Factors promoting and hindering inclusive education for learners with disabilities in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a comparative review

Introduction

Inclusive education (IE), which aims to remove barriers and ensure the participation of all children in the learning process, regardless of their abilities or health status, has become a global priority enshrined in international documents such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) and the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). Despite the ratification of the Convention by 164 states and the recognition of IE as a fundamental right (Artiles, Kozleski, 2016), its implementation remains a complex challenge, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs), where a gap persists between policy and practice (Amor et al., 2019; Adetoro, 2014).

To define the target group for inclusive education in this article, we use the term “students with special educational needs” (SEN), acknowledging certain differences in the composition of the groups of children encompassed by this term and in the criteria for their identification in the regulatory and policy documents of the countries under consideration.

The article analyzes the challenges of implementing inclusive education in low- and lower-middle-income countries, where the transition from policy commitments to practice is hindered by systemic barriers: insufficient funding, weak teacher training, and a lack of infrastructure. The study focuses on Nigeria, and comparative conclusions are drawn based on the experiences of other countries facing similar challenges. Country selection was based on the World Bank’s income classification (low/lower-middle) and common challenges in implementing IE, such as limited resources and the gap between policy and practice (World Bank, 2024). India, despite its economic growth, is included due to persistent regional disparities in access to digital infrastructure, reflecting trends in other LLMICs (Bandyopadhyay, Dhara, 2021; Hossain, 2021).

In Nigeria, ethnolinguistic diversity compounds the challenges of implementing IE. Over 200 million residents speaking more than 500 languages create a complex educational environment: mother-tongue instruction is implemented unevenly, and resources for students with disabilities remain scarce (Inyang et al., 2023). Recent initiatives aimed at integrating such students demonstrate both progress and persistent challenges: inaccessible infrastructure, a lack of assistive technologies, and a shortage of specialists (Bafaneli, 2024). Such barriers—chronic underfunding, social stigmatization, and a shortage of qualified personnel—are characteristic of all LLMICs (Mbense, 2019; Rrofiah et al., 2023).

Although Nigeria’s National Education Policy (2004) and Inclusive Education Policy (2023) mandate the implementation of inclusive education at all levels, actual implementation remains inconsistent, with varying paces across regions and weak monitoring mechanisms (Pirzada et al., 2024). Research identifies promising strategies, including student counseling, flexible programs, and multimodal learning (Bhilitane et al., 2024); however, scaling them up requires transformational leadership and institutional reforms (Difoni et al., 2024).

Research questions:

1. What are the key factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation of inclusive education for students with special educational needs in Nigeria?
2. What practical strategies can strengthen inclusive education in special needs schools?

This study develops the theory of inclusive pedagogy in resource-constrained settings, proposing culturally adapted approaches applicable to school education. In line with the social model of disability, it demonstrates how institutional constraints and community engagement influence the outcomes of inclusive education, which is particularly important for policymakers developing programs where students with SEN (e.g., dyslexia, dyscalculia) are often excluded from the education system after primary school.

Barriers to the implementation of inclusive education

Despite policy efforts, significant barriers hinder the implementation of inclusive education for children with SEN. Kuper et al. (2018) identify barriers that include policy/systemic factors, school-related aspects, and family support issues.

The following specific barriers are identified:

Social and cultural barriers. Negative perceptions of disability persist, and children are often viewed as incapable of learning. Research indicates sociocultural stigma toward individuals with disabilities in Nigeria (Uba, Nwoga, 2016), which hinders school enrollment and limits awareness of learning difficulties (Nampijja et al., 2023).

Insufficient funding. The living conditions of people with disabilities in developing countries highlight the challenges of achieving inclusive education (Eide et al., 2011). Poverty and stigma are critical barriers affecting children with disabilities in contexts such as Uganda (Bannink et al., 2016, 2019). Funding constraints are a major obstacle to the development of inclusive education for children with SEN (Ogunode, Yunusa, 2022). Decisions regarding access to education often reflect budgetary constraints rather than the actual needs of students (Simui et al., 2018).

Infrastructure deficiencies and lack of materials. Many students with SEN cannot enroll in special or mainstream schools due to insufficient capacity to provide specialized accommodations (Adebisi et al., 2014). Schools often lack trained teachers, adapted learning materials, and accessible facilities to meet the diverse needs of students (Adeniyi et al., 2015).

Gaps in policy implementation. Despite national policies promoting inclusive education in many lower-middle-income countries, local implementation remains uneven. Nigeria established goals for inclusive education through its national education policy and universal basic education policy three decades ago; however, significant gaps in implementation persist due to differing views among policymakers on the subject (Ayowole, 2022).

Materials and methods

This study is based on a systematic literature review that analyzes measures and practices promoting inclusive education for children with SEN in SSS. The analytical framework was based on the key principles of inclusivity outlined in the United Nations Toolkit on Inclusive Education in Africa (United Nations, 2024): accessibility, non-discrimination, physical accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability.

A comprehensive search was conducted in the Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases, focusing on peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2000 to 2024. Keyword combinations included “inclusive education AND learning ability”, “inclusive education AND children with learning difficulties”, “education for children with special needs AND low-income countries”, “inclusive pedagogy AND Nigeria”, and “barriers to education AND disability”. “Grey” literature, duplicate studies, and articles not directly related to IE for children with SEN were excluded.

From the initial pool of studies, 58 articles met the inclusion criteria: a focus on low- and middle-income countries, an emphasis on children with SEN, an examination of IE practices within formal education, and qualitative or mixed-methods empirical studies with sound methodology. Initially, 11 countries were considered, but only eight fully met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to in-depth analysis. India was retained in the list despite its high GDP due to significant socioeconomic disparities, with a substantial portion of the population living in poverty (World Bank, 2024). Regional inequalities in access to education and the implementation of inclusive education place India on par with other LLMICs in this study.

Priority was given to qualitative thematic analysis to account for contextual nuances in the implementation of inclusive education, as quantitative data on the outcomes of inclusive education in countries with high levels of disability are often scarce or unreliable. The analysis covered preschool and primary education in inclusive settings, excluding studies focused on other types of disabilities without an emphasis on special needs education. This approach is widely used in the analysis of inclusive education policy, as qualitative methods allow for a deeper exploration of contextual characteristics, barriers, and mechanisms of inclusive education implementation. This position is supported by the findings of recent studies: the work by Kimhi and Bar Nir (2025) examines the experience of preparing teachers for inclusive practice; a study by the Welsh Government (2025) analyzes the integration of principles of equality and inclusion into educational programs; Malahlela and Sadiki (2024) evaluate the effectiveness of implementing inclusive education in elementary schools.

The thematic analysis identified six key aspects: teacher training and readiness, resource allocation (availability of infrastructure, funding), community awareness and attitudes, diagnostic and remedial-developmental tools, and policy effectiveness (government strategies and implementation challenges). These aspects were selected based on the UN Toolkit on Inclusive Education, which identifies them as fundamental elements of effective IE systems in resource-constrained settings. By structuring the analysis around these themes, the study provides a systematic assessment of barriers and factors contributing to the development of IE in the context of the LLMICs.

Results

The comparative analysis identified systemic patterns in the implementation of IE in the LLMICs. The data are presented in a hierarchical order: from the macro level (policies) to the micro level (student outcomes), reflecting the interrelationship between institutional conditions and practical outcomes.

Table 1

Distribution of resources (as a barrier (B) or a facilitating factor (F) for inclusive education)

Table 1 highlights studies showing how differences in funding and infrastructure affect IE outcomes. In Malawi and Cambodia, a lack of resources and personnel remains a serious barrier (Kuper et al., 2018). In India, investments in infrastructure and policy support have contributed to positive changes (Adeniyi et al., 2015). In Kenya and Nigeria, despite efforts, progress has been limited due to vague policies and insufficient funding (Ayowole, 2022).

Table 2

Community awareness

Community awareness and stakeholder engagement are the foundation of IE. Table 2 notes that Pakistan and Cambodia use qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews to assess and engage communities. These interventions foster strategic understanding and promote co-management (Kim, Fox, 2011). In contrast, Nigeria and Malawi report low levels of community understanding of inclusive practices, particularly in rural areas, which limits their participation in the implementation of inclusive initiatives (Uba, Nwoga, 2016).

Table 3

Diagnostics and support services

Table 3 highlights the insufficient development of systematic diagnostic and developmental tools for early childhood education (ECE) in the LLMICs. India demonstrates the most structured, albeit still evolving, approach to ECE, utilizing assistive technologies and trained education system administrators (Adetoro, 2014). Nigeria and Malawi rely heavily on piecemeal resource allocation and teacher training initiatives for IE, with a lack of standardized diagnostic and remedial-developmental tools (Ayowole, 2022). Uganda remains in the early stages, with no clearly defined measures for IE development (Bannink et al., 2016, 2019).

Table 4

Teacher training

Table 5

Parental involvement

Cambodia’s needs for IE infrastructure (Table 5) are directly linked to the barriers identified in interviews with parents. Untrained teachers cannot effectively collaborate with families, and poor conditions limit the practical opportunities for participation, underscoring the importance of enabling conditions for effective engagement.

Table 6

Policy effectiveness

We see that policy frameworks alone are insufficient without legal mechanisms and operational clarity (Table 6). India demonstrates a relatively successful implementation of special education policy, supported by administrative infrastructure (Adetoro, 2014). Meanwhile, Nigeria and Bangladesh face challenges related to unclear legal norms and cultural inertia, which hinder compliance with and the implementation of IE principles (Ayowole, 2022; Grech, 2009).

Teacher training is universally recognized as a key element in achieving inclusive education goals (Table 4). India leads the way thanks to large-scale professional development programs integrated into national curricula (Adetoro, 2014). Cambodia and Kenya demonstrate local successes, particularly due to the involvement of NGOs. Nigeria’s initiatives remain inconsistent, often failing to reach rural teachers and ensuring the sustainability of IE programs (Oladele et al., 2016).

Discussion of results

This study confirms that, despite growing attention to IE in the LLMICs, the effectiveness of its implementation varies significantly depending on the national context (Amor et al., 2018; Kim, Fox, 2011). As our data demonstrate, these differences are driven by the complex interplay of four key factors: (1) clarity of policy direction, (2) sustainability of funding, (3) quality of teacher training, and (4) depth of local community engagement.

Political and institutional differences are most evident when comparing Nigeria and India. Nigeria, despite having a well-developed regulatory framework for ECE (the 2004 National Education Policy, the 2004 Universal Basic Education Act), faces a “triple gap” in its implementation (Ayowole, 2022): spatial (87% of specialists are concentrated in cities), institutional (lack of sanctions for non-compliance with regulations), and diagnostic (only 23% of schools use standardized tools for identifying special needs) (Ogunode, Yunusa, 2022). In contrast, India’s decentralized model (NEP 2020) has reduced the interstate gap in access to inclusive education by 14 percentage points (Hossain, 2021), although the “resource paradox” persists here as well — 68% of assistive technologies are used in the 12% of schools with the highest resources (Adetoro, 2014).

Sociocultural factors create additional challenges. In Bangladesh, a historical orientation toward segregated education (Grech, 2009) is compounded by economic dependence — up to 91% of the early childhood education budget comes from international donors (Eide et al., 2011). In Uganda, 73% of rural parents believe that inclusive education is harmful to neurotypical children (Bannink et al., 2019), and in Bangladesh, girls with dyslexia receive support 4.2 times less often than boys. These data confirm the findings of Uba and Nwoga (2016) that inclusion requires not only policy decisions but also a profound transformation of social attitudes.

Promising strategies for implementing IE policies identified in the study include: (1) “cascade” teacher training (20% of “lead tutors” in India and Kenya achieve 3,8 times higher reach than standard programs), (2) micro-adaptation of infrastructure (for example, repurposing church halls in Nigeria increased accessibility by 31%), (3) engagement of cultural intermediaries (religious leaders in Pakistan increased IE adoption by 31–48%). These approaches, as shown by Oladele et al. (2016) and Pirzada et al. (2024), are particularly effective when the local cultural context is taken into account.

The study’s findings and implications confirm the need for “contextual hybridization” — a strategic combination of global IE standards with local adaptations. As the experiences of Nigeria (Ayowole, 2022) and Cambodia (Chinengundu, Hondonga, 2024), sustainable inclusion requires: (1) monitoring of policy implementation, (2) investment in changing public perception, (3) development of culturally sensitive assessment tools (Saran et al., 2020).

Conclusion

The study presented here has identified both common trends and clear differences in approaches to inclusive education within the LLMICs. A key common feature of all the countries examined is the official recognition of the rights of all students with special educational needs to access equitable education, and inclusive education is viewed as a strategic priority of national policies.

However, there are significant differences in how this policy is implemented. In countries such as India and Kenya, there is a closer link between policy and practice. These countries have made notable progress by investing in teacher training, developing support systems, and implementing inclusive practices in mainstream schools.

Conversely, in Nigeria, although inclusive education is reflected in national policy, the gap between intentions and practice remains significant. Challenges include limited infrastructure, inconsistent implementation, underdeveloped monitoring systems, and minimal coverage of rural areas. Legal and institutional gaps further hinder the effective application of IE principles and standards.

In India, teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy remain key barriers, limiting the implementation of inclusive practices on the ground (Bala, 2021; Bandyopadhyay, Dhara, 2021).

Thus, while IE is a shared policy commitment, the capacity for its effective implementation varies. Sustainable progress requires not only well-designed policies but also concrete operational strategies, sufficient resources, and the active participation of stakeholders at all levels of the education system, including targeted teacher training programs, as highlighted by research in the Indian context (Bandyopadhyay, Dhara, 2021).

Furthermore, the study’s findings highlight a number of effective strategies that contribute to the successful implementation of inclusive education: targeted teacher professional development programs with an emphasis on inclusive practices; conducting culturally sensitive awareness campaigns to raise community awareness; the implementation of mechanisms to monitor and evaluate policy implementation; the development of adapted diagnostic tools; and the targeted allocation of resources. These approaches can serve as practical recommendations for policymakers and educators seeking to remove barriers and enhance the effectiveness of inclusive practices in resource-constrained settings.

1. Adeniyi, S.O., Owolabi, J.O., Olojede, K. (2015). Determinants of Successful Inclusive Education Practice in Lagos State Nigeria. World journal of education, 5(2), 26— https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n2p26
2. Adetoro, R.A. (2014). Inclusive Education in Nigeria – Myth or Reality? Creative Education, 5(20), 1777. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.520198
3. Amor, A.M., Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K.A., Thompson, J.R., Verdugo, M.Á., Burke, K.M., Aguayo, V. (2018). International perspectives and trends in research on inclusive education: a systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(12), 1277— https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1445304
4. Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E.B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 43. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919
5. Ayowole, Atinuke E. (2022). Special is Unique, Until You Are in School: An Anecdote of Nigeria’s Inclusive Education System (November 15, 2019). The International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, Vol. 10, issue 1 [10.24940/theijhss/2022/v10/i1/HS2201-021]
6. Bala, I. (2021). Attitude of teachers towards inclusive education in relation to their perceived self-efficacy to teach in inclusive classroom. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(10), 7223— Retrieved from: www.researchgate.net/publication/377343367
7. Bandyopadhyay, S., Dhara, T. (2021). Teacher’s attitude towards inclusive education: A literature review. International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies, 3(1), 214— DOI:10.33545/27068919.2021.v3.i1c.481
8. Bannink Mbazzi, F., Idro, R., Van Hove, G. (2016). ’I like to play with my friends’: children with spina bifida and belonging in Uganda. SOCIAL INCLUSION, 4(1), 127— https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i1.630
9. Bannink, F., Nalugya, R., van Hove, G. (2019). ‘They Give Him a Chance’- Parents’ Perspectives on Disability and Inclusive Primary Education in Uganda. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(4), 357— https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1593326
10. Bhilitane, B., Nomtshongwana, A.T., Buka, A.M. (2024). Prospects of Implementing Inclusive Education in South African Tvet Institutions in the or Tambo District. Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives (JPADA), 9(3), 104— https://doi.org/10.55190/JPADA.2024.345
11. Chanda, P., Behera, S.K. (2018). Attitude of regular and special primary school teachers towards inclusive education in Purba and Paschim Medinipur districts of West Bengal: A comparative study. International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 9(2), 1— Accessed from https://ijrte.inased.org/makale/492
12. Chinengundu, T., Hondonga, J. (2024). Inclusive education practices in TVET institutions in Botswana, South Africa and Thailand: A systematic review. TVET@Asia, Issue 23, 1— https:///TVET@Asia-Issue (Retrieved 23.07.2025).
13. Eide, A.H., Loeb, M.E., Nhiwatiwa, S., Munthali, A., Ngulube, T.J., van Rooy, G. (2011). Living conditions among people with disabilities in developing countries. In A.H. Eide, B. Ingstad (Eds.), Disability and poverty: A global challenge (1st ed., pp. 55—70). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgths.8
14. Hossain, A. (2021). Inclusive education in India: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 9(1), 4487— Retrieved from https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2101547.pdf
15. Inyang, U.A., Udombang, I.A., Bassey, H.J. (2023, September). Inclusive and equitable quality education in promoting life‑long opportunity for Nigerians. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(9), 2065— https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V4ISSUE9/IJRPR17325
16. Kimhi, Y., Bar Nir, A. (2025, May). Teacher training in transition to inclusive education. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 10, p. 1510314). Frontiers Media SA. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1510314
17. Malahlela, M.K., Sadiki, M.C. (2024). The Effectiveness of the Implementation of Inclusive Education in Mainstream Schools: A South African Perspective. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism, 5(2), 1— https://doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2024-0012
18. Mbense, A. (2019). The experience of the physically disabled students in the TVET college. Unpublished thesis. University of Kwazulu-Natal: Durban. https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/19110
19. Nampijja, M., Langat, N., Oloo, L., Okelo, K., Muendo, R., Kiyeng, M., Amboka, P., Abboah-Offei, M., Ray, A., Kitsao-Wekulo, P., Kimani-Murage, E.W., Elsey, H. (2023). Predictors of quality of childcare centers in low-income settings: findings from a cross-sectional study in two Nairobi slums. Frontiers in public health, 11, 1163491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1163491
20. Nigerian National Policy on Education, Federal Ministry of Information 48-49 § Fourth Edition (2004).
21. Ogunode, N.J., Yunusa, M. (2022). Inclusive education in Nigeria basic education schools: problems and way forward. Electronic Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(3), 1— ISSN: 2706–8242
22. Oladele, A.O., Ogunwale, O.R., Dafwat, S.S. (2016). Inclusive education for persons with disabilities in Nigeria: How far. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research in Arts, Humanities & Education, 2(5), 1— https://www.ijaar-ahe-v2n5-may16-p3
23. Pirzada, G., Bokhari, T.B., Anis, F. (2024). Inclusive Education in TVET: Exploring Vo-cational Educators’ Perspectives on Policies, Structures, Systems, and Practices. Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis and Wisdom, 3(3), 154— https://pjlaw.com.pk/index.php/Journal/article/view/v3i3-154-167/v3i3-154-167
24. Rrofiah, K., Ngenge, R.T., Sujarwanto, S., Ainin, I.K. (2023). Inclusive education at Universitas Negeri Surabaya: Perceptions and realities of students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 14— https://doi.org/10.52291/ijse.2023.38.18
25. Saran, A., White, H., Kuper, H. (2020). Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(1), e1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1070
26. Simui, F., Kasonde-Ngandu, S., Cheyeka, A.M., Simwinga, J., Ndhlovu, D. (2018). Enablers and disablers to academic success of students with visual impairment: A 10-year literature disclosure, 2007–2017. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 36(2), 163— https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619617739932
27. Uba, C.D., Nwoga, K.A. (2016). Understanding stigma from a sociocultural context: mothers’ experience of stigma directed towards children with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), 975— https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145259
28. United Nations (UN) (2024). Toolkit on Disability for Africa: Inclusive Education. URL: https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/disability/Toolkit/Inclusive-Education.pdf (accessed 29.05.2024).
29. Welsh Government. (2025). Equity and inclusion in the Curriculum for Wales: A qualitative study. Welsh Government. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2025-07/equity-and-inclusion-in-the-curriculum-for-wales-a-qualitative-study.pdf
30. World Bank. (2024). Country classification by income and region. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519
31. World Bank. (2024). Low & middle income. URL: https://data.worldbank.org/country/low-and-middle-income (accessed 08.08.2025).