The disability inclusiveness of education in international development: an analysis of UK Department for International Development policies

(1)

1

The disability inclusiveness of education in

international development:

An analysis of UK Department for

International Development policies

Miriam Quinn

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Social Sciences

MSc International Development Studies

Student number: 12688290

Supervisor: Dr Olga Nieuwenhuijs

Second reader: Dr Mieke Lopes Cardozo

Date: 17

th

_{August 2020}

(2)

2

Abstract

Children with disabilities in the developing world face physical, attitudinal, and institutional barriers to realising their right to education. Supported by the focus of the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015 on leaving no one behind, policy makers worldwide have sought to realize this right by

including them in schools. They have however done so without sufficiently listening to these children’s voices. The majority of research conducted so far has focused either on children’s experiences or on policy analysis. This thesis seeks to bridge the gap between these two distinct bodies of scholarship. I argue that for international development policies to promote the genuine inclusion of children with disabilities in education, the knowledge derived from their lived

experiences is crucial. I base my argument on a meta-ethnographic synthesis of localised studies looking at the experiences of children with disabilities in school. From this, I identify seven common themes in these experiences (access, infrastructure, attitudes, intersectionality, tailored support and provision, resources, and the curriculum), which I then use as a framework to analyse the disability inclusiveness of the UK Department for International Development’s education policies and strategies. I also review the context surrounding, actors involved in and process in forming these policies. Based on my findings, I contend that there has been a significant improvement between 2013 and 2018 in the extent to which the UK Department for International Development policies reflect the experiences of education of children with disabilities, particularly in the areas of intersectionality and tailored support and provision. However, substantial gaps remain between policy and lived experience, notably around the curriculum and infrastructure. To address these gaps children with disabilities should be included in a non-tokenistic way in the development and

implementation of policy. Centring the voices and experiences of these children is vital in translating a rhetoric of disability inclusion from policy into practical results.

Keywords: disability, inclusive education, international development, policy, DFID, rights-based approach

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I wish to offer my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr Olga Nieuwenhuijs, whose support, encouragement, and constructive feedback has made the process an enjoyable one, whilst challenging me to be the best I can be. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr Mieke Lopes Cardozo, for being the second reader of my thesis. To my classmates, it has been a pleasure to share this journey with you, thank you for bringing joy to the good times and the hard times. Finally, I am grateful, as ever, for the unwavering support of my family. Very much included in this is my beloved grandpa, Norman Sofier, who is sadly no longer with us to celebrate this moment but who will always be a source of comfort and inspiration to me.

(4)

4

List of abbreviations

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CSO Civil Society Organisation

CWD Children with disabilities

DFID Department for International Development DPO Disabled People’s Organisation

EFA Education for All

FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office MDGs Millennium Development Goals NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OATD Open Access Theses and Dissertations SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SEND Special educational needs and disability

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPIAS Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation

(7)

7

List of tables and figures

Figure 2.1: Theoretical framework Figure 2.2: Conceptual scheme

Table 3.1: Studies for meta-ethnography by country

Table 3.2: Studies for meta-ethnography by type of disability Figure 6.1: Reference to disability in DFID policies

Table 6.1: Content analysis framework Table 6.2: Content analysis results

Figure 6.2: Results for each element of the content analysis Figure 6.3: Total scores for content analysis

(8)

8

1. Introduction

“People think you as weak at education. Most people think like it is worthless to send disabled child to school” (Wariyo 2016: 75).

The right of every child to an education is clearly enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948). Yet the quote above, from a 13-year-old girl with a disability in Ethiopia, illustrates that many obstacles remain to the ability of children with disabilities to realise this right in practice. UNESCO estimate that 90% of children with disabilities in developing countries are unable to attend school (United Nations 2020). With around 15% of the world’s population thought to have some kind of disability (World Health Organization 2018), and findings suggesting that up to 80% of these people are found within developing countries (Jones 2014), this represents a huge number of people being denied this basic right.

1.1 Problem statement

Education is considered of major importance to the life chances of people with disabilities in developing countries, through reducing the risk of poverty and increasing economic opportunities (Groce et al 2011), as well as having wider value in its role in developing confidence and social skills in young people (Cobley 2018: 112). Recent global developments have brought the issue of

education for people with disabilities to the attention of policy makers in different countries. The year 2006 saw the creation of the first legally binding global instrument focused on universal disability rights, in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Also, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015 call for leaving no one behind. Specifically, SDG 4 calls for “inclusive and quality education for all”, necessitating a strong focus on the educational opportunities of children with disabilities across the world. Within a United Kingdom (UK) context, the focus of this research, the UK Government co-hosted the first Global Disability Summit in 2018 and has been vocal in its commitment to lead the way in bringing about disability inclusive policies and practices. In this rapidly changing policy landscape, it is a timely moment for research on this topic.

Although the broad goal of disability inclusion has become more widely accepted in recent years, the ‘World Report on Disability’ identifies that policy recommendations can often be rather generalised, and the need to further reflect on the “lived experience” of people with disabilities (World Health Organization and World Bank 2011: 46). This fits within a broader issue identified in existing

(9)

9 literature, whereby the knowledge claims of marginalised groups on the basis of their experiences of daily life are undervalued or ignored (Smith 1990). This research aims to shed further light on this problem within the context of education for children with disabilities in developing countries. I argue that for international development policies to promote the genuine inclusion of children with

disabilities in education, the knowledge derived from the lived experiences of these children is vital. I develop this argument through adopting a case study approach, offering a deep analysis of the strategies for primary and secondary education for people with disabilities promoted by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) policies and contending that significant gaps remain between these policies and the experiences of education of people with disabilities in developing countries. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider higher education.

In undertaking this analysis, I address a gap in existing academic knowledge. Studies looking at the experiences of education of children with disabilities in developing countries tend to be conducted in a localised manner (see, for example, Brydges and Mkandawire 2017; Hammad and Singal 2015; Kabeto 2015). This leads to an issue of knowledge fragmentation, which prevents the voices and experiences of these children from being utilised as a tool to understand and improve policy. The purpose of this research is therefore to synthesise existing knowledge on the experiences of education of people with disabilities themselves, using this synthesis to contribute to an

understanding of the extent and nature of the gap between lived experience and policy. To do this, I first conducted a meta-ethnographic synthesis of localised studies pertaining to the experiences of education of those with disabilities in developing countries. I then used this synthesis to formulate a policy analysis framework, which formed the tool to analyse the extent to which DFID policies reflect these lived experiences.

This undertaking is of social, theoretical and policy relevance. To begin with social relevance, those with disabilities are thought to be some of the poorest and most marginalised in the world,

struggling for example with access to quality healthcare, education and employment (Banks et al 2017: 2). As well as these material challenges, there is often a stigma associated with disability (Mostert 2016). Thus, research focused on the experiences and needs of people with disabilities is clearly a relevant undertaking. This is particularly the case in the field of education, with such a high proportion of children with disabilities missing out and the wide-reaching and long-lasting

implications this is thought to have (Groce et al 2011). Centring the knowledge and experiences of children with disabilities themselves is also a socially important undertaking.

(10)

10 In terms of theoretical relevance, the synthesis undertaken in this study contributes to better

understanding the experiences of children with disabilities in education, insights which in turn contribute to the wider body of literature looking at the topic of inclusive education. Further, in combining two distinct bodies of theory, those looking at lived experiences and those focused on policy analysis, this study contributes to a broader understanding of the nature and extent of the gap between these two areas and highlights the role of children themselves in realising their right to education. It also offers a model and framework for further research to be undertaken within this field. More broadly, despite the clear relevance of disability to those engaged in international development, “disability has long been a neglected topic within the field of international development studies” (Cobley 2018: 1). This research seeks to contribute to a growing body of scholarship seeking to rectify this neglect (see, for example, Grech 2016; Niewohner et al 2020; Jampel and Bebbington 2018).

Finally, in terms of policy relevance, this research generates policy recommendations as to how UK development policy can be made more in line with the experiences of education of those with disabilities. With the UK government having identified their desire to be a world leader on disability inclusion, this is of clear relevance to the UK domestic agenda. This research also generates broader recommendations as to how education policy in general can be aligned with lived experiences, which it is argued is essential to facilitate genuinely disability inclusive policies. In the context of the commitment of the SDGs to leave no one behind, an agenda which plays a major role in shaping the policy priorities of many countries, these are timely and relevant recommendations.

1.2 Research questions

In order to achieve the research purpose set out above, the main research question of this thesis is: Are the experiences of education of people with disabilities in developing countries reflected in the UK Department for International Development’s education policies, and if so how?

To help answer this question, it is divided into the following sub-questions:

1. What common themes exist in the experiences of education of people with disabilities in developing countries?

2. How is disability conceptualised in DFID’s education policies and what are the implications of this conceptualisation?

(11)

11 3. What strategies for education for children with disabilities do DFID promote and do

these reflect the experiences of education of children with disabilities in developing countries?

1.3 Setup of thesis

This thesis is comprised of seven chapters. This first chapter provides an introduction to the topic, setting out the problem statement and knowledge gap motivating this study, as well as the research questions which guide this thesis. The second chapter presents the theoretical framework, within which existing concepts and literature regarding conceptualisations of disability, education for people with disabilities and adopting a rights-based approach are discussed. This chapter concludes by outlining the conceptual scheme, which sets out the key concepts and their relationships to one another, and the operationalisation of these key concepts into concrete indicators. The third chapter outlines and reflects upon the methodological approach taken, as well as discussing ethics and positionality. The fourth chapter offers an overview of the context within which this research is situated, discussing both the international context and the nature and role of DFID.

Chapter five is the first of two empirical chapters. It outlines the findings of the meta-ethnography conducted, discussing the common themes in the experiences of education of children with disabilities in developing countries. Chapter six then offers an analysis of DFID policies. It begins by discussing how disability is conceptualised within these policies and the strategies for education for children with disabilities these policies promote. It then discusses the results of the policy analysis undertaken using a framework based on the common themes in the experiences of education of children with disabilities identified in chapter five, as well as analysing the process, actors and context of these policies. Finally, chapter seven offers a summary of the research findings, drawing these together in answer to the research questions. It then reflects on the theoretical implications of these findings, finishing by offering recommendations for future research and policy.

(12)

12

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter, I discuss the theoretical framework that has underpinned this research. I first outline the rights-based approach taken, arguing that it is essential to centre the voices and experiences of people with disabilities in both research and policy making, in order for the right to education of children with disabilities to be realised. In the next section, I discuss the implications of applying this rights-based approach to disability. In doing so, I explain how this research has utilised the social model of disability. In the third section, I offer a review of key literature considering how to actualise the right to education for children with disabilities. In the remainder of this chapter, I present the conceptual scheme and operationalisation of key concepts which has guided this research.

2.1 A rights-based approach

A fundamental underpinning of this research is the rights-based approach taken. The principle of universal human rights was set out on a global stage by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in its very first article that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, before detailing the specific rights to which all humans are entitled across its 30 articles (United Nations 1948). In the intervening years, this language of rights has grown increasingly influential, including within international development (Nyamu-Musembi and Cornwall 2004: 1). Despite this, there remain many conflicting views as to what precisely a rights-based approach entails. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to offer a detailed discussion on the similarities and differences of these different conceptions of rights (for an excellent albeit not recent introduction to this topic, see Nussbaum 1997), but the core notion that there are fundamental rights which

everyone has simply by virtue of being human forms the theoretical foundation on which this research is built. Through this framework, children with disabilities are entitled to the same rights as their able-bodied peers (Browne and Millar 2016).

A key feature of a rights-based approach is that “people are recognized as key actors in their own development, rather than passive recipients of commodities and services” (United Nations Population Fund 2014). This means that the actions of people with disabilities themselves are fundamental to the realisation of disability rights (Cobley 2018: 71). This approach also aligns with the dominant stance of the disability movement, underpinned by the popular slogan ‘nothing about us without us’ (Cobley 2018: 179). Under a rights-based approach in its ideal type, marginalised groups of people are empowered to demand the removal of societal barriers which prevent them from realising their rights (Social Protection & Human Rights 2015). In line with this, many scholars have identified the importance of the non-tokenistic inclusion of marginalised groups of people,

(13)

13 including those with disabilities, in policy making (see, for example, Oliver 1990, Guldvik et al 2013, Priestley et al 2016). I argue that centring the voices of people with disabilities, and particularly young people with disabilities, within the policy making process is essential to the realisation of the right to education for children with disabilities.

However, many barriers to achieving this vision exist. For example, Smith (1990) identifies that the experiences of day to day life of marginalised groups of people have traditionally been undervalued as a source of knowledge. Facilitating the genuine and non-tokenistic inclusion of people with disabilities in developing countries in the policy making process necessitates focusing on and valuing the lived experiences of these people. Therefore, I have analysed and foregrounded the experiences of education of people with disabilities themselves within this research. The voices of young people with disabilities in developing countries have often been under-represented in both research and policy making, with studies that have been undertaken often conducted in a localised manner (see, for example, Brydges and Mkandawire 2017; Hammad and Singal 2015; Kabeto 2015). This leads to a challenge of knowledge fragmentation and means that localised research which has been conducted is not being sufficiently utilised as a tool to understand and improve policy and practice. In

conducting a synthesis of multiple localised studies, this research has endeavoured to work within this research gap.

2.2 The social model of disability

Taking a rights-based approach to disability leads to a paradigm shift in the way disability is

conceptualised, moving away from conceiving of disability as primarily resulting from an individual’s impairment to understanding it as rooted in “the failure of society to take account of and organise around difference” (Dowling and Dolan 2001: 24).

Traditionally, disability has been understood according to so called individual models, which are “underpinned by…the personal tragedy theory of disability” (Oliver 1996: 31). Included in this category is the particularly influential medical model of disability, within which disability is defined as “any restriction or lack (resulting from impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (World Health Organization 1980: 27). Also included within this category are the religious model, which considers disability as “the result of divine retribution for past sins or misdemeanours committed by disabled people themselves, their relatives or their ancestors”, and the welfare model, which sees people with disabilities as a burden to other productive individuals (Cobley 2018: 8-9). However, these models have been critiqued

(14)

14 heavily by many, including Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs), for situating disability only at the individual level, and therefore ignoring the role of society in creating or mitigating disability

(Inclusion London 2015: 6). A human rights perspective understands people with disabilities as having the same fundamental rights as other individuals within society. Taking a rights-based

approach therefore necessitates moving away from a primary focus on an individual’s impairment to considering the societal conditions creating barriers to those with underlying impairments

actualising their rights.

A rights-based approach favours understanding disability in terms of the so-called social model. In this model, disability is defined as “a form of social oppression involving the social imposition of restrictions of activity on people with impairments and the socially engendered undermining of their psycho-emotional wellbeing” (Thomas 1999: 60). Early UK pioneers in the creation of this model, which has its origins in the disability movement of the 1970s, were a group called the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). A key facet of their work was the distinction they drew between impairment and disability. They defined impairment “as lacking all or part of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body” (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation 1976: 14), a definition later expanded to encompass sensory and intellectual conditions also (Barnes 1998). According to this model, an impairment can become a disability largely due to exclusionary societal structures and discriminatory societal practices and attitudes. This can be conceptualised as encompassing three distinct areas- physical barriers, such as

inaccessible physical spaces; institutional barriers, such as discriminatory employment practices; and attitudinal barriers, such as negative societal attitudes towards people with disabilities (Harris and Enfield 2003: 180).

In seeing the roots of disability as being situated within society, the social model empowers people to demand their fundamental right to be able to participate as full and active members in all areas of society (Crow 1996). This makes the social model a good fit with the rights-based approach of this research, as well as leading to its popularity amongst DPOs. Nonetheless, it is important to

acknowledge the limitations and potential challenges of working with the social model of disability. Firstly, in focusing on societal factors, there is a potential risk that the significance of the underlying impairments can be ignored or trivialised (Shakespeare and Watson 2001). Secondly, it is essential to acknowledge the Western origin of the social model, and therefore critically assess its suitability in the developing world. Specifically, the emphasis on individual rights can be argued to be at odds with a more communally focused set of values present in many developing countries (Albert 2004:

(15)

15 6). Whilst I agree with these concerns, and therefore reject a direct transfer of this model into developing country contexts, I maintain that it is a useful framework to work within. This is because working within this framework offers the space to understand the lived experiences of those with disabilities, and to consider the relationship between these experiences and societal factors. In doing so, I seek not to imply that the underlying impairments are in anyway trivial, but rather to

foreground societal barriers, which provides a useful tool for analysing education policies and considering how they reflect the challenges faced by children with disabilities.

2.3 Education for children with disabilities

Applying the social model of disability to education means that all aspects of education, from buildings to the curriculum, should be accessible to children with disabilities on an equal basis to their able-bodied peers (Alliance for Inclusive Education 2019). Indeed, the right to education for all, regardless of disability, is clearly articulated in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948). Despite this, it remains the case that many children with disabilities in developing countries are unable to fulfil this right. This research supports the literature which argues that societal barriers pose a key obstacle to this right being actualised (see, for example, Genova 2015; Pivik et al 2002; Dua and Dua 2017).

In taking a rights-based approach and considering the barriers to education facing children with disabilities, this research follows Tomaševski’s (2001) assertion of the need to consider not simply the human right to education for all, but also the rights one has in and through education. In line with this, Tomaševski developed the 4-A Scheme, which looks at whether education is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Availability and accessibility refer to the right to education, for example ensuring that an appropriate number of schools are available, and that legal and fiscal obstacles to education are removed. Acceptability and adaptability add to this an understanding of rights in education, for example considering educational provision being in a suitable language, and the need for education to adapt to the needs of children with disabilities and those from minority groups. Adaptability also refers to rights through education, for example in preventing the practice of child soldiers.

In addressing this challenge of providing suitable educational provisions for children with disabilities, there are three main strategic approaches. The most traditional of these approaches is that of special schools, designed to offer alternative education provisions to those with special educational needs and disability (SEND). It is worth noting here that not all young people who fall within the

(16)

16 SEND category have disabilities, whilst plenty of children who have disabilities are not considered to need SEND provision (Cobley 2018: 114). The special education approach is characterised by the creation of separate, specialist schools for certain learners with SEND, in essence leading to these learners completing all or part of their education within a parallel system. At their best, these schools can offer specialised support and facilities, and a learning environment tailored to the needs of individuals (Farrell 2006: 29-30). It is for these reasons that many DPOs remain firm advocates for the existence of special schools. However, many special schools in developing countries lack these high quality resources and specialist provision (Stubbs 2008). Further, the separation of children with disabilities from other children in society is often criticised about these schools, with critics arguing that rather than special schools, mainstream schools should be adapted to the needs of all learners (Cobley 2018: 113).

A second approach is that of integrated education, within which extra support is offered to help learners with disabilities to adapt to mainstream school environments (Bridgeway Education 2018). The emphasis in this model is on learners with disabilities adapting to the requirements of a mainstream education, rather than adapting the educational setting in order to better meet the needs of learners with disabilities (Kisanji 1998: 65). Potential advantages of this approach are promoting better integration between children with disabilities and their able-bodied peers, whilst maintaining the advantages associated with the specialist provisions offered by special schools. However, as with special schools in developing countries, this approach often suffers from under-funding for specialist resources and teachers (Miles et al 2011: 1521-3).

The final major approach, and the one that is dominant on the current international agenda, is that of inclusive education, which aims to provide “meaningful learning opportunities to all students within the regular school system” (Liliane Fonds 2017: 7). This is not simply about including children with disabilities, but also about all groups who have often been excluded from the mainstream classroom, for example due to language (UNICEF 2020). Inclusive education “involves radical school reform, changing the existing system and re-thinking the entire curriculum, in order to meet the needs of all children” (Arbeiter and Hartley 2002: 62). Rather than requiring learners with disabilities to adapt to the mainstream school system, inclusive education, at least in its ideal type, is about transforming schooling so that it meets the needs of all learners. Of course, such fundamental changes are unlikely to be implemented quickly, and require a significant investment of resources to deliver, as well as attitudinal changes (Cobley 2018: 117). As Donohue and Bornman (2014: 4) contend for South Africa, multiple challenges currently prevent the majority of learners with

(17)

17 disabilities from accessing quality education within a mainstream school in developing countries, an argument which equally holds true within the context of this research. They also contend that the acceptance of ideal practices does not necessarily translate into what actually occurs within the classroom.

It is important to note that the three strategies detailed above are not mutually exclusive, but rather can have complementary elements. For example, experienced special schools could offer significant expertise to mainstream schools, in order to improve the inclusion practices of these mainstream schools, as is practice in South Korea (Kwon 2005). This research therefore looks beyond buzzwords such as ‘inclusive education’, to consider whether policies truly advance a transformation to

education, or whether they are in effect using new language to promote the same old educational practices. As such, rather than inherently favouring a specific strategy in this research, I analyse the extent to which DFID policies address the barriers to education facing children with disabilities.

In order to do this, I follow Tomaševski’s lead in considering human rights within education, as well as the basic right to access an education. Her framework offers useful background for this research. However, in wishing to centre the lived experiences of people with disabilities, I derive a framework from a synthesis of studies looking at the experiences of education of people with disabilities themselves, rather than relying on a pre-existing framework. Figure 2.1 (below) shows the framework which results from this synthesis and how it relates to Tomaševski’s categories of the right to, rights in and rights from education. These themes are discussed in greater detail in chapter 5 and this framework is used as the basis for policy analysis in chapter 6. In using this framework, this study has endeavoured to bridge the gap between top-down policy analysis and localised knowledge.

(18)

18

2.4 Conceptual scheme

The main concepts in this research, as discussed earlier in this chapter, are disability, education policy and rights. The conceptual scheme, below (Figure 2.2), shows how these concepts are conceptualised and related to one another within the context of this research. Based on the social model of disability, I define disability as primarily resulting from societal barriers, be these physical, institutional or attitudinal (Harris and Enfield 2003: 180). Disability is distinguished here from impairment. It is understood in a social relational sense, as an impairment as it is rooted within a social context (Thomas 1999: 60). This understanding of disability is represented in the left-hand part of the conceptual scheme. Sub-question 2 considers the similarities and differences between this approach and the way that DFID conceptualises disability. The scheme then considers how disability is experienced within education by children, which is explored in sub-question 1. The right-hand part of the conceptual scheme is focused on education policy. Education policy refers to the guiding principles and broad strategies adopted by an international organisation, government or non-governmental organisation within the sphere of education. It is the policies of DFID that are the focus of this study. The scheme represents the different strategies that can be utilised for promoting education for children with disabilities, namely special education, integrated education and inclusive education, something which is considered in addressing sub-question 3. The concept of rights provides the link between the experiences of children with disabilities and education policy. As can be seen below, this is considered both in terms of whether the voices of children are considered in education policy and in terms of whether education policy reflects these children’s experiences. Exploring this provides the basis to answer the overall research question.

(19)

19 Figure 2.2: Conceptual scheme. Source: The Author.

2.5 Operationalisation

The operationalisation of key concepts into concrete indicators (Appendix 1) relates to literature from the theoretical framework, set out earlier in this chapter. The dimensions of right to education, rights in education and rights from education were operationalised into variables and indicators during the research period itself, once the first data collection method had been utilised. This enabled the findings from the initial research, which was focused on sub-question 1 about the experiences of education of children with disabilities, to inform the subsequent research. As such, this helped to make sure that the concepts to be studied were operationalised in the most

appropriate way for the specific research context. This chapter has outlined the theoretical

framework underpinning this research. In the next chapter, I discuss the methodological approaches I have taken to research these key concepts and theories.

(20)

20

3. Methodology

This chapter outlines the research methodology that I employed to investigate the key concepts set out above. I first outline the general research design, before considering the ontology and

epistemology behind this research. After considering the unit of analysis, I then turn to a discussion of research methods and sampling strategies. I end this section by reflecting on the ethics and positionality of the research, as well as on its reliability and validity.

3.1 Research design

This study consists of two main parts. In the first part, I take an inductive theory approach, that is to say, I use observations made to propose generalizations (Bryman 2012: 26). This is in order to answer the first sub-question and develop an understanding of the lived experiences of education of people with disabilities in developing countries. In taking an inductive approach, I am able to

foreground these lived experiences and use this to develop understanding, rather than trying to force these experiences to fit into a pre-existing framework. In the second part, I use a case study approach to answer the second and third sub-questions. I use the generalisations drawn from the first part of the research to analyse the extent to which the experiences of education of those with disabilities are translated into DFID education policies. To allow an analysis of changes and

continuities over time, I employ a longitudinal case study approach, considering policies from both before and after the 2015 SDGs. The SDGs are discussed in greater depth in chapter 4.

3.2 Ontology and epistemology

This research takes a pragmatist ontological and epistemological approach. As an ontological position, pragmatism sees ‘reality’ as being “the practical consequences of ideas” (Saunders et al 2019: 145). Epistemologically, pragmatist research has a “focus on problems, practices and

relevance”, seeking to understand not a single truth, but rather the “practical meaning of knowledge in specific contexts” (Saunders et al 2019: 145). The value of knowledge within a pragmatist

philosophy is in its ability to enable effective action to be taken (Saunders et al 2019: 151). This makes pragmatism a popular research approach with activists and those pursuing social justice (Seigfried 1996). Rather than inherently favouring a particular methodological approach, pragmatists simply favour the most appropriate methodology to address a given research problem (Kaushik and Walsh 2019: 2). This often lends itself to a mixed methods approach, although this is by no means a requirement of a pragmatist research approach.

(21)

21

3.3 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis for this study is the alignment between the experiences of education of children with disabilities and education policy. Education policy refers to the guiding principles and broad strategies adopted by an international organisation, government or non-governmental organisation within the sphere of education. Specifically, it is the education policies of DFID, and their relation to the experiences of education of children with disabilities in twelve developing countries, that is the unit of analysis for this research.

3.4 Research methods

For this study, I considered a mixed methods approach most appropriate, with different methods corresponding to different sub-questions. I shall be discussing in this section both the data collection methods used and data analysis strategies applied in this research.

3.4.1 Meta-ethnography

In order to answer sub-question 1, regarding the experiences of education of people with disabilities, I conducted a meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography is a method for synthesising multiple qualitative ethnographic studies, to identify key themes and concepts and ultimately reach conclusions that apply across multiple cases (Loulanski and Loulanski 2011). This method has the distinct advantage of bringing together localised knowledge, something which is both useful in its own right in generalising common themes in the lived experiences of people with disabilities, and also appropriate as an intermediate step towards understanding and analysing policy on the basis of these experiences, as in this thesis.

Using this method, I looked at ethnographic studies of the experiences of education of people with disabilities. For reasons of practicalities, I conducted this as a rapid review, which is “a variation of a systematic review that balances time constraints with considerations in bias” (Virginia

Commonwealth University 2018). Practical differences between a rapid and systematic review include applying search limits, such as limiting to English language studies, and only having a single researcher conducting the review. A further practical limitation is that I was only able to include resources that are available online.

Noblit and Hare (1999), considered the founders of this relatively new and still under-utilised methodology, provide a seven-stage process through which to undertake a meta-ethnography. The first two stages in this pertain to data collection. These are “getting started” and “deciding what is

(22)

22 relevant to the initial interest” and include collating articles through appropriate databases and sources. In undertaking the data collection phase, I limited my search to studies about the 12 countries allocated to receive over £150 million of DFID funding for the 2020/21 year (DFID 2020a), as I deemed these most relevant for my research. For each of these countries, I used the key terms of “disability”, “ethnography”, “school”, “education”, “youth”, “child”, “lived experience”, “illness” and “mental health”, alongside the name of the country, to search for relevant articles. I undertook this search on Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR, UvA Library CataloguePlus and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), limiting my search on each occasion to sources published since 2000, in the English language and available online. This gave me my initial list of potential studies to include. From an initial consultation of these studies, I also used snowball sampling to identify any additional relevant studies cited within the initially obtained studies and added them to my list.

I initially set out to include two studies from each of the preselected 12 countries in my meta-ethnography, making for a maximum dataset of 24 studies. My key criterion for the inclusion of a study was that it must discuss the experiences of education of people with disabilities themselves. Any studies which only offered a secondary or second-hand account, for example through

discussions with parents or teachers, but which did not mention having involved people with disabilities themselves, were therefore excluded. Where this initial criterion still left more than two possible studies for inclusion from a particular country, my desire to reflect the experiences of people with different types of disabilities and to include a balance of urban and rural studies formed the basis on which I made a decision as to which two studies to include from a particular country.

Applying these criteria resulted in a total of 15 studies selected for the meta-ethnography. Table 3.1 (below) shows the number of studies selected by country. As shown in Table 3.1, no suitable studies were identified regarding Bangladesh, Syria or South Sudan. The regions represented by the studies incorporated in the meta-ethnography are Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Of these studies, six concern urban areas only, four rural areas only and five feature a discussion of both rural and urban areas. I deemed this a satisfactory balance to represent children’s experiences in both urban and rural areas. Table 3.2 (below) shows the type of disabilities discussed in the included studies. Some studies focus on a single type of disability, whilst others look at more than one. As it shows, no studies about mental illness were found which were suitable for inclusion, whilst only one study specified that it was focused on those with long term health conditions. At the other end of the scale, eight studies identified a focus on young people with physical impairments, whilst nine

(23)

23 included a focus on those with visual impairments. The implications of this are discussed further below.

Country Number of studies included

Bangladesh 0 Ethiopia 2 Kenya 2 Nepal 2 Nigeria 2 Pakistan 1 Sierra Leone 1 Somalia 1 South Sudan 0 Syria 0 Tanzania 2 Zimbabwe 2 Total 15

Table 3.1: Studies for meta-ethnography by country

Type of disability Number of studies included

Mental illness 0

Long term health condition 1

Physical impairment 8

Intellectual impairment 2

Visual impairment 9

Auditory impairment 4

Unspecified 3

Table 3.2: Studies for meta-ethnography by type of disability

The remaining five stages of Noblit and Hare’s (1999) framework that were undertaken relate to data analysis. These are “reading the studies”, “determining how the studies are related”, “translating the studies into one another”, “synthesising translations” and “expressing the synthesis”. The findings of this data analysis process are discussed in chapter 5.

(24)

24

3.4.2 Policy analysis

A policy analysis provided the key method to answer sub-questions 2 and 3. To select the policy documents most relevant for analysis, I used purposive sampling. I began by searching for the current DFID policies regarding both education and disability. In terms of education, the policy currently being implemented is the education policy from February 2018 (see DFID 2018a). No time frame is given for the length of validity of this policy, but it remains current DFID policy at the time of writing of this thesis. However, no specific delivery plan or implementation targets cover this policy. Turning to disability policy, the current document is a strategy for disability inclusive development from December 2018 (see DFID 2018b), which comes with an accompanying delivery plan (see DFID 2018c). These two documents are specified as covering a period from 2018-2023. Having found the current DFID policies on education and disability, I then searched for the previous policy documents on these topics. In the case of education, this took the form of the 2013 education position paper (see DFID 2013). As is the case with the current 2018 education policy, there was no delivery plan or implementation targets found accompanying this policy. Although this document no longer reflects current DFID policy, it was considered useful for inclusion to allow for a comparison of policy changes over time to take place. In the case of disability policy, the 2018 disability strategy represents the first document of its kind for DFID, meaning there was no comparable earlier document to include (Edwards 2018).

In analysing these four documents, I utilised Walt and Gilson’s (1994) policy analysis framework, which encompasses four components of analysis- content, context, actors and process. Whilst this framework was designed specifically for health policy, it is also appropriate and has increasingly been used for policy analysis within other contexts, including within international development. In order to conduct the content analysis, I developed a set of criteria for the analysis based on the results of the preceding meta-ethnography. In this way, the lenses used for policy analysis have been designed to be as reflective as possible of the experiences of education of those with disabilities in developing countries. Conducting this content analysis for policies both before and after the 2015 SDGs enables a comparison of findings for different moments in time. This includes a basic statistical comparison of the level to which different policies have met the identified criteria, supported by more detailed qualitative analysis. I decided that it was important to consider the context, actors and process elements, as well as the content, in conducting this policy analysis, as it allows a

consideration of important matters such as the involvement of people with disabilities themselves in the formulation of policies. Whilst there is not a large amount of information on these three areas

(25)

25 available directly from the policy documents, considering the information that is present, as well as the implications of any lack of information, is significant.

3.4.3 Statement analysis

The final method involved collecting and analysing statements made about the disability

inclusiveness of DFID education policy. Statements from six major Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) engaged in the field of disability, education and development were collected, along with a statement from a leading UK based academic on the topic of education for children with disabilities in a development context. I then used inductive coding to consider the key themes of the statements collected and used these findings to provide an element of triangulation with the policy analysis findings, in answering sub-questions 2 and 3. This helped to reduce any bias that may have arisen from using a single research method.

3.5 Sampling

Purposive sampling was used throughout this research. Whilst I considered this the most

appropriate sampling method here, it is worth noting that it can be impacted by researcher bias, and therefore it is important to be transparent about the criteria used to select the sample studied. For the meta-ethnography, I limited the population to be studied to an achievable amount by

considering the 12 countries allocated to receive most DFID funding for the 2020/21 funding cycle, which I therefore considered the most relevant for this research. I then conducted searches of online available sources using a variety of keywords, and from here identified possible inclusions in the sample, as discussed in greater detail above (see section 3.4.1). Whilst purposive sampling was my primary sampling method here, I also used an element of snowball sampling, consulting any potentially relevant studies cited in the initial studies found through purposive sampling. From this list of potential studies, I used a set of criteria to narrow down to the appropriate number of

sources, endeavouring to produce a representative sample, as further elaborated above (see section 3.4.1). I similarly used purposive sampling to select the policy documents most relevant for analysis, leading to the selection of four key documents (see section 3.4.2). In collecting statements, I began with purposive sampling, but also proceeded with an element of snowball sampling, considering further statements referenced in statements I initially found.

3.6 Ethics and positionality

Research in international development is underpinned by the principle to ‘do no harm’ (Diener and Crandall 1978 in Bryman 2012: 135). Whilst the specific details of this differ for desk-based research

(26)

26 as compared to fieldwork, the principle remains essential. This research is centred on an analysis of studies, documents and statements held within the public domain. This means that those involved in the formation of these documents have already consented for this information to be available publicly. That said, it is important that I have ensured to attribute information to its original source correctly, and to take into account the origin and purpose of the source when analysing it, in order to ensure that academic integrity has been maintained throughout the research. In working with publicly available information and not undertaking fieldwork, I have not encountered specific safety concerns with my research but have nonetheless always remained mindful of the safety of myself and others.

A key ethical dilemma for my research is which voices are heard and whose knowledge counts. This is particularly important given my research topic, disability, concerns an often marginalised group, who have historically frequently found research to be unrepresentative of their lived experiences (Oliver 1992: 106). This made it even more important to centre the voices of people with disabilities in my research. In undertaking an analysis of government policies and of publicly available

statements, rather than focusing on interviews with people with disabilities and grassroots disability activists, there was a risk that my research could have neglected these voices. To deal with this challenge, my primary criterion for studies to be included in the meta-ethnography was that they be based on the voices and experiences of people with disabilities themselves. Further, it is these voices and experiences that provided the lens for my policy analysis, rather than pre-existing frameworks. Another way I dealt with this challenge is through paying attention to the process of the creation of policy documents, to endeavour to understand the extent to which they had been formed in consultation with people with disabilities. Whilst dealing with this challenge the best I can, it

nonetheless remains important to acknowledge the limitations of my research, a matter discussed in further detail below (see section 3.7).

It is also important to consider my own positionality here. I myself have a chronic illness, which provides a level of understanding of life with a disability. However, my experience is totally different from someone with a mobility impairment or learning difficulty, for example. Also, I am a young, white woman from an affluent country. Thus, my experience may be vastly different from someone with a similar condition but very dissimilar intersecting circumstances. I have endeavoured to remain aware of my positionality throughout, to be reflective as to how my own biases may be impacting the research and to endeavour as far as possible to limit this.

(27)

27

3.7 Methodological reflection

The period of carrying out this research coincided with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. This brought with it a set of challenges not usually encountered during the research process, as well as substantially reducing the range of methodological options available to me as a researcher.

Nonetheless, with creativity, adaptability and perseverance, I believe I have been able to overcome these challenges to produce quality research even in these uncertain times. This section offers an honest and open reflection on the steps taken to produce quality research, as well as on any

challenges or limitations encountered, whether due to the prevailing global context or other factors. As my research is primarily based on qualitative methods, I use a set of quality criteria specifically designed for qualitative research, as set out by Bryman (2012: 390-3). These include five criteria- credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and authenticity.

The first of the quality criteria set out by Bryman (2012) is that of credibility. One step I have taken to produce credible research is through first conducting a rapid review of existing studies on the experiences of people with disabilities in developing countries, using my findings from this to formulate a policy analysis framework which closely reflects these lived experiences. Further, analysing statements made in response to the policies and comparing these with my analysis of policy documents themselves provided an element of triangulation. In different circumstances, conducting primary interviews with civil servants, academics and representatives from DPOs could have furthered the credibility of the research, however the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic made collecting a sufficient depth of these interviews to provide a robust body of data impractical. Despite this challenge, I feel that reasonable steps have been taken to ensure credibility.

The second criterion concerns the transferability of the research I have conducted to different contexts and across different moments in time. Through an analysis of policy documents from both before and after the SDGs of 2015, and by offering a contextualisation of the international and domestic policy landscape, I offer an analysis as to how the disability inclusiveness of DFID policies has changed over time. In considering the role of international policies, there is also an extent to which some findings are relevant to other contexts. In providing a description of developments and contextual factors in the UK, a reader can consider for themselves the similarities and differences with other contexts with which they are familiar.

Having conducted a synthesis of research undertaken in nine different developing countries, the results established offer a reasonable degree of transferability to a wider range of contexts than

(28)

28 these specific countries. Further, this synthesis incorporated a fairly even balance of studies focused on urban contexts as those looking at rural areas, increasing the transferability of the findings. However, it is important to also identify limitations to the transferability of my findings. In

conducting this meta-ethnography, no studies suitable for inclusion were found about Bangladesh, Syria or South Sudan, countries which were included in DFID’s most funded countries for 2020/21. With two of these three countries (Syria and South Sudan) actively conflict affected, and the other (Bangladesh) frequently affected by natural disasters, it is possible that there might be specific themes in the experiences of children with disabilities of education in emergency settings which do not feature prominently in this research. It is beyond the scope of this research to address this limitation but looking at the experiences of education of children with disabilities in emergency contexts is an important area worthy of further research. Geographically, this meta-ethnography focused on countries in Africa and South Asia. Whilst this was suitable for the purpose of this

research in analysing DFID policies, it has implications on the ability to generalise the results to other contexts, for example policies applying to South America.

Additionally, in looking at the lived experiences of young people with disabilities themselves, I have only been able to represent the experiences of those who are able to communicate for themselves. This means that the findings of my research cannot be assumed to be transferable to the situation of young people for whom this does not apply, for example those with very severe intellectual

impairments. Similarly, none of the studies included in my meta-ethnography are specifically looking at the experiences of education of people with mental health conditions, and only a single study is specifically focused on those with chronic illnesses. Again, therefore, it cannot be assumed that these findings are transferable to young people with these disabilities. It is beyond the scope of this research to have addressed these limitations, however an increased focus on primary ethnographic research with young people with mental and chronic health conditions in developing countries is recommended for further research.

The third quality criterion is dependability. In conducting policy analysis, the subjectivity of the researcher is of course at play. I have attempted to mitigate this effect by formulating the criteria for policy analysis based upon the experiences of education of people with disabilities themselves. Nonetheless, I have still had to make choices as the researcher and have endeavoured to be transparent about these choices and the reasons for them. In particular, I have laid out clear and specific criteria for the policy analysis I have conducted, enabling the reader to follow my method and repeat the analysis process for themselves should they desire. Where the prevailing

(29)

29 circumstances have affected the research process and decisions made, I have also been sure to be open and reflective about this.

Confirmability is the fourth of the quality criteria. As in the case of ensuring dependability, it is important here that I have been transparent about choices I have made, where the subjectivity of the researcher could have had an impact. Also important here is the awareness I have had

throughout the research process of my own positionality. Having conducted my meta-ethnography as a rapid rather than a systematic review means that only a single researcher has been engaged in this research process. I consider this appropriate for the duration and scale of research conducted, but it is nonetheless worth acknowledging that this increases the risk of bias.

The final quality criterion is that of authenticity. As already discussed, I conducted a synthesis of existing studies focused on the experiences of people with disabilities themselves and used this as the lens for policy analysis. Through this process, the lived experiences of those with disabilities were foregrounded throughout my research. The inability to have consulted directly with DPOs, due to the pandemic, is a potential limitation here. Despite this challenge, I feel that the methods I have employed allow this research to authentically contribute to understanding the current situation for children with disabilities in developing countries, as well as enabling me to offer specific

recommendations as to how this situation can be improved. In reflecting on the limitations to the transferability of my findings, I have been open as to the scope of the applicability of my

(30)

30

4. Contextual information

This chapter offers an overview of the context within which this research was situated. In the first section, I outline the international context, including considering major UN treaties that pertain to education for children with disabilities and discussing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and SDGs. The second section considers the nature of DFID, its role on a global stage and key developments within DFID pertaining to the topic of this thesis.

4.1 The international agenda

This section sets out relevant international policies and frameworks regarding education for children with disabilities. There is widespread international agreement that every child, including those with disabilities, is entitled to an education. This can be seen in an international context as early as 1948, with Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declaring that “everyone has the right to education” (United Nations 1948). Whilst this Article does not specifically reference people with disabilities, with only one specific reference being made to disability at any point in the declaration, it is nonetheless clear that people with disabilities are not excluded from this universal right (Cobley 2018: 49). The right of children with disabilities to an education is reinforced and strengthened by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of 1989. This goes a step beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with Article 23 specifically focusing on the rights of children with disabilities, including a commitment to “ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education” (United Nations 1989).

The international commitment to providing education for children with disabilities has been further strengthened through the Education for All (EFA) agenda. This agenda was launched at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand in 1990. Here, the World Declaration on Education for All was adopted. This contained a focus on providing equitable access to education for all, with Article 3(5) containing a specific commitment “to provide equal access to education to every category of disabled persons as an integral part of the education system” (UNESCO 1990). In this, an implicit beginning of a focus on inclusive education can be seen to be emerging on the international agenda. This became more prominent and explicit at the Salamanca Conference of 1994, convened to further the EFA agenda. This conference resulted in the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education (UNESCO 1994), which called on international actors “to endorse the approach of inclusive schooling and to support the development of special needs education as an integral part of all education programmes”. Therefore, this conference played a key

(31)

31 role in promoting the idea of inclusive education on a global stage, including within international development.

The MDGs, adopted in 2000 by all 189 UN member states, were influential in setting the

development agenda in the first part of the 21st_{century. MDG 2 set the goal to “achieve universal}

primary education” (United Nations Development Programme 2020). Whilst children with disabilities are clearly implicitly included in this goal, the declaration makes no specific mention of disability, in the context of the goal to achieve education for all or any other goal (Cobley 2018: 54). Ban Ki-Moon, former UN Secretary-General, identifies that this lack of specific reference to disability has led to a lack of focus on disability in implementing and reviewing the MDGs, as well as making it difficult to assess their impact on people with disabilities specifically (Cobley 2018: 54-5).

The MDGs were replaced in 2015 by the SDGs, which are considered a guiding document in the international agenda for the 2015-2030 period. One of the core principles of these goals is the commitment to “leave no one behind”, already demonstrating a far greater focus on inclusion of people with disabilities than in the MDGs (United Nations 2015). Within the SDGs, Goal 4 sets out to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. This shows that the idea of inclusive education is one which features very prominently within the SDGs, where it did not in the MDGs. In further contrast to the MDGs, the SDGs include multiple specific references to disability, for example committing to “ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities”. The SDGs therefore provide a global framework which centres inclusive education and education for children with disabilities far more than the MDGs which came before, something which has influenced global norms around this topic.

Finally, the UN CRPD of 2006 was considered a major moment in promoting disability rights globally. Whilst this treaty does not introduce new rights for people with disabilities, it is significant due to being the first legally binding international policy instrument on this matter (Cobley 2018: 55-6). The UK, as well as all of the countries included in the meta-ethnography for this research (see chapter 5), have ratified this treaty (United Nations Treaty Collection 2020a), demonstrating their consent to be bound by the treaty’s terms (United Nations Treaty Collection 2020b). In the case of the UK, the treaty was ratified in 2009. Article 24 of the treaty is focused on education for children with

disabilities, calling on governments to ensure that “persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others” (United

(32)

32 Nations 2006). Thus, with the enactment of the UN CRPD, alongside the SDGs, there exists currently a strong international framework promoting education for children with disabilities, as well as advocating for inclusive education.

4.2 The nature and role of DFID

In this section, I discuss the background of DFID and its role on the global stage, both in general and specifically regarding disability. DFID was created in 1997, when the newly elected Labour Party government in the UK opted to create a separate government department specifically in charge of overseas development, with its own cabinet minister (Barder 2005: 2). Prior to this, overseas development had been included within the mandate of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Under the newly elected Conservative Party majority government, 2015 marked a strategic shift in UK overseas development aid spending, with far greater focus being accorded to aid

spending being in line with UK national interest (Krutikova and Warwick 2017). Whereas before 2010 DFID had operated more independently within the UK government, the 2015 strategy advocates a cross-government approach, meaning that DFID’s work is now far more closely aligned with that of other UK government departments (HM Treasury 2015: 10).

DFID’s website describes its role as to lead “the UK’s work to end extreme poverty” (DFID 2020b). Its offices are located in Whitehall, London and East Kilbride, Glasgow. DFID has programmes in many countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, as well as coordinating much of the UK’s contributions to multilateral aid and development programmes. The UK is committed to spending 0.7% of its government budget on aid (Department for International Development Media Team 2019). When combined with the UK’s large GDP, this makes the UK the third highest net provider of overseas development assistance (The World Bank 2016). Thus, DFID is highly influential within the field of international development worldwide.

Prior to 2014, disability did not feature prominently within DFID’s work (Independent Commission for Aid Impact 2018: 11). This began to change in 2014, when then Prime Minister David Cameron was a strong advocate for the principle of no one left behind in the formulation of the new global goals, which would become the SDGs (International Development Committee 2014). This prompted the International Development Committee of the UK Parliament to call on DFID to consider disability to a greater extent within its work. It was only in 2016 that disability became a real DFID priority issue, when the then Secretary of State for International Development set out her commitment “to establish DFID as the global leader in this neglected and under prioritised area” (DFID and Patel

(33)

33 2016). This commitment led to DFID co-hosting the first Global Disability Summit, held in London in July 2018 (International Disability Alliance 2018). This was followed shortly afterwards by the publication of DFID’s first ever disability inclusion strategy, which reaffirmed DFID’s commitment to disability inclusion (DFID 2018b).

4.3 Conclusion

This chapter first offered an overview of the changing international policy context with regards to education for children with disabilities. It discussed the difference between the MDGs and the SDGs, with the SDG framework far more focused on disability inclusion. This provides an important

contextual background for analysing current and previous DFID education policies. The UN CRPD of 2006 was also discussed. As this legally binding treaty has been signed by the UK and all of the countries studied in the meta-ethnography (see chapter 5), it provides an important legal framework. The second section of this chapter considered the history of DFID and its role domestically and internationally. It then outlined the increasing priority accorded to disability by DFID in recent years. This provides an important background for analysing changes to DFID policy. The next chapter will take a step back from the policy context, to consider the experiences of education of children with disabilities in developing countries themselves.

The disability inclusiveness of education in international development: an analysis of UK Department for International Development policies