Launched on 23 June, the 2020 GEM Report on inclusion and education draws on the latest available data, evidence, and commissioned research from leading experts around the world. The Report benefits from a 18-month production cycle and is authored by an international team of researchers based in UNESCO, under the leadership of the Report’s director. Today, in our Any Questions Answered session hosted on this blog in the comments section, you can ask what you will to the team and we will endeavour to respond.
Our aim in writing the 2020 GEM Report, All means all, was to provide up to date policy analysis, recommendations and a call to action for all educators to widen their understanding of inclusive education to include all learners, no matter their identity, background or ability.
So, did we succeed in our aims? Were you surprised by the Report’s findings and recommendations? Are you intrigued by how we arrived at some of the Report’s top line figures? Do the Report’s findings reflect your own experiences and research on inclusion and education?
Along with the Report, we also launched a new online monitoring tool, PEER, which stands for Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews, with laws and policies on inclusion in education for every country in the world. What questions do you have about our reasons for launching this tool, how it is compiled and how we coded the profiles to extract key global findings used in the 2020 GEM Report?
Today, we are providing a direct line to the GEM Report’s authors in the comments section of this blog. The initiative is aimed at academics, one of the core audiences for the GEM Report, but is open to anyone with an interest in education who would like to take part.
To inspire you as you draft your comments, these are the five questions that the 2020 GEM Report set out to address as laid out in its initial concept note:
- What are the key policy solutions for each of the elements of inclusive education to ensure the achievement of SDG 4?
- How can common obstacles to the implementation of such inclusive education policies be anticipated and overcome?
- What arrangements are needed to coordinate and collaborate among government sectors, tiers of government and with other stakeholders to overcome overlapping dimensions of exclusion?
- How do education systems monitor exclusion in education (both from the aspect of individual education attainment or success and systemic factors) and how can current practices be improved?
- What channels of financing are used for inclusive education policies around the world, how are they monitored and how do they affect local practice?
You are also welcome to share relevant literature and case studies you know of in your responses that could help inform our writing of the forthcoming regional reports on inclusion and education in Latin America and the Caribbean (October) and Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (December).
Post your questions in the comments box below and we look forward to providing you with a response!
From Martin Gustafsson (South Africa): Chapter 10 of the GEMR deals with the need for accurate monitoring of the learning outcomes of the most marginalised students, using for instance national assessments. It also argues that more capacity to do this well is needed within developing countries. What actions should key organisations, such as UNESCO, national ministries, and universities, be taking to build capacity? What do you think is the relative importance of the following: better access to the required software (for instance for IRT); training courses; good manuals; publicly available data; advocacy around the need for good assessments?
There are two key points to take into account.
First, countries should invest in building their capacity. The Report finds, for instance, that only 14 out of 54 countries in Africa have reported data on learning outcomes since 2014. Although reporting is not the ultimate objective, it is a sign that countries are not putting sufficient priority in this area. This should change.
Second, country ownership should take priority over international comparability. The SDG 4 monitoring framework is first and foremost a formative mechanism, aimed at prompting countries to do what is needed; it is not an exercise to rank countries. For that reason, it is open to multiple sources of information. In the case of learning outcomes, both national and cross-national assessments can be used to report, provided they meet certain quality criteria. In practice:
– On the one hand, even if countries have experience conducting national examinations, this does not mean they can conduct sample-based learning assessments, which have distinct technical challenges.
– On the other hand, even highly standardized cross-national learning assessments require significant local capacity in order to generate valid data.
Greater investment in assessment capacity should also focus on using such assessments to identify inequities and inform policies by tapping into the capacity of local higher education institutions and independent researchers. Making datasets and the results of their analyses publicly available is key and requires a willingness by governments to be held to account by their research communities. Such publicly available results can be a key tool for advocates who can then lobby governments to improve the quality of their assessments.
International organisations, including UNESCO and specifically the UIS, facilitate actions on both fronts but more could be done if additional resources were available:
– They need to continue investigating how the prohibitive cost of standards-compliant implementation of internationally comparable assessments can be reduced, and investigate the lessons learned. External assistance is currently uncoordinated and insufficiently focused on ensuring both capacity development and data availability. This is an area in which the Report will be paying more interest.
– Peer learning between countries, as for instance through the Global Alliance to Monitor Learning, is a good starting point but requires more resources.
from Bilal Barakat
In Chapter 8 you rightly point to the way that, in countries such as Chile, competition between schools and school choice is leading to increased segregation within education systems. Similar patterns are evident in England, Sweden and parts of the USA. Implicit in these developments is an assumption that greater school autonomy will allow space for the development of organisational arrangements, practices, and forms of management and leadership, that will be more effective in promoting the learning of all students, particularly those from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds. Is there a way of gaining such benefits, whilst at the same time limiting the dangers?
The next Global Education Monitoring Report will explore non-state actors in education. Governments are the primary duty bearers to the right to education. At the same time, non-state actors provide education in many parts of the world.
This means that governments do not only need to provide inclusive public schools, but that they need to ensure legislation, monitoring and regulation in order to ensure that private providers operate in a way that ensures equity and inclusion.
Parents may choose private schools, because they believe that they are more accountable to them directly. Charter schools, many of which can be found in the US and in UK, receive government funding but are operated independently. This autonomy allows them to have their own management practices. Evidence on better learning outcomes in charter schools, however, is mixed (Aslam, 2017).
As the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report shows, school choice also depends on parents’ assessment of their children’s ability to learn and, in the case of moderate to severe disabilities, their eventual ability to work. Popular beliefs about disability can distort parental perspectives about their child’s potential. Parents who believe their child has a condition that sets them apart from society (medical model) favour special schools to focus on life skills, while parents who believe social, institutional and attitudinal barriers prevent inclusion (social model) prefer inclusive schools because they encourage social integration (Mawene and Bal, 2018). Parents with negative attitudes towards inclusive education tend to have little faith in the mainstream school system (Opoku, 2020).
In Australia’s Queensland state, a survey of parents of children with disabilities attending public schools – whether special or mainstream – showed that half favoured special classes, possibly because 70% believed their child required more patient teachers, more substantial changes in classroom procedures and more special training for teachers than they thought were available in mainstream settings (Elkins et al., 2003). Reply from Matthias Eck
There is extensive research suggesting that when teachers are involved in decision making this is likely to promote a better climate for the learning of all students within a school. There is also evidence that schools which encourage teachers to collaborate in developing their practice are more able to improve student outcomes and reduce achievement gaps. Evidence such as this was part of the justification for the introduction of academies in England (similar to charter schools in the USA). Freed from the restrictions imposed by local authorities, it was argued, such schools would become centres of innovation that would stimulate wider system change. Sadly, the evidence is that this has not been the outcome. Whilst academies have been given space to innovate, this has usually focused on aspects of management and organization, rather than on the development of new, more creative teaching practices. As a result, those learners who do not fit with the standard ways of working are far less welcome. (See: Salokangas, M. and Ainscow, M. (2017) Inside the autonomous school: making sense of a global educational trend. London: Routledge)
Hi, this is Aanya from Pakistan – Keen to understand evidence of ways in which mindsets can be / are being shifted to embrace the spectrum of abilities. In Pakistan, for example, the stigma is enough to isolate children from the get go. Are we seeing examples of how school leaders, teachers and parents are being upskilled / guided to broaden their understanding of ability and perhaps inculcating this into the wider community?
Beliefs and attitudes should not be the basis for discrimination against anyone in education participation and experience. There are indeed examples of initiatives that guide the understanding of school leaders, teachers and parents.
In Kenya, for example, in partnership with the Ministry of Education and UNICEF, Unified Champion Schools has helped assess and refer children identified with intellectual disabilities, following up with workshops on inclusive education with families, teachers and school leaders. The project has enrolled nearly 600 students with intellectual disabilities and has helped develop positive attitudes towards these students in participating schools. Special Olympics contributed to the development of the national inclusive education policy, including drafting an easy to read version. Unified Champion Schools, in partnership with Catholic Relief Services, continues Special Olympics Kenya’s work on early childhood development for children with intellectual disabilities through the Young Athletes programme. Identifying children in need of services early helps support families, providing a hopeful vision for their children’s future and disproving widely held myths about ability to learn (Special Olympics Kenya, 2018).
Afghanistan is another example regarding the involvement of the community. Afghanistan is marked by several exclusion challenges: security issues that expose schools as targets for attacks; cultural beliefs that systematically exclude girls and children with disabilities; and poverty, which exacerbates geographical and climate challenges in remote mountainous areas. Community-based education has been a key mechanism in addressing these challenges. The system is primarily made up of community-based classes and accelerated learning programmes jointly established and implemented by provincial and district education departments, communities and NGOs (Afghanistan Ministry of Education, 2018). Reply from Matthias Eck
Professor Keith M Lewin, University of Sussex
Recommendation 2 GEMR 2020 advocates targeting financing on those left behind and especially the quarter of a billion who remain out of school. UIS Factsheet 56 and GEMR 2018 showed that over 50% of these Out of School Children (138 million out of 258 million)) are over 15 years old and of Upper Secondary age. They are the now the largest age group excluded from education by far.
Should financing now shift to favour investment at upper secondary level to reduce these high levels of exclusion or should it be focussed on the smaller numbers excluded at lower levels? Should more borrowing be used to finance expansion at levels above primary or do other strategies need to be developed including more emphasis on domestic fiscal reform?
Large domestic education financing gaps remain. One in three countries do not meet either of the two international benchmarks for the percentages of GDP and public expenditure dedicated to education, respectively, which means they either have a poor capacity to collect revenues or they do not prioritize education enough – or both.
Even for the poorest countries, there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
1. Domestic resource mobilization is the most sustainable solution. Past editions of the Report – and an analysis from the World Bank last year – have shown that increased spending on education has been mainly the result of stronger ability to raise revenue through taxes.
2. However, as the Report this year further emphasizes, spending needs to be more sensitive to different needs, through two main ways: (i) targeting resources to those furthest behind: many general resource allocation mechanisms do not take such needs into account (or even exacerbate inequalities if they rely on local governments to raise revenues for which the poorest ones have low capacity) and (ii) thinking in joined-up terms: not only education budgets contribute to education outcomes; budgets of other social sector ministries can contribute as much, if not more, to education outcomes when they are properly planned. Governments need a twin-track approach that allocates general funding to all learners to promote a comprehensive learning environment and targeted funding to follow the furthest behind as early as possible.
3. The allocation of resources between levels of education is a challenge for many countries. The 2019 edition of the Report (Figure 19.4) showed a natural progression that countries follow in the shares they allocate from pre-primary to post-secondary. Extremes need to be avoided. While lack of access even to primary education remains one of the most serious equity challenges, financing of secondary education should not be squeezed since it is needed to produce skilled workers, not least teachers. We know that limited opportunities for secondary schooling may undermine demand for primary education. We also know that the costs of secondary education can be contained through effective planning.
With respect to aid to education, the Report notes that aid in general has been declining as a share of the poorest countries’ economies, although it remains sizeable at 9% for low-income countries, with a slight increase since 2015 (Figure 21.5). Low-income countries have also seen a slight increase in their share of aid to education in recent years.
External borrowing has been proposed for middle-income countries, in response to declining shares of education in the multilateral development banks’ lending portfolios. However, in the current context, with debt levels potentially growing, there might be some concern about the risk of exposing countries to higher levels of borrowing. Reply from Yuki Murakami
Thanks Yuki
Easy to agree with this. The question I put really is an invitation to explore what is meant by the most marginalised both at individual level and at group category level. Never going to school is marginalising and even more so the older you are. But we generally chose to do less for those who are much older than those who are of primary age. Who is most marginalised? And the problem with the 258 million OOSC is that most of them are over 15 years old – the minimum legal age of work – and most of them went to primary school and some lower secondary before dropping out. The most marginalised are therefore a much smaller number globally. But how to balance the needs of the smaller number of most marginalised against the larger numbers of those less marginalised who are nevertheless marginalised beyond some margin. The real world political economy issue is how to reconcile the need for some kind of positive discrimination to compensate for disadvantage with the real politik of power in stratified societies that has difficulty in addressing social inequality in service delivery and quality and in revenue generation.
Thanks for the other points. Borrowing will be especially risky post COVID 19 since the ability to service loans will be compromised by falling tax revenues as recession bites. Thats why grants have to be preserved for those with no other means of investing rather than used to lower loan rates at the cost of foregoing grants to the most marginalised.
Good luck in taking this forward
A second question:
COVID 19 is resulting from new forms of exclusion and exacerbating old inequalities.
There is much debate about whether the best strategy is to rebuild existing systems or whether to take the opportunity to disrupt and redevelop education systems to address their existing shortcomings (see http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-020-09480-3
). Is it better to regenerate in familiar forms or is it better to seek more radical innovation and if so why?
Anjela Taneja from Oxfam India.
Great to take part- a more detailed reaction to the GEM report from an Indian prism: https://www.oxfamindia.org/blog/how-can-indias-education-system-escape-vicious-cycle-inequality-and-discrimination looking at the specific lessons for India.
However, more broadly, as the blog states, the major contours of the understanding of the manifestations and causes of the unequal education system are reasonably known and understood. Indeed, we contributed to finding some of the India specific ones for the GEM report in our own way in the form of the India Background paper (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373670). However, in the end, a high level of educational inequality is probably inevitable in a country like ours where the total wealth of its billionaires is more than its Union Budget (2018-19).
Despite us knowing many of the answers, however, the situation does not improve as fast as it should. Indeed, the prevailing COVID 19 Pandemic will make the task even harder. From where I look at the problem, the real question of policy reform for inclusive education is not the what, but the how.
Accordingly, the question to the GEM authors is: How did countries with truly inclusive education systems break the wheel of educational inequality?
Thank you Anjela for your question.
As you pointed out in your blog for Oxfam India “How can India’s education system escape the vicious cycle of inequality and discrimination?” social inequalities and educational inequalities “go hand in hand” and “inequality in access or quality in education risks reinforcing social and economic inequalities”. In response, the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report affirms that inclusion is the key to breaking the wheel of inequality in education.
Inclusion and equity in and through education are at the core of the 2030 Agenda. SDG 4 aims to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education” and promote “lifelong learning for all”. Equity is the process of ensuring equality in educational opportunities. Inclusion, as a prerequisite for education and a democracy based on equity, provides a systematic framework for removing barriers according to the principles of “all means all”‘ and every learner matters equally. It is the process to meet the diverse needs of all learners.
The 2020 GEM Report approaches inclusion broadly, considering all learners irrespective of their backgrounds and abilities, as “discrimination, stereotyping and stigmatization mechanisms are similar for all learners at risk of exclusion”. To widen the understanding of inclusive education is a necessary step and overarching recommendations for those involved in education, necessary to break inequality in and beyond education. Commitment to diversity as a resource to be celebrated is essential in this respect. Malta’s Policy on Inclusive Education in Schools, for example, defines inclusive education as “the valuing and acceptance of diversity, to its value and the rights of learners to not only attend mainstream schools, but also to belong as valued members through active participation and the elimination of the barriers limiting the participation and achievement of all learners, respect diverse needs, abilities and characteristics.” Actually, 68% of countries have a definition of inclusion, but only 57% cover multiple marginalized groups. Countries also focus on different risk factors as described also in the Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews (PEER) (http://www.education-profiles.org). In terms of laws and policies, only 10% of countries reflect such a comprehensive vision for all learner in their general or inclusive education laws. Successful practices in inclusion are supported by robust governance frameworks and structures, financial resources, positive attitudes towards inclusion, as well as measures for collaboration, teacher workforce, initial and continuous teachers and other education professional training and monitoring. All these factors are interdependent. It is not enough to move students from special schools to regular schools. It is not enough to interpret inclusion in terms of placement. Inclusion needs also to be understood in terms of learning and requires a complete change of systems to adapt to everyone’s needs.
Considering the relevance of governance mechanisms, the PEER on inclusion in education tries to go beyond education, collecting information on how the country’s social legislative and policy documents frame inclusion in education and how coordination takes place. Widening the understanding of inclusive education needs soundness and coherence of cooperation across sectors, which would enhance the possibility to formulate effective policies for inclusion in education. The profile of India refers to the systematic 2019 draft India Education Policy that was discussed by the Cabinet in May. Reflecting the SDG 4 objectives, Chapter 6 intends to shape an education system that can reach out to and benefit all children, calling for concrete reforms in the school culture and curriculum, including tailored measures, such as the establishment of Special Education Zones (SEZs) in geographical areas with the largest proportions of underrepresented groups. Within the broad approach of inclusion in education, it is important to recognize and address all learners’ needs, as highlighted in India’s draft policy, from the education for girls, to education for transgender children and children belonging to scheduled caste communities and other backward classes, as their characteristics and needs are cross-cutting and might be relevant to all. Reply from Daniel April and Francesca Endrizzi
Thanks for this. Have read the provisions of the draft policy- some are indeed promising. However, past national and state policies also had great provisions. The question was more of how does one move a large complex system from A to Z since these (and many of the provisions in preceding policies) are plain ignored at the stage of policy implementation. How does one move the system to ensure this is implemented.
Thank you Anjela.
As you noted, the implementation of inclusion in education remains weak in some countries, which contributes to maintaining segregation in the education systems. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has reported that inclusion strategies have not equally been implemented in schools. In addition, inconsistencies between legislative and policy instruments in the field of education and beyond can be a significant barrier to inclusion, for instance allowing segregation and integration practices to coexist.
Even if the political will to foster inclusion has been expressed in strategic documents and/or legislation, resistance to inclusion may persist. Follow-up actions are necessary and need to be tailored to the historical, political, cultural and socio-economic contexts. The 2020 GEM Report tries to answer the question: How can common obstacles to implementation of these solutions be anticipated and overcome?
First, monitoring is essential to promote the implementation of inclusion. The UN CRPD calls for the establishment of a national framework for its implementation and monitoring (art. 33), which is done by many countries. In this respect, countries have established national monitoring systems to foster inclusion in education. In New Brunswick, Canada, the superintendent monitors the performance of each school based on performance indicators for inclusive education, which include ongoing professional development for administrators, teachers, educational assistants, and other professionals. In the Cook Islands, all principals have the responsibility to monitor the implementation of the inclusive education policy (GEM Report PEER). In general, national Education Management Information Systems (EMIS), helps monitor the inclusion of education programmes and manage the distribution and allocation of educational resources. (You can also consult here the list of countries that have a national education monitoring report).
Second, cross-sector collaboration can also help overcome and anticipate the challenges that often hinder implementation. Integrated service delivery to individuals and households with complex disabilities and who need services from multiple providers can be a solution. In Moldova, for instance, ministries and government agencies in the education, social protection and assistance, and health sectors work together on delivering inclusive educational and social services to make the education system more inclusive.
Third and as the report highlights, social biases and attitudes towards inclusion can be important obstacles to implementation. Reforming teacher and other personnel education programmes might encourage a shift in the school management practices. In Singapore, teachers in regular schools are initially trained to acquire an understanding of disability, while a more extensive in-service training provides them with the necessary skills to support the inclusion of students with disabilities, with the assistance of trained Allied Educators.
Professor Philip Garner, Brunel University London
Some questions…
Why is ‘Inclusive Practice’ in schools not viewed as an integral component of the so-called ‘Standards Agenda’? Why do ‘inclusive schools’ not receive substantive official credit for the value they add to childrens’ life chances? Why is ‘individualised learning’ not more widely validated as a concept (via individualised planning, teaching, assessment and opportunity)? Why do teacher education systems continue to lionise subject-based teaching at the absolute expense (yes, that is the word) of exploration and understanding of learner difference? Why is ‘Inclusive Leadership’ not the ultimate celebratory accolade for a school principal & leadership team? Why do some groups who experience barriers to learning (for example, those who have challenges relating to social, emotional and mental health issues) excluded from much of the ‘mainstream’ conversation regarding inclusive education? Why is inclusive education so often a bolt-on topic for discussion at many major educational conferences, subject association meetings or special interest groups?
Finding positive solutions to these questions will materially contribute to making educational communities at large more inclusive. Positive, action-based responses are needed – not further ‘gazing at the problem’. In embarking on development we must also recognise the journey, which is continuous and which will have wrong-turnings and imperfections. Please do not obstruct progress by demanding ideological inclusion purity – these efforts need to be inclusive in themselves, so that all voices are heard and sythesised into practices and outcomes that directly impact on all children and young people. And so that we no longer have to prefix ‘Education’ with ‘Inclusive’
Thank you
WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.
We completely agree with this assessment and hope the report is not perceived as purist or distanced from reality. There is one basic premise: that all those engaged in education embrace the value of diversity and believe in the potential of all children to learn. But otherwise, the 2020 GEM Report frames inclusion first and foremost as a process, and acknowledges that different countries’ starting points and histories may call for different pathways towards creating more inclusive education systems. To highlight the fact that inclusion is not a separate agenda for the benefit of certain groups, the Report takes the view that inclusion requires addressing all forms of exclusion and marginalization and individual difference. Reply from Bilal Barakat
Thank you Bilal – this is a very reassuring viewpoint! My commentary was that of an educationist, of course. But, hopefully, we’d start from the premise that ‘Education for All’ is one of the very minimum requirements for an inclusive (and therefore humane) society. Thank you again
How can you now encourage governments to take action on the recommendations in the Report towards building capacity for collaborations at local levels for more inclusive practices?
The theme of the 2020 Report “Inclusion and education” is particularly encompassing of the issues in the education systems globally, and calls for broad changes to education systems in order to reach all in education, particularly the furthest behind. Our report is global in nature, but its recommendations can be implemented by all the countries in the world. Though, we understand that each region has particular characteristics that need to be further analyzed, and probably need region-specific recommendations. To have a more regional-relevant analysis, we are preparing regional reports. In October 2020, we’ll launch the 2020 Latin American Regional Report, which can be readily used by national governments to mobilize sub-national and local levels with regionally-relevant recommendations. The report is to be used as an advocacy tool, to be used by all the stakeholders of the education process at all levels, including those at the local levels.
Locally, the actors that are key to inclusion and education are teachers, parents, communities and civil society in general. For education to be inclusive, inclusive teaching is needed. Inclusive teaching requires teachers to recognize the experiences and abilities of every student, to be open to diversity and to be prepared to teach students with varied backgrounds and abilities. This requires that both teachers and Education official who monitor the implementation of inclusive teaching are trained on inclusive education, that the teaching force has good working conditions.
Parents, organizations and civil society in general can drive inclusive education, and hence are allies to implement the recommendations locally. Parents can organize networks to press for inclusive education. For example, in the Russian Federation, parents sued the government for access to schools for children with cerebral palsy. A key challenge is to counter negative attitudes, stereotypes and discrimination and prevent their further development, as they can hamper the education of vulnerable students.
Civil society is an advocate and watchdog for the right to inclusive education. While the state bears the duty of education, grassroots NGOs and CSOs often step in, especially in poorer countries, to provide education services for populations not reached by governments. Such organizations also lead the way in putting pressure on governments to fulfil their national and international obligations to guarantee the right to inclusive education for all. For example, in Armenia, an NGO campaign resulted in a decision to roll out inclusive education nationally by 2025. Government leadership, dialogue among all parties and a coordinated approach, aligned with national education policies, are essential.
Reply from Rosa Vidarte
Rosa – thanks for your reply. In terms of parental pressure for inclusive education. In Scotland a new group has been set up to move for more inclusive education. it is called A24Scotland drawing its name from Article 24 of the UNCRPD. They have a blog giving some stories about their children’s school experiences. https://a24scotland.wordpress.com
A further issue raised by the GEM Report relates to the accessibility of this thoughtful, comprehensive and evidence-led commentary. It needs to be viewed (and acted upon) widely – rather than being an ubiquitous ‘policy on a teacher’s or others bookshelf’. 400+ pages will immediately discourage many mainstream teachers from getting to grips with their content. As a starter, nasen (National Association for Special Educational Needs, UK: https://nasen.org.uk/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs8ufgZKn6gIVkuvtCh2oaQZnEAAYASAAEgIj0vD_BwEn ) is working on a 2-page GEM ‘smartsheet’, complete with a hyperlink to the main Report and a infographic-style. This is being produced as a quick guide for stakeholders though obviously from a specific cultural/professional standpoint.
Thank you
1. What efforts/strategies are being made to bridge the digital divide in terms of education notably Special Needs Education?
2. Education has been facing funding challenges in terms of low budget allocations in many sub-saharan Africa countries worsened by disbursement cuts and delays by ministries of Finance especially in Gambia. How in your opinion can these challenges be minimised to enhance inclusion and quality assurance?
Thank you.
How can Inclusion exist in mainstream classroom settings when there is a focus on scholarships and high stake exams?
Can the inequalities in education be narrowed especially in Sub-saharan Africa given the increased havoc caused by COVID – 19 and other influencial factors before the pandemic?
yes education is main root of every upcoming scenario in the earth to understand and act according to situation, this is an education.education make you better day by day so education is must part in our life.Locally, the actors that are key to inclusion and education are teachers, parents, communities and civil society in general. For education to be inclusive, inclusive teaching is needed. Inclusive teaching requires teachers to recognize the experiences and abilities of every student, to be open to diversity and to be prepared to teach students with varied backgrounds and abilities.
As you suggest, inclusive education requires a collective effort that involves all partners. It is also true, that teachers are the key partners as far as schooling is concerned. We know from research that the most successful education systems are those where teachers feel valued and supported. Their professional development is therefore crucial. Practical suggestions regarding ways of developing inclusive teaching can be found in a new report from UNESCO, ‘Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges’. See: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374246
What story /quote/ information most stood out to you in exploring the GEM Report on Disabilities and Education?Why?