Resources search

Question & problem

The COVID-19 pandemic and strategies essential for its containment are resulting in severe strains on economies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These impacts will be felt most by groups already in or at risk of poverty, including the estimated 1 billion people with disabilities globally. Interventions to address the short- and long-term economic effects of the pandemic are urgently needed. Some countries have begun implementing or announced plans for interventions addressing the economic impacts of COVID-19, such as food assistance, emergency cash transfers, unemployment assistance or expansions to existing social protection programmes. As these programmes are developed, it is important to consider the extent to which their design and delivery is inclusive of people with disabilities. Failure to adequately include people with disabilities in this process will lead to widening inequalities.

The Salamanca Statement is a primary point of departure in research and policy on inclusive education. However, several problems have surfaced in the 25 years since its publication. In particular, several different interpretations of the concept of inclusive education and its enactment in practice have arisen. For instance, the definition of the pupil groups in focus varies greatly. There are also varying definitions of the importance of pupil-placement, when it comes to organisation of inclusive education. Using a theoretical framework combining Bacchi’s [1999. Women, Policy and Politics. The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage Publications] poststructural policy-analysis and concepts from Popkewitz [2009. “Curriculum Study, Curriculum History, and Curriculum Theory: The Reason of Reason.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 41 (3): 301–319. doi:10.1080/00220270902777021], this article illustrates that The Salamanca Statement allows for a variety of interpretations of inclusion. As a policy-concept, inclusion encompasses an amalgam of political ideals, including welfare-state ideals where education is viewed as a public-good, as well as market-ideals of education as a private-good. Policies of inclusion also define the desired citizen, through categories of disadvantaged children, the ones excluded but to be included for their own good as well as for the good of the future society. The conclusions are that researchers and policy-makers should elucidate what they mean by inclusion with for instance moral- and practical arguments rather than vague references to The Salamanca Statement.

Inclusion remains a key political agenda for education internationally and is a matter that teachers across subject communities and phases of education are challenged to respond to. In physical education specifically, research continues to highlight that current practice often reaffirms rather than challenges established inequities. This paper critically explores the understandings of inclusion that contribute to this situation and addresses the challenge of advancing inclusion in physical education from conceptual and pedagogical viewpoints. DeLuca’s [(2013). “Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Educational Inclusivity.” Canadian Journal of Education 36 (1): 305–348] conceptualisation of normative, integrative, dialogical and transgressive approaches to inclusion is employed as a basis for critical analysis of current practice and for thinking afresh about inclusive practice in physical education in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Analysis informs the presentation of a set of principles that are designed to assist teachers and teacher educators to transform inclusive practice in physical education and in doing so, realise visions for physical education that are articulated in international policy guidelines and contemporary curriculum developments.

Purpose: Persons with disabilities face additional barriers in accessing primary healthcare services, especially in developing countries. Consequently the prevalence of secondary health conditions is higher among this population. This study aims to explore the perceived barriers to access primary healthcare services by persons with disabilities in the Western region of Nepal.

Methods: 10 primary healthcare providers and 11 persons with disabilities (physically or visually impaired) were selected by non-governmental organisations from the hilly and lower areas. Based on the International Classification of Functioning and the health accessibility model of Institute of Medicine, semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using analytical induction.

Results: In general, healthcare providers and persons with disabilities reported similar barriers. Transportation and the attitude of family members and the community were the main environmental barriers. Even with assistive devices, people still depend on their families. Financial barriers were lack of funds for health expenses, problems in generating an income by persons with disabilities themselves, and the low socio-economic status of their families. Personal barriers, which affect help-seeking behaviour in a major way, were most often mentioned in relation to financial and socio-environmental barriers. Low self-esteem of the person with disability determines the family’s attitude and the motivation to seek out healthcare. Lastly, poor public awareness about the needs of persons with disabilities was reported.

Conclusions: Besides the known physical environmental barriers, this study found several environmental, financial and personal barriers that also affect access to primary healthcare. In particular, the attitudes of families and poor financial conditions seem to be interrelated and greatly influence help-seeking behaviour.