Disability Inclusive Education in India: Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Author: Prangya J Samal
The Architecture of Inclusion
For a long time, education in India did not see children with disabilities as part of the mainstream classroom. Many were either left out of formal schooling or educated separately in specialised institutions. These schools often grew through charitable and welfare-based efforts, where the focus was more on providing care than on recognising children with disabilities as equal learners with the same right to education. This began to change gradually as education moved from a charity-based understanding of disability towards an approach based on rights, equality and inclusion. The early 2000s marked a significant era, recognizing that disability should not be understood solely as an inherent deficit. It also results from the interaction between impairments and the systemic barriers, attitudes and environmental conditions that restrict participation.
The Legal Bedrock: Policy Evolution
The legal framework for inclusive education in India has established education as an inalienable right rather than a welfare provision. This shift didn't happen through a single law, rather developed gradually through Right to Education Act, 2009, Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, the National Education Policy 2020, and various implementation mechanisms such as Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
A major turning point came with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, that gave statutory backing to the constitutional right to elementary education, enabling free and compulsory education to children between six and fourteen years. The RTE (Amendment) Act, 2012 explicitly brought children with disabilities within the framework of free and compulsory elementary education and permitted children with multiple or severe disabilities to opt for home-based education.
Though the RTE framework remained largely focused on elementary education, the Right of Persons with Disability (RPwD) Act, 2016, marked a much broader shift. It replaced the 1995 legislation and recognized 21 specified disabilities. It moved the focus from simply providing access to creating conditions for equal participation. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 provides a stronger legal foundation for inclusive education in India. Section 16 places responsibilities on educational institutions to admit children with disabilities without discrimination, make their buildings and facilities accessible, provide reasonable accommodation and individualised support, and use appropriate modes of communication for students who are blind or deaf. It also requires the early identification of specific learning disabilities and the monitoring of students’ participation, progress and completion. Section 17 further specifies measures that governments and local authorities must undertake to facilitate inclusive education, including teacher training, resource centres, accessible learning materials, assistive devices and appropriate communication formats. It also provides for suitable modifications in curriculum and examinations to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Section 31 further establishes the right to free education for children with benchmark disabilities between six and eighteen years in a neighbourhood school or a special school of their choice. Together, these provisions reflect a shift from merely ensuring access to education towards creating the conditions for meaningful participation, support and continued learning for children with disabilities (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2016).
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 focuses on equity and inclusion and considers them as the centre for educational reform. Children with disabilities
are included within the broader category of socio-economically disadvantaged groups (SEDGs). The significant contribution of NEP 2020 is its emphasis on universal design for learning. It recognizes Indian Sign Language and promotes accessible educational content and emphasizes early identification and support for children with disabilities. The Ministry of Education has developed accessible content based on UDL principle and Indian Sign Language (ISL-based) resources (Khanna, 2026). The next stage of the evolution is Samagra Shiksha, launched in 2018 by subsuming or integrating Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) and the Teacher Education scheme. For children with special needs, Samagra Shiksha provides support for identification and assessment and assistive devices, Braille and large print materials, therapeutic services, accessible infrastructure, teacher training, special educator, resource centres, and stipend for girls with special needs. It adopts a zero-rejection approach, under which children with disabilities are intended to be supported within the general education system rather than excluded because of the nature or severity of their disability. Thus, Samagra Shiksha provides the institutional mechanism for translating these commitments into school-level support. The evolution of the legal framework in the Indian context moves from enrollment, access, inclusion, and participation. However, the central challenge still exists whether these legal and policy architectures can translate into sufficient institutional capacity to make these rights accessible and meaningful to change the lives of children with disabilities. (Samagra Shiksha Gujarat, 2026).
Current Scenario
While the legal framework intends to provide a normative framework for inclusion, classroom practice continues to remain uneven. The inclusion funnel still exists, where children are progressively lost at successive stages from identification and certification to meaningful participation and eventually progression to higher grades. According to UDISE+ 2024–25, 35.55% of schools reported having CwSN-friendly (Children with Special Needs-friendly) toilets, while 54.92% reported having ramps with handrails. Although 79.12% of schools reported having ramps, the lower figures for handrails and accessible toilets indicate that basic access remains incomplete. These figures indicate that the availability of basic accessibility infrastructure remains substantially below universal coverage. However, accessibility is often understood merely in terms of providing physical structures such as ramps, lifts, and accessible toilets. True inclusion requires functional accessibility, which extends beyond infrastructure to include accessible teaching methods, learning materials, assistive technologies, and a welcoming classroom environment. Reported availability does not necessarily establish that infrastructure is functional, safely designed or consistently usable. The availability of a ramp, for instance, does not necessarily ensure accessibility if teachers are not equipped to understand diverse needs, assess whether the infrastructure is functional, or adapt teaching practices accordingly (Ministry of Education, 2021). This can gradually lead to a culture of checklist compliance, where institutions focus on fulfilling infrastructural requirements rather than creating an environment where children with disabilities can meaningfully participate. Thus, the data may show the presence of certain facilities, while the reality of students continues to reflect barriers to participation (CAG, 2025)
Secondly, Assistive technology (AT) acts as a critical bridge that allows students with disabilities to access the curriculum on an equal basis with their peers. In Indian schools, assistive technology can broadly be understood across three categories.
● Low-tech: primarily include tactile learning materials, Braille books, magnifiers, and communication boards.
● Mid-tech: include audio recorders, specialised keyboards, and adaptive chairs.
● High-tech: include screen readers such as Job Access with Speech (JAWS) and Screen Access For All (SAFA), speech-to-text software, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices (Yadav, 2024) (DoPT, 2022).
However, a major institutional gap lies in the lack of maintenance and continued support for these assistive technologies. In many cases, devices are distributed through one-time public schemes, but devices may become unusable within months because of damaged batteries, technical faults, lack of recalibration, or the changing needs of growing children that require adjustments to the equipment.
This highlights that functional inclusion therefore depends not only on the initial distribution of assistive technology, but also on its continuity, maintenance, accessibility, and institutional support to address the needs of the students where they can continue to use those devices effectively throughout their educational journey.
Formal enrolment does not guarantee pedagogical inclusion. Children with disabilities may be physically present in classrooms but remain marginalised when teaching continues to follow rigid, one-size-fits-all methods. NEP 2020 promotes principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), with multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, yet many classrooms remain largely exam-centric. Individualised Education Plans (IEPs) are also not consistently developed or implemented, limiting personalised learning. The same gap is evident in assessment, where scribes during board examinations can sometimes become a substitute for meaningful learning in earlier years. Inclusion also moves beyond academics to belonging and social acceptance. Bullying, isolation, and exclusion may exist when teachers do not actively create an inclusive classroom environment. As a result, some students with support needs may be present in school without actively engaging in learning. True inclusion therefore means moving beyond attendance and accommodation towards meaningful participation, learning, and belonging (Sangeetha, 2025)
The heart of Inclusion: Teacher Preparedness and Institutional Support Systems
Teacher preparedness for disability-inclusive education in India continues to face a critical “commitment-capacity gap”, where the legal framework has become more progressive, but classrooms often lack the capacity to translate these commitments into practice. A 2021 study by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) found that only 15% of B.Ed. programmes devote more than ten hours to inclusive education, while 65% of teachers reported that they felt unprepared to support children with diverse needs. Although the Four-Year Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) includes a dedicated two-credit course on Inclusive Education, the National Initiative for School Heads’ and Teachers’ Holistic Advancement (NISHTHA) provides sensitisation modules, training remains largely theoretical, with limited exposure to differentiated teaching (Moond & Ahmad, 2025).
The shortage of specialised professionals further deepens this gap. Recent government data show that the availability of special educators remains uneven. According to the Ministry of Education’s 2026 Rajya Sabha response, UDISE+ 2024-25 recorded 1.12 lakh schools with dedicated special educators across India. The same response notes that the government has notified a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:10 for children with special needs at the primary level and 1:15 at the upper-primary and secondary levels. However, the presence of dedicated special educators in only a proportion of schools suggests that meeting these norms remains a challenge. The data also need to be interpreted carefully because the number of schools with dedicated special educators is a measure of school-level availability, rather than the total number of trained professionals registered or the number of posts sanctioned. In practice, special educators may therefore have to follow an “itinerant” model, covering multiple schools and Block Resource Centres (BRCs), which can limit the continuity and quality of support provided to students (Ministry of Education, 2026).
Samagra Shiksha provides block- and cluster-level resource support for inclusive education through designated resource personnel and special educators. Odisha, for example, has 316 functional BRCs, but many centres still lack specialists such as speech and occupational therapists. Digital tools such as NCERT’s PRASHAST App have helped in the preliminary screening of the 21 specified disabilities, including more than 25,800 students in Odisha. However, screening alone cannot ensure meaningful participation in the classroom. Individualised Education Plans (IEPs), for instance, are effectively developed in only around 20% of schools in districts such as Trivandrum, leaving many students in a state of “passive attendance.”
The same concern appears in assessment practices. A Kerala study found that 75% of respondents reported “tokenistic” accommodations, where scribes sometimes became a substitute for meaningful learning rather than an aid to demonstrate learning. Vocational training also remains limited, reaching only around 5-8% of schools. These gaps show that inclusion cannot depend on one-off training sessions or isolated schemes. What is needed is continuous mentorship, classroom-level support, and practical teacher training. Tamil Nadu’s BRC-based mentorship model, which achieved around 60% adoption of inclusive practices through itinerant coaching, demonstrates how sustained institutional support can help turn teacher commitment into actual classroom practice (Kharwar, 2025).
Policy Barriers
● Misalignment Between Education Laws: One important policy barrier is the incomplete alignment between the RTE Act, 2009 and the RPwD Act, 2016. The RTE framework focuses on free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years whereas the RPwD Act provides this right to children with benchmark disabilities up to 18 years. This creates a gap in ensuring continuity of educational rights as children transition beyond the elementary stage. (GOI, 2016).
● Weak Monitoring of Actual Inclusion: The policy framework places responsibility on educational institutions to monitor the participation, progress, and completion of students with disabilities. However, policy monitoring remains heavily dependent on whether facilities or provisions are reported as available, rather than whether children are actually learning and participating. UNESCO has also highlighted weaknesses in disability-related education data, particularly its consistency and usefulness for planning and monitoring (UNESCO, 2019).
● Fragmented Policy Coordination: Inclusive education cuts across education, disability, health, rehabilitation, and social welfare, but these areas often operate through separate programmes and administrative structures. UNESCO identified the absence of an effective coordinating mechanism across departments and schemes as a major policy concern. This fragmentation can make inclusion dependent on how well different institutions coordinate, rather than providing children with a seamless system of support (UNESCO,2019).
Role of community
The transformation of Indian schools into inclusive learning ecosystems depends on collective ownership at the grassroots level, involving School Management Committees (SMCs), Panchayats, parents, and civil society organisations (CSOs). SMCs make school governance more participatory by ensuring 50% women’s representation and proportionate representation of parents of Children with Special Needs (CwSN). Their role operates beyond decision making. They can execute school civil works up to 30 lakh, prepare the three-year School Development Plan (SDP), and identify infrastructure and resource needs. This gives schools greater scope to address practical accessibility needs, such as ramps with handrails and CwSN-friendly toilets, without depending entirely on bureaucratic processes. Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), established through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, also support enrollment and facilitate assessments by physicians and special educators.Through initiatives like Child Friendly Panchayat Initiative (CFPI), they take this participation further through Bal Sabhas, where children with disabilities can share their concerns and participate in local governance (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2026).
Parents and caregivers remain another important part of this ecosystem. Their involvement in Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) can directly support a child’s academic progress, although only around 20% of schools currently implement IEPs effectively. Initiatives like ‘School Sweet Home’ also helps in creating a smoother connection between the child’s home environment and the inclusive classroom.
CSOs help fill gaps where schools may lack specialised capacity. Organisations such as Prabhat Education Foundation provide sustained institutional follow-up, Vision Empower develops accessible STEM content for visually impaired students, and Samarthyam conducts school accessibility audits based on Universal Design India Principles (UDIP). Ultimately, inclusion becomes meaningful when these stakeholders work together. By connecting enrollment with functional accessibility, community participation, and continuous teacher support, grassroots institutions can help turn inclusion from a normative policy into a lived reality (Rai & Kanvaria, 2025).
Policy Recommendations
Building sustainable disability-inclusive education requires coordinated reforms across governance, human resources, infrastructure, pedagogy, data and community participation. The first priority is to align the RTE Act 2009 with the RPWD Act 2016 by expanding barrier-free access to include information, communication, and universal design for learning. Secondly, teacher participation must become more practical and classroom-oriented. Inclusive education should receive substantial training within B.Ed and pre-service programs, with a disability-specific pupil-teacher ratio that should reflect the level of support required. Infrastructure is another crucial aspect which should be judged by whether it is functional and usable, not simply whether it is reported as available. Infrastructure grants should be linked to varied accessibility audits, and SMCs should also have flexible funds for smaller accessibility needs. At the classroom level, UDL should be included into curriculum design. Indian sign language and Braille should be treated as regular learning and communication tools. Finally, inclusion must involve families and communities. Platforms such as Bal Sabhas and initiatives like School Sweet Home enhance the children's participation related to institutional capacity should be measured not only by whether the children can learn, participate, progress, and belong. Alongside this, students, teachers, and parents need greater sensitisation on disability and inclusive behaviour not simply on how to provide help, but on how to offer support respectfully, understand individual needs, and avoid actions or language that may make children feel different or excluded.
References
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India. (2025). Performance audit report on school education in the state: Chapter 5—Infrastructure and in-school facilities. here
2. Department of School Education and Literacy. (2026, May). Guidelines for school Management Committees (SMCs). Ministry of Education, Government of India.
3. Department of Personnel and Training. (2022). Screen reader access. Government of India. here
4. Khanna, S. (2026). Understanding intersectional schooling: How NEP 2020 has impacted disabled students. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 14(5).
5. Kharwar, S. P. (2025). Inclusive education in India: Policy commitments, implementation gaps, and emerging evidence-based innovations. International Journal of Social Impact, 10(4). here
6. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2021). Accessibility code for educational institutions. here
7. Ministry of Education, Department of School Education & Literacy. (2026, February 4). Availability of special educators for Children with Disabilities (Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 485). Government of India.
8. Moond, M., & Ahmad, W. (2025). Aligning National Education Policy (2020) with RPwD Act (2016) for inclusive and quality education in India. The Research Vibes: International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(5), 16–23. here
9. Rai, N., & Kanvaria, V. K. (2025). Inclusive education in the NEP 2020 era: Promises, practices, and pitfalls. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 11(4), 54–59. here
10. Sangeetha, N. R. (2025). Towards equity: Investigating inclusive education practices in government secondary schools of Trivandrum, Kerala. International Journal of Applied Research, 11(6), 5–10. here
11. Samagra Shiksha Gujarat. (2026). Inclusive education for children with special needs (IE-CwSN). Government of Gujarat. here
12. UNESCO. (2019). N for nose: State of the education report for India 2019: Children with disabilities. UNESCO New Delhi. here
13. Government of India. (2016). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. India Code. here
14. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. here
15. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2016). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No. 49 of 2016). Government of India. here
16. Yadav, A. (2024). Role of assistive technology in inclusive education. Indian e-Journal on Teacher Education (IEJTE), Special Issue, 388–393. here