Potential barriers to inclusive education

Some scholars have also highlighted some potential barriers to the inclusion initiatives. These barriers are: “… those factors that lead to the inability of the system to accommodate diversity, which leads to learning breakdown or which prevents learners from accessing educational provision …” (DERSA, 2002:130-131). It may be that most of these barriers have already been highlighted in the preceding sections of this chapter. Those that are frequently highlighted include:

(a) Lack of appropriate support for both teachers and students: If proper support is not present, instructional time for students without disabilities could be compromised for those with disabilities (Mitchell, 2008).

(b) Negative attitudes towards IE: Almost every scholar who has studied teacher attitudes about IE, has concluded that these are highly influential in relation to IE (see e.g. De Boer, Pijl and Minnaert, 2011; Lambe and Bones, 2006; Salisbury, 2006; Jordan, Schwartz and McGhie-Richmond, 2009; Kniveton, 2004; Jordan et al., 2010; Unianu, 2012). Positive attitudes of teachers impact on the success in IE, while negative attitudes impact negatively in terms of achieving inclusion (Johnstone and Chapman, 2009). The term ‘attitude’ is considered to have three components: cognitive, affective and behavioural (De Boer et al., 2011; Leatherman and Niemeyer, 2005). As shall be seen in the discussion that follows, these three components are influenced by one’s habitus.

Figure 2.10: The three components of the concept ‘attitude’ (De Boer et al., 2011:334)

Attitude

Cognitive component - Beliefs and/or knowledge Affective component - Feelings

The cognitive component refers to beliefs, knowledge and views about an object or a particular issue. The affective component reflects one’s feelings about something or towards an object. On the other hand, the behavioural component is one’s tendency to act towards something in a particular way (De Boer et al., 2011).

Some people continue to look at the education of children with disabilities from an individual or medical point of view – where the child is viewed as a problem. Then, attempts are made to adjust the child to the mainstream education situation. Consequently, regular schools continue to refuse admissions of children with severe disabilities, on the premise that they cannot cope in their schools. On the other hand, IE focuses on the system as needing adaptations, and the rights of the child as the basis of intervention (Hatchell, 2009; Khan, 2011; Dettmer et al., 2005; The Health and Education Advice and Resource Team [HEART], 2013; SCF, 2002). Research suggests that attitudes may be changed gradually through training and support and also by offering newly trained teachers more concrete tools to meet diverse needs in their classrooms (HEART, 2013; Sharma and Deppeler, 2005).

(c) Lack of skilled professionals and teachers: Lack of skilled professionals and teachers has made quality service provision to children with disabilities very difficult. Hines (2001) revealed that many general education teachers feel they have not received enough training and lack the knowledge to effectively teach students with disabilities. Kotele (2000) revealed that South Africa and Lesotho are two countries that still have many limitations with regard to successful IE systems. The author pointed out lack of teaching and human resources as examples of these limitations. It is contested that teacher training can be provided, but specialised skills such as sign language and Braille need more time and constant practise. Therefore, it is reckoned that the best method to extend these technical subjects to a large number of teachers could be to include these elements in the curricula of the local teacher training programmes (Sharma and Deepler, 2005; Hatchell, 2009).

(d) Physical access and poor infrastructure: Lack of accessibility and poor infrastructure within schools have resulted in basic facilities such as toilets, some resource rooms, play-grounds, writing boards and water being inaccessible to some

students, and particularly those with disabilities. Some schools also do not have good quality, accessible educational materials for children to learn from and teachers to use. Considering the mountainous nature of Lesotho, travelling to and from school can be very difficult for children with disabilities (especially those with mobility challenges), and this can be used as an excuse for not sending such children to school (SCF, 2002; Mpya, 2007). Section 2.7.6 provides some strategies which will hopefully ameliorate accessibility and infrastructural challenges.

(e) Poverty of families of children with disabilities: It has been stressed in several sections of chapters one and two, that poverty and disability are intertwined or interwoven. Poverty cannot be divorced from hunger and the Basotho believe that hunger hampers progress in any job (Tsie e fofa ka mokota [one cannot do a proper job when hungry]). DERSA (2002) argued that learners who go to school without food usually experience emotional problems which affect their learning and development. Such learners are characterised by underperformance. Due to impoverishment, the learners usually lack proper school uniforms which means they may be humiliated by their peers – culminating in withdrawal from school (Mpya, 2007). Exclusion as a result of poverty is considered to be mainly an attitudinal problem. SCF (2002) asserted that educational programmes aimed at the poorest children may still exclude children with disabilities, with excuses about expense and lack of expertise being used. According to SCF (2002), it has been demonstrated in Mali that through awareness-raising – these attitudes can be successfully challenged.

The researcher considers that barriers to IE do not imply that it cannot work – because they can be addressed such that IE can proceed smoothly. In fact, IE can be promoted or hindered by so many factors. An extensive coverage of such factors is however beyond the scope of this research.