Particularly illustrative of how resource shortages impede inclusive edu- cation are research studies by Mpofu (1999) and Chimedza (2001).
According to Chimedza (2001), parents of children with disabilities usu- ally had problems carrying their children on their backs to school daily especially when the children grew older and heavier. Mpofu (1999) found that learners with physical disabilities attended general education with- out accessibility support such as adapted desks, classroom and toilet entrances.
In addition to these challenges, accessing out-of-school activities that promote twenty-first century literacies, skills and competencies may not be easy for rural learners because of underresourced rural environments.
There may be no community halls, tuckshops, internet cafes, or sports fields for such sports as cricket, gymnastics, swimming, athletics, soccer, tennis and netball. In many cases there is an uneasy relationship between the community life and school education. Cloke, Milbourne and Widdowfield (2002) reported that poverty may be invisible when rurality is imagined as purified and unspoilt. In reality many villagers usually eke a living from subsistence farming and may fetch water for domestic use from rivers, springs and shallow wells. They may also use firewood for cooking, warming and lighting their huts after sunset. Some may have pit toilets, while others may not have any toilets at all. Many rural Zimbabwean children therefore grow up in poor homes and poor envi- ronments which impact on their learning in schools. Life at home is usu- ally in contrast to life in the village school where scientific commercial agriculture is taught from early childhood education and where water from protected sources is used and toilets are mandatory. This contradicts what Hargreaves, Kvaslund and Galton (2009) call the modern myth of the assumed closeness of the rural school-community partnership.
However, even within the rural schools, facilities for such things as men- strual hygiene may be inaccessible. Overall, the accessibility of some of the modern amenities available in the village school cannot be taken for granted for learners with physical and motor impairments.
In addition, the stability of staffing in rural schools should also not be taken for granted. There is usually a higher staff turnover in rural than urban schools. The primary factor for this has been cited as low teacher motivation and morale because of unsuccessful urban to rural transitions
by new teachers, poor social amenities, heavier workloads and general working conditions. Mafa and Chaminuka (2012) confirmed the person- nel issue when they established that there is a high teacher to pupil ratio in many rural Zimbabwean schools, which worsens the lack of resources.
Therefore, to compound the amenities challenge in rural schools, there may also be poorer attitudinal problems towards inclusive education than urban schools. Mpofu (1999) found that learners with physical disabili- ties who attended general education had lower teacher and peer social acceptance.
Many rural teachers may be young, inexperienced and therefore unable to cope with diversity. Diversity among learners calls for skilled and sensi- tive teachers who will respond to children’s special needs (Avramidis et al.
2000; Cassady 2011). Many new teachers are concerned about having to work unassisted with children with disabilities, for example, in New York (Skipper 2006), Britain (Watson and Mccathern 2009; Odom 2000), and Hong Kong (Yuen and Westwood 2002). What may be largely unre- ported however is the possible marginalisation of children migrating from urban schools to rural schools. This phenomenon is akin to what Pini, Price and McDonald (2010) found, as teachers in a rural Australian school marginalised children from non-farming backgrounds because they coupled rurality agriculture and morality. The first author experi- enced similar marginalisation by rural schoolmates upon transferring from an urban to a rural school as the rural learners coupled a rural accent with morality.
African literature confirms the decisive role of the attitudes of society generally in influencing the inclusion of learners with disabilities. For example, the prevailing negative attitudes towards disability contribute to general bewilderment about inclusion in schools in South Africa (Engelbrecht and Green 2001), in Nigeria (Okuoyibo 2006; Mba 1995) and in Kenya (Mwangi and Orodho 2014). As explained by Okeke (2010), these negative attitudes may be caused by considering as taboo, for example, having an individual with hearing impairment ascending the throne as Igwe (king) over his kinsmen. Mwangi and Orodho (2014) agree that the greatest obstacles to inclusive education are caused by soci- ety in the form of prejudices and negative attitudes towards those with disabilities.
African society’s generally negative attitudes and prejudices are also reflected in various stakeholders’ attitudes. In South Africa, a study by Engelbrecht and Green (2001) revealed that attitudes of South African teachers towards educating learners with disabilities have been put for- ward as a decisive factor for making schools more or less inclusive.
Teachers’ negative attitudes towards including learners with disabilities may result from lack of knowledge and competences in pedagogy as well as managing challenging behaviour (Mulinge 2016), both of which Mukhopadhyay (2013) explains as lack of confidence. This literature above reveals that inadequate knowledge and skills by providers of inclu- sive education was a contributing factor to negative attitudes by the pro- viders of inclusive education.
Zimbabwean studies revealed that most teachers had negative attitudes and therefore would not accept learners with disabilities in their class- rooms. For example, more than 64 percent of teachers would not accept students with intellectual disabilities in their classrooms due to negative attitudes by the teachers (Barnatt and Kabzems 1992; Mpofu 2000;
Charema 2005; Mafa 2012; Nyanga and Nyanga 2013; Deluca et al.
2014; Majoko 2016). According to Mpofu et al. (2007), the majority of studies on inclusive education in Zimbabwe have focused on the atti- tudes of school personnel towards learners with disabilities who attend ordinary schools. Such studies include Barnatt and Kabzems (1992), Hungwe (2005) and Maunganidze and Kasayira (2002). Fewer studies have considered the attitudes of the learners themselves (e.g. Mpofu 2003, Zingoni 2004) or the attitudes of families of learners with disabili- ties (e.g. Zingoni 2004). This is despite the observation that the modern Zimbabwean family is encountering many new influences which were not part of its traditional existence.
New influences which were not part of local existence result from glo- balisation. The global-local context affects inclusive education in rural areas as the rural areas haveglobalised in several ways. Pini, Carrington and Adie (2014) point out that rural areas have been profoundly reshaped as a result of globalising factors such as trade liberalisation, in-migration and use of migrant labour. In Zimbabwe, shifts in flows of labour have affected rural areas greatly. Firstly, this has resulted in absentee parents who work in more industrialised areas. These more industrialised areas
may be urban areas in the same country or even foreign countries. In many cases, working parents leave their young children in rural areas which are perceived as more affordable and secure. The resultant latch- key children may however not have enough guidance from caretakers or elderly grandparents.
Material or physical understandings of rurality may be perceived as having constraints to inclusive education due to rurality. While many such perceptions cannot be denied, it is important to note that many of them may not be accurate. This is because many of us view the material conditions in rural areas using urban-centric lenses and therefore see only deficiencies and liabilities where there may be strengths and assets. These strengths and assets are discussed as opportunities for rural inclusive edu- cation in the following section.