55
Availability and accessibility of schools (mainstream or special needs) to serve the needs of communities in urban and rural contexts is inconsistent or varied in districts and provinces.
South African researcher and advocate for social justice, Nithi Muthukrishna has conducted sustained research in rural and urban contexts. Her individual and collaborative research projects have generated persuasive reasons for inclusive education to be enclosed in a “human rights discourse” conveyed in” Education White Paper 6: Special Education — Building an Inclusive Education and Training System” (Department of Education, 2001). In South Africa, as with most parts of the world, research pertaining to access to education covers a broad spectrum of disabilities including autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, deafness and learning (Ngcobo & Muthukrishna, 2011, p. 359).
56
As outlined (Figure 3), in 2006, all countries were called upon by “United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” (UNCRPD) to immediately effect and monitor the implementation of policies and legislation pertaining to education (Watkins, Ebersold & Lénárt, 2014). At an international level the expectation and pressure to map out such developments are very clear and justified within a human rights legislative framework.
Countries who are signatories to the “Salamanca Statement of Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and the framework of action”, are also expected to fulfill the promise to provide equal opportunity to access schooling for children with disabilities and non-disabled children.
Salamanca World Conference on Special Needs Education endorsed the idea of inclusive education (UNESCO, 1994). The “Salamanca Statement of Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and the framework of action” fundamentally presented and
underlined the intention of promoting an inclusive society (Lindsay, 2003; Ainscow, 2005).
The shift was not merely a linguistic one but possessed a vision for the global context addressing diversity, access and opportunity for all learners. The key principles contained within policy documents created by UNESCO (1994) offered an expectation and challenge to the signatories, through statements: “challenge all exclusionary policies and practices in education”; “the right of all children to a common education in their locality regardless of their background, attainment or disability”; and, “good-quality education for learners and a community-based education for all”. Explicitly, this human rights approach was a departure from ‘integration’ “embedded in the western European history of segregation of disabled people” (Vislie, 2003, p. 18) which did not meaningfully address the ideal of equal
opportunity, post 1980, as the right of disabled persons to an appropriate education gained momentum. The term ‘inclusion’, encompassing a broader vision, became a global descriptor used initially by its representative of 92 governments and 25 international organizations and gradually adopted and embraced by thewider international context as it was orientated and familiarized with core practice of inclusion.‘Support for inclusion is perhaps the strongest ever but tensions arise from different understandings of the inclusion process and from different value systems’ (Shaw, 2001, p. 2).Although many countries currently have policy
57
imperatives pertaining to inclusive education, in reality the vision of inclusive education has yet to be achieved in most countries.
There is ample legislation in placewith researched support in the UK (Clay, 2014; Lindsay, 2007; Slee & Allan, 2001), Australia (Forbes, 2007; Whitburn, 2014), Canada (Gordon, 2010;
Loreman, 2014) Netherlands (Graaf, 2002), and US (Holsinger & Jacob, 2009; Graves, 2012), that optimization of development of CWDS and improving speech and language skills is ensured by being placed within mainstream settings. The construct of wanted policy results being attached to authorised judicial trends, have contributed to design of support and services delivered to individuals with intellectual disabilities, is evidenced in some first world
countries.
Research conducted by Porter (2004), Gordon (2010), Holsinger and Jacob (2009) and Graves (2012) indicate that inclusive education is beneficial for children with DS confirming that the benefits outweigh the challenges. Canada has catalogued “more than two decades of inclusive education practice” (Gordon, 2010, p. 1) which overturned previous research done by Porter (2004) who noted that no Canadian province practiced full inclusion and an estimated 40% of learners with intellectual challenges were schooled in special needs classes or separated schools. During the same period the British Columbia regulation had no directive for full integration (Lupart & Pierce, 2003), but placed the responsibility for decision making an access and placement on School Boards. The practice was placement of learners in combined inclusive settings except when the specialised needs requirement was of such a nature that it warranted a different arrangement (Naylor, 2005)
In the United States, programs of an inclusive bias have increased exponentially (Holsinger &
Jacob, 2009), where inclusion programmes are implemented in all states, at all grade levels, involving students across the entire range of disabilities. Graves (2012) explains that Public Law 94-142 was passed in 1975, ensuring the rights of children with disabilities to a “free, appropriate, public education in the least restrictive environment” (LRE). This LRE facet is explicitly stated in law that “children with disabilities must be educated with their non- disabled peers to the maximum extent possible with necessary supports provided”. Similarly,
58
Australian policy designers are very supportive of inclusive practice, whilst aware that there are teachers who have reservations about teaching learners with a disability within their regular, mainstream classes. The Australian government endorses the choice of
mainstreaming CWD legislatively, as it too wished to adhere to international agreements of the same (Forbes, 2007).
Other studies in countries like India reflect the struggle to making inclusive education pervasive. Giffard-Lindsay, 2007 and Ainscow, 2005 found in their research in India that whilst there are issues and constraints, the reconceptualisation of inclusive education as an issue of quality is needed to benefit all children. In India disabilities are often forgotten, emphasising their invisible status. In some countries definition of disability has excluded CWDS from accessing formal education (Kliewer, 1998). Nonetheless, “their educational exclusion and right to education are now receiving more policy attention”, states (Bines and Lei, 2011, p. 420). Ashima’s (2010) study results show support for inclusive education through adaptation, with physical support structure to enhance the mobility and accessibility for children with differing physical needs by installing elevators and ensuring accessibility to the toilets. Access, in this context, is possible for children with physical challenges. Ashima (2010) surmises that “apart from these provisions and the help the children sought from their non-disabled peers, there were no good practices reported” (p. 212).
Research shows that CWD amongst many other groups of children remain outside of
enrolment to elementary schooling in developing countries (Giffard-Lindsay, 2007). Ajodhia- Andrew (2007), examined inclusive education with children with special needs in Guyana and identified four factors which were possible obstacles to executing inclusive education:
“attitudes/perceptions towards those with special needs”, “change agents”, “resources” and
“experiences with children with special needs”(p. 53). Although legislation may be in place in many countries, its implementation and monitoring of its status is neglected as shown by the body of current research.
59
I now enter the foray of access and allow Thomas and Loxley’s (2007, p. 1) argument that thinking about inclusion and inclusive education which has extended into new terrains, sometimes so overused as to lose meaning, to lead the course of the discussion.
2.9 Access: its place and spatial consideration together with legislative framework