Inclusive education has historically referred to teaching and learning for students with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994). Over time, though, the term has broadened, responding to the diverse needs of all children in relation to gender, language, religion, culture, geographic location, economic status, caste, migration and afflictions from conflict (Shaeffer, 2019). In this paper, we identify the outcomes, and explore how program elements contributed to the outcomes, of an international inclusive education short course program designed to build on the capacities of a group of educators from Nepal to lead inclusive education reforms in their local schooling contexts.  Further, we discuss the ongoing challenges in delivering reforms. Developing countries, such as Nepal, have attempted to develop inclusive education policies and practices in schools as per the global trend towards inclusion evident over the past decade (Pradhan, et al., 2021). To date, however, the implementation of inclusive education in the region has been variable. For example, while inclusive education is part of Government policy in Nepal (Government of Nepal, 2017), there has been limited enactment of the policy in practice (Regmi, 2017; Thapaliya, 2018). Contextual features, such as the geography of the country, together with limited infrastructure, few teaching resources, negative, societal attitudes towards disability, and a lack of teacher training in inclusive education (Thapaliya, 2018; Sharma, 2021) continue to contribute to the challenges in implementing inclusive education in Nepal.

The program that provided the focus of this paper is an Australia Awards South and West Asia (AASWA) short course, an international aid initiative of the Australian Government through which short-term training and professional development opportunities are delivered by an Australian Higher Education Provider to a range of countries in South and West Asia (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 2020). Through this initiative, staff in public, private, and non-government organisations in developing countries can undertake short-term study and professional development in Australia with the aim of building human capacity to contribute to development in their home countries (DFAT 2018). In this case, the program centred on developing inclusive education understanding and practices that could be applied in local settings in Nepal.

The program comprised a two-week component of inclusive education policy and practice, delivered in Australia with ongoing online support from university academics in Australia for participants on their return to Nepal. The program structure included workshop activities, visits to exemplary schools that provide embedded inclusive practices and principles, reflective conversations, and professional planning for participants’ return home. Structured networking events introduced participants to a range of educators with expertise in inclusive education, alongside thematic discussions and experience sharing among the program participants. A follow-up workshop was conducted in Kathmandu approximately three months following the Australian component.

Data were collected before, during and after the program. The multiple sources of data collected at different points throughout the program allowed us to identify the impact of specific program elements on outcomes.  For example, observing inclusive education in practice across a range of educational contexts in Australia and opportunities for reflection prompted participants to examine their own assumptions, values, and beliefs about inclusion and to consider how to assimilate these changes into their workplaces in Nepal. Some program participants had a disability and it appeared that having a disability provided a unique perspective as they attempted to reconcile their prior understandings of inclusive education with the new. On reflection, findings also indicate that a deep understanding of context is needed by program planners to better understand how and why particular program elements lead to change of practices for the participants. Our paper concludes with recommendations for developers of similar programs in the future.

A range of qualitative data was collected before, during and after the program. Prior to the program, participants completed a questionnaire in which they provided demographic data and information about their workplace settings. Participants also shared their understandings of inclusive education and its application in Nepal. Each participant also completed a learning needs analysis (LNA) questionnaire in which they identified their learning needs and the key skills and knowledge they hoped to gain from the program. The program developers analysed this information to inform the program delivery. While completing the Australian program component, Return-to-Work Plans (RWPs) were the key source of data collected. These were individual actions plans in which participants identified a specific area in which they could apply their learning from the program to effect change in their workplace. While in Australia, participants continued to revise and refine their RWPs based on their learnings and reflections, with reflection time built into the daily program. Final data collection occurred approximately three months after the participants returned to Nepal when the Australian university program leader conducted a follow-up visit in Kathmandu. During this visit, participants shared poster presentations of the outcomes of their action plans. At this point, participants also identified the successes and the challenges they faced in actioning their plans. Participants were then given the opportunity to elaborate further through focus group discussions. A final questionnaire was used to reveal participants’ post-program understandings of inclusive education concepts and their application to the Nepali context. The data were analysed using the six-stage process, proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The researchers familiarised themselves with the data then generated tentative codes. Similar codes were merged, and main themes and sub-themes were identified using an iterative process. With any qualitative research it is important to consider meeting validity through a process of authenticity ‘(which includes fairness, and respecting participants’ perspectives)’ (Simons, 2013). We adhered to this through triangulation of the data to overcome any potential bias from any one method of data collection and with careful integration of the different methods of data collection and analysis used.

Findings indicated that, although the participants from Nepal had prior experience as inclusive educators, they employed innovative ways to apply the inclusive principles and practices they had learned in the AASWA program. When they returned to Nepal, they became strong advocates for inclusion, promoting its importance in many ways such as becoming involved in local government, posting information on Facebook, holding community meetings, and making substantive changes to curriculum and teaching resources to support student learning and engagement. Some described that they would not have considered this their role before completing the program. Participants did, however, face challenges such as (for many) a lack of support from local government, a lack of infrastructure to train teachers to implement full inclusion for all students, and a lack of understanding of inclusion held by key stakeholders (those in government and in the community, e.g., parents). These elements were not fully explored during the delivery of the AASWA program. Therefore, a recommendation from the findings suggests that program developers need to have greater insight into the social, cultural, and physical contextual aspects of the participants that impact on their approaches to inclusive education in Nepal and incorporate these aspects into the delivery of the program. A further recommendation identifies the need for program developers to critically reflect on their own beliefs and biases towards inclusive education. The program outcomes together with the contextual elements impacting the outcomes and the implications for policy development and implementation in Nepal will be discussed in the presentation.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (2018). Australia Awards Short Courses. Available at https://australiaawardssouthwestasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/HANDBOOK-AASWA-Short-Course-Awards-InAustralia-v010518.pdf Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (2020) Australia Awards Short Courses. https://australiaawardssouthwestasia.org/short-courses/ Government of Nepal. (2017). Constitution of Nepal. Author. Pradhan, U., Thapa, D., Baniya, J., Gurung, Y., Mahato, S., & Roy, I. (2021). The politics of social protection in Nepal: State infrastructure power and implementation of the Scholarship Programme. ESID Working Paper No. 167. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester. Available at www.effective-states.org Regmi, N. P. (2017). Inclusive education in Nepal from theory to practice. PhD thesis. Ludwig-Maximilians-University. Regmi, K. D. (2021). Educational governance in Nepal: weak government, donor partnership and standardised assessment. Compare, 51(1), 42-42, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1587704 Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: a prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 181-192, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w Sharma, R. R. (2021). Sustainable political leadership based on system thinking in rural development practices of Nepal. Research Nepal Journal of Developmental Studies, 4(2), 93-105, https://doi.org/10.3126/rnjds.v4i2.42689 Simons, H. (2013). Case Study Research in Practice. SAGE Publications. Thapaliya, M. P. (2018). Moving towards inclusive education: How inclusive education is understood, experienced and enacted in Nepali higher secondary schools. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca: UNESCO.