Inclusive Higher Education for Students with Special Educational Needs: Review of Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions

WILMER ESPARZA^1*Alejandro Ernesto Lorenzo Author¹Lilian Camaño Carballo²Israel Vinueza-Fernández³Dianet García-Pérez¹Paola Romero-Riaño²Angela Agudelo⁴

• ¹Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Bienestar Humano, Carrera de Medicina, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Ambato, Ecuador
• ²Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Bienestar Humano, Carrera de Enfermería, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Ambato, Ecuador
• ³Laboratory Center for Research on Health in Latin America (CISeAL), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador
• ⁴IDC Formation, Centre de formation Linguistique, La Roche-sur-Yon, France

Inclusive education (IE) in Higher Education (HE) has become a global priority, driven by the mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations, 2006). However, the implementation remains uneven, characterized by fragmented institutional responses and conceptual ambiguities. This article presents an international, critical narrative review of the advances and persistent challenges concerning IE for Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Students with Disabilities (SWDs). Methodology: A narrative review was conducted on international peer-reviewed literature and policy documents published mainly between 2015 and 2025. The analysis is critically structured around six dimensions: (1) conceptualizations of SEN and disability; (2) characteristics and academic trajectories of SWDs; (3) institutional and pedagogical models; (4) the use of digital and assistive technologies; (5) legislative and policy frameworks; and (6) the economic and financial costs associated with inclusion. Key Findings: The review confirms a necessary paradigm shift from the reactive Medical Model to the proactive, Rights-Based Model. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and innovative, student-centered pedagogies are crucial tools for systemic change, supported by the transformative potential of emerging technologies like AI and Virtual Reality for personalization. Despite these advances, a critical gap persists between policy and practice. Major challenges include the persistent lack of faculty readiness to implement UDL effectively, fragmented policy management, and inadequate financial models that treat inclusion as a cost rather than an investment. Conclusion and Implications: Achieving genuine equity in HE requires moving beyond minimal legal compliance toward an integrated, systemic commitment. Future research must focus on longitudinal studies measuring the impact of UDL on retention, efficacy of faculty training, and developing robust, bifurcated financial models. The ultimate success hinges on redesigning the educational environment—pedagogically, technologically, and financially—to establish diversity as the institutional norm.