policies for programs and projects in inclusive education

Privacy Policy & Terms of Use

Copyright © INEE 2024

Inclusive Education: What, Why, and How: A handbook for program implementers

Inclusive education is one dimension of a rights-based quality education which emphasizes equity in access and participation, and responds positively to the individual learning needs and competencies of all children. Inclusive education is child-centered and places the responsibility of adaptation on the education system rather than the individual child.

This handbook has been developed specifically for Save the Children program staff, implementing partners, and practitioners supporting education programs in any context – development, emergency, or protracted crisis. Although not all education projects have the word “inclusive” in the title or goals, every education project can and should be made more inclusive, and we encourage this resource to be used by all education staff, not only those working on targeted inclusive education projects.

A document review conducted by the Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG) in 2013 found that despite a large number of resources available on inclusion, most have not led to universal understanding and uptake of inclusive education. Many inclusive education manuals are very long, and are not easily accessible to busy project managers. The majority of documents also targeted a wide audience, and in doing so, limited their utility to any specific group. The IEWG recognizes that inclusive education begins with the work being done by education staff in the field, and have therefore designed this handbook specifically with them in mind. Guidance has also been structured along the project cycle, so that it may be useful to programs regardless of their current stage of implementation.

Resource Info

Resource type, published by.

Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice to Promote Inclusive Education

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• Cite this reference work entry

• Amanda Watkins 2 &
• Verity Donnelly 2  

15 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research . London: Falmer Press.

Google Scholar  

Council of the European Union. (2017). Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on Inclusion in Diversity to achieve a High Quality Education For All . 2017/C 62/02. Brussels.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017a). Inclusive early childhood education: New insights and tools – Contributions from a European study (M. Kyriazopoulou, P. Bartolo, E. Björck-Åkesson, C. Giné, & F. Bellour Eds.). Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017b). Raising the achievement of all learners: A resource to support self-review (V. J. Donnelly & A. Kefallinou Eds.). Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017c). Education for all in Iceland – External audit of the Icelandic system for inclusive education . Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.

European Commission. (2017). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: School development and excellent teaching for a great start in life {SWD(2017) 165 final}. Brussels: European Commission.

Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47 (4), 235–245.

Article   Google Scholar  

Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2013). System improvement through capacity building: The power and potential of professional learning communities. In I. Haslam, M. S. Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), Large scale school reform and social capital building . London: Routledge.

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25 (2), 257–281.

UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion an equity in education . Paris: UNESCO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Odense, Denmark

Amanda Watkins & Verity Donnelly

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Watkins .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Michael A. Peters

Section Editor information

No affiliation provided

Paul Bartolo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Watkins, A., Donnelly, V. (2022). Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice to Promote Inclusive Education. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_38

Published : 27 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-8678-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-8679-5

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• 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.

Inclusive Education: What, Why, and How: A handbook for program implementers

20.2 MiB (PDF)

Save the Children

Heijnen-Maathuis, Els

Content type

Manuals, Toolkits and Guidance

Early childhood care and development (ECCD), Inclusive education

Inclusive Education for Sustainable Development

Education above all ( non-governmental organization (ngo) ), #sdgaction33447.

• Description
• SDGs & Targets
• SDG 14 targets covered
• Deliverables & timeline
• Resources mobilized
• Progress reports

The 1in11 initiative supported the government’s strategies and programs towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning). The program focused on developing models to address the lack of access to early learning and schooling for children with disabilities by modelling effective inclusive education programs to be replicated nationwide. The program directly benefitted 67,888 children, 2800 teachers and educational managers.

The project was implemented as below: Community Level: working with school and madrasah communities, parents, teachers, school management and children with and without disabilities. Sub-national level: engaging District and Provincial Offices on awareness raising, roll out of the program as well as in monitoring and evaluating the program itself. Ensuring that especially District officials are well-versed in the program were key in attaining goals pertaining to budget allocations for inclusive education as well as in establishing coordination mechanisms between the key District Offices. National Level: engaging the National MoEC and its Directorate for Special Needs especially when it comes to applying the relevant Laws and Regulations in the area of Inclusive Education. Engagement of stakeholders was done between the key District Offices. Engagement of stakeholders was done through meetings, festivals, capacity building workshops and joint monitoring visits. In the area of capacity building, the project followed a cascade approach with training of trainers at the start of the program and detailed roll-out plans for the trainers to reach the intended targets in the life of the project. This helped in applying for the capacity building component of the program for teachers, school directors and other education personnel. Tailoring the program to a middle-income country setting, Using sports as an innovative educational vehicle, Strengthening the capacity of all stakeholders, Awareness-raising, sensitization, and behavioural change communication were a cross cutting parts of the implementation strategy. The program has used the momentum that a campaign and other behavioural change opportunities can offer to promote the social inclusion of children with disabilities. It has identified and promoted promising practices in behavioural change communication around disabilities, social inclusion, and parental/community engagement, and these tested practices are now being institutionalized.

10 districts have now an allocated budget for inclusive education, and 369 trained education personnel and government officials (at the national and subnational level) are now managing inclusive education-related programs as part of cross-sectoral working groups (called POKJAs, which is the acronym for Kelompok Kerja). Although a limited budget is still viewed as a constraint, this has been a positive step forward as there were no specific budgets identified in the baseline study. Budget allocations are still currently more focused on teacher competency improvements, rather than on infrastructure. 10 preservice training institutions were engaged with the program. As part of the program’s sustainability strategies, tested sports-based and other inclusive education-related capacity-building modules are expected to be institutionalized in pre-service and in-service teacher-training institutions.

School closures during COVID-19 emergency, General restriction of mobility during natural EQ, change of government and shifting government priorities due to the national emergency, as some funding and activities initially designated for inclusive education were later been re-purposed for the COVID-19 response were a few constraints. Enabling factors included the support mechanism and willing to work on the mutual agenda with the government.

This program supports the Government of Indonesia’s strategies and programs towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning). On the supply side, it focuses on employing sport for development models which was done by investing in trained personnel, improved tools, tested sport-based activities, knowledge generation, and advocacy. This, in turn, led to improved effectiveness and efficiency of government investments, which ultimately will improve the access and quality of education for the most marginalized children. On the demand side, the program worked to create an enabling environment towards ensuring that children with disabilities fully enjoy their rights to play and to access ultimately will improve the access and quality of education for the most marginalized children. The other interventions included: Continuation and preferably greater investment in the ongoing policy work, further work on collecting quality data, Inclusive teaching methods, curriculums, and learning materials with universal design, supported by coherent pre-service and in-service training curriculum, further investment on disability service units and special needs schools as the technical support system for inclusive education, Policy and strategy at the provincial level to foster good practices of district governments, along with a systematic cross-learning platform and sustainable platforms of participation for persons with disabilities.

https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/stories/shades-crayon-box-stories-kevi…

The COVID-19 emergency halted all big advocacy events. The governments had to reset their priorities and push the advocacy events to an undetermined timeline. Online contact was still maintained through both formal and informal channels. Whenever possible, online preparatory events still took place. Local governments were pushed to fund their respective COVID-19 responses. Consequently, some allocations for education were shifted to finance emergency responses.1in11 partners attended local planning events (online and offline). These events provided a strategic opportunity to show commitment and support to local government as well as share lessons learned and promising practices to influence policy and budgeting. The specific needs of children with disabilities in accessing learning during COVID-19 were being overlooked or were less prioritized as schools and households grapple with loss of income and financial resources. A rapid assessment was conducted to gather evidence on the emerging changes and needs in relationship to COVID-19 of children with disabilities, especially on their access to learning. This includes the identification and mapping of potential services and programs that would be able to provide short-term and long-term support, especially in the area of education and mental health/psychosocial support.

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Reduce inequality within and among countries

There are currently no comments. Please log in to comment.

Other beneficiaries

In total, 402,000 children (48.4 per cent girls; 3.5 per cent with disabilities) have benefitted from the program. This includes 67,888 (48.3 per cent girls; 4.8 per cent with disabilities) direct beneficiaries (17 per cent of the total), meaning children who have benefitted from intervention schools that received more than one type of intervention (i.e., a combination of teacher training, advocacy/communication campaign, and mentoring and supervision). FC Barcelona Foundation, ROTA-EAA, UNICEF and different ministries of Indonesian governments at national as well as at the provincial and regional level were the key stakeholders in addition to beneficiaries.

More information

Contact Information

Salwa, Head of Policy and Research

• Equity and inclusion
• Educational administration and school management

Inclusive school enrollment practices

Inclusion can be defined as “a process that helps overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of learners” (UNESCO, 2017: 13). Inclusive education is an essential means to eradicate extreme poverty, eliminate disparities later in life, and enable societies as a whole to thrive in shared prosperity and sustainable development (Wodon, 2016). Many barriers prevent access to education for vulnerable children, including children with disabilities, girls, orphans, and many others who may be at the intersection of several sources of vulnerability. Although international commitments have been made towards inclusive education with concrete improvements, not all gaps have been filled. For example, disability reduces the chances of attending primary and secondary schools by 30 percentage points (Mizunoya, Mitra, and Yamasaki, 2016), and the gap between disabled and non-disabled students ever enrolling in school appears to have also grown over time (Male and Wodon, 2018).

Promising policy options

Building an inclusive legislative framework

Education is a human right recognized by several legally binding and non-binding international treaties and documents (e.g., the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (CADE)) (for more information on the Right to Education, please consult the forthcoming IIEP guidelines on Planning to fulfill the Right to Education). Inclusive education is also reaffirmed in the international community agenda, for example, in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 (target 4.5 and means of implementation 4a) and the Education for All (EFA) goal 2: “Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality”.

As the primary duty bearers of the right to education (RTE), countries have the responsibility to translate these international conventions into national legislation (Right to Education Initiative, n.d.) as the first step toward inclusive education. The policy and legislative framework must contain provisions promoting non-discrimination, accessibility, zero-reject, and reasonable accommodations, which are the pillars of an inclusive society (Hunt, 2020).

The RTE must be stated in detailed and explicit terms, inscribed in a “comprehensive and coordinated legislative and policy framework for inclusive education”, and be supported by policies and strategies for implementation (Hunt, 2020: 12; Lansdown, 2014). For the RTE to be effective, vulnerable groups must be aware of and able to exercise their rights (Wodon, 2016).

Data-supported planning

Data are necessary to highlight gaps in education opportunities between groups of students and inform policy design and implementation (UNESCO, 2020). They are key to decisions related to, for example, school grants allocation, provision of student learning supports and staff, and budget for implementation (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019).

Yet, many countries do not have even basic data, even less so on out-of-school children, reasons for non-participation, and environmental factors, which makes it hard to have an idea of the extent of exclusion from education (Hayes et al., 2017; Mizunoya, 2018; UNESCO, 2020). Also, few national plans have inclusion-related indicators. In this regard, Somalia’s efforts are commendable: national plans include enrolment indicators disaggregated by sex, disability, special education needs, and location, which helps track progress towards inclusion and equity (IBE-UNESCO et al., 2018).

Measuring inclusion needs to start with “clearly stated definitions of inclusion and equity” (UNESCO, 2017: 21), bearing in mind that this may have implications for policy design and international comparisons (Brussino, 2020). For example, what is meant by “special education needs”? It must also rely on robust data collection systems and methods to identify the gaps in inclusion and their causes (UNESCO, 2009). When it comes to children with disabilities (CWD), data collection problems may be encountered because of parents’ under-reporting and the lack of screening procedures (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). Tools are being developed to facilitate the cross-country comparisons of disability statistics. For example, UNICEF and the Washington Group released questionnaires to assess functional difficulties in children aged 2-17 (Mizunoya, 2018).

Regardless of the minority groups to be reached, the use of household surveys and the involvement of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and communities in data collection should be encouraged (UNESCO, 2009). For instance, data for language mapping can be collected through censuses. But where one or more non-dominant languages are spoken, local NGOs and communities can help gather information at the school or family level to determine the level of proficiency in each language (Benson, 2016).

Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) are key in monitoring an education system’s inclusiveness, provided that they enable a sufficient level of data disaggregation (Wodon, 2016). EMIS should gather data on children and their characteristics, environmental factors (e.g., school accessibility), and human resources available at the school level (Hunt, 2020). In this respect, consultations and discussions may be necessary, for instance, on the strategy to identify CWD. Although labeling students with disabilities may be needed to allocate additional funding or classroom support, it can also be associated with lower well-being outcomes such as stigmatization (Hayes et al., 2017). Alternatively, children can be assessed in several areas related to their functioning, which would help identify the needs of each child, irrespective of whether they have a disability or not. The results of these assessments could be accompanied by further information on the type of disability (Hunt, 2020). The focus will thus be on the child’s strengths and needs rather than her diagnosis (Hayes et al., 2017).

Removing economic barriers to school enrolment demand

School enrolment is often hindered by barriers related to the direct and opportunity costs of schooling (World Bank, 2005). A wide variety of programs have been implemented to increase enrolment by removing economic barriers on the demand side of education provision. A widely implemented one is the abolition of school fees to guarantee universal access to education. Others include conditional cash transfers, which have proven efficient in improving enrolment (see, for example, Filmer and Schady, 2009). Social protection programs and cash transfers conditional on attendance and the use of health services have consistently been beneficial to enrolment, dropout, and completion in Latin America (UNESCO, 2020). School meals are another powerful intervention that can be implemented relatively easily by governments, with positive effects on school enrolment and retention, particularly among girls and in food-insecure areas (Bedasso, 2022; Crawfurd, Hares, and Sandefur, 2022) (please consult Direct cost of schooling for more information on similar interventions). More targeted economic incentives can be implemented (e.g., cash transfers conditional on delayed girls’ marriage), but given the differences in vulnerable groups’ characteristics, it is not easy to pinpoint the ones that would apply to all (Wodon, 2016).

Overall, when looking at the full range of policies that have been implemented, many have mixed results or have not been evaluated at scale. Some had also shown very promising outcomes in their experimental phase but failed when scaled-up because they were very sensitive to small alterations in their implementation, ministries did not have the capacities for such an exercise, or political economy factors came into play (Crawfurd, Hares, and Sandefur, 2022). However, lessons learned from these experiences point to the importance of:

• Carefully considering the cost-effectiveness of the interventions considered (Hunt, 2020);
• an appropriate targeting (IBE-UNESCO, CONFINTED, and BIE, 2008);
• a holistic approach to inclusion (i.e., avoid standalone strategies) (see Promising policy options for school fee abolition for an example) (UNESCO, 2010)
• consultations with vulnerable groups to identify and remove barriers (Lansdown, 2014).

Providing flexible arrangements at school

According to the Abidjan Principles , States must provide reasonable accommodations to cater to individuals’ different capabilities (The Abidjan Principles, 2019). For schools, this implies some flexibility to make the necessary arrangements to meet many different needs. Standardization and non-adaptability, on the other hand, can lead to direct discrimination through school admission offer or indirect discrimination through, for example, the lack of accessible infrastructure for CWD (Varghese, 2022).

Necessary arrangements in school include the removal of physical barriers to education and the provision of adequate school amenities, for example, single-sex sanitation or ramps (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019; Varghese, 2022) (see School infrastructure for more information).

Additionally, teacher training, with preferably hands-on experience during pre-service training, should provide teachers with the necessary skills to accommodate students’ diverse needs. In Mongolia, specialized teacher training to welcome CWD helped improve the latter’s enrolment in preschools and primary schools (Wodon, 2016). Some OECD countries, like Denmark, have mandatory courses on special education needs (Brussino, 2020). Teaching strategies should be flexible enough to allow any adjustment necessary and individualized teaching (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). In this respect, tools such as Individualized education plans (IEPs), which gather student information and teacher strategies to meet the specific needs reported, can be used (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). Human resources such as specialized support staff and teaching assistants are also key to further supporting students with special education needs (Brussino, 2020). School leadership plays an important role in encouraging the sharing of inclusive and innovative teaching practices (Brussino, 2020).

Promoting a pro-inclusion culture

Stigmatization and discrimination are among the most significant barriers to marginalized children’s enrolment (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019; Hunt, 2020; UNESCO, 2010). Fear, ignorance, and shame are often the reasons for the isolation of CWD; even when enrolled, their potential is often undervalued (UNESCO, 2010) (please consult the Socio-cultural barriers to schooling policy page for more information).

Therefore, schools must develop an “inclusive ethos” (Hunt, 2020), whereby they strive to create a supportive environment for all children and protect them from bullying and violence. Key to this is a school leadership that demonstrates values and commitment to inclusive education (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). School values can also be reinforced by creating a code of conduct for teachers and anti-bullying strategies that establish clear consequences in case of violation (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019; Hunt, 2020). Schools should monitor their progress towards inclusion internally, through self-assessment (e.g., using the Index of Inclusion ), or externally, through inclusion-related inspection standards (Hunt, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). For more information, visit policy pages on School climate and School violence .

Maybe more importantly, school personnel should embody inclusion by reflecting students’ diversity and serving as role models (Brussino, 2020). In the Jharkhand state, India, a more ethnically diverse representation among teachers was associated with an increase in the enrolment of children from different ethnic groups (UNESCO, 2020). Similarly, in rural Mozambique, the gender composition of the teaching staff was found to have a greater influence on families’ decision to enroll their children than teacher training (World Bank, 2005).

Finally, governments, civil society organizations – notably local NGOs, and communities have a major role to play in raising awareness and fighting against discrimination (Brussino, 2020; Humanity & Inclusion, n.d.).

Forging partnerships around inclusive education

Inclusive education does not operate in a vacuum but should be a lever for change for a more inclusive society (Lansdown, 2014). This is why forging broad, vertical, and horizontal partnerships and ensuring coordination to support inclusive education appear fundamental (UNESCO, 2017).

Lack of guidance can be a significant barrier to vulnerable children’s school enrolment (Doyle, Mc Guckin, and Shevlin, 2017). Structures like school-based referral networks or resource centers are needed to guide and advise students, families, and schools (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). Some ministries of education may also host dedicated agencies. The Inter-federal Center for Equal Opportunities of Belgium (UNIA) is an example of an independent public institution that assists students and their families, organizes awareness campaigns, and conducts research on inclusive education, among other missions (Brussino, 2020). At the same time, the involvement of multiple stakeholders supporting children and families may lead to complications if not coordinated. In some European countries, the diversity of these actors has led to overly complex school enrolment procedures for CWD (Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse, 2018). At the government level, interventions to promote inclusion may be the responsibility of different agencies and ministries, which, therefore, also need to be coordinated as part of a government-wide policy for inclusion (Wodon, 2016).

In many ways, communities and civil society organizations have a critical role in promoting and implementing inclusive education. For instance, community members can help identify out-of-school children, encourage them to attend, and refer them to suitable structures (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Diplomatic Academy, 2019). Through these actions, community volunteers in Timbuktu have helped enroll more than a hundred CWD with the support of an NGO (Humanity & Inclusion, n.d.) (more information on the role of communities in improving equity and inclusion can be found in School community relationship ). Additionally, many organizations around the world defend vulnerable groups’ rights, raise awareness, and advocate for their inclusion (UNESCO, 2020).

Considering the full picture: completion and learning quality

Inclusive education does not end with broadening access. Governments need to pay as much attention to learning quality and completion. For example, where the abolition of school fees has broadened access to education, learning quality has sometimes suffered due to a lack of concomitant efforts on this aspect (UNESCO, 2010). In addition, some children may be disadvantaged in their learning due to characteristics such as socioeconomic background or latent ability (Filmer and Schady, 2009). A study in Cambodia found that scholarships to poor children have had large positive effects on enrolment and attendance rates, but these did not learn much after 18 months (Filmer and Schady, 2009).

That is, any policy aiming at increasing enrolment must not be implemented as a standalone strategy but considering the full picture, i.e., that the conditions are in place for enrolled children to stay and learn at school. Various complementary supply-side interventions may be necessary, such as building schools closer to the communities, bilingual education and mother-tongue instruction, and tutoring for low-performing students, to name a few (Filmer and Schady, 2009; Wodon, 2016; World Bank, 2005).

Related Articles

• Inclusive student assessment systems
• Equity-sensitive curriculum
• Autonomy and capacity at decentralised levels
• Equitable and inclusive policies and legislation

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Afr J Disabil

The impact of an inclusive education intervention on learning outcomes for girls with disabilities within a resource-poor setting

1 Leonard Cheshire, London, United Kingdom

Marcella Deluca

2 UCL International Disability Research Centre, London, United Kingdom

Sammy Fwaga

Associated data.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Despite a global commitment to the right to education for persons with disabilities, little is known about how to achieve inclusive education in practice, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the majority of the world’s people with disabilities reside. Moreover, although exclusion from education is magnified by intersecting gender and socioeconomic inequalities, there is especially little knowledge regarding what approaches to inclusive education are effective amongst girls with disabilities living in resource-poor settings.

The objective of this article was to assess the impact of an inclusive education intervention led by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) on the educational attainment of girls with disabilities in the resource-poor Lakes region of Kenya.

A quasi-experimental design was employed, where the literacy and numeracy educational attainment of the intervention and control groups was compared over two time points a year apart (Time 1 and Time 2; total matched N = 353). During this period, activities pertaining to six core components of a holistic inclusive education model were implemented.

Relative to the control group, girls with disabilities in the intervention group reported a greater increase in literacy and numeracy attainment, adjusted for grade and level of functional difficulty.

Findings suggest that the intervention was successful in engendering additional improvements in the educational attainment of girls with disabilities from the resource-poor Lakes region of Kenya. Results highlight both the applicability of NGO-led interventions in settings, where national implementation of inclusive education is constrained, and the potential of taking such interventions to scale.

Introduction

The United Nations ( 2007 ) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has to date been ratified by 177 countries, 1 signifying a global commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to education (Article 24). Notwithstanding, in practice, gaps in the provision of education to children and adults with disabilities persist, with recent statistics suggesting that in some countries one in two children having a disability is not attending school regularly (UNESCO 2017 ). Moreover, the recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) place emphasis on the provision of inclusive and quality education for all (SDG 4: ‘Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning’), and as such, along with other marginalised and excluded groups, the SDGs have the potential to change the landscape of people with disabilities in terms of their access to education (Department for International Development [DFID] 2000 ).

However, for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there are particular challenges in meeting these goals in practice. Conceptually, inclusive education originated in the Global North, and there is often much debate about how it should be implemented within many settings in LMICs (Miles & Singhal 2010 ). This leads to a disconnect between policy and practice. For example, Wapling ( 2016 ) notes that against the backdrop of relatively strong inclusive education policies in many settings (e.g. Cambodia, Southern Africa), in practice what is adopted is integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools, with little attention to how other contextual realities, such gender and poverty, intersect with disability and impact access to education. Furthermore, the implementation of truly inclusive education models (i.e. one system for all children regardless of disability status) in LMICs may be constrained by a dearth of real resources, ineffective teacher training and absence of inclusive policies (Carew et al. 2018; Donohue & Bornman 2015 ; Kuyini & Desai 2007 ; Nkonyane & Hove 2014 ). For instance, where teachers are not provided with good quality training and equipment (e.g. teaching and learning aids) to help facilitate the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, they may ultimately remain unwilling to adopt inclusion in practice (De Boer, Pijl & Minnaert 2011 ), despite agreeing with the goals and philosophy of inclusive education in the abstract.

Whilst there is a general need to understand, particularly in LMICs, what specific approaches work in terms of building blocks (i.e. teacher training; see, e.g., Bakhshi, Kett & Oliver 2013 ; Carew et al. 2018) that create an inclusive classroom (i.e. positive teacher attitudes to inclusion and adoption of inclusive teaching practices; see De Boer et al. 2011 for an example), ultimately, the ‘litmus test’ for identifying progress towards the goal of inclusive and quality education for all is if children with disabilities experience improvements in educational attainment whilst participating in inclusive classrooms, relative to their attainment in non-inclusive classrooms. This includes those children with disabilities who may experience more marginalisation relative to their peers. For instance, girls (as well as women) with disabilities are often described as possessing the ‘double disadvantage’ of experiencing marginalisation on the basis of both their gender and ability status (Fairchild 2002 ; Moodley & Graham 2015 ; Sheldon 2014 ). Moreover, poverty and deprivation are thought to magnify experienced inequalities, so that girls and women with disabilities living in LMICs, and, in particular, resource-poor areas in these settings, are likely to experience poorer outcomes relative to other groups (Emmett & Alant 2006 ). In the context of education, for instance, this is reflected in rates of education being lower amongst girls compared to boys with disabilities (UNESCO 2017 ). Girls with disabilities may also face specific and particularly distressing forms of marginalisation that impede their access to education such as sexual abuse in school (e.g. Caldas & Bensy 2014 ; Phasha & Nyokangi 2012 ) or forced marriage at an early age (Groce, Gazizova & Hassiotis 2014 ). Consequently, inclusive education models that are generally effective for children with disabilities may need additional components to allow the most marginalised of children with disabilities to access high-quality education. Often, this may necessitate a broader focus than just focusing on school and classroom. One example provided by Scior et al. ( 2016 ) is the role that parents and community members with intellectual disabilities may play in combating intellectual disability stigma, which is widespread compared to that encountered by other impairment groups. In a similar respect, inclusive education for girls with disabilities may necessitate engendering positive community attitudes about educational provision for both children with disabilities and girls in general.

In light of the current practical constraints in the implementation of inclusive education models in LMICs, there is a lack of empirical data on what specific approaches may provide children with disabilities with a quality education. In particular, less data are available on what enables learning for marginalised groups of children with disabilities in LMICs, including girls with disabilities from resource-poor regions of such countries. As delivery of inclusive education models in these areas is often fulfilled by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Carew et al. 2018), empirical analyses of such interventions can provide initial insight for governments and policy-makers into what approaches are effective in both real-life contexts and amongst the most marginalised of children with disabilities.

Current research context

Although overall enrolment in primary education is increasing in Kenya because of the introduction of measures such as Free Primary Education in 2003 and increased social protection access, the number of girls with disabilities accessing primary education remains low, and the number of these girls dropping out of education is also increasing. The Lakes region of Kenya, located in the west, faces particular challenges in terms of deprivation, including in the context of education, and this deprivation disproportionally affects girls with disabilities. For example, between 2003 and 2009, the Lake region saw an increase of 12.5% in primary school enrolments (Kenya Ministry of Education 2017 ). However, in 2009, dropout rates rose to 9.2%, the highest in the country. Moreover, girls accounted for just 1.3% of all school attendants during this period, and although no representative data are available for the number of these girls who are disabled, it is assumed to be very small, given the extant work on disability and school attendance (e.g. Mizunoya, Mitra & Yamasaki 2018 ; UNESCO 2017 ). Moreover, even for the girls with disabilities who managed to attend and stay in school, existing research (e.g. Wapling 2016 ) has highlighted numerous sociocultural (e.g. attitudes) and school-level barriers that prevent such girls from staying away from schools and study and learn on an equitable basis with non-disabled peers. Disability is both a cause and a consequence of poverty (DFID 2000 ), meaning that the more impoverished Lakes region of Kenya likely contains a greater proportion of people living with disabilities compared to other regions of Kenya. For example, in two of its constituent sub-counties, Kisumu East and Mbita, it is estimated that approximately one-fifth to a quarter of girls aged 6–11 years have disabilities compared to a national average of 5% – 10% (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2005 ).

The demographics of the Lakes region of Kenya made it a suitable candidate for a field test of an inclusive education intervention developed by the UK-based NGO Leonard Cheshire. The research was funded by the UK government (Department for International Development) Girls Education Challenge (GEC) fund, designed to ‘…help up to a million of the world’s poorest girls improve their lives through education and find better ways of getting girls in school and ensuring they receive a quality of education to transform their future’ ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/girls-education-challenge ).

Results from a dedicated training component designed to address teacher beliefs, attitudes and practices around inclusive education have already been reported in Carew et al. (2018).

The objective of this research was to assess the impact of the intervention on the educational attainment of girls with disabilities in the Lakes region of Kenya.

At the outset of the study, a scoping exercise was conducted to discern the barriers that girls with disabilities face to accessing education. Specific barriers identified by the scoping exercise included inaccessible school buildings; learning materials; teaching methods; and negative attitudes from parents, community members and teachers about disability in education. It was also found that disabled girls and their families did not receive the full necessary educational and rehabilitative support they needed to access mainstream education (e.g. help with additional costs). These findings were largely consistent with the extant literature on barriers to education that disabled children face within other resource-poor contexts (e.g. Wapling 2016 ). As a result of this scoping exercise, intervention activities were explicitly aligned with the identified barriers as part of a wider project theory of change.

The intervention implementer (Leonard Cheshire) is a UK-based global disability-focused NGO that supports disabled people’s access to education (as well as work and employment) in several countries around the globe, including in Southern and East Africa, where the organisation also has regional offices. The organisation’s intervention is based on a set of six main interlinked components (Leonard Cheshire 2017 ). Figure 1 displays the conceptual model. We summarise each of these components below in turn and provide examples of the activities undertaken under each component.

The (Organisation) inclusive education model.

The first component was the creation of an accessible learning environment. This included building of ramps, widening of windows and fitting of translucent sheets to allow more light in classrooms, thus enabling those with low vision to see better, as well as providing assistive devices (e.g. wheelchairs and hearing aids) and teaching and learning materials.

The second set of activities concentrated on raising awareness about both disability and gender issues amongst caregivers and the community to challenge deeply rooted stereotypes and practices about disabled people in general and girls in particular (e.g. that they cannot learn or learn as capably as others). Specifically, a small group of purposively selected community members were trained on disability rights, gender issues and inclusive education, and subsequently cascaded this training throughout each community.

The third component of the project was the development and running of on-going child-to-child activities (i.e. peer support and after-school clubs) designed to promote integration and socialisation between girls with and without disabilities. The fourth component of the project trained teachers at project schools on inclusive education practices and disability rights (see Carew et al. 2018). The fifth component of the project supported the identification and assessment of disabled children (e.g. by liaising with external staff regarding unidentified children living with a disability). Finally, to ensure intervention benefits continued beyond the period of direct activity, the sixth component of the project advocated for policy change at the county and national levels (e.g. pushing for a review of the country-wide Special Needs Education policy).

To investigate the efficacy of the intervention on the educational attainment of girls with disabilities, this study adopted a quasi-experimental design, in which the impact of the intervention was assessed over two time points (Time 1 and Time 2). Specifically, a group of girls with disabilities who received the intervention were compared with a control group of girls with disabilities who did not receive the intervention.

Participants

The Time 1 intervention sample comprised 406 girls with disabilities who were attending primary schools in the Lakes region of Kenya where intervention activities were being conducted. The primary school classes these girls were drawn from ranged from Grade 1 to Grade 8 (aged from 6 to 14 years) and the distribution by grade ranged from 8% to 17% of the sample. The most frequent disability reported was hearing impairment ( N = 97; 24%), followed by visual impairment ( N = 92; 23%). The Time 2 intervention sample comprised 289 girls (an attrition rate of 29%).

The Time 1 control sample comprised 108 girls with disabilities attending primary schools within the Lakes region of Kenya where intervention activities were not being conducted. These girls were drawn from the same range of primary school classes (i.e. Grade 1 to Grade 8) and each class contained 6% to 19% of the sample. The most frequent disability reported was physical disability ( N = 37; 34%), followed by intellectual disability ( N = 20; 19%). The Time 2 control sample comprised 64 girls (an attrition rate of 41%).

The smaller size of the control group is indicative of the substantive real-life barriers that girls with disabilities face in obtaining education in Kenya. That is, given that girls with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled peers to not attend school regularly in the absence of any intervention (UNESCO 2017 ), it was not possible to obtain a larger sample of control girls that could be meaningfully compared with the intervention group. 2

Uwezo English literacy, Kiswahili literacy and numeracy test scores : The Uwezo test is a pretested and validated tool administered within households across East Africa to assess learning in English and Kiswahili 3 literacy as well as numeracy skills at lower primary levels (Uwezo 2009 ). In each of the three domains, the administered test contains several exercises that are given to participating children by trained assessors. Based on the competencies displayed by each child (i.e. in English literacy, Kiswahili literacy and numeracy), the assessor awards them a score. In our study, following Uwezo guidelines, the English and Kiswahili tests comprised five possible levels corresponding to the assessed competencies of the child. (‘nothing’, ‘letter’, ‘word’, ‘paragraph’ and ‘story’). The first four of these signify whether the child could read the descriptor in questions (e.g. letters), whilst the last signifies that the child could broadly comprehend the meaning of a passage of text. Similarly, following Uwezo guidelines, competency in numeracy was assessed using seven possible levels (‘nothing’, ‘counting [dots]’, ‘number recognition’, ‘addition’, ‘subtraction’, ‘multiplication’ and ‘division’). 4 Additionally, all administered tests were converted to Braille to ensure that materials were accessible to girls with visual disabilities.

Severity of disability : The Washington Group short set of questions was used to measure the severity of disability (Madans, Loeb & Altman 2011 ). The questions are measured on a 4-point scale (1 = No, No difficulty , 4 = cannot do at all ), and are asked whether respondents can complete a range of activities. Specifically, the following items were used: ‘Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses?’; ‘Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid?’; ‘Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps?’; ‘Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating?’; ‘Do you have difficulty with self-care, such as washing all over or dressing?’

At its inception, the project firstly trained community resource workers, who collected data on primary enrolment in five sub-counties of the Lakes region (Kisumu East, Kuria East, Mbita, Migori and Siaya) and worked with Kenyan government-mandated Education Assessment Resource Centres (EARCs) to identify 2 500 girls with disabilities. The project also liaised with the Kenyan Government to select 75 schools (50 intervention and 25 control) across five counties, half of which would receive the intervention and the other half which would not receive the intervention.

The project employed an external evaluator who developed a sampling framework to ensure sample representativeness in each group (i.e. intervention and control) across counties and grades (i.e. class) and collected data from this subsample of girls. At both data collection points, quantitative data collection, including Uwezo assessment, was carried out at the girls’ households (with consent from their caregiver) by specially trained data collectors. Time 1 data were collected at the end of 2015 (i.e. November–December) over a period of a month, whilst Time 2 data were collected a year later at the end of 2016 (i.e. November–December), also over a month period.

At the conclusion of the project in early 2017, data were provided to the authors who conducted further secondary analysis of the project’s midline and endline data (see below). 5

Analytical strategy

We used a difference-in-difference approach to assess the impact of the intervention over the studied period by comparing the difference in change (i.e. Time 2 – Time 1) in the girls’ respective learning score (i.e. English, Kiswahili and numeracy) within the intervention and control groups. Our analyses were performed using the statistical package SPSS version 24.

The choice of analytic strategy was influenced by natural limitations present in our data in light of its field-based settings related to non-random differences between the groups. Specifically, although data were collected from a pre-intervention baseline group of girls with disabilities, over three-quarters were subsequently assigned by the Kenyan system to schools outside the intervention areas and had to be substituted at the subsequent data collection points. Consequently, this study reports on findings from a sample of girls with disabilities only from the midline (i.e. Time 1) and the endline (Time 2) project phases. As such, the intervention group had already been exposed to some of the intervention activities at the first assessment point, although intervention activities continued through the project duration. Accordingly, at Time 1, analysis (controlling for grade) revealed that English and Kiswahili scores were higher in the intervention group relative to the control group (range: p = 0.003–0.046), which is consistent with a potential positive impact of the intervention prior to Time 1. There was no differences in numeracy scores between the groups ( p = 0.192).

Secondly, initial analysis revealed that at Time 1, the intervention and control samples differed in their grade compositions, with those in the intervention group belonging to a significantly higher grade compared to the control ( p = 0.018).

Finally, the intervention and control groups differed in the functional difficulty caused by their disability. That is, the intervention group reported significantly more difficulty with both seeing and hearing relative to the control, whilst for difficulty in walking, the reverse was identified (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the difficulty in concentrating and difficulty with self-care (range: p = 0.270–0.757). This was likely as there were more girls with an assessment of visual and hearing impairment in the intervention group (24% and 23% of the sample, respectively) compared to the control (14% and 12%), whilst girls with physical disabilities were underrepresented (13% in the intervention group vs. 34% in the control group). This is also likely because of the substitution of cases from baseline described above (i.e. the project had to select girls that were enrolled within intervention schools).

The application of the difference-in-difference methodology allows for the evaluation of interventions even where there is extant cross-group selection bias (i.e. differing characteristics), as in this case (Gertler et al. 2016 ). That is, instead of comparing post-intervention outcomes between intervention and control groups, which may be influenced by previously existing outcomes (measured and unmeasured variation), the difference-in-difference approach compares the change in outcomes over time in the intervention group with the comparison control group. Thus, a key assumption is that the comparison group must accurately represent change in outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of any intervention, not that there is equivalence between the groups at the outset of measurement (Gertler et al. 2016 ).

Reflexivity

In terms of Global North–Global South collaboration, partnership has been problematised, particularly in terms of its model of capacity building, which often implicitly denotes Global South actors as the beneficiaries of interventions and the Global North as providers and thus creates a power asymmetry (Binka 2005 ). With this in mind, two broad points are relevant to be raised about the intervention and our analyses.

The first point is that although project funding and implementing NGO stem from the United Kingdom, the intervention activities were designed and facilitated by Kenyan team members based locally at a regional office in Western Kenya, with input from UK-based colleagues. Similarly, the external evaluators of the project were Kenyan. Within disability inclusive development and development more broadly, we (i.e. the authors) view the equitable involvement of actors based within contexts and with experiences of the identities (e.g. disability) under study as crucial to the meaningful implementation and assessment of interventions, although there is a natural debate about what equitable participation would constitute to different actors.

In relation, the second point we wish to highlight is our (i.e. the authors) identities. We are a group of three women and two men, and one of us identifies as having a physical disability. One of us is Kenyan and worked on the intervention implementation and assessment in the Lakes region, whilst the remaining authors are academics from the Global North (the UK, the USA and Italy) who work at a research centre formed through a partnership between the implementing NGO and a university. Three of us have over 20 years’ experience of disability inclusive development, whilst the remaining two are more early-career. We anticipate (and indeed optimistic) that these mix of identities mean that we have contributed useful perspectives to the key debates raised by our findings, but this is obviously up to individual readers to decide.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval to conduct secondary data analysis of the data collected throughout the project was granted by University College London (Ethical clearance No.: ID: 1661/005). Additionally, at both Time 1 and Time 2, the external evaluator provided a declaration to the NGO (Leonard Cheshire) that the data were collected in an ethical manner, following the protocols set out by the funder.

Table 1 shows the mean values (M) and standard deviation (SD) of Uwezo test scores. Findings are presented in two sections. Firstly, we check for the impact of panel attrition on our sample. Secondly, addressing our main objective, we assess the unique contribution of the inclusive education intervention to the Uwezo scores of girls using longitudinal regression models.

Mean values and standard deviations of Uwezo test scores.

Panel attrition

Differences between the participants who responded at Time 2 and the full Time 1 data set were checked separately for each group. For the intervention group, differences were non-significant across all key measures (range: p = 0.061–0.777), bar difficulty in seeing. Respondents had more difficulty in seeing ( M = 1.72, SD = 0.81) compared to non-respondents ( M = 1.50, SD = 0.71), F (1, 404) = 6.98, p = 0.009, partial η 2 = 0.017.

For the control group, attrition produced three significant differences on key measures. Firstly, respondents had less difficulty in remembering or concentrating ( M = 1.66, SD = 0.89) compared with non-respondents ( M = 2.02, SD = 1.00), F (1, 106) = 3.97, p = 0.049, partial η 2 = 0.036, and less difficulty with self-care ( M = 1.16, SD = 0.37) compared with non-respondents ( M = 1.41, SD = 0.66), F (1, 106) = 6.53, p = 0.012, partial η 2 = 0.058. Finally, respondents had significantly higher English Uwezo scores ( M = 3.41, SD = 1.34), compared with non-respondents ( M = 2.82, SD = 1.60), F (1, 106) = 4.27, p = 0.041, partial η 2 = 0.039.

As the majority of non-respondents at Time 2 were girls who had dropped out of school, these differences were not surprising. That is, girls experiencing more functional difficulty (i.e. disability) than their peers were often at more risk of dropping out of school (Mizunoya et al. 2018 ), hence the need to conduct interventions.

Impact of the inclusive education intervention on learning scores

To assess the impact of the inclusive education intervention on the learning scores of girls with disabilities, we ran three longitudinal regression models. Each model regressed the change in a learning score over time (i.e. Time 2 – Time 1 English, Kiswahili or numeracy) onto groups (intervention and control). Additionally, we also controlled for the influence of grade and the level of functional difficulty the girls experienced across each Washington group domain (seeing, hearing, walking, remembering and self-care).

The model regressing the change in English learning scores on the predictors explained a small amount of variance ( R 2 = 0.06), F (7, 345) = 3.31, p = 0.002. As hypothesised, there was a significant and positive association between group and the change in English learning scores over time ( B = 0.49, β = 0.17, t = 2.95, p = 0.003). That is, compared with the control group, the intervention group experienced a greater increase in English scores. The only other significant predictor of the change in English learning scores was grade ( B = -0.10, β = -0.19, t = -3.63, p < 0.001). Specifically, the higher the grade of the participant, the less their English learning score changed over time. No other predictors were significant in the model (range: p = 0.109–0.891).

The model regressing the change in Kiswahili learning scores on the predictors explained a small amount of variance ( R 2 = 0.08), F (7, 345) = 4.54, p < 0.001. As predicted, there was a significant and positive association between group and the change in Kiswahili learning scores over time ( B = 0.41, β = 0.12, t = 2.20, p = 0.029). In other words, compared with the control group, the intervention group experienced a greater increase in Kiswahili scores. The only other significant predictor of the change in Kiswahili learning scores was grade ( B = -0.14, β = -0.24, t = -4.55, p < 0.001). Specifically, the higher the grade of the participant, the less their Kiswahili learning score changed over time. No other predictors were significant in the model (range: p = 0.150–0.477).

The model regressing the change in numeracy learning scores on the predictors explained a small amount of variance ( R 2 = 0.06), F (7, 345) = 3.30, p = 0.002. As hypothesised, there was a significant and positive association between group and the change in numeracy learning scores over time ( B = 0.48, β = 0.14, t = 2.40, p = 0.017). Namely, compared with the control group, the intervention group experienced a greater increase in numeracy scores. There were two other significant predictors of the change in numeracy learning scores, grade ( B = -0.09, β = -0.15, t = -2.74, p = 0.007) and difficulty in walking ( B = 0.34, β = 0.16, t =2.78, p = 0.006). Specifically, the higher the grade of participants, the less their numeracy learning score changed over time, whilst the more the difficulty participants had in walking, the more their numeracy learning score changed over time. No other predictors were significant in the model (range: p = 0.126–0.846).

Our findings reveal that, over the intervention period, girls with disabilities who participated in the inclusive education intervention obtained significantly higher English, Kiswahili and numeracy test scores compared with a comparable group of girls with disabilities who did not participate in the intervention. Moreover, the longitudinal association between group and Uwezo test scores was present when controlling for severity of disability and primary school grade. This suggests that the intervention was effective for both girls who experienced different degrees of impairment and girls who were at different stages of primary school learning.

The evidence generated by this study suggests that a holistic inclusive education model (Organisation 2017), encompassing intervention activities within both schools and wider community, could benefit the learning outcomes of children with disabilities. It is also encouraging that the intervention was effective when tested in the field among girls with disabilities from a resource-poor region of a LMIC, as the literature has identified that both gender and poverty intersects with disability to create additional barriers in multiple areas of social participation, including education (e.g. Emmett & Alant 2006 ).

Findings from inclusive education interventions delivered by NGOs, particularly when theory-led, are a useful step to explore ‘what works’ in practice, especially given that the implementation of inclusive education interventions by other actors could be constrained by a lack of resources (e.g. Donohue & Bornman 2015 ; Kuyini & Desai 2007 ). From this study, two observations for the future research are relevant in this respect. Firstly, the intervention conducted by (Organisation) was holistic, containing six interlinked core components comprising a range of related activities (see Organisation 2017). The future research should also examine the unique impact of each component (e.g. comparing the impact of hours of input per component on learning outcomes) to clarify what contributes the most to improvement in learning outcomes and thus what could be prioritised in situations where resources to implement full inclusive education models are unavailable. Secondly, it is worth highlighting that despite the scale and range of activities conducted as part of the intervention, the intervention explained only 6% – 8% of the variability in learning outcomes. This highlights the difficulty of achieving inclusive education in practice, where educational attainment could be influenced by a range of factors that were not measured in this study. Thus, the future research should continue to explore and test additional determinants of learning scores, although many are likely to be sociocultural and specific to the context under study (i.e. the Lakes region).

In conducting this study, we encountered some challenges that arose because of its field settings. Specifically, it was initially planned to test the impact of the intervention over three time points, but after the baseline many of the girls were subsequently allocated to schools outside project areas, requiring re-sampling at the midline project phase (i.e. Time 1). Girls were not therefore allocated randomly to the intervention and control groups, and consequently, there was cross-group variation in their level of functional difficulty and grade composition, although these were controlled for in the analyses. Similarly, as girls in the intervention group were already exposed to activities prior to Time 1, the analyses reflect the impact of intervention over the assessed period (i.e. Time 1 to Time 2), not its overall impact on girls with disabilities.

The findings shed light on the effectiveness of a holistic inclusive education intervention conducted in the field amongst a marginalised group of children with disabilities in Kenya (i.e. girls with disabilities from the resource-poor Lakes region). Results suggest that the intervention engendered additional improvements in the learning outcomes of marginalised children with disabilities, providing both a promising avenue for government-led scale up in the Lakes region and highlighting the application of NGO-led interventions to build evidence in settings where national implementation of true inclusive education models is constrained (e.g. by lack of resources). Future research is needed to discern what elements of inclusive education implementation should be prioritised in such contexts. In this respect, we anticipate that our findings are helpful in stimulating further work in this area.

Acknowledgements

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Authors’ contributions

M.C. conducted data analysis and wrote and revised the manuscript. The remaining authors assisted with interpreting the data and provided critically important intellectual content to the revised manuscript.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Department for International Development (Grant No.: 6627).

Data availability statement

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.

How to cite this article: Carew, M., Deluca, M., Groce, N., Fwaga, S. & Kett, M., 2020, ‘The impact of an inclusive education intervention on learning outcomes for girls with disabilities within a resource-poor setting’, African Journal of Disability 9(0), a555. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.555

1 https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html .

2 The control group sample reported in this article comprises part of a larger control sample not receiving the intervention which included responses from out of school girls. However, as these girls do not attend school, they do not constitute a meaningful comparison group (i.e. girls attending school but not receiving the intervention).

3 Although not the main language spoken in the Lakes region, which is Luo, Kiswahili is a national language and the main language of instruction within schools, along with English

4 At Time 1, only the first five levels of numeracy were assessed. However, we obtained ceiling effects, that is, almost two-thirds (57%) of the entire surveyed cohort were judged to have competency in subtraction, two additional levels were added at Time 2.

5 Summary statistics of the external evaluation are displayed at: https://girlseducationchallenge.org/ . They show that the intervention achieved 165% of its literacy target and 171% of its numeracy target over the same period as detailed in this article (i.e. midline to endline).

• Bakhshi P., Kett M. & Oliver K., 2013, What are the impacts of approaches to increase the accessibility to education for people with a disability across developed and developing countries and what is known about the cost-effectiveness of different approaches? , EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Binka F., 2005, ‘ North–South research collaborations: A move towards a true partnership? ’, Tropical Medicine & International Health 10 ( 3 ), 207–209. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01373.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldas S.J. & Bensy M.L., 2014, ‘ The sexual maltreatment of students with disabilities in American school settings ’, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 23 ( 4 ), 345–366. 10.1080/10538712.2014.906530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carew M.T., Deluca M., Groce N. & Kett M., 2019, ‘ The impact of an inclusive education intervention on teacher preparedness to educate children with disabilities within the Lakes Region of Kenya ’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 23 ( 3 ), 229–244. 10.1080/13603116.2018.1430181 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Boer A., Pijl S.J. & Minnaert A., 2011, ‘ Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature ’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 ( 3 ), 331–353. 10.1080/13603110903030089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department for International Development (DFID) , 2000, Disability, poverty, and development , Department for International Development, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Department for International Development (DFID) , 2015, Disability framework – One year on: Leaving no one behind , Department for International Development, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donohue D. & Bornman J., 2015, ‘ South African teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of learners with different abilities in mainstream classrooms ’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 62 , 42–59. 10.1080/1034912X.2014.985638 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmett T. & Alant E., 2006, ‘ Women and disability: Exploring the interface of multiple disadvantage ’, Development Southern Africa 23 ( 4 ), 445–460. 10.1080/03768350600927144 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairchild S.R., 2002, ‘ Women with disabilities: The long road to equality ’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 6 ( 2 ), 13–28. 10.1300/J137v06n02_02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gertler P.J., Martinez S., Premand P., Rawlings L.B. & Vermeersch C.M., 2016, Impact evaluation in practice , World Bank, Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groce N., Gazizova D. & Hassiotis A., 2014, Forced marriage among persons with intellectual disabilities , Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenya Ministry of Education , 2017, National education management information system, web-based data management solution , viewed 25 January 2017, from http://www.education.go.ke/ShowPage.aspx?department=52&id=1148
• Kenya National Bureau of Statistics , 2005, Economic survey 2005 , Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuyini A.B. & Desai I., 2007, ‘ Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana ’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 7 ( 2 ), 104–113. 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00086.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leonard Cheshire , 2017, Closing the gap: Inclusive Education for girls wi th disabilities in Kenya , Leonard Cheshire, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Madans J.H., Loeb M.E. & Altman B.M., 2011, ‘ Measuring disability and monitoring the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: The work of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics ’, BMC Public Health 11 ( 4 ), S4 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S4-S4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. 10.1080/13603110802265125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mizunoya S., Mitra S. & Yamasaki I., 2018, ‘ Disability and school attendance in 15 low-and middle-income countries ’, World Development 104 , 388–403. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moodley J. & Graham L., 2015, ‘ The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies ’, Agenda 29 ( 2 ), 24–33. 10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nkonyane V.A. & Hove N., 2014, ‘ The teacher as a sacrifice at “alter” of inclusive education in South Africa’s public schools: Challenges of inclusive education ’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5 ( 20 ), 1413–1423. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1413 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phasha T.N. & Nyokangi D., 2012, ‘ School-based sexual violence among female learners with mild intellectual disability in South Africa ’, Violence against Women 18 ( 3 ), 309–321. 10.1177/1077801212444578 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scior K., Hamid A., Hastings R., Werner S., Belton C., Laniyan A. et al., 2016, ‘ Consigned to the margins: A call for global action to challenge intellectual disability stigma ’, The Lancet Global Health 4 ( 5 ), e294–e295. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)00060-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon A., 2014, ‘Women and disability’, in Swain J., French S., Barnes C. & Thomas C. (eds.), Disabling barriers: Enabling environments , pp. 70–77, Sage, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) , 2017, Education and disability , UNESCO, Montreal. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations , 2007, Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities , United Nations, New York. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uwezo , 2009, Uwezo! Promoting learning in East Africa , Uwezo, Nairobi. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wapling L., 2016, Inclusive education and children with disabilities: Quality education for all in low and middle income countries , CBM, Cambridge. [ Google Scholar ]

Pakistan is Using Innovative Approaches for Inclusive Education: GEM Report 2020

Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi (ITA) organized and co-hosted the national virtual launch of the UNESCO’s 2020 GEM Report, calling all stakeholders to concentrate on those being left behind and move towards inclusion in education, particularly after COVID-19. GEM Report Senior Analyst Anna Cristina D'Addio gave a presentation on the 2020 GEM Report and shared the key findings from the report.

Federal Minister for Federal Education and Professional Training Shafqat Mahmood was the chief guest on the occasion. Launching the report, he said: "The online event featured an interactive high-level panel that discussed the key messages and recommendations in the report. “The GEM Report reminds us of the continued disparities in education, particularly in ensuring access of quality education to all, which is the foundation of inclusion,”

UNESCO Pakistan Country Representative Patricia McPhillips said:  “ The GEM Report emphasizes the global need for better data collection and subsequent use,” she said, adding that it is encouraging to note that Pakistan’s inclusion-oriented data collection initiative is highlighted in the report as a best practice. Recognizing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2018 and introduction of admission quotas to Disability Act 2014, she said that these are important milestones for ensuring inclusive education.

Speaking at the event, Department for International Development (DFID) Pakistan Country Director Annabel Gerry said , “T his report comes at a critical moment, where the coronavirus pandemic has added to the hidden emergency of exclusion from education. Since 2011, over 10 million children in primary school have benefited from UK support to Government of Pakistan’s education reforms, of which 4.7 million are girls. But significant inequalities remain by region, socio-economic status, disability, religion and gender. I hope this report will catalyze the will and resources to realize inclusive and equitable quality education in Pakistan. No country can ever reach its full potential unless every one of its citizens can reach their full potential. This is why we put inclusion at the heart of everything we do,” she said .

Other panelists included Planning Commission of Pakistan’s Member Social Sector Dr. Shabnum Sarfraz, Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives (IDEAS) Director and LUMS School of Education Interim Dean Dr. Faisal Bari and Special Talent Exchange Program (STEP) Executive Director Muhammad Atif Sheikh.

ITA CEO Baela Raza Jamil said, "There is much to do to set the actions right for Inclusive Education in Pakistan."

The report provides an in-depth analysis of key factors for the exclusion of learners in education systems worldwide including background, identity and ability and urges the countries to focus on those left behind as schools reopen so as to foster more resilient and equal societies."

Persistence of exclusion: The 2020 GEM Report notes that 258 million children and youth were entirely excluded from education, with poverty as the main obstacle to access. In Pakistan, hardly any poor rural women in Pakistan complete secondary school despite a target for universal secondary completion by 2030. Moreover, the gap in the probability of boys receiving more household resources for education was 13 percentage points for 5-9-year-olds and 24 points for 10-14-year-olds. Parents can thus help or hinder inclusion.

Inequitable foundations: The Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews (PEER) introduced by GEM Report show that many countries still practice education segregation, which reinforces stereotyping, discrimination and alienation. Education Acts for all four provinces in Pakistan mention children with disabilities/special needs and lay down mechanism for educating CWDs in separate schooling system based on the National Policy for Persons with Disabilities 2002. But education policies vary in emphasis on inclusion. In Punjab, under the 2012 inclusive education policy framework, students with mild and moderate disabilities are admitted to mainstream primary and lower secondary schools whose teachers are trained by master trainers of the Department of Special Education.

Blatant exclusion: The report states that fewer than 10% of countries have laws that help ensure full inclusion in education while exclusion can be very blatant in some laws. Although Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women prohibits forced and child marriage but girls can get married at age 16 in most provinces in Pakistan.

Alienating learners: The report further states that reflecting learners’ diverse needs require textbooks and curricula to be inclusive, yet many still alienate by omission or false representation – Girls and women only made up 24% of references in secondary school English-language textbooks in Punjab while women were represented in less prestigious occupations and as introverted and passive .

Chronic lack of quality data on those left behind: Pakistan is among the countries that do not collect data on disabilities in their Education Management Information System (EMIS). Household surveys are, however, the key to breaking education data down by individual characteristics.  The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) Pakistan survey, led by ITA, has included Washington Group’s Child Functioning Module to estimate the disability prevalence and educational status of children with disabilities in some regions of the country.

Signs of progress towards inclusion: The 2020 GEM Report notes that Pakistan is using positive, innovative approaches to transition to inclusion. The country is testing a ‘third gender’ option in data collection tools while Pakistan’s Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2018 prohibits discrimination in education and establishes their right to education and a 3% quota for transgender children in mainstream public and private education institutions. Moreover, in 2019, Pakistan’s Government Rules and Disability Act 2014 introduced admission quotas for students with disabilities at all education levels. Tertiary education institutions were asked to exempt candidates with disabilities from admission tests, relax age limits, provide fee concessions, and offer appropriate examination modalities.

Media Coverage:

English Coverage:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1571663/conscious-effort-being-made-to-promote-inclusive-education-using-technology-minister

https://tribune.com.pk/epaper/news/Islamabad/2020-07-29/NmJjYmI4MjI5YWM3NWU0NzNiYmRmMzQ3OTkyMWJmYjQuanBlZw%3D%3D

https://www.brecorder.com/news/40008334

Photo Release:

https://www.app.com.pk/photos-section/photos-section/islamabad-july-28-%C2%96-federal-minister-for-education-and-professional-training-shafqat-mahmood-addressing-during-the-virtual-launch-of-global-education-monitoring-report-2020-by-idara-e-taleem-o/

Urdu Coverage:

https://www.express.pk/story/2063319/1/

https://twnews.co.uk/pk-news/nzm-t-lym-myn-ttykhnlwjy-khy-st-ml-khw-frwg-dy-rhy-hyn-wfqy-wzyr-t-lym

Related items

• Country page: Pakistan
• UNESCO Office in Islamabad
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Article Call for written proposals for a work assignment with UNESCO Office in Dar es Salaam 23 April 2024

Other recent articles

• Understanding Poverty

Inclusive Education

WHY IT MATTERS

Children with disabilities are often the most marginalized and excluded from educational opportunities, limiting their opportunities to build independent lives free from poverty. Fifteen percent of the world’s population is estimated to have a disability. The exclusion of children with disabilities is severe globally and especially in low-income countries and regions. The problem is not limited to attending school. Children with disabilities face barriers to learning even when they are in school: Too often, schools lack teachers with the adequate training and materials to provide disability-inclusive education, and classroom facilities and learning resources often don’t accommodate specific needs. We need policies that address the barriers faced by students with disabilities and proactively work to ensure that all children can receive a quality education.

OUR APPROACH

The World Bank is committed to developing policies that meet the needs of people with disabilities, as expanding equitable opportunities is at the core of building inclusive societies. The World Bank recognizes that more work is needed to ensure inclusive education. All children deserve the opportunity to be in school and learn so they acquire the skills and knowledge to thrive—regardless of their diverse educational needs. We work with governments and civil society in a wide range of areas, providing diverse financial instruments, as well as analytical work to inform institutional development, inclusive education sector planning, targeted educational programs, and multi-sectoral collaboration to support the process of disability-inclusive development.

OUR PRIORITIES

• Commit to inclusive education The World Bank’s aim is that all its education programs and projects will be disability inclusive by 2025. Among other things, this means making schools inclusive by removing physical barriers to access, training teachers to adapt their teaching strategies to support all and increasing the supply of accessible learning materials. We also want to ensure that disability is reflected in national statistics systems, poverty, and growth strategies. To deliver on this commitment, we are partnering with other development players. The Disability-Inclusive Education in Africa Program Trust Fund, which is funded through USAID, and the Inclusive Education Initiative, launched with the support of the British and Norwegian governments, are examples of initiatives that provide coordinated technical expertise and resources to countries to support them in making their education systems disability inclusive, so that no one is left behind.
• Develop better data and knowledge to support inclusive education Quality data on participation and outcomes for children with disabilities is lacking. In addition, there are barriers on the supply and demand side of education that limit access and learning. There is limited evidence about effective interventions that can be implemented at scale, especially around pedagogical practices and technology-assisted learning. We are working to generate data and document innovative approaches.
• Support disability-inclusive teaching It is critical to build educator and other school staff competencies to support learning for all students through inclusive pedagogies and learning environments. The World Bank engages with countries to ensure that professional development and training incorporate strategies so that children with disabilities can participate and learn in schools. We are working to explore innovative and inclusive pedagogies, including effective uses of assistive technologies.

Governments must act to to ensure equity and inclusion in education so that children with disabilities can attend school and have the necessary materials and assistance to learn and achieve.

• Blog: The “how to” of inclusive policy design [March 2024]
• FLYER: Disability Inclusion in Education [Oct 2022]
• BROCHURE: Inclusive Education [Oct 2022]
• Overview: Inclusive Education
• Inclusive Education Resource Guide
• Inclusive Education Initiative
• World Bank Group Commitments on Disability-Inclusive Development
• World Bank Group Disability Inclusion and Accountability Framework
• Environmental Framework
• Good Practice Note: Non-Discrimination and Disability
• Good Practice Note: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
• World Report on Disability

Donald Trump’s Company Has Diversity And Inclusion Policy While He Rages Against It

General Assignment Reporter, HuffPost

Donald Trump’s company behind his Truth Social platform features “diversity and inclusion” policies, while the former president vows to eliminate them across the land if re-elected.

Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, has criticized DEI policies as “un-American” for years. But the language in the Trump Media & Technology Group was adopted on March 25, 2024, according to company documents on its website. That was the day before the company went public following a merger with a shell company. Its stock has plummeted repeatedly in the weeks since.

The anti-Trump group MeidasTouch reported its DEI discovery on Tuesday while highlighting Trump’s numerous attacks on such initiatives.

Under Trump Media’s “Corporate Governance Guidelines,” a section headlined in bold “Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion” displays terminology you won’t find the criminally indicted candidate using on the campaign trail.

“The Board is committed to creating and maintaining a culture of diversity and inclusion,” the document reads. “The Company will be better able to grow and improve with a diverse Board, management, and team of employees. Such commitment is and will be a factor in identifying and nominating director candidates.”

The pledge “encourages management to embrace the unique contributions an employee or candidate can bring to the Company and its culture in terms of their education, opinions, culture, ethnicity, race, sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, nationality, color, religion, veteran’s status, disability and other life experience.”

Meanwhile, Trump has not minced words about his intention to abolish “DEI” programs if he regains office against President Joe Biden in November.

“We will terminate every diversity, equity and inclusion program across the entire federal government,” he said in January.

The former president’s allies are already working to twist Civil Rights laws into a crusade against so-called “anti-white racism” in order to eliminate government and corporate programs that help minorities overcome discrimination, Axios reported earlier this month.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told the outlet, “As President Trump has said, all staff, offices, and initiatives connected to Biden’s un-American policy will be immediately terminated.”

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 coverage needs you, your loyalty means the world to us.

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in politics.