A critical analysis of stakeholders in education reveals that inclusion operates within a complex and often contradictory policy-practice landscape shaped by power relations, institutional constraints, and competing interpretations of responsibility. Although inclusive education is frequently framed as a collaborative effort among teachers, administrators, families, policymakers, and support professionals, these stakeholders do not operate on equal footing. Instead, their interactions are embedded within hierarchical systems where policy expectations are often detached from classroom realities, producing what has been widely identified as an implementation gap in inclusive education reform (Hollings, 2021). This gap is not merely a technical issue but reflects deeper structural tensions in education systems, including underfunding, rigid curricular structures, and policy discourses that emphasize accountability while overlooking material conditions necessary for inclusion (Ratheeswari & Nallathambi, 2023). From this perspective, inclusion can sometimes function as a normative policy ideal that legitimizes equity narratives while simultaneously shifting the burden of implementation onto educators without adequate systemic support.

Furthermore, stakeholder relationships are shaped by asymmetrical power dynamics and differing institutional logics. Policymakers often frame inclusion through rights-based or legal mandates, whereas teachers experience it through the constraints of classroom management, workload, and limited resources. Families, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, may face additional barriers in navigating complex educational systems, which can restrict meaningful participation in decision-making processes. Empirical literature highlights that barriers to inclusion are multidimensional, spanning societal, cultural, developmental, and governmental domains, all of which interact to produce persistent inequities in educational access and outcomes (Hollings, 2021; Saani, 2024). These intersecting barriers suggest that challenges in inclusive education are systemic rather than isolated, requiring coordinated action across policy, institutional practice, and community engagement.

From a critical pedagogical standpoint, these dynamics indicate that inclusion is not a neutral or purely technical endeavor but a politically situated process shaped by competing interests and institutional priorities. Teachers, often positioned at the frontline of implementation, are expected to translate abstract policy ideals into practice, yet their capacity to do so is constrained by structural limitations and uneven resource distribution. Consequently, inclusive education becomes an ongoing negotiation between policy intent and contextual reality rather than a fully realized framework. Reflecting on these complexities, I recognize that meaningful inclusion requires not only pedagogical competence but also critical awareness of systemic inequities and the willingness to engage in advocacy-oriented professional practice. This understanding reframes education as a dynamic field in which stakeholders are both constrained by and capable of transforming the systems in which they operate.