Assessment and Intervention Objective:

‘Strengthen the existing structures and develop new ones for early identification, assessment and intervention of learners with special needs and disabilities in every assessment centre’ (MoE, 2009 p22).

The policy has put forward positive aspects about early intervention which relate to continuous reviewing of the curriculum by the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE). The KIE will also develop training manuals, guidelines and develop assessment tests, ‘administrator’s and norms manuals’ as well as develop referral tools to conform to the recommendation after the review. It has included professional development for ‘assessment teachers’ (MoE, 2009, p22) and expressed that it shall organise mechanisms for engaging parents, professionals and other ministries in the assessment and rehabilitation procedures through joint committees, planning meetings, implementation at all levels and pooled resources. Itinerant and Vision Support teachers work closely with the Early Assessment Centre Coordinators and other agencies and staff like medical doctors and psychologists at the district level (Multi-disciplinary team) in the assessment of children said to have SEN. In addition to the Diploma in Special Education, the

99

assessors have additional training in the education of children with visual impairment (Lynch, et al., 2011). Kenya applies

‘a multidisciplinary approach which is only conducted informally since it has not been formalized’ (Kenya SNE Policy, MoE, 2009, p22).

The proposed procedure of referral and placement is unclear. In practice, the referral may be initiated by the parent or principal carer. Much depends, however, on whether the parent or carer is knowledgeable about the services available, where the assessment centres are located and whether there is a cost for the service. Consequently, the children of poor families are amongst the least likely to receive an assessment prior to school and the most likely to carry an undiagnosed impairment. For children at school, the process in principle enables teachers to make referrals based upon their experience of working with individual children. However, it is not clear how the assessments are conducted, what training teachers have received and what input they may have to the process. Nowhere in the Kenya SNE Policy document (MoE, 2009) or subsequent guidance documents, is the assessment process clarified. In the early years of a child’s schooling it can be difficult for a teacher to know individual strengths and weaknesses given that class size varies from 45 to 120 children with one teacher in class. No universal surveillance mechanism exists for children of school age. Clearly the role of teachers, school administrators and government as pointed out by Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) is important to ensure equity in assessment. One might argue that a comprehensive educational assessment should provide awareness and parents should be able to understand the importance of assessment. It should moreover provide an accurate picture of the learning difficulties and the associated tools required to comprehend, evaluate and identify key clues to a child’s learning difficulties.

In each district there exists Early Assessment Resource Centres (EARC) whose role is to identify and assess children with difficulties. Referral to these centres is not part of a systematic process of review. The Kenya Education Sector Strategies Programme (KESSP, 2005) affirms that out of a total population of 750,000 children with special needs who had reached school-going age, only 90,000 had been assessed. The Kenya SNE Policy (MoE, 2009 p21) accepts that teachers are

100

not well trained in assessment and lack the necessary facilities to assess learners with special needs and often have a limited understanding of SEN beyond physical, sensory and behavioural difficulties. Consequently, referral to these centres is haphazard, depending on local knowledge, parents’ capacity to pay or the occasional visit of an itinerant assessment teacher. It is unclear how achievement and reading tests to measure cognitive skills are conducted and communicated to the school or parent.

Mukuria and Korir (2006) claim that the assessment for SEN learners, especially those with EBD is: ‘…inadequate and fragmented’ (Mukuria and Korir, 2006 p50). Similarly, Kiarie (2006) asserts that the MoE does not seem to have developed services for students with learning difficulties or ‘mild mental retardation’ and in most cases, ‘these children fail to be recognised as having a disability’ (Ibid, 2006 p51). It is not clear from Kiarie (2006) what support is given to those who receive most of their instruction in the general curriculum but may be having considerable difficulty in learning. One of the purposes of the present research has been to illuminate teaching practices given that relatively little is known about this. With the foregoing comments from Kiarie, Mukuria and Korir one might argue that further research on the operations of the Early Assessment Resource Centres (EARCs) and their connection with the schools is much needed.

A report from the Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development in Africa (Muga, 2003), about screening disability in a community in Western Kenya using ten questions, emphasised the importance of early identification and intervention of disabilities. There is a wide disparity between the needs of persons with disabilities and provision of services in Kenya. Screening and therapeutic services for disabled children are relatively sparse and expensive. Muga (2003) attempts to highlight how assessment is done and states what action needs to be taken but the connection between the routine screening and the schools is not spelt out. It is still not clear from Muga (2003) whether the screening results are used to make inferences about the teaching of students with disabilities. Muga (2003) also asserts that almost two thirds (2/3) of the children are incorrectly placed due to lack

101

of proper assessment before they are admitted to the special schools or otherwise and only a small proportion of disabled children receive formal education. This tends to be close to the figures provided by KESSP (2005).

3.2.6 Access to Quality and Relevant Education