Barriers and Enablers to Inclusive Education in Mauritius: Perceptions of Secondary School Educational Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advocated as an educational philosophy to tackle exclusion, inclusive education (IE) is now a worldwide trend. Despite the well-acknowledged benefits of inclusion, educational practitioners have several difficulties which act as significant setbacks in operationalising inclusion in practice. Given its novelty in Mauritius, IE implementation is not fully understood. The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of secondary school educational practitioners on certain aspects of inclusive education, namely the academic profile of students with special education needs encountered by secondary school educators and rectors, the difficulties faced when dealing with them, and the barriers and enablers to inclusive education. It involved a quantitative descriptive research design. Data were collected from 588 secondary educators and 42 rectors using a specifically designed questionnaire. Following the analysis of data, respondents confirmed the presence of children with special education needs in their classrooms. While respondents indicated that the majority of students with special education needs had an academic profile of the same level of age-matched peers, they reported difficulties encountered with these learners in terms of deficits in attention, participation and behavioural problems. The main barriers identified were the lack of training in special education and the lack of proper infrastructure. Findings revealed training and knowledge in special education, the availability of proper infrastructure, support in terms of teaching aids, specialised equipment and teaching assistants as the main enabling factors. Training is therefore recommended to build competency of educators and rectors in inclusive practices. Appropriate infrastructure and support in terms of educational materials and support personnel should also be provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".