The development of inclusive education is a global trend and an essential part of changes in educational systems (Connor et al., 2025). Educational policies and child-education regulatory documents in many countries oblige schools and teachers to ensure the quality of inclusive education (Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2022; Singh & Zhang, 2022; Connor et al., 2025). On the other hand, inclusive education that does not produce rapid indicators of quality and that requires complex solutions, structural changes, the development of competencies among all participants in the educational process, the expansion of material resources, and increased funding may have a negative impact on education policy. The publication by Magnússon and Paulsrud (2025) reveals how a negative connotation “inclusion has gone too far” can become entrenched in political debates.

The implementation of inclusive education, including inclusive early childhood education, is accompanied not only by successful practices but also by ongoing tensions. Tensions persist between the conceptualization of inclusive and special education, where the understanding of inclusive education appears to eliminate special education by focusing on educating all children exclusively in mainstream settings, rather than on the goal of effectively addressing the special educational needs of each and every child (Kauffman & Hornby, 2025), optimally developing children’s individual potential and ensuring well-being. Meanwhile, researchers and practitioners in the field of special education are sometimes highly critical of inclusive education and reluctant to contribute, through continuous collaboration, to changes in the concept and role of special education in the development of inclusive education (Connor, Danforth & Gallagher, 2025). This creates conceptual confusion in schools, forms a dualistic system of inclusive and special education structures, and leads to fragmentation of school education systems. Consequently, research is being intensified to identify a coherent model of an inclusive early childhood education system that supports the learning of all children. Inclusive education is grounded in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach (Pikus et al., 2024). The model presented by Coogle et al. (2022) integrates Universal Design for Learning with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support.

Ongoing research continues to explore early childhood curriculum models that support inclusive education, as conventional flexible programmes are insufficient to address children’s special educational needs (SEN) (Singh & Zhang, 2022). Inclusive pedagogy grounded in play-based and experiential learning, as well as the modelling of effective early childhood education and behaviour management strategies responsive to special educational needs, remains highly relevant (Singh & Zhang, 2022; Chow et al., 2025). In addition, studies examining the complex relationships between inclusive education systems and parental involvement in children’s learning continue to gain importance (Yildirim, 2025).

Some studies focus on highlighting the transformative potential of inclusive early childhood education (Shen & Musyoka, 2025) and identifying strategic actions to improve the quality of inclusive education (Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2022). The study we conducted aims to reveal what helps early childhood education institutions transform fragmented inclusive and special education systems into a coherent inclusive education system that fully addresses children’s special educational needs, ensures their well-being, and optimally develops their potential capacities.

Research question presented in the paper: What factors promote and hinder the transformation of an early childhood education institution’s educational system towards inclusion in the contemporary context of tensions in education policy, concepts, and practices?

A focus group method was employed in the study, involving a moderated group discussion in which participants shared their experiences, attitudes, and insights related to inclusive early childhood education (Gundumogula, 2020). This method is based on interaction among participants and collective meaning-making, enabling the exploration of diverse perspectives, shared understandings, and problems arising in educational practice (Kitzinger, 1995; Hennink, 2007). The focus group method was chosen to identify factors that promote or hinder early childhood education institutions in developing a coherent inclusive education system grounded in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach and child support structures, while addressing issues related to the improvement of inclusive education quality. Group discussions provided opportunities to collect a wide range of experiences and viewpoints from different educational stakeholders, which emerged through dialogue and reflection among participants. Two focus groups were conducted during the empirical phase of the study. Both focus groups involved participants working within the early childhood education system: early childhood teachers, educational support specialists (speech therapists, psychologists, special educators, and social pedagogues), as well as heads of early childhood education institutions or their deputies responsible for education. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, taking into account differences in professional experience, the diversity of educational institutions, and experience in inclusive education. The focus groups were conducted in accordance with the main stages and conditions of group discussions (Nyumba et al., 2018; Mishra, 2016). Discussions were held remotely via MS Teams, considering participants’ availability. A lead moderator and a supporting moderator were assigned to each focus group. The duration of each discussion ranged from 1.5 to 2 hours, with a total of 15 participants taking part across the two groups. Prior to the discussions, participants were informed about the aims of the study, research questions, procedures, and ethical principles, and they signed informed consent forms. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and used for subsequent qualitative data analysis (Nyumba et al., 2018). The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) and was approved by the University Ethics Committee.

The focus group discussion revealed the perspectives of early childhood education leaders, teachers, and educational support specialists on factors that facilitate or hinder the transformation of a dualistic, fragmented educational system lacking a shared understanding of inclusion into a coherent inclusive education system. Several key factors were identified: a) Development of inclusive local curriculum models based on flexible inclusive curriculum frameworks proposed in national-level curriculum guidelines. The concept of an inclusive curriculum remains insufficiently conceptualised and practically developed; therefore, educational institutions require support from researchers and education strategists. b) Emerging outcomes of children with special educational needs versus reliance on formal achievement descriptions. Within the learning process, the achievements of a child with significant learning needs emerge, differences in developmental pace across learning domains become evident, and potential capacities are highlighted, enabling the anticipation of abilities within the zone of proximal development. Focusing on emerging outcomes is more effective and more motivating for both children and teachers than strict adherence to formalised achievement descriptors. c) Understanding children serves as scaffolding for modelling inclusive learning processes in groups based on the Universal Design for Learning approach. Teachers are able to creatively design flexible learning processes grounded in Universal Design for Learning principles (engagement, representation, and expression) only when they are supported, as needed, through consultations with speech therapists, psychologists, or other specialists, enabling them to understand children’s developmental, behavioural, and learning characteristics. d) Shaping parental and community attitudes towards inclusion through inclusive education success stories. Challenges and problems tend to be highly visible and contribute to negative attitudes, while successful inclusive practices are often accepted quietly as self-evident. Actively communicating success stories was identified as an important factor in fostering positive perceptions of inclusion. Additional factors identified in the study will be presented in the conference presentation.

Chow, G. S. U., Ang, L. L., & Phoon, H. S. (2025). Comparing the behavioural management knowledge and skills of Malaysian teachers in integrated special education and inclusive classrooms: A qualitative study. Support for Learning, 40(4), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.70007 Connor, D. J., Danforth, S., & Gallagher, D. (2025). An open letter to the field: Contemplating special education’s collaborative role in developing inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 91(3), 236‐259. https://doi.org/0.1177/00144029241303051 Coogle, C. G., Storie, S. & Rahn, N. L. (2022). A framework for promoting access, increasing participation, and providing support in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01200-6 Gundumogula, M. (2020). Importance of Focus Groups in Qualitative Research. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.24940/theijhss/2020/v8/i11/HS2011-082 Hennink, M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for the health and social sciences. Cambridge University Press. Yildirim, Y. (2025). Engaging families in the education of children with special needs: Challenges and recommendations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53, 2895–2907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01835-1 Kauffman, J. & M. Hornby, G. (2025). Extremism and the potential dismantling of special education: Or moving forward with inclusive special education. Support for Learning, 40, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12519 Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 Klibthong, S. & Agbenyega, J. S. (2022). Assessing issues of inclusive education from the perspectives of Thai early childhood teachers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1823205 Magnússon, G. & Paulsrud, D. (2025). “Inclusion has gone too far”: how a slogan became policy in Swedish education. Journal of Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2025.2560370 Mishra, L. (2016). Focus group discussion in qualitative research. TechnoLearn, 6(1), 1–5. Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 Pikus, A. E., Etchison, H. M., Gerde, H. T., & Bingham, G. E. (2024). Nature for all. Utilizing the Universal Design Framework to incorporate nature-based learning within an early childhood inclusive classrom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 57(5), 338-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599241257438 Shen, G. & Musyoka, M. M. (2025). Experiences of early childhood special education teachers in inclusive classroom: A phenomenological study. Inclusion, 13(4), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-13.4.276 Singh, P. & Zhang, K. C. (2022). Inclusive education in New Zealand: voices from early childhood teachers. Support for Learning, 37(4), 538-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12428