Highlighted Session: Evidence on making inclusive education work on the ground – key lessons on data, design and implementation

Group Submission Type: Highlighted Paper Session

Proposal

Setting up inclusive education systems, wherein each individual has an equal opportunity for educational progress, is one of the global challenges in contemporary times. The term ‘inclusion’ has been used widely in scholarly discourses and policy debates. However, the notion of inclusion, especially inclusive education, has evolved over the years and has multiple interpretations. Inclusion is also conceptually and empirically linked to the ideas of disability, disadvantage, equality, non-discrimination, and equity. Inclusion of CWDs in mainstream schools is a powerful tool of social inclusion and requires a re-imagination of schools as sites that can challenge prevailing attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, and school ethos.

Literature shows that inclusive education is cost-effective and child-friendly inclusive education (especially when started from the early years onwards) and contributes to better social, academic, health, and economic outcomes for all learners, and at a lesser cost than segregated education (IDDC and Light of the World, 2016). Since all children are expected to learn together in inclusive systems, schools need to recognize diverse learning needs and also provide a continuum of services that fosters inclusion. Schools with positive learning environments are those where the principals and teachers focus on developing a caring and inclusive culture at their schools. Ainscow & Sandill (2010) argue that leadership practice is a crucial element in gearing education systems toward inclusive values and bringing about sustainable change. Research has established the need to go beyond deficit models and has underscored the importance of focusing on school leadership development, collaboration within and between schools, closer links between schools and communities, networking across contexts, and the collection and use of contextually relevant evidence in the development of inclusive education systems (Ainscow & Miles, 2008)

This implies that inclusion does not constitute simple placement of students with disabilities within mainstream classes but it involves painstaking work and negotiating everyday practices, deeply embedded values and mindsets about normalcy, the other, as well as the idea and purpose of education itself. If governments are committed to inclusive education, they would have to go beyond mere enrollment of all children in their schools. It would require an extensive exercise of educational planning that pays special attention to infrastructure, curricula, teacher training, learning resources, and assessments, and taps the expertise and experience of special schools, parents, and organizations of persons with disabilities. Given that the idea of inclusive education goes beyond disabilities and also includes disadvantages, it would be particularly important to focus on the needs of those with multiple disadvantages and provide for their equitable participation in schooling. But most education programs in low- and middle-income countries do not have robust systems that can identify children with disabilities, thereby leaving out those with less severe disabilities from the counting exercise and by implication also out of the education programs and services (Hayes and Bulat, 2017). The absence of reliable data creates an enormous challenge for planning. This is further worsened by the lack of standardized definitions of disabilities across cultures (Miles and Singal, 2010).

Disability is not a homogenous group; there is significant diversity in types and degrees of disability which means there is diversity in learning needs. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides a useful framework for designing curricula and teaching methodology by thinking of all the potential needs of diverse students. It is based on the principles that there are multiple ways of representing knowledge, there are multiple ways that students can demonstrate their knowledge and understanding, and teachers can engage students in learning in many ways. Studies show that implementation of the UDL framework improves the learning process for all students. Providing all students with multiple ways of accessing knowledge and multiple ways of demonstrating their knowledge increases their chance of educational success (Capp, 2017). Just like inclusive education, UDL is an evolving paradigm, with evidence for its applicability to educational design getting continuously tested and developed.
This panel will bring together presentations from researchers and practitioners working in different regions. The issues and problems chosen for inquiry, the theoretical frames applied, and the methodologies and analytical designs chosen will be insightful for scholars and students of comparative education. Two presentations will focus on sharing key lessons on the design and implementation of UDL-related training sessions in Africa. The other two presentations will draw upon comparative studies conducted in Africa and Asia to share lessons on the design and implementation of disability-inclusive interventions and programs, with a specific focus on using evaluation data to identify challenges and promising practices.


References

Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: Where next?. Prospects, 38(1), 15-34.

Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing Inclusive Education Systems: The Role of Organisational Cultures and Leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416.

Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791-807.

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

International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC) and Light of the World (2016) #Costing Equity: The case for disability-responsive education financing. Retrieved from: https://iddcconsortium.net/sites/default/files/resources-tools/files/iddc-report-short_16-10-17.pdf on March 20, 2019

Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity?. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1-15.

Sub Unit

• Inclusive Education SIG

Chair

• Archana Mahesh Mehendale, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Individual Presentations

• Universal Design for Learning in Algeria –reducing barriers to achievement in inclusive STEAM classrooms. - Leah Myers Bitat, World Learning

• Delivering Universal Design for Learning at Scale Malawi - Betty Wisiki, Juarez & Associates

• Identifying ‘what works’: reflections on findings from evaluations and learning reviews in six countries - Guy Le Fanu, Sightsavers

• Design and implementation of disability-inclusive interventions – the experience of USAID-funded program in Bangladesh, Philippines, and Tajikistan - Kate Brolley, Inclusive Development Partners; Ashley Rae Stone, Inclusive Development Partners

Discussant

• Archana Mahesh Mehendale, Tata Institute of Social Sciences