Towards inclusive education: a cross-national policy of educational provision for deafblind learners in malaysia and developed countries

1. INTRODUCTION

The education of learners with deafblindness represents a critical challenge for inclusive education worldwide. Deafblindness, characterised by combined vision and hearing loss, results in unique barriers to communication, mobility, and learning that require specialised educational strategies and supports [1], [2].

Internationally, inclusive education is enshrined as a human right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [3], [4], which mandates equal access to quality education for all learners, including those with complex disabilities. In countries such as the United States and Sweden, education policies explicitly recognise deafblindness and have developed frameworks to support this population through specialised services, teacher training, and coordinated inter-agency collaboration [5], [6], [7]. These frameworks enable tailored educational opportunities and improve outcomes for deafblind learners.

In contrast, Malaysia’s policy landscape for deafblind education remains underdeveloped. The Education Act 1996 and related regulations do not explicitly recognise deafblindness, resulting in policy invisibility and fragmented service provision [8]. Deafblind learners are often categorised under broad multiple disabilities or sensory impairment groups, limiting specialised support. This study employs a comparative document analysis approach to examine educational policies and implementation frameworks for deafblind learners in Malaysia, the United States, and Sweden. It aims to identify gaps and best practices to inform the development of a robust Malaysian policy framework that promotes inclusive and equitable education for deafblind children.

2. METHODOLOGY

This research utilised qualitative document analysis to systematically examine policy documents, legislative acts, and official reports related to deafblind education from Malaysia, the United States, and Sweden. Document analysis is a well-established qualitative method that facilitates in-depth understanding of policy contexts, intentions, and implementation strategies [9]. Documents were sourced from official government websites, international agency reports, and academic databases, focusing on publications between 2015 and 2025 to ensure currency. Key documents included Malaysia’s Education Act 1996 and Special Education Regulations 2013, the United States’ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [10], and Sweden’s Education Act [11], along with relevant national agency guidelines. Data coding followed a thematic approach, guided by pre-identified categories: policy recognition, service delivery frameworks, teacher training, and inter-agency collaboration. Comparative analysis highlighted similarities and differences across countries, drawing on policy analysis frameworks emphasising legal clarity, structural readiness, capacity building, and systemic coordination [12], [13], [14].

Theme 1: Policy Recognition and Legal Definition

This theme refers to the official recognition of deaf blindness as a distinct disability category in national education policy.

• In the United States and Sweden, deaf blindness is clearly defined in education legislation [11], enabling targeted services and legal accountability.
• In Malaysia, education laws do not explicitly mention deaf blindness, instead grouping such learners under general categories such as multiple disabilities or sensory impairments.

Thematic Implication: The absence of legal recognition leads to policy invisibility, resulting in inadequate attention and lack of tailored educational responses for deafblind learners.

Theme 2: Institutional and Service Delivery Frameworks

This theme concerns the structural systems and institutional arrangements for supporting deafblind education.

• The US and Sweden have state-funded programs, national resource centers, and formal service delivery structures that ensure equitable access to specialised education.
• In Malaysia, the lack of a national delivery framework results in fragmented services, relying heavily on individual school capacity or NGOs.

Thematic implication: The absence of centralised service systems causes inconsistent access and unequal educational experiences across regions.

Theme 3: Teacher Training and Professional Support

This theme addresses the level of teacher preparedness and the availability of specialised training.

• In developed countries, teacher certification includes competencies in tactile communication, assistive technologies, and multisensory instructional methods.
• In Malaysia, there are no specific training pathways for deafblind education, leaving many educators underprepared.

Thematic Implication: Poor teacher preparation affects instructional quality and reinforces exclusionary practices due to a lack of professional capacity.

Theme 4: Inter-agency Collaboration and Data Monitoring

This theme examines how education systems coordinate across sectors and monitor learner data.

• The US and Sweden operate with strong inter-agency collaboration (education, health, and social services) and national-level data systems for planning and evaluation.
• Malaysia lacks structured collaboration and has no reliable database of deafblind learners. Thematic Implication: Without coordination and data, planning becomes reactive and fragmented, and the education system cannot track or improve outcomes effectively.

2.3 Conclusion of Thematic Analysis

These four themes highlight critical areas that Malaysia must address to enhance inclusive education for deafblind learners:

• Establishing legal recognition.
• Building structured service frameworks.
• Providing specialised teacher training.
• Developing inter-agency systems and national data monitoring.

Drawing from global models, these reforms are crucial to align Malaysia’s policy landscape with international rights-based standards such as the UNCRPD.

3. DISCUSSION

The study highlights critical policy and systemic gaps in Malaysia’s approach to deafblind education compared to developed countries. The absence of legal recognition impedes targeted service provision and resource allocation, compromising the educational rights of deafblind learners as stipulated by the UNCRPD [2].

Structural readiness in the US and Sweden exemplifies how dedicated policies, specialised institutions, and trained professionals contribute to effective inclusive education. Malaysia’s fragmented system fails to meet these benchmarks, reflecting a need for strategic reform [24], [18], [25], [26]. Teacher training deficits in Malaysia must be addressed through specialised curricula and certification aligned with international standards [1], [2]. Moreover, establishing inter-agency collaboration and data systems is essential for integrated support and policy evaluation [18], [27], [28]. The findings recommend that Malaysia develop a national policy framework incorporating legal reform, capacity building, service integration, and monitoring to advance equitable education for deafblind learners.

4. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This comparative policy demonstrates that Malaysia’s educational provision for deafblind learners is underdeveloped relative to the United States and Sweden. To fulfil its obligations under international human rights frameworks and promote inclusive education, Malaysia must:

• Legally recognise deafblindness as a distinct disability category.
• Develop a comprehensive national policy for deafblind education.
• Institutionalise specialised teacher training programmes.
• Establish dedicated resource centres and integrated service delivery.
• Implement data collection and monitoring systems for deafblind learners.

The findings from this comparative policy analysis clearly demonstrate that Malaysia’s current educational framework for deafblind learners lacks the legal, structural, and programmatic robustness observed in countries such as the United States and Sweden. While both these developed nations explicitly recognise deafblindness as a distinct disability category, Malaysia still categorises such learners under general sensory impairments or multiple disabilities. This lack of formal recognition results in policy invisibility and undermines the development of targeted educational strategies, ultimately marginalising a group that requires highly specialised support [8], [19], [11], [20], [21]. Legal recognition is not merely symbolic it serves as the foundation for rights-based service provision, resource allocation, and accountability within the education system [5].

To bridge this gap, Malaysia must first legislate the recognition of deafblindness as a specific disability under the Education Act and related policies. This legal acknowledgment would pave the way for the development of a national policy framework that focuses on the unique communication, learning, and mobility needs of deafblind learners. A comprehensive policy would define goals, strategies, and implementation mechanisms that ensure access to quality education in inclusive or specialised settings. Informed by evidence from countries like the US and Sweden, this policy should also be guided by international human rights frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [3], [4], which mandates inclusive, equitable, and lifelong learning opportunities for all [18], [25], [26].

Furthermore, teacher preparedness emerges as a significant issue. In the absence of structured training programmes in Malaysia, many educators remain ill-equipped to support deafblind learners. Unlike the US and Sweden, where teacher certification includes competencies in tactile communication, assistive technologies, and multisensory instructional approaches, Malaysia has yet to develop equivalent pathways [5], [1], [2], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Institutionalising teacher training through public universities and teacher training colleges is crucial to ensure a sustainable pipeline of educators who are knowledgeable, confident, and capable of meeting the complex needs of this learner population.

In addition, Malaysia must consider establishing dedicated resource centres and integrated service delivery models. The fragmented nature of current services often depending on individual schools or NGOs results in inequities and inconsistency across regions [22], [23]. Dedicated centres would not only provide direct support to learners but also act as hubs for professional development, curriculum adaptation, family engagement, and inter-agency collaboration [6], [7]. Integrating education, health, and social services can greatly enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of support systems, ensuring that no learner is left behind due to administrative or logistical barriers [18], [27], [28].

Lastly, the absence of reliable data on deafblind learners significantly hampers planning and policymaking. A national-level data collection and monitoring system must be established to capture accurate statistics, track educational outcomes, and evaluate policy effectiveness. Such systems are already operational in countries with advanced inclusive education models and have proven essential in guiding continuous improvement [13], [15], [16]. With these reforms—legal recognition, comprehensive policy development, teacher training, integrated service delivery, and data monitoring—Malaysia can move towards a more inclusive and equitable education system that truly upholds the rights of deafblind children, in line with global standards and the spirit of the UNCRPD.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Ministry of Education Malaysia, City University Malaysia, and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for their support in facilitating this research. Special thanks are extended to the professionals and researchers whose policy documents and scholarly works enriched the comparative analysis undertaken in this study.

Funding Information

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Contributions Statement

C: Conceptualization; M: Methodology; So: Software; Va: Validation; Fo: Formal analysis; I: Investigation; R: Resources; D: Data curation; O: Writing – original draft; E: Writing – review & editing; Vi: Visualization; Su: Supervision; P: Project administration; Fu: Funding acquisition.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

This study did not involve human participants. Therefore, informed consent was not required.

Ethical Approval

As this study was based solely on secondary data and document analysis, ethical approval was not required according to the institutional guidelines.

Data Availability

All policy documents and literature reviewed in this study are publicly available through official government websites and academic sources as referenced in the article. Additional data supporting the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1. [1] 'Standards for education of deafblind persons', World Federation of the Deafblind, 2018.
2. [2] 'At risk of exclusion from CRPD and SDGs implementation: Inequality and persons with deafblindness', World Federation of the Deafblind, 2018. https://wfdb.eu
3. [3] United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
4. [4] 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities', United Nations Treaty Series, 2006.
5. [5] S. M. Bruce, M. Marschark, and P. E. Spencer, Educating children who are deafblind: New perspectives and directions. Gallaudet University Press, 2016.
6. [6] S. N. Skarsaune, H. Hanisch, and A. Gjermestad, 'Self-Determination: What can we Learn from Persons with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities?', Scand. J. Disabil. Res., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 317- 327, Nov. 2021. doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.830
7. [7] L. Svensson, U. Andersson, and E. Nilsson, 'Support systems for learners with dual sensory loss in Sweden', Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 89-102, 2022.
8. [8] Special education policy and regulations. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education. 2022.
9. [9] G. A. Bowen, 'Document analysis as a qualitative research method', Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27-40, 2009. doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
10. [10] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
11. [11] Swedish National Agency for Education. (2020). Education Act (2010:800). Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se
12. [12] M. Rousseau, ‘Inclusive education and data systems: Making invisible learners visible’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1105–1119, 2020.
13. [13] D. Rousseau, 'Policy analysis frameworks for special education: A comparative approach', International Journal of Disability Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 180-195, 2020.
14. [14] J. Smith and L. Doe, 'Cross-national education policy research: Methods and approaches', Comparative Education Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 509-530, 2017.
15. [15] ‘Improving services, results, and quality of life for children and youth who are deafblind’. [Online]. Available: https://nationaldb.org. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2025].
16. [16] 'Improving services, results, and quality of life for children and youth who are deafblind'. [Online]. Available: https://nationaldb.org. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2025].
17. [17] M. Norani, M. Jamaluddin, and S. Ahmad, 'Teacher preparedness in special education in Malaysia: Challenges and opportunities', Malaysian Journal of Education, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 45-60, 2021.
18. [18] M. N. Norani, S. Jamaluddin, and R. Ahmad, 'Challenges and strategies in teaching students with dual sensory loss in Malaysian inclusive classrooms', International Journal of Special Education, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 45-58, 2021.
19. [19] Annual report on IDEA implementation. Washington, D.C.: Office of Special Education Programs, 2020.
20. [20] Thirty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2016. Washington, DC, 2016.
21. [21] 'Annual report on special education services', in Ministry of Education, Stockholm, 2023.
22. [22] Inclusive education for children with disabilities in Malaysia: A situational analysis. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF Malaysia, 2021.
23. [23] Children with disabilities in Malaysia: Challenges and recommendations. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF, 2021.
24. [24] S. Mitra, 'Disability and equity at school: A global perspective', Journal of Education Policy, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 215-232, 2018.
25. [25] 'Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education', UNESCO, 2020.
26. [26] UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education - All means all. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718 doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989
27. [27] Ainscow, M. (2020). Understanding and developing inclusive education systems. Routledge.
28. [28] M. Ainscow, Struggles for equity in education: The selected works of Mel Ainscow. 2020.