Sowing the Seeds of Inclusive Education in Lao People’s Democratic Republic: A Transitory Classroom Model for Children with Developmental Disabilities
The Sowing the Seeds of Inclusive Education (SOS-IE) initiative, implemented from July 2021 to March 2025 and funded by the European Union, was carried out in Champasak and Houaphanh provinces in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). Led by Humanity & Inclusion, in partnership with two national civil society organisations and the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES), the initiative introduced a transitory classroom model to facilitate the inclusion of learners with autism and intellectual disabilities into mainstream public schools. By addressing key barriers such as limited teacher capacity, the absence of early disability identification and minimal community engagement, the initiative contributed to national policy dialogue and presents a scalable, context-responsive model aligned with Lao inclusive education strategies and Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4).
The SOS-IE initiative aimed to promote equitable access to quality education for learners with developmental disabilities in Lao PDR, aligned with national inclusive education strategies and SDG 4. Its main objective was to pilot and institutionalise transitory classroom approaches within public schools to strengthen inclusive systems and support the participation of learners with autism and intellectual disabilities.
The initiative followed four interrelated strategic aims:
- Early identification and referral: Establish a systematic approach to identify learners with developmental disabilities using standardised screening tools and linking them to appropriate services.
- Inclusive teaching and learning: Enhance the capacity of public schools to deliver inclusive education through specialised support environments and strengthened teacher competencies.
- Family and community empowerment: Build family and community engagement by creating parent-led support groups and targeted awareness-raising activities.
- Policy dialogue and system strengthening: Generate evidence to support integration of inclusive models into existing education frameworks and long-term policy development.
Champasak Province in the south and Houaphanh Province in the north were selected for the initiative due to their high levels of educational marginalisation, limited access to inclusive services, and ethnically diverse, rural populations. Schools in these areas often operate with minimal resources and limited awareness or capacity to support learners with developmental disabilities.
The initiative operated across four districts and eight public primary schools. The schools were chosen as demonstration sites in rural or peri-urban communities with little prior exposure to inclusive education. These settings were marked by low disability awareness, the absence of early identification mechanisms, and minimal teacher and family support structures.
Engaging stakeholders at village, school, district and provincial levels, the initiative embedded its efforts within public school structures while promoting inclusive values at the community level. It also aligned closely with district and provincial education authorities to ensure consistency with national education planning and teacher support systems.
The SOS-IE initiative addressed several longstanding challenges within Lao PDR’s education system:
Challenges in implementing national inclusive education policies: Although Lao PDR has made formal commitments to inclusive education, policy implementation remains limited, particularly in rural and remote areas. Most schools lack practical guidance on applying inclusive principles, such as curriculum adaptation, inclusive classroom management and support for learners with developmental disabilities. Localised inclusive education plans are uncommon, monitoring mechanisms and accountability structures are insufficient. The SOS-IE initiative addressed these gaps by demonstrating how inclusive education can be implemented in public schools through transitory classrooms, teacher coaching and school-level planning. As a result, the initiative helped schools and district offices begin to translate national strategies into effective and contextually appropriate classroom practice.
Lack of reliable data on learners with disabilities: Before the initiative began, there was no reliable or systematic data on the number or needs of learners with disabilities in the target areas. This lack of data made it difficult for education authorities and schools to plan and deliver appropriate support. To address this, the SOS-IE initiative introduced the Washington Group Child Functioning Module (WG-CFM) to screen more than 1,800 learners. This significantly improved awareness and understanding of disability at the local level. However, disability data collection is not yet embedded in national systems, such as the Education Management Information System, and efforts to institutionalise it remain incomplete.
Insufficient teacher training and support for inclusive pedagogy: Most teachers in the participating schools had little to no experience of working with learners with developmental disabilities, including autism and intellectual disabilities. They had not been trained in how to differentiate instruction, use adapted materials or apply individualised education plans. Although the project delivered practical training and coaching, the duration was limited, and no structured mechanisms were in place to ensure on-going professional development. This reflects a gap in both pre-service and in-service teacher education systems in Lao PDR, which are not yet fully aligned with the principles of inclusive education.
Limited awareness and engagement among families and communities: In many communities, stigma surrounding disability remains high. Some parents were unaware that their children had developmental disabilities, while others feared discrimination and chose to keep their children at home. Prior to the initiative, engagement between families and schools was minimal, and knowledge of inclusive education rights was low. The initiative helped to address these issues by forming and supporting self-help groups for parents, which held local advocacy and awareness-raising activities. However, sustaining this level of engagement will require stronger policy frameworks that formally recognise and support parental and community involvement in inclusive education.
Lack of policy recognition and institutionalisation of the transitory classroom model: The transitory classroom approach developed under SOS-IE provided an effective way to prepare learners with developmental disabilities to enter mainstream classrooms. These classrooms offered structured, individualised support that helped learners gain essential communication, self-care and learning skills. Despite this success, the model remains informal and is not recognised in current education policy or budgeting structures. There is no official framework to guide the implementation or expansion of transitory classrooms, nor is there funding allocated within the national education system to sustain them beyond the project period. This lack of institutionalisation limits the potential for scale-up and long-term impact.
Fragmented co-ordination across sectors: Inclusive education for learners with developmental disabilities often requires the involvement of multiple sectors, including education, health and social welfare. In practice, co-ordination among these sectors in Lao PDR is fragmented. Learners identified through school-based screening sometimes had no access to diagnostic assessments, rehabilitation or assistive devices due to insufficient referral systems. While the initiative created ad hoc links between schools and local health centres, these efforts were not formally embedded in inter-ministerial protocols. For inclusive education to be effective and comprehensive, stronger institutional co-ordination and clearly defined referral pathways are needed across all relevant sectors.
The SOS-IE initiative addressed several longstanding challenges within Lao PDR’s education system:
Challenges in implementing national inclusive education policies: Although Lao PDR has made formal commitments to inclusive education, policy implementation remains limited, particularly in rural and remote areas. Most schools lack practical guidance on applying inclusive principles, such as curriculum adaptation, inclusive classroom management and support for learners with developmental disabilities. Localised inclusive education plans are uncommon, monitoring mechanisms and accountability structures are insufficient. The SOS-IE initiative addressed these gaps by demonstrating how inclusive education can be implemented in public schools through transitory classrooms, teacher coaching and school-level planning. As a result, the initiative helped schools and district offices begin to translate national strategies into effective and contextually appropriate classroom practice.
Lack of reliable data on learners with disabilities: Before the initiative began, there was no reliable or systematic data on the number or needs of learners with disabilities in the target areas. This lack of data made it difficult for education authorities and schools to plan and deliver appropriate support. To address this, the SOS-IE initiative introduced the Washington Group Child Functioning Module (WG-CFM) to screen more than 1,800 learners. This significantly improved awareness and understanding of disability at the local level. However, disability data collection is not yet embedded in national systems, such as the Education Management Information System, and efforts to institutionalise it remain incomplete.
Insufficient teacher training and support for inclusive pedagogy: Most teachers in the participating schools had little to no experience of working with learners with developmental disabilities, including autism and intellectual disabilities. They had not been trained in how to differentiate instruction, use adapted materials or apply individualised education plans. Although the project delivered practical training and coaching, the duration was limited, and no structured mechanisms were in place to ensure on-going professional development. This reflects a gap in both pre-service and in-service teacher education systems in Lao PDR, which are not yet fully aligned with the principles of inclusive education.
Limited awareness and engagement among families and communities: In many communities, stigma surrounding disability remains high. Some parents were unaware that their children had developmental disabilities, while others feared discrimination and chose to keep their children at home. Prior to the initiative, engagement between families and schools was minimal, and knowledge of inclusive education rights was low. The initiative helped to address these issues by forming and supporting self-help groups for parents, which held local advocacy and awareness-raising activities. However, sustaining this level of engagement will require stronger policy frameworks that formally recognise and support parental and community involvement in inclusive education.
Lack of policy recognition and institutionalisation of the transitory classroom model: The transitory classroom approach developed under SOS-IE provided an effective way to prepare learners with developmental disabilities to enter mainstream classrooms. These classrooms offered structured, individualised support that helped learners gain essential communication, self-care and learning skills. Despite this success, the model remains informal and is not recognised in current education policy or budgeting structures. There is no official framework to guide the implementation or expansion of transitory classrooms, nor is there funding allocated within the national education system to sustain them beyond the project period. This lack of institutionalisation limits the potential for scale-up and long-term impact.
Fragmented co-ordination across sectors: Inclusive education for learners with developmental disabilities often requires the involvement of multiple sectors, including education, health and social welfare. In practice, co-ordination among these sectors in Lao PDR is fragmented. Learners identified through school-based screening sometimes had no access to diagnostic assessments, rehabilitation or assistive devices due to insufficient referral systems. While the initiative created ad hoc links between schools and local health centres, these efforts were not formally embedded in inter-ministerial protocols. For inclusive education to be effective and comprehensive, stronger institutional co-ordination and clearly defined referral pathways are needed across all relevant sectors.
SOS-IE followed a multi-level, partnership-based implementation strategy:
- Leadership and co-ordination: Humanity & Inclusion led the initiative, providing technical guidance, financial oversight and co-ordination.
- National civil society partnerships:
- Association for Autism delivered parent and teacher training, awareness campaigns and screening activities for learners on the autism spectrum.
- Intellectual Disability Association focused on teacher support, family engagement and co-ordination with local health providers for assessment and referrals.
- Government collaboration: The IEPC ensured alignment with national priorities and contributed to action planning and policy engagement. Provincial and district education authorities co-led training and monitoring, supporting institutional ownership.
- Community engagement: Eighteen self-help groups were established to advocate for inclusive education, raise awareness and support family-school links. Village leaders and committees promoted inclusive values and helped facilitate school enrolment of learners with disabilities.
- Teacher education institutions: Teacher training colleges were engaged to introduce inclusive pedagogy and screening tools into pre-service programmes.
The SOS-IE initiative was implemented over four years, from July 2021 to March 2025, following months of co-ordination and agreement with the MoES. A phased approach to allowed sufficient time for planning, implementation, adaptation and policy engagement.
The initial phase in 2021 focused on detailed project planning, stakeholder consultations and developing essential technical materials, including teacher training manuals and the self-help group operational guide. During this phase, baseline assessments were also carried out and implementation sites in Champasak and Houaphanh provinces were selected.
Full-scale implementation began in 2022. This was marked by rolling out community-based disability screenings using the WG-CFM, delivering teacher training and establishing transitory classrooms in selected public schools. During this period, the project also initiated the formation of self-help groups and began engaging with local education authorities for inclusive school planning.
In 2023, the initiative expanded its core activities across all demonstration schools. This included in-class teacher coaching, inclusive classroom support and community awareness campaigns to address stigma and promote enrolment of learners with developmental disabilities. Efforts to strengthen referral pathways and co-ordinate across sectors were also enhanced.
The year 2024 was primarily dedicated to sustainability planning, delivering refresher training and intensified policy dialogue with the MoES and the IEPC. These engagements aimed to support the institutionalisation of the transitory classroom model and integrate project tools into national inclusive education strategies.
In February 2025, a final external evaluation was conducted, gathering data from all eight target schools and input from 149 stakeholders. The findings were used to assess the impact of the initiative, identify lessons learned and generate recommendations for national scale-up and policy integration.
Throughout the four-year period, the SOS-IE initiative gradually shifted from pilot implementation to strategic policy engagement, ensuring both field-level results and national-level influence that could support future replication and sustainability.
The SOS-IE initiative resulted in a number of significant outcomes across individual, school, community and system levels. One of the most notable achievements was the successful identification of more than 1,800 learners through the WG-CFM, which provided local education authorities and schools with crucial baseline data on the presence and needs of learners with special needs. This marked a substantial step forward in addressing the data gap in disability-inclusive education planning.
Establishing transitory classrooms in eight public primary schools across four districts served as a transformative model for preparing learners with developmental disabilities, particularly those with autism and intellectual disabilities, for inclusion in mainstream education. These classrooms supported the acquisition of foundational academic, communication and social-emotional skills in a structured and supportive setting. During the project period, 30 children with developmental disabilities were enrolled, and 7 successfully transitioned into mainstream Grade 1 or 2 classes. This demonstrated that, with targeted support and preparation, learners previously excluded from education could meaningfully participate and succeed.
The project also delivered intensive training and coaching to over 150 teachers, school leaders and education officers. This significantly strengthened their knowledge and practice of inclusive pedagogy, individualised education planning and disability-responsive teaching. Introducing inclusive lesson planning, classroom adaptation techniques and reflection tools helped shift teaching practices toward a more learner-centred and flexible approach.
At the community level, forming and capacity-building 18 parent-led self-help groups empowered families to advocate for the rights of children with disabilities, lead awareness-raising campaigns and reduce stigma within their villages. These groups played a key role in mobilising support for inclusive education and connecting families with schools and services. Awareness and attitudes among parents, teachers and village leaders improved markedly, as reflected in qualitative findings from the final evaluation.
The initiative contributed to policy-level influence by engaging the MoES, the IEPC and sub-national education offices in planning, implementation and evaluation. By aligning activities with national priorities and demonstrating results from the field, the project supported on-going dialogue about institutionalising the transitory classroom model and integrating disability screening into mainstream education system functions.
Despite its achievements, the initiative faced several challenges. A key difficulty was the limited availability of specialised services and diagnostic support, especially in rural areas. While the project developed referral mechanisms, learners identified with complex needs often had no access to assessments, therapies or assistive devices, due to lack of co-ordination between the education, health and social welfare sectors.
Another challenge was the short duration of teacher training relative to the depth of change required. Although teachers benefited from coaching, the lack of a sustained in-service training system meant that many still required further supports to fully implement inclusive practices. Moreover, transitory classrooms lacked formal policy recognition, which created uncertainty about their long-term sustainability and scalability, especially in the absence of dedicated government funding or a national implementation framework.
The initiative generated several critical lessons. First, inclusive education models must be context-sensitive, flexible and grounded in existing school systems to be sustainable. The success of transitory classrooms was largely due to their integration into public schools and the active involvement of local educators and authorities.
Second, community engagement is essential. Parent-led self-help groups and local leaders were pivotal in changing attitudes, facilitating school enrolment and sustaining inclusive practices beyond the project period.
Third, systemic change requires both grassroots innovation and national-level policy engagement. SOS-IE demonstrated that while local solutions can be highly effective, their impact is limited unless accompanied by institutional backing, including policy recognition, funding and cross-sector co-ordination.
Finally, the project reaffirmed the importance of collecting and using disaggregated data to inform inclusive planning and service delivery. Introducing the WG-CFM was not only a tool for screening but also a catalyst for improving understanding of disability across education stakeholders.
In summary, SOS-IE demonstrated a viable, scalable approach to making inclusive education a reality for learners with developmental disabilities in Lao PDR. The initiative’s outcomes, while achieved in a focused geographic area, offer valuable insights and models for broader system reform.
An independent external evaluation was completed in February 2025, involving eight schools and 149 stakeholders. It assessed the initiative’s relevance, effectiveness and sustainability, focusing particularly on the transitory classroom model, inclusive teaching practices and community engagement. The findings informed recommendations for scale-up and policy integration and were disseminated to MoES, IEPC and other stakeholders.
Building on SOS-IE, Humanity & Inclusion and partners have launched a follow-up project continuing support in the initial eight schools. The initiative now also expands to additional schools and includes learners with a broader range of disabilities. This continuation reinforces inclusive education infrastructure in Lao PDR and supports deeper systemic transformation.
Aemiro Tadesse, PhD, Regional Inclusive Education Specialist, Southeast Asia
Humanity & Inclusion (Handicap International)
at.mergia@hi.org