Rurality may be conceived of in two different ways. Halfacree (2006) and Cloke (2006) posit physical and representational understandings of rural- ity. In the physical perspective, rurality is viewed as specific locations with low population densities and which rely on natural resource economies (Cloke 2006). According to Brann-Barrett (2015) this view is limited by its reliance on an urban-rural dichotomy in which the urban is typically placed at the centre with the rural as ‘the other’. She cites Corbett and White (2014) who also point out that this ignores the interconnectedness of rural and urban spaces. For example, technological connections enable rural relationships with urban and even global spaces. On the other hand, the representational rural is the imagined which Tuters (2014) says can be
M. Musengi (*) • E. Musengi
Great Zimbabwe University, Masvingo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
used to signal deficiency and backwardness or to designate communitari- anism, nature and tradition. Pini, Carrington and Adie (2014) indicate that these imaginations of the rural often prescribe what the rural must be, while preventing it from speaking back. They argue for adopting understandings of 0 that recognise it as multifaceted, complex and fluid.
Overly deterministic and unidimensional representations of the rural are informed by Western Cartesian binary thinking which also informs the scientific determinism on which the medical model of Special Needs Education is grounded.
In Special Needs Education, the medical model relies on binaries as a way of defining and identifying human characteristics (Baglieri and Knopf 2004). Such thinking is informed by the construction of the bio- logical ideal of the ‘normal’ privileging the normal body and mind over
‘abnormality’. This gives rise to a deficit approach to education. According to Engelbrecht and Ekin (2017), a deficit approach to educating children with disabilities was rooted in the belief that their differences were not only predictive of learning difficulties, but to be expected. They point out that the legacy of separate educational provision that emphasised indi- vidual difficulties or special educational need for children with disabilities originated in countries of the North and was transferred to countries of the South. This supports Devlieger’s (1998) finding that the practice of grouping people together in a recognisable category as ‘disabled’ can be traced back to the histories and cultural contexts of specific Western soci- eties. He pointed out that a term such as ‘disability’ does not have ready equivalents even in some European languages such as French. Disability is a social construct, not an objective condition (Armstrong and Barton 1999; Trent 1994) which implies that the social context helps define dis- ability and related concepts. Chimedza (2008) cited Tugstaad and White (1995) as pointing out that anyone attempting to universalise the cate- gory ‘disability’ runs into conceptual problems, because such definitions take into account the social and cultural contexts.
The individualistic medical approach to disability is rooted in the work of sociologist Talcott Parsons and his discussion of sickness and sickness- related behaviour (Barnes 1998; Barnes and Mercer 2005). Parsons is reported to have argued that the ‘normal’ state of being in Western soci- ety is good health, and therefore sickness, and by implication any
impairments, are deviations from ‘normality’. Foucault said that medi- cine dictates what constitutes normal, thereby identifying a whole class of deviant individuals.
This institutionalisation of the norm, which Foucault called normali- sation, indicates the pervasive standards that structure and define social meaning (Feder 2013). The medical model embodies what Parsons called the ‘sick role’ which is a view of clients as patients exempt from normal social roles as they are not responsible for their condition. In this view people with disabilities are defined as pathological and in need of cure.
The International Classification of Disease ICD-10-CM (WHO 2014) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (APA 2013) provide common terminology for medicine and psychiatry respectively, and so a compara- ble taxonomy of disability was deemed necessary to systematise docu- mentation. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICDH) (WHO 1980, 2002) are documents published to accompany the ICD to document the consequences of disease and injury.
Central to the ICDH classification is the understanding that impairment denotes any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or ana- tomical structure or function, while disability is any restriction or lack (resulting from impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the man- ner or within the range considered normal for a human being. In this thinking, handicap is a disadvantage for any person resulting from impairment or disability that limits or prevents the fulfilment of a role that is normal for that person depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors. This means that disease can lead to impairment which can lead to disability which in turn can lead to handicap.
Views on difficulties in learning that are associated with the
‘impairment- to-disability-to-handicap’ process as described above have been challenged by international developments. These developments include the start of the normalisation movement in Scandinavian coun- tries (Engelbrecht and Ekin 2017). Developed by Nirje and Wolfensberger in the 1960s and 1970s, normalisation is a principle that aims for people with disabilities to experience normal patterns of everyday life. Initially interpretations of this principle resulted in the practice of deinstitution- alising learners with disabilities from special schools and integrating them into mainstream schools (Kumar 2012). Integration usually took one of
several forms which all sought to fit the child with disability into existing mainstream education. The focus of individually remediating a learner to fit into existing education was a hallmark of integrated education regard- less of whether the child was full-time in a separate special class or part- time in a special class at a mainstream school. As a result of this individual, deficit focus, integrated education was viewed as based on a medical model that tried to fix the learner to fit an unchanging and unchangeable school system. The medical model was deemed to be inadequate as it did not pay enough attention to environmental barriers to learning. The model was criticised as imperialistic and hegemonic as it sought to erase individual differences and can therefore be viewed as a force for marginalisation.
An alternative perspective which took into account environmental barriers gave rise to the social model of disability. Engelbrecht and Ekin (2017) aver that the social model emphasises the removal of all forms of institutional and physical barriers to full participation in society in order to have equal participation for all through inclusive education. Aligned to Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) bio-ecological perspective, the social model strives to understand the complexity of the influences, interactions and interrelationships between the individual learner and multiple other sys- tems that are connected to the learner. Bronfenbrenner’s perspective sug- gests that there are layers of interacting systems resulting in change, growth and development of systems and individuals within the systems (Swart and Pettipher 2011). According to Swart and Pettipher (2011), the perspective helps to remind us why the general challenges of develop- ment cannot be separated from the more specific challenges of addressing social issues and barriers to learning. They argue that it also helps to identify the protective factors that can contribute to resilience on one hand and the risk factors and barriers to learning on the other hand.
The upshot of Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) perspective is that education is grounded in a range of systems which need to be understood.
Understanding of these systems would result in proper management which fosters inclusive education. Inclusive education entails changing the school to accommodate the needs of all learners. Instead of attempt- ing to change the learners to suit the school, as is the thrust under inte- grated education, inclusive education focuses on changing the school.
The system of education changes (e.g. mainstream schools change approaches) and individuals are developed (e.g. teachers acquire addi- tional skills or improve attitudes) in order to accommodate the diversity of learners. Under the social model, therefore, there is a clear shift from focusing on changing the learners to fit existing systems.
In addition, the social model implies that inclusive education no lon- ger focuses solely on those with disabilities but on the whole range of diversities that exist in classrooms. This is because the focus is no longer just on innate inabilities but on environmental barriers to learning.
Environmental barriers to learning can be structural, physical, social or economic. Structural barriers could be buildings that are put up without considering the ability of all to access them. Physical barriers relate to natural terrain which may be difficult to negotiate. Social barriers may relate to attitudes and beliefs that are not conducive to learning. According to Prinsloo (2011), socioeconomic barriers to learning are, for instance, in the form of poverty, disintegration of family life and abuse of children or language and cultural differences. Inclusive education therefore covers the whole diversity range in the school population and how they interface with local environments. In addition, inclusive education recognises that the interface between this range of diversities and local environments does not necessarily have to result in barriers to learning. This is because more often than not the environment has assets which can be used to support learning.
It is however important to note that environmental assets are not deployed indiscriminately for all diversities as some diversities may be deemed inappropriate depending on local norms, values, beliefs, political and legal systems. This means that particular cultures and contexts deter- mine what to include or exclude by determining whether specific aspects of diversity are acceptable for support or not. As Dyson (1999) and Chimedza (2008) assert, inclusion is not a monolithic concept because the various contexts determine different constructions of the theory and practice of inclusive education. For example South Africa, which is viewed by Engelbrecht and Ekin (2017) as taking inclusive education within a wider equity agenda for all students based on a rights-based framework, is one of the few African nations which recognises homo- sexuality as a legitimate aspect of diversity. The special educational needs
of gays, lesbians and transgender learners are therefore recognised in the South African context. However, in much of the rest of Africa, including Zimbabwe, homosexuality is illegal and therefore educational program- ming cannot legitimately accommodate any needs arising without violat- ing the law. Similarly, unlike in many Western countries, polygamous marriages are legal and legitimate in many parts of Africa. In African countries, therefore, the educational needs of children from polygamous unions are legitimate aspects of diversity that need to be accommodated.
These illustrations support Engelbrecht and Ekin’s (2017) observation that there are a variety of inclusions that depend on the cultural-historical context and developmental phase of a country. Far from focusing only on disability, inclusive education now deals with diversities as generally accepted within specific societies. Generally therefore, this foregrounding of society has resulted in a global shift to the social model of diversities, disabilities and inclusive education. This social model focus resonates with Afro-centric, Ubuntu-based models of inclusivity.