Globally, the concept of inclusive education has received a major boost from local and international organizations and institutions. There has been a paradigm shift concerning all-inclusive education; however, several challenges militate against the implementation process. School administrators and teachers, who are at the forefront of implementation, are bedeviled by infrastructural and logistical challenges ( Cambridge-Johnson, Hunter-Johnson, & Newton, 2014 ). Inclusive education creates opportunities for all learners to be integrated into regular classrooms, be taught by generalist teachers, and interact with other learners without disabilities. Due to this, efforts must be made to remove all barriers to inclusive education to open access for all children, regardless of their disabilities (Dev & Kumar, 2015).

The call for inclusive education gained momentum after the World Conference on Inclusive Education held in Salamanca, Spain, in 1994, the Dakar Framework for Action in Senegal in 2000, and the Education for All campaign led by UNESCO in 2015. Since then, curriculum planners all over the world have paid rapt attention to inclusive education at all levels of education. Most educational policies today have components that ensure full access and participation of all learners with diverse needs in regular school activities ( Opoku, Agbenyegah, Mprah, McKenzie & Badu, 2017 ).

In the Ghanaian context, the operational definition of inclusive education is important in providing an understanding of how the programme has been implemented. However, in many ways, inclusive education—regarding its scope and policy—has been shrouded in controversy due to the way it has been conceptualized, which adversely affects how inclusion ought to be implemented ( Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006 ; Kauffman, 1999 ). One belief is that inclusive education should focus on the integration of children with varying degrees of disabilities to be accommodated in the regular classroom ( Opoku et al., 2017 ). Inclusion Ghana is a member of Inclusion International, a network organization founded in 2009 to reduce stigmatization and increase opportunities for the inclusion of all persons with intellectual disabilities ( Botts & Owusu, 2013 ). The mission of Inclusion Ghana is to eliminate all forms of stigmatization that often deprive young people from different cultural and social backgrounds of being fully integrated into society. They seek to provide equal opportunities through the inclusion of all persons with intellectual disabilities.

The success of inclusive education depends on several resources ( Opoku, Agben-yegah, Mprah, McKenzie & Badu, 2017 ). These resources include physical infrastructure, in-service training, access to facilities, and supportive government policies. Such provisions contribute to the effective implementation of an inclusive Creative Arts curriculum. Physical infrastructure, in particular, plays a key role in accessibility ( Eunice, Nyangia, & Orodho, 2015 ). Public school buildings should facilitate the free mobility of learners with disabilities. Inclusive education has been hindered by the scarcity of learning resources. The unavailability of teaching and learning materials for teachers and students with disabilities has been cited by several authors ( Nantwi et al., 2019 ) as one of the main challenges confronting the successful implementation of an inclusive curriculum. These authors argue that the absence of essential teaching and learning materials such as braille, hearing devices, speech software, wheelchairs (mobility aids), and screen readers makes it difficult for learners with disabilities to access and participate fully in classroom activities.

Teachers also face numerous challenges in the implementation of inclusive education. These challenges cannot be resolved in a single day; rather, it will take years of sustained effort to achieve successful inclusive education in which all children are integrated into mainstream schools. For most developing countries, inclusive education remains a significant issue discussed by education stakeholders at both national and international levels ( Wikan, 2008 ; Ekandjo, 2018 ). Botts and Owusu (2013) posited that a lack of educational resources and parents’ inability to acquire learning materials are critical barriers to inclusive education. Although governments around the world are being encouraged to provide free education for all children, particularly in high-poverty areas, parents are still required to pay for uniforms, academic materials, and, in some cases, feeding programs (commonly referred to as canteen fees in Ghana). Barriers to school attendance for students with special needs include public prejudice, architectural obstacles, inadequate assessment facilities, inaccessible curricula, rigid curriculum structures, and ineffective or absent pre- and post-planning for regular teachers handling special education needs ( Agbenyega, 2007 ).

A study conducted by Ajodhia-Andrews and Frankel (2010) , as cited by Cambridge-Johnson, Hunter-Johnson, and Newton (2014) , revealed major concerns regarding the implementation of inclusive education, including inadequate teacher training, lack of skills to teach students with special needs, insufficient infrastructure, and the absence of flexible curricula. Each of these factors influences teachers’ experiences in inclusive classrooms and shapes their attitudes toward inclusive education.

Another study by Lamont, Hargreaves, Marshall, and Tarrant (2003) revealed that primary school teachers often lack confidence in teaching Creative Arts (visual arts, drama, music, and dance), with some finding the subject stressful. Other studies have indicated that teachers’ perceptions of their own artistic abilities directly affect their effectiveness as arts educators ( Alter, Hays & O’Hara, 2009 ). Opoku, Agbenyegah, Mprah, McKenzie, and Badu (2017) also found that inadequate teacher training is a central barrier to teaching students with disabilities. This underscores the need to investigate the severity of this issue in Ghana. The 21^st-century demand-driven education system and the evolving needs of Ghana require well-prepared and qualified teachers to function effectively in inclusive classrooms ( Ekandjo, 2018 ). A major challenge to inclusive education in Ghana and many Sub-Saharan African countries is the lack of funding. UNESCO (2020) identified funding as a critical constraint to inclusive practices. Educating children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms requires specialized expertise and instructional resources to support individual learning needs. Providing effective, individualized support to children with special needs necessitates additional funding—resources that are often lacking in schools across the sub-region, particularly in developing countries ( Eunice, Nyangia, & Orodho, 2015 ).

There has been a notable shortage of resources such as classrooms, desks, textbooks, talking books for the visually impaired, braille machines, and accessible classrooms with ramps for physically disabled students. Most schools in Ghana lack modern technological tools referred to as assistive technologies—and often rely on outdated equipment even for basic administrative tasks. To achieve effective inclusive education, Eunice, Nyangia, and Orodho (2015) emphasize that computer-based assistive technologies are crucial for supporting learners with special educational needs. Tools such as large print materials, on-screen reading software, CDs, and talking calculators can significantly enhance inclusive teaching and learning in mainstream classrooms. Moreover, teachers’ understanding of inclusive pedagogy must be continually refreshed through in-service training, workshops, and research. They must also be equipped with sign language skills to support hearing-impaired students. Schools should be adequately resourced with appropriate infrastructure, which remains a major barrier to full inclusivity.

This section presents data on the socio-demographic characteristics of selected Class teachers in selected schools in Offinso Township. The socio-demographic characteristics included in the study comprise age, sex, highest educational level, religion, and respondents’ years of work, rank of respondents, marital status, and whether or not the respondents have children. A summary of the results is displayed in Table 1 .

Source: Field Data, 2024.

The results from Table 1 show that the majority of respondents were aged between 21 and 30 years, representing 100 (44.2%). This was closely followed by those aged between 31 and 40 years, accounting for 99 (43.8%). Additionally, 23 respondents (10.2%) were aged between 41 and 50 years, while 4 respondents (1.8%) were above 50 years.

It can also be observed from Table 1 that the distribution of respondents by sex was evenly split. Specifically, 113 (50.0%) of the respondents were female, while the other 113 (50.0%) were male. Regarding educational qualifications, 108 respondents (47.8%) had attained a bachelor’s degree in education. Furthermore, 107 respondents (47.3%) held a diploma, while 11 (4.9%) possessed a master’s degree.

With reference to parental status, a majority of the respondents, representing 126 (55.8%), indicated that they had children, whereas 100 (44.2%) reported that they did not. Regarding years of work experience, most of the respondents—97 (42.9%)—had worked for 5 to 10 years. Additionally, 85 respondents (37.6%) had less than 5 years of experience, while 44 (19.5%) had worked for over 10 years.

Concerning marital status, the results show that 124 respondents (54.9%) were single, while 102 (45.1%) were married. Lastly, in terms of rank, the majority of respondents (79), representing 35.0%, held the rank of Senior Superintendent I. Moreover, 50 respondents (22.1%) were Principal Superintendents, 33 (14.6%) were Assistant Directors II, and 32 (14.4%) were Senior Superintendents II. Additionally, 11 respondents (4.9%) were Senior Superintendents I, 19 (8.5%) were Senior Superintendents II, and 2 respondents (0.9%) had attained the rank of Assistant Director I.

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with statements measuring the physical supports available for implementing the Inclusive Creative Arts curriculum. The researcher computed mean scores and standard deviations for each statement. The mean score ranges were interpreted as follows: 1.00 - 1.49 (strongly disagree), 1.50 - 2.49 (disagree), 2.50 - 3.49 (neutral), 3.50 - 4.49 (agree), and 4.50 - 5.00 (strongly agree). The results are presented in Table 2 below.

Source: Field Data (2024); SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; N = neutral; A = agree; SA = strongly agree; STD = standard deviation.

The results in Table 2 indicate that 99 respondents (43.8%) and 58 respondents (25.7%) strongly disagreed and disagreed, respectively, with the assertion that there are appropriate assistive devices (technologies) such as braille, hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc., available for Creative Arts teachers and students with visual, hearing, or orthopedic impairments. On the other hand, 48 respondents (21.2%) were neutral, 16 (7.1%) agreed, and 5 (2.2%) strongly agreed with the assertion. The item recorded a mean score of 1.98 (standard deviation = 1.06), which falls within the “Disagree” category and was ranked fourth among the statements measuring physical support for Creative Arts teachers in implementing the Inclusive Creative Arts curriculum. This result suggests that appropriate assistive devices are generally unavailable in schools to support both teachers and students in delivering and accessing inclusive Creative Arts education.

Special Educational Needs technologies—such as large print materials, on-screen reading tools, compact discs, and talking calculators—are known to enhance inclusive practices in mainstream classrooms. This finding is consistent with that of Mwangi & Orodho (2004) , who reported a lack of essential assistive devices including braille, hearing devices, speech software, wheelchairs (mobility aids), and screen readers. These inadequacies hinder learners with disabilities from fully accessing and participating in classroom activities. Mwangi & Orodho (2004) , further emphasized that instructional materials play a critical role in enabling student participation, and their absence constitutes a major barrier to inclusive education.

Furthermore, the results in Table 2 reveal that 52 respondents (23.0%) and 93 respondents (41.2%) strongly disagreed and disagreed, respectively, with the assertion that the physical infrastructure in schools is disability-friendly. Meanwhile, 51 respondents (22.6%) were neutral, 25 (11.1%) agreed, and 5 (2.2%) strongly agreed. The mean score for this item was 2.28 (standard deviation = 1.01), indicating a general disagreement and suggesting that most school infrastructures are not disability-friendly. This finding supports the conclusion by Eunice, Nyangia, and Orodho (2015) , who argued that physical infrastructure plays a vital role in accessibility. The authors further noted that inaccessible school buildings create significant barriers for children with disabilities, and recommended the construction of disability-friendly public school facilities to ensure free mobility for all learners.

Lastly, Table 2 shows that 84 teachers (37.2%) and 77 teachers (34.1%) strongly disagreed and disagreed, respectively, with the statement that there are adequate teaching and learning materials available for Creative Arts studies. In contrast, 44 teachers (19.5%) were neutral, 15 (6.6%) agreed, and 6 (2.7%) strongly agreed. The computed mean score was 2.03 with a standard deviation of 1.04, indicating a lack of essential teaching and learning materials such as syllabi, textbooks, sketch pads, paints, crayons, and brushes. This aligns with the assertion that inclusive education continues to suffer from a scarcity of learning resources ( Nantwi et al., 2019 ). According to Peerzada (2016) , the effective delivery of a Creative Arts curriculum—coupled with the availability of appropriate teaching materials in inclusive classrooms—fosters a friendly and supportive environment conducive to the social and cognitive development of all learners.

This section of the study employed binary logistics to estimate the impact of physical resources, namely assistive technology, teaching and learning materials, and disability-friendly school infrastructure on all three inclusive education indicators. The results are summarized in Table 3 .

Source: Field Data (2024); ***significant at 1%; **significant at 5%; *significant at 10%; where; figures in the bracket = wald chi², figure before bracket = beta coefficient.

The results presented in Table 3 examine the influence of physical resources and teacher characteristics on three key outcomes of inclusive education: 1) inclusive education for all children, 2) active participation in class, and 3) reduction in school dropout rates.

The findings reveal that the availability of appropriate assistive devices significantly increases the likelihood of achieving inclusive education for all children, with an odds ratio (Exp(B)) of 5.495 and a highly significant Wald statistic (p < 0.001). Similarly, the availability of teaching and learning materials demonstrated a strong positive effect (Exp(B) = 7.877, p < 0.001), indicating that schools equipped with adequate instructional resources are nearly eight times more likely to support the inclusion of learners with disabilities. Although disability-friendly physical structures did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p > 0.05), they still exhibited a moderate positive effect (Exp(B) = 1.820), suggesting some influence on inclusive outcomes.

Teacher qualifications were also found to be a critical factor. Compared to diploma holders (the reference category), teachers with a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree were 17.077 and 40.323 times more likely, respectively, to support the inclusion of all learners regardless of disability status (p < 0.01). The model accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in inclusive education outcomes, with a Nagelkerke R² of 0.536 and a Cox & Snell R² of 0.253, indicating that approximately 54% and 25% of the variation, respectively, can be explained by the included variables. The model achieved a high correct classification rate of 93.4%. Additionally, the overall model was statistically significant (χ² (10) = 65.920, p < 0.001), suggesting a good model fit.

Regarding pupils’ active classroom participation, the availability of teaching and learning materials emerged as a significant predictor (Exp (B) = 1.697, p < 0.05), suggesting that well-equipped classrooms promote higher engagement among learners. Age was another significant predictor. Teachers aged 31 - 40, 41 - 50, and above 50 years were 13.147, 11.493, and 17.161 times more likely, respectively, to foster active class participation compared to their younger counterparts aged 21 - 30 (p < 0.01). This finding underscores the influence of teaching experience and maturity on student engagement.

Although the model showed a modest explanatory power with a Nagelkerke R² of 0.096 and Cox & Snell R² of 0.058, it correctly classified 83.6% of responses and was statistically significant (χ² (10) = 13.504, p < 0.001), confirming its overall utility in predicting class participation.

The analysis also explored the relationship between physical resources and school dropout rates. Appropriate assistive devices were significantly associated with reduced dropout (Exp(B) = 1.550, p < 0.05), as were teaching and learning materials (Exp(B) = 1.701, p < 0.01), indicating that schools with these resources are more effective in retaining students with disabilities. Additionally, teacher age was significant, with teachers aged 31 - 40 being 9.294 times more likely to reduce dropout than those aged 21 - 30 (p < 0.10), suggesting that older or more experienced teachers may be better equipped to keep students engaged and enrolled.

Furthermore, teacher gender was significant (Exp(B) = 2.039, p < 0.05), indicating that classes taught by female teachers are more likely to see reductions in dropout rates compared to those led by male teachers. However, disability-friendly physical structures and teachers’ highest educational qualifications were not statistically significant in this model. The model demonstrated reasonable explanatory power (Nagelkerke R² = 0.283, Cox & Snell R² = 0.208), correctly predicted 70.8% of cases, and had a statistically significant model fit (χ² (10) = 52.606, p < 0.001).

Student Voices:

Students with disabilities often experience exclusion due to the lack of adapted materials such as Braille-labelled tools, adjustable easels, and tactile materials. Even students without disabilities are affected by inadequate quantities of basic Creative Arts materials, leading to reduced participation and engagement. This aligns with findings by Nantwi et al. (2019) , who noted that the unavailability of assistive and instructional resources makes it difficult for learners with disabilities to engage meaningfully in classroom activities. Similarly, Mwangi & Orodho (2004) emphasized that instructional materials such as Braille, hearing devices, and sketch tools are vital for learners’ participation in inclusive education.

Student Voices:

Students highlight physical barriers that prevent equal access to art spaces. This supports previous findings by Eunice, Nyangia, and Orodho (2015) , who asserted that classroom infrastructure in most schools in Ghana is not disability friendly. Their research emphasized that poorly designed facilities restrict learners with mobility impairments from accessing quality education, making inclusive implementation difficult. They recommend structural adaptations such as ramps, wide doorways, and accessible furniture as foundational to achieving inclusive education.

Student Voices:

Students perceive teachers’ efforts as limited, either due to lack of training or large class sizes. This affects both students with and without disabilities, who may feel unsupported or neglected in skill-building. This observation corresponds with the findings of Cambridge-Johnson et al. (2014) and Opoku et al. (2017) , who documented that teachers often lack the skills and confidence required to effectively support learners with special needs in inclusive settings. Additionally, Ajodhia-Andrews and Frankel (2010) , as cited in Cambridge-Johnson et al., (2014) highlighted inadequate teacher preparation and inflexible curricula as significant barriers in inclusive classrooms.

Student Voices:

While students value collaboration, there is a lack of structured peer-support systems. Students show a willingness to help but lack knowledge on how to interact effectively and inclusively. This finding is supported by Botts and Owusu (2013) , who emphasized that while inclusive education promotes social integration, insufficient preparation at the classroom level leads to informal and ineffective peer engagement. They advocate for inclusive classroom practices that deliberately structure cooperative learning and sensitize students on supporting peers with diverse needs.

Student Voices:

Creative Arts is not just academic but emotional. The lack of inclusive resources affects student morale and self-esteem, especially among learners with disabilities, who may feel left out or undervalued. Peerzada (2016) noted that arts education contributes to learners’ socio-emotional development, and a lack of access can negatively impact their self-perception and emotional well-being. Similarly, Eunice, Nyangia, and Orodho (2015) argue that inclusive education must address emotional inclusivity by ensuring that all learners can engage, participate, and express themselves freely in school activities.