The future of education, as hinted in the theme of the conference, has been embarked on multiple recent occasions by international organizations and initiatives, including Summit of the Future (United Nations [UN, 2024)), Transforming Education Summit (UN, 2022), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report on futures of education (ICFE, 2021), and Future of Education and Skills (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2019) (Bryan et al., 2024). Especially international private philanthropic initiatives’ support was received positively to address the critical and urgent changes in education, nevertheless, their influence might take another turn by redefining the essence of education (Bryan et al., 2024). This situation brings light to the concept of neo-institutionalism, as well as the epistemology of domination (Tremain, 2017) as Western modern rational and bureaucratic organizations with highly individualistic European and North American culture (WEIRD: western, educated, industrialized, resourceful, democratic) with specific moral orientations (Martens & Windzio, 2022). Thus, we ask our overarching question: “While international and/or regional organizations play a central role in intergenerational culture reproduction, in what ways do they mobilize the ignorance within their dominance parallel to their knowledge mobilization, as we estranged from inclusive education and “Education for All” becomes a utopia?

This proposal interrogates the conflicting motives and political thoughts on inclusive education that have historically shaped European and global inclusive education policies, offering a critical examination of policy documents. Specifically, the proposal indicates the abstract concept of “Education for All” as we conceptually argue, from the perspectives of people deemed as others, and how novel ideals fruitfully create cornerstones for a transformative change in education while minimizing the effects of the epistemologies of domination (Tremain, 2017). To do so, we particularly embed attention to the collective subjectivity of the otherness, not as multiple subjects’ ideals come together but as a sole subject. The proposal aims to critically examine the moral and political ideals underlying these policies and their contradictions within global education and disability governance. These moral foundations of politics are not merely ideals but remain deeply embedded in contemporary inclusive education policies and act as assumptions that shape today's education, which are reproduced and perpetuated within international organizations that shape education today and moving forward. 

First, for organizational discourse foregrounding, soft governance is chosen for international organizations (Martens, Niemann & Kaasch, 2021). We will be particularly interested in checking out the inclusivity (diversity, equity, inclusivity, justice) statements within official websites and relevant official reports or codes of conduct; we will examine multilateral organizations’ perspectives and “what is missing” or “where they are not present although they claim they are” in terms of inclusive education. We intend to start from the ideals of Western political thoughts, and its moral impediments to understand the abstract form of the tensions and conflicts of motive. The leading organizations in education are chosen as the UN, UNESCO, the World Bank, and the OECD. We will first be interested in understanding and delving into how the international praxis used soft governance and how the atmosphere has changed over time, especially after the World War II era (Bekele, 2024; Martens, Niemann & Kaasch, 2021). Then, we will utilize these policy documents to understand whether there is a collective dominance or ignorance on statements regarding inclusive education. To do so, we will use the germ-cell method within the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Sannino & Engeström, 2018) as the developmental aspect is rather essential in this proposal that unveils abstract concepts developed and formed concrete actions (Blunden, 2020; Engeström, Nummijoki & Sannino, 2012). By identifying the germ cell of inclusive education—potentially, education for all—we aim to explore how political praxis manifests concretely, identifying the data from transnational organizations that continue to advocate 'inclusive education for all' as a moral imperative. Finally, we will analyze the official letter and the guidance on inclusive practices (“Building and Sustaining Inclusive Educational Practices) document that was released by the United States Department of Education on January 16th, 2025 by using disability as an analytical tool to rearticulate and revise the otherness encounters and to get closer to the root of the knowledge /ignorance and West/East dualities as if exists or whether they are contested, created, and/or constructed for the education problem (Briançon, 2019). Glocal perspectives provide us with a diverse lens on inclusive education, as well as whether there is any policy diffusion/borrowing between international organizations and national stakeholders (Ydesen & Dorn, 2022). Examining multiple documents from various multilateral organizations will provide us not only the triangulation for inclusivity and fairness but also the intertextuality, which might reveal hidden, unspoken reciprocal structures or differences (Bekele, 2024).

By addressing these dilemmas through dialectical reasoning (Engeström, Nummijoki & Sannino, 2012), we speculate 21st century's political thoughts for inclusive education utilizing the concept of disability as an analytical tool to challenge and form what is already being said in the political philosophy. We will examine the plethora of the neo-institutional paradigm and how this complex system of inclusive education can be realized through concrete polycentric governance evaluation. Although there are multiple stakeholders, transdisciplinary academics argue the concept of inclusivity, disability, otherness, education concerning policing power, gatekeeping, cultural sphere-creation, and ignorance mobilization. Thus, it is essential to understand the reciprocal relations between stakeholders, especially in the collective subjectivity area, where power imbalances are generally reproduced horizontally. Finally, we invite scholars of inclusive education policy to engage in a theoretical debate on the ethical-political contradictions and will utilize the concept of disability as an analytical to contribute to the political discussions as we create an alternative and a term fully embraced that is inclusive education –Education for All– to move forward as well as rearticulate education’s role within societal systems, and redefine the stakeholder reciprocity and functions within.

Blunden, A. (2021). The Unit of Analysis and Germ Cell in Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky. In Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky (pp. 34-60). Brill. Briançon, M. (2019). The Meaning of Otherness in Education: Stakes, Forms, Process, Thoughts and Transfers. John Wiley & Sons. Bryan, A., Byrne, D., Coulter, M., Delahunty, T., Keane, E., Kitching, K., & Chróinín, D. N. (2024). ‘Bearing witness to negativity’: towards just futures of education. Irish Educational Studies, 43(3), 345-354. Engeström, Y., Nummijoki, J., & Sannino, A. (2012). Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 287-309. Martens, K., Niemann, D., & Kaasch, A. (2021). International organizations in global social governance (p. 353). Springer Nature. Martens, K., & Windzio, M. (2022). Global pathways to education: Cultural spheres, networks, and international organizations (p. 318). Springer Nature. Sannino, A. & Engeström, Y. (2018). Cultural-historical activity theory: founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 14(3), 43-56. Tremain, S. (2017). Foucault and feminist philosophy of disability. University of Michigan Press. United States, Department of Education. Official letter. Accessed via https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dcl-inclusive-educational-practices United States, Department of Education. Building and sustaining inclusive educational practices: Aligned with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and part b of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Accessed via https://www.ed.gov/media/document/inclusive-practices-guidance Ydesen, C., & Dorn, S. (2022). The No Child Left Behind Act in the global architecture of educational accountability. History of Education Quarterly, 62(3), 268-290.