inclusive education for students with disabilities essay

Students With Disabilities Deserve Inclusion. It’s Also the Best Way to Teach

• Share article

Students with disabilities face substantially increased rates of abuse and restraint in schools. As an education and disability advocate seeking to change that, I frequently encounter well-meaning arguments for separating higher-needs students from the general population.

Many parents and teachers express sympathy, yet also a desire to keep certain groups of students away from the general population for a variety of reasons.

“Is mainstreaming special needs kids a good idea if it prevents the other kids from learning?”

“And what were the 20-something other kids in the room doing when the teacher was spending most of her time attending to your special-needs child?”

“It’s too bad the other children are the ones who lose out when special-needs kids are mainstreamed. This story is all well and good, but it means that this woman’s child got way more than the other children did in terms of support and attention.”

These are the types of comments found in parent forums and in response to articles about autism and other disabilities in the classroom. And they are echoed by teachers who are facing poorly integrated classrooms with strong behavior challenges. Resistance to inclusion itself as a practice remains entrenched.

Many teachers and parents do not know the pedagogy behind inclusive instruction. Inclusion is not about throwing disabled children into general education classrooms without support or tools and leaving teachers to clean up the resultant chaos. Schools don’t meet anyone’s needs when they integrate thoughtlessly.

They also do not meet the legal requirements defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees all children the right to free appropriate public education. That includes education for disabled students in the least-restrictive environment possible—not segregated and sequestered away from their peers.

Inclusion works when educators collaborate, get the support they need, and believe in the value of all students.

It might be less convenient at first for teachers and students (and parents) to learn about and embrace the disabled student populations at their schools. But there is no inherent right to be free from inconvenience . Perhaps it’s time to look more closely at why we as educators and parents are demanding that to begin with.

Inclusion, by definition, involves carefully assessing a child’s needs and then implementing a strategic plan to support that child within the general classroom setting. This is done by a special education team, rather than one general education teacher. The team offers options such as teacher training, team-teaching, pushed-in special education instruction, classroom accommodations (a standing desk, computer workstation, etc.), an interpreter, or a classroom assistant added to the room for portions of the day.

My son is autistic, and he has an assistant in his mainstream classroom to support him and several other students as needed. The rest of my son’s accommodations rarely affect his classmates at all. He uses a keyboard to write, he meets with the school counselor when he’s overwhelmed, and he has social-skills mentoring. The staff at his school meets and works together, mainstreaming children of all abilities. Test scores and academic achievement remain strong, even with a push-in of students from a countywide behavioral program for students with significant emotional disabilities. The general education students are doing great!

Cost is frequently at the heart of arguments against inclusion. It does take money to adequately support special needs students in mainstream classrooms, of course. It costs significantly less to push an assistant in and offer training, however, than to create a separate classroom with a special education teacher or place a child in a specialized private school.

The cost of time is more significant. Inclusion requires teachers, schools, and entire school systems to commit to the model. It requires training and a general overhaul in perspective—about the role of education and the inherent value of each child and his or her learning experience—disabled or not.

However, inclusion is best practice for disabled and non-disabled students alike. Studies show that when inclusion is done well, the whole class benefits. It doesn’t take away from one group to focus on another—quite the opposite. It enhances the ability of non-disabled kids to cooperate, work together, understand and value different perspectives, think critically, and even test well.

Yes, research indicates that a majority of general education students test the same or better on standardized tests when they are educated in the same classroom environment as their disabled peers. Classrooms that have several unsupported students with severe behavioral disabilities are the exception. But diagnoses like this are rare, and added supports for those students seems to be key.

When supported and given adequate training and tools, teachers in inclusive classrooms understand and instruct a variety of learners, individualizing instruction to meet the needs of all learners better. Students have varied needs and strengths, whether disabled or not. Teachers in inclusion settings learn to address this and teach better because of it.

Empathy—which cannot be measured quantitatively—matters, too. How children view peers who look and learn differently from themselves is also a consideration as they grow to adulthood and become members of their communities, and as they live and work alongside a diverse array of citizens. It’s a critical factor in whether communities and workplaces are able to function and thrive.

Finally, and most importantly, disabled students can achieve . Their talents and gifts are varied, as are the talents and gifts of all students. They are legally entitled to an appropriate public education, but they also have so much to offer their non-disabled peers, teachers, and schools.

Inclusion works when educators collaborate, get the support they need, and believe in the value of all students. It’s time for schools and teachers to reevaluate their long-held biases, and it’s time to address the initial financial investment required for training and staffing. It’s also the law.

Inclusion is the least expensive, most effective method of teaching students. It starts from the top, with administrators making this a priority. When administrators model inclusivity and support teachers in its implementation, the entire school (and school system) culture changes. Test scores are rarely negatively impacted and often go up. More importantly, children become better citizens.

Inclusion is best practice. It is also, quite simply, the right way to teach.

A version of this article appeared in the May 08, 2019 edition of Education Week as What Students With Disabilities Deserve

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Improve learning

Disability inclusive education and learning

Inscribed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) , education is a basic right. A range of declarations and conventions highlight the importance of education for people with disabilities: the Salamanca Statement on education and special needs in 1994, as well as article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) adopted in 2006. The importance of education for all is also included in the Convention against Discrimination in Education 1960. In 2015, the Incheon Declaration recalled the importance of inclusive education for all. Targets 4.5 and 4.a call for access to education and the construction of adapted facilities for children with disabilities (Education 2030, 2016).

WHAT WE KNOW

There are few data on school enrolment figures for children with disabilities. However, we do know that there are between 93 and 150 million children living with a disability and, according to the Learning Generation report, in low- and middle-income countries as many as 33 million children with disabilities are out of school (Grant Lewis, 2019). Moreover, children with disabilities are less likely to complete primary, secondary and further education compared to children without disabilities.

In all countries of the world, people with disabilities have lower literacy rates than people without disabilities (Singal, 2015; UIS, 2018; United Nations, 2018). There is also a difference based on the nature of the disability i.e. illiteracy is higher in children with visual impairments, multiple or mental disorders compared to children with motor disabilities (Singal, 2015).

When they do attend school, children with disabilities score lower in mathematics and reading tests, as shown in the PASEC learning assessments (World Bank, 2019; Wodon et al, 2018). Girls with disabilities are penalized even further due to their gender (UIS, 2018). Generally, disability tends to compound social inequalities (e.g. poverty or place of residence). That said, in Pakistan, the learning gap between children with disabilities and children without disabilities enrolled in school was lower than the gap between these two out-of-school groups (Rose et al., 2018: 9). Moreover, studies in the United States of America have shown that students with disabilities achieve better academic outcomes and social integration when studying in a mainstream environment than students studying in segregated or specialized classes (Alquraini and Gut, 2012).

TOWARD A MAINSTREAM SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

Inclusive education means including students with disabilities in a mainstream school environment. In many countries today, children with disabilities attend ordinary schools but follow a specific curriculum. Moving toward a more inclusive model (i.e. students with disabilities follow an inclusive curriculum along with able-bodied students) is a long-term process.

As countries move toward more inclusive education, special schools and their staff can play a key role by acting as specialized experts and helping mainstream schools achieve greater inclusion (UNESCO, 2017). The Global Partnership for Education (GPE) studied the inclusion of students with disabilities in education sector plans in 51 countries. Seventeen of them are considering a two-pronged approach: to integrate disability in education and to invest in actions and services aimed specifically at meeting the needs of children with disabilities (GPE, 2018).

Many obstacles prevent children and young people with disabilities from attending a mainstream school.

• Identifying pupils with disabilities . Prejudices and social attitudes lead to under-declaring the number of children with disabilities (GPE, 2018). Certain families, fearing stigmatisation, do not send their children to school (Singal, 2015; EDT and UNICEF, 2016). Due to the hidden nature of certain learning difficulties, the total population of these children is largely unknown (World Bank, 2019). Identifying these children at school is rare (Wodon et al, 2018). Recognizing disabilities may be limited to observable disabilities and not necessarily those that affect the child's ability to learn (EDT and UNICEF, 2016). Obsolete and inadequate data complicate effective educational planning and hinder decision-making and resource allocation (GPE, 2018). In addition, countries use different measurements, methods and definitions to classify disabilities thus affecting their ability to compare data (GPE, 2018; Price, 2018).
• Lack of trained teachers. In many countries, teachers do not have the confidence or the necessary skills to deliver inclusive education (Singal, 2015; Wodon et al, 2018). Inclusive education is only a small component of the training received by teachers and is not always assessed (EDT and UNICEF, 2016).
• Poorly adapted school facilities and learning materials. Poorly adapted infrastructures and a lack of accessible learning materials are significant obstacles. This is particularly true in rural areas where increased levels of poverty, poor services, and recurrent infrastructure failings exacerbate these existing problems for children with disabilities (SADPD, 2012). School curricula that solely rely on passive learning methods, such as drilling, dictation, and copying from the blackboard, further limit access to quality education for children with disabilities (Humanity & Inclusion, 2015).
• Lack of resources. Whether it concerns building adapted schools, reducing class sizes or teacher training, financial and human resources are required (Grimes, Stevens and Kumar, 2015). Funds earmarked for special needs are often insufficient. Where funding is available, it is primarily intended for schools and special units, rather than being used for the needs of students enrolled in mainstream schools and removing existing barriers (Mariga, McConkey and Myezwa, 2014).
• Assessing learning. There are few data on the learning outcomes of students with disabilities. Examinations and tests rarely make accommodations for these students putting them at a disadvantage. Most international performance tests exclude students with disabilities, which, in turn, reinforces low expectations (Schuelka, 2013 cited in Price, 2018; World Bank, 2019).

POLICY AND PLANNING

• Defining a policy for inclusive education. Inclusive education requires a systemic examination of education systems and school cultures. Promoting social justice and inclusive education requires drawing up, implementing and assessing plans and policies that favour inclusive education for all. Every country needs to formulate its own set of solutions that reach down to the level of individual schools (Grant Lewis, 2019).
• Facilitating access to learning. The first step to including children with disabilities in mainstream schools is the provision of adapted school facilities e.g. ramps, toilets, special equipment, and apparatus, as well as making appropriate teaching and learning materials available (SADPD, 2012; Malik et al., 2018). To encourage the enrolment of girls with disabilities, special measures could comprise grants or allowances (GPE, 2018).
• Strengthening partnerships. Inclusive education requires creating partnerships with local stakeholders i.e. parents, schools, communities, countries, ministries, and development partners (Grant Lewis, 2019). Partnerships which capitalize on local knowledge and resources have proven to be effective (SADPD, 2012; EDT and UNICEF, 2016; GPE, 2018). One recommendation is to give particular support to parents to raise their awareness of the importance of inclusive education and to integrate them into the educational community, for example by participating in school activities (GPE, 2018).
• Ensuring adequate teacher training. The ability of teachers to provide quality education to students with disabilities depends on their training and qualifications (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2015). However, teachers often struggle due to already overcrowded classes. Offering upstream pre-service training for future teachers, investing in in-service teacher training comprising practical stages and a mentoring system are approaches that have proved their effectiveness (Ackers, 2018). However, it is important to train specialized teachers as it is not possible to train all mainstream teachers to be sufficiently fluent in Braille, national sign language, and augmentative and alternative communication modes (EDT and UNICEF, 2016). The Global Partnership for Education has also highlighted the importance of training teachers to identify disabilities (GPE, 2018).
• Statistics to reinforce human support. Although data are rare, there are tools which can be used to monitor the participation and learning of students with disabilities. Data from household surveys are used to monitor school attendance and success rates for children, as well as to examine factors linked to non-attendance; Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) collect administrative data about school attendance, student behaviour, and progress. However, qualitative data are also needed to shed light on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the lives of students, teachers, and parents (Mont, 2018). Equally important is the collection of data on the school environment, such as the physical accessibility of schools, information on policies and legislation, teaching materials, teacher training and the availability of support specialists in schools (Grant Lewis, 2018).
• Assessing students. The Salamanca Statement advocates formative assessment to identify difficulties and help students overcome them (Salamanca Statement, 1994). Sæbønes et al. (2015) recommend classroom assessments for individual learning. They recommend that regional and national examinations and international learning assessments systematically include all students and provide reasonable accommodations for learners with disabilities. A study conducted in Kenya shows that it is possible to carry out large-scale learning assessments of deaf and blind children. However, in order to design these adapted tools, human, material and financial resources are necessary (Piper et al., 2019). For an overview of the issue of learning assessments and students with disabilities see World Bank, 2019.
• Investing in technology. According to UNESCO “ICTs can be a valuable tool for learners with disabilities who are vulnerable to the digital divide and exclusion from educational opportunities” (UNESCO, 2014: 10). To reduce barriers, their model policy recommends the use of inclusive ICTs, commercially available products that are, as far as possible, accessible to all, as well as assistive technology to enable access when this is not possible using products available on the market. (UNESCO, 2014: 11).
• Cost. It is important to find ways to meet the needs of the most marginalized without additional funding (UNESCO, 2017). Approaches, such as analysing data from household surveys, suggest that the returns on investing in education for children with disabilities are high and similar to those for people without disabilities. Therefore, investing in the education of children with disabilities is both smart and profitable (Wodon et al., 2018). UNESCO recommends setting up or strengthening financial monitoring systems, as well as creating partnerships between governments and donors (UNESCO, 2017). Finally, the comparison between the cost of specialized institutions and inclusive institutions reveals that the inclusive system is more efficient (Open Society Foundations, n.d.; Inclusion International. n.d.).
• Proposing inclusive pedagogy. The type of disability (autism spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, language, hearing, etc.) influences the learning method. Inclusive pedagogy requires a shift in the educational culture within teaching and support practices i.e. moving away from ‘one-size-fits-all’ education towards a tailored approach to increase the capacity of the system to meet the diverse needs of learners without the need to categorize or label them (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017). We move away from the idea of inclusion as a specialized response to certain learners, to allow them to access or participate in what is offered to most students (Florian, 2015). Inclusive pedagogy implies having resources and services that can be used by all students without the need for adaptation or specialized planning (UNESCO, 2017: 19).

Plans and policies

• Fiji: Policy on special and inclusive education (2016)
•  Kenya: Sector policy for learners and trainees with disabilities (2018)
• South Africa: Policy on screening, identification, assessment, and support (2014)
• Fiji. Ministry of Education; Australian Agency for International Development. 2017. Fiji Education Management Information System (FEMIS): Disability disaggregation package. Guidelines and forms.
•  Bulat, J.; Macon, W.; Ticha, R.; Abery, B. 2017. School and classroom disabilities inclusion guide for low- and middle-income countries. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.
•  Ethiopia. Ministry of Education. 2015. Guideline for establishing and managing inclusive education resource/support centers (RCs). Addis Ababa: Federal Ministry of Education.
• Hayes, A. M.; Bulat, J. 2017. Disabilities inclusive education systems and policies guide for low- and middle-income countries . Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.
• UNESCO. 2017. A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Paris: UNESCO.

Ackers, J. 2018. “Teacher education and inclusive education”. The IIEP Letter 34 (2)

Alquraini, T.; Gut, D. 2012. Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities: International Journal of Special Education 27 (1): 42 59.

Convention against discrimination in education.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning . 2016.

Education Development Trust; UNICEF. 2016. Eastern and Southern Africa regional study on the fulfilment of the right to education of children with disabilities. Reading: EDT.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 2015. Empowering teachers to promote inclusive education: A case study of approaches to training and support for inclusive teacher practice. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 2017. Inclusive education for learners with disabilities. Study for the Peti committee. Brussels: European Union.

Florian, L. 2015. Inclusive Pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences but can it help reduce educational inequalities? Scottish Educational Review 47 (1): 5 14.

Grant Lewis, S. 2019. ' Opinion: The urgent need to plan for disability-inclusive education'. Devex. 6 February 2019.

Grimes, P.; Stevens, M.; Kumar, K. 2015. 'An examination of the evolution of policies and strategies to improve access to education for children with disabilities with a focus on inclusive education approaches, the success and challenges'. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015, Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and challenges.

Humanity & Inclusion. 2015. Education for all? This is still not a reality for most children with disabilities.

Inclusion International. n.d. FAQs - Inclusion International .

Male, C.; Wodon, Q. 2018. Disability gaps in educational attainment and literacy. The price of exclusion: disability and education. Washington, DC: World Bank; GPE.

Mariga, L.; McConkey, R.; Myezwa, H. 2014. Inclusive education in low-income countries: A resource for teacher educators, parent trainers and community development workers . Cape Town: Atlas Alliance and Disability Innovations Africa.

Mont, D. 2018. Collecting data for inclusive education . IIEP Learning Portal (blog).

Open Society Foundations. n. d. ' The power of letting children learn together'.

Global Partnership for Education (GPE). 2018. Disability and inclusive education - a stocktake of education sector plans and GPE-funded grants. Washington, DC: GPE.

Piper, B.; Bulat, J.; Kwayumba, D.; Oketch, J.; Gangla, L. 2019. Measuring literacy outcomes for the blind and for the deaf: Nationally representative results from Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development 69 (September)

Price, R. 2018. Inclusive and special education approaches in developing countries. K4D Helpdesk Report.

Rose, P.; Singal, N.; Bari, F.; Malik, R.; Kamran, S. 2018. Identifying disability in household surveys: evidence on education access and learning for children with disabilities in Pakistan. Policy Paper, 18/1. Cambridge: REAL Centre. University of Cambridge.

Sæbønes, A.-M.; Berman Bieler, R.; Baboo, N.; Banham, L.; Singal, N.; Howgego, C.; Vuyiswa McClain-Nhlapo, C.; Riis-Hansen, T. C.; Dansie, G. A. ' Towards a disability inclusive education '. Background paper for the Oslo Summit on Education for Development, 6-7 July 2015.

Salamanca Statement and the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. 1994.

Secretariat of the African Decade of Persons with Disabilities. 2012. Study on education for children with disabilities in Southern Africa. Pretoria: SADPD.

Singal, N. 2015. Education of children with disabilities in India and Pakistan: an analysis of developments since 2000. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015, Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and challenges.

UIS. 2018. Education and disability: analysis of data from 49 countries. Information Paper 49. Montreal: UIS.

UNESCO. 2014. Model policy for inclusive ICTs in education for persons with disabilities. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2017. A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education . Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2018. ' Realization of the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with persons with disabilities'. UN Flagship Report on Disability and Development 2018. Advanced unedited version. New York: United Nations.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights . 1948

Wodon, Q.; Male, C.; Montenegro, C.; Nayihouba, A. 2018. The challenge of inclusive education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2019. Every learner matters: Unpacking the learning crisis for children with disabilities . Washington, DC: World Bank.

Related information

• Global education monitoring report, 2020: Inclusion and education: all means all
• IIEP, planning for inclusive education
• UNESCO: Inclusion in education
• Inclusive education

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 15 September 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Cristina Dumitru 7  

30 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Inequalities in higher education have steadily become a notable concern. The effect of social background could be eliminated or at least minimized by the expansion of the education system. Higher education faces serious challenges in adapting their educational services to the needs of today’s diverse population of students. Although mass higher education has intensified in the last decades, inequalities in higher education are still present. This chapter aims to understand inequality of access to higher education, to qualitative educational services, and to various adaptations to ensure equal opportunities for the diversity of students attending tertiary education. A comprehensive worldwide literature review was undertaken to provide a conceptual framework and draw the main trends and directions of the international system of higher education. This chapter addresses issues related to specific issues of university admissions, the problems of unequal access to higher education, the impressive experience in the process of studying at universities, as well as public policy issues in the field of equalizing educational opportunities in higher education, especially for students with disabilities in the actual context characterized by the medical crises during COVID-19, the economic and social insecurity, and fast-paced changing labor work demands. Simultaneously, some good practices of the use of innovative teaching techniques and technologies to reduce barriers in accessing educational opportunities in higher education for students with disabilities are also provided. The new perspective of hybridization and digitalization of higher education focuses on the integration into the learning-teaching process of digital tools, open educational resources, and electronic library databases to reduce inequalities in universities and other professional development training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Pitești, Pitești, Romania

Cristina Dumitru

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Dumitru .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Dumitru, C. (2023). Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Change. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87624-1_400-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87624-1_400-1

Received : 15 December 2022

Accepted : 06 February 2023

Published : 15 September 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-87624-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-87624-1

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Anne M. Hayes and Jennae Bulat .

• Copyright and Permissions

Having a disability can be one of the most marginalizing factors in a child’s life. In education, finding ways to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities can be challenging, especially in schools, districts, regions, and countries with severely limited resources. Inclusive education—which fully engages all students, including students with disabilities or other learning challenges, in quality education—has proven particularly effective in helping all students learn, even while challenges to implementing inclusive education systems remain. This guide provides suggestions for developing inclusive education systems and policies, especially for low- and middle-income countries that are moving from a segregated system toward an inclusive system of education. We specifically address the needs of countries with limited resources for implementing inclusive education. However, our strategies and recommendations can be equally useful in other contexts where inclusive education practices have not yet been adopted.

• Acknowledgments

The authors thank reviewers Elizabeth Randolph, Alastair Rodd, Pamela Baird, and Ann Turnbull and editors Amy Morrow and Lynda Grahill for their expert input and recommendations. They express sincere appreciation to Felice Sinno-Lai for her diligent and responsive assistance in the preparation of this paper.

• Abbreviations Used

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

disabled persons’ organization

Early Grade Reading Assessment

Education Management Information System

Individualized Education Plan

low and middle income

Ministry of Education

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Technical Assistance (USAID)

Sustainable Development Goal

Universal Design for Learning

United Nations

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

United Nations Children’s Fund

United States Agency for International Development

World Health Organization

• Introduction

Disability is present in every race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, and religion. More than a billion people, or 15 percent of the world’s population, have some category of disability. Of these, an estimated 150 million children have a disability, and 80 percent of these children live in the developing world (World Health Organization [WHO], 2011). These children often face conditions of extreme poverty, exclusion, and discrimination and are denied the basic services offered to their peers without disabilities. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that 90 percent of children with disabilities in low-income countries have never received any form of education ( UNICEF, 2014a ). Also, once enrolled, students with disabilities are more likely to drop out of school than students without disabilities.

It is estimated that only 5 percent of all students with a disability complete primary school ( Peters, 2003 ). Even when students with disabilities attend school, a curriculum that has not been adapted to their needs may mean they do not have the same access to education as their classmates do. Moreover, teachers may not know how to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, books may not be available in braille for students who are blind, and teachers may not know sign language for students who are deaf ( International Disability and Development Consortium, 2013 ).

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) signifies a paradigm shift from seeing disability as a clinical and social welfare issue toward recognizing that disability is a fundamental human rights issue and that meeting the development goals of persons with disabilities is necessary to meeting overall global development goals. This Convention provides a legal framework for all issues related to the lives of persons with disabilities, and it includes explicit language stating that children with disabilities have the right to receive education in an inclusive setting and with the supports needed to succeed. Currently, 173 countries have ratified the CRPD ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2016 ) 1 and are developing new policies and reforming educational systems to align and comply with the treaty.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006 and entered into full force in 2008 (UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006)

For many low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, ratifying the CRPD signals that they are following the global shift of moving from a system where children with disabilities are educated in segregated schools or classrooms toward a system that allows for children to be educated in the same classrooms as their nondisabled peers. However, many countries struggle with this development and are seeking recommendations on how to transition and examples of proven good practices in special education and inclusive education reform. This guide provides recommendations for developing inclusive education policies and systems and examples of effective models from around the world. Although each country will undoubtedly approach reform differently based upon its cultural context, current education programs, and existing special education systems and needs, the recommendations provided in this guide can serve as an additional resource to help each country meet its goal of inclusive education reform.

At the heart of this guide is the premise that all children can and deserve the right to learn and reach their full potential. For many children with disabilities, this means receiving specialized supports or special education to address students’ individual learning differences and needs. This guide discusses the supports that should be provided within an education system and provides suggestions on how to adjust education systems to affect improved learning outcomes for students with, and without, disabilities.

Special education is a service, not a place.

Structure and Purpose of the Guide

The guide’s primary audiences are policymakers and national-level education stakeholders working on education reform, although international organizations working in the field of education and other education program implementers can also benefit from understanding and, hopefully, supporting the strategies provided. Disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs) and parents may also find the guide helpful when advocating for improved educational policies and programs. The principles of this guide align closely with Article 24 of the UN CRPD and the recent general comments on Article 24 ( https://www.ohchr.org/ ). A user-friendly checklist included as Appendix A to this paper covers the core elements that are typically found in inclusive systems and policies based upon the guidance provided by the Committee on the CRPD on Article 24. Appendix B provides a glossary of terms related to disabilities inclusive education.

This guide encourages strategies that are specifically intended to support inclusive education strategies for all children, regardless of the type or severity of disability, because an ideal system would be able to serve all children equitably. At its core, this guide recognizes that inclusive schools and classrooms benefit all students, not just those with disabilities, and that students do not need to be officially identified as having a disability to benefit from inclusive education strategies.

This guide outlines the relevant international legislations and policy frameworks that have set the stage for inclusive education and highlights the core principles of these documents that may be relevant for countries looking to develop more inclusive education systems. This guide also provides recommendations for elements to include in national education policies to help ensure compliance with the CRPD and suggestions for other components that often exist in successful inclusive systems. Finally, the guide introduces models for how to move from segregated systems toward inclusive ones, including basic suggestions for teacher training budget development, data collection, and monitoring.

This guide does not address barriers that extend beyond the school system, such as those related to inadequate transportation systems or parental or community-based resistance to enrolling children with disabilities in school. Such barriers are real, relevant, and deserve serious attention in all communities. However, they are not included in this guide so that the guide can focus more deeply on the characteristics, constraints, and opportunities of education systems themselves.

Summary of the School and Classroom Disabilities Guide

This guide serves as a companion piece to the School and Classroom Disability Inclusion Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries (School and Classroom Guide) ( Bulat et al., 2015 ), which provides school- and classroom-based guidance for including children with mild to severe disabilities in general education schools and classrooms. The School and Classroom Guide provides practical classroom strategies and suggestions that build upon the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model and that encourage instruction that benefits all children, regardless of the presence or type of disability.

The School and Classroom Guide is particularly useful for schools that have not yet implemented inclusive education or are only beginning to do so. Basic concepts of Response to Intervention and practical modifications to classroom instruction to ensure that children with physical, sensory, communication, and intellectual disabilities benefit from instruction are also highlighted within the guide. Together, the School and Classroom Guide and this guide on inclusive education systems and policies can provide policymakers and implementers with recommendations and concrete suggestions regarding how to better provide quality education services for students with disabilities.

Response to Intervention is a tiered framework for identifying students who may need additional educational support and then providing them with increasingly intensive supports as needed to meet learning objectives (RTI Action Network, n.d.).

• What Is Inclusive Education?

The goal of educating children with disabilities is the same as that of educating children without disabilities: to support children in reaching their full potential and leading productive lives as active members of their communities. Children with disabilities often require specialized services and supports to master content being taught. Unfortunately, however, in many countries, specialized education services take the form of segregating students with disabilities in separate classrooms or schools, with no opportunities for engaging with peers who do not have disabilities and often no access to the curriculum that these peers are learning. Shifting away from segregation toward including all students in general education classrooms and schools means providing all students in these classrooms with the unique supports and services that they need—such as access to assistive devices, teacher assistants, and an adapted curriculum—to participate effectively in the classroom. 2 This shift is often a substantial one that requires time, political will, and an understanding of the benefits of inclusive education for all students.

That said, no universal definition of disability exists. The CRPD states that disability is an “evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” The CRPD further elaborates that “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006 ). This definition provides important guidelines for disability but leaves specific categorization based on diagnosis to education systems themselves.

Noninclusive Models of Special Education.

Similarly, there is no single concept of inclusive education that applies across all contexts. Most fundamentally, inclusive education is considered to be the “least restrictive environment” for children with disabilities. As such, it is the preferred educational setting, as specified in Article 24 of the CRPD and many domestic laws, including the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Inclusive Model of Special Education.

However, some organizations and countries have used a broader definition of inclusion that includes the education of all individuals who may be marginalized. For example, the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education states that inclusive schools should:

accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups. ( UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1994 )

Regardless of how inclusive education systems are defined, educational stakeholders should have a clear understanding of the principles of inclusive education as they develop and strengthen special education systems. Following is a text box below that provides a general overview of what are—and are not—characteristics of inclusive education.

Characteristics of Inclusive Education.

Dispelling Myths about Inclusion and the Education of Learners with Disabilities

Misperceptions related to the education of students with disabilities can impact the motivation of government officials, school administrators, teachers, communities, and international development staff to implement or support inclusive education systems. In some cases, the largest resistance to the shift from segregated to inclusive systems comes from special education teachers themselves, who may be concerned about their place within inclusive systems and can have unsubstantiated prejudices against inclusion ( McLeskey & Waldron, 2000 ). This section helps to dispel some of the more frequently held myths about inclusive education and teaching students with disabilities.

Myth 1. Inclusive Education Will Have a Negative Impact on Students Without Disabilities

Decades of research in the United States and other high-income countries have demonstrated that inclusive education benefits not only students with disabilities but also students without disabilities. Inclusive classrooms teach all students about the importance of diversity and acceptance. Evidence also indicates that students with and without disabilities who are educated in inclusive classrooms have better academic outcomes than students who are educated in noninclusive classrooms. For example, several studies have shown that students without disabilities make significantly greater progress in reading and math when taught in an inclusive setting with students with disabilities ( Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004 ; Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013 ). One meta-analysis of existing research demonstrated that 81 percent of the reported outcomes showed that including students with disabilities in the general education classroom resulted in either a positive or neutral effect on students without disabilities ( Kalambouka, Farrell, & Dyson, 2007 ). A possible reason for this improved educational outcome is that all students benefit from differentiated learning techniques and other accommodations—such as visual schedules, manipulatives, and comprehension strategies—that are used in inclusive classrooms.

Myth 2. Inclusive Education Is More Expensive Than Educating Students in Special Education Settings

Inclusive education is the most pedagogically effective way to support the education of students with disabilities; it is also the most financially effective. More than 100 studies have shown that establishing segregated, separate, and parallel education systems within a country (i.e., one system of schools for the general population and a different system of segregated schools for students with disabilities) is more expensive and less sustainable than inclusive education models ( McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998 ). This is partly because segregated school systems incur additional costs for transportation, infrastructure, and in many countries, on-campus residences. For example, the 1999 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report estimated that the costs for segregated school systems were 7 to 9 times higher than those for inclusive education systems ( Labon, 1999 ). Furthermore, ignoring the costs of establishing and maintaining segregated schools—thus denying students with disabilities the opportunity to receive an inclusive education—is ultimately a financial liability to a country.

The Cost of Exclusion.

A recent international study of the costs of exclusion compared to the gains of inclusion found that exclusion results in lower employment and potential earning, which impacts individuals with disabilities and their families and limits a country’s national economic growth. That study also demonstrated that increased education of students with disabilities results in lower crime rates, improved health and family planning, and increased citizen participation ( Banks & Polack, 2014 ). Additionally, a World Bank study showed that the return on investment for educating a student with a disability tends to be two to three times higher than that for educating students without disabilities ( Patrinos, 2015 ).

Although there are initial costs associated with establishing an inclusive system, special education (regardless of setting) can have associated costs above and beyond the general education for students without disabilities and should be budgeted for accordingly. The recurring costs required to maintain an inclusive system are less than those needed to maintain two parallel systems.

Myth 3. Segregated Schools and Classrooms Are More Effective Than Inclusive Schools and Classrooms for Educating Students with Disabilities

No studies conducted since the 1970s have shown students with disabilities who are educated in separate settings ( Falvey, 2004 ) perform better than students in inclusive settings. In fact, the amount of time a student with a disability spends in the general education classroom is positively correlated with higher test scores in math and reading, less disruptive behavior, and increased future employment opportunities. Indeed, this positive correlation has been found in all students with disabilities, regardless of the type of disability or its severity ( Wagner et al., 2006 ). Inclusive education may also have other benefits, including increased community awareness and acceptance. For example, a 14-nation UNESCO study showed that in countries where there were laws requiring inclusion, teachers expressed a more favorable view of inclusion ( Bowman, 1986 ).

Conversely, segregated classrooms or schools perpetuate the misconception that individuals with disabilities are fundamentally different from their nondisabled peers and need to be isolated or separated. This approach can negatively impact both the classroom climate and students’ attitudes about diversity and acceptance ( Fisher, Sax, Rodifer, & Pumpian, 1999 ).

Myth 4. When Faced with Limited Resources, Inclusive Education Can and Should Only Be Addressed Once the Education of “Normal Students” Is Achieved

Many practitioners are reluctant to include children with disabilities within their general education programs because they are concerned that doing so might distract from the educational needs of students without disabilities. Prioritizing education based on a child’s disability or other factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is discriminatory and should not be supported by the international development community. Creating an education system that does not serve all of a country’s children and youth is not only unethical, a social injustice, and contradictory to most countries’ internal laws, international policies, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is also a financial liability for a country, as illustrated above.

Myth 5. Educating Students with Disabilities Is a “High-Income Country Luxury” and Does Not Apply to LMI Countries

Education for All goals and the new SDGs, which include learners with disabilities as part of Goal 4 (“Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning”), cannot be achieved unless the global needs of children with disabilities are considered ( UN, 2016b ). As practitioners work to improve policies and systems, they should consider international best practices on inclusive education and build upon local lessons learned to strengthen policies and systems that include all individuals. In other words, all nations, not only high-income countries, must provide inclusive education to children and youth with disabilities.

• Understanding Inclusive Education Policies

Inclusive education can only exist with strong support from the government and specific legislation ( UNICEF, 2014b ). Fortunately, the general understanding that children with disabilities have the right to education is growing. Indeed, most countries currently have laws or regulations specifically designed to ensure that children with disabilities have equal opportunities to receive an education ( UNICEF, 2012 ). The quality and details of these laws, however, vary significantly. Also, even where there are laws or provisions promoting inclusive education, these commitments have not yet necessarily been harmonized with general education planning ( United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2010 ). In some countries, such as Egypt, laws simply state that children with disabilities have the right to education. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, are more prescriptive. In the case of Ethiopia, the National Plan of Action of Persons with Disabilities not only describes the rights of individuals with disabilities but also addresses outputs, activities, and indicators associated with those rights ( Ethiopia Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2012 ).

Education in Schools for Children Who Are Deaf.

This section of the guide provides an overview of relevant international policies related to inclusive education, describes components that should be included in national policies, and introduces the importance of national inclusive education strategies or plans.

International Policies and Frameworks for Inclusive Education

International legislation and legal frameworks, such as the CRPD, describe human rights principles and legal requirements for upholding those principles. Studies have demonstrated that countries with ratified human rights treaties are associated with better or improved human rights practices ( Hathaway, 2002 ). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that champions for improved education for persons with disabilities are using these legislative tools to advocate effectively for improved laws and services within their countries. For example, within the first 4 years of the CRPD, 91 percent of countries that had ratified the legislation had already adopted national laws for people with disabilities and 72 percent of those countries’ laws included a definition of reasonable accommodation ( Ruh, 2012 ).

Here we present a summary of some of the most prominent international policies and legal frameworks that promote inclusive education for disabilities.

Adopted in 1989, Article 23 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) specifically addresses the rights of children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities should have access to and receive education in a “manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development” ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989 ). The Committee on the Rights of the Child further clarified that inclusive education, not segregated education systems, must be the goal of educating children with disabilities ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007 ).

World Declaration on Education for All

Adopted in 1990 with support from UNESCO, UNICEF, and the UN Development Program, the World Declaration on Education for All served as one of the first milestones to support inclusive education throughout the world. A total of 155 countries adopted the Declaration, which asks countries to commit to universal primary education and stresses the need to provide access to education for all children with disabilities ( UNESCO, 1990 ). 3

Salamanca Framework for Action

Adopted in 1994 at the World Conference on Special Needs Education, the Salamanca Framework for Action highlights the necessity to educate children with disabilities within the general education system. This statement urges governments and the international community to endorse inclusive education as the best approach to educating children with disabilities ( UNESCO, 1994 ). 4

Adopted in 2006, the CRPD provides the most comprehensive international legal framework for supporting the educational rights of children with disabilities. The CRPD states that countries that have ratified the CRPD must ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and that children with disabilities have the right to free primary and secondary education and cannot be discriminated against based on their disability. Other requirements related to the education of individuals with disabilities include the following ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006 ):

All schools must be accessible (tied to Article 9 on Accessibility), both physically and regarding information and communication.

Students with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations within the classroom.

Schools should address the academic, social, and life skills needs of each student.

If needed, alternative learning methods should be used, such as braille instruction or alternative communication devices.

Local sign language instruction should be provided for students who are deaf to promote linguistic identity.

Individuals with disabilities should have access to tertiary, vocational, and adult education.

In 2015, the Committee on the CRPD drafted the General Comments on the right to inclusive education. This document provides additional information about the systems and legal frameworks that countries should establish based upon the CRPD. Appendix A presents a checklist based on this document and the CRPD. For the full document, see https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GCRightEducation.aspx .

Donor Policies on Disability-Inclusive Development.

Sustainable Development Goals

Established in 2015, the SDGs serve as a set of aspirational goals for countries to work toward over the next 15 years. Goal 4 on education specifically addresses disability within two of the education targets ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2016 ):

Target 4.5. “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations.”

Target 4.a. “Build and upgrade education facilitates that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.”

As governments work to implement the education goal, the data that are gathered and monitored will provide valuable information that will hopefully inform and strengthen education systems in the future ( UN, 2016c ).

National Policies for Inclusive Education

Once a country has committed to the concept of inclusion in education, it is important to adapt national policies and laws. The education of children with disabilities and the importance of inclusive education are best integrated into the country’s overall education strategic plan, with implementation strategies reflected in the national education strategic implementation plan. In this way, the commitment to inclusive education is clearly reflected in national policy and strategic planning in general, included in the education budget, and recognized in bilateral and multi-lateral partnerships with funding agencies. According to UNESCO’s Policy Guidelines for Inclusion in Education, national legal frameworks should, at a minimum, achieve the following ( UNESCO, 2009 ):

Recognize inclusive education as a right;

Identify minimum standards in relation to the right to education, including physical access, communication access, social access, economic access, early identification, adaption of curriculum, and individualized student supports;

Identify minimum standards regarding the right to education and ensuring that families and communities are active participants in inclusive education;

Ensure a transition plan for students with disabilities; 5

Identify stakeholders and their responsibilities;

Provide resources for students with disabilities; and

Establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for ensuring that education is truly inclusive.

Furthermore, many successful national inclusive education policies provide even more explicit guidance to stakeholders and implementers, such as described below.

Contextualized Definition of Disability and Inclusion

To be most useful for implementers, national disability inclusion policies and legislation should include clear definitions of disability and inclusive education and state the specific objectives a country is seeking to achieve through its national inclusive education policy and legislation. In addition, policies and legislation should clarify that the goal of inclusion is for children, regardless of type or severity of disability, to have the right to free primary and secondary education within their public neighborhood schools ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2015 ).

Reasonable Accommodations

National disability inclusion policies should include language related to reasonable accommodations, as required in the CRPD. Article 2 of the CRPD defines reasonable acommodation as “the necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden where needed in a particular case to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006 ). The CRPD Committee also clarifies that there is not a “one size fits all” formula for reasonable accommodations and that different students with the same type of disability may require very different accommodations based on the severity of their disability and their personal learning preferences. The type of reasonable accommodations provided should be determined by a joint consultation involving the school, parents, and student (UN, 2016a).

Reasonable accommodations can include….

Reasonable accommodations are not….

Adapting and Modifying National Curriculum

National disability inclusion policies should explicitly state that all students should have access to the national curriculum. Too often, students with disabilities are taught only life skills (such as a basic understanding of how to do household chores and basic hygiene) and are not allowed access to the general curriculum, which includes vital literacy and math skills. Although life skills are important, they are not sufficient. Recognizing that not all students with disabilities can equally access the national curriculum, the curriculum should be modified or adapted to promote individualized instruction. Curriculum adaptation does not mean developing a separate or alternative curriculum based on a student’s diagnosis, because doing so can limit a student’s potential growth, even if unintentionally. Rather, adaptation requires reviewing the national curriculum standards and determining how best to expose the student to each standard and related performance goal using accommodations. Uniquely adapting a curriculum for each student with disabilities can challenge educators; even in high-income countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, it is not done consistently for all students. Curriculum adaptation can be an even greater challenge in LMI countries, where education supports are often limited. However, a shift toward national curriculum adaptation is emerging in even the most resource-constrained countries, and as more countries begin to expand their national legislation on inclusive education, access to the curriculum should be included as a key component of new laws.

Inclusion Strategy.

Deinstitutionalization

The practice of institutionalizing children with disabilities remains a reality in many parts of the world. Institutionalization is especially relevant for children who have intellectual or severe disabilities, as parents may feel they have no other option. Therefore, governments should establish plans to eliminate institutions, social homes, or residential care facilities for children with disabilities and develop programs to reunite and strengthen family and community living. To be effective, deinstitutionalization policies must acknowledge and address reasons for institutionalization, such as “social attitudes that shame the family that has a child with disabilities; lack of skills to provide appropriate nursing care; financial difficulties; and the belief there is very little chance a child with disabilities can be integrated into society” (UNICEF, 2004). The CRPD clearly states that children and adults with disabilities should have the right to live in the communities in which their families live, and the Committee on the CRPD states that “the introduction of inclusive education must take place alongside a strategic commitment to the ending of long-term institutions for persons with disabilities” (UN, 2016a). As national governments review their current practices related to institutionalization and residential care and develop a clear plan to eliminate these structures and systems in the future, they can draw upon principles provided in the CRPD.

An Example of Deinstitutionalization.

Accessibility Standards

Establishing physical and communication accessibility in schools is essential for inclusive education. Many countries, such as Honduras, Costa Rica, and Brazil, are enacting laws that require all new schools to be accessible—able to be accessed and used by all students, regardless of mobility or other limitations—and all existing schools to be retrofitted over time. In addition, national standards on accessibility should require that schools implement a range of accessibility features to accommodate students with diverse disabilities. Each country has the opportunity to develop its own accessibility standards, and when doing so, it is important to review international best practices. The International Standards Organization (2017) provides general guidance to policymakers as they work to establish domestic accessibility standards.

Examples of physical accessibility include.

Examples of accessible communication include.

Access to Assistive Technology

Assistive technology devices can help students to access information and be successful in the classroom. Currently, however, only 5‒15 percent of children with disabilities in low-income countries have access to assistive technologies or assistive devices ( Saebones et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, many countries may be using severely outdated technology—for example, teaching students to write braille using slates and stylus tablets rather than braillers. A mandate to make assistive technology devices available to students is clearly stated within the CRPD, and countries that are developing specific domestic laws should consider including a specific reference to assistive technology. To this end, it is important first to assess what, if any, assistive technologies are currently being used in classrooms and then, based on this information, develop a strategy for increasing access to assistive technologies in the classroom. In low-income countries where budgets for assistive devices are limited, funding assistance from donor agencies supporting the education sector may be an avenue for obtaining this equipment.

The USAID Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Technical Assistance (READ-TA) program includes a specific focus on researching and providing effective assistive technology supports to children with disabilities. Through regional consultative (more...)

Access to Instruction in Sign Language

Globally, children who are deaf are often not taught sign language and have limited access to instruction given in sign language, which affects their ability to learn and reach their full potential. Partly because of the lack of teachers trained to teach in sign language, an estimated 90 percent of children who are deaf worldwide are illiterate ( Rau Barriga, 2010 ). As with the right to assistive technology, the CPRD clearly obligates the right to receive education in local sign language. Inclusive education policies must underscore the right to receive education in local sign language for individuals who are deaf or have very limited hearing.

There is no universal sign language. The adoption of a local, indigenous sign language is encouraged over the use of an imported, foreign sign language. Some countries, such as Uganda and South Africa, have officially recognized their local sign language (more...)

Individualized Education Plans

Individualized education plans (IEPs) were established in the United States in the 1970s and have since become an integral part of special education strategies in many countries worldwide ( Mariga et al., 2014 ). IEPs are ideally developed through a multidisciplinary process involving parents, teachers, administrators, the student, and other relevant support staff and service providers. Through this process, the individual needs, learning goals, placement, and related services of students with disabilities and the appropriate teaching strategies and required classroom accommodations can be identified. IEPs are an important tool for helping learners with disabilities to succeed and progress in school, and because of their role in facilitating special education, IEPs are legally mandated in many countries. For example, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom all have legislation that requires the development and use of IEPs for students with disabilities ( National Council for Special Education, 2006 ). The use of IEPs is also increasingly prevalent in other countries, such as Costa Rica, Malawi, Turkey, South Africa, and Uganda. In Uganda, for example, at the request of the Ministry of Education and Sports, RTI developed an IEP teacher’s guide, on which teachers in the USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program have been trained, with positive feedback emerging from trainers and teachers. In Ireland, where IEP usage is voluntary rather than compulsory, 85 percent of teachers reported IEPs to be useful in delivering inclusive education services ( Nugent, 2002 ). Given IEPs’ proven success in facilitating the education of students with disabilities, they should be considered as a possible component of countries’ special education legislation.

Complaint and Redress Mechanism

The CRPD Committee specifies in its General Comments on Article 24 that individuals with disabilities and the families of children with disabilities “must be provided with a safe and accessible mechanism for complaints and redress through which to challenge violations of their right to education” (UN, 2016a). Countries that have signed the CRPD Optional Protocol should develop and implement specific processes for addressing rights violations. Furthermore, it is critical that national human rights institutes fully engage in issues related to the right to inclusive education for all children. When developing domestic laws, viable structures and channels for filing complaints must be established and clearly stated so that people with disabilities or their family members are fully aware of the steps they need to take to submit a complaint when full access to education has been denied. The role of a child or disability ombudsperson to receive complaints and investigate when rights are violated should be made clear and strengthened, and individuals should be allowed to seek direct litigation if consistent with national laws and culture. For example, in the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides escalating steps to address complaints that begin with mediation between the parents and the school, allowing for state or federal complaints if issues are not resolved through mediation ( Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007 ).

Additionally, safeguards must be in place to ensure that families cannot be retaliated against after filing a complaint. As for all students, students with disabilities have the right to be heard within the school system, including through their participation in school councils and other governing bodies, such as local and national governments. Mechanisms through which individual students or student groups can appeal decisions concerning their education should also be identified and upheld by law. Parents must be made fully aware of their rights so that they will know if their rights are being violated. Therefore, all policy systems should be coupled with parent education and awareness raising related to children’s educational rights.

• Refining National Education Plans

Strong national policies and legislation are a critical first step toward providing children with disabilities an education within an inclusive setting. However, legislation is not an end in itself, and policy and legal frameworks must be translated into practice at the school level. Having strong national plans related to inclusive education will help reduce this gap and ensure that a transition plan—from a segregated to an inclusive education system—and programs to support this plan are established. Of course, the extent to which education plans are implemented depends on multiple factors, including funding levels, commitment and motivation of education leadership, the availability of trained staff, the availability of and guidance for adapting curricular materials, access to assistive devices, and importantly, the level of monitoring of and support given to service providers. These context-specific challenges should be addressed in the transition plan.

Although time frames vary per country and strategic plan, most initial strategic plans address a 10- to 20-year period.

Developing a national plan for implementing inclusive education and policies has proved to be very useful for many countries, regardless of income, by encouraging the development of goals, targets, and budgetary requirements to support the process of inclusive education. National plans or strategies are also an effective way to incorporate the input of teachers, administrators, parents, and disability leaders. WHO’s World Report on Disability (2011, pp. 217‒218) suggests that all national plans related to inclusive education should

reflect international commitments to the right of disabled children to be educated;

identify the number of disabled children and assess their needs;

stress the importance of parent partnerships and community partnerships;

plan for the main aspects of provision, such as making school buildings accessible, and developing the curriculum, teaching methods, and materials to meet diverse needs;

increase capacity by expanding the provision of training programs;

make sufficient funds available; and

conduct monitoring and evaluation and improve qualitative and quantitative data on students.

When national policy and planning are not yet implemented in a country, initiatives started at subnational levels have been shown to lead national inclusive education reforms. Kwa-Zulu Natal Province in South Africa is a case in point. The Kwa-Zulu Natal Provincial Department of Education was instrumental in demonstrating how the national policy on inclusive education (South Africa Department of Education White Paper 6) could be translated into practice at the local level, providing a model program for other South African Provincial Departments of Education ( South Africa Department of Education, 2001 ). The following text box briefly describes the South African Department of Education strategic plan on inclusive education. Additional countries, including Malta and Rwanda, have developed inclusive education strategies, while others, such as Jordan, are in the process of developing them. In addition to having a dedicated plan for inclusive education, it is also beneficial to include inclusive education in the country’s general disability plans. For example, countries such as Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, and the Republic of Georgia have developed National Disability Plans that address inclusive education as part of a larger strategy.

South African Strategic Plan on Inclusive Education.

Understanding the Systems Approach to Inclusive Education

Developing an inclusive system implies a shift from seeing the child with a disability as the problem to seeing the education system as something that must be strengthened to better serve the child. It requires strong commitments from local government, ministries, administrators, teachers, parents, and citizens. A systems approach, by definition, involves the coordination and shared responsibility and commitment of a broad base of stakeholders, including national and subnational government officials, education managers and service providers, parents and other community members, and the students themselves. UNESCO (2009) , which takes a broad view of the concept of inclusion, has identified four key tenets of an inclusive education system:

Inclusion is a process.

Inclusion is concerned with the identification and removal of barriers.

Inclusion is about the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

Inclusion involves an emphasis on those groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement.

This section pulls together international best practices related to the development of educational systems that allow the inclusion of learners with disabilities. Although each country may approach the recommendations differently to incorporate its unique cultural context, much of the general guidance will still apply.

Engaging Stakeholders

Many different stakeholders need to be meaningfully engaged to ensure and promote effective educational practices for students with disabilities. The attitudes of these stakeholders can have a tremendous impact on the success or failure of an inclusive education system. These stakeholders include the following.

Ministries of Education

Lead policymakers in the education sector, such as the national and subnational Ministries of Education (MOEs) or the equivalent entities within a country that lead educational planning, play a pivotal role in shaping education policy and reforming curriculum and delivery systems. To advocate for inclusive education for all children, including the most vulnerable and children with disabilities, these policy bodies must include experts in the field of special education who are knowledgeable about the advantages of inclusive education ( Skrtic, 1991 ).

The MOE should be responsible for the education of all children, including those with disabilities. In many low-income countries, the responsibility for the education of children with disabilities is divided across separate entities: the MOE and other ministries, such as the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry of Social Protection ( WHO, 2011 ). When the responsibility is divided among ministries, the MOE is typically responsible for the education of children deemed able of being educated in an inclusive setting, whereas the alternative ministry is responsible for children with more severe disabilities, such as those who are too often institutionalized. Both international disability advocates and international organizations have criticized this approach because it implies that children with severe disabilities cannot learn or that they need welfare rather than education. Likewise, any policies developed outside of the MOE are often not seen as education policies and frequently do not have the same influence or impact ( Sightsavers, 2011 ). The World Report on Disability states that dividing this responsibility among ministries “further segregates children with disabilities, and shifts the focus from education and achieving social and economic inclusion to treatment and social isolation” ( WHO, 2011 ). As a result, having one Ministry be responsible for the education of all children—with and without disabilities—is recommended. In many countries, an office or subdivision within the MOE is dedicated to ensuring the education of students with disabilities. Regardless of the internal structure, the individuals who direct and manage this component of the educational system need the appropriate training and experiential background to appropriately guide policy related to education for children with disabilities and provide the oversight required to ensure the provision of inclusive education for children with disabilities.

A systems approach requires cross-disciplinary cooperation and commitment from leaders in the health, social welfare, and finance sectors. This cooperation must occur at national and subnational levels of governance. For example, referral networks for ensuring that children receive needed services, such as access to health care and child protection, should be established within the school community (UN, 2016a). Precisely how this relationship is negotiated and managed will be unique to each country’s context but will likely require participation from all sectors and can be guided by CRPD guidelines.

Administrators and School Leadership

Administrators, principals, and other leaders are typically responsible for ensuring that national and local laws are being adhered to, that students with disabilities receive needed supports, that such supports are appropriately used by teachers, and that teacher training related to inclusive education is ongoing. The leadership of these individuals is pivotal for the improvement of educational opportunities for all students, especially those with disabilities or unique learning needs ( DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003 ). Many studies have found that administrators are as much, and sometimes more, of a barrier to including children with disabilities in the classroom as teachers. Some studies, including ones conducted in the United State, Egypt, and Finland, have revealed that administrators and principals may not have a good understanding of inclusive education and may have received limited training or preparation on how to run an inclusive school ( Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000 ; Moberg, 2000 ; Sadek & Sadek, 2000 ). Thus, training education officials and school managers on issues related to inclusive education is important. Knowledge building on the ethics, delivery, and impact of inclusive education services is not sufficient. The attitudes of administrators and support staff toward educating students with disabilities, in general, and toward inclusive education, in particular, must be addressed. Approaches that involve personal and group reflection and dialogue are often successful in shifting educators’ attitudes from resistance to inclusive education to advocacy for students with disabilities.

Catholic Relief Services’ Program in Laos.

Teachers and Support Staff

In many LMI countries, support staff and therapists—including teachers’ assistants, social workers, psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists—may not be available in the classroom, and even when they are, parents may have to pay for their services. These support staff can play an important role in the education of students with disabilities, however, and should ideally be made freely available and should work together with the general education and special education teachers to help identify students who have specific learning needs, deliver national curriculum-led instruction, identify supports and/or assistive devices that could benefit the student, and engage parents in students’ learning. Because special educators may have technical knowledge and expertise, they should serve as resources and supports for the general education teacher, who is ultimately responsible for educating all students within their classroom. Classrooms in low-resource areas can provide these types of critical supports in several ways.

Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and disability can have a substantial impact on the success of including students with disabilities into the general education classroom ( Cochran, 1998 ). For example, teachers are often more open to including students with physical or sensory disabilities than those with intellectual, learning, and behavioral disabilities ( Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ). This is typically because of the misconception that children with moderate to severe learning, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities are not able to learn while children with physical or sensory disabilities are. These attitudes should be addressed directly through reflection and dialogue. Research has also shown that the more opportunities teachers have to engage with individuals with disabilities, the more likely they are to support the concept of inclusive education ( Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 )

For example, a study in Egypt revealed that teachers who had social relationships with individuals with disabilities were more supportive of inclusive education ( El-Ashry, 2009 ). Teachers’ sense of their ability to teach students with disabilities should also be addressed. As teachers become more confident in their teaching skills, they become more comfortable accepting children with disabilities in their classroom and adapting their teaching methods to include a variety of learning styles ( Vaz et al., 2015 ). Thus, pre-service education programs should be required to provide opportunities for student teachers to engage directly and teach students with disabilities, and training on the principles and benefits of inclusive education should be included throughout preservice programs. Another positive way to promote inclusive education is to actively recruit and hire individuals with disabilities as school staff. To make this feasible, teacher training colleges should not discriminate against students with disabilities and should, if possible, actively recruit students with disabilities so they can become effective teachers and mentors. This strategy allows students with disabilities to engage with role models and provides all teaching staff an opportunity to learn from their unique insight related to teaching students with disabilities and their skills in the classroom (UN, 2016a).

Engaging parents with and without children with disabilities is another key component in the establishment of successful inclusive schools. It is not uncommon for parents of children with disabilities to resist school reforms that promote inclusive education because they fear that their children might not receive needed services in an inclusive setting ( Daniel & King, 1997 ). These parents may also harbor concerns regarding their children’s safety; the attitudes of other students, staff and program quality; and transportation ( Hanline & Halvorsen, 1989 ). However, parent engagement and partnership can lead to increased acceptance of disability, improved learning, and better classroom behaviors ( Edutopia, 2000 ), and research has shown that, as inclusive education systems become more established, parents adopt a decisively positive view of inclusive education ( Miller & Phillips, 1992 ). Additionally, evidence suggests that increased parent engagement and partnership in the special education process leads to improved learning outcomes for students with disabilities ( Stoner et al., 2005 ).

Teachers should engage parents in their child’s learning as much as possible and find ways to share classroom achievements and challenges with parents. Teachers should also partner with parents to determine how to best support a student with a disability outside of the classroom and how to advocate jointly for support to address the student’s needs. Including parents of children with disabilities in community programs is important to ensure that their children benefit from community support. Additionally, the attitudes of parents of children without disabilities toward inclusive education have been clearly demonstrated to become more positive over time ( Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010 ), and teachers should help to build sensitivity among the parents of children without disabilities. For effective inclusive education to become a reality, inclusive education reform must raise community awareness of benefits and basic concepts of inclusive education. Such awareness-building activities should not be limited to information sharing or sensitization but should include opportunities for personal reflection and dialogue.

In addition to school and parent partnership, community engagement is especially important during times of transition or education reform. For example, research conducted within the United States found that parent-community ties constituted one of the five essential supports needed for schools to be effective ( Sebring & Montgomery, 2014 ). This support develops when school staff reach out to parents and the community and encourage them to participate in strengthening student learning ( Epstein, 2001 ). As WHO (2011) states, “Approaches involving the whole community reflect the fact that the child is an integral member of the community and make it more likely that sustainable, inclusive education for the child can be obtained.”

To support community participation, USAID (2011) has developed five steps to engage communities in education programs; these also apply to engaging the community in inclusive education programs:

Step 1. Conduct a participatory assessment of the current situation, attitudes, concerns, opportunities, and aspirations related to education.

Step 2. Strengthen or form formalized structures for engagement.

Step 3. Assist school management committees, parent teacher associations, or other coordinating bodies in setting goals and developing plans.

Step 4. Build capacity to strengthen community-level human resources.

Step 5. Conduct continuous monitoring and follow-up.

Communities also benefit from having inclusive schools. For example, an inclusive education project in Vietnam showed that communities with inclusive education programs “become more open minded, creating a more favorable environment for people with disabilities in the future” ( Catholic Relief Services/Vietnam, 2008 ).

DPOs and Parent Associations

In most countries, DPOs and associations for parents of children with disabilities serve as helpful resources to build awareness and acceptance of children with disabilities and to promote inclusive education. These groups are also well positioned to educate parents on their children’s rights and advocate for improved education policies and legislation. Engaging these groups is critical in establishing inclusive education systems, because they use their national network of members to support educational reforms and improved policies and also have unique and important insight gained through their lived experience. One study conducted in both high- and low-income countries showed that disability advocates and DPOs participating in and advocating for improved education services have led to distinct improvements in special education ( Eleweke, 2001 ). Examples of international DPOs working in the field of education and rights of children with disabilities include the following:

International Disability Alliance: http://www ​.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/

Disabled Persons International: http://www ​.dpi.org/

Inclusion International: https: ​//inclusion-international.org/

What is a DPO?

• Models of Moving From a Segregated System to an Inclusive One

Many countries are moving away from segregated systems and toward a more inclusive model that allows for students with disabilities to be taught alongside their nondisabled peers. The incentives for this shift vary by country, although compliance with the CRPD has played a significant role in this change. No standardized approach for how to shift from a segregated system to an inclusive one is available. Issues such as a country’s current education system, cultural views on disability, political will, and socioeconomic stability can impact how a country may choose to approach its inclusive educational reform. However, several models have been helpful for different countries as they work toward developing an inclusive education system.

Developing Resource Centers

Many countries—including Armenia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States, and South Africa—have worked to transition segregated schools to national or regional resource centers. For example, in this model, teachers who used to teach students who are blind now serve as on-site supports, trainers, and mentors for general education teachers who may have students who are blind in their classroom. This model, in which previously designated specialized, segregated schools and inclusive schools collaborate and work together, has resulted in positive gains, especially relating to student outcomes ( Paulsen, 2008 ). Examples of collaboration include co-teaching, support to modify curriculum, and provision of behavioral supports ( Forlin & Rose, 2010 ). This model typically facilitates a smoother transition toward inclusion and allows special educators to continue to use and share their practical hands-on experience and knowledge to provide positive support for students.

Using Itinerant Teachers/Specialist Teachers

In many countries where the number of trained special education teachers is limited, itinerant or visiting teachers or, in some cases, health professionals can provide support to general education teachers. Under this model, special educators or experts who are trained in a specific type of disability travel to different inclusive schools to offer advice and mentorship and to provide technical assistance to general education teachers and schools. In this way, even schools with limited funding (i.e., where special educators cannot be present in each school) can benefit from special education expertise and knowledge. Countries that have implemented the itinerant teacher model include Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda ( Lynch & McCall, 2007 ).

Engaging Teacher Assistants

Using teacher assistants, sometimes also referred to as “paraprofessionals,” to support teachers in inclusive classrooms is an effective approach in many countries. Although teacher assistants’ roles within the classroom may vary significantly by context, research has demonstrated that teaching assistants are most successful when assigned to support a classroom rather than assigned to an individual student, because the latter may inadvertently increase the stigma associated with disability, isolate the student with a disability, and increase the student’s dependency and/or reduce her/his interactions with the teacher or peers ( Giangreco et al., 2001 ). In some exceptions, assigning a teaching assistant to a student who, for example, needs support to communicate or who is medically fragile may be needed. Even in such cases, however, it is important that teacher assistants supplement and support teachers but not replace them as the primary source of instruction ( Giangreco & Doyle, 2007 ).

Moving From a Diagnosis-Based Approach to an Individualized One

In some countries—such as Gabon, India, Macedonia, and Morocco—before children can enter school, even an inclusive school, they must receive a certificate from a doctor diagnosing their disability. This approach can limit educational opportunities for low-income families who may not be able to afford medical appointments to receive the required certificate. Furthermore, as discussed previously, a diagnosis does not inform a teacher about a specific student’s educational needs. Instead, countries should allow all children to access school, regardless of disability, and implement a screening and classroom evaluation process to determine eligibility for special education services and assess what type of supports or services might be beneficial for each student. An evaluation process can also inform IEPs that can serve as additional support for both teachers and countries as they move toward a more individualized approach.

Many countries, such as Costa Rica, have eliminated diagnosis-based educational services and have transitioned to providing individualized supports to students (Stough, 2003).

• Identification of Children With Disabilities

Children with disabilities can be identified as needing special education in various ways. Typically, initial suspicions that a child has special learning needs come through school referrals, concerns raised by the child’s parents, or the health care system (i.e., identification by a pediatrician or health care professional). However, reliably identifying a child as having a disability can be extremely challenging in countries that struggle with community misperceptions of disabilities, limited resources for conducting screenings and evaluation, and the limited availability of skilled professionals who are trained to conduct a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation.

Even within high-income countries, too often only children with relatively severe disabilities are identified prior to reaching school age, and children with less-noticeable disabilities (e.g., low vision, hard of hearing, learning disabilities, and mild-to-moderate autism spectrum disorders) are generally identified after they enter preprimary or primary school ( Wirz, Edwards, Flower, & Yousafzai, 2005 ). In fact, even in the United States, fewer than one in five children are properly screened and identified as having possible special needs before school ( Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health, 2009 ). Identifying a disability as early as possible is important, because interventions introduced early are much more likely to lead to long-term gains than those that are implemented later in life ( Fernald, Kariger, Engle, & Raikes, 2009 ). Furthermore, early intervention is linked to several positive life outcomes, such as higher academic performance, increased likelihood of graduating secondary school, and decreased likelihood of committing crimes ( Heckman & Masterov, 2005 ).

Making Early Grade Reading Tools Accessible.

Most early and primary education programs in LMI countries do not have systems in place to systematically identify students with disabilities. As a result, many students, especially those with less severe disabilities, are never identified and, thus, never receive special education services or other aids. Furthermore, these countries rarely administer vision and hearing screenings, and if they do, these tests typically do not take place at school. Simple screenings should be administered within the classroom to assess learning, vision, and hearing challenges. Countries should establish referral systems to ensure that these students, once identified, can receive services or aids, such as glasses. In addition, Response to Intervention strategies can be used to assess whether a student will benefit from additional academic support and can also inform teachers if a more comprehensive evaluation should be conducted. Evaluations within the school setting should follow international best practices, which include having a trained multidisciplinary team conduct the evaluation, using multiple tools that have been translated into the local language and adapted to the cultural context, actively engaging parents, and summarizing findings in a comprehensive report that outlines additional supports or services that might benefit the student.

In many countries, including the United States, a diagnosis is not needed for a child to enroll and access education, including inclusive education. Instead an evaluation is used to determine access to special education services and inform the types of supports or accommodations a student may need that are ultimately selected using a very individualized approach. Because of the wide range of abilities that exist within a diagnosis, giving a child a specific diagnosis, such as Down syndrome or autism spectrum disorder, does not provide accurate information on that child’s ability to function and succeed within the classroom. Instead, each child will have her strengths and weaknesses that should be fostered and supported, respectively. Access and functional needs should be identified for each student on a case-by-case/individual basis through an interactive process involving the student, family, and others knowledgeable about the student.

Challenges of Labeling

In many countries with developed special education systems, labeling students with disabilities is linked to additional funding or classroom supports and is, therefore, needed in some way ( Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007 ). Identifying students who require additional educational supports and collecting data on disability are essential to ensuring that students receive appropriate services. However, in other contexts, this process of identification can lead to increased stigmatization, peer rejection, lower self-esteem, lower expectations, and limited opportunities ( Florian et al., 2006 ). Moreover, once a student is categorized as requiring special education, he or she can be stigmatized by teachers who may have lower expectations for the student ( Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2010 ). To mitigate potential prejudicial labeling, all identification systems should be coupled with disability awareness programs to help administrators, teachers, students, and parents better understand and fully accept diversity and disability. For example, in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi, RTI is piloting teacher training and guidance intended, in part, to sensitize teachers about the dangers of disability stigma and to provide specific instructional techniques to support the learning of students with disabilities. Additional low-cost resources and training for teachers must be made available in LMI countries if teachers are to be able to effectively meet the needs of their students with disabilities.

• Adaptable Learning Environments and UDL

Promoting adaptable learning environments, and building awareness of the importance of differentiated learning, are important in establishing an inclusive education system. One relatively successful way of promoting an adaptable learning environment is using UDL. This approach recognizes that all students, with and without disabilities, learn in different ways. When the curriculum is designed to meet the needs of “average” students, it fails to address the natural diversity and backgrounds that exist in all classrooms. Although the goal of UDL is to meet the diverse learning needs of students with disabilities, it can also enhance the education of all students in the classroom. Research has revealed that teachers find UDL to be an effective instructional approach and that it enables teachers to better engage diverse groups of students ( Kurtts, 2006 ). UDL may also be an effective technique in countries that may not yet have a disabilities identification system in place, by helping teachers to support diverse learning needs even without knowing which students may have disabilities. Of course, particularly in resource-constrained contexts, the demands on teachers are great, and achieving adaptable learning environments can be only aspirational at first. Even in these contexts, however, simple shifts in how teaching and learning materials are developed, how classrooms are set up, and how teachers are trained can go far in meeting UDL goals.

UDL is a “set of principles for curriculum that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn” (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2016). For more than 30 years, CAST (http://www.cast.org/) has driven the use of UDL (more...)

Strategies on how teachers can use UDL include the following ( Rose & Meyer, 2002 ):

Use multiple strategies to present the content. Use a variety of techniques, including case studies, music, role play, cooperative learning, hands-on activities, and field trips, and a variety of learning contexts, including individual, pair, and group work; peer learning; and field work.

Use a variety of materials. To present, illustrate, and reinforce new content, use different materials, such as online resources, manipulatives, and existing textbooks and supplemental reading books.

Provide cogitative supports. Present background information for new concepts using pictures, objects, and other materials that are not lecture based. Scaffold student learning by providing a course syllabus, outlines, summaries, and study guides.

Teach to a variety of learning styles. Build movement into learning and give both oral and written instructions for students who learn auditory or visually.

Provide flexible opportunities for assessment. Enable students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways, including visual and oral presentations, as well as written assignments.

• Inclusive Teaching and Learning Materials

Addressing inclusive education and portraying people with disabilities in positive and empowering ways can facilitate reducing stigma and discrimination. Unfortunately, students with disabilities are rarely included in teaching and learning materials, and when they are included, they are often underrepresented or presented in demeaning ways. For example, a recent study reviewed the visibility of persons with disabilities in illustrations of seven Iranian English as a foreign language textbooks used in US secondary schools. The study demonstrated that people with disabilities were underrepresented and that images of students with disabilities were typically shown in disadvantageous positions that perpetuated the invisibility of the students and promoted negative stereotypes ( Cheng & Beigi, 2011 ). Teaching and learning materials should address inclusive education and include positive and empowering images and stories of students with disabilities. To promote this, USAID has developed A Guide to Promote Gender Equality and Inclusiveness in Teaching and Learning Materials ( USAID, 2015 ), which recommends that images and stories in teaching and learning materials reflect the diversity of social characteristics within a country. As children with disabilities represent approximately 15 percent of the population, USAID recommends that 15 percent of images and stories should include students with disabilities. In addition, it is important that these images show girls and boys with all types of disabilities as productive members of society. This guide also provides a checklist for what to look for when developing new teaching and learning materials. In summary, teaching and learning materials should:

Use language that stresses the person first and the disability second (people with disabilities, not disabled people).

Promote empathy and an overall feeling of understanding for people with disabilities, as well as provide accurate information about a specific disability.

Demonstrate respect for and acceptance of people with disabilities, and depict them as more similar than different from other people (“one of us” rather than “one of them”).

Emphasize the successes of people with disabilities and show their strengths and abilities along with their disabilities.

Promote positive images of persons with disabilities and represent them as strong, independent people, who others can look up to or admire.

Represent people with disabilities from different racial and cultural backgrounds, religions, and age groups, as well as rural versus urban representations.

Depict valued occupations for persons with disabilities and show them in diverse and active roles.

Depict people with disabilities in integrated settings and activities—in school, at work, or in the community among peers with and without disabilities.

Illustrate characters and adaptive equipment accurately. ( Anti-Defamation League, 2005 )

• Teacher Training

Teachers represent the most powerful resource in all educational systems, and the importance of continuously building their knowledge and skills cannot be overstated. Teachers in LMI countries may not have a formal training on explicit instructional techniques, and national standards for teacher training can vary significantly from country to country. In some countries, a 1-month training course can qualify as training, whereas other countries require a 3-year education degree ( Global Campaign for Education, 2012 ). Where training does exist, the curriculum often does not include training related to the nature of disabilities and approaches for working with students who have disabilities. As a result, there is a severe shortage of teachers and teacher assistants capable of effectively supporting the individual needs of students with disabilities ( WHO, 2011 ). Without building these skills and ensuring the positive attitudes of teachers toward disability, true inclusive education will be difficult to achieve. Recommendations for successful approaches to preparing teachers include the following.

CASE STUDY: RTI Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity.

Embed Disability in All Preservice and In-Service Trainings

The curriculum for preservice and in-service trainings designed to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to support students with disabilities in an inclusive setting should be integrated and mutually supportive. These curricula should not address disability as a stand-alone subject, but should embed explicit training in teaching students with disabilities as an integral part of core teacher competencies. Stand-alone courses on disability have been shown to be ineffective, because this approach perpetuates the misunderstanding that disability is a separate training initiative and not a core competency required of all teachers. Whenever feasible, enormous value added can be achieved when teacher training related to students with disabilities includes local stakeholders, such as disability leaders or parents of children with disabilities, who can provide a lived experience of disability and ground-truth theory into reality ( International Disability and Development Consortium, 2013 ).

Include All Teachers, Regardless of Specialization, in Teacher Training

Too often, in-service trainings for special education teachers and general education teachers take place separate from each other. As a result, special education teachers do not receive the new skills related to literacy, math, and other topics that are offered to general education teachers, whereas general education teachers fail to receive continuing education related to disability. As emphasized previously, teacher training related to students with disabilities must be inclusive. That is, all teachers, regardless of their area of specialization, should have access to training and international best practices that can be adapted or modified as needed to the specific reality of their classrooms.

Promote the Diversification of Skill Sets

UNESCO recommends a hierarchy of teacher training opportunities in an inclusive education system:

All teachers should be trained on inclusive practices as they will undoubtedly have a child with a disability in their classroom at some point in time. Many teachers (ideally, at least one per school) should develop more comprehensive expertise on disability related to more common learning challenges and disabilities. These individuals can serve as an on-sight resource and advisor to their peers. A few teachers should develop higher levels of expertise in the diverse challenges that mainstream teachers may encounter and serve as a consultant to those schools and teachers as needed. ( UNESCO, 2003 )

Address Potential Attitudinal Barriers

Attitudes have a sizeable impact on the performance of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Prejudicial beliefs may result in lower expectations of students with disabilities and lead to these students focusing less on academic achievement. Thus, as for any stakeholder dialogue on disability, it is important to address attitudes, beliefs, and practices in pre-service and in-service trainings on inclusive education. In this process, rather than telling teachers what their attitudes and beliefs should be, training should allow for personal reflection on these attitudes and practices, and opportunities should be provided for open discussion among teachers related to these attitudes and fears about including students with disabilities in their classrooms. Training should also help teachers reflect on how to dispel myths and fears associated with inclusive education among education officials, school managers, parents and other community members, and other service providers.

Provide Follow-Up and Hands-On Experience

It is vital to follow up on the trainings with ongoing support and mentoring, to the extent possible within the country or context. Having ongoing support for teachers in the classroom can strengthen their skills and their confidence in establishing an inclusive education setting in the classroom. In some countries, designated support supervision staff can be trained in providing this kind of support to teachers. Special education teachers who have previously worked within segregated settings might also serve as coaches and resources to general education teachers; such special education teachers should receive training and guidance in how to effectively serve in this new role as a resource, coach, and mentor. Communities of practice and distance learning may also serve as viable options for teachers in many countries.

Data Collection, Prevalence Rates, and Enrollment

Poor data collection is one of the many reasons why children with disabilities are left out of education plans, because a lack of data impedes education planning and implementation. Poor data are not surprising given the challenges of identifying students with disabilities. Moreover, even when prevalence data on children with disabilities are collected, data on participation restrictions and environmental factors are generally lacking (e.g., data regarding barriers to full participation, whether schools are physically accessible, and whether students with disabilities can participate equitably in all areas of the school, including sports and recreation). This type of information is needed in developing better program and policy interventions ( UNICEF, 2013 ). For example, Education Management Information Systems (EMISs), which most countries use to monitor and guide education sectors, even when used systematically typically do not include indicators on disability ( UNICEF, 2014e ). Additionally, even a well-functioning EMIS only captures information on the number of students attending school who may have a disability; it cannot determine how many children with disabilities are eligible to attend school and are not enrolled.

EMIS and Disability.

Three primary approaches for generating disability data through censuses or surveys exist: (1) the respondent self-identifies as having a disability (e.g., “Do you have a disability and, if so, what disability?”); (2) the respondent selects from a list of disability categories (e.g., “From this list of disabilities, select those that apply”); and (3) the respondent answers questions regarding her level of functionality, or questions related to what she can and cannot do without help (e.g., “Do you need help feeding yourself?”). Due to concerns related to stigmas or prejudice, or perhaps a lack of a common understanding of disability, typically fewer than 10 percent of people will respond honestly to the first two types of questions, especially in LMI countries; this results in artificially low percentages of individuals indicating that they have disabilities. When functionality questions are used, however, the number of individuals with disabilities increases to approximately 10–20 percent of the population ( Mont, 2007 ). To support countries in developing more accurate data, the Washington Group developed a simple set of six functionality questions that can be used in censuses and household surveys throughout the world to determine prevalence of disabilities. Countries such as Timor-Leste and Bangladesh have begun to use these functionality questions in their respective EMIS systems to track students with disabilities ( UNICEF, 2014c ). More recently, the Washington Group on Disability Statistics & UNICEF (2016) developed an additional set of functionality questions specifically designed for children.

Although the exact numbers are typically unknown, strong evidence suggests that many children with disabilities in LMI countries have never attended school. A 2004 study in Malawi showed that children with disabilities were twice as likely to have never attended school compared to their peers without disabilities ( UNICEF, 2014c ). Additionally, a recent study in Rwanda demonstrated that of those surveyed, 57.4 percent of children with disabilities had never attended school and that the rest (42.6 percent) dropped out after attending school for just a few years ( Baptiste, Malachie, & Struthers, 2013 ). There are a wide range of reasons why parents do not enroll their children in school. These reasons include inaccessible facilities, a lack of transportation, a lack of programs that accept children with disabilities, negative attitudes and unkindness toward children with disabilities, and the bullying and stigmatization often experienced by children with even mild disabilities ( WHO, 2011 ). A robust situational analysis is a critical first step toward reforming school programs to promote the equality and inclusion of children with disabilities. Such studies should provide data that are aggregated at both the national and subnational levels of government and public service. The information collected should include household surveys to define the population, attitudes related to the inclusive education of students with disabilities, and the accessibility of school programs and referral networks, such as special education support and health, psychosocial, and child protection services that can provide important outpatient services for children with disabilities and their parents or guardians. Through a comprehensive study of the opportunities and barriers to education for children with disabilities, curricular and system reforms can be developed to inform forward movement toward inclusive education for children with disabilities.

In 2006, RTI collaborated with USAID and the Morocco Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training to assess the state of disabilities inclusion in the country. This assessment engaged a number of DPOs and other disabilities rights organizations (more...)

• Budgeting for Inclusion

Funding for inclusive education, as for all education initiatives, is a substantial concern for governments. In fact, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have cited the lack of financial resources as a primary reason for delaying the implementation of an inclusive education system ( Chireshe, 2013 ; Sukhraj, 2008 ). Other countries, such as Morocco, Senegal, and Mozambique, have limited budgets allocated for special education or inclusive education and rely heavily on nongovernmental organizations and civil society to educate children with disabilities. The challenge of relying solely on nongovernmental organizations to educate children with disabilities is that, in these cases, large discrepancies often arise in the quality of the services provided, there is a tendency to not follow the national curriculum for instruction, and because of tuition costs, only affluent families often receive services. The provision of financial support by the government to implement an inclusive education system is a critical factor in its success. It is also important to recognize that although an initial investment will be needed, especially during times of reform and transition, the inclusive education model will be a more cost-effective model in the long term ( UNICEF, 2012 )

The costs initially allocated to segregated systems should be transitioned to budgets for inclusive education systems. However, in countries with emerging or limited special education systems, additional funding may be needed. Typically, higher-income countries spend 12‒20 percent of their education budgets on special education ( Sharma, Forlin, & Furlonger, 2015 ). Several models for financing inclusive education exist, and the predominant models include the following models.

Per Capita or Cost-Based Models

In these models, a formula is developed and applied to the number of children with disabilities in the country to determine the amount of total spending. For example, certain amounts of money are allocated for students without disabilities, those who are socially disadvantaged, those who speak a minority language, and those who have a disability. A student with a disability is frequently estimated to require 2‒2.5 times more financial support than a student who does not have a disability, is not socially disadvantaged, or does not speak a minority language ( UNICEF, 2014d ). Countries that use this model to determine their budgets include the United States, Canada, and Serbia.

Resource- or School-Based Models

In these models, funding is based upon the services needed within a country versus the number of children who require services. For example, using this model, a country determines the number of special education specialists and the equipment needed to implement inclusive education and then allows municipalities and schools to decide on how the money is specifically spent. Countries that use this model to determine their budget allocations include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Norway ( UNICEF, 2014d ).

Output-Based Models

In these models, school funding is tied to student achievement scores, and sanctions are imposed on low-performing schools. In the context of special education, this form of funding has been highly criticized by the disability community, because it may encourage segregated settings and penalize schools for circumstances outside of their control (such as a lack of trained teachers or access to adapted materials). Parts of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have used this model to finance inclusive education ( UNICEF, 2014d ).

Each of these funding models has advantages and disadvantages. For example, the per-capita model can be challenging for countries that do not have reliable identifications systems within the school ( Sharma et al., 2015 ). Governments should carefully review their options and select the model that is best aligned with their country’s context and the current budgeting systems used for the general education system.

• Monitoring Systems for Improvement

Routine monitoring systems are critical for continuous learning and adaptation of an inclusive education program. To implement a robust monitoring system, a set of performance indicators must be developed that can be used to gauge the quality of programming and the outcomes for all students, including but not limited to students with disabilities. This may mean that assessment instruments are modified to measure learning outcomes among children with disabilities.

The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009) developed a set of indicators for inclusive education in collaboration with 23 countries in the region. The project resulted from a survey conducted in 22 European countries that listed (more...)

Information related to participation, accessibility, and the availability of supports for students with disabilities should be collected within an EMIS. This information is helpful in informing the planning, budgeting, and programming for students with disabilities. However, national education statistics systems are generally limited in their ability to access certain information needed to inform allocations to schools based on relative need. For example, EMISs rarely include information from households, and thus, access to an emerging inclusive education program may be unknown. Furthermore, national education statistics rarely provide information on the quality of teacher instruction or learning outcomes. Building avenues for collecting such information is critical to ensure that inclusive programs are aligned with the government’s national policy and curriculum requirements. Regularly evaluating the access to education, quality of the instruction, needed support structures, and learning outcomes is critical. Having this information allows the education system to become a learning system and, through learning, to adapt to ensure that all students with disabilities receive an education in the least-restrictive environment possible and that schools are positive and supportive.

Countries are increasingly moving toward adopting inclusive education systems that are supported by policy and best-practice legislative frameworks. Although there is an increasing number of success stories in this area, substantial challenges related to implementation persist. For example, even in situations where quality inclusive education legislation exists, a large gap between policy and practice often remains. In some cases, this gap results from a lack of budget for general education can serve as a barrier to implementing inclusive education policy. Additionally, persistent prejudicial views or questions regarding the value of inclusive education can impede progress and result in gaps between in policy and practice.

UNESCO states that the “concept and practice of inclusive education have gained importance in recent years. Internationally, the term is increasingly understood more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners” ( UNESCO, 2009 , p. 4). For educational reform to be successful within a country, political will must be combined with support from teachers, administrators, parents, and the community. Additionally, the false belief that some children have more value than others and, thus, deserve more opportunities to succeed must be eliminated. All children and youths have the right to receive a quality education and reach their full potential. For students with disabilities to receive the best possible education, governments must commit to providing education in inclusive settings. As stated by the CRPD Committee, “only inclusive education can provide both quality education and social development for persons with disabilities…[and] it is the most appropriate modality for States to guarantee universality and non-discrimination in the right to education” ( United Nations, 2016a ). Although challenges in implementing inclusive education reform exist, they are not insurmountable, and changes made through such reform will only strengthen the educational system by addressing the needs of all students.

Education reform and inclusive education reform should be a process and not a project.

• Anti-Defamation League. (2005). Evaluating children’s books that address disability . Retrieved February 7, 2017, from https://www ​.adl.org/sites ​/default/files/documents ​/assets/pdf ​/education-outreach/evaluating-children-s-books-that-address-disability.pdf
• Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
• Banks, L. M., & Polack, S. (2014). The economic costs of exclusion and gains of inclusion of people with disabilities: Evidence from low and middle income countries . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http: ​//disabilitycentre ​.lshtm.ac.uk/files ​/2014/07/Costs-of-Exclusion-and-Gains-of-Inclusion-Report ​.pdf
• Baptiste, S. J., Malachie, T., & Struthers, P. (2013). Physical environmental barriers to school attendance among children with disabilities in two community based rehabilitation centers in Rwanda. Rwanda Journal of Health Sciences, 2(1), 10–15.
• Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165–181.
• Bowman, I. (1986). Teacher-training and the integration of handicapped pupils: Some findings from a fourteen nation UNESCO study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1(1), 29–38.
• Bulat, J., Hayes, A., Macon, W., Ticha, R., & Abery, B. (2015). School and classroom disabilities inclusion guide for low- and middle-income countries. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. 10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0031.1701 [ CrossRef ]
• Catholic Relief Services. (2014). Inclusive education training manual. Retrieved June 23, 2017, from https: ​//resourcecentre ​.savethechildren.net ​/sites/default/files ​/documents/new_iem_march2014_eng_111 ​.pdf
• Catholic Relief Services/Vietnam. (2008). Inclusive education for children with disabilities: How-to guide . Retrieved October 6, 2017, from https://www ​.crs.org/sites ​/default/files/tools-research ​/how-to-guide-inclusive-education-children-disabilities.pdf
• Cheng, K. K. Y., & Beigi, A. B. (2011). Addressing students with disabilities in school textbooks. Disability & Society, 26(2), 139–242.
• Chireshe, R. (2013). The state of inclusive education in Zimbabwe: Bachelor of education (special needs education) students’ perceptions. Journal of Social Science, 34(3), 223–228.
• Cochran, H. K. (1998, October 14–16). Differences in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education as measured by the scale of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive classrooms (STATIC). Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–144. [ PubMed : 15008642 ]
• Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323–332.
• Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, A., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators and teachers’ perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331–338.
• Daniel, L. G., & King, D. A. (1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 67–80.
• Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health. (2009). The national survey of children’s health . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http: ​//childhealthdata.org/learn/NSCH
• DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://copsse ​.education ​.ufl.edu/docs/IB-7/1/IB-7.pdf
• Disability Rights Fund. (2016). Glossary of terms . Retrieved October 3, 2016, from http://www ​.disabilityrightsfund ​.org/glossary-of-terms/
• Edutopia. (2000). Parental involvement reaps big benefits . Retrieved September 17, 2016, from https://www ​.edutopia ​.org/parent-involvement-reaps-big-benefits
• El-Ashry, F. R. (2009). General education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in Egypt (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://etd ​.fcla.edu/UF ​/UFE0024244/elashry_f.pdf
• Eleweke, C. J. (2001). Physician heal thyself: The role of disability organisations in countries of the south towards improvements in special needs provision. African Journal of Special Needs Education, 6(2), 107–113.
• Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnership: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Ethiopia Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2012). National plan of action of persons with disabilities (2012–2021) . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https://www ​.ilo.org/dyn ​/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC ​/94528/110953/F-1258023553 ​/ETH94528.pdf
• European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2009). Development of a set of indicators—For inclusive education in Europe . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https://www ​.european-agency ​.org/publications ​/ereports/development-of-a-set-of-indicators-for-inclusive-education-in-europe ​/development-of-a-set-of-indicators-for-inclusive-education-in-europe
• Falvey, M. A. (2004). Toward realizing the influence of “Toward realization of the least restrictive educational environments for severely handicapped students.”. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 9–10.
• Fernald, L. C. H., Kariger, P., Engle, P., & Raikes, A. (2009). Examining early childhood development in low-income countries: A toolkit for the assessment of children in the first five years of life. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Fisher, D., Sax, C., Rodifer, K., & Pumpian, I. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of curriculum and climate changes. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(3), 256–268.
• Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsson, R. J., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L., & Holland, A. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities: Part 1 Issues in the classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 36–45.
• Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive education in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 13–22.
• Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 75–86.
• Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2007). Teacher assistants in inclusive schools. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 429–439). London, UK: Sage.
• Global Campaign for Education. (2012). Closing the trained teachers gap. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://www ​.campaignforeducation ​.org/docs ​/reports/ECNAT%20Report_RGB.pdf
• Hanline, M. F., & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integration transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55(6), 487–492. [ PubMed : 2522877 ]
• Hathaway, O. A. (2002). Do human rights treaties make a difference? The Yale Law Journal, 111(8), 1935–2042.
• Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. V. (2005). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
• Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. F. (2010) Labeling and disadvantages of labeling . Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www ​.education ​.com/reference/article ​/advantages-disadvantages-labeling/
• International Disability and Development Consortium. (2013). Teachers for all: Inclusive education for children with disabilities . Retrieved January 15, 2017, from https://www ​.unicef.org ​/disabilities/files ​/IDDC_Paper-Teachers_for_all.pdf
• International Standards Organization. (2017). Accessing my world . Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://www ​.iso.org/accessing-my-world ​.html
• Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., & Dyson, A. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382.
• Klein, J. E. (2014). Deinstitutionalization in Croatia: A summary of Open Society support . Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https: ​//bettercarenetwork ​.org/library/principles-of-good-care-practices ​/transforming-institutional-care ​/deinstitutionalization-in-croatia-a-summary-of-open-society-support
• Kurtts, S. A. (2006). Universal design for learning in inclusive classrooms. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1 (10).
• Labon, D. (1999). Inclusion education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Washington, DC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22(1), 36–42.10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00443.x [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S. H., Amos, B. A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y., Shogren, K. A., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 199–212.
• Lynch, P., & McCall, S. (2007). The role of itinerant teachers. Community Eye Health, 20(62), 26–27. [ PMC free article : PMC1906922 ] [ PubMed : 17612693 ]
• Mariga, L., McConkey, R., & Myezwa, H. (2014). Inclusive education in low-income countries: A resource for teacher educators, parent trainers and community development workers. Oslo, Norway: Atlas Alliance.
• McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and research foundations. A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2000). Examining beliefs, attitudes and understandings as inclusive schools are developed. In Inclusive Schools in Action (pp. 48–59). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Miller, L. J., & Phillips, S. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 230–246.
• Moberg, G. (2000). Development of teacher perceptions of inclusive education in Finland . Paper presented at the 11th International Association for Scientific Study of Intellectual Deficiency, World Congress, Seattle, WA.
• Mont, D. (2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from http: ​//siteresources ​.worldbank.org/DISABILITY ​/Resources/Data/MontPrevalence.pdf
• National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2016). About UDL: Learn the basics . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://www ​.udlcenter.org/aboutudl
• National Council for Special Education. (2006). Guidelines on the individual education plan process . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://ncse ​.ie/wp-content ​/uploads/2014/10/final_report.pdf
• Nugent, M. (2002). Teachers’ views of working with Individual Education Plans in an Irish special school. REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, 15(2), 98–112.
• Patrinos, H. A. (2015). Disability and education: From charity to investment . Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://blogs ​.worldbank ​.org/education/disability-and-education-charity-investment
• Paulsen, K. J. (2008). School-based collaboration: An introduction to the collaboration column. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 313–316.
• Peters, S. (2003). Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special needs. Washington, DC: World Bank Disability Group.
• Rau Barriga, S. (2010). Breaking through the silence: HIV and the deaf. Huffington Post . Retrieved February 7, 2017, from https://www ​.huffingtonpost ​.com/shantha-rau-barriga ​/breaking-through-the-sile ​_b_790689.html
• Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• RTI Action Network. (n.d.). What is RTI ? Retrieved June 21, 2017, from http://www ​.rtinetwork ​.org/learn/what/whatisrti
• Ruh, D. (2012). The CRPD—Impact & opportunities . Retrieved September 6, 2016, from http://www ​.ssbbartgroup ​.com/blog/the-crpd-impact-opportunities/
• Sadek, F. M., & Sadek, R. C. (2000). Attitudes toward inclusive education in Egypt and implications for teachers’ preparation and training . Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress 2000, Manchester, UK.
• Saebones, A. M., Bieler, R. B., Baboo, N., Banham, L., Singal, N., Howgego, C., McClain-Nhlapo, C. V., Riis-Hansen, T. C., & Dansie, G. A. (2015) Towards a disability inclusive education: Background paper for the Oslo Summit on Education for Development . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://www ​.usaid.gov ​/sites/default/files ​/documents/1865/Oslo ​_Ed_Summit_DisabilityInclusive_Ed.pdf
• Sebring, P. B., & Montgomery, N. (2014). The five essential supports for school improvement: Mobilizing the findings. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 51(1), 63–85.
• Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Furlonger, B. (2015). Contemporary models of funding inclusive education for students with autism spectrum disorder . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://www ​.education ​.vic.gov.au/Documents ​/about/department/psdlitreview ​_FundingInclusiveEducationforStudentswithASD.pdf
• Sightsavers. (2011). Policy paper: Making inclusive education a reality . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://g3ict ​.org/download ​/p/fileId_848/productId_171
• Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148–207.
• South Africa Department of Education. (2001). Special needs education: Building an inclusive education and training system . Retrieved June 23, 2017, from https://www ​.education ​.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents ​/Legislation ​/White%20paper/Education ​%20%20White%20Paper%206.pdf
• Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39–51.
• Stough, L. M. (2003). Special education and severe disabilities in Costa Rica: Developing inclusion in a developing country. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(1), 7–15.
• Sukhraj, P. (2008). The implementation and challenges to inclusive education policy and practice in South Africa . Retrieved July 20, 2016, from http://icevi ​.org/publications ​/icevi_wc2006 ​/09_inclusive_educational_practices ​/Papers ​/afr_006_praveena%20sukhraj.pdf
• Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. (2007). Appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Company.
• United Nations. (2016a). General comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . Retrieved on January 24, 2017, from http://tbinternet ​.ohchr ​.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal ​/Download ​.aspx?symbolno=CRPD ​/C/GC/4&Lang=en
• UN. (2016b). Sustainable Development Goal 4 . Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https: ​//sustainabledevelopment ​.un.org/sdg4
• UN. (2016c). Sustainable Development Goals . Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https: ​//sustainabledevelopment ​.un.org/sdgs
• UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://www ​.un.org/development ​/desa/disabilities ​/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
• UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability. (2016). CRPD latest developments . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://www ​.un.org/development ​/desa/disabilities ​/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities ​/latest-developments.html
• UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1990). The world declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs . Retrieved September 12, 2016, from https://unesdoc ​.unesco ​.org/images/0012/001275/127583e.pdf
• UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education . Retrieved from September 6, 2016, http://www ​.unesco.org ​/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
• UNESCO. (2003). Open file on inclusive education: Support materials for managers and administrators . Retrieved September 6, 2016, from https://unesdoc ​.unesco ​.org/images/0013/001321/132164e.pdf
• UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education . Retrieved July 7, 2016, from https://unesdoc ​.unesco ​.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf
• UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2004). Children and disability in transition in CEE/CIS and Baltic States . Retrieved July 7, 2016, from https://www ​.unicef.org ​/ceecis/Disability-eng.pdf
• UNICEF. (2012). The right of children with disabilities to education: A rights-based approach to inclusive education . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www ​.unicef.org ​/ceecis/Final_Draft_-_Position_Paper2 ​.pdf
• UNICEF. (2013). Children and young people with disabilities fact sheet . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www ​.unicef.org ​/disabilities/files ​/Factsheet_A5__Web_NEW.pdf
• UNICEF. (2014a). Global initiative on out-of-school children: South Asia regional study . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www ​.unicef.org ​/education/files/SouthAsia ​_OOSCI_Study ​__Executive_Summary_26Jan_14Final.pdf
• UNICEF. (2014b). Legislation and policies for inclusive education: Webinar 3—Companion technical booklet . Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www ​.inclusive-education ​.org/sites ​/default/files/uploads ​/booklets/IE_Webinar_Booklet_3.pdf
• UNICEF. (2014c). Collecting data on child disability: Webinar 4—Companion technical booklet . Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www ​.inclusive-education ​.org/sites ​/default/files/uploads ​/booklets/IE_Webinar_Booklet_4.pdf
• UNICEF. (2014d). Financing of inclusive education: Webinar 8—Companion technical booklet . Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www ​.inclusive-education ​.org/sites ​/default/files/uploads ​/booklets/IE_Webinar_Booklet_8.pdf
• UNICEF. (2014e). Education management information systems and children with disabilities: Webinar 6 - Companion technical booklet . Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www ​.inclusive-education ​.org/sites ​/default/files/uploads ​/booklets/IE_Webinar_Booklet_6.pdf
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www ​.ohchr.org ​/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2007). Committee on the rights of the child, general comment No. 9: The rights of children with disabilities, CRC/C/GC/9, Feb 2007. In Report of the committee on the rights of the child (pp. 30‒52). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www ​.iom.int/jahia ​/webdav/shared/shared ​/mainsite/policy_and_research ​/un/63/A_63_41.pdf
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015). Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities: Draft general comment on the right to inclusive education. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www ​.ohchr.org ​/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages ​/GCRightEducation.aspx
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2010). Best practices in inclusive education for children with disabilities: Applications for program design in the Europe & Eurasia Region . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://pdf ​.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00HPH4 ​.pdf
• USAID. (2011). First principles: Community engagement in education programs . Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://www ​.equip123.net ​/docs/E1-FP_CommEng_Comp_Web.pdf
• USAID. (2015). A guide for promoting gender equality and inclusiveness in teaching and learning materials . Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https: ​//globalreadingnetwork ​.net/eddata/guide-promoting-gender-equality-and-inclusiveness-teaching-and-learning-materials-0
• USAID. (2016). EdData II task order 15: Data for education programming in Asia and the Middle East (DEP/AME) situation and needs assessment for students who are blind/low vision or deaf/hard of hearing in Morocco . Prepared for USAID by RTI International. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from https: ​//globalreadingnetwork ​.net/sites/default ​/files/eddata/R1-026 ​_Morocco_Inclusion ​_Study_Report_ENGLISH_FINAL.pdf
• USAID. (2017). Hearing impaired students learn to read faster in Malawi . Retrieved June 28, 2017, from https://www ​.usaid.gov ​/results-data/success-stories ​/classroom-innovations-help-deaf-students-learn-read
• Vaz, S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M., Sim, A., Scott, M., Corider, R., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Factors associated with primary school teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. PLoS One, 10(8), e0137002. [ PMC free article : PMC4552744 ] [ PubMed : 26317862 ]
• Villanueva, C. C. (2003). Education Management Information System (EMIS) and the formulation of Education for All (EFA) . Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://unesdoc ​.unesco ​.org/images/0015/001568/156818eo.pdf
• Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Garza, N. (2006). An overview of findings from wave 2 of the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
• Washington Group on Disability Statistics & UNICEF. (2016, December 18). Child functioning question sets . Retrieved from http://www ​.washingtongroup-disability ​.com ​/washington-group-question-sets ​/child-disability/
• Wirz, S., Edwards, K., Flower, J., & Yousafzai, A. (2005). Field testing of the ACCESS materials: A portfolio of materials to assist health workers to identify children with disabilities and offer simple advice to mothers. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(4), 293–302. [ PubMed : 16319554 ]
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). World report on disability . Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://www ​.who.int ​/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/

Appendix A. Inclusive Education Systems and Policy Checklist

This checklist is based upon the various articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the CRPD Committee’s draft General Comments on the right to inclusive education.

Government Education Systems Should:

Include all children with disabilities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

Establish an intersectoral commitment to inclusive education across government ministries, including:

Ministry of Finance;

Ministry of Health;

Ministry of Planning; and

Ministry of Social Welfare and Child Protection.

Require inclusive education as a component of preservice teacher training.

Require inclusive education as a component of in-service teacher training.

Actively recruit teachers with disabilities.

Provide accommodations to teachers with disabilities.

Ensure that general education sector plans and/or strategic plans address the needs of children with disabilities and inclusive education.

Develop an Education Sector Plan to support disability-specific legislation that details the process for implementing an inclusive education system, including the allocation of sufficient, committed financial and human resources for both rural and urban areas.

Ensure that teaching and learning materials are inclusive of individuals with disabilities and present disability in a positive and empowering manner that reduces stigmatization and supports inclusive education.

Consult with parents of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities on proposed laws and educational plans.

Establish an outreach mechanism to build awareness of parents and the community on issues related to disability and inclusive education.

Collect data on children with disabilities using the Washington Group functionality questions ( http://www ​.washingtongroup-disability ​.com ​/washington-group-question-sets ) to inform policies and programs.

Capture disability data within the Education Management and Information System (EMIS).

Develop monitoring frameworks with structural, process and outcome indicators.

Specific Inclusive Education Legal Framework Should:

Prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Provide a clear definition of inclusion and the specific objectives the law is seeking to achieve at all educational levels.

Ensure that all legislation that potentially impacts inclusive education within a country clearly states inclusion as a goal.

Reinforce that all children with disabilities, regardless of diagnosis or severity, have the right to free primary and access to secondary education within their public neighborhood schools.

Guarantee that students with and without disabilities have the same access to inclusive learning opportunities.

Provide reasonable accommodations to all children with disabilities.

Reaffirm that children with disabilities have the right to live in their communities and to not be not placed in long-term institutional care. If children with disabilities are currently institutionalized, develop and establish, with a plan for sustainability and monitoring, a strong deinstitutionalization plan.

Require all new schools to be designed and built to an acceptable standard of accessibility.

Provide a time frame for the adaptation of existing schools to ensure they meet an acceptable standard of accessibility, along with a monitoring plan for ensuring that the work is completed in a timely manner.

Develop a consistent framework for the identification, assessment, and support of individuals with disabilities.

Ensure that all children, including children with disabilities, have the right to be heard within the school system, including through school councils, governing bodies, and local and national government, and establish mechanisms through which decisions concerning education can be appealed.

Require that the national curriculum be available to all students and support a system to adapt curricula as needed for students with disabilities.

Give students the opportunity to access assistive technology, including materials in braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means, and formats of communication, and orientation and mobility skills, if needed.

Give students who are deaf or hard of hearing the opportunity to learn and be taught in the local sign language.

Develop an effective, accessible, safe, and enforceable complaints mechanism to challenge any violations of the right to education.

Appendix B. Glossary of Disability Inclusive Education Terminology

A curriculum based on the general education curriculum that is designed to meet the learning needs of a child with a disability (e.g., the use of extended time on tests). These changes do not fundamentally alter the goals of the original curriculum.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act defines assistive technology as “[a]ny item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities.” 6

A communication method that is used to supplement or replace oral speech or written language for individuals with limited speech or language abilities. AAC devices can include communication boards, symbols, or electronic devices.

The use of a country’s (or region’s) local sign language as well as the country’s (or region’s) written local language.

A tactile writing system used by people who are blind; braille consists of six raised dots arranged in two parallel rows that are felt with the fingertips. Braille is not a language but rather a code by which languages can be read and written.

A comprehensive evaluation of an individual child that can provide information about a child’s academic or behavioral problems. The results of a diagnostic evaluation can help teachers identify what educational supports are needed for an individual student.

An organization in which people with disabilities constitute a majority (over 51 percent) of the staff, board, and volunteers and are well represented within the organization.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines disability as including “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barrios may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006 ).

International development practices and services that address issues pertaining to people with disabilities; including poverty alleviation, education, health services, and others. Such initiatives ideally should include leaders who have disabilities.

The assessment of a child with a delay or disability at the earliest age possible. Early identification for children with developmental, intellectual, hearing, or vision disabilities usually refers to assessment or evaluation of a child to receive support services before entering school and preferably before age 3.

A system of coordinated services that promote a child’s growth and development during the critical early years of life. Early intervention services usually refer to providing support before entering school and preferably before age 3.

According to UNESCO, an Education Management Information System (or EMIS) is “an organized group of information and documentation services that collects, stores, processes, analyzes and disseminates information for educational planning and management” ( Villanueva, 2003 ).

Formal school-based education that is made available to students in a community, generally by a ministry of education.

The education of children with disabilities in their local schools alongside children without disabilities. Inclusive education “involves a process embodying changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies in education, with a common vision that serves to include all students of the relevant age range ” (UN, 2016a).

A plan or program that is developed by a committee usually made up of a student’s teacher, resource staff, parent, and the student to ensure that a student with a disability receives specialized instruction and related services. An IEP sets out yearly goals for the student and monitors the progress of those goals to ensure that the student is progressing in school.

A system in which children with disabilities attend a general education school but receive instruction in specialized or segregated classrooms. Typically, in these instances, children with disabilities have limited interaction with their peers who do not have disabilities and often lack access to the national curriculum.

A qualified teacher who travels from school to school to provide special education support and assistance to multiple schools, often across several communities.

An adaption made to a book or document where the font is larger than usual to allow for persons with low vision to better read the text. Large print text is usually 18-point font or larger.

A complete and often complex language that employs signs used by moving the hands combined with facial expression and postures of the body. Local sign language is the distinct sign language developed within a particular community or country.

A physical object (e.g., blocks) that can teach abstract concepts to children using both physical and visual cues. Manipulatives are particularly useful in teaching mathematics.

A service that helps people better engage in activities of daily living and better develop, improve, sustain, or restore independence to any person who has an injury, illness, or disability.

A therapy for preserving or enhancing movement and physical function that has been impacted by a disability, injury, or disease. Physical therapy often uses physical exercise, massage, and other forms of training.

A model of instruction in which a child with a disability is removed from the general education classroom for some part of a school day to receive special education or additional supports in a separate special education classroom or resource room.

A model of instruction in which a child with a disability receives special education or additional supports in the general education classroom, from a specialist or other support person, without being pulled out of the classroom to receive support.

A change made to a curriculum, method of instruction, assessment, homework or other school-based activity or requirement that is designed to reduce or eliminate the effects of a disability on a student. An example is extending time on tests or homework. Reasonable accommodations are intended to provide equal access and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the material or instructional environment.

A center for technical assistance and support for general education schools that are teaching children with disabilities. In some contexts, this can have been, formerly, a segregated school for children with disabilities.

A separate room in a general education school where student with disabilities are given direct specialized instruction, therapy services (such as speech or occupational therapy), and/or assistance with homework and related assignments; instruction may be individualized or within small or large groups.

A tiered framework for identifying children who may need additional educational support, providing appropriate interventions, and measuring ensuing changes in academic or behavioral performance ( RTI Action Network, n.d. ). Children who do not respond to intervention may need to be assessed for potential eligibility for special education and related services.

The process of using tests and assessments to identify student who may have disabilities. All students attending a school may be screened, and initial testing may identify students who may need individual evaluation.

The education of children with disabilities in separate schools or classrooms. These classrooms typically only contain students with other similar disabilities.

Education that is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and strengths of children with disabilities. Such education can occur either in an inclusive general education classroom or in separate classrooms or resource rooms.

A service that helps individuals obtain, maintain, or restore speech as well as to support individuals who may need assistance in speaking more clearly or in improving articulation.

An individual who supports the main teacher in instructional and administrative responsibilities. A teacher assistant is often assigned to support classrooms with children with special education needs, providing additional support and individualized attention if needed.

A set of principles for curriculum that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. This approach recognizes that all students, with and without disabilities, learn information in different ways.

A visual support that is intended for children who have difficulties understanding language due to a disability. The schedule consists of a series of images showing the steps of a given daily activity and is used to aid communication between the child and the adults in their lives.

Retrieved from http://ectacenter ​.org ​/topics/atech/definitions.asp .

Country ratification status as of May 2017.

Note that inclusive education does not mandate that students must spend 100 percent of time with their peers. Specialized intensive instruction in alternative settings—such as pulling a child out of a general education classroom for intensive literacy or language support—may also be helpful for some students in some areas of instruction. However, it is important to ensure that removing a student from the classroom does not become the default practice and that this practice is used sparingly and only in cases where such intensive and specialized instruction is not feasible in the general education class and is clearly beneficial for that student.

Disability is mentioned throughout the World Declaration on Education for All. For example, disability is mentioned within the goals and target section, Article 3.3 (d), and as part of the overall commitment.

The Salamanca Conference, which developed the Framework of Action, was attended by more than 300 participants representing 92 governments.

Students with disabilities may require different transition plans throughout their academic career. Most notable is the development of a transition plan that supports students with disabilities as they move from school to the workforce. Other transition plans may include transitioning from an early childhood program to kindergarten and transitioning from primary to secondary school.

Anne M. Hayes , MA, is an international disability and development consultant.

Jennae Bulat , PhD, directs the Teaching and Learning team in the International Development Group at RTI International.

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research organization dedicated to improving the human condition. The RTI Press mission is to disseminate information about RTI research, analytic tools, and technical expertise to a national and international audience. RTI Press publications are peer-reviewed by at least two independent substantive experts and one or more Press editors.

RTI Press Associate Editor

Assoc. editor’s name

Suggested Citation

Hayes, A. M., and Bulat, J. (2017). Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries . RTI Press Publication No. XX-0043-1707. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0043.1707

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving the human condition. We combine scientific rigor and technical expertise in social and laboratory sciences, engineering, and international development to deliver solutions to the critical needs of clients worldwide.

This work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

• Cite this Page Hayes AM, Bulat J. Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries [Internet]. Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI Press; 2017 Jul. doi: 10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0043.1707
• PDF version of this title (953K)

In this Page

• Inclusive Education Systems and Policy Checklist
• Glossary of Disability Inclusive Education Terminology

Other titles in this collection

• RTI Press Occasional Papers

Related information

• NLM Catalog Related NLM Catalog Entries
• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Inclusive education for students with sensory disabilities in Ghana: views of students with disabilities about availability of resources in regular schools. [Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol...] Inclusive education for students with sensory disabilities in Ghana: views of students with disabilities about availability of resources in regular schools. Opoku MP, Nketsia W, Fianyi I, Laryea P. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022 Aug; 17(6):687-694. Epub 2020 Aug 20.
• Implementation of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in public and private schools in three districts of Uganda. [Afr J Disabil. 2022] Implementation of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in public and private schools in three districts of Uganda. Musenyente E, Han ML, Knigge M. Afr J Disabil. 2022; 11:908. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
• Review Review: typically-developing students' views and experiences of inclusive education. [Disabil Rehabil. 2015] Review Review: typically-developing students' views and experiences of inclusive education. Bates H, McCafferty A, Quayle E, McKenzie K. Disabil Rehabil. 2015; 37(21):1929-39. Epub 2015 Jul 25.
• An exploratory study on attitudes toward inclusive education in Russia. [Int J Rehabil Res. 2005] An exploratory study on attitudes toward inclusive education in Russia. Martz E. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005 Jun; 28(2):141-7.
• Review Learning Disabilities Screening and Evaluation Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries [ 2018] Review Learning Disabilities Screening and Evaluation Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries Hayes AM, Dombrowski E, Shefcyk A, Bulat J. 2018 Apr

Recent Activity

• Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-... Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• High contrast
• Press Centre

Search UNICEF

• Inclusive education

Every child has the right to quality education and learning.

There are an estimated 240 million children with disabilities worldwide. Like all children, children with disabilities have ambitions and dreams for their futures. Like all children, they need quality education to develop their skills and realize their full potential.

Yet, children with disabilities are often overlooked in policymaking, limiting their access to education and their ability to participate in social, economic and political life. Worldwide, these children are among the most likely to be out of school. They face persistent barriers to education stemming from discrimination, stigma and the routine failure of decision makers to incorporate disability in school services.

Disability is one of the most serious barriers to education across the globe.

Robbed of their right to learn, children with disabilities are often denied the chance to take part in their communities, the workforce and the decisions that most affect them.

Getting all children in school and learning

Inclusive education is the most effective way to give all children a fair chance to go to school, learn and develop the skills they need to thrive.

Inclusive education means all children in the same classrooms, in the same schools. It means real learning opportunities for groups who have traditionally been excluded – not only children with disabilities, but speakers of minority languages too.

Inclusive systems value the unique contributions students of all backgrounds bring to the classroom and allow diverse groups to grow side by side, to the benefit of all.

Inclusive education allows students of all backgrounds to learn and grow side by side, to the benefit of all.

But progress comes slowly. Inclusive systems require changes at all levels of society.

At the school level, teachers must be trained, buildings must be refurbished and students must receive accessible learning materials. At the community level, stigma and discrimination must be tackled and individuals need to be educated on the benefit of inclusive education. At the national level, Governments must align laws and policies with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , and regularly collect and analyse data to ensure children are reached with effective services.

UNICEF’s work to promote inclusive education

To close the education gap for children with disabilities, UNICEF supports government efforts to foster and monitor inclusive education systems. Our work focuses on four key areas:

• Advocacy : UNICEF promotes inclusive education in discussions, high-level events and other forms of outreach geared towards policymakers and the general public.
• Awareness-raising : UNICEF shines a spotlight on the needs of children with disabilities by conducting research and hosting roundtables, workshops and other events for government partners.
• Capacity-building : UNICEF builds the capacity of education systems in partner countries by training teachers, administrators and communities, and providing technical assistance to Governments.
• Implementation support : UNICEF assists with monitoring and evaluation in partner countries to close the implementation gap between policy and practice.

More from UNICEF

The boy who changed his community in Serbia

How one boy overcame stigma and demonstrated the power of inclusive education.

I want to change how society sees people with disabilities

"When I came to school, I was determined to show everybody I could make it."

Children call for access to quality climate education

On Earth Day, UNICEF urges governments to empower every child with learning opportunities to be a champion for the planet

An entire generation of children in Sudan faces a catastrophe as the war enters its second year

Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for All

This report draws on national studies to examine why millions of children continue to be denied the fundamental right to primary education.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopts a broad categorization of persons with disabilities and reaffirms that all persons with all types of disabilities must enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Inclusive Education: Including Children with Disabilities in Quality Learning

This document provides guidance on what Governments can do to create inclusive education systems.

Towards Inclusive Education: The Impact of Disability on School Attendance in Developing Countries

Using cross-nationally comparable and nationally representative data from 18 surveys in 15 countries, this paper investigates how disability affects school attendance.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Special Education — Inclusion of Special Education Students in Classroom: an Overview

Inclusion of Special Education Students in Classroom: an Overview

• Categories: Special Education Students With Disabilities

About this sample

Words: 1643 |

Published: Aug 14, 2023

Words: 1643 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, inclusion of special education students .

• Free and appropriate public education
• Appropriate education
• Development of an individualized education program (IEP)
• Education provided in the least restrictive environment (L.R.E.)
• Parent participation in decision making
• Procedural safeguards to protect the rights of parents and their child with a disability.
• General education classroom placement with few or no supportive services.
• General education classroom placement with collaborative teacher assistance.
• General education classroom placement with specialist assistance.
• General education classroom placement with resource room placement.
• Special education classroom with part-time in a general education classroom.
• A full-time special education classroom.
• Homebound instruction.
• Hospital or institution.
• getting acquainted
• exploration
• ollaboration 
• Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices. Pearson.
• Turnbull, A., Turnbull, H. R., Shank, M., & Smith, S. J. (2004). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today's Schools. Prentice Hall.
• Martin, N. A., & Huber, M. (2016). Inclusion: Making Room for Grace. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2018). Including Students with Special Needs: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Pearson.
• Hanson, M. J., & Lynch, E. W. (2013). Understanding families: Applying family systems theory to early childhood practice. Young Exceptional Children, 16(1), 3-13.
• Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2002). Quick fixes and powerful miracles: Labels, inclusion, and special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 228-238.
• Hardiman, R., McDonnell, J., & Welch, M. (2016). Classroom integration of special education students: A pedagogical analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 9(3), 277-291.
• United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Individualized Education Program (IEP). [Online] Available at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.320
• Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices for All Students. ERIC.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1708 words

3 pages / 1347 words

1 pages / 602 words

2 pages / 966 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Special Education

Special needs refer to a range of conditions that require additional support or accommodations to help individuals reach their full potential. As an educator, it is important to reflect on how we can best support students with [...]

The case of Honig v. Doe is a landmark special education case that has had a significant impact on the way students with disabilities are treated in the American education system. The case, which was decided by the United States [...]

Uniforms have been a contentious topic in the education sector for many years. While some argue that they stifle individuality and self-expression, others contend that they promote a sense of unity and discipline among students. [...]

Students with disabilities are considered one of the most vulnerable populations in what concerns the issues of accessibility to education and school dropouts (Reschly & Christenson, 2006). Recently, they were categorized [...]

In the article, the author was trying to explain how special Jesuit schools are compared to other schools by stating three characteristics he has observed in all schools he visited — cura personalis or the care for the whole [...]

Naïve concepts are the very simple questions that arise in the student's mind by reading books or by listening to the lecture or by any information. Naïve concepts are the concepts that are the involved the traditional ways of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Inclusive Paths: A Parent’s Fight for Educational Diversity for Students with Disabilities

Published Apr 26, 2024

In Montana, a family’s quest for a suitable educational path for their children, particularly one with special needs, underscores a pivotal issue facing many American families today. Sue Vinton, a Montana State Representative from Billings, knows this personally.

When her son, Jake, who has Down syndrome, was preparing to enter high school, the family interviewed a local school district but learned it didn’t have the types of programs and integration for students with disabilities Jake needed.

“We quickly realized that that was not going to be a good fit for our son because they did not have an inclusive mindset. Jake was very used to being involved with his peers, participating in school sports and activities. And that just wasn’t going to be a possibility.”

“We looked to a smaller district [where enrollment is between 101-300 students] and fortunately they welcomed us,” Vinton, a mom of four, said. “He had, what we believe to be, a much more successful high school experience because of going there. That was our first real involvement in utilizing parental control over school choice.”

Sue Vinton’s son, Jake

Being able to attend that district, which volunteered to accept Jake, is a large part of why he, now 28, is a successful, independent adult.

“Now, Jake is doing great. We have found a wonderful organization in Billings that is called Casey’s Dream. They provide apartments for individuals, and they provide staff 24/7 to assist the individuals in their day-to-day living. Jake has a roommate and lives in a two-bedroom apartment. He’s a very independent young man, and I think that’s a result of both how we raised him and his educational opportunities.”

While the Vinton family was able to explore and exercise choice in Jake’s educational career, they quickly realized that many other families in their position have barriers to making the same choices.

“While Jake had very positive experience in public school, that’s not always the case. Through our involvement with Special Olympics and other organizations for children and adults with disabilities, we got to meet many other families. I’ve spoken with other parents whose children are struggling and just really having a horrible time, but there isn’t an alternative for them without some financial assistance,”

In order for Jake to attend a school out of district, the Vintons were required to provide his transportation—an hour round trip commute every morning and afternoon. And, the out-of-district school accepted Jake, even prior to Montana enacting open enrollment legislation that requires schools with open seats to accept non-local students.

“Our circumstances allowed us to do that, but not every family has that opportunity. My desire is that other families have opportunities that might not fall within the realm of the public schools right in their area,” said Vinton.

That’s why she sponsored the Students with Special Needs Opportunity Act during the 2023 legislative session, which was signed into law as the Montana Special Needs Equal Opportunity Education Savings Account (ESA) Program that same year. It provides education savings accounts for Montana families with students with a disability, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Once operational, eligible families would be able to use the funds for a variety qualified expenses such as school tuition, fees, distance learning programs, online programs, tutoring, educational therapies or services, and much more.

The program is currently under attack by opponents, who’ve sued to stop it from going into operation. Now, with the help of EdChoice Legal Advocates, Vinton is asking a court to let her serve as a defendant in the case. She wants to protect the program she helped start, and afford future generations like Jake the same opportunities that have made him a thriving adult.

“With the Montana Special Needs ESA, the opportunities for students would increase exponentially,” Vinton explained. “Because of the differences of communities in Montana, there are still students with special needs who are not receiving the services they could receive, either because the district doesn’t have the staff or the resources. It’s not intentional; it’s circumstantial. To me, there’s no easy solution, but the ESA is just one opportunity that will help families who have students with special requirements.”

“Parents are searching for the appropriate educational setting for their students, whatever that may be,” Vinton expressed. “They should be able to take advantage of every opportunity out there.”

Ann Marie Miller

As EdChoice’s communications and content associate, Ann Marie leads project management, content creation and supports all Communications projects. She comes to EdChoice with a background in storytelling, writing and social media marketing. Prior to this role, Ann Marie served as a storyteller for the Illinois Policy Institute illustrating the intersection of public policy and people’s lives, business and choices. She graduated from George Mason University with a master’s degree in economics and earned a interdisciplinary bachelor’s degree in Economics, Spanish and Japanese from Western Carolina University.

School Choice in the States: March 2024

Ed Tarnowski

Updated March 29, 2024

Empowering Choices: A Mother’s Quest for Educational Freedom in Pennsylvania

Updated March 22, 2024

RECEIVE EDUCATIONAL CHOICE UPDATES STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• © 2024 EdChoice
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, inclusive education for special needs students.

Inclusive education involves teaching all students in the same age-appropriate general education classroom at their local school, regardless of the challenges they face. The philosophy of inclusive education promotes the idea that students with disabilities are just as competent as students without disabilities. Successful inclusive education for students with disabilities involves accepting their differences, ensuring they feel supported and encouraging them to participate fully in the classroom.

Take a look at the benefits of inclusive education and what strategies teachers can use to ensure classrooms are welcoming and accessible to all students. 

Benefits of inclusive classrooms

Students with or without disabilities benefit from inclusive education in a variety of ways. For instance, teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms can lead to: 

• Greater academic gains in literacy, math, and social studies
• Better communication and social skills
• Fewer absences
• Less disruptive behavior
• More motivation to work and learn

Research shows that students without special needs also benefit from learning alongside those with special needs, developing both their cognitive and social abilities. This is generally because inclusive classrooms can enable new learning opportunities to emerge. Serving as a peer coach, for instance, can enable students without special needs to improve their own academic performance by helping others learn.

Classroom teachers can start by providing instruction using learning modalities that cater to a diverse range of learners, which should end up benefiting all students in a general classroom.  

Creating an inclusive classroom for students with disabilities

When developing inclusive classrooms for students with disabilities, it’s crucial to review the individual education plan (IEP) of each student before incorporating new methods. The type of disability that a student has can determine what strategies work best. 

Learning disabilities

Students with learning disabilities succeed academically when given specific remedial instructions. This could involve breaking down an assignment into smaller steps, using diagrams or pictures to emphasize directions and modeling instructions to help students visualize what they need to do. 

Scaffolding practices can also make a difference. Start with an explicit instruction to help students acquire a new skill before easing them into the next learning segment. Asking students about their processes and encouraging them to monitor their own progress can help them better grasp what they’re learning. 

Down syndrome

Full-inclusion special education for students with Down syndrome should involve a multisensory-based program. Multisensory instruction engages more than one sense at a time, such as pairing visuals with auditory instructions or demonstrations of how to complete a task. 

Breaking instructions into smaller steps and repeating small chunks of information can make it easier for students to retain what they’re reading or viewing. Because students with Down syndrome learn at a slower pace than their peers, allowing adequate response time ensures they have a chance to apply what they’ve learned on their own. 

Students with autism may have sensory processing difficulties and need quieter classrooms, dimmer lights, and minimal smells to participate fully. Creating designated learning areas can provide students with a distraction-free zone to focus on their work. Using visuals to establish classroom boundaries or explain activities can better communicate expectations and help students become more independent. 

Health impairments

Health impairments can be due to a variety of conditions, such as arthritis, epilepsy, ADHD, and seizure disorder. Each condition comes with unique impairments and modifying the classroom with technology can make it easier for students to learn and communicate. Providing assignments electronically or audio-recording lessons helps students access materials on their own if they find it difficult to focus. Peer coaches can also provide guidance during hands-on activities for students with physical limitations. 

Emotional disturbances

Students who suffer from Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBDs) may find it difficult to practice impulse control or interact with other students. Providing clear classroom guidelines and implementing a reward system that recognizes positive behavior can influence students to engage with their peers and do well in their lessons. 

EBD students may also struggle to focus for long periods. Providing mini-breaks or extra time to finish assignments throughout the school day gives students a chance to burn off excess energy or catch up with the rest of the class. 

Orthopedic impairments

Classroom accessibility is one of the major challenges students with orthopedic impairments face. If the student is in a wheelchair, they may require special tables or seats to participate comfortably. Writing aids, such as pencil grips or special paper, can benefit students with upper limb disabilities. Teachers may also need to modify lesson plans and class activities for accessibility. For instance, assigning a peer mentor or special tasks the student can accomplish on their own while still being part of the group can help them feel included. 

Hearing impairments

Students with a hearing impairment may require assistive devices, such as an induction loop or a transmitter with a clip-on microphone worn by the teacher, to succeed in the classroom. Written materials and captioned videos can make it easier for students to understand instructions.  

Assigning students with hearing loss a seat in the front row ensures they have a clear view of the whiteboard, projector, or instructor, especially if they lip-read. Teachers can take an extra step by facing the class instead of the board when lecturing and allowing students to record lectures to better access information.

Visual impairments

Inclusive activities for visually-impaired students require verbal instruction for them to participate fully. Alternative options may need to be offered if the activities are off-campus. Supplying course materials electronically can also help students adapt information to a more suitable format, such as audio.

Because students with visual impairments may take longer to read or complete assignments, making a weekly or monthly schedule can help them plan accordingly and get a head start if they wish. Providing audio-recorded comments on tasks instead of written comments can make feedback and instruction more accessible. 

Multiple disabilities

Students can have multiple physical or mental disabilities that make the classroom environment more difficult to navigate. Rather than rigidly sticking to a singular program for all students to follow, provide students with disabilities an individualized schedule with alternative assignments or tasks that align with their needs. Ensuring there are minimal distractions in the classroom and that class materials are available in multiple formats can help students stay focused and get the information they need. Having a separate, quieter room available for exams or other solo tasks can help students successfully complete their work in a distraction-free zone.

Inclusive classrooms offer a plethora of advantages for students with disabilities, as well as those without. By introducing certain teaching strategies and adapting the instruction to guarantee access, students can have an improved educational experience. For instance, individualized timetables for a range of impairments and providing course material electronically for those with visual impairments can help generate a learning atmosphere that caters to everyone’s needs. All in all, inclusive classrooms can help cultivate a feeling of fellowship and acceptance, allowing for a more fulfilling learning experience.

You may also like to read

• Teacher Lesson Plans for Special Education Students
• Should Technology Be Part of Early Childhood Education?
• 10 Great Apps for College Students Studying Education
• 9 iPad Apps for the Special Education Classroom
• Mainstreaming Special Education in the Classroom
• Five Reasons to Study Early Childhood Education

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Early Childhood and Elementary (Grades: PreK-5) ,  Early Childhood Education ,  Educational Technology ,  High School (Grades: 9-12) ,  Leadership and Administration ,  Mid-Career Teacher ,  New Teacher ,  Professional Development ,  Special Education

• Certificates for Reading Specialist
• Online & Campus Doctorate (EdD) in Higher Edu...
• Teacher Resources for Social-Emotional Develo...

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement

• V. B. Salas García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-3879 1 &
• José María Rentería   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-0032 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  521 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

640 Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

This study explores the impact of inclusive education on the educational outcomes of students without Special Educational Needs (non-SEN) in Peru, utilizing official Ministry of Education data and implementing cross-sectional regression analyses. Inclusive education is a complex issue that, without appropriate adaptations and comprehensive understanding, can present substantial challenges to the educational community. While prior research from developed nations offers diverse perspectives on the effects of inclusive education on non-SEN students, limited evidence exists regarding its impact in developing countries. Our study addresses this gap by examining inclusive education in Peru and its influence on non-SEN students, thereby contributing to the existing literature. Our findings reveal that, on average, the presence of SEN students in regular classrooms does not significantly affect their non-SEN counterparts. However, we uncover heterogeneous results contingent on the specific type of SEN and students’ academic placement. These results emphasize the importance of targeted resources and parental involvement in facilitating successful inclusive education, particularly for specific SEN types. In summary, this study underscores the need for tailored strategies and additional resources to foster the success of inclusive education and calls for further research in this field to expand our understanding and enhance educational policy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Worldwide divergence of values

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sleep quality, duration, and consistency are associated with better academic performance in college students

Introduction.

Inclusive education has become a significant policy for improving access to and the quality of education for children with special educational needs (SEN), who often encounter physical and social barriers hindering their access to education and entry into the labor market, which in turn is detrimental to the economic and social progress of a country (Filmer, 2008 ; Mitra and Sambamoorthi, 2008 ). Thus, the United Nations has declared “inclusive and equitable quality education” as the fourth 2030 Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to reduce the disability gap in education. Likewise, there exist international declarations like the Salamanca Statement in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994 ) or the Declaration of the Decade of the Americas for the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities 2016–2026 (OAS, 2018 ) that incorporate the principle of inclusive education to guarantee education for all.

There are different education approaches Footnote 1 to ensure education for children with SEN, but the inclusive approach, unlike others, promotes equal participation of SEN students in regular schools by attending classes alongside same-aged non-SEN students (Dixon, 2005 ). Inclusive education goes beyond the placement of pupils; it refers to a unified system that receives all students regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Dixon, 2005 ). Under the inclusive approach, governments and schools should provide the means (i.e., physical and human resources) to reduce or eliminate physical, academic, and social hurdles faced by SEN students within regular schools (Dixon, 2005 ). Thus, inclusive education aims for social cohesion and a less discriminatory education approach that helps enhance the human capital acquisition of children with SEN (Kiuppis, 2014 ).

Despite the efforts for an inclusive education agenda worldwide, children with SEN remain behind in education indicators such as years of education, school attendance, or academic achievement (Filmer, 2008 ; Rangvid, 2022 ). This raises concerns about the impact that placement of children with SEN in regular schools may have on the educational achievement of children without SEN since these children are also involved in the inclusive education system (Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). In Peru, for instance, some teachers in regular schools as well as some leaders of deaf organizations, do not support inclusive education as they think it is detrimental for both SEN and non-SEN students (Goico, 2019 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2019 ). Nevertheless, there is little empirical literature focused on the effects of inclusive education not only on SEN students but also on non-SEN students, especially in developing countries that shelter a high percentage of people with disabilities (Olusanya et al., 2022 ). This paper, therefore, aims to fill that gap by using information from a developing country, namely Peru. It investigates the impact of inclusive education, quantified through the presence of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on the academic performance of their non-SEN counterparts. Analyzing the peer effects of inclusive education is of utmost interest for policymakers aiming to increase the presence of SEN students in regular schools, as policy implications should consider the effects on all children.

The present work provides three main contributions to the existing literature regarding peer effects in the context of inclusive education. First, we provide new evidence using unusual and rich data from a middle-income country. To our knowledge, there is only one study focusing on a developing country. Indeed, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) analyze the Chilean case and find that placement of children with SEN in regular classrooms negatively affects the standardized test scores in mathematics and reading of their non-SEN peers, but it is neutralized when schools receive additional resources and specialized professionals. Nevertheless, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) use panel data for students attending primary schools in two periods, 2007 and 2011, without including types of SEN. In contrast, we study children attending primary and secondary schools using cross-section data between 2011 and 2019 and disaggregate our analysis by types of SEN Footnote 2 .

Our second contribution is to disaggregate our analysis by type of SEN. We are aware of two studies that use an overall indicator to reflect the presence of SEN students and disaggregate it by type of SEN. On one hand, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) examine two types of special educational needs: learning or emotional and speech; while, Ruijs ( 2017 ) examines four types: visual, hearing, physical or intellectual, and behavioral. In our case, besides evaluating the consequences of placing children with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities in a regular classroom, we also evaluate the repercussions of placing children with autistic spectrum disorder in a regular classroom, which is a much less studied topic.

Finally, our third contribution is to explore the heterogeneous results of inclusive education on the non-SEN student population. Unlike previous studies, we explore the potential different impact of inclusive education between male and female non-SEN students. As most reproductive work has traditionally been done by women (cf. Razavi, 2012 ), it could be argued that female non-SEN students are more likely to take care of or help SEN students, which in turn may influence their educational achievement. Our heterogeneity analysis also takes into account school characteristics like classroom size as well as mother’s characteristics.

In our analysis, we take significant steps to mitigate potential biases stemming from endogenous classroom selection and the sorting of SEN students. We achieve this by focusing on schools with one class per grade level, which provides a more controlled setting for our study. Moreover, our dataset allows us to identify the class composition, which is vital for investigating educational peer effects. The classroom environment is particularly relevant, as classmates have a substantial impact on each other’s educational outcomes, given their shared classroom experience throughout the school day (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lazear, 2001 ).

Our findings suggest that the inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on average, exerts a neutral influence on their non-SEN peers. A nuanced examination reveals varied results contingent upon the specific categories of SEN. This variability is consistent with the fact that SEN encompasses a broad spectrum of support requirements arising from diverse degrees and types of individual abilities, spanning physical, psychological, cognitive, and sensory domains. Hence, the influence of inclusive education would vary according to the distinct profile of the SEN student integrated into a conventional classroom setting. Furthermore, our results underscore the importance of accounting for temporal dynamics and the particular educational phase in gauging the impact of SEN students on their non-SEN counterparts. This observation aligns with the differential results discerned across academic grades.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The literature review and institutional setting are presented in the next section, followed by a description of the data and empirical strategy. After that, we discuss our results, and finally, we conclude.

This section starts with a brief literature review and then describes the main features of the Peruvian educational system as well as its public policy approach to inclusive education.

Literature review

The inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools remains a subject of debate due to the mixed findings within the empirical literature. Proponents of inclusive education argue that attending regular schools is not only a fundamental human right for children with SEN (Ainscow and César, 2006 ; Rangvid, 2022 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ) but can also yield benefits for non-SEN students, particularly in terms of their learning development. This is attributed to the additional resources allocated to inclusive education (Keslair et al., 2012 ; Ruijs, 2017 ). Besides, inclusive education may help children without SEN to develop soft skills like kindness, tolerance, and patience, which are important to living in a diverse society (Contreras et al., 2020 ; Dixon, 2005 ). On the other hand, the main concerns regarding inclusive education are related to negative peer effects. The literature on class composition states that students’ performance is influenced by their peers’ characteristics (Ammermueller and Pischke, 2009 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ). Since children with SEN may require more teaching attention and show disruptive behaviors (Ahmed et al., 2021 ; Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs, 2017 ), they could be considered “bad” students who could interfere with the educational development of their classmates without SEN (Lavy et al., 2012 ; Lazear, 2001 ), especially for those who are at the bottom of the ability distribution (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ).

The quantitative studies that examine the peer effects of inclusive education mainly use data from developed countries. Most of them have found that inclusive education has a negative or null effect on non-SEN students’ outcomes. For instance, using data from Switzerland, Balestra et al. ( 2022 ) find that placing SEN students in regular classrooms harms not only educational outcomes but also labor market outcomes for non-SEN students. Similarly, studies from the United States (Fletcher, 2010 ) and Denmark (Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ; Rangvid, 2019 ) show that exposure to SEN students decreases reading test scores of non-SEN students. Also, for the United States, Gottfried ( 2014 ) and Gottfried et al. ( 2016 ) present evidence that inclusive education worsens the non-cognitive skills of non-SEN students. Fletcher ( 2010 ), however, points out that the negative effect of inclusive education in the United States disappears for reading when their lagged scores are considered in the analysis. Likewise, studies for Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ) also find that the presence of SEN students does not affect the academic performance of their non-SEN peers; but they point out that this result may be due to additional resources received by regular schools with SEN students. Conversely, other studies have found positive externalities of SEN students on the educational achievement of their non-SEN peers. For instance, Cole et al. ( 2004 ) point out that non-SEN students in the United States perform better at reading and mathematics tests since they may benefit from the additional resources allocated to inclusive education. Likewise, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) find that non-SEN students attending inclusive classrooms in the United States improve their mathematics test scores. Using data from the same country, Gottfried and McGene ( 2013 ) go beyond by showing that having a sibling with SEN helps to improve the schooling achievement of those siblings without SEN.

Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the effects of inclusive education on students with and without SEN. The coincidences lie in the varied impacts of inclusive education on non-SEN students, demonstrating a nuanced and context-dependent picture. While Dell’Anna et al. ( 2021 ) hint at positive peer attitudes in inclusive settings, the academic outcomes and the experience of non-SEN students diverge, with high achievers potentially benefiting more than low achievers (Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). Kart and Kart ( 2021 ) and Szumski et al. ( 2017 ) contribute to the discussion, highlighting mixed academic effects across different grade levels. The meta-analyses by Oh-Young and Filler ( 2015 ) and Krämer et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize the overall positive impact of inclusive settings for students with SEN while still acknowledging variations in outcomes. Finally, Van Mieghem et al. ( 2020 ) emphasize the pivotal role of teacher professional development in the successful implementation of inclusive education.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the conflicting results found in the literature may be explained by the differences in the criteria used to identify a SEN student. Most of the previous studies have used an aggregated measure to encompass all SEN students without considering the types of SEN (e.g., Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ). On the other hand, some studies have focused on one or two types of special needs; such as emotional disturbances and mental disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Fletcher, 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ; Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ), or learning and behavioral disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Friesen et al., 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ). The present paper addresses these limitations found in the literature by taking into account different types of SEN and also by exploring the potential heterogeneous results of inclusive education for non-SEN students.

Institutional setting: The educational system in Peru

Primary and secondary education in Peru is compulsory and provided by the government at no cost and by the private sector with a wide tuition range. Peruvian children between 6- and 11- years old attend primary school and start secondary school by the age of 12 for a period of 5 years. The last National Population Census in 2017 reports that roughly 5.4% and 7.0% of Peruvians who are primary-school and secondary-school-aged, respectively, have at least one disability. However, according to the School Census of the same year, <1% of children attending regular schools are categorized as SEN students, which suggests that inclusive education in Peru is not well developed. Despite this low enrollment rate, the percentage of SEN students grew from 0.26% in 2007 to 0.96% in 2019.

Since primary and secondary schools in Peru must comply with a mandatory national curriculum, the same courses are taken by children who attend the same grade level across different schools. Schools may have more than one class per grade level, which are called sections , which students are assigned when they start primary school, which makes it less likely that students are sorted in a non-random fashion. Besides, every section has a specific classroom where students are instructed in most of their courses; thus, students do not need to move among different classrooms throughout the school day. At the primary school, the teacher assigned to a section is usually responsible for the majority of the courses; whereas, at the secondary school, it is often the case that there is a different teacher for each course. Another characteristic of the Peruvian education system is that it allows parents to send their children to any school, public or private, even if that school is outside their district of residence.

According to the last National Population Census in 2017, Peru has achieved almost universal coverage of education, 94.9% of the population aged 12 or over have primary education, and 74.5% aged 17 or over have secondary education. These numbers, however, mask a disability gap. Among adults aged 17 or over, 14.1% of people with at least one disability report having no education, whereas only 3.9% of people with no disabilities report the same. There is also an educational disability gap of 11.9 percentage points (p.p.) among the female population, but it decreases to 7.1 p.p. among the male population. These figures suggest that having a disability poses a larger burden for females than for males.

In this context, the Peruvian National Education Law recognized in 2003 inclusive education as the main approach to providing education to students with SEN, which should be accompanied by supplementary one-to-one attention by specialists (Congreso de la República, 2003 ). Thus, the Peruvian legal framework advocates an inclusive approach to integrating children and youth with disabilities into society. Aligned with the national inclusive policy, the state, as per the 2012 General Law of Persons with Disabilities (Law 29973), ensures access to quality inclusive education that accommodates individual needs. This entails adjustments in infrastructure, furniture, materials, curriculum, and teaching processes, all aimed at facilitating quality learning and fostering the comprehensive development of each student. It is worth noting, however, that empirical evidence indicates that many regular schools lack the necessary infrastructure, materials, and human resources to accommodate students with disabilities (Cueto et al., 2018 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ).

The basic education system comprises three modalities: regular basic education (EBR), alternative basic education (EBA), and special basic education (EBE). EBR represents conventional formal education. EBA caters to students who lack access to EBR, emphasizing vocational and entrepreneurial skills. EBE is designated for students with SEN related to disability, talent, or giftedness. EBA and EBR schools, when admitting students with SEN, are termed inclusive schools . EBE operates in both inclusive schools and standalone EBE schools. In inclusive schools that accept students with mild disabilities and giftedness, EBE provides support and guidance through programs like Support and Advisory Services for Special Educational Needs (SAANEE). This includes personalized services and support to students, parents, teachers, and school principals through weekly visits of specialized professionals (Congreso de la República, 2006 ). Nevertheless, the evidence shows that inclusive education in Peru is far from successfully being implemented, and it is combined with an “integration approach” (Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ). On the other hand, dedicated EBE schools directly serve severe and multi-disabled students with needs beyond the scope of EBR or EBA schools. EBR and EBA schools are mandated to reserve at least two slots per classroom during the enrollment period for the inclusion of students with mild or moderate disabilities. However, in practice, this requirement is not systematically fulfilled (Cueto et al., 2018 ).

Data and methodology

In this study, we use three datasets that are collected by the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU). First, we utilized the Student Census Evaluation (ECE) as our primary data source, which encompasses the scores achieved by students in the national standardized tests of reading and mathematics Footnote 3 . To create our dependent variable, “learning achievement”, we transformed these scores into z -scores, standardizing them by grade level and by subject to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for use in our econometric analysis. Furthermore, the ECE dataset includes additional demographic information such as gender and the primary language spoken by the students. The ECE started in 2007, with annual assessments of students in the 2nd grade of primary (2P). Subsequently, it was expanded in 2015 to encompass students in the 2nd grade of secondary (2S). In 2017, however, the ECE was not conducted. Our second dataset is the National School Census (CE) which contains information regarding school characteristics and grade composition. The CE has been yearly collected since 2004, and it covers public and private schools. We use it to measure inclusive education by identifying the presence of SEN students at the section level. These two datasets are merged at the school level through a school identifier; thus, each student is linked to section characteristics in the school he or she is attending. The last dataset is the Information System to Support the Management of the Education Institution (SG), which was implemented in 2003 but has been mandatory only since 2011. The SG contains information that is uploaded every year by teachers or school principals. This includes students’ age, mothers’ age and education, and number of siblings. The SG is merged with the other datasets by using a student identifier.

For our analysis, we focus on students attending 2P in the period dating from 2011 to 2016 (excluding 2014) Footnote 4 and students attending 2S from 2015 to 2019 (excluding 2017). Footnote 5 For both grades, 2P and 2S, we account for potential grade advancement and delay. Footnote 6 Therefore, in the case of 2P where students are usually 7 years old, we include children aged between 6 and 8 years, and for 2S where students are usually 13 years old, we include children aged between 12 and 14 years. The final number of observations for 2P comprises 55,637 students who took the reading test and 55,614 students who took the mathematics test. And, for 2S, we have 47,491 students who took the reading test and 47,484 students who took the mathematics test.

To evaluate the influence of inclusive education on non-SEN students’ learning achievement, we use the CE where the school principal reports the number of SEN students placed in each grade level every year and per type of SEN. Footnote 7 This report is based on medical certificates, psycho-pedagogical certificates, and parents’ affidavits. Thus, we can identify the presence of SEN students per section to measure inclusive education. Footnote 8 Besides, we disaggregate the presence of SEN students per type. Specifically, we distinguish, for each section, the presence of students with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities, as well as those with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). In the case of intellectual or learning disabilities, the CE includes those students with Down syndrome, brain injury, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The other SEN types considered in the CE include students with speech impairment, deaf-blindness, and hospitalized. Although gifted students are identified as SEN students in the CE, we exclude them in our measure of SEN.

There are three main challenges to estimating peer effects, as stated by Manski ( 1993 ), that could hinder proper identification of the influence of SEN students on the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers. First, students in the same cohort could face similar environmental factors or have similar unobserved characteristics that may influence their academic outcomes rather than having classmates with SEN. To disentangle the environment from peer effects, we follow the literature by using a large number of observations and fixed effects (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ).

Second, there is a potential reflection problem as classmates may influence each other and determine their outcomes simultaneously. Since we focus on SEN characteristics related to physical disabilities, health issues, and injuries determined by specialists, it is less likely that the SEN status of students was determined by the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers.

The third problem is related to self-selection. In the Peruvian school system, parents may choose to send their children to any school regardless of their district of residence; thus, specific school characteristics may attract certain types of students. To address this problem, we restrict the analysis to schools with similar characteristics. We select schools located in urban areas providing mixed-sex education that operate on the main school campus only during the morning shift and with 10–30 students per section. In the case of primary education, we select full-grade schools. Footnote 9 Besides, to address a potential sorting problem that could make it difficult to identify whether the learning outcome is due to the presence of SEN students or one’s ability, we select schools with one section per grade level. In this way, we avoid the possibility for school administrators to group students into sections based on their characteristics or for parents to choose a section without SEN students. Finally, more than 90% of non-SEN students take the standardized national tests, which suggests that school principals do not select high-performance students to take these tests.

To test the validity of our identification strategy, we perform two balancing checks for 2P and 2S, presented in Tables 1 and 2 , respectively. To perform these balancing checks, we use only students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, rather than separating them by subject as we do for the econometric analyses. Panels A, B, and C show that the presence of at least one SEN student does not determine the gender, language, or age of non-SEN students, respectively. We observe that coefficients are statistically not significant, and their size is smaller in comparison to those from the main analysis, except for reading test scores in 2S. In addition, panel D shows that individual characteristics do not determine the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom. These results provide evidence against the likelihood of selection into classrooms.

To examine the impact of inclusive education on standardized test performance of non-SEN students, we estimate the following linear model:

Equation ( 1 ) is estimated separately for each grade level (2P or 2S) and subject (reading or mathematics) using a linear regression. \({{{\rm {EDC}}}}_{{i{\rm {s}}t}}\) is the learning achievement of student \(i\) in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) , measured by the z -score of the standardized test. \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{\rm {s}}}t}\) is a dichotomous variable capturing the presence of at least one SEN student in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) ; thus, \({\alpha }_{1}\) is our parameter of interest. In other specifications below, \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{s}t}}\) will be differentiated by type of SEN. \({{{\rm {STD}}}}_{{i{s}t}}\) is a vector of student-level control variables that include age in years and indicators for gender (1 = women) and spoken language (1 = indigenous). The vector \({{{\rm {SEC}}}}_{{st}}\) controls for section-level variables without student \(i\) . It includes mean age, proportion of male students, proportion of indigenous speakers, and number of students. The vector \({{{\rm {SCH}}}}_{t}\) includes number of students at the school level. \({{{\rm {HH}}}}_{{it}}\) includes the following household characteristics: mother’s age, mother’s education, and the number of siblings. We also include school-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{{s}}\right)\) Footnote 10 and year-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{t}\right)\) . Finally, \({\varepsilon }_{{i{s}t}}\) is an unobserved error term, and we cluster standard errors at the section level as this is the common environment shared by students (Balestra et al., 2022 ).

To assess potential heterogeneous influences, we follow recent literature Footnote 11 and estimate Eq. ( 1 ) using split samples by the characteristic of interest (Feigenberg et al., 2023 ). In particular, we evaluate the gender of the student \(i\) . For section characteristics, we evaluate the number of students. Finally, we assess the varying estimates based on the mother’s age and the mother’s education. In the case of characteristics that are represented by continuous or categorical variables, we convert them into dichotomous variables. For the number of students, we split the sample between sections that have 20 or fewer students and sections with 21 or more students. In the case of the mother’s age, we use the mean age to split the sample above and below the mean. The mean age is 41.5 for those mothers with children who attend 2P and 44.8 for those with children who attend 2S. Finally, for mothers’ education, we split the sample between those with and without tertiary education.

The descriptive statistics for our final cross-section subpopulations are presented in Table 3 . All descriptive and econometric analyses were conducted using Stata 18. In this case, we combine observations that include students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, as the characteristics of the separated subpopulations are similar to each other. According to Table 3 , students with SEN generally have lower reading and mathematics scores compared to their peers without SEN across both primary and secondary grades. This trend is more pronounced in 2S compared to 2P. We also observe in Table 3 that the proportions of women and indigenous language speakers are relatively consistent across SEN and non-SEN cohorts. Approximately 48% of the students are female, and the average age is 6.9 in 2P and 12.9 in 2S. However, it is interesting to note that the mean proportion of indigenous language speakers is higher in 2S (~22%) compared to 2P (~12%), indicating a potential demographic shift as students progress through the education system. A similar trend for indigenous language speakers is observed at the section level. Moreover, figures in Table 3 show that the mean age in a section is ~7.2 in 2P and 13.3 in 2S, the sample is balanced between male and female students at the section level, and there are around 20 students per section. Regarding household characteristics, the average age of mothers is 41.5 for those with children in 2P and 44.8 for those with children in 2S, around 6 out of 10 students have mothers with primary or secondary education, and the majority of students have more than two siblings. Finally, students enrolled in primary education typically attend larger schools, characterized by a pupil population exceeding 120, in contrast to those in secondary education, where schools typically accommodate fewer than 100 students.

Empirical results

Regression results from Eq. ( 1 ) are shown in Table 4 . Footnote 12 For column (1), we use ECE and CE datasets, which do not include students’ age or household characteristics. For columns (2) through (6), we add the SG dataset to incorporate students’ age and household characteristics. Columns (1) through (4) include the proportion of repeaters and the presence of at least one specialized teacher when students were 3 years old, and they were not attending school; thus, the presence of an SEN student should not influence the proportion of repeaters or presence of a specialized teacher. Columns (5) and (6) do not include those variables, and the results remain similar to those obtained in the previous columns. In addition, as a robustness check, we try different subpopulations based on students’ age (columns (2) through (4)) and schools with variation in SEN students (column (6)). For all the specifications, our results consistently show that the presence of at least one SEN student as a measure of inclusive education does not have a significant influence on the learning achievement of students who attend 2P or 2S. Our findings align with similar results from other countries such as Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ), indicating that inclusive education does not have a significant impact on the academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Nevertheless, we notice in Table 4 that, after including students’ age and household characteristics, the negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement (column 1) turned into a positive relationship (columns 2 through 6). Even in the case of students who attend 2S, the magnitude of the positive relationship between inclusive education and mathematics scores increased when student’s age and household characteristics were included in the regression. This suggests that the attributes of a student’s household, along with individual traits correlated with them, such as motivation, self-discipline, and parental support, may exert a positive influence on their learning environment. This influence could potentially counterbalance any adverse effects of inclusive education. An alternative explanation lies in the interaction effects between inclusive education and these supplementary factors. For instance, older students or those from more privileged households could potentially derive greater benefits from inclusive education due to their increased adaptability to the classroom environment. We further explore these issues in the Heterogeneity analysis section.

The main results, however, may mask different outcomes by type of SEN. Table 5 shows the results from Eq. ( 1 ) using the presence of at least one student with a certain type of SEN as a measure of inclusive education. Results Footnote 13 in Table 5 are estimated by gradually adding control variables in each column. Columns (1) and (6) do not include any control variable. Columns (2) and (7) add student controls. Cohort controls are added in columns (3) and (8), and school controls are added in columns (5) and (9). Finally, family controls are added in columns (5) and (10). As we can see in Table 5 , adding variables does not substantially change the estimates. We also notice that the sign of the relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement varies by type of SEN, and only vision disability (panel A) and mobility disability (panel B) have a significant positive relationship with the standardized test scores of students who attend 2P and 2S, respectively. As we can observe in Table 5 , even when we use the Romano-Wolf multiple hypothesis correction, the significance of our findings remains similar across different specifications (cf. Clarke, 2021 , Clarke et al., 2020 ). These findings confirm our main results that inclusive education would not harm the learning performance of non-SEN students, regardless of the type of SEN presented by their peers.

Results in Table 5 show that the impact of attending an inclusive classroom with at least one SEN student with a vision disability increases the reading and mathematics scores of students who attend 2P by 0.135 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 5) and by 0.154 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. In the case of students who attend 2S, the impact of the presence of at least one student with mobility disability increases the performance on reading and mathematics tests by 0.099 (adjusted p -value < 0.01) (column 5) and by 0.100 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. Similar to our results, Ruijs ( 2017 ) found that the presence of students with vision disabilities as well as physical and intellectual disabilities in the third level of pre-vocational secondary education in the Netherlands increases standardized test scores of non-SEN students. Moreover, previous studies pointed out that non-SEN students show more positive attitudes toward their peers with physical disabilities (de Boer et al., 2012 ), which may explain the positive influence of SEN students with vision and mobility disabilities that we have found on the learning achievement on non-SEN students.

Heterogeneity analysis

We further undertake several analyses to understand the differences in the impact of inclusive education. Footnote 14 Clogg’s z -test is implemented for testing the statistical significance of the difference between the coefficients estimated separately by splitting Eq. ( 1 ) (Clogg et al., 1995 ).

Estimates of inclusive education by gender of non-SEN students are presented in Table 6 . The results show that the influence of inclusive education on learning achievement is not statistically significant for men or women, and there is no statistical difference between them.

To explore the influence of inclusive education by usage of adequate resources, we analyze the influence of the total number of students at the section level. We find that inclusive education is associated with higher scores in reading and mathematics for non-SEN students who attend classrooms with 10–20 students and with lower scores for those who attend classrooms with 21–30 students, regardless the student attends 2P or 2S. This result may reflect that small groups foster a closer interaction between students and teacher which in turn may allow the teacher to develop better teaching strategies since they know each student better. The result of inclusive education by section size, however, is statistically different only for the reading score obtained by non-SEN students who attend 2S. This result underscores the complexity of inclusive education’s effects and the importance of context-specific considerations. Authorities should pay special attention to the number of students assigned to an inclusive classroom.

To analyze the household’s characteristics, we use the mother’s age and education. In the case of reading and mathematics in 2P, it seems that older mothers help to improve the scores of non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom; but there is not a clear pattern in the case of 2S. The differences in the test scores by mother’s age, however, are not statistically significant in any case, 2P or 2S. We have to take this result with caution as it is possible that other family characteristics rather than the mother’s age act as a moderator that could influence the effect of inclusive education on children’s outcomes in school (Leigh and Gong, 2010 ; López Turley, 2003 ).

We also present in Table 6 the estimates of inclusive education on test scores of non-SEN students by mother’s education. We observe that the difference in inclusive education’s influence on test scores in reading and mathematics is not statistically different regardless mother’s education. Although the difference is small and not significant, we observe that among non-SEN students in 2P and 2S with well-educated mothers (i.e., tertiary education), inclusive education is associated with lower scores in reading and mathematics. This finding may suggest that well-educated mothers may dedicate fewer hours to helping their children as they are more likely to work outside the home in comparison to less-educated mothers.

The current study focused on the learning achievement of non-SEN students in Peru who attend an inclusive classroom. We use three rich administrative datasets that allow us to measure inclusive education by the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom, which is the appropriate setting as students spend their school day mostly within the classroom. Thus, we are able to capture the influence of inclusive education on the test scores of non-SEN students on national standardized tests in reading and mathematics.

Inclusive strategies in regular classrooms are undeniably crucial, but without appropriate adaptations and a comprehensive understanding by all involved, inclusive education can pose considerable challenges for the entire educational community, including non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ; Nilsen, 2020 ). While some studies for developed countries show that the learning achievement of non-SEN students is improved by attending inclusive classrooms and others point to negative effects, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of inclusive education for developing countries. From this perspective, our study contributes to the literature by examining the case of inclusive education in Peru and its consequences on non-SEN students. To the best of our knowledge, this topic has not been previously analyzed in the Peruvian context. Further, we explore the influence of inclusive education by type of SEN and undertake a heterogeneity analysis.

Overall, this study has found that the inclusion of SEN students in regular classrooms, on average, yields no substantial implications for their non-SEN counterparts. Our results have shown consistency among the different model specifications estimated using several subpopulations with different age ranges as well as an additional sub-population restricted to schools with variation in the presence of SEN students. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there is a negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement of non-SEN students that turns into a positive relationship when the mother’s characteristics are included in the analysis. This may present an opportunity for school authorities to involve parents in the learning process of their kids to enhance inclusive education programs, as the literature suggests that the way inclusive education is implemented may lead to positive results on the academic performance of non-SEN students (Szumski et al., 2017 ).

We also found that the implications of inclusive education are contingent upon the specific type of SEN. In particular, non-SEN students benefit from attending classrooms with at least one student with a vision disability in 2P and a mobility disability in 2S. This finding underscores differential effects between lower and later grades, a phenomenon previously noted in the literature (Kart and Kart, 2021 ). Also, this result should draw attention from policymakers interested in inclusive education as schools may be more suitable to assist this type of SEN students, whereas the potential lack of resources to support other types of SEN might detrimentally affect SEN and non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ). In addition, we find that the influence of inclusive education is heterogeneous. We find that the small size of the classroom (20 or fewer students) helps to improve learning achievement in reading for non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom in 2S. Similar to previous literature (e.g., Szumski et al., 2017 ), this finding points to the need for educational policymakers to increase the budget for inclusive education, targeting to hire more and adequate resources. Finally, the mother’s characteristics are not relevant to explain differences in the estimates of inclusive education on academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Despite the contributions made by this study, some potential limitations could be addressed by future research. First, due to a lack of data, we are not able to incorporate a measure that reflects the diverse intensity of a disability (Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ) that could be associated with different costs (Nicoriciu and Elliot, 2023 ). Second, the datasets employed in this analysis are unavailable for certain years, precluding our use of data from ECE before 2011. Additionally, the variable indicating the language spoken in 2S was not present in the same dataset (CE) for the years 2018 and 2019. Finally, despite our efforts to mitigate concerns related to omitted variable bias, we concede the possibility of residual biases. Specifically, we omitted socioeconomic status from our analysis due to substantial rates of missing data.

Data availability

The datasets used in this study are available from the Peruvian Ministry of Education repository upon request.

In the literature, there are three main approaches: (i) segregation, (ii) integration, and (iii) inclusive (see e.g., Dixon, 2005 ; Kiuppis, 2014 ; Madhesh, 2023 ).

It is worth noting that results from countries like Peru are not directly comparable to those previously presented by Contreras et al. ( 2020 ). Indeed, academic performance in Peru is poorer relative to Chile, as reported by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and it does not receive monetary incentives to enroll children with SEN. Furthermore, Chile displays a particular institutional framework worldwide since state-subsidized private schools (voucher schools) have around 50% of total enrollment (CEM, 2019 ). Thus, insights from the Peruvian case are valuable for other comparable countries.

Although the ECE evaluates other subjects, only mathematics and reading were evaluated in every ECE. Students attending 2nd grade of primary were evaluated from 2007 to 2016 on mathematics and reading. In the case of students attending 2nd grade of secondary, they were evaluated on mathematics and reading from 2015 to 2019 (except 2017), social sciences in 2016 and 2018, and science and technology in 2018 and 2019.

Unfortunately, information for SG was not available before 2011, and the MINEDU did not provide information for 2014.

The ECE was not conducted in 2017.

Advancement and delay in 2P (2S) are determined based on the chronological age of the students as of March 31. If a student is one year younger than the standard age of 7 (13), it would be considered advancement. Conversely, if a student is one year older than the standard age, that is, age of 8 (14), it would be considered within a delay.

Since we only include schools with one section per grade, the number of SEN students reported by grade is used to account for the presence of SEN students at the section level.

A cohort refers to the students within the same section for each grade level and year.

Full-grade refers to primary schools where teachers do not teach more than one grade in the same classroom.

Since we work with schools that have only one section, school-fixed effects can also be understood as section-fixed effects.

Feigenberg et al. ( 2023 ) state that using a split-sample approach is equivalent to a fully interacted model but avoids losing statistical power. Likewise, they state that, unlike a model with only one interaction, the split-sample approach reduces bias due to omitted variables.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in the Supplementary Information. Tables S1 and S2 for reading and mathematics in 2P, respectively. Tables S3 and S4 for reading and mathematics in 2S, respectively.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information Table S5 .

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information from Table S6 to Table S10 .

Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M, Karlsson K (2021) Do schools discriminate against children with disabilities? A field experiment in Sweden. Educ Econ 29(1):3–16

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, César M (2006) Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: setting the agenda. Eur J Psychol Educ 21(3):231–238

Ammermueller A, Pischke J (2009) Peer effects in European primary schools: evidence from the progress in international reading literacy study. J Labor Econ27(3):315–348

Balestra S, Eugster B, Liebert H (2022) Peers with special needs: effects and policies. Rev Econ Stat 104(3):602–618

Burke M, Sass T (2013) Classroom peer effects and student achievement. J Labor Econ 31(1):51–82

CEM (2019) Estadísticas de la educación 2018. Publicación 2019. Centro de Estudios MINEDUC

Clarke D (2021) rwolf2 implementation and flexible syntax https://www.damianclarke.net/computation/rwolf2.pdf

Clarke D, Romano J, Wolf M (2020) The Romano-Wolf multiple-hypothesis correction in Stata. Stata J 20(4):812–843

Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol 100(5):1261–1293

Cole C, Waldron N, Majd M (2004) Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retard 42:136–144

Congreso de la República (2003) Ley General de Educación. Ley 28044. https://leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/28044.pdf

Congreso de la República (2006) Directiva No. 076-2006-VMGP/DINEBE https://www.minedu.gob.pe/normatividad/resoluciones/rd_0354-2006-ed.pdf

Contreras D, Brante M, Espinoza S, Zuñiga I (2020) The effect of the integration of students with special educational needs: evidence from Chile. Int J Educ Dev 74:102163

Cueto S, Rojas V, Dammer M, Felipe C (2018) Cobertura, oportunidades y percepciones sobre la educación inclusiva en el Perú. GRADE

de Boer A, Pijl S, Minnaert A (2012) Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of the literature. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 59(4):379–392

Dell’Anna S, Pellegrini M, Ianes D (2021) Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: a systematic review. Int J Incl Educ 25(8):944–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592248

Dixon S (2005) Inclusion—not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. J Educ Thought 39(1):33–53

Google Scholar  

Edwards B, Cameron D, King G, McPherson A (2019) How students without special needs perceive social inclusion of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: a scoping review. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 66(3):298–324

Feigenberg B, Ost B, Qureshi J (2023) Omitted variable bias in interacted models: a cautionary tale. Rev Econ Stat https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01361

Filmer D (2008) Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev 22(1):141–163

Fletcher J (2010) Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test scores in early elementary school. J Policy Anal Manag 29(1):69–83

Friesen J, Hickey R, Krauth B (2010) Disabled peers and academic achievement. Educ Financ Policy 5(3):317–348

Goico S (2019) The impact of “inclusive” education on the language of deaf youth in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Stud 19(3):348–374

Gottfried M (2014) Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educ Eval Policy Anal 36(1):20–43

Gottfried M, Egalite A, Kirksey J (2016) Does the presence of a classmate with emotional/behavioral disabilities link to other students’ absences in kindergarten? Early Child Res Q 36:506–520

Gottfried M, McGene J (2013) The spillover effects of having a sibling with special educational needs. J Educ Res 106(3):197–215

Hanushek J, Kain J, Rivkin S (2002) Inferring program effects for special populations: does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Rev Econ Stat 84(4):584–599

Kart A, Kart M (2021) Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: a review of the literature. Educ Sci 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016

Keslair F, Maurin E, McNally S (2012) Every child matters? An evaluation of “special educational needs” programmes in England. Econ Educ Rev 31(6):932–948

Kiuppis F (2014) Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the ‘Salamanca process. Int J Incl Educ 18(7):746–761

Krämer S, Möller J, Zimmermann F (2021) Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 91(3):432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072

Kristoffersen J, Krægpøth M, Nielsen H, Simonsen M (2015) Disruptive school peers and student outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 45:1–13

Lavy V, Silva O, Weinhardt F (2012) The good, the bad, and the average: evidence on ability peer effects in schools. J Labor Econ 30(2):367–414

Lazear E (2001) Educational production. Q J Econ 116(3):777–803

Leigh A, Gong X (2010) Does maternal age affect children’s test scores? Aust Econ Rev 43(1):12–27

López Turley R (2003) Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother’s age or family background? Child Dev 74(2):464–474

Madhesh A (2023) The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:278

Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60:531–542

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U (2008) Disability and the rural labor market in India: evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World Dev 36(5):934–952

Nicoriciu A, Elliot M (2023) Families of children with disabilities: income poverty, material deprivation, and unpaid care in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:519

Nilsen S (2020) Inside but still on the outside? Teachers’ experiences with the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in general education. Int J Incl Educ 24(9):980–996

OAS (2018) Program of action for the decade of the Americas for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. OAS, Washington, DC

Olusanya B, Kancherla V, Shaheen A, Ogbo F, Davis A (2022) Global and regional prevalence of disabilities among children and adolescents: analysis of findings from global health databases. Front Public Health 10:977453

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ombudsman P (2011) Los niños y niñas con discapacidad: Alcances y limitaciones en la implementación de la política de educación inclusiva en instituciones educativas del nivel primaria. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 155. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Ombudsman P (2019) El derecho a la educación inclusiva. Barreras en la implementación de los servicios educativos públicos y privados para estudiantes con discapacidad y con otras necesidades educativas. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 183. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Rangvid B (2019) Returning special education students to regular classrooms: externalities on peers’ reading scores. Econ Educ Rev 68:13–22

Rangvid B (2022) Special educational needs placement in lower secondary education: the impact of segregated vs. mainstream placement on post-16 outcomes. Educ Econ 30(4):399–425

Razavi S (2012) World development report 2012: gender equality and development—a commentary. Dev Change 43(1):423–437

Ruijs N (2017) The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Econ Educ Rev 58:15–31

Ruijs N, Peetsma T (2009) Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ Res Rev 4:67–79

Szumski G, Smogorzewska J, Karwowski M (2017) Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 21:33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Oh-Young C, Filler J (2015) A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 47:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

UNESCO (1994) T he Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality. UNESCO

Van Mieghem A, Verschueren K, Petry K, Struyf E (2020) An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review. Int J Incl Educ 24(6):675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Consortium (grant No. A1-PB03, CIES 2022). The authors express their gratitude to the participants of the XXXIV Annual Research Seminar 2023 hosted by the Economic and Social Research Consortium (CIES), as well as to two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback, which contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. Special thanks to Juan Castañeda and Jonatan Amaya for their outstanding research assistance in earlier versions of this study. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Piura, Av. Ramón Mugica 131, Urb. San Eduardo, Piura, Perú

V. B. Salas García

Departamento de Economía, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima, 15088, Perú

José María Rentería

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. B. Salas García .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Salas García, V.B., Rentería, J.M. Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Home / Essay Samples / Education / Special Education / Inclusive Education: Empowering Students with Special Needs

Inclusive Education: Empowering Students with Special Needs

• Category: Education
• Topic: Education System , Importance of Education , Special Education

Pages: 3 (1568 words)

• Downloads: -->

The Concept of Inclusive Education

Background of the inclusive education programme, need and importance of inclusive education, conclusions.

• Creating an Inclusive School A Reflection Tool for Administrators, Educators and Other School Staff New Brunswick Association for Community Living L’Association du Nouveau-Brunwick pour l’intégration communautaire First Edition, January 2011
• Inclusive Education Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives Edited by Felicity Armstrong, Derrick Armstrong and Len Barton Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDONAND NEW YORK ROUTLEDGE
• Agbenyega, J. 2011. “Examining Teachers’ Concerns and Attitudes to Inclusive Education in Ghana.” International Journal of Whole Schooling 3 (1): 41–56.[Google Scholar]
• Ainscow, M. 2005. “Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What are the Levers for Change?” Journal of Educational Change 6 (2): 109–124.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]
• Ainscow, M., A. Dyson, S. Goldrick, and M. West. 2012. Making School Effective for All: Rethinking the Task (Vol. 32, 197–213). UK: Routledge.[Google Scholar]
• Baiyegunhi, L. J. S., B. B. Oppong, and G. M. Senyolo. 2016. “Mopani Worm (Imbrasia berlina) and Rural Household Food Security in Limpopo Province, South Africa.” Food Security 8 (1): 153–165.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
• Ballard, K. 2012. “Inclusion and Social Justice: Teachers as Agents of Change.” In Teaching in Inclusive School Communities, edited by S. Carrington and J. Macarthur, 65–87. Milton: Wiley.[Google Scholar]
• Biesta, G. J. J., and M. Tedder. 2007. “Agency and Learning in the Life Course: Towards and Ecological Perspective.” Studies in the Education of Adults 39: 132–149.[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]
• Black-Hawkins, K., and L. Florian. 2012. “Classroom Teachers’ Craft Knowledge of Their Inclusive Practice.” Teachers and Teaching 18 (5): 567–584.
• [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
• Brookfield, S. D. 2015. The Skilful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. Francisco, CA: Wiley.
•  [Google Scholar]
• Chiner, E., and M. C. Cardona. 2013. “Inclusive Education in Spain: How Do Skills, Resources, and Supports Affect Regular Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 17 (5): 526–541.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
• Coates, J. K. 2012. “Teaching Inclusively: Are Secondary Physical Education Student Teachers Sufficiently Prepared to Teach in Inclusive Environments?” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 17 (4): 349–365.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
• Barnes, Colin., Geof Mercer., and Tom Shakespeare. 1999. “Exploring Disability”. London: Polity Press.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Indian Education Essays

College Education Essays

Graduation Essays

Special Education Essays

Brittany Stinson Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->