This blog was written by Chris Elliott, Head of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning at Inclusive Futures and co-author of a new article in the IDS Bulletin, reflecting on learning on Inclusive Education from the Inclusive Futures programme.

In early 2025, the Inclusive Futures programme published three learning reports drawing on inclusive education projects across Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, Nepal and Nigeria. They documented practical approaches to finding and enrolling children with disabilities in school, preparing schools to welcome them and centring them in teaching. A new article in the IDS Bulletin synthesises the learning from all three.

In the twelve months since, disability inclusion has come under serious pressure. USAID has been dismantled, Europe has sharply reduced its aid spending, and over half of organisations surveyed are already cutting dedicated disability inclusion staff. National governments have not yet filled the gap. Many low- and middle-income countries spend less than 0.1 per cent of GDP on disability inclusion. Despite around 400 new commitments from governments at the 2025 Global Disability Summit, previous summits have shown that pledges do not automatically translate into increased national investment.

For the world’s 240 million children with disabilities, who are 47 per cent more likely to be out of school than their peers, this is not an abstract policy environment. Their right to an inclusive education is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). It should not be subject to political shifts or donor funding cycles. The question the IDS Bulletin article addresses is how to build education systems that include these children by default.

The Inclusive Futures programme

Inclusive Futures was a collaboration of ten international organisations between 2018 and 2025, working with governments and Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) to improve outcomes for people with disabilities in education, livelihoods and health, and address stigma and discrimination. The education projects each had a distinct focus, agreed through participatory consultation with OPDs, governments and partners: in Bangladesh, transitioning out-of-school children with disabilities into mainstream schools; in Kenya, inclusive approaches to early years; in Tanzania, identification and enrolment; in Nepal, embedding disability inclusion at scale within the existing education system; and in Nigeria, a locally-led model for mainstreaming inclusive education.

Embedding inclusion in national education systems

The article’s central conclusion is that disability-inclusive education cannot be achieved through policy adoption or standalone projects alone. It requires inclusive approaches embedded in national education systems, funding mechanisms and data frameworks, combined with local participation, ownership and leadership.

In practice, this meant working within existing government structures rather than creating parallel ones. In Nepal, disability screening was integrated into the national education management information system, so that identification of children with disabilities becomes part of routine government data collection. In Kenya, county governments committed to building inclusive early childhood development centres with their own funding. In Bangladesh, government primary schools across two districts were mandated to direct existing school-level budgets towards supporting children with disabilities.

These were not externally-imposed changes. In each case, local and national governments recognised the value of what the programme had demonstrated and chose to adopt inclusive approaches into their own systems. That willingness to integrate inclusion into routine education practice, using existing structures and budgets, is what makes these changes more likely to be sustained beyond the life of the programme.

Embedding inclusion through OPDs, families and communities

Beyond the systems-level approach, three elements were critical to building a foundation for sustainability:

The first was meaningful OPD partnership. OPDs helped identify focus areas, shaped project design, sat on governance committees, co-designed training, led monitoring and shared lived experience directly with often sceptical officials and communities. It was a process of co-construction that shaped how interventions were designed and delivered. It also built OPD capacity and direct relationships with government counterparts that continue beyond the programme. The IDS Bulletin article concludes that this created sustained demand from OPDs for the realisation of the right to education, demand that does not depend on donor funding cycles.

The second was direct engagement with families. Working with parents and caregivers built trust and addressed real fears about schooling. Peer support groups enabled families to advocate for their children’s education. In Bangladesh, over 160 children with complex disabilities were supported to learn at home and prepare for school, with nearly 60 per cent later enrolling in mainstream education. This was made possible by connecting caregivers with OPDs and local schools to tailor education to individual needs.

The third was confronting stigma. Community attitudes were among the most significant barriers, not just to enrolment but to children’s participation and learning once in school. Coalitions co-created locally-trusted messages about disability inclusion. In Nigeria, personal stories from OPD members shifted parental attitudes, contributing to school enrolment more than doubling in project schools over two years. In Tanzania, an interfaith approach integrated inclusion messages into religious guidance to help reduce stigma and discrimination.

Why this evidence matters now

Educating children with disabilities is an obligation under the UNCRPD, which requires states to mobilise maximum available resources. The past year has demonstrated the vulnerability of donor-funded approaches to political change. The responsibility lies with national governments to embed inclusion in their own education systems and budgets.

Inclusive Futures learning shows how to move in that direction: building OPD capacity and demand that creates ongoing pressure for inclusion, working within existing systems and local funding streams, while advocating for those systems to become more inclusive, developing context-appropriate approaches to finding, welcoming and teaching children with disabilities, and confronting the stigma and discrimination that keeps them out of school.

The learning from five countries demonstrates that this is achievable, and at a time when disability rights are under pressure from multiple directions, it has never been more relevant.