Resources search

Inclusion International is often asked what we mean by “inclusive education”. Here are the most common questions from our members together with our responses. The responses are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and General Comment 4 issued by the UN CRPD committee, which outlines the implications of the CRPD for inclusive education.

Questions:

• What is inclusive education?
• What are the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion?
• What are the key ingredients of an inclusive education system?
• What are some of the steps toward achieving inclusive education?
• What is the difference between an inclusive education system, an inclusive school and inclusive classroom/practices?
• What is meant by the “twin–track” approach to funding inclusive education?
• What is the difference between accessibility and reasonable accommodation?
• How can teachers provide equal opportunities for all students within their allocated classrooms?
• Is transforming special schools into resource centres a good strategy for moving towards an inclusive system?
• What is sometimes called “inclusive education” but is not?
• What are the benefits of inclusive education for students with disabilities?
• Is inclusive education good only for students with disabilities?
• Is inclusive education more expensive than segregation?

Background: Across the world, frailty is part of the guidelines that are being developed in the COVID-19 pandemic for triaging in crisis situations. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) evaluates the ability to perform daily tasks to identify frail individuals, potentially excluding those from intensive care (IC) treatment. Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience varying degrees of dependence, distinct from age-related physical deterioration. Using the CFS for triage in crisis situations could potentially unjustiably exclude individuals with ID from IC treatment. Our objective was to compare the classication of individuals with ID
into different frailty categories based on the CFS and the well-studied ID-frailty index and to determine suitability of CFS for evaluation of frailty in individuals with ID during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of the observational healthy aging and intellectual disabilities (HA-ID) study included 982 individuals with ID of ≥50 years, who were classied according to the CFS and the ID-frailty index.

Results: Of the cohort of 982 older adults with ID, 626 (63.7%) would be classifed as moderately frail (CFS score 6), but 92% of this group is not moderately frail according to the ID-frailty index. Furthermore, 199 (20.3%) would be classied as at least severely frail (CFS score 7–9), but 74.9% of this group is not severely frail according to the ID-frailty index. Overall, 730 out of 982 (74.9%) individuals would be incorrectly classied by the CFS as too frail to have a good probability of survival. The ID-frailty index predicts mortality better than the CFS in individuals with ID.

Conclusions: Our results show the CFS is not suitable to evaluate frailty in individuals with ID, with potential dramatic consequences for triage and decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. We strongly recommend using the ID-frailty index when assessing probability of survival for individuals with ID.

This report from Inclusion International analyzes data available through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC)’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS), which reveals that mainstream development projects fail to include people with intellectual disabilities, and in many cases use project methodologies that promote segregation and other human rights violations.

Analysis of ODA data from 2014 to 2018 found that 99.98% of ODA funding did not include people with intellectual disabilities, that 36% of the ODA projects that did include people with intellectual disabilities were not CRPD-compliant, and that only 2% of aid relevant to people with intellectual disabilities and their families was delivered through OPDs.

This report urges action from donors to ensure that the commitment to disability-inclusive development under Article 32 of the CRPD is also fulfilled for people with intellectual disabilities, and sets out recommendations for funders to ensure CRPD-compliance and inclusion in the projects they support.

This one-page factsheet presents key data from Inclusion International's 2020 report "Excluded from the Excluded," which revealed that people with intellectual disabilities are excluded from 99.98% of Official Development Assistance (ODA)-funded programmes. The factsheet also shares key recommendations for funders to ensure that no one is left behind by ODA funding.

This guide is part of a project on the right to vote and how people with intellectual disabilities can have their voice heard by the people who make laws and policies that affect us. 

This article discusses sexuality and sexual rights of persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. I will address the issue by reflecting on my own previous negligence about the issue, and unpack the ethics of sexuality of persons with profound intellectual disability in the light of ethnographic observation and interview data. I will discuss the significance of cognitive and communicative capacities as regards sexual rights as well as the boundaries of ethically justified facilitation of sex. I will also analyse the definition of sex and its ethical implications. Finally, I will offer some reflections on how we should consider more carefully in research the sexuality of persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in order to enhance in practice their sexual fulfilment.

One of the most powerful claims of disability theology is that the rejection of persons with disabilities somehow correlates with a rejection of God. This ‘correlative rejection’ is, however, frequently just stated rather than explored in detail, something this article therefore seeks to remedy by examining one example of the correlative rejection that draws together the ethical concerns of theologians writing on intellectual disability with Meister Eckhart’s teaching on the human relationship with God. Here, the correla- tive rejection is exposed as an inevitable result of the narrow emphasis on autonomy and rationality in human self-perception which shape the habituated, even ritualised ways that we try to know persons with intellectual disabilities and God. By contrast, truly knowing and relating to persons with intellectual disabilities, God, and finally also ourselves, relies on a reconciliation with the dependence, vulnerability, and non-rational forms of exchange that a narrow attachment to autonomy and rationality seems directly to occlude. The correlative rejection thus signals both a practical and epistemological problem which results from how we view ourselves and how we subsequently relate to and try to know others, the harmful effects of which are both ethical and spiritual.

Presented by actress and comedian Sally Phillips, A World Without Down’s Syndrome has brought important ethical debates regarding prenatal screening into the public domain. By talking to people with Down’s syndrome, family members, and professionals, Sally has presented a nuanced and thorough examination of the type of world we are living in. Following the documentary, Twitter users have continued to engage with debates and have created a resilient platform for challenging public attitudes. This paper explores the ways in which Twitter hashtags have provided a space for such important and long overdue conversations. While it would not be possible to provide a full overview of the topical conversations that the two hashtags have provoked, I aim to focus on some of the most prominent topics. The following, then, will explore the potential of alternative narratives that resist, and disrupt, normative notions of the human using the hashtags #worldwithoutdowns and #justaboutcoping.

This guide provides strategies and recommendations for developing inclusive classrooms and schools. We specifically address the needs of Sub-Saharan African countries, which lack the 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. Strategies for enhancing existing school and classroom environment and instruction include: modify the physical environment; modify classroom managment strategies; ensure social inclusion; adopt best instructional practices; apply strategies for students with sensory disabilities; and use assistive technologies. Strategies for adopting response to intervention include: tier by tier implementation; individualised education plans; and planning for school wide adoption of inclusive practices and a multilevel system of support.