Before completing this course, my knowledge of the historical and policy contexts of inclusive education was limited. I had predominantly thought about inclusion in pedagogical terms, considering classroom- level responses and differentiated instruction. But this course has helped me realize that inclusive education is inevitably shaped by historical movements, legislative frameworks, and policy implementation (Ainscow, 2020).

The most reflective part addressed in this course was probably the history of disability exclusion of students. Up until the 20th century, some students with disabilities were excluded from education or put in special schools (Winzer, 2009). Despite mid-20th-century integration policies, schools proceeded on the premise that students with disabilities required tailored, specialist education (Florian, 2014). The recognition that mainstream education was never overtly planned for diversity has substantiated my view that meaningful inclusion requires an overall redesigning of education systems, and not just policy level changes (Slee, 2018).

While most countries have inclusive education policies, the course revealed that implementation is a continuing challenge. One of the most compelling examples was the gap between policy rhetoric and practice. Although the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) made inclusion an international priority, most governments fail to provide the funding, teacher training, and infrastructural support necessary to make inclusive education a reality (Sharma et al., 2018).

This gap between policy and practice was most evident in looking at developing countries, where limited resources, social stigma, and a lack of infrastructure continued to be obstacles to inclusion (Singal, 2006). I have learned that inclusive education policies must do more than simply meet the letter of the law—they require system-wide change, funding, and cultural shift in how disability is perceived.

Another important point that I take away from this course is that Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has to be established as a policy agenda. All I was aware of was that UDL was integrated into lesson planning in the past, but through this course, I understand now that it is a macro instructional philosophy that redefines mainstream assumptions of curriculum design (Meyer et al., 2014).

Instead of requiring students to fit into predetermined models of learning, UDL advocates for flexible, multi-modal approaches to teaching that accommodate different needs from the outset (Rose et al., 2006). This is consonant with the social model of disability, in which it is the environment that creates barriers to learning and not the individual. In the future, I will integrate UDL principles into my teaching philosophy in such a manner that my practice will be proactively inclusive rather than reactive accommodations.

This course reaffirmed my personal commitment to inclusive education beyond my own classroom. Some of the most significant things that I will do include

Encourage stronger policy practice: I acknowledge that, as an inclusive educator, I must also be an active advocate for policy changes for the promotion of equity in education.

Seek professional development in UDL: I would like to optimize my ability to create barrier-free learning environments by adopting UDL-based practices.

Understand policy frameworks in my local context: Being a conscious educator, I need to familiarize myself with the national and regional laws on inclusive education and endeavours to ensure that they are properly implement it in schools.