Informing the Design of Inclusive Post‐Secondary Education: A Qualitative Exploration of the Perspectives of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities

Presidential Address, 2022-Dismantling Systemic Barriers: Re-Envisioning Equity and Inclusion.

“Human dignity” is the foundation of the human rights discourse that evolved around the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In recent decades, the concept of human dignity has been vastly over-extended, gradually becoming a vague, nearly meaningless “catch-all” phrase. In the 21st century’s pluralistic and multicultural world, this development has played into two worrisome trends. One is the formulation of any cultural-specific identity-based claim as involving a human dignity-based human right; such over-extension of human dignity and human dignity-based rights breeds growing skepticism regarding the usefulness of the whole human rights discourse. The second trend is the erroneous portrayal of cultural specific honor-based claims as involving dignity-based human rights. Such misleading portrayal blurs the boundaries between the universalistically humanistic dignity-based human rights discourse, and culturally specific, often separatist and conservative honor-based mentalities.Attempting to address these troubling trends, this paper defines a tightly knit human dignity, which marks the absolute value/ worth of the common denominator of humanness in all human beings. This human dignity gives rise to universalistic and absolute – yet minimal – fundamental human rights. It is conceptually distinguished from what I refer to as “respect”, which assigns tentative value/worth to the uniqueness of each and every concrete, specific expression of human existence. In this conceptualization, respect is the basis of tentative, secondary human rights – including those that address many specific identity claims in a pluralistic, multicultural world. Whereas "human dignity-based rights" derive from and protect the very essence of humanness, "respect-based rights" protect and enhance exclusive personal choices that manifest an individual's uniqueness, including each person's self-expression in lieu of his or her multiple affiliations. Such affiliations are often related to race, gender, nationality, religion, ethnicity, sexuality and/ or culture. Respect-based rights thus refer to most issues arising from pluralism and multiculturalism. Both dignity and respect are carefully distinguished from the very different notion of honor, which marks tentative, comparative human value/ worth that is intertwined with esteem and prestige within a specific (typically conservative and separatist) normative cultural context. Honor-based claims do not necessarily constitute either dignity or respect-based human rights.Such re-conceptualization yields a clear distinction between the absolute and universal fundamental dignity-based human rights, and the tentative, often cultural-specific respect-based rights. This allows to preserves the distinction between absolute, universal fundamental dignity-based human rights, and secondary, tentative, sometimes clashing respect-based rights. It highlights the difference between these two categories of human rights and any culturally-specific honor-based claims. These distinctions are important if we are to maintain the discourse of human rights and adjust it to a world which is ever more pluralistic and multicultural.

The first plenary session of 132nd Annual Meeting of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) reflected its support for basic and applied research to prevent or minimize the effects of conditions causing developmental disabilities, with Dr. Alan Guttmacher (2008), currently the acting director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, discussing the realized and potential benefits of genomics research on health and quality of life. This presentation dealt with an incredibly complex topic with clarity and sensitivity, and it was carefully neutral in tone and content with respect to intellectual and developmental disabilities. Nevertheless, a major implication regarding disabilities in general and developmental disabilities more specifically was quite clear. Current research in genomics, as well as in many other areas, is intended to improve understanding of the fundamental causes of disability to reduce risk, thereby lowering incidence of impairments and minimizing their severity. Should these goals be realized, the proportion of the population with disability would decrease, perhaps dramatically, and in some distant future significant impairments might even be eliminated altogether. As unachievable as that ultimate goal might appear to be, an assumption supporting many of the programs and much of the research agenda in the field of developmental disabilities is that we, as a society and as individuals, would be better off if physical, mental, and cognitive impairments ceased to exist.Yet, prevention encompasses many things and can be viewed from many perspectives, some of which have continued to challenge the universality of this assumption. There is a need for serious and open discussion of the many aspects of prevention within our field (and the disabilities field more generally) that entails explicit consideration of risks and benefits of specific programs and approaches to implementation. Although important distinctions can and should be made among primary prevention (avoiding the occurrence of a causal condition), secondary prevention (avoiding or minimizing the consequences of a causal condition after it occurs), and tertiary prevention (minimizing or improving outcomes after the consequences of a causal condition are evident), this dialogue needs to begin with consideration of the overarching goal of lowering the incidence and prevalence of impairments and reducing disability.In many respects, prevention was embraced long ago as a valued societal benefit, and this has had significant impacts in the case of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Certainly, the history of prevention in our own field has included some policies and actions that had devastating consequences for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and careful and constant vigilance will always be required to ensure that the rights, privileges, and dignity of every individual are respected and preserved. Nevertheless, many other aspects of the past continue to be broadly viewed as enormously beneficial, and several examples seem particularly illustrative.Until the late 19th century, congenital hypothyroidism (cretinism) caused many individuals in western Europe to have intellectual disability. For some alpine regions, it was so common an occurrence that local physicians thought it unremarkable (Merke, 1984). We now know that this condition is caused by dietary iodine deficiency, and this discovery, along with the availability of iodized salt, has virtually eliminated it as a public health concern in industrialized countries. (Nevertheless, congenital hypothyroidism remains one of the most common preventable causes of intellectual impairment in many underdeveloped regions of the world; Jain, Agarwal, Deorari, & Paul, 2008.)Prior to the 1950s, babies born with phenylketonuria (PKU), a relatively rare genetic disorder, were unimpaired at birth but invariably developed severe intellectual disabilities. This was caused by their inability to metabolize phenylalanine, a nutrient present in many everyday foods (including breast milk). Over time, the build up of abnormally high levels of phenylalanine has neurotoxic effects (Jervis, 1939), and, thanks to this discovery, a highly specialized diet was developed that has been successfully preventing disability in affected babies ever since. (All newborns in the United States are currently screened for PKU plus a growing number of other conditions, providing the basis for early diagnosis and prevention.)In the 1960s, a vaccine was developed with the intention of eradicating rubella (German measles), largely because infants exposed in utero were at high risk for intellectual and developmental disabilities. This vaccine has reduced the incidence of congenital rubella syndrome from 20,000 cases during the epidemic of the 1960s to less than 25 annually in the United States (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005). Current programs to reduce alcohol consumption by pregnant women are strongly endorsed and broadly supported for much the same reason, in this case to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome and related disorders, as is the use of folate supplements during pregnancy to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (Pitkin, 2007). Obstetric practices have improved to avoid brain injury due to perinatal hypoxia and mechanical injury, as well as transmission of maternal viral infections that might affect babies' development. Environmental exposure to lead and mercury is being reduced to avoid their potentially neurotoxic effects, and the list could go on.Although these examples might suggest that there is no down side to prevention, the lessons of history show otherwise. Eugenics movements have gained momentum periodically, and there will always be some people in favor of imposing their views on those they see as less worthy than themselves. We are fortunate that we live in relatively enlightened times, but no matter how enthusiastic supporters of prevention may be, they must always be mindful of potential abuses. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that one of the most pressing issues facing our field has been conspicuously avoided in these examples: elective pregnancy termination based on the results of prenatal screening and diagnosis. Consideration of this critically important subject, along with the negative biases of many clinicians toward developmental disability (see Bauer, 2008), must be a major part of any dialogue about prevention. Even leaving this issue of life and death aside, though, an outspoken segment of our community vehemently opposes prevention. As expressed by the final comment from the audience at Guttmacher's (2008) plenary presentation identifying "the elephant in the room," some among us would "not want to live" in a world without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The commitment of this gentleman and his like-minded colleagues is beyond question, as is their regard for individuals with disabilities. However, other people share this commitment yet endorse the concept of prevention (although not necessarily all the strategies for possible implementation). The real elephant in the room, then, seems to be the question of whether a high regard for individuals with developmental disability inherently conflicts with support for prevention of the impairments affecting those very same people. There are certainly many ways to explore the answer to this question, but all of them should consider the logical connection between the two values in apparent opposition.Capturing the essential spirit of why people with intellectual and developmental disabilities should be valued as highly as people without disability, begin by accepting that (a) every person should have the same basic human rights and be recognized as an autonomous and unique individual and (b) each of us is capable of contributing in important ways to the diversity that enriches the human experience. In addition, accept that for every individual, each with his or her own unique profile of strengths and weaknesses, maturation and development depend critically on growth and change throughout the lifespan. Achievement of individualized successful development involves complex interactions among nature and nurture (and good fortune, no doubt), but specifics are unimportant for this discussion. It is only important to recognize that change is a natural part of life that incorporates growth, learning, and maturation and that individual characteristics must be viewed as dynamic rather than static.Once this is accepted, impairments, when present, should be recognized as just one type of personal characteristic among many, and, having no special status, impairments should also be viewed as dynamic and changeable. All treatments are based explicitly or implicitly on this premise, which is the driving force behind a host of programs that include access to a full and appropriate public education for all children (e.g., Public Law 94–142) and virtually all habilitation, education, and training. Shifting back to prevention, if impairments are subject to change, including reduction in severity, the logical foundation for opposing avoidance of their occurrence in the first place seems to collapse.As Guttmacher (2008) emphasized by the title of his plenary talk, "We Are All Mutants…," each of us is imperfect and vulnerable in one way or another. Any one of us can cross that threshold of impairment at any time, and in promoting acceptance of diversity and the value of people with disabilities, advocates serve all members of our society. Particularly at this juncture, when amazing advances in biomedical sciences and engineering are having dramatic impacts on practice and policy, it seems more important than ever to engage in an explicit evaluation of prevention and treatment from the diverse perspectives that make up the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities. A consensus is needed before the risks and benefits of specific policies, positions, and actions can be evaluated, and although that consensus might already exist outside of a small but vocal antiprevention minority, it seems at least as likely that core beliefs about prevention and treatment vary substantially. The stakes are enormous, and it would be incredibly useful to know the reality of current thinking.We each need to determine where we stand as part of the process of either building that consensus or determining that it can not be reached, and the process could start with each of us posing fundamental questions to ourselves and to others, such as: If impairments do not devalue individuals, why would successful treatment of those very same impairments? Does it follow that if successful treatment would not devalue these individuals, then prevention of impairments in others would not? Would we treasure our children with intellectual and developmental disabilities as much without their cognitive impairments? If we ever discover how to cure intellectual disability, should treatment be universally available? Has virtual eradication of congenital hypothyroidism in industrialized countries been beneficial, or have we tragically lost an entire class of people? Perhaps the most fundamental question of all is: What would we really think of a world where people without sight could see, where people unable to stand could run, and where people with intellectual disability were without their "significant limitations both in intellectual function and adaptive behavior" (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002, p. 1)?Support was provided by Grant P30 HD024061 (M. Cataldo, Principal Investigator) from the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I thank Drs. Michael Guralnick, Steven F. Warren, and Warren Zigman for many thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Be a Fan. You see that on Special Olympics literature, websites, and paraphernalia. More than a mere slogan, Be a Fan is part of a belief system that values people with intellectual disability for their gifts and talents, their abilities and humanity. I am a Special Olympics volunteer. Like approximately 550,000 people in the United States and 850,000 internationally (Andrea Cahn, personal communication, October 14, 2010), I give a small bit of my time, talent, and treasure to Special Olympics as Senior Advisor to the Chairman and CEO. No, I am not out there coaching or training athletes or refereeing events, that is just not something where I have anything to offer. I am participating in discussions, reviewing or drafting the occasional document, and responding to ideas and issues impacting the inclusion and full citizenship of people with intellectual disability, something I have been doing for most of my adult life. I hope my very small contribution to Special Olympics is helping the movement towards the goals of full citizenship, community membership, and respect for all people with intellectual disability. Movements and organizations, like people, grow and change. I am writing this article because, as the world for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities continues to change and evolve, I think those who have advocated for community inclusion and participation have an ally, one we have failed to recognize, and with gifts and talents we have ignored, one we need to take seriously, and one who many of us shunned in the past. Special Olympics is a program we need now perhaps more than ever.

ABSTRACTIntroductionLanguage can reflect bias: an ‘intellectual’ disability means for many people that you cannot be an academic knowledge producer; a ‘learning’ disability means that your education will be hampered. Like language definitions, academic practices can reflect societal biases. The social (in)justice regarding knowledge and knowledge production is called epistemic injustice, and it has resulted in exclusion of nonconventional knowers, such as persons with intellectual or learning disabilities, from academia and higher education (other than as objects of research).MethodsThis paper will discuss academic practices through the lens of epistemic (in)justice and look at the potential of inclusive research and educational practices therein. We will briefly describe dominant ways of knowing (e.g., abstract, verbal), and counter these practices in exploring practical, tacit, embodied and affective ways of knowing.FindingsFor people with intellectual disabilities to be able to gain recognition as ‘real’ knowers within academia, we need to include diverse types of knowing and enable academic practices to be inclusive of people with intellectual disabilities. Inclusive practices can support a paradigm shift away from dominant ways of knowledge production in research and education, by centralising and correctly interpreting alternate knowledge. Experiences of scholars with intellectual disabilities appear to confirm the value of different ways of knowing.ConclusionsDrawing from these experiences, we will discuss the importance of relational autonomy, collectively owned and adaptive knowledge, and the learning context.

Freedom to die with dignity

To describe Indonesian nurses' educational experience regarding care for people with intellectual disability and/or autism and to explore if these educational experiences are associated with their self-perceived confidence, comfort, knowledge and preparedness to care for these cohorts. Cross-sectional descriptive survey. A descriptive survey tool utilized in a study of Australian registered nurses was replicated and adapted for this study. Following descriptive analysis, chi-square analyses were undertaken to explore associations between educational experiences, and self-rated measures of confidence, comfort and knowledge to work with people with intellectual disability and/or autism. Although there was no end-user involvement in the design of the study, the concepts explored have all been raised by those with lived insights of intellectual disability and/or autism as being critical to their healthcare experiences. There were 544 complete responses, and 51.7% were not exposed to any educational or clinical content relevant to caring for people with intellectual disability and/or autism. Moderate to low levels of self-perceived confidence, comfort, knowledge and preparedness to address healthcare needs of these cohorts were reported. Significant associations were identified between educational and clinical experiences during undergraduate training, and higher levels of self-perceived confidence, comfort and knowledge. Mirroring international literature, the findings of this study highlight a large proportion of Indonesian nurses had little educational experience relevant to caring for people with intellectual disability and/or autism, and have relatively low levels of self-reported capability. This study highlights gaps in the educational experiences, and self-perceived confidence, comfort, knowledge and preparedness of Indonesian nurses regarding caring for people with intellectual disability and/or autism. Given that internationally, people with intellectual disability and/or autism have disproportionately negative health outcomes and experiences, these findings have substantial implications for nursing curriculum, policy and professional development.

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Standards of Practice and Standards of Professional Performance for Registered Dietitians (Competent, Proficient, and Expert) in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

This first general edition for the year (the January edition having been a mental health edition) provides an opportunity for me as Editor to reflect on the past year and to consider the next with respect to JIDR and to research in intellectual disabilities more generally. This past year has been a good year for JIDR. Our impact factor has increased and is now 1.85, the best of the main journals in our field. We have continued to receive high quality papers covering a diverse range of topics, and the numbers of downloads have continued to increase, now approximately 230,000 over the year. I would therefore like to thank all those who have submitted papers, those who review them, and all members of the editorial team for their work. I hope we are providing an efficient and friendly service. I continue to be very impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of referee's comments and I am particularly grateful for all the effort that individuals go to when evaluating and commenting on submitted papers. In our relatively small field of research we are dependent on a limited number of people to both do the research and to review the outcomes. One of the privileges of this post was having been asked to give a view on the future direction of research in intellectual disabilities. In 2009 the UK Government published a report on specific learning difficulties as part of their Foresight Project – Mental Capital and Wellbeing: making the most of ourselves in the 21st century. This report included a section on adult intellectual (learning) disabilities (http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Mental%20Capital/SR-D3_MCW.pdf). This State-of-Science Review was commissioned by the Government's Office for Science and is produced to guide Ministers with respect to future policy. In addition to this exercise, during this past year the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) commissioned a group to examine areas of academic endeavour that they considered, on the basis of the recent Research Assessment Exercise, to be limited – this included intellectual disabilities. The end of one year and the beginning of another is perhaps the moment to reflect on what the above exercises taught us about the nature of, the need for, and the practice of research in this area of academic study, and to also consider how such reflections and observations in one country might apply more widely across the different countries of the world, whatever their economic circumstances. In the Foresight Project three broad areas of enquiry were identified that embrace different approaches and academic disciplines. These included: a) human rights, citizenship, and access to justice; b) developmental processes, resilience, and the prevention, management and treatment of associated behaviour problems and psychiatric disorders; and c) the consequences of changing demographics and the delivery of health care in community settings. Whilst the emphasis may be different, these issues are all likely to be of significance across the world whether in low or high resource countries. These themes touch on the marginalisation of people with disabilities, the health inequalities and inequities they experience, and also on the uniqueness of developmental profiles and the complexity and heterogeneity of people with different neurodevelopmental syndromes. The MRC review raised very different issues that included how a minority interdisciplinary academic grouping such as ours gains and maintains a high profile and how we present work in a manner that ensures it is appropriately recognised and respected by funders such as national Research Councils or Institutes of Health or, international bodies, such as the European Union. As Editor of this journal, one problematic issue is the weight that is given by other scientists outside of intellectual disabilities to publications in, for example, Nature journals, and the limited attention paid to the journals, like JIDR, that serve a small and more focused field of academic study – in this case intellectual disabilities. We should, as researchers, include high profile journals in those that we submit to thereby raising the profile of intellectual disabilities more generally. However, it is very important to be clear that JIDR also aims for high academic standards and in contrast to these other journals has the advantage of bringing together research findings from many different studies whose focus is on intellectual disabilities. In addition, papers in JIDR are read by practitioners, and therefore inform policy and practice. The dilemma is that as impact factors, citation rates, etc take on a greater significance, those subjects in which there is a small academic base are in danger of being over-shadowed. As such measures, and the particular high profile journals that papers are published in, become the prime arbiters of success, there is a problem for us. The reality is that as economic circumstances become more difficult, so then the battle for research resources becomes more intense. My own sense of research in intellectual disabilities is that high quality research is undoubtedly being undertaken in the basic and clinical sciences, behavioural and cognitive neurosciences, and in the social sciences. The challenge is how we continue to raise standards and remain party to and publish fundamental and applied research of the highest standards, and ultimately how this knowledge is then translated into new and more informed and effective interventions and policy and practice. A further lesson is the importance for researchers and practitioners to know about related areas of science so that we can best ascertain when to embrace new research technologies and methodologies. Furthermore, we also need to be prepared to challenge the status quo through new conceptual understandings of existing ideas – this is one of the reasons JIDR has a hypothesis section. This is not promoting technology for technology's sake; rather it is recognising that research possibilities are developing in ways that could not previously be envisaged. Neither is this because existing methods are poor; it is rather that new techniques allow new questions that have a direct relevance to the understanding of intellectual disabilities to be answered that previously could not be addressed. The obvious examples are in genetics (e.g. rapid gene sequencing and gene expression technologies) and in the neurosciences (e.g. electrophysiological, and MRI, MRS, and PET scanning technologies). However, advanced statistical methods, detailed observational studies, qualitative research, mixed methods, and empirical ethics are also examples of the diversity of research approaches that are developing and have been and could be used. Methodologically sound intervention trials that can address the potential difficulties of recruitment and consent will increasingly be required. For reasons of the rarity of potential participants or because of complexity these approaches will require the development of collaborations and networks and agreed methodologies and shared databases. The message is that we need to bring into intellectual disabilities research techniques and technologies that push the boundaries forward. Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is the need for knowledge transfer and the implementation of change in practice, based on robust research findings. This issue was highlighted in the UK by the Cooksey Report (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/cooksey_review_index.htm) and led to changes in the way in which UK Government research funding is organised and allocated. The challenge for those undertaking research in intellectual disability is therefore twofold. The first is how to raise our game and meet the challenge of obtaining research resources in a competitive and demanding environment. The second is to ensure that our research does not sit on the shelf, but that we disseminate our findings in a manner that informs and changes practice for the better. In this particular regard JIDR can be of very definite value. There is a third challenge that goes beyond the research community, that is one of engaging ever increasingly within the international community. Though countries differ greatly in their economic status and the availability of resources, and in their cultural approaches and legal frameworks, ultimately, we are bound together through the substantive issues within intellectual disabilities. Working together can only lead us to further insights and research developments by both the sharing of approaches and by the challenge that this brings to our own perspectives.

BackgroundThere is a high burden of unmet health needs for people with intellectual disability. Despite experiencing significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with the general population, this group faces greater barriers to accessing healthcare. While increasing workplace capacity is one way to reduce this inequitable access, previous research indicates a scarcity of undergraduate teaching in intellectual disability. The aim of the study was to determine the extent and nature of intellectual disability content currently offered within medical degree curricula.MethodsAll Australian universities (n = 20) providing accredited medical training were invited to participate in a two-phase audit via an email invitation to the Dean of each medical school. The Dean’s delegate from 14 medical schools completed Phase 1, which involved a questionnaire or telephone interview about the overall medical course structure. Unit coordinators and/or teaching staff from 12 medical schools completed Phase 2, which involved an online survey about intellectual disability content within the curriculum.ResultsIn Australia, medical school curricula contain a median of 2.55 h of compulsory intellectual disability content. The majority of universities only offer a small amount of compulsory content. Of compulsory units, intellectual disability teaching is minimal in sexual health and emergency medicine (only one unit offered in one school for each). Topics of key relevance in intellectual disability health such as human rights issues, interdisciplinary team work and preventative health are poorly represented in intellectual disability teaching. Elective content varies markedly across universities (1 to 122 h), but emergency medicine, women’s health, men’s health and many other specialist medicine areas are not represented. Inclusive practice is inconsistent in degree and nature, but a majority of universities (nine) involve people with intellectual disability in the development or delivery of content.ConclusionsThere is a mismatch between the considerable unmet health needs of people with intellectual disability and the inconsistent teaching within medical schools. Future doctors will be better equipped to support the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability if curricula are enhanced in this area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0625-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

At the time of the official Coronavirus, 2020-2021 Pandemic emergency measures and general restrictions on the freedom of movement and the other fundamental human and constitutional rights and freedoms were and still are in place. The question of what kind of world will we enter after the official end of the Pandemic was quickly raised. The problem of fear intensified. This is not only a social problem but also a legal one: people have a fundamental human right to protection against fear. The absolute short-term priorities of public administration in all EU and Council of Europe Member States will have to be focused on ensuring that fear and anxiety do not become a new epidemic. Concern for the efficiency and quality of the public health system should be strengthened and improved. Including mental health care and suicide prevention, care for the well-being of the elderly and terminally ill, people with disabilities (in general and disabled workers), care for children, especially children with special needs, and care for large, diversified, and quality palliative care. Also, a need exists for a changed and improved legal policy regarding the system of education, scientific research, and employment. Last but not least, care must be taken not to take fundamental human rights and freedoms for granted. The health crisis will result in a new economic crisis. It should not be accepted as the end of the Welfare (Social) State. It is a new opportunity to defend social and economic human rights and to create the common European Welfare State. Right now, new ideas are needed –even crazy ideas. We need a kind of utopia. And faith and hope in it, which will be the driving force of active action. The experience of the Pandemic must not prevent or take this away from us.

It is now 10 years since the European Declaration on the Health of Children and Young People with Intellectual Disabilities and their Families: Better Health – Better Lives was adopted by the World Health Organization. Through discussions with key informants and an online literature review, we reflect on actions and progress made in line with this Declaration to improve the health and wellbeing of children with intellectual disabilities and their families. Despite finding positive examples of policy, legislation and practice in support of children with intellectual disabilities, there are clear gaps and areas for improvement. Countries must continue to take action, as supported by the World Health Organization and other such organisations, in order to support children with intellectual disabilities in realising their fundamental human rights.

The extent to which inclusion is of academic benefit to ECD learners with intellectual and learning disabilities is a topical subject for discussion among educators. The participatory action research study was conducted to find out the extent to which the inclusive education practices at an ECD Centre in Harare were of academic benefit for learners with intellectual and learning disabilities. Data were generated from seven learners with intellectual and learning disabilities, teachers and parents of the learners, university lecturers and from the school administrator. Our action research cycles included teaching in the respective learner’s classes, as well as observations made on the playground. For triangulation we combined data generated from our interviews with key participants, participant and non-participant observations, and from document analyses. The NVivo data management system was used to code data into emergent themes. We concluded that although the school was open to inclusion, the teachers were not well trained for it, and that the learners could have benefited from a more diverse curriculum to compensate for their academic challenges. Our recommendations following the research were that both the parent government ministry, and the school administration could do more for the teachers in terms of training in inclusive education practices. We also recommended that for future research opportunities, the study could be extended to include an investigation into inclusive education practices as they relate to learners with intellectual disabilities as they transition from primary school to secondary school.

Human rights and intellectual disabilities: an emergent theoretical paradigm?