Bridging the Policy–Practice Divide: Faculty Perspectives and Institutional Preparedness for Transition Planning of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Indian Higher Education

Abstract

Introduction

Inclusive higher education in India has entered a decisive stage with the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) and the National Education Policy (2020). Both frameworks emphasise accessibility, equity, and institutional accountability for learners with disabilities, including those with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Yet, despite policy progress, the translation of these mandates into daily practice in universities remains partial and inconsistent. The transition from school to higher education is especially fragile for students with SLD, whose support needs change as instructional formats, assessment styles, and social expectations shift.
Internationally, transition planning is regarded as a structured, student-centred process connecting secondary schooling with post-school education, employment, and community participation (Test et al., 2009; Morningstar et al., 2010). Effective transition services rely on inter-agency coordination, documentation of learning histories, and staff trained in evidence-based strategies (Morningstar et al., 2018; Trainor et al., 2016). Within India, however, transition planning is still emerging as a concept. Empirical studies of teacher preparedness for inclusive education reveal positive attitudes but limited knowledge of disability-specific practices and scarce institutional support (Das, Kuyini, & Desai, 2013; Sharma & Deppeler, 2005). At the higher-education level, inclusion is often framed through policy compliance rather than sustained pedagogical reform (Tilak, 2015).
These realities create what many scholars describe as a policy–practice divide, i.e., strong legal commitments coexisting with weak operational mechanisms. Faculty members play a pivotal role in bridging this gap because they design curricula, deliver instruction, and often mediate accommodations. Yet their own exposure to transition frameworks is rarely assessed. Understanding faculty preparedness and institutional readiness is therefore essential to designing capacity-building initiatives and practical implementation models.
The present study, Bridging the Policy–Practice Divide: Faculty Perspectives and Institutional Preparedness for Transition Planning of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Indian Higher Education, investigates how higher-education faculty perceive and enact transition planning within the inclusive-education mandate. Using a mixed-method design, the study quantifies faculty and institutional preparedness while exploring perceived barriers and recommended reforms. The findings aim to generate evidence-based guidance for teacher education, policy implementation, and institutional quality assurance in the context of the NEP 2020 vision.
This study, therefore, investigates faculty perspectives and institutional preparedness for transition planning of students with SLD in Indian higher education. Through a mixed-method design, it integrates quantitative measures of preparedness with qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and recommendations. The findings aim to inform capacity-building initiatives, institutional policy frameworks, and future research in inclusive higher education.

Methods

Research Design
The present study employed a mixed-method research design, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to comprehensively understand faculty perspectives and institutional preparedness toward transition planning for students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in higher education. The design allowed both numerical analysis of trends and descriptive exploration of contextual barriers and recommendations. Quantitative data were used to measure levels of familiarity, confidence, and institutional readiness, while qualitative data captured detailed insights into barriers and reforms suggested by faculty.
Population and Sample
The study population comprised faculty members currently teaching in higher education institutions offering Special Education programmes across India. The final sample consisted of 24 faculty respondents, drawn using a purposive sampling technique.
Participants represented diverse teaching backgrounds and experience levels, providing a range of perspectives on inclusive education and transition planning practices for SLD students.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:

Faculty currently teaching special education in higher education institutions.

Faculty teaching in private institutions. 

Exclusion Criteria:

Faculty from non-teaching administrative roles.

Faculty from government institutions, as the study focused on private-sector institutional preparedness.

Research Tool
The data were collected using a structured faculty survey form developed by the researcher.
The tool was designed based on the findings of a prior systematic review conducted by the researcher, which identified critical domains influencing transition planning practices in higher education.
The survey consisted of both closed-ended Likert-scale items and open-ended qualitative prompts, organized under five domains:

Faculty Perspectives and Preparedness

Institutional Preparedness

Transition Profile Perceptions

Barriers to Transition

Recommendations and Qualitative Feedback

Likert-type items used a five-point scale ranging from 0 (Strongly Disagree / Not at all Familiar) to 4 (Strongly Agree / Extremely Familiar). The final section of the tool contained three open-ended questions that elicited descriptive faculty views on existing challenges and suggested reforms.
Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected through an online survey form circulated among faculty via professional networks, email, and academic contacts. Each participant was provided with an informed consent statement outlining the study purpose, voluntary nature of participation, and assurance of confidentiality. Respondents completed the form independently, and all responses were automatically recorded in a secured spreadsheet. A total of 24 complete responses were obtained and used for analysis.
Data Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted sequentially.
Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, percentage) summarized preparedness levels across domains, while inferential tests (t-test and one-way ANOVA) examined differences based on gender, age, and teaching experience.
Qualitative data from open-ended responses were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach, which involved familiarization with data, coding, theme generation, review, definition, and reporting. Themes were organized around key barriers and recommended institutional reforms.
This mixed-method analytical framework provided both numerical trends and in-depth interpretative understanding of the policy–practice gap in transition planning within higher education settings.

Results

DATA ANALYSIS
Quantitative Analysis (Objectives 1, 2 and 3)
The quantitative strand of the study addressed the first three research objectives:

To assess faculty perspectives and preparedness regarding transition planning for students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in higher education.

To evaluate institutional preparedness for implementing transition planning practices.

To compare faculty preparedness for transition planning in relation to demographic variables such as gender, age, and teaching experience.

All Likert-type items were coded numerically using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 to 4. For items indicating agreement, the scale ranged from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree), and for items measuring familiarity or confidence, it ranged from 0 (Not at All Familiar) to 4 (Extremely Familiar). Negatively worded items were reverse-coded to ensure higher scores reflected higher levels of preparedness or familiarity. Missing responses were retained to preserve sample size (N = 24).
For each respondent, scores were computed for two primary domains—Faculty Perspectives and Preparedness and Institutional Preparedness. The total and mean scores were then converted into percentages using the formula:
Percentage Score = {Obtained Score/Maximum Possible Score}* 100
Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed using equivalent SPSS methods implemented in Python.
Descriptive Analysis
Domain 1: Faculty Perspectives and Preparedness
This domain comprised 15 items measuring familiarity with transition planning concepts, confidence in implementation, and policy awareness regarding inclusive education frameworks such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD, 2016) and National Education Policy (NEP, 2020).
High Preparedness
Reflects comprehensive understanding and consistent engagement with transition planning activities.
The mean percentage score of 68.2% falls within the moderate-to-high range. This suggests that respondents generally possess conceptual and procedural familiarity with transition planning, showing awareness of policy mandates and inclusive practices. While this percentage indicates overall confidence and understanding, scores do not reach the “high” threshold, implying some variability in practical application and institutional support across participants.
Domain 2: Institutional Preparedness
This domain contained 16 items assessing resource adequacy, institutional mechanisms, and systemic readiness for implementing transition planning at the higher education level.
Moderate Readiness
Represents institutions with adequate awareness and structures in place but requiring strengthening for systematic transition planning.
High Readiness
Reflects institutions with established, functional support frameworks for transition planning.
The mean institutional preparedness percentage of 65.4% lies within the moderate readiness range. This demonstrates that while higher education institutions show progress in policy awareness and inclusion initiatives, consistent implementation and institutionalization of transition mechanisms remain areas requiring attention.
Moderate
These scores demonstrate that both faculty and institutions reflect developing readiness toward transition planning for students with SLD, with faculty awareness slightly exceeding institutional implementation.
Inferential Analysis
Inferential statistics were used to determine whether faculty preparedness differed by demographic characteristics. Independent-samples t-tests were performed for gender, and one-way ANOVA tests were conducted for age and teaching experience.
Significant
These quantitative results reveal an emerging readiness among faculty and institutions toward transition planning for students with SLD. Faculty members demonstrated higher awareness and understanding compared to institutional systems, and teaching experience was found to be a significant determinant of preparedness levels.
Qualitative Analysis (Objectives 4 and 5)
The qualitative component of the study addressed the final two research objectives:
4. To identify major barriers that hinder the successful transition of students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) from school to higher education.
 5. To explore faculty suggestions and recommendations for bridging the policy–practice gap in transition planning within higher education.
Open-ended items and narrative comments were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach. This method involved familiarization with responses, generation of initial codes, searching for patterns, reviewing and defining themes, and producing an integrated thematic narrative. Responses were examined across both barrier-identifying and recommendation-suggesting prompts, allowing each theme to show both the challenge and the corresponding faculty-proposed solution.
Data Source
Qualitative data were drawn from 24 participants’ written responses to three open-ended prompts contained in the faculty survey:

“What are the key barriers that hinder transition of students with SLD into higher education?”

“What realistic reform would you like to see your institution adopt to bridge the gap between inclusive policy and practice?”

“Please share any additional comments, experiences, or suggestions regarding transition support for students with SLD.”

All responses were reviewed verbatim, coded manually, and grouped into recurrent conceptual categories. Thematic saturation was reached by the twentieth response.
Emergent Themes
Participants were asked to rank the top three barriers they believed hinder the successful transition of students with SLD into higher education. The aggregated responses are presented in Figure 1.
Theme 1 – Faculty Under preparedness and the Need for Capacity Building
Participants frequently acknowledged their own limited formal training in transition planning. Several noted that teacher-education curricula address inclusion generally but not the specific transition needs of SLD learners. Faculty emphasized the absence of refresher workshops or professional-development modules dealing with transition documentation, Individualized Transition Plans (ITPs), or career-readiness interventions.
Corresponding Recommendation: Regular in-service orientation programmes, short-term certificate courses, and collaborations with rehabilitation professionals to build faculty competency.
Theme 2 – Institutional Gaps and the Call for Transition Support Structures
Respondents highlighted limited institutional frameworks to coordinate transition support. Many institutions lack a designated Transition Cell or a staff member responsible for continuity of support from admission through graduation. Administrative processes for accommodations were described as ad-hoc.
Corresponding Recommendation: Establishment of Transition Coordination Units within Equal Opportunity Cells, formal orientation programmes for SLD students, and inter-departmental liaison systems to track student progress.
Theme 3 – Policy–Practice Mismatch and Accountability Mechanisms
A recurring idea was that inclusive policies such as the RPwD Act and NEP 2020 are well-articulated but weakly operationalized. Faculty perceived a gap between institutional policy statements and daily teaching practice, particularly regarding assessment modifications and individualized learning supports.
Corresponding Recommendation: Institutional monitoring and accountability measures—periodic audits of inclusive practices, structured reporting formats, and policy-to-practice training for administrative staff.
Theme 4 – Documentation and Continuity of Support
Participants observed that there is often no formal transition profile accompanying students from school to college, leading to loss of background information about learning accommodations that previously worked. This documentation gap delays support and forces students to re-disclose their disability multiple times.
Corresponding Recommendation: Development of a standardized Transition Profile document to accompany all SLD students through admission, capturing prior interventions, assistive technologies used, and learning preferences.
Theme 5 – Stigma, Collaboration, and the Need for Awareness Campaigns
Faculty identified stigma, delayed disclosure, and lack of inter-institutional collaboration as persisting barriers. Many students hesitate to disclose their condition due to fear of bias or lack of understanding among peers and teachers.
Corresponding Recommendation: Awareness drives, peer-mentoring initiatives, and structured collaboration between schools and higher-education institutions to ensure smoother transition pathways.

Suggested Reform
1. Faculty Under preparedness
Limited training in transition planning
Continuous professional development and specialized modules
2. Institutional Gaps
Absence of transition support cells or coordinators
Establish dedicated Transition Cells within Equal Opportunity frameworks
3. Policy–Practice Mismatch
Implementation dependent on individual initiative
Introduce accountability and regular policy-practice audits
4. Documentation Gaps
No standardized transition record from school to college
Develop and mandate use of a Transition Profile system
5. Stigma and Collaboration
Student hesitation and weak school–college linkage
Awareness programmes and inter-level partnerships
Thematic patterns collectively indicate that while awareness of inclusive education has advanced, practical execution of transition planning remains fragmented. Barriers largely arise from insufficient institutional systems and limited professional preparedness rather than from negative attitudes. The recommended reforms consistently emphasize structured training, standardized documentation, accountability, and collaborative frameworks—aligning closely with quantitative evidence of moderate preparedness levels.
The qualitative findings complement the quantitative results by revealing why preparedness levels remain moderate. Faculty understanding exists, but systemic and procedural supports are inadequate. Participants’ reform suggestions—capacity building, transition documentation, accountability, and inter-institutional collaboration—provide clear, context-specific pathways for bridging the policy–practice divide in Indian higher education.

Discussion

Quantitative analysis showed that faculty preparedness levels were moderate-to-high (M = 68.2 %), whereas institutional readiness remained moderate (M = 65.4 %). Teaching experience significantly influenced preparedness, while gender and age did not. These results mirror earlier work showing that Indian educators hold favourable attitudes toward inclusion but require stronger skill-based training (Das et al., 2013; Sharma & Deppeler, 2005). Experience appears to substitute for formal training, seasoned faculty acquire adaptive strategies informally, highlighting the need for systematic professional development.
Institutional readiness scores indicate partial implementation of inclusive policies. Consistent with Tilak (2015), inclusion efforts in many private colleges remain compliance-driven, lacking stable funding and monitoring mechanisms. The moderate mean values therefore reflect an intermediate stage of institutional evolution: awareness exists, yet policy enactment is fragmented and dependent on individual initiative. In international contexts, comparable studies report that coherent transition systems emerge only when institutions establish formal coordination units and documentation protocols (Trainor et al., 2016; Morningstar et al., 2018). The absence of such structures in Indian higher education explains the pattern observed here.
Qualitative analysis deepened this interpretation. Faculty narratives revealed five recurrent themes: limited training, inadequate institutional mechanisms, policy–practice mismatch, missing transition documentation, and stigma surrounding disclosure. These barriers correspond closely to those identified by Sharma and Deppeler (2005), who emphasised that teacher preparation and administrative support are twin prerequisites for inclusive success. The call for structured Transition Support Cells echoes international models of campus disability resource centres that coordinate accommodations and liaise with secondary schools (Morningstar et al., 2010).
Faculty suggestions include capacity-building workshops, standardized Transition Profiles, accountability audits, and cross-institutional collaboration which align with the evidence-based predictors of successful post-school outcomes compiled by Test et al. (2009). Together, these findings demonstrate convergence between the perceptions of Indian faculty and global best practices. They also substantiate Das et al.’s (2013) argument that preparedness is not solely an attitudinal issue but a systemic one involving institutional policy, resources, and leadership.
Overall, the quantitative and qualitative strands reinforce each other: faculty display conceptual understanding but lack institutional scaffolding to sustain transition planning. The results expose a structural lag between policy formulation and practice execution, a finding that situates Indian higher education within the broader international challenge of operationalising inclusive legislation. Addressing this lag requires moving from isolated sensitisation workshops to embedded institutional policy frameworks with measurable accountability indicators.

Conclusion

The study provides an integrated view of how Indian higher-education faculty and institutions engage with transition planning for students with SLD. Faculty exhibit moderate-to-high preparedness, suggesting awareness of inclusive principles, yet institutional mechanisms remain underdeveloped. Teaching experience positively influences preparedness, implying that professional exposure partially compensates for limited formal training. Qualitative evidence points to systemic shortcomings such as the absence of structured transition documentation, inadequate coordination, and persisting stigma that collectively sustain the policy–practice divide. Bridging this gap demands coordinated reforms at both the institutional and policy levels.
 
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Institutional Mechanisms

Establish dedicated Transition Support Cells within existing Equal Opportunity or Disability Units to coordinate student documentation, mentor assignments, and liaison with feeder schools.

Introduce a standardized Transition Profile template endorsed by RCI and UGC to ensure continuity of accommodations and learning histories.

Faculty Development

Integrate transition-planning modules into pre-service and in-service teacher-education curricula.

Conduct periodic, evidence-based professional-development workshops modelled on the frameworks proposed by Trainor et al. (2016) and Morningstar et al. (2018).

Policy and Governance

Embed transition readiness indicators into NAAC and UGC accreditation rubrics to institutionalise accountability.

Facilitate inter-institutional partnerships between schools and universities for early orientation of SLD students.

Research and Evaluation

Future studies should expand to government institutions and longitudinally assess the impact of implemented transition supports.

Collaborative action research between universities and rehabilitation agencies can generate indigenous models of inclusive transition suited to Indian socio-educational contexts.

Collectively, these measures operationalise the NEP 2020 mandate of equitable access and can transform policy compliance into genuine institutional culture.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Das, A. K., Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. P. (2013). Inclusive education in India: Are the teachers prepared? International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 27–36.

Government of India. (2016). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (No. 49 of 2016). New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice. Retrieved from https://legislative.gov.in