2. Dominant research paradigms: Review of methodologies used
3.2. Managing LD
3.2.1. Inclusive education
In South Africa, inclusive education relates to the Bill of Rights which protects all children from discrimination, including, but not only, those with special needs. It commits us to creating access to and provision of a process of
education which is appropriate to the needs of all children, whatever their origin, background or circumstances.
(Donald et al., 1997: 20).
Whether support should be offered in an inclusive education classroom or whether children with LD are best served in a specialized education setting is still hotly contested. It is necessary at this point to raise the issue of inclusive education, particularly as it pertains to the South African education context. At the very least what I hope to do is present a critique of the current policy, with a view to influence both practice and policy (Rickard, 2004).
I mentioned Education White Paper 6 (DOE, 2001) in Chapter One. I wish to provide a brief background to the development of Education White Paper 6. Prior to the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994, and even for some time after this, learners with special educational needs tended to be placed in a separate “special education” stream. Special schools existed for learners with physical disability, cerebral palsy, blindness, hearing impairment, cognitive impairment and similar conditions. In addition to this education was segregated according to race, and therefore multiple education systems existed. In fact there were fourteen separate education departments with resources distributed disproportionately in favour of the “White” schools (Donald et al., 1997, Naicker, 1999). In terms of special education, remedial schools were scarce but did exist for White learners. Even after the advent of democracy and the rationalization of the education departments and integration in schools, remedial schools were still populated by White learners. My personal experience as a speech-language therapist in a remedial school between 1990 and 2000, particularly prior to 1994, was that when a Black learner was referred for placement I had to write lengthy reports to the provincial Department of Education14 to motivate for the placement. In so doing it was my assessment of the learner’s language and auditory perceptual skills that was vital. Justification had to be made for the placement by ascertaining that the learner was not failing to cope in mainstream because of a language difference, in other words because s/he was not being educated in his/her mother tongue, but rather because s/he had a “language learning disability.” The irony of this was that this confirmation was made based on the learner’s performance on English–
medium tests standardized on British and American children.
However with the advent of democracy and the development of a rights- based constitution and a national ethos of embracing diversity, education policy began to shift towards a more inclusive system, one which would be
14 At the time, prior to 1994, this was the Natal Department of Education; new provincial
expected to “[meet] the needs of the child as ‘normally’ and inclusively as possible, rather than the child having to be separated or excluded to suit the needs of the system” (Donald et al., 1997: 20). In 2001 Education White Paper 6 was published. This document outlines the South African National Department of Education’s plans for an inclusive education system. It outlines the proposals for developing “resource schools,” and “full-service schools” and acknowledges the changes necessary at multiple levels for inclusive education to succeed (DOE, 2001). Inclusive education, according to Green (2001:4), refers to a system that embraces “the right of learners with disabilities to belong and learn in mainstream education.”
Mainstreaming, or keeping a learner with special educational needs in a mainstream classroom, requires the necessary resources to meet the child’s special needs (Donald et al., 1997). Until such resources are in place however, a policy cannot be implemented and remains a plan or vision rather than a reality. Currently the additional support that a learner with special educational needs requires is seldom offered in mainstream, and where such learners are being mainstreamed it is the parents who are bearing the financial burden of providing support by way of facilitators, teacher aides, technology such as FM systems,15 personal computers or laptops, to enable their children to cope in the mainstream environments.
Many mainstream schools are not wheelchair accessible. Developing the requisite skills in teachers, adapting curricula, providing schools with the necessary resources, are just some of the needs identified in order to restructure schools to meet the learning needs of all learners (Green, 2001).
A further criticism of Education White Paper 6 is that reference is also made to many changes that are not quantifiable: such as changing attitudes and behaviour (DOE, 2001:16). Of further concern is the comment that there are learners who should be mainstreamed due to the level of support that they require, such as “low-intensive support,” and “moderate support”
15 Personal amplification systems that amplify only what is directed into a microphone (usually worn by the teacher) and thus allows for amplification of the teacher’s voice without amplification of all the background classroom noise. It is used both with children with hearing impairment who wear hearing aids, and for children who have normal peripheral hearing but who present with auditory processing disorder.
(DOE, 2001:21). Such comment is concerning for a number of reasons – the need for and level of support required is often difficult to measure, judgments made about who requires “less” or “more” support are at best subjective, and nowhere is there reference to consulting with the learners themselves about their needs. The reference in Education White Paper 6 to
“transitory learning difficulties” (2001:10) is equally vague as no further explanation of what is referred to here is provided. What Education White Paper 6 does differentiate is those learners who have “barriers to learning and development that are rooted in organic or medical causes” (2001:12).
From the above lengthy discussion about defining LD, it can be seen that there is growing consensus that it does indeed have an organic or neurological basis, and in fact Bigler et al., (1998) refer to the legitimacy the field gains by being ‘medicalized’. My question then is: does one have to subscribe to this understanding of LD in order to access the level of support reserved for learners with “barriers to learning and development that are rooted in organic or medical causes?” If so, are we not then in danger of being obliged to perpetuate the “pathology” model of understanding of LD?
In Chapter Five I present evidence to suggest that in fact inclusive education is not necessarily in the best interest of the learner. Research that has focused on learners’ experience of specialized versus mainstream education is not all that supportive of inclusion. Rogan and Hartman (1976, cited in Gerber & Reiff, 1991) found the “specialized schooling” was most beneficial for their participants with LD; Humphrey (2002) found that children with learning disability, which he terms dyslexia, in a mainstream environment had a lower self esteem, and more negative self concept than those who were not “dyslexic.” Teasing and bullying were also more likely to occur with these children in the mainstream. It is here, in this environment, that their differences and difficulties are most noted. Bear et al. (1998:92) raise the issue of social comparison, or the comparison of oneself to peers or others in the class:
An important implication of the social comparison process is that the self-perceptions of children with LD are likely to suffer when the children are integrated into general classrooms as a result of comparing themselves to higher achieving peers.
In addition to this, instruction aligned to the students’ ability and achievement levels is also likely to influence their self-perception (Bear et al., 1998). I believe that this instruction can best be given in a specialized environment, and by a teacher who has the necessary training and insight to adapt her instruction to the level and needs of the child. This raises questions about whether inclusive education really is in the best interests of the learners with special educational needs, questions I return to in Chapter Five.
Guterman (1995) looked at how satisfied children with learning disability were with the services provided to them and found that although the learners interviewed did not feel the special services they received were particularly beneficial, they did express a preference for specialized rather than mainstream services. This flies in the face of arguments for inclusive education, and is supported by my data, which are discussed in detail below in Chapter Five. Norwich and Kelly (2004) present findings that at first glance seem to support mainstreaming for learners with special education needs. Although they interview children with “learning disability,” this is LD as defined in the UK, in other words their sample population included learners with mild to moderate cognitive impairment, including communication problems. Those learners in special education who were interviewed were more cognitively impaired than the mainstreamed interviewees, or had multiple disabilities. Norwich and Kelly (2004) present results that suggest one in six learners in special education had positive views about mainstream and one in three had negative views. This does not, in my opinion, support their conclusion that learners in special education show a clear preference for mainstream. Another concern about the results and one that I raise in Chapter Three about my own data, is whether the participants presented their “real selves” or whether their
responses were influenced by wanting to please the researcher. This criticism can also be applied to Guterman’s (1995) research, described above.