
STEM education should be inclusive of students with disabilities
The estimate from the National Family Health Survey 5 (in a publication of the Indian Council of Medical Research) is that there are 63 million people with disabilities in India. This is less than 5% of the population and below the World Health Organization data which suggest that about 15% of the world population lives with with some form of disability.
There is no dearth of well-meaning legislation: the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 guarantees access to free education up to the age of 14, including for children with disabilities. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides a comprehensive set of guidelines with considerable thought gone into them. It spells out the duties of educational institutions and the responsibility of the Union and the State governments to promote inclusive education.
Unfortunately, though, the reality is very different across the country. At the primary and secondary levels, students with disabilities are frequently segregated in special-needs schools, an unintended consequence of which is that their access to higher education and their exposure to different areas of study is selective and limited.
Reservation norms
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, all government and government-aided higher educational institutions are required to reserve 4% of seats for students with disabilities. Since most higher education and research institutions in India fall in this group, it is important that the Act be implemented in practice as well as in spirit. Disabilities that are covered include blindness and low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, cerebral palsy and related disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and autism spectrum disorder.
At present, there are few institutions where this requirement is met, and wherever it is met institutionally, it is not done on a more fine-grained level, namely across departments. Indeed, most students with disabilities get admission through a so-called horizontal quota: seats are not specifically reserved for students with disabilities, and often they are discouraged from science subjects since that will decrease the number of seats for other students.
In short, they continue to face ableism, the various practices and prejudices that disadvantage disabled students and researchers. Ableism effectively is discrimination in favour of non-disabled people. The lack of tangible inclusivity measures in higher education institutions means that students with diverse abilities, with a keen interest in STEM subjects, and perhaps having been encouraged up to the high-school level, find the doors of tertiary education closed to them.
The institutions face many hurdles on the road to inclusivity. Campuses require a significant investment in order to become accessible: Most classrooms, laboratories, and hostels cannot accommodate students with disabilities. Administrators have many complex choices to make on where their (usually meagre) funds are to be deployed, and something that impacts less than 5% of the students may not seem cost-effective, but these are considerations that one needs to rise above.
Measures that have been implemented in countries in the developing world as well as in developed nations, in addition to strengthening national legal frameworks (UNESCO guidelines), include devising policies and strategies inclusive of persons with disabilities; making education accessible; adapting the form and substance of education; monitoring the implementation of the right to education for persons with disabilities; and promoting the right to education of persons with disabilities.
Accessibility audit
Reservation in education addresses only a small part of these rights. A far more urgent need is for sensitisation and training. Campuses constructed after 2016 should adhere to the National Building Code but this is rarely enforced. Older campuses require an accessibility audit, to learn what needs to be done in terms of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. Campuses are typically large in extent. Older buildings have no lifts or ramps. Toilets are inaccessible. The list is long.
Conventional classrooms and laboratories are ableist: chairs, tables, and benches are of fixed heights, and access to laboratory equipment such as fume-hoods and furnaces is poor. Teaching and learning spaces in STEM do not easily adapt for students with disabilities who are then naturally discouraged from pursuing such disciplines.
Making laboratory experiments in science accessible requires both dedication and sensitivity. Physical access for students with impaired mobility is daunting, but the bias in the design of almost all laboratory experiments and much of pedagogy in general poses a major challenge for students with impaired vision. Since other than in pure mathematics, there is a component of laboratory instruction in all science courses, the physical environment of most existing teaching (or research) laboratories exclude students with disabilities.
There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that when given the same opportunities and access, students with disabilities perform equally well as other students. There is also evidence to suggest that awareness of special needs facilitates the science that has to be developed to mitigate them. The science of optometry started from a need to correct poor vision, and telephony traces its motivation to Alexander Graham Bell's need to communicate with his wife and mother (both of whom had difficulty hearing) but there are many other examples, with more wide-ranging benefits.
With today's technology it requires little additional effort to make laboratory experiments accessible to students with disabilities, be it through the use of speech-activated equipment, AI and electronics-based interfaces to convert signals from one form to the other (say visual to audio for the visually challenged and audio to visual for hearing challenged)
In this age, there is increased awareness of human rights and an increased awareness of diversity and of the various identities. Doing science is a privilege, and this privilege needs to be shared by all those who wish to be scientists. More to the point, this is a privilege that should not be denied to anybody, least of all because of the imagined limitations of mind or body.
Ramakrishna Ramaswamy is a Honorary Professor, Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Berhampur, Odisha; views are personal
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Online Gaming Bill 2025 protects savings of crores of Indian middle-class families: Ashwini Vaishnaw
After the Rajya Sabha passed the Online Gaming Bill on Thursday, Union minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said the government has taken a 'balanced approach' to protect the savings of crores of Indian middle-class families. In a post on microblogging platform X, the Union minister of information and broadcasting emphasised that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, addresses risks of fraud, money laundering, and terror financing associated with real-money gaming in the country. Explaining the rationale behind this policy intervention, Vaishnaw added that the decision follows thousands of complaints and grievances from across the country, with crores of families being devastated by online money games. e-sports promoted The bill seeks to promote e-sports and online sports in line with global trends, along with gamification and the animation, visual effects, gaming, and comics (AVGC) sector. It also proposes to create a national authority to regulate the overall gaming minister confirmed the government's commitment to promoting e-sports, hinting at the launch of dedicated schemes and programmes, as the bill gives legal recognition to e-sports. Gaming to support creator economy The thread explaining the nuances of the Online Gaming Bill further highlighted that efforts to promote game developers and creators would be the next big focus in the coming highlighted that gaming would serve the tenets of India's creator economy, adding that the government will support software growth to boost innovation in the sector.'Government to support game makers & creators — part of India's creator economy & software growth,' he wrote on X. Industry reaction The industry has shown mixed reactions, with one segment supporting the government's intent to recognise and promote e-sports as an encouraging step towards building a globally competitive ecosystem. Companies said the Bill draws a clear distinction between skill-based competitive gaming and on the other hand, many industry representatives opposed the legislation, stating that a blanket ban on online games with money would lead to a loss of jobs and tax revenue for the government. In a joint letter to Union home minister Amit Shah, the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS) said the draft law, which seeks to prohibit all real-money games, including those based on skill, would 'strike a death knell' for an industry that employs more than 200,000 people, has attracted Rs 25,000 crore in foreign direct investment (FDI), and contributes over Rs 20,000 crore in annual tax revenues. Also Read: ETtech Explainer: What's the way forward for gaming industry after Lok Sabha clears Online Gaming Bill? In a nutshellThe Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, seeking a blanket ban on real money gaming in India, minutes after it was introduced in the House. The bill will now be sent to the President for assent, as it has been cleared by the Rajya Sabha too. Minister Vaishnaw highlighted the three aspects of the bill — "E-sports, Online Social Gaming and Online Money Gaming," of which two-thirds of the segment (e-sports and online social gaming) will be promoted and encouraged. Industry leaders warn that this bill will choke foreign investment and cost the exchequer an estimated Rs 20,000 crore in lost taxes. An allied ecosystem that spends nearly Rs 6,000 crore annually on advertising, technology, and infrastructure could also take a hit. Also Read: Problem is online money gaming, not esports: MeitY Secretary Krishnan

Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Vaishnaw Criticizes Opposition For Creating Chaos As Online Gaming Bill Is Passed
The Indian Parliament has passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, amid loud protests in the Rajya Sabha. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw criticized the Opposition for creating a ruckus, calling their actions anti-democratic and disruptive to parliamentary proceedings. The bill aims to regulate online gaming, ban real-money gambling, and restrict advertisements while promoting e-sports and social gaming. Vaishnaw highlighted the bill's focus on protecting middle-class families from financial and psychological harm caused by online money gaming. Following Lok Sabha approval, the legislation was cleared in the Rajya Sabha, reinforcing the government's commitment to online gaming governance.


The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Report recommends restoring State autonomy in health and medical education for better outcomes
A report by Ezhilan Naganathan, MLA, Thousand Lights Constituency, Chennai, and part-time member of State Planning Commission, has highlighted the increasing centralisation of the health and medical education sectors and has called for restoring constitutional and operational State autonomy. According to the report, submitted to the High-Level Committee on Union-State Relations, set up by the government of Tamil Nadu, there are six key areas where the Union government has encroached upon the State's functioning, overriding State-specific needs and State-specific delivery of healthcare. The first is medical education, originally in the State List and then brought to the Concurrent List. This arrangement, where the Union government frames policy for healthcare and medical education while the State delivers the healthcare services, creates a policy-implementation gap, it says. The report recommends restoring medical education to the State List and allowing States to be the sole authority for public health and medical education. The second area is replacing the Medical Council of India (MCI) with the National Medical Commission (NMC), a move that, the report argues, limited the States' role in framing curricula and guidelines. It also flags concerns with NEET and NEXT (exams for admission to medical college and for licensing practice), pointing out that NEET heavily favours the CBSE/NCERT syllabus and that it has led to a massive coaching class industry, not to mention leading to a decrease in government school students being able to secure admission. It recommends abolishing the NMC, bringing back the MCI, and allowing States to decide on admission procedures and examination systems. One other area the report deals with is organ transplantation programmes: it notes that recent moves by the Union government to centralise organ allocation and data management through the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) 'have raised serious concerns about efficiency, fairness, and federal balance,' especially as Tamil Nadu has been a pioneer in this field. The report, among other things, recommends a dual-tier system, with State-led allocation for intra-State matches, and NOTTO's role limited to inter-State sharing when no State recipient is available; and ensuring Central rules cannot override State policies that protect socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. The report also examines the centralisation of drug regulation, focusing on the role of the Central Drug Standard Control Organisation and its impact on States; the operational model of Centre-funded health schemes, which often come with conditions; the imposition of uniform parameters that fail to reflect State-specific health priorities; and what it terms 'cultural centralisation'. According to the report, this refers to the standardisation of health communication, public campaigns, and even medical curricula 'in ways that undermine linguistic plurality, regional identity, and locally evolved practices.' The report points out that centralisation 'risks flattening diversity into inefficiency' and urges that States be empowered financially and institutionally for better health systems.