Abstract
Background Thailand has formally committed to inclusive education for three decades, yet its schools continue to fall short of the transformative vision set out in the Salamanca Statement. Existing explanations attribute this gap to implementation failure insufficient resources, weak enforcement, or inadequate training. Implementation factors alone do not sufficiently explain this persistence, which also reflects a paradigm misalignment between Thailand’s welfare-oriented policy architecture and the rights-based model of disability underpinning international inclusive education norms. Methods The analysis integrates policy paradigm theory, the rights-based model of disability under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Universal Design for Learning as a combined analytical framework. Thai legal instruments enacted since 1999, together with the empirical literature on their implementation, are synthesised to trace the depth of policy change achieved and to identify the structural conditions that have constrained it. Results Legislative reform since 1999 has produced first- and second-order change new instruments, budget allocations, and support services without disturbing the single-standard logic that continues to organise curriculum, assessment, and teacher practice. Four interlocking structural conditions sustain this misalignment: a school system built around the average learner, a charity-oriented framing of disability, a standardised assessment regime, and a teacher role confined to curriculum implementation rather than learning design. The analysis proposes a theoretical mechanism, termed the “moral trap,” describing how a culturally legitimised charity ethic absorbs rights-based reform and shields the existing paradigm from structural challenge even after formal legal transformation. Conclusions Building on these findings, the article proposes a Universal Design for Learning-Based Paradigm Realignment Framework, together with a four-question diagnostic tool, as a pathway toward third-order change that is potentially compatible with, rather than disruptive of, Thailand’s existing administrative structure across curriculum, assessment, and teacher professional development one that does not require dismantling Thailand’s centralised bureaucratic structure.