Understanding teacher agency in implementing inclusive education policy: a mixed-methods study of private schools under India’s right to education act

Teacher agency has emerged as a critical factor in educational reform, yet research remains heavily concentrated in Western contexts with limited attention to how demographic and contextual factors shape teachers’ capacity to serve diverse student populations. This study addresses this gap by examining teacher agency in Indian private schools implementing Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, which has brought over 22 million economically disadvantaged students into private schools. Using a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design, 125 teachers were surveyed across two private schools in Delhi, India. The study employed an adapted 21-item teacher agency scale alongside open-ended questions, applying an ecological framework that examines agency across individual, micro, meso, and macro levels. Quantitative analyses included regression modeling to identify predictors of agency, while qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to understand factors supporting and constraining teachers’ experiences. Demographic characteristics showed limited influence on teacher agency, challenging assumptions about individual qualifications determining effectiveness in diverse classrooms. Principal and staff support emerged as the strongest predictor of agency outcomes. Qualitative findings revealed the complex, multilayered nature of teacher agency, with factors spanning individual, micro, meso, and macro ecological levels. Principal leadership support and peer collaboration emerged as critical institutional enablers of agency, while parent interactions functioned as both constraints and supports depending on relational dynamics. Teacher beliefs about student capabilities and family engagement significantly shaped their sense of professional agency. The findings demonstrate that teacher agency emerges through complex interactions across ecological levels rather than from individual attributes alone. These findings challenge recruitment-focused policy approaches by demonstrating that contextual factors matter more than individual characteristics in shaping teacher agency. The results suggest that sustainable inclusive practices require institutional-level interventions rather than individual-focused solutions, with implications extending beyond the Indian context to global discussions of teacher agency in diverse educational settings.

1 Introduction

Teachers are increasingly positioned as agents of educational transformation, expected to implement structural reforms, respond to learners’ diverse needs, and catalyze inclusive practices (Pantić and Carr, 2017; Rao and Suman, 2015). Yet, this framing often assumes that teachers inherently possess the necessary agency, defined as the capacity, autonomy, and support to act effectively in these roles (Teng, 2019; Cong-Lem, 2021). Such assumptions obscure the reality that teachers operate within complex, constraining systems where their ability to act purposefully is shaped by institutional culture, policy design, professional development access, and relational dynamics among others (Priestley et al., 2015). Teacher agency, understood as an emergent, contextually mediated capacity for action rather than a fixed trait, provides a crucial lens for understanding how reform efforts unfold at the classroom level (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015). More specifically, ecological perspectives emphasize the dynamic interplay where individual beliefs, competencies, autonomy, and contextual factors co-construct what teachers can and are permitted to do (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Pantić, 2015; Biesta et al., 2015; Peña‐Pincheira and De Costa, 2021). Understanding the enablers and constraints of teacher agency is, therefore, essential to realizing the transformative potential of equity-focused educational policies.

While teacher agency has received growing attention in educational literature (Cong-Lem, 2021), significant gaps remain in examining how it functions in under-researched policy contexts, particularly in the Global South, where policy implementation is influenced by distinct social, cultural, political, and institutional dynamics. In Indian private schools, this challenge is especially visible in Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, enacted in 2010. This section, geared towards furthering “equity” and “inclusion,” mandates that all recognized private (unaided and aided) schools reserve 25% of entry-level seats for children from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups, creating classrooms marked by stark socioeconomic disparities. While the policy compelled educational systems to become more accessible to marginalised students, the responsibility for its on-ground implementation ultimately rested with teachers. This mandate placed substantial demands on teachers to navigate resource gaps, academic heterogeneity, and cultural differences. Although over 22 million EWS students are now enrolled in private schools across India (PTI, 2023), it is argued that the RTE Act provides for minimal structural or pedagogical support to teachers responsible for their inclusion (Indus Action, 2019).

Despite this policy’s scale and ambition, empirical research on how teachers experience and respond to top down mandates, such as this one, remains surprisingly limited, particularly in the private sector, which accounts for a substantial and growing share of India’s educational landscape (Muralidharan, 2019). Existing studies focus predominantly on student outcomes or administrative challenges rather than teachers’ lived experiences with facilitating inclusion in resource-constrained, market-driven environments. This study aims to address this gap by centering teachers’ experiences and exploring how private school teachers in Delhi perceive their agency when working with EWS students. Grounded in an adapted Ecological Framework of Teacher Agency (Priestley et al., 2015; Biesta et al., 2015; Pantić, 2015). the study investigates one overarching research question:

What shapes teacher agency in the context of implementing RTE Act Section 12(1)(c) policy in private schools in India?

Two sub-questions guide this broader inquiry:

1. How do teachers’ reported attributes and demographics impact their agency and agency to work with marginalized students?

2. What factors do teachers identify as supporting or constraining their agency in these settings?

2 Context

India’s education system comprises public, private, and hybrid models of instruction, serving a socioeconomically diverse population. Private schools account for nearly 40% of enrollments and operate with varying degrees of government oversight while remaining subject to national education policies, including the Right to Education (RTE) Act (Mehta, 2021). Enacted in 2009, the RTE Act represents a constitutional commitment to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14. Its most ambitious and contested provision, Section 12(1)(c), mandated that all private schools reserve 25% of entry-level seats for children from economically weaker sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups¹. Under Section 12(1)(c), children categorized as EWS typically come from families with annual incomes below state-specified thresholds, often set below ₹1 lakh, and may include those from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and other disadvantaged groups depending on state implementation norms (Usmani, 2025).² The state reimburses schools based on government school per-child expenditure, a rate that often falls short of actual costs. As of 2023, more than 22 million EWS children have been admitted under this provision. In cities like Delhi, admissions are managed through a centralized online lottery system that randomly allocates students to schools within a two-mile radius.

The principle of educational equity underpinning Section 12(1)(c) has long been a part of India’s policy discourse, from the first National Policy on Education in 1968, which emphasized equalizing educational opportunity, to the recent NEP 2020, which explicitly identifies equity and inclusion as core reform goals. Large parts of the policy were specifically targeted to create a more equitable and inclusive learning environment for all students. It is important to note that “inclusive” is used in the case of the RTE Section 12 in a broader sense, referring to the opening of spaces (including in private schools) to students who would have been denied access to those spaces due to socioeconomic and demographic factors. This distinction is important to make, as there tends to be a tendency to equate “inclusion” solely or primarily with students who have special education needs or disabilities. It is essential to conceptualize “inclusion” within the Indian socio-economic context, wherein the idea of equity and inclusion extends to encompass students who are excluded from education due to socio-economic disadvantage. This perspective builds on current dominant Western discourse, which tends to frame inclusion primarily in terms of access for children with special needs or disabilities at the primary education level. This paper will use the word inclusion in multiple different arguments, and should be treated as referring to creating inclusive spaces and learning opportunities for students with SEND and socioeconomic differences.

Although Section 12(1)(c) fundamentally aimed to foster educational equity through this broad socioeconomic integration, its practical effects have been mixed. The influx of EWS students into elite/high and mid-fee private schools has introduced classroom dynamics marked by linguistic, cultural, and academic heterogeneity (Gale et al., 2022). Teachers are expected to facilitate these socioeconomically diverse spaces despite the relative absence of structural support provisions within the policy itself. Resources such as differentiated training, additional staffing, or curricular flexibility are neither mandated nor funded by the state, leaving implementation contingent on individual school priorities and available resources. This variability exacerbates inequities across schools, as only those with surplus resources and commitment can adequately support inclusive practices, placing the burden of successful inclusion squarely on individual teachers’ shoulders. Implementation has been further complicated by private sector resistance. When first introduced, several private school associations challenged the policy’s constitutionality, arguing it infringed on institutional autonomy and imposed financial burdens without adequate compensation (Sucharita and Sujatha, 2018; Dongre et al., 2022; Islam and Mondal, 2023). Although the Indian Supreme Court upheld the policy in 2012, this initial opposition continues to shape how schools interpret and engage with the mandate, often creating institutional cultures that view EWS inclusion as an unwelcome imposition rather than an educational opportunity.

This study focuses on two mid-fee private schools in Delhi, one of the earliest adopters of Section 12(1)(c). Delhi’s implementation under the mandate has been facilitated by the lottery-based system and centralized admission processes. However, this lottery-based approach has yielded mixed results, with some Delhi schools still experiencing lagging enrollment in certain areas. Additionally, this administrative framework has not translated into consistent support mechanisms within schools. Teachers are typically tasked with accommodating EWS students into pre-existing academic and cultural regimes without systemic changes to school ethos, pedagogy, or resource allocation (Kaur and Salian, 2024). In this context, examining teacher agency becomes crucial for understanding how top-down inclusive mandates are interpreted and enacted at the classroom level. This is particularly important in private schools operating within contested policy landscapes, where teachers must navigate institutional expectations, resource constraints, and diverse student needs simultaneously. While a limited number of studies have examined Indian teachers’ perceptions of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, even those have predominantly focused on assessing levels of ‘awareness’ among teachers and administrations (Kumar and Sharma, 2011; Dey and Beck, 2011; Mandal and Barman, 2014; Mondal, 2015. These investigations have largely overlooked the nuanced ways in which teachers experience, interpret, and respond to the mandates of the Act in their everyday professional practice.

3 Literature review

As highlighted in previous sections, educational research has undergone a significant conceptual shift in how it views teachers’ roles. While many reform and policy efforts still treat teachers primarily as policy implementers, educators and researchers are increasingly recognizing teachers as active professionals who possess the capacity to make decisions, negotiate tensions, and shape change from within their classrooms (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Pantić, 2015). This reconceptualization has brought the concept of ecological teacher agency to the forefront: the capacity of teachers to act purposefully in dynamic interaction with their contexts to direct their professional growth and influence educational practices (Lasky, 2005). This ecological understanding emphasizes that agency is not an individual trait but emerges through the complex interplay between teachers’ professional identities, institutional structures, and cultural norms (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). As such, teacher agency represents a temporal and relational achievement that develops as educators engage with and transform their professional environments.

To that end, a growing body of empirical research has examined how school environments, policy discourses, and leadership practices affect the enactment of teacher agency. Priestley et al. (2015), extending the perspective of Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998), offer a temporal-relational view of agency, suggesting that teachers’ ability to act is shaped by their past experiences, current working conditions, and future aspirations. Drawing on Scottish curriculum reform, their work demonstrates how agency emerges through the interplay of personal histories, institutional cultures, and broader policy demands rather than individual will alone. Similarly, research using narrative inquiry reveals how sociopolitical positioning constrains agency development. Kayi-Aydar (2015) explores how identity negotiation affects agency among English language teachers in contexts of linguistic marginalization, finding that teachers’ agency is often limited by their positioning within discourses surrounding race, immigration, and language proficiency. Research in the Finnish context further illuminates these dynamics by Toom et al. (2015) examining how teachers engage in pedagogical reasoning to reconcile competing demands of professional ethics and bureaucratic expectations, finding that agency involves both resisting and adapting to institutional pressures during reform periods. Across these diverse contexts, studies consistently highlight that collaboration, school leadership, and access to professional learning serve as key enabling conditions for agency, while prescriptive accountability frameworks, lack of autonomy, and institutional instability tend to erode it. Notably, Leijen et al. (2020) found that novice and experienced teachers experience agency differently depending on contextual stability and leadership support. This literature underscores that teacher agency is shaped by factors across multiple levels and remains vulnerable even in well-resourced contexts.

Building on this understanding of how contextual factors shape teacher agency, recent scholarship has explored the relationship between teacher agency and inclusive education, examining how teachers interpret and act upon policy mandates aimed at supporting students with diverse learning needs in under-resourced or complex educational environments. This work reveals that agency for inclusion involves not just capacity, but commitment to educational values and equity (Pantić and Florian, 2015). Foundational to this perspective, Florian and Spratt (2013) propose that inclusive practice requires shifting from deficit-based thinking to more flexible, responsive pedagogy that benefits all learners. However, research reveals significant gaps between teachers’ inclusive aspirations and their enacted practices. Despite generally positive attitudes toward inclusion, many teachers feel underprepared to support students from disadvantaged or marginalized backgrounds (Sharma et al., 2018). This tension between intention and implementation is further illuminated by Li and Ruppar’s (2021) systematic review, which synthesized global studies to examine how inclusive agency operates across multiple ecological layers. Their analysis highlights that while teachers across diverse settings express commitment to inclusion, their agency is often undermined by lack of resources, time pressures, deficit discourses, and prescriptive policies. Conversely, inclusive agency can be strengthened through relational trust, professional autonomy, and opportunities for critical reflection.

While this body of research provides valuable insights into teacher agency for inclusion, significant gaps remain that limit our understanding of how these dynamics operate across diverse global contexts. First, empirical studies on teacher agency remain heavily concentrated in Western contexts, with limited representation from low- and middle-income countries where educational conditions and policy landscapes differ substantially (Chaaban et al., 2021; Pantić, 2015). This geographic bias means that research often overlooks the complexities teachers face in resource-constrained systems where inclusion is mandated but poorly supported. Second, even within the broader inclusion literature, attention has largely centered on SEND, with less focus on other axes of marginalization such as class, caste, gender, culture, and language (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011; Naraian, 2014; Sayed and Ahmed, 2015; Gale et al., 2022). This narrow focus overlooks how socioeconomic and demographic barriers to educational access create distinct challenges for teacher agency. The Indian context exemplifies these research gaps particularly well. Despite the far-reaching implications of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, which has brought over 22 million economically disadvantaged students into private schools, little is known about how teachers experience and respond to these reforms in practice (Choudhury et al., 2023; Apat and Swain, 2023; Indus Action, 2023). This study aims to address these gaps by examining teacher agency in Indian private schools serving students from diverse, marginalized backgrounds. Adopting the broader understanding of inclusion outlined earlier, this research centers teachers’ experiences with students whose access has been limited by socioeconomic and demographic factors, bringing empirical attention to India’s private education sector: a key site of policy implementation rarely examined through the lens of agency.

4 Theoretical framework

Given these gaps in understanding how teacher agency operates across diverse contexts and forms of marginalization, this study adopts an ecological view of teacher agency, understood as a dynamic capacity shaped by both internal dispositions and external conditions. While previous research highlights various influences on agency, few models adequately integrate individual meaning-making with the broader institutional and policy contexts in which teachers work. This integration is especially crucial in Indian private schools, where inclusion mandates are implemented in fee-based settings that often lack systemic support, creating unique tensions between market pressures and equity goals. To address this complexity, the study combines two complementary theoretical perspectives: Pantić’s (2015) model of teacher agency for social justice and Peña‐Pincheira and De Costa (2021) ecological model of agency.

Pantić’s (2015) model of teacher agency for social justice identifies four interrelated dimensions: purpose, competence, autonomy, and reflexivity. These dimensions reflect how teachers define their role, assess their knowledge and skills, perceive their capacity to make decisions and take action, and critically examine their practices and contexts. This model proves valuable in contexts of mandated inclusion, where teachers navigate tensions between policy expectations, professional ethics, and pedagogical realities. Yet while Pantić’s framework captures internal dimensions of agency, it leaves spaces to explicitly centre contextual factors, particularly in complex policy contexts like India’s private education sector. To account for these broader contextual forces, this study incorporates Peña‐Pincheira and De Costa (2021) ecological model of teacher agency. Their framework distinguishes between micro (classroom-level), meso (institutional), and macro (policy and societal) layers of influence, highlighting how agency is shaped by access to resources, dominant discourses, institutional hierarchies, and accountability systems. However, while this ecological model effectively captures environmental influences, it does not provide space for individual-level factors, creating a complementary relationship with Pantić’s internally-focused framework. This combined approach proves relevant in market-based schooling environments where teachers must mediate between inclusion mandates and demands of fee-paying stakeholders, making it well-suited for examining agency in Indian private schools implementing Section 12(1)(c). Building on these perspectives, this study develops an integrated four-layered framework that centers teachers’ internal beliefs, values, and reflective capacities within broader ecological contexts. The framework consists of:

Individual: This layer encompasses teachers’ internal dispositions and professional identities that shape how they understand and enact their role. It captures teachers’ fundamental beliefs about students, parents, and themselves as educators.: Additionally, it encompasses their sense of purpose around inclusion and social justice, perceived competence and autonomy in formal education.

Micro: This layer represents the immediate classroom environment where teaching and learning occur. It generally relates to challenges that are classroom-level in nature. It encompasses the day-to-day realities teachers navigate, including student diversity and academic needs, available resources for instruction, peer relationships and collaborative dynamics, and the specific challenges that arise when working with socioeconomically diverse student populations.

Meso: This layer captures the institutional context at the school level. It encompasses how school leadership approaches inclusion, the institutional culture and values regarding diversity, structural constraints such as workload and time, opportunities for professional growth, and how the organization responds to and interprets external policy mandates.

Macro: This layer represents the broader structural, policy, and societal forces that shape educational contexts. It encompasses state-level inclusion policies, prevailing socioeconomic hierarchies, dominant discourses about private education and equity, funding and reimbursement mechanisms, and wider societal attitudes toward educational inclusion that influence how teachers experience and enact agency.

This framework serves as both a theoretical foundation and an analytical tool, uniquely positioned to capture the complex dynamics of teacher agency in India’s private education landscape. It informed the design of the teacher agency survey, and structured the thematic coding of qualitative responses. By integrating personal meaning-making with structural analysis, this approach facilitates a contextualized understanding of teacher agency in Indian private schools implementing inclusion policy, providing the conceptual foundation for investigating how teachers navigate competing demands across individual, classroom, institutional, and policy levels.

5 Research design/methods

This study employed a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2023) to examine teacher agency in the context of inclusive education policy implementation in Indian private schools. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously through a single integrated survey instrument. This design aligned with the study’s ecological theoretical framework by enabling both measurement of agency levels across different dimensions and exploration of how teachers experience factors that support or constrain their agency. The mixed-methods approach supported complementarity (Greene et al., 1989), with quantitative findings providing broad patterns of agency around basic demographics and CV characteristics and qualitative responses offering deeper insight into the contextual factors that impact teacher’s agency.

5.1 Instrument development

Validated tools for measuring teacher agency are scarce globally and almost entirely absent in India, particularly for private school teachers working with socioeconomically diverse student populations. To address this gap, a survey instrument was developed by adapting items from existing sources and combining them with open-ended reflective questions. The final instrument comprised 21 Likert-scale items and 4 open-ended questions (see Appendix A: Table 1).

The quantitative component adapted items from Hull and Uematsu's (2020) 31-item teacher agency scale, originally developed to measure physics teachers’ perceived agency in curriculum reform contexts. Key adaptations for Indian private school contexts included: (1) removing 8 physics-specific items (e.g., “I can adapt physics experiments for diverse learners”) and 3 mathematics-focused items, replacing them with 6 items focused on working with marginalised students (e.g., “I can modify teaching strategies to support EWS students’ academic integration”); (2) modifying language for Indian educational terminology (e.g., “Marginalised students” for economically weaker section students, “salary” for “paycheck”); (3) adjusting examples to reflect local classroom contexts and reframing negatively-worded items for cultural appropriateness (e.g., “Teaching is just a job so I can get a paycheck” became “My first choice of profession will always be teaching”); (4) adding items specifically focused on working with Section 12(1)(c) students; and (5) using a 10-point Likert scale to increase response sensitivity given documented cultural response tendencies in Indian contexts. The qualitative component, influenced by Pantić’s TRAC tool (2020; 2021), included four open-ended questions asking teachers to describe successful experiences and challenges working with EWS students and identify supporting and constraining factors across ecological levels.

The instrument underwent a three-stage development process emphasizing contextual appropriateness and cultural relevance. Interviews with five teachers from similar private schools refined language clarity and cultural appropriateness, identifying terminology issues and ensuring comprehension across experience levels. Initial testing with 11 teachers from a comparable private school assessed timing, flow, and item comprehension, confirming the targeted 15–20 min completion time and identifying minor wording adjustments. Two experienced educators with extensive experience in private inclusive settings (one with 15 + years in RTE implementation, one specializing in inclusive pedagogy) conducted expert reviews for content validity and contextual relevance, confirming alignment with teacher agency theory and RTE implementation realities. Each stage incorporated feedback systematically: teacher interviews resulted in 6 terminology modifications, pilot testing led to 3 item rewordings, and expert review achieved 100% agreement on item relevance. The 21 items were divided into two subscales: 11 items measuring general agency and 10 items measuring EWS-specific agency. While the study’s aim was not to develop a replicable tool but rather to create an instrument that captured the phenomena under investigation in this specific context, internal consistency analysis revealed acceptable reliability: the complete 21-item scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.74), General Agency subscale (11 items, α = 0.70), EWS-Specific Agency subscale (10 items, α = 0.71), supporting confidence in the instrument’s ability to measure teacher agency constructs in Indian private school settings implementing inclusive policies.

5.2 Setting and participants

The study was conducted in two private unaided schools (not receiving direct funding from the government) in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi, India. These schools are long-established, mid-to-high fee institutions with annual tuition between ₹125,000 and ₹165,000 (USD 1,500–2,000), serving predominantly middle- and upper-middle-class families. Both follow the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum and enroll between 1,200 and 2,200 students across Nursery to Grade 12. Each school implements the inclusion provisions of the RTE Act, creating class-diverse student populations through lottery-based admission processes. Purposive sampling was used to select schools that had a sustained record of RTE implementation and comparable fee structures. This sampling approach ensured that participating schools had sufficient experience with RTE practices and similar institutional contexts to provide meaningful insights into teacher agency. The final sample included 125 full-time teachers from a total of 130 teachers across both schools (School 1: n = 49; School 2: n = 76), representing a broad range of subject areas and grade levels. The survey achieved a high completion rate of approximately 95%, with participation from nearly all full-time teachers in both schools. A more detailed breakdown of all the demographic characteristics of teachers is provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Participant demographics.

5.3 Quantitative analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using R (v4.1.2) following a systematic process to examine teacher agency outcomes and their predictors. Three composite agency scores were constructed from the 21 Likert-scale items (10-point scale): General Agency (11 items), EWS Agency (10 items focused on work with Section 12(1)(c) students), and Overall Agency (combining General and EWS scores). All composite scores were converted to z-scores to facilitate analysis and interpretation across different metrics. Initial analyses examined whether agency outcomes differed by demographic characteristics using parametric and non-parametric tests. Due to slight non-normal distributions in some variables, both one-way ANOVAs and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to test differences across six demographic factors: gender, degree, subject taught, grade taught, professional experience length, and tenure at current school. Appropriate post hoc tests were performed using Tukey’s HSD for ANOVA results or pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni correction for Kruskal-Wallis results. Following these initial comparisons, linear and multiple regression analyses examined the impact of demographic variables on agency outcomes. Simple linear regressions tested each demographic predictor individually against each agency outcome. For multiple regression analyses, due to high collinearity between subject taught and grade taught (r = 0.76), subject was excluded, retaining five predictors: gender, degree, grade, experience length, and tenure.

Based on ecological theory and initial findings (both quantitative and qualitative), Item 11³ (principal and institutional support) was subsequently identified as a predictor variable rather than simply an outcome measure (Priestley et al., 2015; Pantić, 2015). This item was therefore removed from the General and Overall Agency composites and treated as a separate predictor variable (Agency_11). New composite scores excluding Item 11 were calculated and z-scored for subsequent analyses. Finally, Agency_11 (institutional support) was tested as a predictor of the refined agency outcomes. This involved independent linear regressions examining Agency_11 as the sole predictor of each outcome, followed by multiple regressions adding Agency_11 to the demographic predictors to assess additional variance explained beyond demographic factors.

5.4 Qualitative analysis

Responses to four open-ended survey questions were analyzed to examine contextual and perceptual dimensions of teacher agency. These questions invited teachers to reflect on their experiences working with Section 12(1)(c) students, focusing on factors that supported or constrained their actions in the classroom and school settings. The analysis aimed to understand how teachers made sense of inclusion-related challenges and where they located their sense of professional influence. The analysis followed a two-phase process beginning with inductive coding grounded in participants’ language rather than predefined categories. Open coding was applied to identify recurring patterns, with common expressions such as “limited resources to address diverse needs,” “motivating them is difficult,” and “collegial support in planning.” A constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965) refined the coding structure through iterative analysis. As new themes emerged, earlier responses were revisited to ensure consistency and distinguish between surface-level similarities and deeper conceptual differences. This process resulted in refined themes representing both enabling and constraining influences on teacher agency. Following this inductive phase, codes and themes were organized using the study’s ecological framework across individual, micro, meso, and macro levels. This structure served as an interpretive lens rather than being imposed during initial coding. When responses addressed multiple domains, they were tagged across levels to reflect the cross-cutting nature of agency experiences. This approach maintained proximity to teachers’ lived experiences while enabling systematic analysis of how teachers situated sources of support and constraint within different ecological levels.

6 Findings

The findings are presented in two sections that address how teachers perceive their agency when working with students from economically marginalized backgrounds and what factors support or constrain this agency. The quantitative findings examine relationships between demographic variables, institutional factors, and teacher agency in inclusive contexts, followed by qualitative findings from thematic analysis of open-ended responses. While presented sequentially, both analyses were conducted in parallel as part of the concurrent embedded design. Together, these findings illuminate the multilayered nature of teacher agency in inclusive educational contexts and provide complementary perspectives on teachers’ experiences with Section 12(1)(c) implementation.

6.1 Quantitative findings

The quantitative analysis examined relationships between demographic characteristics, principal support, and teacher agency through a systematic series of statistical tests. This section presents findings in three parts: first, individual demographic predictors and their collective explanatory power; second, the role of institutional support as measured by perceived principal and staff support (Agency_11); and third, combined models examining both demographic and institutional factors simultaneously.

6.1.1 Statistical approach and data characteristics

The final analytic sample included 125 full-time teachers from two private schools in Delhi (School 1: n = 49; School 2: n = 76). Chi-square tests confirmed no significant group differences between schools (all ps > 0.05), allowing for pooled analysis. Three agency outcome measures were examined: General Agency, EWS-Specific Agency, and Overall Agency. All outcome variables were standardized (z-scored) prior to analysis to enable direct comparison of effect sizes across measures and facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients. Due to slight departures from normality in some agency measures, both parametric and nonparametric tests were conducted to ensure robust findings. Results were consistent across most methodological approaches, and when a departure was seen it has been reported.

6.1.2 Demographic predictors of teacher agency

Gender exhibited no significant associations with teacher agency across any measure. Welch’s t-tests comparing female (n = 106) and male (n = 19) teachers revealed no statistically significant differences for General Agency (t = 0.59, p = 0.559), EWS-Specific Agency (t = 0.42, p = 0.679), or Overall Agency (t = 0.54, p = 0.593). Mann–Whitney U tests confirmed these null findings. In contrast to gender, educational qualifications showed significant relationships with teacher agency. Welch’s ANOVA revealed statistically significant group differences among Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Graduate (MPhil/PhD) degree holders for General Agency [F(2, 122) = 4.34, p = 0.015], EWS-Specific Agency [F(2, 122) = 5.52, p = 0.005], and Overall Agency [F(2, 122) = 4.82, p = 0.010]. Post hoc analyses revealed an unexpected pattern: teachers with Bachelor’s degrees consistently reported significantly higher agency than those with Master’s degrees across all three outcomes (p < 0.05), with moderate effect sizes (d = 0.51 to 0.61). No significant differences emerged between the Graduate group and others (see Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Post Hoc analysis: teacher agency by educational qualification.

Professional assignment variables presented a more complex pattern. Subject taught displayed significant omnibus effects using Kruskal-Wallis tests for General Agency [H(6) = 16.22, p = 0.013] and Overall Agency [H(6) = 13.46, p = 0.036], with a marginal result for EWS-Specific Agency [H(6) = 12.37, p = 0.054]. One-way ANOVAs yielded consistent results. However, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between specific subject areas, indicating that while omnibus tests suggested variation, no meaningful distinctions existed across particular disciplines. Similarly, grade level taught demonstrated significant omnibus effects using Kruskal-Wallis tests for General Agency [H(6) = 17.23, p = 0.008] and Overall Agency [H(6) = 15.48, p = 0.017], but not for EWS-Specific Agency [H(6) = 10.56, p = 0.103]. One-way ANOVAs confirmed these patterns. However, like subject areas, post hoc analyses yielded no significant pairwise differences, suggesting that apparent grade-level variations did not translate into substantial distinctions between specific levels.

Experience-related variables showed minimal predictive power. Total teaching experience exhibited no statistically significant differences across any agency dimension, with analysis of four experience brackets (Short, Medium, Long, Very Long) revealing no meaningful relationships (p > 0.10 for all tests). This suggests that years of teaching experience were not predictive of perceived agency in this sample. Finally, duration at the current school revealed the most limited effects among all demographic variables. While overall analyses indicated no significant differences for most outcomes, teachers with shorter tenure at their current school reported lower EWS-Specific Agency compared to those with longer tenure (padj = 0.046). This effect was not observed for other agency dimensions, suggesting that institutional familiarity may specifically influence teachers’ confidence in working with economically disadvantaged students.

6.1.3 Collective predictive power of demographics

To examine whether demographic characteristics collectively predict teacher agency beyond their individual effects, multiple linear regression models were constructed with all demographic variables (gender, degree level, grade taught, length of professional experience, and duration at current school) entered simultaneously as predictors. The models demonstrated consistently limited explanatory power across all three agency outcomes. General Teacher Agency yielded a non-significant model, F(14, 110) = 1.73, p = 0.060, Adjusted R² = 0.076. EWS-Specific Agency achieved statistical significance, F(14, 110) = 2.18, p = 0.013, explaining 11.8% of variance (Adjusted R² = 0.118). Overall Teacher Agency similarly reached significance, F(14, 110) = 2.17, p = 0.013, explaining 11.7% of variance (Adjusted R² = 0.117).

Across all models, consistent demographic patterns emerged. Master’s degree attainment consistently predicted lower agency compared to Bachelor’s degrees across all three models (B = −0.55 for General, B = −0.62 for EWS, B = −0.69 for Overall; all p < 0.05). Secondary teaching showed positive associations relative to primary teaching (B = 0.58 for General, B = 0.78 for EWS, B = 0.71 for Overall), reaching significance in the EWS (p < 0.05) and Overall (p < 0.05) models but not General (p = 0.08). All other demographic variables, including gender, teaching experience, and subject taught, remained non-significant predictors across all three models. Independent linear regressions confirmed these patterns while revealing the limited predictive capacity of individual demographics. Even the most consistent predictors (educational qualification, grade level, duration at current school) explained minimal variance when examined separately (R² = 0.030 to 0.073).

The demographic models collectively demonstrate that traditional background characteristics have limited capacity to explain teacher agency in inclusive education contexts. Despite including comprehensive demographic information, these models explained at most 11.8% of the variance (in the EWS-Specific Agency model), suggesting that demographic factors play relatively less important roles in shaping teachers’ perceived capacity for practice in the specific context of private schools and EWS students in Delhi.

6.1.4 Principal and staff support as a predictor of teacher agency

Given the limited explanatory power of demographic variables and the prominence of principal and staff support factors in qualitative findings, additional analyses examined whether perceived principal and staff support (Agency_11) should be treated as an independent predictor. Analysis revealed School Management Support as the most frequently cited enabler (n = 55), suggesting its potential importance in addition to demographic characteristics (detailed in the Qualitative Findings Section). As stated earlier in the methods section, based on ecological theory and initial findings (both quantitative and qualitative), Item 11 (principal and staff support) was used as a predictor rather than just an individual question (Priestley et al., 2015; Pantić, 2015). Statistical analyses confirmed Agency_11’s conceptual and empirical independence from other agency measures. These findings and the theoretical backing supported treating Agency_11 as a standalone predictor representing principal and staff support rather than including it in composite agency scores. Accordingly, Agency_11 was excluded from all composite agency measures in subsequent analyses to avoid redundancy.

6.1.5 Simple linear regressions: principal and staff support effects

Three simple linear regressions examined Agency_11 as the sole predictor of teacher agency outcomes, revealing substantially stronger relationships than observed with demographic variables. Agency_11 was a statistically significant predictor across all three models, demonstrating effect sizes dramatically larger than any demographic variable. For General Agency, the model was highly significant, F(1, 123) = 52.42, p < 0.001, R² = 0.299, Adjusted R² = 0.293. Teachers reporting higher perceived principal and staff support also reported significantly higher levels of general agency (B = 0.32, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.23, 0.40]). EWS-Specific Agency showed similar patterns, F(1, 123) = 30.08, p < 0.001, R² = 0.197, Adjusted R² = 0.190. Principal and staff support positively predicted EWS-related agency (B = 0.26, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.16, 0.35]). Overall Agency demonstrated the strongest relationship, F(1, 123) = 58.26, p < 0.001, R² = 0.321, Adjusted R² = 0.316. Higher principal and staff support scores were associated with significantly greater overall agency (B = 0.33, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.24, 0.41]).

The contrast with demographic findings was striking. While the most successful demographic model explained 11.8% of variance, principal and staff support alone accounted for 19.0 to 31.6% of variance across outcomes. This represents a nearly threefold improvement in explanatory power, highlighting the substantially greater importance of principal and staff support factors compared to background characteristics (see Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Simple linear regressions: institutional support predicting teacher agency.

6.1.6 Combined models: demographics and principal and staff support

Final regression models examined the combined effects of demographic characteristics and principal and staff support, revealing the persistent dominance of principal and staff support factors even when accounting for all background variables. These models included all demographic predictors plus Agency_11 as simultaneous predictors of the three agency outcomes. Agency scores excluded Agency_11 from their composite calculations to ensure statistical independence. The combined models demonstrated substantially stronger explanatory power than demographic-only models. General Teacher Agency achieved statistical significance, F(15, 109) = 5.26, p < 0.001, explaining 34.0% of variance (Adjusted R² = 0.340). EWS-Specific Agency was statistically significant, F(15, 109) = 4.15, p < 0.001, explaining 27.6% of variance (Adjusted R² = 0.276). Overall Teacher Agency achieved the strongest model fit, F(15, 109) = 6.43, p < 0.001, explaining 39.6% of variance (Adjusted R² = 0.396).

Across all models, consistent patterns emerged regarding predictor effects. Principal and staff support remained the strongest predictor in all three models (B = 0.31 for General, B = 0.24 for EWS, B = 0.32 for Overall; all p < 0.001). Master’s degree holders consistently scored lower than Bachelor’s degree holders across the EWS (B = −0.55, p = 0.029) and Overall (B = −0.51, p = 0.026) models, while MPhil/PhD holders scored lower in the General model (B = −0.74, p = 0.047). Secondary teachers consistently reported higher scores than primary teachers across all models (B = 0.89 for General, B = 0.61 for EWS, B = 0.86 for Overall; all p < 0.05). Tenure effects emerged in the EWS and Overall models, with both medium and short tenure associated with lower scores compared to longer tenure.

The combined models demonstrated dramatic improvements in explanatory power compared to demographic-only models. Adjusted R² values increased from 0.076–0.118 (demographics only) to 0.276–0.396 (demographics plus principal and staff support). Across all models, principal and staff support emerged as the most consistent and substantial predictor, with limited impacts from degree attainment, tenure, and grade level (Tables 4–6).

Table 4

Table 4. Multiple linear regression: overall teacher agency.

Table 5

Table 5. Multiple linear regression: general teacher agency.

Table 6

Table 6. Multiple linear regression: ews-specific teacher agency.

6.2 Qualitative findings

The qualitative findings are presented in two main sections. The first examines the inhibitors that teachers highlighted in their open responses, followed by the supporting factors. For both categories, the initial or first-level coding is shared briefly before delving deeper into the second-level thematic findings. All final thematic findings are also visualized within the theoretical framework (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Inhibitors and supporters of teacher agency (numbers correspond to Appendix Tables 9, 10).

6.2.1 First-level qualitative analysis (inhibitors of teacher agency): initial codes

The first-level qualitative analysis revealed multiple factors that constrained teachers’ sense of agency when working with students from economically marginalized backgrounds. These inhibitors manifested across individual, micro, meso, and macro ecological levels, creating complex barriers to inclusive practice. The initial coding process identified 16 distinct barriers that teachers encountered in their work with Section 12(1)(c) students. These codes emerged inductively from teacher responses and reflected constraints spanning all ecological levels. The most frequently cited inhibitors were time constraints (n = 66), followed by EWS student behavioral challenges (n = 29), lack of parental support (n = 28), EWS student academic deficits (n = 20), and limited resources (n = 17). Less frequently mentioned but notable barriers included lack of school-level support (n = 14), student absenteeism (n = 13), and classroom management difficulties (n = 12). These initial codes provided the foundation for the second-level analysis presented below (see Appendix A: Table 3 for complete first-level analysis).

6.2.2 Second-level qualitative analysis (inhibitors of teacher agency): thematic grouping

Through analysis of the initial codes, the 16 barriers were consolidated into nine overarching themes that capture how teachers experienced constraints on their agency across ecological levels. Each theme reflects the complex interplay between individual capacity, institutional structures, and systemic challenges within the study’s ecological framework. Table 7 presents the consolidated themes with frequencies, ecological levels, and illustrative examples.

Table 7

Table 7. Level 2 of coding: inhibitors of teacher agency.

6.2.2.1 Limited resources: broadly

Resource constraints (n = 17) manifested at micro and meso levels, limiting teachers’ ability to provide adequate support for EWS students. At the micro level, teachers struggled with classroom-level materials: “It is difficult finding and collecting the right books for them (EWS students)” (P024) and “There is very little availability of material to conduct engaging activities” (P031). At the meso level, institutional resource gaps compounded these challenges: “There is a clear lack of resources provided to us and time hampers personalised attention” (P078) and “Lack of time, zero support/presence of special educators from the school” (P067). These resource deficits forced teachers to improvise solutions while limiting their capacity to implement the differentiated instruction they recognized as necessary for EWS student success.

6.2.2.2 Time constraints

Time emerged as the most repeated constraint (n = 66), manifesting at both micro and meso levels. At the micro level, teachers described immediate classroom challenges with insufficient instructional time: “time constraint” (Participant 035) and “lack of time” (Participant 012). The meso-level manifestation was more systemic, with teachers citing structural scheduling issues: “Remedial classes only once a week, which means 3–4 times a month, insufficient to help them” (Participant 057). Similarly, one teacher captured the multilayered nature of these time pressures, highlighting how administrative duties compound classroom constraints: “Time constraints, too many things for teachers to do. As a class teacher and subject teacher of 4 classes, you have to have enough time to understand needs of learner but many a times the teacher is unable to do it” (Participant 062). In many cases these time pressures forced teachers to prioritize coverage over depth, constraining their ability to address the specific learning needs that EWS students required.

6.2.2.3 EWS student behaviour and communication challenges

Teachers frequently identified behavioral issues and communication barriers as significant obstacles (n = 41), manifesting at individual and micro levels. These challenges reflected both actual classroom disruptions and teachers’ perceptions of EWS students’ learning readiness. At the individual level, teachers perceived EWS students as lacking motivation and preparation for academic engagement: “readiness, desire to learn from child to learn took (lot of) time” (Participant 001) and “motivating them is difficult sometimes” (Participant 002). The micro-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving behavioral management and communication barriers: “he was always distracted and not listening” (Participant 003) and “language issues, did not understand (what I was saying) or what to say to his (peers)” (Participant 007).

6.2.2.4 Teacher challenges with classroom diversity

The challenge of simultaneously addressing diverse student needs, particularly balancing EWS and non-EWS students, emerged as a complex constraint (n = 31) spanning individual and micro levels. At the individual level, teachers questioned their own professional abilities and capacity to manage differentiated instruction effectively: “First challenge was that I had to simultaneously teach the rest of the class and the student… I have not been trained for that and do not differences (differentiation)” (Participant 004). The micro-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving peer dynamics and social hierarchies that affected group interactions: “As the students were from socially privileged backgrounds, it was difficult to break their social conditioning” (Participant 006). Large class sizes compounded these challenges by limiting teachers’ ability to provide individualized support: “I have to give more time and individual instruction. but cannot when the class is large and they are all at very different levels” (Participant 079). These classroom diversity challenges forced teachers to navigate difficult pedagogical decisions between meeting individual EWS student needs and maintaining overall class progress.

6.2.2.5 Parents and conditions at home

Family-related barriers (n = 31) manifested across individual and macro levels, reflecting constraints outside the school context. Similar to perceptions about EWS student abilities, teachers held certain beliefs about EWS parents’ abilities and motivations. Teachers believed that parents of EWS students lacked the will “Sometimes, parents do not want to participate in their child’s work and also are sometimes ignorant of the ways to help” (Participant 069) or means to facilitate learning: “If the families do not try giving the same environment at home, the child’s progress suffers” (Participant 025). In discussing parents, teachers also expressed beliefs about larger macro-level constraints involving broader socioeconomic conditions: “Hesitation due to financial, family conditions.” (Participant 93) and “parents because of other issues are also not that literate and have to work a lot…so no time” (Participant 104). These barriers highlight the complex interplay between individual teacher-parent relationships and broader structural inequalities that extended beyond the classroom, limiting teachers’ ability to create comprehensive support systems for EWS students.

6.2.2.6 Lack of support and challenges at the school level

Lack of school-level support (n = 19) emerged as a meso-level constraint that significantly limited teacher agency. The meso-level manifestation was more institutionally-focused, involving both structural and resource-related gaps in systematic support systems. Teachers described the absence of comprehensive frameworks: “There is no structure in place for sustained long-term support for students who present with learning gaps and/or learning disabilities” (Participant 060). They also highlighted the lack of specialized personnel and collaborative support networks: “zero support from special education teachers or the school to help with students” (Participant 068) and concerns about inadequate professional development: “lack of training for teachers to handle such students” (Participant 075). These institutional gaps left teachers feeling isolated and professionally unsupported, forcing them to develop individual solutions to systemic challenges that required coordinated school-wide responses.

6.2.2.7 Academic ability of EWS students

Academic deficits among EWS students (n = 20) created constraints at individual and micro levels, reflecting both teachers’ beliefs about student capabilities and actual classroom realities. At the individual level, teachers held beliefs about EWS students’ academic readiness and motivation: “Children not willing to stay back after school, children not completing their work” (Participant 020) and “The child’s basic academic knowledge was very poor, so teaching needed to start from scratch” (Participant 016). The micro-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving the daily instructional challenges these academic gaps created: teachers had to modify lesson plans, provide additional scaffolding, and manage different learning paces within the same classroom spaces: “They are behind in math and english making it difficult for them to keep up with peers in class” (Participant 040). These academic disparities created visible achievement gaps within the classroom, positioning EWS students as struggling learners who could not keep pace with their more academically prepared peers.

6.2.2.8 Absenteeism

Irregular attendance (n = 11) emerged as a constraint spanning micro and macro levels. At the micro level, teachers noted classroom-focused challenges with disrupted instructional continuity: “their attendance during these extra classes is low so I can not help them during class” (Participant 070) and situations where “(The) student is not regular to my class which means I cannot help them even with buddy system (peer learning)” (Participant 006). The macro-level manifestation was more systemic, reflecting how broader socioeconomic constraints affected school attendance: “lack of resources (on their end to come to school) to stay back and come regularly,” (Participant 016). These attendance patterns created cyclical challenges where academic gaps widened due to missed instruction, making it increasingly difficult for EWS students to catch up with their peers.

6.2.2.9 Assessments and curriculum

Systemic curricular constraints (n = 9) manifested at meso and macro levels, creating misalignment between inclusive pedagogy and broader expectations. At the meso level, teachers faced institutional pacing pressures within their schools: “The hurry to move to next topic to be taught in a packed schedule bys the school was a challenge” (Participant 016). The macro-level manifestation was more systemic, involving inflexible national requirements that extended beyond individual schools: “same national assessment criteria for all students … inflexible curriculum” (Participant 112). These rigid structures limited teachers’ ability to adapt instruction and assessment to meet diverse student needs, constraining their agency to implement truly inclusive practices.

6.2.3 First-level qualitative analysis (supporters of teacher agency): initial codes

Despite multiple significant constraints, teachers identified multiple factors that enabled their agency in working with marginalised and EWS students in their classrooms. Similar to inhibitors, these supports manifested across ecological levels and provided both practical resources and emotional validation for inclusive practices. The initial coding of enabling factors generated 13 distinct codes reflecting supports across individual, micro, meso, and macro levels. The most frequently cited enablers were school management support (n = 63), student support provision (n = 63), peer support (n = 57), time allocation (n = 45), and pedagogical interventions (n = 44). These codes revealed both formal institutional support and informal collaborative relationships that enhanced teacher capacity for inclusive practice (see Appendix A: Table 4 for complete first-level analysis).

6.2.4 Second-level qualitative analysis (supporters of teacher agency): thematic grouping

Through thematic analysis, the initial codes were consolidated into seven overarching themes that capture how various supports enabled teacher agency across ecological levels. Each theme reflects the complex interplay between individual capacity, institutional structures, and systemic supports that facilitate inclusive practice. Table 8 presents the consolidated themes with frequencies, ecological levels, and illustrative examples.

Table 8

Table 8. Second level of analysis: supporters of teacher agency.

6.2.4.1 School management and principal support

Administrative support (n = 55) emerged as a critical meso-level enabler of teacher agency. The meso-level manifestation was more school-focused, encompassing both practical accommodations and emotional validation from school leadership. Teachers described receiving backing from “management [who] understood and helped me to keep the student engaged in class by giving necessary approvals” (Participant 024). The institutional dimension was evident in responses such as “my supervisor and my team of mental health department” (Participant 070) and “principal and supervisor supported me a lot” (Participant 066). This administrative support provided teachers in some cases with the institutional legitimacy and resources necessary to implement inclusive practices.

6.2.4.2 Peer support

In contrast to top-down administrative support, collegial collaboration (n = 54) functioned as a crucial meso-level enabler, creating horizontal support networks within schools. The meso-level manifestation was more collaborative-focused, involving lateral relationships among teaching staff rather than hierarchical institutional backing. Teachers consistently cited colleagues as sources of practical guidance and emotional support: “my colleagues and seniors” (Participant 017), “colleagues and the academic supervisor” (Participant 051), and simply “my teammates” (Participant 089). These peer relationships provided informal professional learning communities that helped teachers navigate the complexities of inclusive education through shared problem-solving and mutual validation, offering day-to-day support that complemented formal administrative approval.

6.2.4.3 Providing academic student support

Teachers’ ability to provide individualized academic support (n = 45) manifested across individual and micro levels as both an expression of agency and an enabler of further action. At the individual level, teachers expressed beliefs about their own capacity to adapt their teaching approaches for EWS students: “(me) adapting teaching style to meet the child’s needs, academic and personal guidance” (Participant 067) and their ability to develop specific strategies: “1) Remedials 2) I used Bilingual mode of teaching 3) I used pictures to enhance comprehension” (Participant 074). The micro-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving the actual implementation of concrete academic tools and resources: “worksheets and extra resources in the classroom” (Participant 030) and “worksheet and workbooks have been helpful” (Participant 055). This internal and classroom based factor enabled teachers to see tangible progress with EWS students, strengthening their sense of pedagogical agency and motivation to continue inclusive practices.

6.2.4.4 Providing non-academic student support

Adjacent to academic support, relational and emotional support (n = 39) emerged as a significant enabler manifesting at individual and micro levels, focusing on the social and emotional dimensions of inclusive practice. At the individual level, similar to academic support, teachers emphasized their own capacity about building meaningful relationships: “I spent time building up rapport with the child, understanding his/her need, planning and implementing accordingly” (Participant 030) and their commitment to providing emotional care: “empathy, understanding, more time to them” (Participant 002). The micro-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving peer support systems where teachers relied on other students to help EWS students: students and friends heaped out with support (Participant 004) friends were nice to them (Participant 082). This relational and non academic support provided by teachers and students/peers was seen as a key way of helping EWS students in classrooms.

6.2.4.5 Spending/taking out more time

Unsurprisingly on the flip side of time constraints being the most cited inhibitor, teachers also identified their ability to allocate additional time (n = 43) as a key enabler manifesting at individual and meso levels. This support specifically referred to teachers allocating extra time. The reasons this is separated from academic and non academic support, as these instances referenced time extremely generally without detailing any specific actions. For example, at the individual level, teachers emphasized their personal commitment to investing additional time: “I made more time” (Participant 074) and “I took out enough time, to separately talking to them” (Participant 061). The meso-level manifestation was more classroom-focused, involving structured time arrangements provided by the school: “the school providing time for extra classes and remedials” (Participant 096). This time allocation enabled teachers to address EWS student needs beyond regular classroom constraints, though the specific use of this time varied.

6.2.4.6 Working with parents

Similarly, in contrast to the parental challenges identified in the inhibitors section, positive family engagement (n = 26) served as an enabler manifesting across individual and macro levels. At the individual level, teachers displayed asset-based and supportive beliefs about parents, emphasizing mutual trust and collaboration: “support from parents who want to help too” (Participant 093) and “discussion with parents, they really want to help and (giving them) some suggestions to them to help the child” (Participant 017). The macro-level manifestation was more systemic, involving broader communication efforts that extended beyond school boundaries and cognizance of larger formal structures: “I regularly communicate with students’ parents outside school and even when (school is) done to better understand and address their and their students’ needs” (Participant 092). This positive parental engagement strengthened teachers’ agency by providing external validation and support that empowered them to take greater initiative in inclusive practices.

7 Discussion

The findings presented above reveal complex patterns in how teacher agency operates within contexts where Indian private schools serve socioeconomically diverse student populations through Section 12(1)(c) implementation. This study sought to understand what shapes teacher agency in the context of implementing RTE Act Section 12(1)(c) policy in private schools in India, with particular attention to how teachers’ attributes and demographics impact their agency when working with marginalized students, and what factors teachers themselves identify as supporting or constraining their agency in these settings. Drawing on quantitative analyses that identified significant predictors of agency and extensive qualitative findings that illuminated teachers’ experiences, this discussion interprets these results through the study’s ecological framework. Five themes emerge that address these research questions: limited influence of individual characteristics; institutional structures as malleable levers; perceptual barriers across ecological layers; locus of agency attribution patterns; and embedded constraints. Together, these demonstrate that agency emerges through dynamic ecological interactions rather than isolated factors.

7.1 Rethinking the role of teacher background in shaping agency

The first sub-research question examined whether teachers’ demographic and professional characteristics influence their perceived ability to act in support of students from economically weaker sections in Indian private schools implementing RTE inclusion mandates. This question addresses a fundamental assumption in Indian education policy, where holistic inclusive education (including socioeconomic diversity) is frequently operationalized through recruitment-driven solutions that equate qualifications with quality. The findings suggest that most demographic variables, including gender, age, and years of teaching experience, did not reach statistical significance in relation to teachers’ perceived agency. This indicates that agency in inclusive education contexts may operate differently than policy frameworks typically assume, suggesting that teachers’ CV characteristics may not predict their effectiveness in supporting marginalized students in the ways that recruitment-focused policies anticipate. Among the few variables that achieved statistical significance, postgraduate degree status was consistently associated with lower perceived agency when supporting EWS students, contradicting assumptions about educational attainment and professional confidence. While this finding requires further investigation, it may reflect that advanced qualifications attune teachers to the complexities and systemic challenges of inclusive education, leading to a more realistic awareness of institutional constraints, though this interpretation warrants deeper examination through future research. Secondary teaching also showed modest positive associations with agency, likely reflecting experience and seniority, though this finding offers limited policy relevance given its relatively fixed nature.

These results align with the study’s ecological framework, which adapts Pantić’s (2015) model of teacher agency for social justice and Peña‐Pincheira and De Costa (2021) ecological model to examine agency across individual, micro, meso, and macro layers. The limited influence of individual-level demographic characteristics supports this theoretical approach by demonstrating that agency to support EWS students emerges through dynamic interactions across ecological layers rather than from static personal attributes. This finding extends Biesta and Tedder's (2006), Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) argument that agency emerges from the interplay between individual dispositions, available resources, and contextual factors, while aligning with research showing that teachers’ effectiveness in inclusive contexts depends more on institutional support and professional development than on background characteristics (Chaaban et al., 2021; Pantić, 2015; Sharma et al., 2018; Li and Ruppar, 2021). This finding is consistent with research from South Africa, where Materechera (2020) found that teachers’ resistance to inclusive education persisted despite formal qualifications, indicating that credentials alone do not guarantee effective inclusive practice. The findings suggest that demographic credentials appear insufficient to explain variation in teacher agency, indicating that recruitment-focused approaches alone may not address the complexities of inclusive education implementation.

The counterintuitive finding regarding postgraduate qualifications being associated with lower perceived agency requires cautious interpretation. Several explanations may account for this inverse relationship: teachers with advanced degrees might possess greater theoretical knowledge that heightens awareness of systemic barriers, similar to findings by Biesta et al. (2015) who noted that increased professional understanding can lead to more realistic assessments of constraints. Additionally, postgraduate training often emphasizes critical reflection, potentially making these teachers more aware of gaps between educational ideals and practice realities (Priestley et al., 2015). However, given this study’s limited qualitative component, these remain speculative explanations requiring empirical validation. The finding may alternatively reflect measurement artifacts or contextual factors specific to this sample. Future research with expanded qualitative inquiry would be essential to understand whether advanced qualifications genuinely influence agency perceptions or if other unmeasured variables explain this relationship.

7.2 Movable structures: institutional levers for teacher agency

Building on the first theme, which showed that agency is not primarily a function of individual background, the focus shifts to the relational and institutional settings in which teachers work. In private schools tasked with implementing the RTE’s inclusion mandates, the presence or absence of structural support appears to matter significantly for how agency is experienced and enacted. The findings point clearly to the importance of school leadership and peer culture, echoing previous research (Flores, 2004; Pantić, 2015; Jenkins, 2020). In the quantitative models, principal support emerged as one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of teacher agency. This pattern was reinforced in qualitative accounts, where teachers identified school management as a key source of support. Principals were described as providing emotional encouragement, legitimizing inclusive practices, and giving teachers the sense of permission needed to adapt flexibly to student needs. Teacher efficacy and agency are deeply influenced by transformational school leadership, especially when principals acknowledge teachers as equal and valued contributors (Polatcan et al., 2021; Scallon et al., 2021). Similarly, peer support emerged as a critical enabling factor, with teachers emphasizing informal collaboration such as sharing strategies or venting frustrations as critical to sustaining their professional agency (Pantić, 2021). Teachers’ agentic actions do not exist in isolation; they are shaped by a cascade of constraints experienced by other actors in the school ecosystem. What reaches the classroom is often a trickle-down of structural limitations, making inclusion a shared, but unevenly borne, responsibility.

These dynamics offer a potential entry point for strengthening inclusive practice, aligning with literature that situates agency within broader professional and organizational ecologies. Unlike demographic characteristics, leadership culture and peer relationships are not fixed traits; they can be shaped over time through sustained, school-level efforts. Studies from Canada, the UK, Sub-Saharan Africa, and China have highlighted the enabling role of school leadership in promoting inclusive practice (Lyons et al., 2016; Pantić, 2021; Themane and Thobejane, 2018; Wang et al., 2017; Li and Ruppar, 2021). These dynamics have received far less attention in the Indian context, particularly in private schools serving diverse student populations under the Right to Education Act. The fact that similar patterns are visible suggests that institutional conditions shaping agency may not be specific to national systems, but instead reflect more general features of how inclusion is taken up and sustained within schools. Conversely, if agency is produced within institutions, it can also be eroded by them. A teacher who is motivated, prepared, and committed to inclusion may still feel constrained in a setting where leadership is indifferent, or where professional cultures are fragmented or competitive.

Nevertheless, institutional change is neither quick nor easily implemented (Miller, 2005). While the findings point to promising areas of influence, the path to improving institutional conditions is complex. In many Indian schools, systemic challenges such as leadership vacancies, inadequate training, and limited autonomy undermine the scaffolding needed for inclusive pedagogies (Srinivasavarathan and Rajendran, 2023). Cultivating inclusive leadership, fostering peer support, and embedding shared norms require long-term investments in professional development, mentoring, and accountability structures (Fair, 2023; Kamalı-Arslantaş and Yalçın, 2023; Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2015). This is not a challenge that can be resolved through toolkits or one-off training sessions. It demands sustained attention to the conditions in which teachers work and the relationships that shape what they believe is possible. The analysis directly responds to the second sub-research question by identifying specific institutional and relational factors, particularly leadership and peer culture, that either support or constrain teachers’ capacity to enact inclusive practice. These factors represent meaningful levers for intervention precisely because they are shaped through policy, management practice, and school culture, requiring that inclusion be approached not as an individual obligation, but as an institutional commitment.

7.3 Inside and out

While the first two patterns examined individual characteristics and institutional structures, the analysis reveals a third dimension that operates at the intersection of these levels, reflecting the complexity captured in the “inside and out” dynamic. This pattern addresses the second sub-research question by revealing how teachers’ perceptions of students and families emerge as factors that both support and constrain their agency when working with EWS students. These constraints emerge not just from institutional conditions alone but from the complex interplay between teachers’ internal beliefs (inside) and external realities of students, families, and societal challenges (outside).

One prominent issue involves how teachers make sense of parental engagement. Many described families as absent, indifferent, or lacking the capacity to support learning at home. While these perceptions may reflect real logistical or socioeconomic barriers that genuinely limit family engagement (Cashman et al., 2021), they also reveal how agency is shaped by relational distance. When teachers encounter parents who are unable to participate due to work demands, lack of educational background, or other structural constraints, the possibilities for shared responsibility are understandably narrow. Yet the analysis also reveals that positive parental engagement emerged as a significant supporter of teacher agency, suggesting that school-home partnerships are not fixed but can be built over time through trust, communication, and mutual recognition. The frequency of references to working with parents in both the inhibitors and supporters suggests this relationship functions as a critical factor that spans individual beliefs about family engagement and broader macro-level realities about socioeconomic differences.

Similarly, at the micro level of classroom interactions, teachers frequently referenced behavioural issues, low academic performance, or communication barriers among EWS students. These challenges may indeed reflect real differences in academic preparation and social–emotional support that students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often experience. However, teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about EWS students also shape how these challenges are interpreted and addressed. These challenges can be framed as characteristics of the student rather than consequences of broader systemic inequality (Zengilowski et al., 2023). When students are perceived as lacking ability or motivation, teachers may lower expectations or reduce their sense of professional efficacy in supporting these learners (Yeo et al., 2008). This pattern suggests a complex dynamic where real student needs intersect with teachers’ perceptual frameworks and beliefs about EWS student capacity, which may either support or constrain teacher agency. These micro-level interactions become particularly significant because they occur within the immediate context of teaching and learning, where teachers’ daily decisions directly shape student experiences and outcomes.

These perceptions of both parental engagement and student abilities represent a complex intersection of objective realities and subjective interpretations that directly address what factors teachers identify as supporting or constraining their agency. Teachers’ observations may accurately reflect genuine challenges while also being shaped by individual-level beliefs about inclusion, equity, and student potential. This aligns with research on teacher expectations, which demonstrates how educators’ beliefs about student capacity and family support influence their instructional decisions and sense of efficacy (Jussim and Harber, 2005; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015). This intersection of external realities and internal interpretive frameworks appears across Global South contexts, where World Bank research with 16,000 teachers from eight countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia revealed that teachers’ beliefs about whether disadvantaged students can be helped often reflect both genuine structural challenges and deficit-based interpretations of student potential (Gupta and Sampat, 2021). The progression from external observations to internal belief systems reveals how agency operates across multiple ecological levels simultaneously (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015; Biesta et al., 2015; Pantić, 2015). Hence, understanding what shapes teacher agency in the context of RTE implementation requires attention not only to structural supports and institutional conditions but also to how teachers’ beliefs about their students and the policy.

7.4 The locus of agency: internal enablers, external barriers

A fourth pattern emerges from examining response distributions across inhibitors and supporters, revealing an asymmetric attribution pattern with important implications for understanding teacher agency in RTE implementation contexts. This pattern addresses both sub-research questions by revealing not only what factors teachers identify as supporting or constraining their agency, but also how teachers locate the sources of these factors across ecological levels. The analysis reveals that teachers tend to externalize constraints while internalizing agency enablers, creating an attribution pattern that both reflects and shapes their professional experiences.

When describing inhibitors to their agency, teachers predominantly identified factors operating outside their direct control or influence. The most frequently cited constraints included time limitations, institutional resource gaps, student behavioral challenges, parental engagement issues, and systemic curricular demands. These factors were consistently located at micro, meso, and macro levels, with relatively fewer references to individual-level limitations such as their own training, beliefs, or professional capacity. This external attribution pattern reflects the genuine structural constraints teachers face, as documented throughout the analysis (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015). Conversely, when identifying supporters of their agency, teachers showed a marked shift toward internal attribution, emphasizing their own professional actions, adaptive capacity, and individual efforts. The qualitative findings revealed that teachers frequently cited their ability to provide academic support, allocate additional time, build relationships with students, and maintain personal motivation as key enablers. While institutional support from principals and peers remained important, the range of individually-attributed supports was notably broader than individually-attributed constraints. This pattern may reflect the broader educational discourse that consistently positions teachers as primarily responsible for student outcomes, potentially leading teachers to internalize expectations that they should solve complex systemic challenges through individual effort. This asymmetric attribution pattern has significant implications for understanding how teacher agency operates within the ecological framework. While teachers accurately identify genuine external constraints, the tendency to locate agency primarily within individual effort may obscure the relational and systemic supports that actually enable their effectiveness (Pantić, 2015; Li and Ruppar, 2021). The pattern suggests that internalization of responsibility maybe due to educational systems having historically shifted accountability for systemic inequities onto individual teachers, a tendency that extends to how teachers see themselves as independently the most relevant factor to solve issues in their classrooms. Hence, the analysis suggests that sustainable approaches to strengthening teacher agency should acknowledge both the real external constraints teachers face and their individual beliefs. Professional development that begins with teachers’ identified beliefs can create a foundation for examining how external barriers might be addressed through collaborative effort, avoiding blame while building on their commitment to supporting EWS students.

7.5 Embedded constraints

Beyond these major patterns, several additional factors emerged from the second sub-research question that, while distinct in their characteristics, reveal important dimensions of how teachers experience and respond to challenges in serving socioeconomically diverse student populations. Echoing the work by (Hutchinson et al., 2015; Mu et al., 2015; Lyons et al., 2016) teachers frequently described investing significant time and effort in providing academic support, including differentiated instruction (Miller et al., 2020), remedial sessions, bilingual teaching approaches, and one-on-one assistance. They emphasized the importance of non-academic support (Pantić et al., 2022), such as building rapport with students, providing emotional encouragement, creating inclusive classroom environments, and offering moral support to boost confidence. However, teachers also reported substantial constraints that limited their capacity to provide such support, particularly time limitations (Min et al., 2022) within structured school schedules, limited availability of learning resources and materials, and student absenteeism that disrupted continuity of both academic progress and relationship-building efforts.

These patterns reflect alignment with findings commonly documented in international research on teacher agency and inclusive education contexts, where teachers across different settings consistently identify time, resources, and student engagement as central factors shaping their work with diverse learners (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011; Ainscow et al., 2012; Sharma et al., 2018). The similarity of these challenges across cultural and policy contexts suggests that while some factors affecting teacher agency may be context-specific, most fundamental constraints that teachers face when serving diverse student populations appear to be universal rather than particular to specific educational systems. As highlighted in the literature review, teachers across diverse global contexts face similar tensions between inclusive aspirations and practical constraints, indicating that these embedded factors represent consistent challenges in teacher agency research (Li and Ruppar, 2021; Chaaban et al., 2021).

However, unlike the factors discussed in previous patterns, these elements represent deeply embedded structural realities that are exceptionally difficult to address through targeted interventions. While it would be ideal for teachers to have access to more funding, expanded resources, and importantly, more instructional time, achieving these changes requires macro-level policy decisions and socioeconomic transformations that are highly complex and difficult to implement (Wang, 2022). Increasing instructional time involves restructuring educational systems, expanding resource availability requires significant financial investment, and reducing absenteeism depends on addressing broader socioeconomic inequalities that extend far beyond the scope of individual schools or teacher preparation programs. While teachers’ commitment to providing both academic and non-academic support demonstrates their agency within existing constraints, the embedded nature of these structural barriers means that some variables affecting teacher agency are inherently more difficult to modify than others, requiring long-term systemic change rather than immediate interventions to address fundamental constraints to equitable practice.

8 Conclusion and limitations

This study has contributed to addressing a critical gap in understanding teacher agency within India’s inclusive education landscape, particularly in the context of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, where over 22 million EWS students have been integrated into private schools with minimal empirical research on teachers’ experiences (Indus Action, 2023). The mixed-methods examination of how teacher agency is experienced and shaped in inclusive education policy contexts, and what factors support or constrain this agency, has revealed that demographic factors matter far less than contextual and institutional conditions in determining teachers’ capacity to act purposefully with marginalized students, challenging prevailing recruitment-focused policy approaches (Priestley et al., 2015; Pantić, 2021).

The ecological framework has demonstrated that problems and, by extension, solutions are inherently intertwined across multiple layers rather than residing in individual teacher characteristics, extending previous research on the contextual nature of agency (Biesta and Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015; Biesta et al., 2015; Pantić, 2015). While the Indian context presents unique dimensions, particularly around parental involvement patterns and the role of academic credentials, the findings have also revealed similarities to global patterns of inclusive education challenges documented across diverse settings (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011; Ainscow et al., 2012). This suggests that the findings extend beyond the Indian context and may offer insights for understanding teacher agency in diverse educational settings globally. In directly addressing the research questions, this study has outlined multiple factors that influence teacher agency: some positive, others constraining; some malleable, others embedded; some easily addressed, others requiring systemic transformation.

For these two schools, and to the extent findings can be generalized, the implications for both research questions point toward moving away from recruitment strategies focused on hiring the “right teacher” and instead emphasizing top-down school culture changes alongside principal leadership development (Ainscow and Sandill, 2010). Rather than relying on extensive professional development sessions, the focus should shift toward facilitating meaningful dialogues between parents and teachers while building institutional structures that support inclusive practice, addressing the factors teachers identify as constraining their agency. Beyond these specific findings, this study has provided a framework for schools to systematically assess how to support teachers by first understanding what constraints they face.

8.1 Limitations and future directions

This study acknowledges multiple limitations that provide opportunities for future research development. Importantly, this study does not enter this field with definitiveness but rather with a call for continued investigation to understand the complexities of teacher agency in inclusive education. The results are encouraging in demonstrating the need for this type of research, but substantial work remains. First, while the survey instrument was adapted and contextualized for the Indian private school setting, constraints of time and access prevented complete validation and reliability testing. Future research will need to establish more robust psychometric properties of the modified teacher agency scale to ensure its continued applicability across diverse educational contexts. Methodologically, while the tool development provides a foundation for future investigations, the qualitative component requires expansion. Although 94% of teachers responded to open-ended questions with substantive responses, most answers remained relatively brief. Future studies would benefit from more expansive qualitative approaches, including in-depth interviews or focus groups, to capture the nuanced complexities of teacher agency in inclusive education contexts.

A critical limitation is the study’s restriction to two mid-fee private schools in Delhi’s urban context, significantly constraining generalizability. India’s vast regional diversity in educational infrastructure, socioeconomic conditions, and policy implementation means findings may not extend to government schools, rural areas, different states, or varying fee structures. The complex interplay between state-level policies, local economic conditions, and cultural practices across India’s diverse regions could substantially influence teacher agency patterns. Future research must extend beyond Delhi’s private school context to include government schools, rural settings, and different regional contexts to understand how geographic and institutional diversity influences teacher agency. Additionally, a critical gap in this study is the absence of student voice. Future investigations examining both teacher and student perspectives on agency and inclusion within the same schools would provide essential insights into how different stakeholders experience and interpret inclusive education practices, offering a more complete understanding of how agency operates within the complex dynamics of inclusive classrooms. Ultimately, understanding and supporting teacher agency in diverse educational contexts remains essential for creating truly equitable educational experiences for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Beyond research extensions, these findings have immediate implications for stakeholder action. Teacher preparation institutions should restructure inclusive education training to emphasize contextual problem-solving through sustained practicum experiences in diverse classrooms with structured reflection on teacher expectations rather than theoretical frameworks alone. School leaders require targeted preparation in fostering inclusive cultures through collaborative inquiry models, systematic family engagement approaches, and distributed leadership that empowers teacher agency. Policymakers must move beyond compliance-focused RTE implementation to address systemic barriers by revising teacher evaluation systems to recognize inclusive practice, providing adequate funding for differentiated resources, and establishing regional support networks connecting schools with similar inclusion mandates. While implementing these interventions simultaneously across teacher training, leadership development, and institutional policy presents significant challenges, creating such ecological conditions remains essential for transforming inclusive education from policy mandate to lived reality for the millions of marginalized students these systems aim to serve.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Monk Prayogshala Institutional Review Board (IRB). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

TT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to the teachers who generously shared their time, insights, and experiences, which formed the foundation of this research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author declares that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. I acknowledge the use of generative AI tools to assist with proofreading and refining the clarity of the written content.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1678998/full#supplementary-material

Footnotes

1. ^Different states in India have the right to define what disadvantage groups mean. Some states, including Delhi have meant that to include students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

2. ^To note, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019 introduced a 10 percent EWS quota in public education and employment, explicitly excluding SC, ST, and OBC groups (The Gazette of India, 2019). Implemented in late 2022 and reflected in admissions from 2023, this redefined EWS eligibility. However, since Section 12(1)(c) applies only at entry-level, students from SC, ST, and OBC backgrounds admitted earlier remain enrolled. Consequently, in 2023–2024, teachers continued working with a socially and economically diverse EWS cohort despite the amended definition.

3. ^Agency_11: My principal and staff create a supportive environment for me to teach the way I think is best to have a more equitable classroom.

References

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., and West, M. (2012). Making schools effective for all: rethinking the task. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 32, 197–213. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2012.669648

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ainscow, M., and Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organizational cultures and leadership. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 14, 401–416. doi: 10.1080/13603110802504903

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Apat, B., and Swain, P. K. (2023). Calibrating the lives and lived experiences of teachers in India: a plea for research. Res. Educ. Policy Manag. 5, 34–51. doi: 10.46303/repam.2023.8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biesta, G. J. J., and Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement. Working Paper 5. Exeter: The Learning Lives Project.

Google Scholar

Biesta, G. J. J., and Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course: towards an ecological perspective. Stud. Educ. Adults 39, 132–149. doi: 10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., and Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21, 624–640. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cashman, L., Sabates, R., and Alcott, B. (2021). Parental involvement in low-achieving children's learning: the role of household wealth in rural India. Int. J. Educ. Res. 105:101701. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101701

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaaban, Y., Arar, K., Sawalhi, R., Alhouti, I., and Zohri, A. (2021). Exploring teachers professional agency within shifting educational contexts: a comparative study of Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, and Morocco. Teach. Teach. Educ. 106:103451. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103451

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Choudhury, P. K., Joshi, R., and Kumar, A. (2023). Regional and socioeconomic inequalities in access to pre-primary education in India: evidence from a recent household survey. Int. J. Child Care Educ. Policy 17:13. doi: 10.1186/s40723-023-00117-4,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cong-Lem, N. (2021). Teacher agency: A systematic review of international literature. Issues in Educational Research 31, 718–738. doi: 10.3316/informit.190851857034060

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2023). Revisiting mixed methods research designs twenty years later. Hand. Mixed Methods Res. Designs 1, 21–36.

Google Scholar

Dey, N., and Beck, B. (2011). The right of children to free and compulsory education act 2009: teachers perception. J. Educ. Res. 2, 83–90.

Google Scholar

Dongre, A., Sarin, A., and Singhal, K. (2022). Barriers in translating mandate for inclusion in practice: evidence from India's right to education act. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 28, 2921–2939. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2135781

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M., and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? Am. J. Sociol. 103, 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., and Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educ. Res. Rev. 10, 45–65. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fair, N. (2023). It will be a ripple effect: coaches cultivating teacher leadership for inclusive education through professional learning communities. J. Interdiscip. Teacher Leadership 7, 134–160. doi: 10.46767/kfp.2016-0049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flores, M. A. (2004). The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in the workplace. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 7, 297–318. doi: 10.1080/1360312042000226918

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Florian, L., and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British educational research journal, 37, 813–828.

Google Scholar

Florian, L., and Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating inclusive practice. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 28, 119–135. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2013.778111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gale, L., Bhushan, P., Eidnani, S., Graham, L., Harrison, M., McKay-Brown, L., et al. (2022). Overcoming barriers to inclusion in education in India: a scoping review. Soc. Sci. Hum. Open 5:100237. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100237

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc. Probl. 12, 436–445. doi: 10.2307/798843

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., and Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 11, 255–274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, N., and Sampat, S. (2021). How teacher expectations empower student learning. Brookings Institution. Available online at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2021/07/29/how-teacher-expectations-empower-student-learning/ (Accessed April 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

Hull, M. M., and Uematsu, H. (2020). A survey to measure perceived agency of teachers. Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 12, 49–59. doi: 10.51724/ijpce.v12i3.82

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hutchinson, N., Minnes, P., Burbidge, J., Dods, J., Pyle, A., and Dalton, C. J. (2015). Perspectives of Canadian teacher candidates on inclusion of children with developmental disabilities: a mixed-methods study. Except. Educ. Int. 25, 42–64. doi: 10.5206/eei.v25i2.7724

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Indus Action. (2019). RTE retention and learning survey 2019. Available online at: https://www.indusaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RTE-RetentionLearning-Survey_2019_Final-Version.pdf

Google Scholar

Indus Action. (2023). SNL retention survey report. Available online at: https://www.indusaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SNL-Retention-Survey-report-draft-5_compressed.pdf

Google Scholar

Islam, M. N., and Mondal, A. (2023). Implementation of section 12 (1)(c) of the right to education act, 2009 in private unaided schools in India: a reality check. J. Indian Educ. 49, 168–181.

Google Scholar

Jenkins, G. (2020). Teacher agency: the effects of active and passive responses to curriculum change. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 167–181. doi: 10.1007/s13384-019-00334-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jussim, L., and Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9, 131–155. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kamalı-Arslantaş, T., and Yalçın, G. (2023). Collaborative mentoring as a way of meeting teachers’ inclusive teaching practices needs: investigating learning outcomes. Acta Educ. Generalis 13, 10–29. doi: 10.2478/atd-2023-0011,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaur, R., and Salian, R. H. (2024). Teacher perspectives and barriers in implementing inclusive education for Indian children with special needs: a pilot study. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 52, 4–17. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12558

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015). Multiple identities, negotiations, and agency across time and space: a narrative inquiry of a foreign language teacher candidate. Crit. Inq. Lang. Stud. 12, 137–160. doi: 10.1080/15427587.2015.1032076

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, D., and Sharma, S. (2011). A study of parents and teachers awareness towards the right to education act 2009. J. Educ. Res. 2, 129–132.

Google Scholar

Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency, and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teach. Teach. Educ. 21, 899–916. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., and Lepp, L. (2020). Teacher agency following the ecological model: how it is achieved and how it could be strengthened by different types of reflection. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 68, 295–310. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2019.1672855

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, L., and Ruppar, A. (2021). Conceptualizing Teacher Agency for Inclusive Education: A Systematic and International Review. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 44, 42–59. doi: 10.1177/0888406420926976

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lyons, W. E., Thompson, S. A., and Timmons, V. (2016). “We are inclusive. We are a team. Lets just do it”: commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four inclusive schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 20, 889–907. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1122841

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandal, S., and Barman, P. (2014). Attitude of headmasters and teachers towards the right to education act (2009), India. IOSR J. Human. Soc. Sci. 19, 1–9. doi: 10.9790/0837-191170109

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Materechera, E. K. (2020). Inclusive education: why it poses a dilemma to some teachers. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 24, 771–786. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1492640

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehta, A. C. (2021). Analysis based on UDISE+ data [published on his website Education for All in India.]. Available online at: https://educationforallinindia.com

Google Scholar

Miller, L. (2005). Redefining teachers, reculturing schools: Connections, commitments and challenges. In Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change. Ed. A. Hargreaves. (pp. 249-263). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Google Scholar

Miller, A. L., Wilt, C. L., Allcock, H. C., Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., and Ruppar, A. L. (2020). Teacher agency for inclusive education: an international scoping review. Int. J. Incl. Educ., 26, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1789766

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Min, M., Lee, H., Hodge, C., and Croxton, N. (2022). What empowers teachers to become social justice-oriented change agents? Influential factors on teacher agency toward culturally responsive teaching. Educ. Urban Soc. 54, 560–584. doi: 10.1177/00131245211027511

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mondal, M. A. (2015). A study on the awareness about the RTE act, 2009 among teachers of elementary schools in West Bengal. GHG J. Sixth Thought 2, 1–4.

Google Scholar

Mu, G. M., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Feng, Y., Deng, M., and Liang, S. (2015). An enquiry into the professional competence of inclusive education teachers in Beijing: attitudes, knowledge, skills, and agency. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 62, 571–589. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2015.1077934

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Muralidharan, K. (2019). “Reforming the Indian school education system” in What the economy needs now. eds. A. Banerjee, G. Gopinath, R. Rajan, and M. Sharma (New Delhi: Juggernaut).

Google Scholar

Naraian, S. (2014). Agency in Real Time? Situating Teachers’ Efforts toward Inclusion in the Context of Local and Enduring Struggles. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 116, 1–38. doi: 10.1177/016146811411600601

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teach. Teach. 21, 759–778. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pantić, N. (2021). Teachers reflection on their agency for change (TRAC): a tool for teacher development and professional inquiry. Teach. Dev. 25, 136–154. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2020.1868561

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pantić, N., and Carr, D. (2017). Educating teachers as agents of social justice: a virtue ethical perspective, Teacher Education for the Changing Demographics of Schooling: Issues for Research and Practice, pp.55–65.

Google Scholar

Pantić, N., and Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Educ. Inq. 6:27311. doi: 10.3402/edui.v6.27311

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pantić, N., Galey, S., Florian, L., Joksimović, S., Viry, G., Gašević, D., et al. (2022). Making sense of teacher agency for change with social and epistemic network analysis. J. Educ. Chang., 23, 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s10833-021-09413-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peña‐Pincheira, R. S., and De Costa, P. I. (2021). Language teacher agency for educational justice–oriented work: An ecological model. Tesol Journal 12:e561. doi: 10.1002/tesj.561

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Polatcan, M., Arslan, P., and Balci, A. (2021). The mediating effect of teacher self-efficacy regarding the relationship between transformational school leadership and teacher agency. Educ. Stud. 49, 823–841. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1894549

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J., Philippou, S., and Robinson, S. (2015). The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency. The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. 187–201.

Google Scholar

PTI (2023). Over 2.27 crore EWS students enrolled in private schools in the last five years, highest in MP: MOE, the economic times, 2 august. Available online at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/over-2-27-crore-ews-students-enrolled-in-private-schools-in-last-five-years-highest-in-mp-moe/articleshow/102350044.cms?from=mdr (Accessed July 2, 2025).

Google Scholar

Rao, N. V., and Suman, G. (2015). Development of girl child in India through education. Editorial Board 4:68.

Google Scholar

Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., and Rosenthal, R. (2015). A teacher expectation intervention: modelling the practices of high-expectation teachers. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 40, 72–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sayed, Y., and Ahmed, R. (2015). Education quality, and teaching and learning in the post-2015 education agenda. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 40, 330–338. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scallon, A. M., Bristol, T. J., and Esboldt, J. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices that influence teacher turnover. J. Res. Lead. Educ. 18, 80–102. doi: 10.1177/19427751211034214

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, U., Aiello, P., Pace, E. M., Round, P., and Subban, P. (2018). In-service teachers attitudes, concerns, efficacy and intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms: an international comparison of Australian and Italian teachers. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 33, 437–446. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1361139

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Srinivasavarathan, S., and Rajendran, P. (2023). Principals in Indian inclusive schools: bridge over troubled waters. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 12, 249–261. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-07-2023-0086

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sucharita, V., and Sujatha, K. (2018). Engaging with social inclusion through RTE: a case study of two private schools in Delhi, India. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 23, 313–327. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1430179

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Szczesiul, S. A., and Huizenga, J. L. (2015). Bridging structure and agency: exploring the role of teacher leadership in teacher collaboration. J. Sch. Leadersh. 25, 368–410. doi: 10.1177/105268461502500207

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Teng, F. (2019). Understanding teacher autonomy, teacher agency, and teacher identity: voices from four EFL student teachers. Engl. Teach. Learn. 43, 189–212. doi: 10.1007/s42321-019-00024-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The Gazette of India (2019). The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, No. 3. Ministry of Law and Justice. Available online at: https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/195175.pdf

Google Scholar

Themane, M., and Thobejane, H. R. (2018). Teachers as change agents in making teaching inclusive in some selected rural schools of Limpopo Province, South Africa: implications for teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 23, 369–383. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1434690

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., and Rust, F. O. C. (2015). Teachers professional agency in contradictory times. Teach. Teach. 21, 615–623. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044334

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Usmani, U., (2025). Education policy and social equity analyzing: The right to education act among marginalized communities.

Google Scholar

Wang, L. (2022). English language teacher agency in response to curriculum reform in China: an ecological approach. Front. Psychol. 13:935038. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935038,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Mu, G. M., and Zhang, L. (2017). Chinese inclusive education teachers’ agency within temporal-relational contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 115–123. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., and Quek, C. L. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of teaching low-achieving students. Curr. Psychol. 27, 192–204. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zengilowski, A., Maqbool, I., Deka, S. P., Niebaum, J. C., Placido, D., Katz, B., et al. (2023). Overemphasizing individual differences and overlooking systemic factors reinforces educational inequality. Sci. Learn. 8:13. doi: 10.1038/s41539-023-00164-z,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar