Some current learning has been focusing on the challenges of identifying children with disabilities and ensuring they are visible enough to influence decision-making. Tools for the identification of children with disabilities have mostly been medical model based, emphasising the diagnosis of impairments, administered locally often by classroom teachers. Teacher education has mirrored this process to a large extent, with Inclusive Education training predominantly focusing on the causes of specific impairments and how they present. In this sense, the identification of children with disabilities has not really had an impact on improving classroom practices because the identification process pays no attention to how children learn and what environments and pedagogy is required to provide positive learning environments.
Some improvements are coming from uptake of the Washington Group (WG) question sets possibly because their focus on measuring levels of functioning (not specific impairments) helps focus efforts on implementing accommodations rather than medical based interventions. There are some concerns with the efficacy of WG questions used in this way, although most of these can be attributed to inappropriate application by researchers, evaluators and programme personnel. That can mean that the way the WG questions are being administered and analysed is affecting the quality of the information available. The WG Short Set questions for example were not designed to assess prevalence rates amongst children which is why, if they are used in the context of education, they will tend to underreport numbers. The Child Functioning questions were created to fill this gap (although even these are inappropriate for use with children under two years) and provide more accurate numbers, but the fact that it takes quite a bit longer to administer, and requires more enumerator training, has discouraged take up.
Pakistan has been using WG questions (4 out of 6 short set) in their annual school census since 2023 but continues to record very low numbers of children with disabilities. A study undertaken by Sightsavers found there were methodological issues which were likely resulting in persistent low numbers. For example, relying on teachers as proxy respondents to undertake the survey (but with no training or time set aside) and families keeping children with disabilities home during the census to avoid the stigma and shame of labelling. It means that at national level, despite a degree of effort, the system continues to rely on data that has low validity.
Another significant tool coming from the Washington Group is the Inclusive Education module. This measures barriers in the school environment rather than focusing on individual children in isolation and may also be helpful in shifting the focus to the needs at system level.
Introducing disability data collection can impact positively on local level implementation. The Girls Education Challenge programme introduced collection and use of disability data into their Leave No Girl Behind evaluation process. Despite the limitations, many programmes began to pay more attention to disability as an intersecting issue alongside gender and poverty in affecting girls learning outcomes. Raised awareness helped prompt some adaptions towards more inclusive environments and pedagogy. This resulted in some improvements in learning outcomes, especially around literacy, with girls with disabilities from the poorest backgrounds making the greatest gains. Internal research found this to be the result of flexible learning pathways that considered gender, poverty and disability.
Data collection may be moving towards greater accuracy, with the introduction of tools like WG questions, which are increasingly becoming embedded in school census processes like Education Management Information Systems (EMIS). However, this is only a part of the process. So far, the data itself has not made significant impacts on planning and financing decisions, nor on the ability of governments to track the progress of children with disabilities through the education system. So, children with disabilities remain invisible to education systems which continue to struggle to demonstrate educational outcomes for learners with disabilities.