Nafisa Baboo (former CBM Global Advisor for Inclusive Education) and Ingrid Lewis (Enabling Education Network Director) summarise CBM’s investigation into the state of Official Development Assistance relating to disability-inclusive education. May the findings ignite a sense of urgency and inspire you to use your voice to demand more and better use of ODA to ensure the right to inclusive education.
Introduction
Funding is being squeezed across all continents and sectors, so it is no surprise that funding for education is declining. Millions of children, including 240 million with disabilities, are denied the opportunity to benefit from education. Without tangible, focused investment, we cannot reduce this number or deal with the additional challenges to education caused by climate crises, conflict and the digital divide. Investment in disability-inclusive education falls far short of the level needed to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), meet the needs of the 15% of learners who have disabilities, or support systemic reforms such as improving teacher training.
Existing and new education funding actors need to commit to a process that accelerates rather than stifles positive change. It is important that we understand the role Official Development Assistance (ODA) plays or could play in this process. As we approach the third Global Disability Summit, we are counting on tangible commitments from world leaders to make inclusive education a reality for girls and boys with disabilities.
The disability policy marker
In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) introduced the ‘disability policy marker’ within its publicly available Creditor Reporting System (CRS). This non-compulsory marker monitors the extent to which ODA aims to be inclusive of persons with disabilities. DAC members can track their projects on a scale from 0 to 2:
- 0 (‘not targeted’) means there is no disability inclusion focus;
- 1 (‘significant’) means inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities are significant but not principal objectives in the project or programme;
- 2 (‘principal’) means that inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities are the principal objectives and integral to the design and expected results.
Which donors were assessed?
The investigation first listed the top 20 bilateral donors and then removed those not using the disability marker for at least 50% of their projects. This removed Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and the USA. That means the top three bilateral donors (2021–2022) – Germany, the USA and France – were automatically excluded from the analysis, revealing that a significant share of education ODA is not marked at all regarding disability inclusivity.
The investigation focused on the remaining donors, Austria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, plus EU institutions as the only multilateral currently using the disability inclusion marker.
Findings
CBM’s investigation used evidence from the disability policy marker to see whether and how ODA is helping or hindering progress towards inclusive, quality education. Data was drawn from 2019 (the first full year of data) and 2022 (the latest full year available).
-
Disability-inclusive education remains underfunded by donors
In 2022, DAC members disbursed almost $11.5 billion in aid. The data revealed that only 14% of this aid (just under $1bn) aimed to be disability inclusive and less than 1% was marked with disability inclusion as a principal objective. A third of aid had no disability inclusion objectives. More than half of education ODA did not have the voluntary disability policy marker applied.
Between 2019 and 2022, there was no change in the percentage of education ODA marked with a principal disability objective and only a small increase in the aid marked as having a significant disability objective (from 13.2% to 14.5%).
-
Donor performance varies greatly
Donors varied in the share of their ODA that had disability inclusion objectives (e.g., Sweden 66%, Canada just over 50%, EU 38% and Norway just under 30%). The picture changes significantly when looking at the volume of aid. Here, the EU disbursed by far the largest volume of education ODA with disability-inclusive objectives (almost $400m).
-
Donors using the marker are getting better over time
Among DAC donors who currently use the marker, their use has noticeably increased since 2019. Denmark and Canada, for instance, went from not using the marker at all in 2019 to using the marker on 100% and 92%, respectively, of their education aid in 2022. At the time of CBM’s study, Germany had not submitted data, but it is now applying the marker. Disability marker users also showed increases in their share of disability-inclusive education ODA in this period, except for the UK.
-
Key issues in education need more attention
Early childhood education (ECE): This remains vastly underfunded and falls behind in disability inclusivity. From the aid disbursed to ECE in 2022, only $1.8 million scored 2, and only $12.3 million scored 1 on the disability marker. This represents just 0.1% of all allocable aid disbursed to education in 2022, and around 1.5% of all aid to education which aimed to support the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
Organisations of persons with disabilities (OPDs): Supporting OPDs enables persons with disabilities to engage in the development of inclusive policy and practice. However, word searches of the disability marker data revealed that only Ireland, and to a lesser extent Italy and Japan, supported projects with a principal objective of helping the inclusion or empowerment of disabled persons through core support to NGOs, although not necessarily DPOs.
‘Do no harm’: The principle of ‘do no harm’ is only a recommended programme principle in the OECD-DAC handbook on the disability inclusion policy marker, meaning it is not an explicit requirement in the marker. This leaves the door open for exclusionary or discriminatory practices such as special schools or segregated education to go undetected whilst gaining a score of 1 or 2 in the marker.
Systemic change: No DAC aid disbursed in 2022 supported the principle aim of inclusion for sector budget support. Only the EU had any projects in this category. Sector budget support helps a recipient government with sector-wide change to the public education system – something they urgently need to do to ensure education becomes disability inclusive. It is worrying that so little donor support focuses on an area that might enhance systemic change.
Recommendations
-
Reach: Expand the use of the disability marker across all donors, including multilateral donors.
- All bilateral donors need to start using the marker. Those currently not using it should set a timetable for its introduction into their systems.
- Multilateral donors other than the EU need to start using the marker. UNICEF, with its own marker already in place, should show leadership in this area.
- Donors already using the marker should work towards 100% of their ODA being marked.
-
Quality: Improve the quality of the marker
- The disability policy marker should move from voluntary to mandatory in the next two years.
- The introduction of a negative mark should be considered to enable the marker to capture evidence of education projects that do not uphold the ‘do no harm’ principle (e.g., projects that increase exclusion or segregation and arguably ‘do harm’).
- DAC should introduce a purpose code in the marker relating to support to OPDs, bringing more focus to participation and leadership by persons with disabilities.
-
Purpose: Increasingly use the marker to promote inclusive education
ODA needs to embrace the twin-track approach, supporting both disability-specific and system-wide actions towards inclusion. Increasing the share of funding allocated to education projects that score significantly or principally on the disability marker is a vital step in achieving this. Projects where disability inclusion is principal will help redress historic and pervasive exclusion in areas such as bilingual education and literacy for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, capacity development of specialist teachers, the empowerment of youth with disabilities and OPDs, and research.
- All donors should set the target of 50% of their education ODA receiving a positive disability marker score.
Final thoughts
The futures of millions of children with disabilities depend on us taking action now to invest in disability-inclusive education. ODA plays a vital role in building this future in which no one is left behind, which is why we need a concerted effort to improve and increase education funding. We need consistent investment, with clear, ambitious and rigorously measured disability inclusion targets. We need all governments and all donors to get on board, embrace the use of the disability policy marker, and support its constant development and improvement. We need education ODA to really mean something for children with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries.