In this paper, we discuss tensions between human rights-orientated empowerment and individualistic ability-orientation within inclusive education. Our theoretical discussion focuses on two approaches that we consider central to inclusive education: Capabilities Approach (CA) and Ableism. The two concepts differ in their genealogy and conceptualisation, and they hold different analytical potentials and implications in the field of education. Our explicit focus on these two approaches is based on the suggestion that they allow for complementary perspectives on and readings of ableism and capabilities in inclusive education.

The CA is based on a universal understanding of human rights and offers a framework for dealing with fundamental questions of social injustice. It provides answers to the question of what every person can be or become under equitable circumstances or in other words: what someone is capable of doing and being (Nussbaum, 2011). Capabilities differ from abilities. They represent specific freedoms that a person can realise in the form of a variety of functionings. Thus, capabilities are embedded in relationships and the environment, and the CA acknowledges human vulnerability instead of essentialising and individualising abilities. It is often drawn from as a framework of justice because it highlights (a lack of) capabilities and can be used as a basis for claiming human rights, such as the right to education (Terzi, 2005). In contrast, ableism is a concept that was coined by the disability movement to criticise individualised ability and body norms, which are viewed as the cause of the oppression of disabled people. It is understood as a system of power imbalances in terms of the hierarchisation of abilities based on binary logics of differentiation and social sorting (Campbell, 2009; Wolbring, 2008). Different to the CA, the growing scholarship on ableism is not primarily focused on enablement but on processes and practices that produce exclusionary ability expectations (Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2015) and ableist constraints. Thus, CA and an ableismcritical framework offer quite different perspectives on inclusive education that, in combination, contribute to a more nuanced understanding of educational inequalities and their production.

Both CA and ableism have received some attention in the field of inclusive education and have been used as frameworks for scholarship. However, early childhood education (as well as higher or non-formal education) is more often than not excluded from or receiving minor attention in the discourse around inclusive education when compared to research into school-related formalised settings. Considering that early childhood education is organised quite differently around the world, with systems lacking offers at all towards contexts where mandatory provision is given, central aspects related to imbalances in accessibility to relevant support structures are in place (e.g. Biggeri, Ballet & Commin, 2011). The CA’s potential to also explore non-formalised education contexts (e.g. studies regarding out of school children or children at risk, such as street children), can be considered helpful when exploring the contested field of early childhood education. At the same time, the existing literature suggest a growing interest in ableism in early childhood (education). Regardless, there are still rather few empirical studies in this field that use ableism as analytical perspective. An ableismcritical analysis can uncover inconsistent claims regarding inclusive education while the CA with its focus on opportunities of realisation and a good life provides a normative framework for coherence in inclusive education. The gainful mutual insight from both approaches is at the core of our theoretical discussion of inclusive education between capabilities and ableism in this paper.

The paper is based on an exploratory analysis of early childhood education (ECE) policy in an Austrian context, aimed to show that the perspectives of CA and ableismcritical perspectives is complementary. First, we introduce discussions on both approaches in the field of education and provide an overview over the respective existing literature, in particular the empirical research that employs a) the capabilities approach or b) the concept of ableism as analytical perspective. Second, we outline the Austrian context of early childhood education (ECE), including the historical context and recent policy and practice developments. We then move on to analysing (cap)abilities in ECE based on Austrian ECE policy. Third, we discuss our analysis against the background of our intent to show that the relevance of CA and ableismcritical perspectives is complementary and an analysis based on the combination of these approaches can highlight both enabling and excluding dimensions of (cap)abilities. Finally, we conclude that by considering CA and ableism together, it becomes possible to uncover ability injustices In the context of recent political debates on ECE in Austria, a number of relevant documents has been published by the ministry of education, science and research. In our presentation we cluster a (for the focus of our paper) purposeful selection of documents listed by the ministry as central for ECE into three aspects: Competences through early childhood education, competences of early childhood educators and (Cap)ability diversity in early childhood education. These will be analysed along a continuum of (cap)abilities and ableism.

Our analysis of ECE policy between capabilities and ableism highlights both enabling and excluding dimensions of (cap)abilities, and we conclude that by considering CA and ableism together, it becomes possible to uncover ability injustices connected both to the dimension of dis/ability and beyond. While the exposure of ableism is a mode of criticism against ableist structures and oppression, the CA serves as a framework for a good life and opportunities for enablement. We conclude that there is a need for empirical research in ECE which covers the connections of and gaps between policy and practice. Findings may inform future research practices both in terms of methodology and content: Developing a focus on how both capabilities and individual abilities may be conceptualised and interpreted in a more flexible and participatory way that strengthens children on their educational journeys during the early years of their lives.

Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (Eds.). (2011). Children and the capability approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special educational needs. Journal of philosophy of education, 39(3), 443-459. Wolbring, G. & Yumakulov, S. (2015). Education through an Ability Studies Lens. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 2. Retrieved 09.01.2025 from https://inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/278 Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51, 252-258.