When it comes to education, the spectrum of topics to be discussed is endless. However, one of them has stood out in recent years, being among the top priorities related to donor funding: inclusion. Nowadays, a growing number of countries are in the process of reforming their education systems to promote an inclusive environment for all children. This includes closing the special schools and integrating children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. While the intention is clear and noble, many voices argue that mainstream schools are often not adequately prepared to meet all children and that this approach does not always have the expected outcomes. How should the education policies worldwide be shaped in this case and what are the recommended pathways? Read our article to discover what international education experts have to say on this matter.
Key Takeaways:
- Inclusive education is one of the fastest-growing priorities in global education policy, reflected in SDG 4 – Inclusive and equitable quality education for all.
- Inclusive mainstream education can improve enrollment, participation, achievement, and social belonging for children with disabilities. But without adequate resources, trained teachers, and accessible environments, many of the students with special needs risk being left behind.
- According to experts, successful inclusion depends on the implementation of a functional, sustainable model, in which expert knowledge is transferred directly into mainstream classrooms and versatile learning frameworks are built into the standard curriculum.
- Funding should follow a “twin-track” logic: strengthen the system for all learners, while targeting dedicated support to children with disabilities.
DevelopmentAid: What are the main advantages and disadvantages of replacing special schools with inclusive mainstream schools for children with disabilities and special educational needs?
“Done well, mainstream inclusion in schools is powerful. Children with disabilities build belonging, communication and friendships; their peers grow more empathetic; society signals a genuine commitment to rights rather than to segregation and lowered expectations. Academic results and social integration are significantly improved when a learner’s individual needs are met. However, inclusion mandated without resources fails predictably. Untrained teachers, oversized classes and missing or incompatible assistive technology turn “inclusion” into quiet neglect. Remove the specialist safety net before the mainstream alternative is genuinely provisioned, and the most vulnerable children, those with complex individual needs, are the first to suffer. In my field, we would call that a single point of failure. The honest position is that placement alone guarantees nothing. A child moved into a mainstream classroom without competent staff, accessible tools and individualized support is not included; they are simply present. What matters is whether real capacity, training and tailored assistance are deployed around each learner, in whichever setting genuinely serves him or her best. Inclusion is a promise that only holds when the means to keep it are funded first.”
“The advantages and disadvantages of replacing special schools with inclusive mainstream schools for children with individual and special educational needs depend on a number of factors such as severity and category of disability, availability of resources and skilled teachers. There are some categories/types of disability that may not benefit fully in inclusive mainstream schools, such as those with severe disabilities like deafblindness, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, among others. Unfortunately, students with these types of disabilities can only benefit in special schools. The “Twin track approach” to inclusive education is one of the models used in such circumstances. Advantages of inclusive mainstream education is that it enables children with special needs to enroll in schools; it increases the opportunity for retention, participation and achievement; it brings about sharing of the limited available resources and therefore cost effective, it promotes social belonging and builds self-confidence. The disadvantages of replacing special schools with inclusive mainstream schools is that a number of children with disabilities may not be catered for well due to lack of resources, lack of trained teachers, inaccessible environment and negative attitudes.”
“The main advantage of inclusive mainstream education is that it mirrors the society in which all children will eventually live and work. Today’s students will share that society with everybody, so the school provides a natural setting that simulates the real world. On this reasoning, inclusive mainstreaming should be the rule and not the exception. It reduces stigma, fosters social inclusion, and prepares all learners for genuine coexistence. Where mainstreaming is adopted at scale, universal design for learning principles should serve as the standard for instructional design and delivery, so that no student is made to feel psychologically disadvantaged by differentiated provision. The main disadvantage is that mainstream schools are often inadequately resourced, staffed, or trained to meet the full range of needs. In the case of severe disabilities, specialized settings remain indispensable for therapeutic and clinical reasons. Replacing such a provision wholesale risks denying these children the targeted support they genuinely require.”
“The reform in special education to an Inclusive and Unified Education that accommodates diverse learners stems from Article 24, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006, which shifts the traditional view of ‘disability’ from that of ‘charity and medical treatment’ to the notion of ‘Equal Treatment’ as a basic fundamental Human Right. Inclusive education means endorsing a framework that supports ‘individualized learning needs’, such as ‘Universal Design for Learning’, as opposed to a ‘One Size Fits All’. This shift in traditional segregated ‘special schools’ towards inclusive mainstream classrooms evokes a delicate compromise between social integration and specialised care which, in essence, is illustrated in the movie ‘Wonder’ (2017), the reality of the struggles between global mandates and the tremendous moral triumph of a child with a disability being accepted by their peers, and mainstream schools and teachers lacking adequate competences, are legitimate concerns. Initially, special schools could be seen as a form of protection for children but in fact, they placed limitations on them due to rigid systems and rare active societal participation. Such schools also failed to encourage lifelong independence. The three core fundamental benefits of an inclusive mainstream education are socio-emotional development, higher education expectations and future readiness. The removal of a segregated system leads to a reduction of societal stigma on children with disabilities that they are somehow different or lesser than others. Also, learning with peers encourages a sense of belonging and enhances their interpersonal skills. In addition, neurotypical children learn to develop empathy and acceptance; they become much more socially aware, and prejudices are erased from a young age. Further, access to mainstream opportunities and provisions for better academic growth no longer limit children’s intellectual potential, which was done previously in the specialised schools. Through inclusive mainstream classrooms, children are equipped with social development and life skills that are needed in adult life because the setting is that of real-world experience, where society is not segregated and the inclusive classroom mirrors the diverse world. Nonetheless, a resource gap, lack of political will, risk of involuntary isolation, loss of specialised expertise and under-resourced local support significantly impact the successful integration of inclusive education. Typically, in mainstream classrooms, teachers in general education do not have the necessary specialised training to adequately deal with specific learning or complex medical and behavioural needs. Furthermore, there is the issue of overcrowding and classrooms already at their full capacity. Without the appropriate targeted support, inclusion cannot be guaranteed or assumed just by putting children with special needs in an environment with peers because it can actually lead to deep isolation within a mainstream setting if they are receiving less individualized attention. Consequently, resulting in ‘physical presence without genuine participation’. Nor can it be overlooked that, in comparison, specialised schools provide highly customised settings such as sensory rooms, speech therapy, lower teacher-to-student ratios, adapted material and intensive, tailored support which are not easy to replicate in mainstream schools.”
DevelopmentAid: Can you share examples of successful educational inclusion models? What lessons can be learned from these experiences?
“Several systems are instructive. Italy dismantled most of its special schools in 1977 and embedded support teachers directly in mainstream classes. Portugal’s 2018 reform, Decree-Law 54/2018, dropped rigid disability categories for a flexible, multi-level model centered on each learner’s needs. Finland’s tiered “support for learning” moves from general to intensified to special, escalating intervention before a child falls behind. The recurring ingredients are Universal Design for Learning, individualized education plans, and co-teaching between general and specialist staff. The lessons are consistent. Inclusion is a whole-school architecture, not a single placement decision: it holds when leadership, training and collaboration are aligned, and it breaks when one layer is missing. Investing in teachers’ practical skills, scaffolding, differentiation and social-emotional learning yields more than any decree. Flexible, evolving support outperforms fixed categories. In addition, assistive technology must be interoperable and maintained, not donated once and then abandoned. Where these conditions are met, inclusion work and outcomes improve. Where they are not, reforms stall regardless of political intent. The common thread across Italy, Portugal and Finland is not the law itself, but the sustained capacity built underneath it.”
“One of the examples of successful educational inclusion models is the ‘Obuntu Bulamu Model– an African framework for Inclusive Education of Children with Disabilities introduced in Uganda. Obuntu Bulamu is an accepted and consistent behaviour that signifies a shared set of values, which promote well-being, togetherness and unity (Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013; Hailey, 2008). ‘Obuntu Bulamu’ is a peer-to-peer support intervention that promotes inclusive education and participation of children with disabilities. Through this model, children, parents, teachers, and the community are called upon to take up the communal responsibility to include and take care of children with disabilities. Children with disabilities and those without disabilities support each other. The intervention includes training and peer-to-peer support activities for children, parents and teachers in schools and in homes. The model encourages respect for one another and human dignity. Lessons learned are: full inclusion is achieved when a child feels human dignity and mutual respect; when the community views disability through a lens of communal responsibility rather than distress or a curse; highly effective inclusion doesn’t always require expensive high-tech assistive infrastructure and building on existing social and cultural values can create a resilient and low-cost system of support.”
“The widespread lesson is that transition must be well resourced rather than closing specialised schools as a mere cost-cutting measure. An authentic and successful inclusion depends on a sustainable model incorporating expert knowledge that is transferred directly into mainstream classrooms and versatile learning frameworks are built into the standard curriculum. Successful and effective integration is dependent upon specialised tiered support systems, as demonstrated in countries such as Italy, the first to develop an inclusive model by legally limiting class sizes that had a student with a disability, providing ‘insegnanti di sostegno’, dedicated support teachers who co-manage the whole class with general education teachers to adapt lessons to ensure the children with a disability are not singled out and incorporated for each student a tailored pedagogical and educational plan, a Personalised Educational Plan (PEI) focusing on academic, social and relational development. Another example is the Scandinavian Resource Center Model, which transformed its specialised schools into multifunctional community hubs to support mainstream schools through specialist intervention of experts, speech therapists, psychologists, and special needs teachers; adaptation of materials and technology for diverse learning needs; and continuous professional development via localised training.”
DevelopmentAid: As significant public and donor funding is being invested in inclusive education, what approaches should governments and international organizations prioritize to ensure that children with disabilities receive quality support and learning outcomes?
“Funding should follow a “twin-track” logic: strengthen the system for all learners, while targeting dedicated support to children with disabilities. I would prioritize three layers. First layer—the people. Specialist and mainstream teacher training is the highest-return investment, because competence travels with the child from class to class and year to year. Second, the assistive technology gap. In low-income countries, only 5 to 15% of children with disabilities can access the devices, captioning, sign-language interpretation and accessible educational technologies they need. Procurement should mandate open, interoperable standards so tools survive vendor changes, and emerging AI captioning and text-to-speech can make this progressively affordable. Third, and the layer I see most neglected—data governance. Inclusive EdTech now collects highly sensitive information on minors: diagnoses, IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) and behavioral records. Donors should fund safeguards from the start, data minimization, encryption, access controls, and contracts barring vendors from reusing this data for advertising or model training. A child’s diagnosis should never become a product. Competent people, durable tools and trustworthy data are one design. Like a system, it is only as strong as the layer everyone forgets to fund.”
“The following approaches should be prioritized by governments and international organizations to ensure children with disabilities receive quality support and achieve positive learning outcomes:
- Targeted funding: Governments and international organizations should prioritize and increase budgetary allocations for inclusive education.
- Teacher training: Invest in pre-service and in-service teacher training programs to equip all teachers with the knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes necessary to implement inclusive pedagogies effectively, such as training in differentiated instruction, sign language, and Braille.
- Community engagement: Launch sustained national and community-level awareness campaigns to challenge negative attitudes, stigma, and misconceptions surrounding disabilities, highlighting the value and benefits of inclusive education for all children and society at large.
- Strengthen policy implementation: Support the development of mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of inclusive education policies at all levels, from national to school-based. This includes establishing clear accountability frameworks and providing ongoing technical support to schools.
- Curriculum adaptation: Review and adapt the curriculum to ensure it is flexible, learner-centred, and responsive to the needs of all learners, allowing for individualized learning pathways.
- Disability research: Invest in collecting disaggregated data on children with disabilities and other marginalized groups to better understand their educational needs, track progress, and inform evidence-based policy development.”
“For high-quality learning outcomes, governments and international organizations should prioritise ongoing continuous professional development for teachers, focusing on multi-year practical training on classroom management and offering mentorship programmes in differentiated instruction and formative assessments; invest in true structural access such as digital accessibility, assistive technologies to help students with diverse sensory needs and specialised communication software; reallocate freed-up budgets from the closed specialised schools into inclusive services; set up mobile multidisciplinary teams in developing and rural areas; strengthen data systems that track learning outcomes, participation, emotional well-being and post-graduation employment rates; and use structured policy support to increase system-level capacity. True educational inclusion requires a profound institutional shift and mainstream school systems must be purposely equipped to facilitate active participation.”
Building inclusive education systems requires skilled professionals, innovative solutions, and strong partnerships. No wonder this sector is always in demand for experts to contribute to building a strong, inclusive, and resilient education system. On the DevelopmentAid job board, there are currently over 350 open positions in education that can be filtered by country, type, and required years of experience. There is also a plethora of opportunities for consultancies by accessing tenders and grants for individuals—or, even better, by reaching out directly to organizations in the field. All these and many more valuable tools are available with a single click through the Individual Professional Membership.
