Conference Program

Inclusive education is widely seen as a cornerstone of democratic schooling, built on participation, recognition, and accessibility (UNESCO, 1994; WHO, 2001; UN, 2006). But turning these ideals into everyday classroom practice requires ongoing emotional and instructional effort from teachers.

Through the lens of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) framework (Demerouti et al., 2001), adapting lessons for diverse classrooms, especially for students with special education needs (SEN) and language difficulties, constitutes a substantial job demand. At the same time, personal resources such as self-efficacy are believed to safeguard teachers' well-being and enhance their sense of professional agency (Dicke et al., 2018; Granziera et al., 2020).

This study examines whether inclusion demands in Italian lower secondary schools are associated with teacher stress and self-efficacy, and whether personal resources mitigate these effects.

Using TALIS 2024 teacher microdata for Italy (ISCED 2), we distinguish between structural and perceived inclusion demands. Structural demands refer to the reported share of students with SEN in a classroom (none; 1–10%; >10%). Perceived demands are measured through teachers’ self-reported stress related to modifying lessons for students with SEN. We analyze general work-related stress and standardized measures of overall and SEN-specific self-efficacy as outcomes. All analyses use teacher sampling weights and replicate weights, in accordance with international large-scale assessment standards.

The results show that both structural and perceived inclusion demands are associated with higher levels of teacher stress. Teachers working in classrooms where more than 10% of students have SEN report significantly higher stress compared to those with none. However, the strongest predictor of stress is not classroom composition itself, but the perceived instructional demand of adapting materials and teaching practices. When structural composition and perceived demand are modeled together, the effect of perceived demand remains strong, while the structural effect diminishes.

Inclusive instructional demands are also negatively associated with both overall and SEN-specific self-efficacy. In other words, the more stress teachers report from adapting instruction for students with SEN, the less professionally competent they tend to feel. Although higher overall self-efficacy is associated with lower stress, it does not fully buffer the impact of inclusion demands. Even teachers who perceive themselves as highly capable experience elevated stress under sustained inclusive instructional pressures. SEN-specific self-efficacy does not significantly moderate this relationship.

Collectively, these findings highlight a central tension. Inclusive education is normatively essential to democratic schooling, but it also generates emotional demands that cannot be managed through individual commitment alone. Consistent with JD-R research, personal resources such as self-efficacy reduce overall strain, yet they do not eliminate the stress associated with ongoing inclusive adaptation. Inclusion, therefore, emerges not only as a pedagogical responsibility but as a question of democratic sustainability. Without supportive organizational conditions and collective structures, the emotional labour required to realize inclusive values may erode teachers’ well-being and professional agency. Strengthening inclusive education ultimately means creating the emotional and institutional conditions that enable teachers to live out democratic principles in their daily practice.