Domestic and Global thinking impacting on prospects for the Inclusive Education of Disabled People. Opinion Piece

30 September 2025

This year so far has been packed with changes and generally not in a progressive direction supportive of Disabled people’s rights and Inclusive Education. 

Recent cutbacks in international aid from USAID, following the election of President Trump, has led to widespread cuts to vital disability programmes, including many Inclusive Education projects in 134 countries. Overseas aid cutbacks are ALSO happening in Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium and a range of other donor countries. Trump is breaking with more than 70 years of a rules-based, equitable approach. It is inimical to a disability rights approach. 

On the domestic front the United States’ long established Federal Programmes such as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for federal support for the education of more than 8 million K-12 students are also under threat as the policy of challenging Diversity, Equality, Inclusion and Access are pushing this money to be given with few strings to the States. 54-year-old IDEA was based on supporting Disabled students to be  educated (95%) in the mainstream and least restrictive environment. 

Therefore, the response at the Third Global Summit held in Berlin at the beginning of April was important. The Amman-Berlin Declaration on Global Disability Inclusion, advancing the rights of Disabled people globally. Among the Declaration’s commitments to disability inclusion are two specific targets for international development cooperation. According to these, actors endorsing the declaration will: 

• strive for all their international development programs to be inclusive of, and accessible to, Disabled people. This will be achieved by actively making a positive contribution to inclusive, full equality, to non-discrimination, and by doing no harm. 
• strive to ensure that  at least 15 percent of international development programs being implemented at the country level pursue disability inclusion as an objective (“15 percent for the 15 percent”). 

Although 4,700 Disabled people attended the summit it was a wasted opportunity to develop our Movement as the International Disability Alliance was too controlling. If you want more detail, see the report I did for Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum. 

However, at the GDS 2025, a session entitled “From Gradual Actions to Systems Change: Transforming Education Systems to be Inclusive and Accessible to All” gathered key global actors to identify concrete steps for accelerating Inclusive Education systems. A major outcome of the session was the launch of a new coalition led by the UK, Norway, UNESCO, UNICEF, IDA, and IDDC, joined by other global partners such as the Government of South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Global Partnership for Education. This coalition aims to drive the development of Inclusive Education systems worldwide. Whilst undoubtedly a good initiative the lack of transparency and inaccessibility for DPOs does not bode well. What we really need now is pooling of all development funding and much greater collaboration of the willing to counter the unwilling. UNICEF are currently in the process of establishing mechanisms for broader engagement with the leadership Council. 

Following up on this, a number of NGOs and DPOs put out a statement for Global Action Week for Education 28thApril to 5th May.  Despite global and state party commitments to set up a Disability Inclusive Education system time and time again, Disabled children continue to be excluded from research and programmes that are designed to build more inclusive and equitable societies. In many lower- and middle-income countries the failure to reform the system has led to fewer than one third of Disabled children being able to read. 

Coming from the Inclusive Futures consortium with more than £48m UK Government investment, the change to scale has not occurred. One important reason for this is that  Disabled People’s Organisations were not fully involved at all stages in co-production. Far too many NGO jobs for non-Disabled people have been created as this seems to be easier than developing the capacity of DPOs to do the job. 

The increase in defence funding is going to cut UK Aid from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% GDP by 2028. This is a far cry from David Cameron’s 0.7%, and is already reducing support for DPOs to implement a disability rights approach.  

Keir Starmer seemed to pull the above policy out of his hat, without any consultation, to please Donald Trump on his visit to Washington.  

Yet the Labour Manifesto said the Government would do nothing that effects Disabled people without fully consulting them. They did not consult on removing the Winter Fuel Allowance. They left out the most important parts of the benefits reform from the consultation. The Campaign against cuts to PIP and welfare benefits has already led to 126Labour MPs standing up. Eventually the reforms were passed but much of the harmful content was removed due to campaigning by Disabled people. See https://takingthepip.co.uk/ for facts and actions. The important point here is that the DWP and Liz Kendall have misrepresented the truth. PIP and DLA  were introduced to cover additional disability-related costs. It is not work related, yet the Government continually confuse it with work related benefits. 

Now Christine Lenehan, the Government’s SEND Czar, told the TES “we are considering whether EHCPS are the right vehicle to go forward. They were introduced in 2014; is this the right system for supporting children’s needs?” Lenehan said “EHCPs started off in 2014 as a system for a very small group of children, children who actively needed the engagement of health, care and education in order to meet their outcomes.” This is just not true. The Education Health and Care Plan was introduced for all those children with a statutory statement of Special Educational Needs. This is essential for the mainstreaming of Disabled children in ordinary schools. To get rid of it for mainstream pupils would be a major setback to inclusion. Already, SEN Jungle have organised a petition of 108,000 parents against this move. Last week Brigette Phillipson, Secretary for Education, gave a weak assurance that current funding of individual pupils labelled with SEND will be maintained. 

The Curriculum Review interim report has been disappointing. It does not recognise that the content, assessment, and starting points of National Curriculums are all anti-inclusion. 

The Government and their supporters should not have to rely on lies to get through their reactionary policy options. They should hold full and fair consultations and must recognise that inclusion, and reasonable standards of living for all, are human rights.