Webinar: Inclusive education in development

What do we mean by inclusive education in this scan? Do countries use the same definition?

The scan approaches inclusive education as a system-wide approach: removing barriers so that attendance, participation, and learning outcomes for all students become the norm, rather than organizing education into separate pathways or provisions. Countries may use different national definitions, but the approach aligns with international, rights-based frameworks, where inclusion is seen as a shared responsibility of the entire education system, rather than as a separate provision for students with special needs. The scan demonstrates that greater clarity and coherence are achieved when countries work with common policy frameworks, shared terminology, and national quality standards.

Do these countries include all children, including those with profound disabilities, for example very low intellectual ability?

The scan reports that countries are striving towards inclusive education and highlights system conditions that support broad inclusion, like law, duty of care, funding, cooperation, monitoring. However, it does not provide a uniform, detailed operational boundary for ‘all’ across every setting, for example how medical settings are counted. What the scan does underline is that inclusive systems often rely on flexible provision, access to specialists, and cooperation so that support can be organized around the learner.

Does inclusion mean everyone is always in the same classroom all day?

No. The scan’s framing supports inclusion as full participation and access, not a single rigid placement model. It explicitly points to curriculum flexibility and tailored support, meaning systems can organize learning in ways that still protect belonging and development. The key is: support is organized around pupils and teachers, rather than moving the pupil out as the default solution.

Is inclusive education mainly a political decision? What role can schools play?

The scan’s key message is that inclusion succeeds when legislation, funding, standards and professional capacity support schools. So yes, policy decisions are pivotal. But schools still play an active role: building an inclusive culture, using flexible teaching approaches, organizing support around pupils and teachers, and working in networks with partners. The scan highlights interprofessional cooperation as a practical school-level lever, with clear mandates.

Can we demand that a Dutch primary school keeps a child in that specific school for inclusion, during this transition?

In the Netherlands, the duty of care (‘zorgplicht’) means schools and parents must work towards a suitable place and support - yet the system is in transition. The scan doesn’t set Dutch legal thresholds, but it does show that in several frontrunner systems the duty of care is stronger: schools generally cannot refuse a pupil because support is hard to organize. Instead, support is organized around the pupil. This is a structural design choice that reduces push-out.

Did the scan look at national structures, and compare them with Dutch structures like ‘samenwerkingsverbanden’?

The scan did look at system structures, especially at how countries organize cooperation and support around schools. However, it does not present a one-to-one structural comparison with Dutch ‘samenwerkingsverbanden’ as an institutional model. Instead, it highlights that countries organize cooperation via networks, interprofessional teams based on clear mandates between schools and external partners (municipalities/healthcare/youth support). Functionally, this can resemble aspects of Dutch partnerships. But the scan describes it at the building-block level, not as an exact institutional mapping.

Did the scan compare money flows and funding incentives with the Dutch system?

Not in a cost-accounting or full money-flow comparison sense. The scan explicitly stresses targeted, long-term funding and notes the positive effect of equalizing funding, like Estonia, and long-term schemes, like New Zealand. It also states that in the examples described, there are no financial restrictions on deploying professionals from care/youth welfare support to realize inclusion. But it does not provide a Netherlands-vs-country financial model comparison or a full incentive analysis across systems.

How is inclusive education funded in the frontrunner examples?

The scan stresses targeted and long-term funding. It highlights:

• Estonia: equalization of funding had a positive effect on all schools.
• New Zealand: long-term funding via a dedicated scheme, for example Ongoing Resource Scheme.

It also notes that there are no financial restrictions on deploying professionals from special needs care or youth welfare support to realize inclusion in the systems described.

How do other countries foster an inclusive mindset among teachers?

The scan repeatedly points to teacher training and professional development as crucial and also notes that where training is weak, inclusion is limited in practice. Countries support mindset and capability through:

• structural training
• access to specialists 
• knowledge-sharing platforms (digital)

The scan also links sustainable inclusion to a stable support base, like shared approaches to behavior and belonging.

How do systems strengthen teachers’ capacity for inclusive education?

The scan shows that inclusive education is more effective when teachers and school teams receive structured professional support. This includes targeted training on differentiated instruction, access to specialist expertise, such as special education professionals, and opportunities for joint problem-solving within multidisciplinary teams. The scan also notes that schools struggle to translate inclusive policies into classroom practice, when teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning in inclusive practices are limited. In short, the scan highlights that strengthening professional expertise across the system is an important condition for credible and sustainable inclusive education.

Estonia works on needs, not diagnosis. Does that also apply to youth care support?

The scan is clear on education support: in for example Estonia, no formal diagnosis is needed for extra educational support. But the scan does not zoom in on supportive youth care arrangements in Estonia, so it cannot confirm whether the same ‘needs-not-diagnosis’ principle applies there.

What can teachers do tomorrow to be more inclusive based on the scan?

Scan-based, practical translation:

• Use flexible approaches so pupils can progress at different paces/levels within the same age group. Curriculum flexibility is highlighted as a feature in inclusive systems.
• Seek specialist support linked to the classroom, not only outside it. Specialists and interprofessional cooperation are emphasized.
• Strengthen the support base in the class and school. Shared approaches and belonging.

These are practice-level moves that align with the scan’s system building blocks.

How do countries build specialist expertise when learners are spread across schools? For example visual/hearing impairments, Braille.

The scan points to models that mobilize expertise around schools, rather than concentrating on learners with similar educational needs and disabilities in separate institutions. For example, it highlights specialist support that can be deployed across schools, like visiting/peripatetic forms of support are consistent with the scan’s ‘support linked to schools’ logic. The scan’s core principle here is: keep expertise available system-wide and make it reachable for regular schools.

How do countries ensure cooperation between education, municipalities, and care or youth welfare?

The scan treats interprofessional cooperation with clear mandates as a precondition for inclusion. This condition is explicitly stated for several contexts. It also shows that inspectorates in some countries include this cooperation in their inspections (parents, schools, youth welfare support, healthcare professionals). The takeaway: cooperation is not a ‘nice to have’ but is built into expectations, roles, and sometimes supervision.

How do countries monitor wellbeing over time, and what are the results?

The scan shows that countries use different indicators and that there is no single indicator that captures inclusion fully. What it highlights concretely is the role of national pupil monitoring systems to track progress and outcomes and identify risks early, notably in Estonia and New Zealand. The scan does not provide a single cross-country wellbeing results scoreboard, but it does emphasize monitoring as a key system instrument.

Which countries use national pupil monitoring systems, and why does that matter for inclusion?

The scan highlights Estonia and New Zealand as using national pupil monitoring systems to monitor progress and learning outcomes and detect trends and risks early. It also notes that this can provide insight into pupils who are not attending school, like in Estonia. This matters because inclusion requires visibility: you cannot improve what you cannot see.

How is privacy organized in national data systems?

The scan does not provide detailed technical specifications regarding legislation or policies on data privacy. Monitoring is identified as important, but privacy regulations are not described in technical detail. Most of the frontrunners discussed are part of the European Union and therefore must comply with European data protection legislation.

Are there countries successful in inclusion without data/monitoring systems?

The scan notes an important contrast: Italy has had inclusive education for a very long time, and the scan materials highlight that a lack of training and professional development can limit impact. In practice, inclusion can exist without sophisticated monitoring, but the scan’s overall direction is that monitoring systems strengthen early identification, system steering, and accountability for outcomes.

How do inspectorates support inclusion? Do they only judge, or also support development?

The scan highlights a development-oriented approach in some inspectorates: after establishing a judgement, inspectorates can guide schools during improvement. It also notes thematic school visits that stimulate learning between schools, like Sweden. And the use of self-evaluations as input for inspection, like Portugal and Tyrol.

What are the most important building blocks the Netherlands could learn from the frontrunners, according to the scan?

The scan’s inspiration lessons repeatedly return to these system levers:

1. Inclusive education is anchored in law: it is mandatory and visible in practice.
2. Full duty of care: schools cannot refuse due to support needs.
3. Clear national frameworks/standards and shared language.
4. Stable, targeted, long-term funding and reduced financial barriers to deploying support.
5. Professional capacity: training, accessible expertise and knowledge platforms.
6. Monitoring systems to track outcomes and risks and steer improvements.
7. Interprofessional cooperation with clear mandates as a precondition, and sometimes part of inspection.