implementation depends critically on how inclusive principles are interpreted, enacted, and sustained at the school level, where formal knowledge must be translated into professional action. School principals occupy a pivotal mediating position in this translation process.

Whereas principals’ roles were traditionally administrative within centrally controlled systems (Schratz, 1998), increased school autonomy (Altrichter et al., 2016) has transformed their responsibilities. Principals are now expected to function as educational leaders who actively shape school development by adapting policy expectations to local contexts in collaboration with teachers (Rahm & Schroeck, 2008). Crucially, teachers, as the primary enactors of inclusive education, experience and interpret principals’ leadership directly in their daily practice. Their perspectives are therefore essential for understanding how leadership bridges the gap between policy knowledge and professional action.

This study conceptualises inclusive school leadership through the Model of Inclusive School Leadership (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2019), which identifies three core leadership functions: setting direction, organisational development, and human development. Inclusive school leaders are guided by a vision that aims to ensure equitable, high-quality educational opportunities for all learners within their local community (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2015). They set direction by articulating and communicating shared values for inclusion, foster organisational development by creating collaborative structures and inclusive school cultures, and promote human development by strengthening teachers’ professional capacity and commitment.

Building on this framework, the study addresses the following research question: How do teachers perceive and experience inclusive leadership practices of their principals across the three core leadership functions? 

The study employs a qualitative multiple case study design, analysing semi-structured interviews with N = 12 teachers from four Swiss schools recognised for their established inclusive practices. 

By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives, the study provides insight into how inclusive leadership is experienced and interpreted in everyday school practice. It provides new insights by illuminating the role of school leadership in mediating between policy expectations and professional action, and by identifying conditions that can support the sustainable enactment of inclusive education at school level.

This study employs a qualitative multiple case study design (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2018), which is particularly suited for understanding complex phenomena within real-world contexts and for identifying patterns across cases while respecting contextual particularity. The four schools were purposively selected based on their established inclusive practices. Selection criteria included documented commitment to inclusive education over at least three years, organisational structures explicitly supporting collaborative teaching and learner support, and willingness to participate. The schools represent diverse organisational contexts, with two urban and two rural schools, as well as two small schools with fewer than 200 students and two medium-sized schools. At the same time, they share structural similarities in grade levels and organisational models, enabling analytical comparison. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with N = 12 teachers, three per school, purposively sampled to represent diverse roles including classroom teachers, special education teachers, and teacher specialists, as well as different career stages ranging from five to 25 years of experience. Interviews lasted between 60–90 minutes and followed a flexible interview guide structured around the three core leadership functions. Open-ended questions invited teachers to describe principals’ leadership practices, decision-making processes, and collaborative structures. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed according to predefined transcription rules (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). All participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality through pseudonymisation. Data analysis followed a combined deductive and inductive approach in line with qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022; Mayring & Fenzl, 2019). The three core leadership functions served as overarching deductive categories. Within these categories, inductive open coding was applied to identify patterns, variations, and emergent themes grounded in teachers’ experiences. Two researchers independently coded all transcripts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Finally, cross-case analysis systematically compared patterns across schools, examining convergences and divergences.

The findings indicate that teachers across all four schools perceive the three core dimensions of inclusive leadership as being inextricably linked, with setting direction, organisational development, and human development mutually reinforcing one another. Teachers consistently identified principals’ openness as a foundational value for setting direction, shaping their sense of agency, belonging, and engagement in collaborative problem-solving. Openness manifested in receptiveness to teachers’ concerns (“she always has time to listen”), willingness to experiment with new approaches (“he encourages us to try things”), and transparency in decision-making processes (“we understand why decisions are made”). Regarding organisational development, internal and external collaboration functioned as both a response to emerging challenges and a strategic resource for capacity building within Switzerland’s decentralised education system. Teachers highlighted how principals facilitated collaborative structures such as grade-level teams or interdisciplinary working groups. Collaboration extended beyond individual schools to include networks with cantonal authorities, special education services, and other schools. Human development involved professional learning opportunities balancing individual growth with collective capacity building. Teachers valued principals who supported both formal professional development (e.g., workshops, further education) and informal learning through collaborative reflection and shared problem-solving, fostering a culture of continuous improvement aligned with inclusive values. The study makes three key contributions to research and practice on inclusive school leadership. First, it extends and refines the European Agency’s model by demonstrating how the three core leadership dimensions are perceived by teachers and identifying additional aspects they consider important. Second, it highlights principals’ openness as both a personal orientation and an organisational principle enabling inclusive school cultures. Third, it illustrates how inclusive leadership operates within decentralised systems through strategic collaboration, offering insights relevant across European contexts where autonomy and accountability intersect. These findings can inform inclusive leadership development and practice in Switzerland and beyond.

Altrichter, H., Rürup, M., & Schuchart, C. (2016). Schulautonomie und die Folgen. In Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 107–149). Springer VS. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/RES/61/106 (2006). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities DDA. (2002). Federal Act of 13 December 2002 on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities (Disability Discrimination Act, DDA). https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2003/667/en EDK. (2007). Interkantonale Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Sonderpädagogik vom 25. Oktober 2007—Kommentar zu den einzelnen Bestimmungen. https://edudoc.ch/record/87689?ln=de European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2015). Agency Position on Inclusive Education Systems. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2019). Inclusive School Leadership: Exploring Policies Across Europe (Edda Óskarsdóttir, V. J. Donelly, & M. Tuner-Cmuchal, Eds). Odense Denmark. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Datenaufbereitung und Datenbereinigung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 501–516). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37985-8_32 Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 633–648). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42 Rahm, S., & Schroeck, N. (2008). Wer steuert die Schule? Zur Rekonstruktion dilemmatischer Ausgangslagen für Schulleitungshandeln in lernenden Schulen. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Schratz, M. (1998). Neue Rollen und Aufgaben für Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht. In A. Dobart, Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht (pp. 93–116). Studien Verlag. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 United Nations. (2022). Concluding observations on the initial report of Switzerland. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th edn). SAGE.