Abstract

This qualitative phenomenological study centered on the “receiving teachers” of Binangonan, Rizal—regular educators who opened their classrooms to learners with special educational needs. Ten teachers took part in semi-structured interviews; transcripts were member-checked and thematically analyzed. Four threads emerged. First, teachers adopted adaptive roles and flexible pedagogy by chunking tasks, offering alternatives, and recalibrating expectations. Second, brief co-planning with SPED focal persons reduced confusion and incidents. Third, despite RA 11650, time pressure, oversized classes, and limited assistive tools continued to constrain practice. Fourth, care—expressed through greeting routines, steady feedback, and short family updates—built resilience and yielded modest but meaningful gains. Drawing from these insights, the study proposed the CARE Framework—Collaboration, Adaptability, Reflective Practice, and Empathy—to guide school and teacher preparation. Practical guidelines included protected collaboration windows, the use of universal-design principles in planning, clear referral and documentation pathways, and provision of low-tech supports that turned policy into dependable daily routines.

Introduction

Inclusive education in the Philippines lay at the intersection of law and practice. After the Inclusive Education Act (RA 11650) was passed, schools were required to support students with disabilities in class through appropriate services, collaboration, and reasonable accommodations. The law established standards for Inclusive Learning Resource Centers and coordinated support, but left day-to-day translation to schools and teachers working in varied contexts. Since 2021, research had shown that teachers’ views were often mixed, and these attitudes affected differentiation, collaboration, and referral pathways. Work on Universal Design for Learning had indicated that planning for variability—multiple means of engagement, representation, and action—raised participation when taken as a whole-school approach. Studies from the Middle East and Gulf highlighted enduring barriers—limited assistive technologies, few support personnel, and uneven administrative backing—that constrained committed teachers. Within this landscape, our study focused on receiving teachers and examined how they enacted inclusion, what constrained them, and which practices helped them make it work.

Methods

The study used a qualitative phenomenological design to capture the day-to-day realities of receiving teachers in public schools within one Philippine municipality. Ten teachers, each with at least a year of experience handling LSENs, participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews (≈30–45 minutes). Interviews were audio-recorded with consent, were transcribed verbatim, and were member-checked. Thematic analysis proceeded from open coding to axial and selective coding, allowing patterns to emerge across cases and grade levels. Ethical safeguards included informed consent, confidentiality, and secure storage of recordings and transcripts.

Results

Receiving teachers navigated inclusion through four themes. First, adaptive roles and flexible pedagogy: teachers adjusted task expectations, offered alternate formats, and broke lessons into smaller steps. Many had not received formal UDL instruction, yet their improvisations paralleled UDL—multiple ways to access content and show learning—especially in reading and mathematics. Second, collaboration was key. Teachers reported clearer expectations and fewer disciplinary issues when they co-planned with SPED coordinators, guidance counselors, or colleagues; in its absence, accommodations and progress tracking were unclear. Third, system restrictions and policy–practice gaps persisted: time pressure, large classes, limited assistive aids, uneven materials, and a lack of school-wide screening, referral, and documentation processes hindered practice, although RA 11650 provided a policy backbone for seeking support. Fourth, resilience grew through care. Small routines—greeting at the door, previewing tasks, pairing with supportive peers, and sending short family updates—yielded modest gains in engagement, on-task conduct, and peer acceptance, and attitudes tilted positive when leadership offered visible, timely support.

Discussion

Classroom creativity and structural deficiencies coexisted. Teachers were constrained rather than resistant. When time for collaboration, supporting tools, and clear protocols were available, teachers leaned in; without them, ad-hoc fixes carried the load and burnout rose. Contemporary studies reported the same challenges—too few support workers, limited training, and fragile administration—and the same levers: clear communication, coaching, and co-planning. Policy signals mattered. RA 11650 set expectations, but value appeared only when supports were visible—a focal person, unambiguous referral steps, and access to devices or low-tech aids. Bridging the policy–practice gap required budgeting time as well as equipment for consults, team huddles, and parent touchpoints. UDL-guided planning produced quicker, more effective adaptations when schools shared a common language and designed multiple pathways from the outset. Finally, pragmatic, hopeful—at times cautious—attitudes often reflected uncertainty; five-minute consults, parent-update templates, and small pools of manipulatives eased friction and shifted attitudes in a positive direction.

Conclusion and Implications

Receiving teachers advanced inclusion through small, repeatable moves—task chunking, peer pairing, quick feedback, and steady communication—despite real constraints. To sustain and scale these gains, we recommended four actions: (1) codify collaboration by protecting brief windows for co-planning and post-assessment check-ins and by naming a school-level focal person; (2) adopt UDL as shared planning through simple prompts in lesson study and a modest bank of low-tech supports; (3) leverage RA 11650 to secure time, tools, and clear referral protocols while tracking requests and responses; and (4) monitor climate and attitudes with quick pulse checks to target supports and nudge ambivalence toward practical optimism and sustained teacher well-being.

References (2021–2025)

Republic Act No. 11650 (2022). An Act Instituting a Policy of Inclusion and Services for Learners with Disabilities in Support of Inclusive Education. (Official text).

Lindner, K.-T., et al. (2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? Findings on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education.

Almeqdad, Q. I., et al. (2023). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: Systematic study and meta-analysis. Cogent Education.

Darwish, S., et al. (2025). General education teachers’ challenges implementing inclusive education (Qatar). Education.

Jabri, A. (2025). Challenges facing general education teachers in inclusive education. Frontiers in Education.

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17082265