International_Electronic_Journal_of_Elementary_Education__Vol1

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009.

Attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom: the case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria Olufemi Aremu FAKOLADE University of Ibadan, Nigeria Samuel Olufemi ADENIYI Federal College of Education, Lagos Adeyinka TELLA1 University of Botswana, Botswana Abstract

Attitudes about inclusion are extremely complex and vary from teacher to teacher and school to school. This article explores the attitudes of teachers about inclusion of special needs children in their secondary schools in general education. This study adopted a descriptive survey research design, with 60 teachers as participants from selected secondary schools in Oyo State, Nigeria. Four hypotheses were postulated at the significant level of .05. The instrument, a questionnaire with question items on demographic information like gender, marital status, professionalism and teaching experience has a general reliability coefficient alpha of .83. A t-test method of analysis was the main statistical method used to test the 4 generated hypotheses. The findings revealed that the attitude of male teachers is 39.4, while that of female teacher is 43.3, thus, the t-test analysis shows that the calculated t-test is 2.107, which is greater than the critical t (t=1.960). This implies that female teachers have more positive attitude towards the inclusion of special needs students than their male counterparts. Furthermore, the results reveal that significant difference exists between married and single teachers in their attitude towards special need students. And that professionally qualified teacher tends to have a more favourable attitude towards the inclusion of special need students than their non-professional qualified teachers. It was recommended that teachers should attend seminars and conferences to improve their knowledge about ways of practicing and accepting inclusion for a better tomorrow for our special needs children in Nigeria. Keywords: Inclusion, attitude, special needs children, general education

1 Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

156

Introduction Educational programmes for students with disabilities have traditionally been built upon the assumption that a variety of service delivery options needs to be available. Special education law, for example, stipulates that schools place students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The notion of LRE assumes that there are alternatives along a continuum of restrictiveness, with residential institutions on one end of the continuum and regular classes on the other (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1998).

The Internal Institutive of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) act for individuals with disabilities education requires that a continuum of placement options be available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The law also requires that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled and that special classes, separate schooling, or removal of children with disabilities from the regular environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be attained satisfactorily.

The past three decades have witnessed an international debate, particularly in developing countries such as Nigeria, on inclusive education. That is, the education of students with disabilities and non-disabled students in the same school and same class. The debate emanated from voices supporting and those criticizing inclusive education. The voices of those supporting inclusive education, such as Stainback and Stainback (1991), assert that inclusive education is the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving equal educational opportunities for all. Critics however have argued that inclusive schools will not adequately meet the needs of the disabled. They point out that disabled children will receive more attention and therapy in segregated schools rather than in inclusive schools. The researchers wonder if critics put into consideration the problem of stigmatization on the part of the disabled students, especially in some developing countries like Nigeria where the special needs children are yet to be accepted fully into the society. On this note, the researchers felt concerned about the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education. This motivates the conduct of this study at this particular time. It is expected that the outcome of the study will be beneficial to the stakeholders in Nigerian education to make constructive decision as regards segregated and inclusive schools in the country.

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

157

Literature review Inclusion or inclusive education can be interpreted as the philosophy and practice for educating students with disabilities in general education settings (Bryant, Smith, & Bryant, 2008; Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Rogers, 1993; Salend, 2001). The practice anchors on the notion that every child should be an equally valued member of the school culture. In other words, children with disabilities benefit from learning in a regular classroom, while their peers without disabilities gain from being exposed to children with diverse characteristics, talents and temperaments. According to (Ajuwon, 2008), supporters of inclusion use the term to refer to the commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he/she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the ancillary services to the child, and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). This is a salient aspect of inclusion, and requires a commitment to move essential resources to the child with a disability rather than placing the child in an isolated setting where services are located (Smith, 2007). For the child with a disability to benefit optimally from inclusion, it is imperative for general education teachers to be able to teach a wider array of children, including those with varying disabilities, and to collaborate and plan effectively with special educators.

Many countries (both developed and developing) have adopted and inculcated the policy of inclusion in their education policies. Nigeria for example, adopts the policy of inclusion in her National Policy on Education (1998). The policy stipulates the integration of special needs students into regular classrooms, and free education for exceptional students at all levels.

In practice however, it is only one state out of over thirty states that has actually started the implementation of the inclusive education at the primary school levels, other states of the federation in Nigeria are just starting up by creating a unit in each of the schools for their inclusive classrooms.

Studies however assert that the inclusive schools lack adequate technology equipment and incentives needed to provide special needs education in Nigeria. Studies on special education and inclusion suggest that the programs face many challenges. They demand special equipment, face inadequate specially trained teachers, lack incentives for available specially trained teachers and lack proper administration and supervision of management. These examples illustrate some of the challenges of the programme in Nigeria, thus, the researchers are interested in investigating the attitude of the teachers in the education of the special needs children in our general education.

Ajuwon (2008) also comments on the obvious benefits of the inclusive education paradigm, i.e. children are more likely to learn social skills in an environment that approximates to normal conditions of growth and

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

158

development. Children, during their formative years, develop language more effectively if they are with children who speak normally and appropriately (Mitchell & Brown, 1991). Often, it is gratifying that where school and community environments can be made physically and programmatically accessible, children and youth with physical disabilities can function more effectively than would otherwise be the case. It is also apparent that such modifications to the environment often enable others who do not have disabilities to access their environment even more readily (Ferguson, 1996). In recent years, the principle of universal design (Centre for Universal Design, 1997; Waksler, 1996) has evolved to describe physical, curricular and pedagogical changes that must be put in place to benefit people of all learning styles without adaptation or retrofitting. Failing to accommodate the environmental and accessibility needs of persons with disabilities in the society will inevitably inhibit their participation in educational, social, recreational and economic activities (Harkness & Groom, Jr., 1976; Steinfeld, Duncan, & Cardell, 1977). Therefore, architects, product designers, engineers and environmental design researchers should use their best judgment in early programming and design decisions.

However, UNESCO (1994) citing in Ajuwon (2008) emphasized that for inclusion to achieve its objectives, education practices must be child-centred. This means that teachers must find out where each of their students are academically, socially, and culturally to determine how best to facilitate learning (Gildner, 2001). A logical consequence of this realization is that these teachers will need to acquire skills in curriculum-based assessment, team teaching, mastery learning, assessing learning styles, cooperative learning strategies, facilitating peer tutoring, or social skills training. Given that children have varied learning styles or multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1991); both general and special education teachers must plan and coordinate classroom instruction to capitalize on each child’s needs, interests and aptitudes.

The decade 1970–1980 could be rightly described as the golden period for the special needs children in Nigeria because, it was in the latter half of the decade that the Federal Military Government of Nigeria released the National Policy on Education in 1977. (In this document, issues relating to inclusive education and equality were elaborated, especially as it concerns the right to education of both the special needs children and the non- disabled children).

Prior to this period, the attitude of the society, government and citizens on special needs children had been highly negative and degrading, where the disabled were thought to be incapable of contributing anything meaningful to the society. One important aspect of the individual called teacher is “attitude”. His attitude to himself, his work, his or her students and many other things depends on a number of variables which in turn influences his productivity.

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

159

“These students need more assistance than I can give them. It isn’t fair to take time away from the other students in my class who can really learn something”.

The above judgment, stated by a teacher who may either be reacting to the new inclusion policy in his school, or dealing with students in his classroom who have identified disabilities, reflects a common stance of modern educators towards this paradigm shift in educational policy. His statement conveys a strong attitude about, first, the ability level of the students with special needs in his class, and second, an attitude about what effort he is willing to make for these students as a teacher. Both of these attitudes can have an enormous impact on teaching style and make the incorporation of traditionally segregated students into general education classroom a failed endeavour from the outset.

The essence of this teacher’s views of his class is embodied in his classification of the students in the class into two groups, those who “can really learn something”, and, implicitly, “those who cannot”. This particular judgment is not original, but has been regularly iterated during the past and even present century by Nigerian teachers and administrators as a reason for denying education opportunities to the “in educable”, due perhaps to their negative attitude towards the exceptional children.

In another similar judgment, a student was denied access to a school because he was classified as “mentally retarded” and thus unable to be taught. The Nigerian teachers of that period deemed providing schooling for this particular group of people a complete waste of time, simply because the disability made it impossible for the special needs children to fit into the standard system and learn with only the methods and supports offered to the “normal” children. Thus, many similar judgments by teachers have negatively influenced the education of the special needs students; thus creating a problem in their academics.

In a study carried out by Mba (1991) on the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of hard-of-hearing students in general education classroom, it was revealed that the attitude of teachers indicated hesitancy of the teachers to accept the hard-of-hearing unless the communication barrier was obviated. Similarly, Ogbue, (1995) reported an interview conducted in Lagos State on the issue of inclusion of special need children in general education classroom. Her findings were that of the 200 regular primary school teachers interviewed, 60% of them rejected inclusion, while 35% of them would want inclusion provided they were adequately trained. The remaining 5% were undecided on the issue. Thus, many of all these negative attitudes will have an adverse effect on the education of the special needs children in Nigeria.

Malinen and Savolainen (2008), in a sample of 523 Chinese university students, administered a questionnaire to examine their attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities into regular classrooms. Factor analysis, analysis of variance, t-test and correlations were used to assess the

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

160

respondents’ general attitude towards inclusion, the factor structure of the attitudes, the relationship between demographic variables and the attitudes and the ratings of best educational environments for students with different kinds of disabilities. The analysis revealed that (a) the participants’ average attitude towards inclusion was slightly negative; (b) four factors, named as social justice, meeting the special needs of the pupils with severe disabilities, quality of education and teachers’ competence, were extracted (c) the most important background variable that explained the attitudes was the participants’ major subject in the university; and (d) the ratings for the best educational environment for a student with a disability varied according to different types and levels of disability.

Elliot (2008) examined the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of children with mild to moderate mental disabilities in physical education settings and the amount of practice attempts performed and the levels of success attained by these students compared to their peers without disabilities. The findings suggested a relationship between teacher attitude toward inclusion and teacher effectiveness. Teachers with a positive attitude toward inclusion provided all of their students with significantly more practice attempts, at a higher level of success.

Researchers have attempted to discover the factors associated with the successful inclusion of students with disabilities. The role of teachers’ attitudes has been studied. The majority of these studies in physical education have assumed that a positive attitude towards inclusion was necessary for the successful inclusion of children with disabilities into physical education (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992; Tripp & Sherrill, 1991). These studies have examined the relationship between different types of attitudes and variables such as teacher age (Rizzo, 1985; Rizzo & Wright, 1988), gender (Patrick, 1987), teaching experience (Marston & Leslie, 1983), educational preparation (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992), perceived teaching competence (Rizzo & Wright, 1988), and type and severity of student disability (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991).

Several student and teacher related variables have been significantly and consistently linked with specific teacher attitudes toward inclusion (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). Student grade level and severity of disability have been found to influence teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Specifically, students with disabilities were viewed more favourably in lower grade levels than in higher grade levels (Minner & Knutson, 1982; Rizzo, 1984), and children with less severe disabilities were viewed more favourably than those with more severe disabilities (Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1987; Tripp, 1988).

A thorough review of literature revealed that limited studies have directly investigated the teachers’ attitude towards inclusion of the special needs children in the general education particularly in the Nigerian context. Attitude research in education and physical education has grown

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

161

increasingly popular over the past twenty years (Folsom-Meek & Rizzo, 2002). This increase has been driven by the belief that the attitude of the teacher can have a direct influence on the successful inclusion of children with disabilities into regular classes (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). This investigation was a response to the need for empirical evidence regarding the teacher attitudes toward inclusion of special needs children in General education in Nigeria where there is limited or no data available on the subject matter. Basically therefore, we intend to investigate the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs students in general education classrooms, and the effects of variables such as gender, marital status, professionalism and teaching experience on their attitudes. The present study had the form of a pilot study which was the first stage of a large scale project with similar aims that addressed representative sample across Nigeria. Method The study adopts a pure descriptive approach. The sample was composed of 600 teachers who worked in general education school (regular schools) in Ibadan, Nigeria. Data on the demographic information of the study sample indicate that 73.8% were married, and 26.2% were single. The data further reveal that 74.8% of the participants were professional teachers, while 25.2% of them were not professionals. Considering teaching experience, participants with 1–9 years and 10 years and above were 50% respectively. The breakdown of the sample can be found in table 1 below: Table 1 Demographic Data (N = 600)

Variable N % Gender Male 224 37.3 Female 376 62.7 Marital Status Married 443 73.8 Single 157 26.2 Professionalism Professional Teachers 449 74.8 Non-Professional Teachers 151 25.2 Teaching Experience 1 – 9 years 300 50

10 years and above 300 50 Hypotheses Four hypotheses were postulated at the significant level of .05; they are: H01: There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special needs students in general education classrooms

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

162

H02: There is no significant difference between married and single teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special needs students in general education classrooms. H03: There is no significant difference between professional qualified and non-professional qualified teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special needs and children in general education classrooms. H04: There is no significant difference between teacher with less than 10 years of teaching experience and their counterparts with more than 10 years of teaching in their attitude towards the inclusion of special needs students in general education classrooms. Instrument Pilot interviews were carried out among a small group of Nigerian teachers, to generate items for the scale in assessing the attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classrooms. The final scale consisted of 20 items which were accompanied by four-point Likert-type self-report rating scales ranging from “positive attitude” to “negative attitude” (1 to 4). Predictor Variables Personal and job demographics: Teachers were asked to fill in a detailed biographical questionnaire with information on gender, marital status, professionalism and teaching experience, all relating to their attitudes towards inclusion of the special needs children in the general education classrooms. Procedure of Data Administration The researcher administered the instrument in each of the selected schools after obtaining their mission to do so from the school authorities. In each of the schools, respondents were gathered in a class and were administered the questionnaire. The instructions were read to the respondents as regard the filling of the questionnaire. The items in the questionnaire were properly filled and returned after the exercise. There was no case of any loss of items as return rate was 89%. Results Hypothesis One Hypothesis 1 states that, there is no significant difference between male and female teachers in their attitudes towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classrooms. The result of the hypothesis is presented on table 2 below:

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

163

Table 2 t-test Comparison of Male and Female Teachers on their Attitude towards the Inclusion of Special Need Students in General Education Classrooms

Groups N Mean SD df Cal-t T-value Male Female

224 376

39.4 43.3

5.62 7.71 598 7.09 1.98

* Significant at .05 level

The result on table 2 illustrates that the attitude of male teachers is 39.4, while that of female teachers is 43.3, the t-test analysis shows that the calculated t-test is 7.09, which is greater than the critical t (t=1.98) at .05 significant level.

Since the calculated t (2.107) is greater than the critical t (1.960) it means that the mean difference between male and female teachers is significant. And since the mean score of female teachers is higher than that of their male counterparts, it follows that the female teachers have more positive attitude towards the inclusion of special need students than their male counterparts.

It also follows that the difference in mean score is not by chance, but statistically significant. Hypothesis one is therefore rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference between male and female teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education. Hypothesis Two Hypothesis 2 states that, “there is no significant difference between married and single teacher in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classroom”.

The result of hypothesis two is presented on table 3 below: Table 3 t-test comparisons of married and single teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classrooms

Groups N Mean SD df Cal-t T-value Married Single

443 157

40.30 45.11

6.52 7.58 598 2.46 1.98

* Significant at .05 level

The result of table 3 shows the t-test analysis of the effect of marital status of teachers on their attitude towards the inclusion of need students in general education classrooms. The result indicates that the calculated t is 2.46; which when compared with the critical t (1.98) at .05 level; it was observed that, the calculated t is greater than the critical. This result implies that the calculated t is statistically significant at .05, thus, there is a significant difference between married and single teachers in their attitude towards special need students.

A further look at the table indicates that the mean score of the single (45.11) is higher than that of the married (40.30) suggesting that teachers

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

164

who are married have significantly more favourable attitude towards the inclusion of special need students when compared to the participants that are single. On the basis of this result, hypothesis two is rejected. Hypothesis Three Hypothesis three states that, “there is no significant difference between professional qualified and non-professional qualified teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classroom.

The result of hypothesis three is presented below. Table 4 t-test comparisons of professional and non-professional teachers in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classroom

Groups N Mean SD df Cal-t T-value

Professional Non-Professional

449 151

42.57 43.3

7.11 7.71

598

1.03 1.98*

* Not significant at .05 level

Table 4 shows that the mean attitude score of professional qualified teachers is 41.57, while that of the non-professional teachers is 42.09. This means that the professionally qualified teachers tend to have a more favourable attitude towards the inclusion of special need students than their non-professional qualified teachers.

The t-test analysis shows that the difference between them is not significant at .05 level, since the calculated t (1.03) is less than the critical t (1.98). The difference in the mean score therefore occurred by chance. Based on this, hypothesis three is accepted. Hence, there is no significant difference between professionally trained and non-professionally trained teachers on their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classrooms. Hypothesis Four Hypothesis four states that, “there is no significant difference between teachers with less than 10 years of teaching experience and their counterparts with more than 10 years of teaching experience in their attitudes towards the inclusion of special needs students in general education classrooms.

The result of hypothesis four is presented on table 5 below. Table 5 t-test comparison of teacher with less than 10 years of teaching experience and their counterparts with more than 10 years of teaching experience in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classrooms

Groups N Mean SD df Cal-t t-value

1 – 9 years 10 years and above

300 300

42.76 43.3

6.61 7.71

598

.92 1.98*

* Not significant at .05 level

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

165

Table 5 shows that the attitude of teachers with less than 10 years teaching experience is 42.76 while that of their counterparts with 10 years and above is 40.56. The t-test analysis shows that the t. calculated is (.92) which is less than the critical t (1.98) at .05 significant level. Since the calculated t is less than the critical t, it means that the mean difference between the teachers in terms of teaching experience is not statistically significant. It follows that the mean difference occurred by chance. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is accepted; indicating that, there is no significant difference between teachers with less than 10 years teaching experience and their counterparts with 10 years teaching experience and above, in their attitude towards the inclusion of special need students in general education classrooms. Discussion This study examined the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of children with special needs in the general education in Nigeria. The results of the various analyses on the study have revealed that female teachers have more positive attitude towards the inclusion of special needs students than their male counterparts. Furthermore, the results reveal that significant difference exists between married and single teachers in their attitude towards special need students. Professionally qualified teacher tends to have a more favourable attitude towards the inclusion of special need students than their non-professional qualified teachers. Moreover, teachers demonstrate similar attitude towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education irrespective of their years of experience.

In agreement with the findings in this study, adequate literature search has indicated negative attitude of teachers and much of this negativity results from lack of knowledge (Siegel, 1992; Houck, 1992; Philips, Allred, Brulle & Shank, 1990). There is considerable research that suggests that classroom teachers feel inadequate when children with special needs are included in a regular classroom (Monaham, Miller & Cronic, 1997). The positive attitude of female teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children demonstrated in this study may be due to the fact that females naturally have good tolerance compared to male. They are more calm and receptive than males. The reasons for the negative attitude of the male may be attributed to lack of training in special education. Generally, the findings by previous researchers that teacher’ attitudes are more likely to be favourable if they have: (a) higher perceived teaching competence, (b) greater educational preparation, and (c) more experience in teaching students with disabilities (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988; Rizzo, 1985; Marston & Leslie, 1983; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991) lend credence to the findings on this study. However, the gender difference reveal in this study contradicts earlier findings by researchers such as (Patrick, 1987; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). This contradiction may be due to the timing i.e. the interval between those studies and this present one. During the time interval, lots of changes have taking place which might account for the differences. Part of these changes is the ongoing struggle to

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

166

eradicate gender in-equality which is one of the major themes of globalization that the whole world is targeting.

The significance of special education of future teachers continues to grow along with teaching requirements beyond the traditional classroom. Thus, teachers are expected to integrate many programmes into the lives of the children they teach in order to accommodate the special needs children within the general education classrooms.

In addition, in a study carried out by Ivey (2002) general education teachers showed a significant increase in their belief that there is resistance toward inclusion. This is in agreement with the finding in this study. Also, there have been some studies (e.g. Wikzenshi, 1994; Jamieson, 1984; Berryman & Berryman, 1981) which indicated the negative attitudes of general education teachers towards inclusion based on issues of experience on the job. This is also in line with the findings of this particular study.

Moreover, literature has stressed the importance of individual variables (especially as it affects teachers of the special need children). Thus, personality traits, demographic characteristics, the ability to establish and maintain supportive social networks, and the ability to cope have all been recognized as key mediators of the stressor’s impact on the individual (a good example of teachers and the special needs children. Conclusions Inclusion agendas should be concerned with identifying all forms of exclusion and barriers to learning within national policies, cultures, educational institution and communities with a view to remove them. Also, it has implications for redirecting teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of special needs students in regular educational programmes positively. Thus, successful inclusion for special needs children in regular classrooms entails the positive attitudes of teachers through a systematic programming within the classroom.

• • •

Biographic statements

Olufemi Aremum FAKOLADE received the Ph.D. degree in Special Education from University of Ibadan in 2005. He is a lecturer in Department of Special Education University of Ibadan, Nigeria since 2003. His research interests include learning disabilities, giftedness, etc.

Samuel Olufemi ADENIYI is a lecturer in the Department of Educational Psychology, Federal College of Education Technical, Akoka, Lagos.

Adeyinka TELLA is a commonwealth doctoral student and Teaching Assistant in the Department of Library and Information Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Botswana. He has wider research areas of interest. These include assessment and testing, educational psychology, information communication technology and education, information system and management, e-learning system, psychology of information, digital divide, etc.

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

167

References Ajuwon, P. M. (2008). Inclusive education for students with disabilities in Nigeria: Benefits

and challenges and policy implications. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 11-16.

Berryman, J., & Berryman, C. (1981). Use of the attitude toward mainstreaming scale within rural geography teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA (ERIC) No. ED 201 420.

Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (2008). Teaching Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Classrooms. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Centre for Universal Design (1997). University Design. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Federal Ministry of Education. Community Accountability and Transparency Initiative. Available: http://www.fme.gov.ng/pages/cati.asp [accessed 12 December 2008].

Elliot, S. (2008). The effect of teachers’ attitude towards inclusion on the practice and success levels of children with and without disabilities in physical education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 48-55.

Ferguson, D. L. (1996). Is it inclusion yet? Bursting the bubbles in M.S. Berres, D.L. Ferguson, P. Knoblock, C. Woods (Eds.), Teachers College Press, New York, pp.16 - 37.

Ferguson, R. V. (1997). Environment design and quality of life. In R. I. Brown (Ed.): Quality of Life for People with Disabilities: Models, Research and Practice. Cheltenham. U.K.: Stanley Thornes. 251-269.

Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind. New York: Harper-Collins.

Gildner, C. (2001). Enjoy Teaching: Helpful Hints for the Classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman (1998). Exceptional children introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Press.

Harkness, S. P. & Groom Jr., J. N. (1976). Building Without Barriers for the Disabled. N.Y., N. Y.: The Architects Collaborative.

Houck, C. (1992) Special education integration, unification initiative for students with specific learning disabilities. An investigation of programme status and impact (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 786).

Jamieson, J. (1981). Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped. In R. L. Jones (Ed). Attitudes and Attitude Change in Special Education: Theory and Practice (pp. 206 – 222). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Malinen, O. P., & Savolainen, H. (2008). Inclusion in the East: Chinese Students’ Attitude towards Inclusion education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(30), 100- 109.

Marston, R., & Leslie, D. (1983). Teacher perceptions from mainstreamed vs. non- mainstreamed teaching environments. The Physical Educator, 40, 8-15.

Mba, P. O. (1991). Elements of Special Education. Ibadan: Codat Publication Nigeria.

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 3, June, 2009

168

Mitchell, D. R., & Brown R. I. (Eds.). (1991). Early Intervention Studies for Young Children with Special Needs. London: Chapman and Hall.

Monaham, R., Miller, R. & Cronic, D. (1997). Rural Teachers’ Administrators’ and Counsellors’’ Attitude towards inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 406 099).

National Policy on Education (2008). Section 7: Special Needs Education. Abuja, Nigeria.

Ogbue, R. M. (1995). Report of the Survey of special Education Facilities in Nigeria. Lagos Federal Government Press.

Patrick, G. (1987). Improving Attitudes toward Disabled Persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 316-325.

Phillips, W., Allred, K., Brulle, A., & Shank, K. (1990). REI: The will and skill of regular educators (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 320 323).

Rizzo, T. L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 1(3), 267-274.

Rizzo, T. L. (1985). Attributes related to teachers’ attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 739 742.

Rizzo, T. L. (1986). Physical educators’ attitude toward teaching the handicapped II. Unpublished survey. Available from the author, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernardino, CA. 92407-2397.

Rizzo, T. L. (1993). Physical educators’ attitude toward teaching individuals with disabilities-III. Unpublished survey. Available from the author, Department Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernardino, CA. 92407-2397.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1991). Physical educators’ attributes and attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(1), 4-11.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1992). Changing attitudes about teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9(1), 54-63.

Rizzo, T. L., & Wright, R. G. (1987). Secondary school physical educators’ attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 41, 52-55.

Rizzo, T. L., & Wright, R. G. (1988). Selected attributes related to physical educators’ attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps. Mental Retardation, 26, 307-309.

Rogers, J. (1993). The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin. No. 11. Bloomington, IN: Delta Kappan, Centre for Evaluation, Development, and Research. May.

Salend, S. J. (2001) Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices for All Students. Fifth Edition., New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Siegel, J. (1992). Regular Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards their Mainstreamed Students (ERIC Reproduction Service No. Ed 354 653).

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1991). A Commentary on Inclusion and the Development of a Positive Self-Identity by people with disabilities. Exceptional Child, 60, 486 – 490.

Smith, D. D. (2007). Introduction to Special Education: Making a Difference. 6th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Steinfeld, E., Duncan, J., & Cardell, P. (1977). Towards a responsive environment: the psychosocial effects of inaccessibility. In M. J. Bednar (Ed.), Barrier-Free Environments. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.

Tripp, A. (1988). Comparison of attitudes of regular and adapted physical educators toward disabled individuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 425-426.

Special needs children in general education … /Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tella

169

Tripp, A., & Sherrill, C. (1991). Attitude theories of relevance to adapted physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(1), 12-27.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June.

UNESCO (2008). Inclusive Education. Available: from:portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=11891&URL_DO =DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed12 December 2008].

Waksler, R. (1996). Teaching strategies for a barrier free classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(2). 99-111.

Wikzenshi, F. (1994). Use of the “Attitude toward Mainstreaming Scale with Undergraduate Education Students”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England Educational Research Organisation, Portsmouth, NH (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 332 992).

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

191 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR NIGERIA

Ayo Garuba *

ABSTRACT

The readiness for acceptance of inclusion varies across countries and continents of the world. While countries within the advanced economies have gone beyond categorical provisions to full inclusion, Nigeria and most countries of Africa, are still grappling with the problem of making provisions for children with special needs especially those with handicaps, even on mainstreaming basis.

This paper attempts to highlight and examine the concept of inclusion and the prospects it holds, for special education practice in Nigeria in the 21st century. In addition, the paper discusses the challenges of inclusion in Nigeria, while reflecting upon the ground reality in the country.

INTRODUCTION Today, if there is any concept that has gained currency in the world of special needs education, it is inclusion. A run down of major publications in the field, will reveal the volume of intellectual energy that has been (and is being) dissipated in the examination of this emerging concept. Inclusion is generating thoughts and attention world wide as a new approach in the provision of services for learners with special needs. International organisations particularly UNESCO, now see inclusive schooling as an effective approach in the education of this class of learners.

The Salamanca Declaration of 1994, provided the needed international and theoretical frames for inclusive education. In the report, the point made was that "the task of the future is to identify ways in which the school, as part of the social environment can create better learning opportunities for all children and by this means, address the challenge that the most pervasive source of learning difficulties is the school system itself (1).

The report further described inclusion "the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitude, of creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society

BRIEF REPORTS

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

192 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

and achieving education for all; moreover they provide an effective education for the majority of children" (1).

CONCEPTUAL EXPLORATION Inclusion refers to the "full-time placement of children with mild, moderate and severe disabilities in regular classrooms" (2). The inclusion movement believes that children with special needs should be placed in the regular school classroom which they would have otherwise attended, if they had been normal children. In other words, each child belongs to the regular classroom and therefore, there should be no condition imposed, to exclude him/ her from that environment.

Inclusion is a step further in mainstreaming, as it presents a means "by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals, by reconsidering and structuring its curricular organisation and provision, and allocating resources to enhance equality of opportunity. Through this process, the school builds its capacity to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to attend, and in doing so, reduces the need to exclude pupils" (3). Thus, the high point of inclusion lies in its emphasis on restructuring of the entire school programmes and practices. Here, the content, the process and the environment of the mainstream programme are restructured "in order to accommodate a much wider range of ability" (4).

For Lons Florain, "inclusion of all pupils in the mainstream schools is part of an international agenda which calls for the full inclusion of all pupils with disabilities, into all aspects of life" (5).

Inclusion is based on the assumption that:

• The original place of the child with special needs is in the regular classroom. Therefore, no condition should be allowed to remove him/her from that environment.

• All children have the right to learn and play together. Inclusion is thus a fundamental human right. For instance, the Nigerian constitution makes a provision for suitable education for all children (6).

• Denying opportunity to children to learn under the same roof with other children, is devaluing and discriminatory.

• Exclusion is inhuman and indefensible.

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVISION IN NIGERIA Two eras have been identified in the development of provision for persons with special needs in Nigeria (7). The first is the humanitarian/missionary era (1945-1970) during which, provision

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

193 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

of services was dominated by private voluntary organisations (PVOs) and private individuals. During this era, religious bodies (mostly Christian) were the driving force behind establishing and maintenance of services and programmes for children and adults with handicaps. During this era, the attitude of the Government was somehow lackadaisical, in matters concerning persons with disabilities.

The second was the social service era which saw the development of service. The country witnessed a significant contribution from the government, in terms of commitment as well as inputs and there was a relegation of the PVOs and private individuals to the background. This era which commenced immediately after the civil war that ravaged the country for three years, also saw the commencement of the system of Universal Primary Education (UPE) and the eventual take over of all schools (including special schools) established by PVOs and individuals (8). There was also the commencement of training programmes for special teachers. The following institutions were either established or commenced programmes in special education:

1. University of Ibadan started the Diploma in special education in 1974 and a Bachelor's programme in 1976 (9).

2. University of Jos started the Bachelor's programme in special education in 1977 and Master's in 1978.

3. The Federal Advanced Teachers College, Special (FATC), was established by the federal government in 1977. The college, now known as Federal College of Education, Special remains the only college of special education in the whole of black Africa.

It was also during the social service era that in 1977, the National Policy on Education (NPE) was released. The release of this policy was a significant turning point in Nigeria's special education programme.

The aims of special education as stated in the policy are as follows:

(a) to give a concrete meaning to the idea of equalising educational opportunities for all children; their physical, mental and emotional disabilities notwithstanding;

(b) to provide adequate education for all handicapped children and adults, in order that they may play their roles fully in contributing to the development of the nation;

(c) to provide opportunities for exceptionally gifted children to develop their skills at their own pace, in the interest of the nation's economic and technological development (10).

In addition, the policy also contains the following provisions that are beneficial to persons with special needs.

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

194 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

• integration of children with handicap into the mainstream of regular schools; • provision of special education for children; • setting up of a committee to coordinate special education activities, conducted by the

Federal Ministry of Education (FME) in collaboration with the Ministries of Health, Social Welfare and Labour;

• provision of special education services for the gifted and talented children; • conduct of census of persons with handicap (7). The social service era also marked the emergence of legislation that are meant to address the problems of children and adults with handicap. It was the Plateau state government that first enacted a law called 'Plateau state handicapped law' which was introduced in 1981. Among other provisions, the law stipulates that the education of children with handicap is compulsory and provides for the rehabilitation needs of adults with handicaps. The law was however, restricted to Plateau State which was just one among the then nineteen states in the country (Nigeria has thirty six states). It was in 1993, that the Federal Government enacted the first and only legislation on the handicapped. The 'Nigerians with Disability Decree' was enacted to " provide a clear and comprehensive legal protection and security for Nigerians with disability, as well as establish a standard for enhancement of the rights and privileges, guaranteed under this decree and other laws applicable to the disabled in the Federal Republic of Nigeria" (11).

IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS At the level of policy provisions, it can be said that special education has fared better. It is however a different ball game when it comes to the implementation of the policy declarations. Very little success has been seen in the actualisation of the programmes that are part of the nation's education policy. This is even acknowledged in the National Blueprint on education of the Handicapped published by the FME. According to the blueprint " success made so far in the delivery of special education in Nigeria, although minimal in terms of anticipated impact, largely due to inadequate funds" (12).

As stated in the NPE and the blueprint, a census of the handicapped was taken in 1991. However, though the census was not really targeted at the persons with handicap, since it was only during the general census that two columns were focused on this category of people, it was still a movement in the right direction. The other strategy mapped out in the implementation blueprint, stating that the Federal and State ministries of education should conduct a census of the handicapped, is yet to be done.

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

195 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

In addition to the significant progress made in the implementation of policy provisions, especially those dealing with training of personnel in special education, the federal government established an academy for the gifted and talented children. Although it is pointed out, that in practice, some of the children who are admitted in the academy are not necessarily there because they meet the screening criteria, but through the influence of higher ups in society (7); the fact still remains that the establishment of the academy is in keeping with the provision of the education policy and an attempt at touching the lives of children with special needs.

Apart from these provisions, other aspects of the policy particularly those dealing with administration, integration, provision and management of facilities and identification of children with special needs, for the purpose of enrolment for services, exists mostly on paper.

This situation has led to low enrolment of children with special needs in schools and other service outlets. For instance, enrolment of school age children with handicaps, stands at 0.42% (13), while that of their normal school going counterparts is around 67.05% (14).

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN NIGERIA It is a matter of fact, that no concrete step has been taken with regard to inclusive education in Nigeria. Even at policy level, integration remains the focus of planning special education programmes. However, professional associations concerned with the education of people with special needs, have been addressing the issue of inclusive education in the country. For instance, inclusive education was one of the major issues examined at the 12th Annual National Conference of the National Council for Exceptional Children held at Minna, Niger State, in August, 2002. In the keynote address presented at the conference, Tim Obani (one of the pioneers in special education in the country), argued, "The old special education system with its restrictive practices cannot successfully address these problems [of special needs children]. The answer lies in inclusion or inclusive schooling, in changing and recognising the entire school system to accept all children and cater to their varied 'special' or 'ordinary' learning needs and difficulties" (15).

As alluded to earlier, the education of people with special needs has received wide attention at policy level, even though it is otherwise, at the level of implementation. The following problems have been identified with special education in Nigeria.

• Inadequate plans for the identification of handicapped children, • Lack of adequate guidance services for the parents and the nature and extent of special

education facilities available for their children,

• Most special schools are located in urban centres,

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

196 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

• Begging, which is fast assuming the status of an occupation among adult persons with disabilities, as well as other adults who have children with disabilities (7).

There is also the usual problem of attitude towards persons with handicap, which in most cases is far from being favourable. For instance, the writer was a witness to an ugly incident where parents threatened to (and some actually did) withdraw their children from school, because of the presence of a child with epilepsy. The local culture is a great influence on perception of disability and the resulting attitude towards it. Parents and other family members may be ashamed of exposing their children with disabilities, as these children might 'tarnish their image', especially in African societies where the common way of explaining phenomena are unscientific. In addition, there is a poor awareness about special education and about the fact that some children with disability can also have an education.

Beyond this, the all-pervading problem of illiteracy and its management is more important and therefore, which is more often than not, it takes priority over special needs education. For instance, most intervention programmes carried out by International Agencies and International non Governmental Organisations are in the area of literacy and non Formal Education. Even the recently launched Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme of the Federal Government, laid more emphasis on basic education, especially regular primary education and literacy education. Where attention is focused on special needs education, it is mostly in the area of basic education for the nomadic groups and the girl-child. Little or no special consideration is given to the education of children with disabilities.

The question now, is that how realistic is the adoption of inclusion as a strategy, in an environment where special education has to contend with the earlier highlighted problems and several others, that have not been highlighted here.

Given the nature of the environment of special education in the country, one will have to exercise caution in the attempt to implement inclusion, especially full inclusion. Even in the United States, from where the concept originates, many special educators like Kaufman and Hallan (16) and Zigmond (17), are still sceptical about its practicability.

One has reservations on whether the general educational system designed and implemented in its present form, has the adequate ability to cater for the special learning needs of exceptional children in Nigeria today.

PROMOTING INCLUSION IN NIGERIA

Inclusion as a strategy meant to include the excluded or marginalised groups in educational programmes including schooling, holds a lot of prospects for Nigeria.

1. Inclusion enhances the attainment of the objectives of EFA. Education cannot be for all until it is received by all (7). A system that excludes some people, cannot be for all and

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

197 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

should therefore give way to one that is accommodating of all. It has been argued, "A system that serves only a minority of children while denying attention to a majority of others that equally need special assistance … need not prosper in the 21st century (15).

2. Inclusion promotes a sense of cooperation and the feeling of togetherness in the learner.

3. It promotes favourable competition among school children of different abilities, endowments and backgrounds.

4. In addition to its direct benefit on learners with special needs, inclusion allows for the resources of special education teachers to be tapped to the fullest, since they could be used as regular school teachers. It should be noted here, that special education teachers have the unique ability to teach in both the special and regular schools. Inclusion thus presents an avenue for full utilisation of the resources of all the members of the community.

5. Inclusive education provides a means of building a cooperative school community, where all are accommodated and able to participate.

6. Inclusive schooling is cost effective, as all the learners are accommodated in the same environment using virtually the same facilities. Unnecessary duplications of cost that are associated with segregated arrangements, are avoided in inclusion.

The following points can facilitate inclusion in the Nigerian setting.

1. Adequate planning which must be proactive (4) and realistic and take into consideration the peculiar and undeveloped nature of special education in Nigeria.

2. Campaigns to enlighten all the stakeholders in the education of children with special needs. This should be done in addition to aggressive awareness campaigns to reach out to parents of normal children who need to be receptive of special needs children.

3. More exposure of regular teachers to the nature and demands of special needs. Although the education policy provides for a compulsory component of Elements of Special Education for all teacher education students, there are still some teacher education institutions (especially in the universities) which are yet to implement this important policy provision. In addition to getting these institutions to implement the projects, more course units on special education should be made compulsory for all teachers-to-be, especially those going to teach at primary and secondary school levels.

4. Adults with disabilities living on the streets, need to be rehabilitated and gainfully engaged.

5. The Government needs to mobilise people to form more NGOs, to pursue the cause of people with special needs.

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

198 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

6. Professionals and other stakeholders should work towards getting the National Assembly to legislate the creation of a special fund for the education of children with special needs.

7. Though the education policy makes provision for a special education commission, this is still to be implemented. The Government should step up action towards this end.

8. Lastly, there is the need to get the machinery going towards the process of monitoring, in order to ensure effective implementation of inclusive schooling for children with special needs.

CONCLUSION Presently in Nigeria, inclusion still remains in the realm of theory and far from practice. Special needs education in Nigeria is still grappling with problems of policy implementation, an environment that is not conducive for practice and a lackadaisical attitude of the people and government. Implementing inclusion in such an environment may be unrealistic and counterproductive.

In addition, the complexity and diversity of the country requires more intensive mobilisation of resources and information dissemination before inclusion can be institutionalised. With a nation still given to unscientific modes of explaining natural phenomena and human conditions, where illiteracy still exists in significant proportion, adoption of the inclusive school system, may end up not in the best interests of the concerned individuals.

Inclusion should not and must not be considered in the absolute. The Salamanca report said as much in the following statement, “we call upon governments and urge them to adopt as a matter of law or policy, the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise” (1). As far as Nigeria is concerned, presently there are enough compelling reasons to treat implementation of inclusive education with caution. There have to be restraints, lest one ends up assisting the special needs children and they finally learn nothing. Instead, it is suggested that there be a phased implementation of inclusion. This will mean gradual implementation, commencing with the first phase which is to identify and remove all the potential and actual obstacles to the implementation of inclusive schooling. The next phase would be to establish the required infrastructure and then get on to the final phase which is the actual implementation.

*Centre for Continuing Education Federal College of Education

P.M.B. 2042, Yola Adamawa State, Nigeria

Email: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

199 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

REFERENCES

1. UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science, Spain. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on special Needs Education, adopted at the World Conference on special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, June 7-10 1994.

2. Staub D, Peck C. What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership Vol 52, No 4 36-40.

3. Sebba J, Sachdev D. What works in inclusive education. Barnardo's, Essex, 1997.

4. Westwood P. Commonsense methods for children with special needs. London, Routledge.

5. Lani F. An examination of practical problems associated with the implementation of inclusive education policies. Support for Learning. 1998: Vol. 13 (3); 147-155.

6. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Government Press, Abuja, 1999.

7. Garuba A. Basics of Special Education. Education and Management Services, Yola. 2001.

8. Fafunwa B. History of Nigerian Education. NPS Publishers, Ibadan, 1991.

9. Bakare C. Personnel Development and Production in Special Education. Education Today. 1989: Vol 2 (2); 14-20.

10. Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Policy on Education. Government Printers, Abuja, 1981.

11. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Nigerians with Disability Decree 1993. Government Printers, Abuja, 1993.

12. Nigeria, Federal Ministry of Education. Blue Print on the Education of the Handicapped in Nigeria. Government Printers, Lagos. 1990

13. Garuba A. Provision of Services for the Disabled in Nigeria. Dougirei Journal of Education 1995; 5:17-23.

14. Tahir G. Educational imbalance in Nigeria. Presented at the Education Week of the Education Students Association, Federal College of Education, Yola. 1993.

15. Obani T. Prospects of Special Education for Special Needs Children in the 21st Century. Keynote address at the 12th Annual Conference of the National Council for Exceptional Children (NCEC), Minna, Nigeria, August, 6th - 9th 2002.

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal

200 Vol. 14 No. 2 2003

16. Kaufman N, Hallan D. The Illusion of full Inclusion. Austin, T.X: Pro - Ed.1995; 59-74.

17. Zigmond N. Models for delivery of special education services to students with learning disabilities in public schools. Journal of Child Neurology, Vol. 10, (suppl. 1) S86 - S91, 1995.

PUBLICATIONS FROM SAVE THE CHILDREN

SAVE THE CHILDREN (2003) SCHOOLS FOR ALL: including disabled children in education

Aimed at education staff trying to develop inclusive education practices.

SAVE THE CHILDREN AND HAZEL JONES (2001) DISABLED CHILDRENS RIGHTS: A practical guide

Making people aware of the situation of disabled children and promoting their rights.

SAVE THE CHILDREN UK (2002) PUSHING BOUNDRIES

A collection of articles newsletter style to show staff and others how disabled children are affected by issues and encourages staff to more actively engage disabled children in their work.

SAVE THE CHILDREN UK (2003)

COMMUNITY BASED REHABILITATION TODAY: summary of the global review report and update on the current CBR position of SC UK

Available from: Save the Children, 17 Grove Lane, Camberwell, London SE 5 8 RD or Fax 020 7703 2278

URL: www.savethechildren.org.uk/development

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ragn20

Agenda Empowering women for gender equity

ISSN: 1013-0950 (Print) 2158-978X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragn20

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies

Jacqueline Moodley & Lauren Graham

To cite this article: Jacqueline Moodley & Lauren Graham (2015) The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies, Agenda, 29:2, 24-33, DOI: 10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

Published online: 14 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5581

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ragn20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragn20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ragn20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-06-14

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802#tabModule

The importance of intersectionality in

disability and gender studies

Jacqueline Moodley and Lauren Graham

abstract Investigations into the relationship between poverty and disability are limited, particularly from a South African perspective. In addition, when this relationship is addressed it is usually in isolation of other social characteristics, such as gender. As such the intersections between disability, gender, race and poverty are often overlooked – yet internationally research points to gender gaps in outcomes for people with disabilities. This briefing seeks to address this gap by reporting on a national study on poverty and disability in South Africa. We make use of the theory of intersectionality as a lens to interpret evidence from a national survey, the South African National Income Dynamics Study (South African Labour and Development Research Unit, 2014). Specifically, we assess how poverty and disability intersect to shape particular outcomes for women as compared to men with disabilities. This briefing demonstrates that in South Africa disability intersects with gender as well as age and race to result in negative outcomes in education, employment and income for all people with disabilities, but particularly black women with disabilities. Evidence is provided for what we theorise to be the case – that disability and gender intersect to compound negative outcomes for black women with disabilities.

keywords disability, gender, poverty, intersectionality, South Africa

Introduction

In the last decade the link between poverty and disability in developing nations has received increased research attention (Lustig and Strauser, 2007; Braithwaite and Mont, 2009; Barnes and Sheldon, 2010; Grech, 2011; Mitra et al, 2013). While this has been a welcome development in the literature on disability, thus far a gendered lens on the relationship has largely been missing, particu- larly in research focusing on developing coun- tries. This is despite data in developed country contexts that point to greater disad- vantages faced by women with disabilities (Emmett and Alant, 2006). In South Africa in particular reliable data on disability have been limited until recently, and analysis thereof has

largely overlooked the intersections of race, gender and disability (Emmet, 2006). On the other hand, feminist writers have under-inves- tigated the experiences of women with dis- abilities. There therefore seems to be a gap in various bodies of literature, through which women with disabilities fall.

In applying theories of intersectionality (Cho et al, 2013) to the context of poverty and disability in South Africa, it becomes evident that women with disabilities are likely to fare worse than their male counterparts. Despite this theoretical contention, and not- withstanding Emmet and Alant (2006) point- ing to the need for a gendered lens on disability and poverty research, to date no studies have taken on the task of empirically

Agenda 104/29.2 2015

ISSN 1013-0950 print/ISSN 2158-978X online # 2015 J. Moodley and L. Graham http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802 pp. 24–33

b ri e fi n g

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

assessing whether or not there are gendered gaps in the experiences of people with disab- ilities. The question then arises: Can we prove empirically that gender and disability intersect to produce poorer outcomes for women with disabilities?

In this briefing we argue that the intersec- tion between gender and disability (as well as race) can be empirically demonstrated in rela- tion to education, employment and income outcomes for people with disabilities. We do this by comparing data on these outcomes for people with and without disabilities, and for men and women with disabilities. We also show the role that race plays in shaping these outcomes. In assessing poverty in this briefing we take a multidimensional view and measure aspects of poverty including education, employment and income for both men and women with disabilities (Noble, 2006).

It must be noted that poverty outcomes are shaped by many factors including gender, race, class and, in the context of this article, type and severity of impairment. This article does not undertake to investigate all of these complexities, but rather to highlight the rela- tionship between gender, race and disability in shaping poverty outcomes. However, we do acknowledge that various other identity mar- kers, such as class, mediate these outcomes. The social and material assets that come from being middle class can, for instance, mitigate the vulnerabilities of disability. While this is acknowledged, we do not explore this further in this briefing.

We recognise that qualitative research is best placed to investigate how gendered relationships manifest and shape outcomes for men and women, including those with disabilities. Although surveys obscure such complexities, they nevertheless play a crucial role in demonstrating empirically overarching outcomes of inequality for particular groups of people. This is particularly important in contexts where such high-level empirical data have not been available or analysed with a gendered lens.

Understanding the link between

poverty and disability and the under-

investigated role of gender

“Disability may increase the risk of poverty, and poverty may increase the risk of disabil-

ity”, says the World Health Organization (WHO) (2011:10). This concomitant relation- ship between poverty and disability has received increasing attention in recent years, with research demonstrating causal links in both directions between poverty and disability (Braithwaite and Mont, 2009; Barnes and Sheldon, 2010; Grech, 2011; Groce et al, 2011). Therefore if a person has a disability they are less likely to have benefitted from formal education, and more likely to be unemployed. If employed, they will earn sig- nificantly less than their non-disabled coun- terparts (Lang and Upah, 2008; Graham et al, 2014). Similarly, poorer people have a higher risk of becoming disabled.

Can we prove empirically that gender and disability intersect to produce poorer outcomes for women with disabilities?

While this research has enhanced our understanding of the ways in which poverty and disability interact, Yeo (2005) argues that the focus on causal relationships obscures the similarities between the processes of margin- alisation experienced by people living with a disability and poor people. She therefore argues that disability and poverty are often manifestations of the same processes.

Theories of intersectionality provide a lens to better understand the mutual processes of marginalisation and exclusion that pertain to poverty and disability. Originating in the fem- inist writings of Crenshaw (1991), intersec- tionality as an analytical tool allows us to acknowledge the multiple identities of an individual and how these result in various experiences of disadvantage or advantage. Intersectionality lends itself to understanding qualitatively different experiences of margin- alisation based on the multiple identities that people hold (Symington, 2004). While the focus is on the different experiences, inter- sectionality can also be used to understand the compounding effects of multiple identities (Emmet and Alant, 2006). In this briefing we use intersectionality to demonstrate the latter.

When considering the effects of poverty and disability there are clear indications of how one compounds the other. Research demonstrates, for instance, that both poverty and disability can result in reduced education levels. Emmett (2006:230) explains that

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 25

b rie

fin g

schools (whether special or mainstream) “often do not make sufficient provision for the special educational needs of children with disabilities”. In essence early-onset disability may result in limited education. In addition, late-onset disability in the face of a poor education due to poverty means that when an individual incurs impairment, they also do not have education assets to convert into productive capacity. Groce and colleagues (2011) identify lack of education as a contrib- uting factor to poverty amongst people with disabilities. Equally poverty has an adverse impact on education (Mitra et al, 2011).

Davaki and colleagues (2013) use inter- sectionality to show that the interaction of gender, disability, race and poverty restrict women’s access to education, resulting in later exclusion from employment. Mizunoya and Mitra (2013) note that employment rates among people with disabilities were lower than for non-disabled people in eight develop- ing countries. But poverty also plays a role in these outcomes. Loeb et al (2008) found that in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, where unemployment is generally high, there was a negligible difference in employment rates among disabled and non-disabled working- age people. However, in the Western Cape, where the economy is stronger, there were significant differences with the employment rate among non-disabled working-age adults being double that of those with disabilities. Clearly therefore poverty and disability have compounding effects due to processes of marginalisation arising from both identities.

However, very little research in developing contexts has demonstrated similar intersec- tional effects of disability, poverty and gender (amongst other identity markers) (Emmet and Alant, 2006). Drawing on data from developed country contexts (Elwan, 1999; Jans and Stoddard, 1999), Emmet and Alant (2006) note that women with disabilities fare worse on employment rates and income when they are employed. Similarly, women with disabilities fare worse than their male counterparts on education outcomes and access to social assistance. In developing countries data are largely anecdotal, but do point to the instances where girls with disab- ilities receive less health and education atten- tion and inadequate nutrition (Emmet and Alant, 2006).

The abuse of women with disabilities has also received some attention in research

(Mays, 2006; Smith, 2008). Naidu and collea- gues (2005) indicate how African-American women with disabilities experience what is known as the triple jeopardy syndrome of oppression based on their gender, race and disability. In addition, they describe African women, who make up the greatest proportion of people with disabilities in South Africa, as the most marginalised group in society. Yet strong empirical evidence of the ways in which gender, poverty, race and disability intersect to compound negative outcomes in South Africa has thus far been absent.

With this in mind, we present data that demonstrate the compounding effects of gen- der, race and disability in three areas – education, employment and income. While we consider poverty to be multidimensional, these three variables are key indicators of a person’s level of human and financial capital and therefore provide a good indication of poverty outcomes.

Methodology

Research design This article draws on the secondary data analysis of Wave 2 (2011) data from the National Income Dynamic Study (NIDS) (South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU), 2014). According to Leib- brandt, Woolard and De Villiers (2009), sam- pling for NIDS involved a stratified, two-stage cluster sample design. The target population for NIDS was private households as well as respondents living in workers’ hostels, con- vents and monasteries. Wave 2 of the NIDS data included 16 898 adults in the survey. The data are representative at national level.

The adult questionnaire included a number of questions on activities of daily living that could be used to determine whether an indi- vidual had an impairment. These included questions related to lower- and upper-body mobility, sight, hearing, and self-care. The self- reported answers were used as an operational proxy for persons with disabilities and reflected the respondents’ own self-reported indication of experiences of difficulties in activities of daily living (i.e. in the relationship between an impairment and their environment).

While self-reporting of difficulties is a reliable way of questioning people about individual difficulties, there was no medical assessment of levels of vision, hearing and

26 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

mobility (WHO, 2011). In order to assess differences in education, income and employ- ment between respondents with disabilities and those without, as well as between males and females, two forms of analysis were conducted. First, analysis of measures of central tendency, such as the mean or median for people with disabilities and those without, and men and women were conducted. Sec- ond, where differences were found, linear or logistic multiple regression was conducted to identify which factors contributed most strongly to the differences.

The questions in the NIDS data allowed assessment of mobility, sight and hearing impairments, but did not allow for a reliable assessment of psychosocial, emotional and intellectual difficulties. The study therefore used a narrow categorisation of disability.

Results

Prevalence of disability The data indicated that 14% of the sample experienced disabilities. In line with interna- tional experience, the average age for people with disabilities was 49 years, compared to 35 years for people without a disability. This is due to the fact that experience of impair- ment increases with age due to onset of chronic ailments such as arthritis. Further- more, 67% of people with disabilities were female and 33% were male. This is probably explained by the fact that women tend to be more likely to report difficulties than men (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012).

The 2011 South African Census indicated that the demographic population of 51.7 million people comprised 79.2% black Afri- cans, 8.9% Whites, 8.9% Coloureds1 and 2.5% Indians/Asians. In terms of race, 83% of people with disabilities in the NIDS were black, reflecting this general population breakdown. People with disabilities were more likely to live in larger households and

were more likely than those without disabilit- ies to be married or living with a partner. Like those without disabilities, adults with disabil- ities were likely to have around two children living with them.

Education In terms of education, people with disabilities had an average of 2.5 years less education than non-disabled people (p<0.05). Further- more, women with disabilities acquired the lowest levels of education, as seen in Table 1.

When schooling categories are compared, it is clear that more people with disabilities, and specifically more women with disabilities, did not attend school. In addition, Figure 1 shows that fewer people with disabilities were accessing and completing secondary school education. Overall, even fewer num- bers of people with disabilities indicated hav- ing accessed tertiary education. This clearly demonstrates that overall people with disabil- ities fare worse on educational attainment than their non-disabled counterparts. Men with disabilities fare worse than women with- out disabilities. Further, women with disabilit- ies are at a greater disadvantage than men with disabilities.

Regression analysis revealed that while age and disability had an impact on the level of educational attainment, race was in fact the largest contributor to lower levels of education, as might be expected given South Africa’s apartheid education policies. White individuals had on average 5.7 years more education than Black individuals, while Asian/Indian indivi- duals had an average of 2.4 years more educa- tion than Black individuals. On average, Coloured individuals had only 0.5 more years of education than Black individuals.

Gender was not a significant contributor to education levels. Thus, while gender and disability intersect to produce particular out- comes, it is important to note that other aspects of identity, including age and race, must also be considered. Race particularly

Table 1: Educational attainment (mean) by disability status and gender, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=764) Female (n=1546) Male (n=6225) Female (n=8363)

6.1 5.7 8.5 8.2

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 27

b rie

fin g

destabilises the poverty-disability nexus in South Africa, as is seen in Table 2, which highlights (for example) that White women with disabilities attain more years of educa- tion than Black men without disabilities.

Employment The second major outcome to consider is employment. Table 3 demonstrates that peo- ple with disabilities are significantly less likely to be employed. They are also less likely to be unemployed. This is because they are far more likely not to be economically active. As can be expected, race interacts to shape these outcomes. As an example, the advantages of being White in South Africa counteract the negative effects of gender and disability in the labour market. A White woman with a

disability is as likely to be employed as a Black man without a disability.2

A logistic regression shows that Africans have much lower odds than Blacks, Asian/ Indians and Whites to be employed. Black people with disabilities face a double exclu- sion and Black women with disabilities fare the worst in terms of labour market out- comes. While for some people with disabilit- ies impairments may be so severe as to limit ability to work, most people with disabilities are likely to be able to work but face difficult- ies associated with the workplace environ- ment and attitudes. Therefore while some of the explanation for low levels of labour market participation are likely to be linked to the experience of disability, other factors such as labour market disillusionment are also prob- ably a significant contributor.

9.9

21.4

50.6

16.5

1.6

27.8 26.1

32.7

12.8

0.7

13.5

20.0

48.4

16.6

1.6

30.8 28.6 30.8

9.2

0.7 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

No schooling Primary school completed

Some secondary schooling

Secondary school completed

Ter�ary educa�on

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 1. Categories of education by disability status and gender, NIDS Wave 2.

Table 2: Educational attainments (mean) by race and disability status, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male Female Male Female

Black (n=13 998) 5.9 5.5 8.3 8 Coloured (n=2119) 5.8 6.2 8.5 8.2 Indian/Asian (n=175) 8 7.7 10.5 10 White (n=464) 10.8 10.8 12.2 11.8

28 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

The table also demonstrates the gender inequalities that exist within the labour mar- ket. Men with disabilities are slightly more likely than women without disabilities to be employed. Women with and without disabilit- ies are more likely than their male counter- parts to be unemployed or not economically active. Household care responsibilities and gendered attitudes regarding employment are likely to explain these differences. Clearly therefore both disability and gender intersect to produce particularly negative employment outcomes for women with disabilities.

Income In this research Income is measured both by income earned from employment as well as from social grants. The data were interpreted in terms of the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) indices (Foster et al, 2010), which provide a lower-bound (below ZAR 502) and upper- bound (above ZAR 924) poverty line. The FGT index determines the extent of absolute poverty that individuals experience, providing a lower and upper poverty line determined by

the minimum monthly income required to meet basic needs. While an absolute measure of poverty has limitations, it is useful in providing a clear basis upon which to com- pare how different groups fare and to assess whether progress in poverty levels is being made over time.

In terms of earnings from work, non- disabled people earned a median monthly income of ZAR 1643 compared to ZAR 1189 for people with disabilities. When the median income is assessed by gender in Table 4, it is clear that women with disabilities again fare worse that the other groups, and are the lowest earners in terms of income from work.

It was clear that people with disabilities benefit a great deal from social grants, as is demonstrated in Table 4 when all grants are included in the income calculation. Further analysis demonstrates the poverty-alleviating effects of grants, particularly for women.

As is demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, when combining income from employment and the Disability Grant, the majority of respondents fall below the lower bound of the poverty line. Women (both with and

Table 3: Employment status by disability status and gender for people aged between 15 and 59 years, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=533)

Female (n=962)

Total (n=1495)

Male (n=5638)

Female (n=7372)

Total (n=

13 010)

Not economically active

56.5% 63.1% 60.7% 45.7% 54.6% 50.7%

Unemployed 11.8% 13.1% 12.6% 15.3% 17.3% 16.4% Employed 31.7% 23.8% 26.6% 39.0% 28.1% 32.8%

Table 4: Monthly median income from employment, and employment and social grants by disability status and gender.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=764)

Female (n=1546)

Male (n=6225)

Female (n=8363)

Median income from employment

ZAR 1639 ZAR 986 ZAR 1829 ZAR 1367

Median income from employment and social grants

ZAR 987 ZAR 986 ZAR 1370 ZAR 924

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 29

b rie

fin g

without disabilities) make up the largest per- centage of people to earn less than ZAR 502 per month. In addition, the percentage of women with disabilities earning more than ZAR 924 per month was very low when compared to men with disabilities and non- disabled people.

When all social grant income is taken into consideration, it is clear that all people bene- fit, but that women with disabilities benefit most. The percentage of women with disab- ilities who are pushed above the upper bound of the poverty line is 36.8%. The social grants therefore play a huge role in poverty alleviation for all.

While some of the significant differences in income can be attributed to disability and

gender, regression analysis showed that a further determinant of earnings (both from work and social grants) is race, with White, Coloured and Indian/Asian individuals earning ZAR 4563, ZAR 422 and ZAR 1238 respect- ively more than Black individuals. Interest- ingly, with regard to median income from employment and social grants, white women with disabilities were found to earn a median of ZAR 294 less than black men without disabilities. In addition, black non-disabled women earned a median income of ZAR 71 less than black women with disabilities, once again highlighting the poverty alleviation effects of social grants for women with disabilities. These findings further demon- strate the complexities of intersectionality.

65.9

4.8

29.3

70.9

4.1

25.0

77.0

4.9

18.0

83.6

3.8 12.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Below ZAR 502 Between ZAR 502 and ZAR 924

More than ZAR 924

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 2. FGT levels of income from work and the Disability Grant by gender and disability status.

59.2

5.6

35.2 44.8

5.5

49.7

59.9

9.7

30.4

42.1

8.5

49.4

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Below ZAR 502 Between ZAR 502 and ZAR 924

More than ZAR 924

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 3. FGT levels of income from work and all grants by gender and disability status.

30 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

Discussion and conclusion

The above data demonstrate empirically what has been argued theoretically – that disability and gender intersect to create negative out- comes for people with disabilities, for women and particularly for black women with disab- ilities. Women with disabilities on average have the lowest levels of education, are the most likely to be economically inactive and earn the lowest median income. However, race destabilises this relationship and high- lights how black men without disabilities still fare worse than white women with disabilities with regard to education and employment.

In addition, women with disabilities face key constraints in terms of their gender, particularly with regard to labour market par- ticipation and income. These include being primarily responsible for household care, thus limiting participation in the labour market, and pay inequalities within the labour market. In addition, their disability serves to compound their experience, creating further barriers. Low levels of employment of people with disabilit- ies means that those with disabilities are likely to experience increased disillusionment in the labour market, leading to greater likeliness of opting out of the labour market. Other burdens such as travel costs for work seeking for people with disabilities may contribute to limited labour market participation. As a res- ult, women with disabilities have compounded barriers to accessing the labour market. When they do so they are likely to earn less, demon- strating the many ways in which disability and poverty compound one another.

In the face of this situation social grants evidently play a key role in poverty alleviation, particularly for women and women with dis- abilities. Social grants, as shown in this brief- ing, are seen as instrumental in lifting women with disabilities above the upper bound of the poverty line and affording them a minimum daily standard of living. However, grants are limited in their transformative effects, parti- cularly in the face of additional costs that people with disabilities may face, including health and transport costs.

While other identity markers have not been considered in this briefing in any depth, the data allude to the fact that in South Africa race is still the strongest predictor of earn- ings, education and employment and inter- sects with gender and disability to generate

negative outcomes. The data presented in this briefing show empirically that white women with disabilities fare better than black non- disabled men, which challenges common conclusions about the relationship between poverty and disability solely.

These findings highlight the importance of intersectionality when analysing such rela- tionships. They also show that black women with disabilities are the worst affected, as they face a triple burden of the legacy of inequalities in race, gender and disabilities.

in South Africa race is still the strongest predictor of earnings, education and employment and intersects with gender and disability to generate negative outcomes

What is clear throughout this briefing is that there are complexities in the intersection- ality between gender, race, poverty and dis- ability. While some policies exist to address disability, gender and race, the results show that black women with disabilities are not benefitting optimally from these. These wo- men with disabilities therefore need to be identified as a group requiring specific inter- ventions so that inequalities based on their identities are addressed successfully.

Notes

1. In South Africa the term ‘Coloured’ is an ethnic label for people of mixed ethnic origin. The gov- ernment requires all organisations to report on the number of people registered in terms of the four official race categories so that it can monitor transformation.

2. Data need to be interpreted with caution due to high non-response error.

References

Barnes C and Sheldon A (2010) ‘Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context’, In Disability and Society 25, 7, 771–782. doi:10.1080/ 09687599.2010.520889.

Braithwaite J and Mont D (2009) ‘Disability and poverty: A survey of World Bank poverty assess- ments and implications’, in ALTER - European Journal of Disability Research / Revue Européenne de Recherche Sur Le Handicap 3, 3, 219–232. doi:10.1016/j.alter.2008.10.002.

Cho S, Crenshaw KW and McCall L (2013) ‘Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applica- tions and praxis’, in Signs 38, 4, 785–810.

Crenshaw K (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersection- ality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, in Stanford Law Review 43, 6.

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 31

b rie

fin g

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2010.520889

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2008.10.002

Davaki K, Marzo C, Narminio E and Arvanitidou M (2013) Discrimination generated by the intersec- tion of gender and disability, Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament: Policy Department C – Citi- zens Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

Elwan A (1999) Poverty and disability: a survey of the literature. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Emmett T (2006) ‘Disability, poverty, gender and race’, in Brian Watermeyer, Leslie Swartz, Theresa Lor- enzo, Marguerite Schneider and Mark Priestley (eds) Disability and Social Change: A South African Perspective, Cape Town: HSRC Press, p. 207–233.

Emmett T and Alant E (2006) ‘Women and disability: Exploring the interface of multiple disadvantage’, Development Southern Africa 23, 4, 445–460. doi:10.1080/03768350600927144.

Foster J, Greer J and Thorbecke E (2010) ‘The Foster– Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later’, in Journal of Economic Inequality 8, 4, 491–524. doi:10.1007/s10888-010-9136-1

Graham L, Moodley J, Ismail Z, Munsaka E, Ross E and Schneider M (2014) Poverty and Disability in South Africa: A National Study, Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Grech S (2011) ‘Poverty and disability’, in Disability and Society 26, 7, 888–891. doi:10.1080/096875 99.2011.618747.

Groce N, Kett M, Lang R and Trani J (2011) ‘Disability and poverty: The need for a more nuanced under- standing of implications for development policy and practice’, in Third World Quarterly, available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1306106/.

Jans L and Stoddard S (1999) Chartbook on women and disability in the United States. An InfoUse Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Edu- cation, National Institute on Disability and Rehab- ilitation Research.

Lang R and Upah L (2008) Scoping Study: Disability Issues in Nigeria. Commissioned by DFID. United Kingdom: DFID. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ lc-ccr/downloads/scopingstudies/dfid_nigeriareport.

Leibbrandt M, Woolard I and De Villiers L (2009) Methodology: Report on NIDS Wave 1. National Income Dynamics Study, Cape Town: Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.

Loeb M, Eide AH, Jelsma J, Ka Toni M and Maart S (2008) ‘Poverty and disability in Eastern and West- ern Cape provinces, South Africa’, in Disability & Society 23, 4, 311–321. doi:10.1080/096875908 02038803

Lustig D and Strauser D (2007) ‘Causal relationships between poverty and disability’, in Rehabilitation

Counseling Bulletin 50, 4, 194–202. doi:10.1177/ 00343552070500040101.

Mays J (2006) ‘Feminist disability theory: Domestic violence against women with a disability’, in Dis- ability and Society 21, 2, 147–58. doi:10.1080/ 09687590500498077.

Mitra S, Posarac A and Vick BC (2011) Disability and poverty in developing countries: A snapshot from the World Health Survey, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1908128, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abs tract=1908128

Mitra S, Posarac A and Vick B (2013) ‘Disability and poverty in developing countries: A multidimen- sional study’, in World Development 41 (January), 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024.

Mizunoya S and Mitra S (2013) ‘Is there a disability gap in employment rates in developing countries?’, in World Development 42, 28–43. doi:10.1016/j. worlddev.2012.05.037

Naidu E, Haffejee S, Vetten L and Hargreaves S (2005) On the margins: Violence against women with disabilities, Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Noble M (2006) The provincial indices of multiple deprivation for South Africa 2001, Oxford: Centre for the Analysis of South Africa Social Policy, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment (OECD) (2012) ‘Self-reported health and disability’, in Health at a Glance: Europe 2012, OECD Publishing.

Smith D (2008) ‘Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System’, in Sexuality and Dis- ability 26, 1, 15–28. doi:10.1007/s11195-007- 9064-6.

South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) (2014) National Income Dynamics Study 2010–2011, Wave 2 [dataset], Version 2.2, Cape Town: SALDRU [producer], DataFirst [distributor].

Symington A (2004) ‘Intersectionality: a tool for gender and economic justice’, in Women’s Rights and Economic Change, 9 (August), 1–8.

World Health Organization (2011) World Report on Disability, Geneva: World Health Organization Press.

Yeo R (2005) Disability, poverty and the new develop- ment agenda, Research report prepared for the KaR Programme, available at: http://www.disabilitykar. net, site accessed June 1, 2008.

32 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03768350600927144

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10888-010-9136-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.618747

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1306106/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/downloads/scopingstudies/dfid_nigeriareport

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590802038803

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00343552070500040101

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590500498077

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1908128

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.037

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11195-007-9064-6

http://www.disabilitykar.net

JACQUELINE MOODLEY is a researcher at the Centre for Social Develop- ment at the University of Johannesburg, and is a trained research psycho- logist. Jacqueline has worked on a study on poverty and disability in Johannesburg, as well as the National Study on Poverty and Disability. Her other research interests include mental illness and resilience amongst women. Email: [email protected]

LAUREN GRAHAM is a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Develop- ment in Africa at the University of Johannesburg. She is trained as a development sociologist. She has a keen interest in disability studies, and was the lead researcher on the National Study on Poverty and Disability that the CSDA recently concluded with funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. She also retains an interest in youth studies, including a focus on youth employability. She completed her doctorate on young people’s negotiation of risk in their everyday identity work in 2012. Email: [email protected]

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 33

b rie

fin g

mailto:[email protected]

Abstract
Introduction
Understanding the link between poverty and disability and the under-investigated role of gender
Methodology

Research design

Results

Prevalence of disability
Education
Employment
Income

Discussion and conclusion
Notes
References

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was

prepared by EnCompass LLC with contributions from Amy Mulcahy-Dunn, Anna Martin, Daniel Mont, Emma Venetis,

Sarah Rotich, and Thomaz Alvares de Azevedo for the Data and Evidence for Education Programs (DEEP) activity,

Contract No. GS-10F-0245M. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or

the United States Government.

ARE WE FULFILLING OUR PROMISES?

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-

SAHARAN AFRICA DATA AND EVIDENCE FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS

(DEEP) PROJECT

September 2020

PHOTO | WORLD BANK/DEEPTI SAMANT RAJA

i | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................................... II

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. III

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

SECTION 1: INCLUSIVE VERSUS SEGREGATED VERSUS INTEGRATED EDUCATION 3

SECTION 2: GOVERNMENT PRIORITY ......................................................................................... 5 2.1: Inclusive Education Policies .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2: Financing Inclusive Education ..................................................................................................................... 10

SECTION 3: SCHOOL ACCESS ..................................................................................................... 12 3.1: Participation in School ................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2: Barriers to Enrollment ................................................................................................................................. 16

3.3: School Completion ....................................................................................................................................... 17

3.4: Barriers to Retention ................................................................................................................................... 18

SECTION 4: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 19 4.1: Accessibility of Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 19

4.2: Bullying and Violence ................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3: Instructional Accommodation and Teacher Training ........................................................................... 21

SECTION 5: USAID INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT DISABILITY PROGRAMMING IN SUB-

SAHARAN AFRICA ............................................................................................................................ 23

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 27

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 28

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Country approaches to education for learners with disabilities............................................... 3

Exhibit 2: Educational provisions seen around the world for learners with disabilities ........................ 4

Exhibit 3: Inclusive education policies in Sub-Saharan Africa ....................................................................... 9

Exhibit 4: Proportion of 15- to 29-year-olds who have ever attended school, by disability status

and sex .................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 5: Out-of-school rate for primary and lower secondary school-age children, by disability

status (%) ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Exhibit 6: School completion rate for primary school-age children, by disability status and sex ...... 18

Exhibit 7: USAID programs with inclusive education initiatives ................................................................ 24

Exhibit 8: USAID support of inclusive education initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa ............................... 26

ii | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS USAID would like to acknowledge and thank the contributions of all who made this report possible:

• Mitch Loeb for his review and contributions to this report.

• Joshua Josa and Kathy Guernsey (USAID), Charlotte Vuyiswa McClain-Nhlao, Ruchi Khulbir,

Singh, and Deepti Samant Raja (World Bank), Thomas Sabella (Inclusive Education and ECCE),

Aliou Tall (USAID/Liberia), Iris L. Young and Mohamed Traore (USAID/Mali), Ezra Simon

(USAID/Senegal), Melissa Chipili (USAID/Uganda), Andrea Barbosa (USAID/Zambia), for their

review of this report

• Kakali Banik for making this study possible and for all her guidance and support throughout this

process

iii | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

DEEP Data and Evidence for Education Programs

DHS Demographic and Health Surveys

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EMIS Education Management Information System

IDA International Disability Alliance

LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study

MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

1 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

INTRODUCTION Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 calls for ensuring inclusive and equitable quality

education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities—a key element in achieving

the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030 and the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) Journey to Self-Reliance. SDG 4.1 goes on to call

for all girls and boys to complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary

education that leads to relevant and effective learning outcomes by 2030. Two targets

explicitly mention disability:

• Target 4.5 aims to ensure access to all levels of education and vocational training

• Target 4.a calls for building and upgrading all education facilities that are sensitive

to persons with disabilities and providing inclusive learning environments for all

children (United Nations 2018)

Education, a fundamental human right, is essential to individual development and

effective participation in society. Therefore, education must be accessible to every

single child. Numerous conventions and frameworks declare that everyone has a right

to education and that education is an integral part of universal human rights: the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the UNESCO Convention Against

Discrimination in Education (1960), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of

the Child (UNCRC 1989), the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on

Special Needs Education (1994), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (CRPD 2006), and the Incheon Declaration adopted at the World

Education Forum (2015) (United Nations 2018). The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa (The African Union Commission

2018), in particular Article 16, gives children with disabilities and their families an important regional

legal tool to ensure their right to inclusive education against states which fail to fulfill the obligation of

this right (Dubin 2019). The SDGs use the momentum generated by these and many other documents

to ensure measures are taken to achieve the full inclusion of all children, including children with

disabilities, in schools across the world.

In this report, disability is defined as a functional difficulty (i.e., difficulty doing basic activities linked to an

impairment or health condition) that, due to environmental barriers, may exclude someone from full

participation in society.

According to the United Nations’ Flagship Report on Disability and Development, Realization of the

Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with Persons with Disabilities, there is an urgent need to improve

access to education for persons with disabilities so they can acquire the skills and knowledge required

for full inclusion in society and active participation in the labor market. Otherwise, existing educational

disadvantages are likely to lead to even higher exposure to social exclusion and poverty. Among adults

with disabilities, each additional year of schooling they completed reduces the probability that they will

be in the poorest two quintiles by 2–5 percent (UNESCO 2015). It is evident that increasing access to

high-quality, equitable education based on principles of universal design for learning is a key element in

ending this cycle (United Nations 2018).

2 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Although 42 percent of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be pursuing inclusive

education policies,1,2 children with disabilities still face significant barriers to access and complete

education—barriers that differ for each child depending on their disability (UNESCO, 2020). For

example, building ramps can help many learners physically enter the school but does nothing to improve

access for learners who are blind or deaf, or have intellectual disabilities.

Evidence shows that children with disabilities are less likely to attend school. Even when they are able to

enroll in school, other challenges in the design of the education system create barriers for learners with

disabilities and make it less likely for them, on average, to complete levels of education comparable to

their peers without disabilities (UNESCO 2018a). Barriers to the successful completion of school

include lack of government prioritization of inclusive education in strategies and policies; lack of

knowledge/resources for parents/caregivers to support their children in schooling; the prejudices,

discrimination, and attitudes that many still hold against children and adults with disabilities; a lack of

qualified teachers, principals, and pedagogic supervisors, to accommodate the needs of learners with

disabilities;3 poor accessibility of school infrastructure; the low supply of accessible teaching and learning

materials; and the low number of teachers with disabilities who better understand and show empathy

towards learners with disabilities, provide mentorship to learners with and without disabilities, provide

guidance and expertise on the inclusion process, lead to a positive change in attitude, advise colleagues

on being more aware of learners’ difficulties, and create a more inclusive environment for teachers and

students with disabilities (IDA 2020; UNESCO 2014; UNESCO 2020; GPE 2018).

There is a global systemic dearth of data on inclusive education programs that are needed to ensure the

achievement of the SDGs by 2030 (Mont 2007). Through the collection of data disaggregated by

disability, resources can be allocated equitably, budgets can be managed more efficiently, inclusive

education programs and policies can be implemented and monitored more closely, and efforts to

enhance education services can be strengthened (GPE Stocktake 2018). It is especially critical to

disaggregate data not only by disability, in general, but by types of disabilities. We can then begin to

understand the specific barriers faced by children who are deaf or with reduced hearing, by those who

are blind or with low vision, or those faced by children with intellectual or physical disabilities. It will

also be possible to examine barriers faced by children with any combination of difficulties, for example,

those who are deaf-blind.

The educational experience for all learners, and specifically learners with disabilities, must be both

accessible and inclusive so they can stay enrolled until completion. It must also provide qualified teachers

and adapted learning materials to meet each learner’s unique needs. Schools must ensure that learners

are safe from harm (e.g., bullying, violence, undeserved discipline) so each learner (regardless of their

disability status) and their caregivers feel that being in school does not come at a cost beyond the

financial one.

In the sections that follow, we discuss the state of inclusive education across Sub-Saharan Africa. While

many of the broader observations apply to much of the world, we have provided examples that are

1 The focus of inclusive education differs by country. In high-income countries, inclusive education often refers to

efforts to educate children with disabilities, whereas in low-income countries, where more children are excluded

from school, the term is used more broadly to refer to the education of girls and the poorest children, in addition

to children with disabilities (EDT and UNICEF 2016). 2Countries that have Inclusive Education Policies include: Angola, Botswana, Ghana, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritius,

Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 3 The CRPD defines disability as long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that, in interaction

with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

3 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

specific to sub-Saharan Africa throughout this report. ln Section 1, we begin with a description of

inclusive, integrated, and segregated schooling for children with disabilities. In Section 2, Government

Priority, we review declarations, laws, policies, and funding allocations through which Sub-Saharan

African countries prioritize or recognize inclusive education. In Section 3, School Access, we review

data on inclusive education, including the school attendance and school completion of learners with

disabilities, as well as the barriers to enrollment and retention. In Section 4, School Experience, we

review the practical experience of learners with disabilities in school, including how accessibility of

facilities, bullying and violence, and instructional accommodations affects this experience. The report

concludes in Section 5 with a review of USAID’s initiatives to support inclusive education in Sub-Saharan

Africa

SECTION 1: INCLUSIVE VERSUS

SEGREGATED VERSUS INTEGRATED

EDUCATION There are different approaches to the provision of education for children with disabilities. These

different approaches reflect different constructs of disability, namely the social versus the medical model

of disability4 which can affect whether there are efforts at systemic change or only various levels of

individual accommodation. Given these fundamental differences, we begin our discussion by describing

these different approaches. According to the World Bank’s Every Learner Matters report (2019), most

countries make explicit reference to persons with disabilities’ right to education in their constitutions,

laws, and policies. However, definitions are rarely included, they vary widely, and their implementation

(if it exists) often aligns more with segregated learning and special schooling than true inclusion. Even

when countries claim they are following inclusion, they may only be placing children with disabilities in

regular classrooms, and not creating a learning environment that addresses their needs. Of the 51

countries included in the GPE Stocktake of Education Sector Plans (ESPs), 41 countries have segregated

schools, 3 are piloting integrated schools and 23 have implemented them at a large scale, 17 have both

special and integrated learning, and only 17 are piloting inclusive education (Exhibit 1) (2018).

Exhibit 1: Country approaches to education for learners with disabilities

Learners with disabilities are frequently placed in special schools or classrooms because of the belief that

they will benefit more from learning in such settings. Separating learners in their own classrooms and

4 Please see USAID’s Mapping of Tools for Disaggregation by Disability Status for a description of the social and

medical models of disability.

https://www.edu-links.org/resources/mapping-tools-disaggregation-disability-status

4 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

schools isolates learners with disabilities and bolsters existing negative stereotypes. Although it will take

time to reach full inclusion, taking steps toward inclusive schools and away from segregated and

integrated learning is critical to meeting SDG 4.

Inclusive education means having one inclusive system of education that is responsive to the needs of all

learners, at all levels (early childhood, primary, secondary, and post-secondary) and provides supports to

meet the needs of learners with disabilities. It advocates access to schools through the principles of

Universal Design for Learning and having resources for specific needs available to teachers and learners.

It supports the participation of all learners in a safe and friendly environment, using the mother tongue

or sign language for primary learning and technology to further support communication. It also

promotes achievement that comes with qualified teachers trained in Universal Design for Learning,

adaptable curriculum, and resources available to meet the needs of each child.

This differs from segregated education, where learners with disabilities are in special schools. It is also

not the same as integrated schooling, which has learners with disabilities on the same campus or

compound as learners without disabilities, but without the necessary supports or considerations for

their needs. Integration is often confused with inclusion, but without support or inclusive pedagogy for

learners with disabilities, this does not equate to inclusion. Other approaches to education for learners

with disabilities are via pilot programs, in-hospital schools or classrooms, and in-home teaching (World

Bank 2019).

Exhibit 2: Educational provisions seen around the world for learners with disabilities

According to a qualitative study by Okyere and colleagues (2019), learners with intellectual and

developmental disabilities in inclusive schools in Accra, Ghana, received support from many of their

peers, but also faced challenges such as corporal punishment, low family and teacher support for their

learning, and victimization from other peers. Learners expressed concern over the lack of teachers’

support, saying, “If teacher helps me, I can be able to understand and write” and “I want someone to

5 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

always help me to learn.” Learners with disabilities often had to complete the assignments in the same

amount of time as their peers and without any modifications to the lessons (instructions and

assignments), even when those changes would have proved helpful. Often, when they were unable to

complete an assignment in the time allotted, learners with disabilities were punished by not being

allowed to go out and enjoy recess or, even more seriously, a lunch break.

Education for learners with disabilities in inclusive settings provides an opportunity for learners with and

without disabilities to work together on assignments and even interact outside the classroom during

their commutes home, which improves not only their academic skills but also their social interactional

skills (Okyere et al. 2019). Inclusive education benefits all learners because they are able to access the

material through alternative methods and Universal Design for Learning that will only bolster their

understanding of the material. According to UNICEF (2017), inclusive education promotes

understanding, reduces prejudice, and strengthens social integration among all learners, with ripple

effects into the community.

SECTION 2: GOVERNMENT PRIORITY Government support and prioritization of inclusive education influence the availability and allocation of

resources and school-level policies that reinforce inclusive education (UNICEF 2009). Across Sub-

Saharan Africa, governments recognize inclusive education through various declarations, disability and

education acts and laws, national policies, constitutional provisions, and funding allocations.

2.1: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES

A number of international treaties spearheaded by the United Nations have been signed, ratified, or

adopted by the majority of Sub-Saharan African countries. The UNCRC, a human rights treaty signed in

1989, sets out the rights of children around the world and specifically seeks to ensure these rights apply

to all children, irrespective of disability status. All United Nations Member States except the United

States have ratified the UNCRC (United Nations Treaty Collection 2020a).5

The education of children with disabilities is not a particularly new initiative in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Formal education of children with disabilities has occurred in special schools since the colonial era

(Mpofu, Oakland, and Chimedza 2007). Additionally, some countries in Africa were among the first to

sign and ratify the UNCRC (EDT and UNICEF 2016). A shift of policy and practice toward inclusive

education is happening with commitment and enthusiasm (Charema 2010).

The CRPD is an international treaty adopted in 2006 that identifies the rights of persons with disabilities

and obliges states to promote, protect, and ensure those rights. It does not set out new requirements,

but clarifies existing rights of persons with disabilities already existing in international treaties. Most Sub-

Saharan African countries in this review have signed and ratified the CRPD which guarantees the right to

inclusive education. More specifically, Article 24 recognizes the right of persons with disabilities to

inclusive education without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and requires parties to

ensure persons with disabilities can access inclusive education. General Comment No. 4 on Article 24

further defines and conceptualizes inclusive education and provides a framework and guidance for states.

It makes it clear that persons with disabilities experience persistent discrimination that denies them their

5 Somalia and South Sudan are the most recent members to do so in 2015.

6 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

right to an education. The CRPD articulates the concept of inclusive education for the first time in

international law. Fewer, but still the majority of countries, have ratified the CRPD’s Optional Protocol,

which gives the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities the right to receive complaints and

investigate serious violations of the Convention, essentially holding ratifying countries accountable for

following through with guaranteeing the rights outlined in the CRPD (CRPD 2006; IDA 2020; United

Nations Treaty Collection 2020c).

The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, includes SDG 4.5,

which commits countries to ensure equal access to all levels of educational and vocational training for

persons with disabilities. The 2030 Agenda sets out specific intergovernmental global goals for countries

to, build and upgrade educational facilities to be disability sensitive and in compliance with the CRPD

(Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform n.d.; IDA 2020). All United Nations Member

States have adopted the 2030 Agenda. These high-profile declarations signal growing interest in inclusive

education in Sub-Saharan Africa and around the world (UNESCO 2018a).

National policies and strategies on inclusive education) are in various stages in many countries. It should

be noted that often the term “special needs education” is still used6, although that term has historically

also been used for segregated education. These policies and strategies include specific sections on

education as part of disability legislation, and some include sections on disability within education

legislation. These acts vary in specificity by country, and many call for the availability of special schools

for children whose disabilities are too severe for or cannot be accommodated by ordinary schools (see

the Inclusive Versus Segregated Versus Integrated Education section for a discussion on separate

schools). What qualifies a learner for admission to a special school and who decides on those

qualifications differs by country. A review of national policies and strategies completed for this literature

review finds that many of these policies and strategies specifically call for:

• Physically accessible educational facilities (e.g., Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, South Africa, and

Uganda)

• Communication accommodations such as Braille, sign language, and audio libraries (e.g., Ghana,

Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal)

• Teacher training on special needs education (e.g., Madagascar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and

Uganda)

• Adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of learners with disabilities (e.g., Kenya, Senegal, and

Uganda)

• Financial assistance or tuition reduction for learners with disabilities (e.g., Malawi and Senegal)

Not all countries mandate inclusive education as it is outlined in legislation; some laws simply state that

the government will “encourage” such actions. Certain countries have documented their prioritization

of inclusive education in their constitutions. Many Sub-Saharan African countries have constitutional

provisions that protect persons with disabilities from discrimination, such as South Africa, Malawi,

Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Kenya, Ghana, Namibia and Gambia, and some also have provisions that ensure the

right to education for children with disabilities, like South Africa, Kenya and Burundi (ACPF 2014).

Government prioritization of inclusive education is essential for children with disabilities to have access

to education. It should be noted, however, that while essential, establishment of education policies alone

6 Examples of its use were found in the policies in Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda.

7 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

is not sufficient to guarantee inclusion. There frequently is a gap between political intent and the actual

provision of inclusive education in schools in all 21 eastern and southern African countries included in a

study on the fulfilment of the right to education of children with disabilities (EDT and UNICEF 2016).7

For example, a case study of the Comoros established that despite political intent, enrollment in school

was particularly challenging for children with disabilities due to barriers to parents bringing their child to

school and parents being unwilling to admit their child has a disability as a result of cultural attitudes.

Another report determined that policy in low- and middle-income countries was often not clearly stated

or understood. The same report found that some schools were not even aware of their country’s

inclusive education policies and received no training on how to implement them (Graham 2014). Many

countries with government support of inclusive education have seen progress, but further advancement

requires appropriate funding, awareness, and specific strategies for achieving educational provisions for

learners with disabilities, such as teacher training (EDT and UNICEF 2016).

7 Angola, Botswana, Burundi, the Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique,

Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, and

Zimbabwe.

8 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Examples of National Inclusive Education Policy

Kenya – Persons with Disabilities Act

18. Education

(1) No person or learning institution shall deny admission to a person with a disability to any course of study by reason only of such disability, if the person has the ability to acquire substantial learning in that course.

(2) Learning institutions shall take into account the special needs of persons with disabilities with respect to the entry requirements, pass marks, curriculum, examinations, auxiliary services, use of school facilities, class schedules, physical education requirements and other similar considerations.

(3) Special schools and institutions, especially for the deaf, the blind and the mentally retarded, shall be established to cater for formal education, skills development and self-reliance.

19. Special and non-formal education

The Council shall work in consultation with the relevant agencies of Government to make provisions in all districts for an integrated system of special and non-formal education for persons with all forms of disabilities and the establishment where possible of Braille and recorded libraries for persons with visual disabilities.

Nigeria – Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act, 2018

17. (1) A person with disability shall have an unfettered right to education without discrimination or segregation in any form.

(2) A person with disability is entitled to free education to secondary school level.

(3) The Commission shall provide educational assistive devices.

18. (1) All public schools, whether primary, secondary or tertiary shall be run to be inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities, accordingly every school shall have-

(a) at least a trained personnel to cater for the educational development of persons with disabilities; and (b) special facilities for the effective education of persons with disabilities.

(2) Braille, sign language and other skills for communicating with persons with disabilities shall form part of the curricula of primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

19. The education of special education personnel shall be highly subsidized.

20. Government shall ensure that the education of persons with disabilities, particularly children, who are blind, deaf or with multiple disabilities, is delivered in the most appropriate language, mode and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximise academic and social development.

Rwanda – Law N⁰ 01/2007 of 20/01/2007 Relating to Protection of Disabled Persons in General

Chapter 2. Rights of a Disabled Person in Matters Related to Education

Article 11: A disabled person has the right to appropriate education in respect of the nature of his or her disability. The Government or centres which cater for disabled persons who are not able to study with others, shall provide with them modalities to study in a specialised school and shall have qualified and trained teachers and appropriate equipment. The Minister in charge of Education shall, basing on basic categories of disability determined by the Minister in charge of Health, determine modalities of facilitating the needy disabled persons in ordinary schools and in specialised schools in case of failure to study with others.

Article 12: A pupil or a student with disabilities that do not enable him or her to sit exams with fellow schoolmates or in the same manner as others is entitled to the right of sitting for exams in a special manner.

Article 13: The Minister in charge of education shall determine modalities of facilitating the needy disabled persons in pursuing education.

9 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Exhibit 3: Inclusive education policies in Sub-Saharan Africa

10 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

2.2: FINANCING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Despite policy commitment to inclusive education by the majority of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa,

significant barriers, in the form of “inadequate facilities, poorly trained teachers, and a lack of accessible

learning materials,” remain the operational reality (IDDC and IETG 2017). A lack of adequate funding for

inclusive education represents a significant barrier to effective implementation. Funding should ideally

enable “education systems to take learners’ educational needs into account and to support parents in

meeting the direct and indirect costs of education” (Ebersold and Meijer 2016).

Increases in funding alone, however, do not necessarily guarantee effective implementation of inclusive

education commitments. Factors such as political will, an understanding of the types of investments

needed to support inclusive education, and funding allocation approaches have an impact on the

effectiveness and sustainability of inclusive education investments. As Ebersold and Meijer (2016) state,

“The implementation of inclusive education is correlated with the way funds are allocated and to whom

the funds are addressed.” Funding allocations have the potential to facilitate or inhibit inclusion in

education.

The 2017 IDDC and IETG report on costing inclusive education calls for sufficient domestic and donor

funding to support a two-track investment model needed for the effective adoption of inclusive

education. The first track focuses on systemic change and requires investing in new policies as well as

shifts in “practice and attitudes” to help “remove barriers and create enabling conditions to enhance the

quality and access to education for all children” (IDDC and IETG 2017). This first track benefits all

learners in the system. The second track requires investments specifically designed to increase access to

education and accommodation in instruction for learners with disabilities.

In many countries, ministries of education tend to

have systems supporting separate special schools

rather than supporting inclusive education in

mainstream schools. This often stems from a limited

understanding of inclusive education and its scope,

as well as the interchangeable use of the

terminology in many countries. In addition to

further segregating learners with disabilities, such

special schools are less cost-effective than inclusive

mainstream schools (IDDC and IETG 2017). In low-resource environments, segregated schools are

economically unsustainable, are generally unable to accommodate all learners with special needs, and

perpetuate the perception that provision of education for learners with special needs is extremely

expensive. Conversely, there are increasing examples from successful models of inclusive education in

low-resource settings (Stubbs 2008). For example, strategic partnerships between government, NGOs,

donors and civil society have been successful in supporting inclusive education combined with early

screening and intervention programs for students with low vision (IDDC and IETG 2017).8 A UNICEF

study found that “If good quality education, featuring well-trained teachers and strong peer support

were in place, as many as 80 to 90 percent of learners with disabilities could be educated in mainstream

schools with only minor additional support” (IDDC and IETG 2017).

An important exception is around schools for the deaf, which some organizations, such as the World

Federation of the Deaf and the International Federation of Hard of Hearing, have noted are critical for

8 Please see the following for examples of successful inclusive education strategies in low resource settings.

“If good quality education, featuring well-trained

teachers and strong peer support were in place,

as many as 80 percent to 90 percent of learners

with disabilities could be educated in

mainstream schools with only minor additional

support” (IDDC and IETG 2017, p. 18)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Miles%2C+S+(2000)+Overcoming+Resource+Barriers%3A+The+challenge+of+implementing+inclusive+education+in+rural+areas%2C&rlz=1C1EJFC_enUS813US814&oq=Miles%2C+S+(2000)+Overcoming+Resource+Barriers%3A+The+challenge+of+implementing+inclusive+education+in+rural+areas%2C&aqs=chrome..69i57.1264j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miles,+S+(2000)+Overcoming+Resource+Barriers:+The+challenge+of+implementing+inclusive+education+in+rural+areas,&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

11 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

providing deaf children with the opportunity to learn and socialize in sign language in a setting with peers

with the same disability. Placing deaf learners in mainstream schools that do not provide them with

adequate access to and direct instruction in sign language does not support inclusion for all deaf

learners. Bilingual education for deaf learners is a form of inclusive education for deaf learners. Taking

this into account, the International Disability Alliance (IDA) proposes the supported transition of

schools for the deaf and inclusive, bilingual sign language schools that meet the needs of deaf learners

but still create an inclusive setting (IDA 2019).

A range of funding allocation approaches has been applied to support inclusive education. The

effectiveness of these different approaches varies depending on the country’s existing systems. The

following are the main approaches:

• Conditional cash transfers are designed to increase access to school via individual cash

transfers, in which families living in poverty receive cash conditionally depending on factors such as

school attendance and obtaining preventive medical care. The transfers are designed to create an

incentive for school attendance by helping compensate for direct and indirect costs associated with

attendance. Transfer programs such as these have proven successful in increasing girls’ attendance

and reducing poverty among adults with disabilities, but there is little disaggregated data about their

impact on the school attendance of children with disabilities (Krishnaratne, White, and Carpenter

2013; Mont 2006). Additionally, without systemic reforms needed to make classroom instruction

more accommodating, conditional cash transfers alone do not ensure that once in school, learners

receive the accommodation needed to help them engage successfully, learn, and remain in school

(Stubbs 2008).

• CCT programs can disadvantage families in which children with disabilities face barriers to

education because the inability to attend school puts those transfers at risk. One strategy for

working around this issue is to exempt children with disabilities from this conditionality; however,

while this provides the family with an economic safety net, it undermines the goal of promoting

education for the child with a disability (See Mont D, “Social Protection and Disability,” Chapter in

Poverty and Disability 2010).

• Ministries of education frequently rely on Education Management Information System (EMIS)

enrollment data to determine per capita funding allocations to regions, sub-regions, and/or

schools. EMIS data on student disability status frequently are incomplete, inaccurate, or are

available with a lag of a year or more9. Some ministries build on this existing funding allocation

system by supplementing the per capita allocations for learners who have been identified as having

disabilities. Under Kenya’s Free Primary Education program, for example, the government allocates

1,420 Kenyan shillings per learner. This capitation funding is supplemented with an additional 2,300

Kenyan shillings for learners with disabilities (Ministry of Education 2018). Per capita funding has

the potential to provide a transparent, formula-based way to allocate targeted inclusive education

funds where needed. However, this approach requires accurate disability prevalence data, which

are frequently not available at the subnational or school level. In addition, if data on the number of

learners with disabilities are drawn from schools’ EMIS data, this has the potential to create an

incentive for schools to over-identify learners with special needs (IDDC and IETG 2017). The per

capita funding approach also runs the risk of reinforcing the idea that accommodations for an

individual child are enough, rather than the design of an inclusive system.

9 See USAID’s Tracking Inclusion: Data Sources on Inclusive Education in Sub-Saharan Africa report, section 2.3.

12 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

• Needs-based systems and school-level investments are less dependent on school and

student-level data requirements. System and school-level investments needed to support greater

mainstreaming of inclusive education may be more cost-effective (IDDC and IETG 2017). Examples

of investments include curriculum reform, development of adaptive materials and instructional

approaches, allocation of specialized teachers, teacher training, community outreach programs and

construction of accessible infrastructure (e.g., ramps, sidewalks, and accessible toilets).

• Even in countries that have implemented universal primary education, household contributions

to education continue to represent a significant portion of domestic spending. In some cases, they

contribute more to education than governments make (IDDC and IETG 2017). Students with

disabilities who are enrolled in segregated classes or schools are often required to pay additional

fees and levies, on top of those paid by other students (Ministry of Education and VSO Jitolee

2016). These costs can exacerbate educational exclusion. However, to the extent that they are

already being collected, these funds can be used to support inclusive education. School

administrators or school-level Boards of Management typically decide how this money is spent.

Interventions sensitizing them to the importance of inclusion have been effective in increasing the

admission of children with disabilities to schools, improving access to buildings and infrastructure,

and promoting staff training and student support (Mariga, McConkey, and Myezwa 2014).

SECTION 3: SCHOOL ACCESS To further highlight the differences between policy and practice, the report explores school access,

focusing first on disability prevalence rates to highlight the magnitude of this issue.

Globally, the World Health Survey estimates that 15.6 percent of the population 15 years and older

have some form of disability. Among children under 15, prevalence is estimated to be around 5.1

percent for moderate to severe disabilities and 0.7 percent for those with severe disabilities10 (WHO

2011). Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest regional prevalence rate, with 6.4 percent of children under

age 15 having a moderate to severe disability and 1.2 percent having a severe disability (EDT and

10 There are seven disability classes. Within those, “severe” disability includes classes VI and VII (e.g., blindness,

Down syndrome, quadriplegia, severe depression, or active psychosis) and “moderate and severe” disability

includes classes III and higher, such as angina, arthritis, low vision, or alcohol dependence (WHO 2011).

Countries in East Africa have established and have been investing in dedicated resource

centers to provide a decentralized and flexible way for governments to fund education for children

with disabilities. In some cases, special schools have been converted into these centers. Known by

different names in different countries—for example, Educational Assessment and Resource Centers in

Kenya, Educational Assessment and Resource Services in Uganda, and Inclusive Education

Resource Centers in Ethiopia—they can provide a number of different services: assessing students,

recommending school placements, training teachers, loaning specialized materials to schools,

supporting curriculum development, and/or providing referrals to healthcare providers (UN Committee

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2014; 2015b; 2015a). However, in many cases, these

centers have limited funding, support, and staffing, and there is little data showing what type of

spending and interventions have the greatest impact on student enrollment and achievement.

13 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

UNICEF 2016). New data from the latest round of the MICS shows high rates of childhood disability in

SSA that can vary quite a bit by country.

COUNTRY

YEAR SOURCE % OF CHILDREN AGE 5-17 YEARS WITH A DISABILITY

TOTAL MALE FEMALE RURAL URBAN

DRC 2018 MICS 19.5 19.8 19.2 20.9 17.7

Ghana 2018 MICS 20.7 20.5 20.9 21.5 19.5

Madagascar 2018 MICS 14.2 14.3 14.0 14.1 14.6

Source: UNICEF n.d

Malnutrition, poor medical care, lack of access to clean water and basic sanitation, dangerous living and

working conditions, conflicts, and natural disasters all contribute to increases in disability (UNICEF

2013). Disability prevalence rates are sometimes estimated to be higher in lower-income countries but

are frequently underreported in official data sources. The prevalence rates are often specific to

impairments, which are not adequate proxy for disability information. Health conditions are sometimes

conflated with disability (WHO 2011). Estimates of overall disability prevalence tend to lack reliability

and comparability and tend to underreport the scale of disabilities (UNESCO 2018b).

Underreporting of children’s disability status often comes because parents are unaware of that status. In

other cases, parents know of their child’s disability but decline to answer survey or census questions

about disability (ACPF 2014). A UNESCO working paper indicates, “In most developing countries the

number of children with disabilities is grossly underestimated. Children with severe and moderate

disabilities may be acknowledged, but children with mild or hidden disabilities are ignored” (Graham

2014). Many are not identified and then go undetected in EMIS data, either because data on disability is

not collected or it is not done appropriately. However, that is changing as efforts to improve disability

data in EMISs are growing (Mont and Sprunt 2019; UNESCO 2019). The significance of under-counting

disability prevalence rates has clear implications for potential inaccuracy in estimating enrollment, out-of-

school, and completion rates among children with disabilities.

3.1: PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL

Participation in school among learners with disabilities lags significantly behind that of their peers

without disabilities.

The introduction of Universal Compulsory Education has brought about an increase in enrollment of

children in primary school throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. However, increases in enrollment among

children with disabilities have not kept pace with increased enrollment of children without disabilities,

resulting in growing gaps in enrollment rates. Based on national census data from 11 countries in the

region11, a World Bank study found that the chance a 12-year-old child with disabilities has ever

attended school is 10 percentage points lower than a child without disabilities (Wodon, Male,

Montenegro, and Nayihouba 2018).

Exhibit 4 lists the percent of individuals aged 15–29 who have ever attended school, disaggregated by

disability status. Among children with disabilities, the percent who reported ever attending school

ranged from 35.8 percent in South Sudan to a surprisingly high rate of 98.2 percent in Zambia, and in 37

of the countries analyzed in a UNESCO Institute for Statistics study, children with disabilities were less

11 Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, South Sudan, and Zambia.

14 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

likely than their peers to have attended school (UNESCO 2018a). The estimated gap in the rates

between children with and without disabilities ranges from a low of 1.5 percentage points in Mali to 26.2

percentage points in Nigeria (see Exhibit 4). The range in these rates, as well as the gap between the

rates, may in part reflect inconsistencies in how disability is defined, how data are collected, and how the

sample is designed.

The probability of never having attended school varies with the type of disability. Multiple Indicator

Cluster Survey (MICS) data from 2006 indicate that the probability of never having attended school is

much higher among those with a risk of mental disabilities than those with a risk of hearing

impairment.12 Wodon and colleague’s review of census data from Sub-Saharan Africa similarly finds that

the impact of disability on having ever attended school is greatest among children with intellectual or

psychosocial disabilities and those with multiple disabilities (2018).

Exhibit 4: Proportion of 15- to 29-year-olds who have ever attended school, by disability status and sex

% OF PERSONS AGED 15–29 WHO EVER ATTENDED

SCHOOL

COUNTRY YEAR SOURCE WITHOUT DISABILITY WITH A DISABILITY

MF M F MF M F

DRC 2015 SWTS 97.8 98.7 96.9 95.0 95.3 94.6

Ethiopia* 2007 IPUMS 49.4 58.7 40.5 38.8 46.2 30.2

Ghana* 2010 IPUMS 83.2 86.7 79.9 74.8 77.7 72.1

Kenya* 2009 IPUMS 90.0 90.6 89.4 82.7 83.1 82.3

Liberia 2008 IPUMS 66.5 74.3 59.1 57.0 63.2 51.0

Liberia 2012 SWTS 90.4 95.3 86.1 (59.8) . .

Madagascar 2013 SWTS 85.3 87.4 83.5 81.6 (76.3) 85.9

Madagascar 2015 SWTS 85.9 88.2 83.9 83.7 84.1 83.5

Malawi* 2008 IPUMS 85.3 88.8 82.2 78.5 81.1 75.8

Malawi 2012 SWTS 95.6 97.2 94.2 90.0 (93.7) (85.6)

Malawi 2014 SWTS 93.0 94.1 92.0 (96.0) . .

Mali* 2009 IPUMS 37.7 45.6 30.7 36.2 41.2 31.3

Mali† 2018 DHS 53.8 62.7 47.0 41.9 46.5

Mozambique 2007 IPUMS 70.2 81.1 61.0 56.2 66.4 45.5

Nigeria† 2018 DHS 75.3 80.7 70.6 57.3 63.2 51.2

Nigeria† 2018 LSMS 81.4 85.4 77.1 55.2 . .

South Africa† 2016 DHS 99.0 99.0 99.1 91.2 87.6 95.6

South Sudan 2008 IPUMS 34.3 43.2 26.1 35.8 44.9 27.4

Uganda 2013 SWTS 96.1 97.1 95.2 89.4 (92.8) (85.3)

Uganda 2015 SWTS 94.1 96.0 92.5 84.5 (83.8) (85.1)

Uganda 2016 DHS 95.4 96.4 94.4 85.3 87.4 83.2

12 This example comes from the 2006 MICS in Iraq, which showed that 10 percent of 6–9-year-old-children

without a disability had never been to school and 19 percent of children with hearing impairment had never been

to school, while 51 percent of those with mental disabilities had never been to school (Graham 2014).

15 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

% OF PERSONS AGED 15–29 WHO EVER ATTENDED

SCHOOL

COUNTRY YEAR SOURCE WITHOUT DISABILITY WITH A DISABILITY

MF M F MF M F

Zambia 2010 IPUMS 88.9 91.4 86.7 72.4 75.4 68.9

Zambia 2012 SWTS 97.1 98.0 96.3 98.2 (97.7) (98.6)

Source: ICF 2004-2017; World Bank 2020; UNICEF n.d.; Ruggles et al. 2020; UNESCO 2018a.

All indicators are calculated by UNESCO, using source as listed unless otherwise indicated.

† Indicators calculated by authors using source as listed.

Notes: (1) An asterisk (*) identified surveys that did not use the Washington Group questions; (2) A period (.) indicates that values were

not reported because they were based on a sub-sample with fewer than 25 unweighted observations; (3) Numbers in parentheses are

based on 25–49 unweighted observations; (4) Averages are unweighted and were calculated from the most recent data for each country.

(5) Abbreviations used in the table are as follows: Male (M); Female (F); Male and Female (MF); School-to-Work Transition Survey

(SWTS); Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS).

Having ever attended school should not be conflated with regular

enrollment in school. Comparing out-of-school rates of school-aged

children provides another and more current measure of differences in

school access among children with disabilities than the previous

indicator, which collects data from adults about their previous school

experience. UNESCO’s 2020 GEMR estimates that 59 million primary-

aged children are out of school. More than half (32 million or 54

percent) of these children live in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO 2020).

Globally, one-third of all out-of-school children have some form of disability (GPE 2018). The differences

in out-of-school rates among children living with and without disabilities in Sub-Saharan Africa are

highlighted in Exhibit 5. In Ethiopia and Uganda, the out-of-school rate is almost twice as high among

children with disabilities. In South Africa, where enrollment rates tend to be higher in general, the out-

of-school rate is more than 10 times greater among children with disabilities.

Exhibit 5: Out-of-school rate for primary and lower secondary school-age children, by disability status (%)

Source: ICF 2004-2017; World Bank 2020; UNICEF n.d.

Enrollment levels in other reports mirror these data on out-of-school rates. In 2006, the Global

Education Monitoring Report stated that only 10 percent of deaf children ages 7–12 were enrolled in

Burkina Faso. In Malawi and Tanzania, half as many children with disabilities attended school when

37%

16%

46%

33% 36%

2% 16%

71%

19%

67%

48%

64%

19%

32%

Ethiopia 2015

Madagascar 2018

Mali 2018

Nigeria 2018a

Nigeria 2018b

South Africa 2016

Uganda 2016

without a disability with a disability

In Malawi and Tanzania,

half as many children with

disabilities attended school

when compared with

children without disabilities

(UNESCO, 2010).

16 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

compared with children without disabilities (UNESCO 2010). There is a critical issue when it comes to

the enrollment of children with disabilities. In the following section, the report highlights some of the

barriers to enrollment.

3.2: BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT

Countries report multiple barriers that limit enrollment among children with disabilities. Physical

barriers take the form of a lack of accessible infrastructure and transport. Financial barriers to

enrollment (e.g., school fees; transport costs; and the cost of school materials such as books, notebooks,

uniforms, and toiletries for boarding schools) common among many children in Sub-Saharan Africa are

more pronounced among children with disabilities, given the correlation between poverty and disability

prevalence (ACPF 2014). Social barriers influence parents’ willingness to send children to school, as well

as schools’ and communities’ acceptance of children with disabilities in school.

According to a UNICEF report, Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration, some of

the lowest levels of birth registrations are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is estimated that 44 percent13

of babies are registered before age 5 (UNICEF 2013). Among children with disabilities, these rates are

disproportionately lower. For example, due to parents’ reluctance to register their children given the

stigmatization associated with disabilities, only 48.7 percent of babies with disabilities in Uganda are

registered at birth, compared to 62 percent of babies without disabilities. Children with multiple

disabilities are even less likely than children with one disability to be registered at birth (ACPF 2011a).

From the beginning of life, children with disabilities experience stigma and discrimination. Without a

birth certificate, it is difficult for children to access the rights they are entitled to, such as access to

school (ACPF 2014).

A 2018 qualitative study from Zambia on barriers

to and facilitators of lifelong learning provides

several interesting observations for reasons

children are not being enrolled in schools. These

findings could provide insights relevant to other

Sub-Saharan African countries. Delayed

enrollment is common among children with

disabilities. Parents frequently delay enrolling their

children because they do not know their child can

enroll in neighborhood schools, they are unsure of

whether the schools are equipped to handle their

child’s specific needs, or they wish to protect their

child from a negative experience. Parents and

caregivers might also be suspicious of the

qualifications of teachers of learners with

disabilities and are thus less likely to send their

child to school to be taught by someone they deem less qualified or unable to meet their child’s

educational needs. Many local schools discriminate against learners with disabilities and give them very

little priority or even mistreat them, and parents are rightly concerned that their children will not get

the attention they need or that the attention they do receive will be negative. In some cases, delayed

6 According to the same report, the rate is even lower when looking specifically at East and Southern Africa,

where 38 percent of all children registered before age 5.

17 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

enrollment comes from parents’ hiding their children as a result of a cultural belief that a child with

disabilities is a curse or punishment for something the parents have done in their past. Often, children

with disabilities are deemed incapable or their potential is not recognized; as a result, they are not

considered worth the educational investment. Extremely poor households might be forced to choose

which of their children receive an education, and children with disabilities are not often prioritized in

these situations. (Malungo et al. 2018; GPE 2018).

Removing barriers to education access for children with disabilities is critical to achieving SDG 4, but we

also know that the experience children with disabilities have once in school is important to both

learning and retention. Even for those children with disabilities able to access schools, dropout rates

tend to be higher and completion rates lower when compared to their peers without disabilities.

3.3: SCHOOL COMPLETION

Dropout rates tend to be higher among learners with disabilities and are likely higher than reported

because learners with “hidden” disabilities—those with mental or intellectual disabilities or those with

unidentified disabilities—are excluded from these calculations (Graham 2014). As with ever having

attended school, the dropout rate among learners with disabilities varies by disability type. In Uganda,

dropout rates are lower for visually impaired and physically disabled children than those with learning

difficulties, who are often hidden and/or misidentified as having behavioral challenges. In one area of

Kenya, a dropout rate of 33.3 percent was recorded among learners with learning disabilities (Ogadho

and Ajowi 2013).

Barriers to both entrance and retention in school contribute to lower completion rates among learners

with disabilities. Average primary school completion rates in Sub-Saharan Africa are 10.1 percentage

points lower for girls with disabilities than girls without disabilities and 12.8 percentage points lower for

Communities working to increase access and completion in Mali and Rwanda

Communities in Mali have created school committees that involve varied stakeholders to ensure

learners with disabilities receive the proper services and promote awareness among members of both

the school community and the larger community on the importance of inclusive education. They select

one person to focus on girls and learners with disabilities to make sure their access to education is

prioritized. In Rwanda, it has been observed that where the community takes ownership of education,

there is better attendance and the rates of completion are higher. Where the community is involved

and works alongside the governments and implementing agencies, the uptake of inclusion is more

probable. (Stubbs 2008)

The World Bank’s Malawi Inclusive Education for Disabled Children project tested innovative ways to

increase enrollment among children with disabilities who were not in mainstream schools. Parents of

children with disabilities carried out sensitization and community mobilization campaigns in 150

schools; stakeholder consultations were held; and guidelines on identification of disabilities,

enrollment, and supporting the educational needs of children with disabilities were developed by the

national umbrella DPO (Nannyonjo 2016).

18 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

boys with disabilities than those without14 (Wodon et al. 2018). Recent household survey data reflect

similar gaps in primary completion rates (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6: School completion rate for primary school-age children, by disability status and sex

COMPLETION RATE, CHILDREN

COUNTRY YEAR SOURCE

WITHOUT A DISABILITY

(%)

WITH A DISABILITY (%)

MF M F MF M F

Madagascar† 2018 MICS 64.6 59.9 69.1 61.8 61.2 62.5

South Africa† 2016 DHS 97.0 95.4 98.6 80.9 . .

Uganda 2011 DHS 39.5 36.0 43.1 34.2 (23.2) (47.7)

Uganda† 2016 DHS 44.3 42.7 46.0 22.7

Source: ICF 2004-2017; World Bank 2020; UNICEF n.d.; UNESCO 2018a.

All indicators are calculated by UNESCO, using source as listed unless otherwise indicated.

† Indicators calculated by authors using source as listed.

Notes: (1) A period (.) indicates that values were not reported because they were based on a subsample with fewer than 25 unweighted

observations; (2) Averages are unweighted and were calculated from the most recent data for each country. (3) Abbreviations used in the

table are as follows: Male (M); Female (F); Male and Female (MF); Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); Multiple Indicator Cluster

Surveys (MICS).

Although less pronounced, differences in completion rates exist at the secondary level as well. Among

girls, the secondary-level completion rate gap was 7.0 percentage points, while among boys it was 11.1

percentage points. Completion rates at primary and secondary levels have continued to increase over

the past 20 years, but the increase among learners with disabilities has been slower—continuing to

widen the completion rate gaps as a result (Wodon et al. 2018).

3.4: BARRIERS TO RETENTION

The reasons for higher dropout rates and resulting lower completion rates among learners with

disabilities include many of the same ones that keep them from enrolling in the first place: lack of

accessible infrastructure throughout the school, costs associated with attendance, and health and

nutritional status. There are even lower completion rates for secondary school than for primary school,

and these rates are lower for girls with disabilities than boys due to school-related gender-based

violence, child marriage, and early childbearing (Wodon et al. 2018). Social factors also lead to their

dropping out, such as the attitudes of teachers and learners toward learners with disabilities, feelings of

isolation due to delayed entry into school, and bullying and violence that tend to disproportionately

target learners with disabilities. From a pedagogic perspective, learners experience a lack of adaptive or

inclusive teaching practices as well as low availability of adapted teaching materials.

These diverse factors all undermine the quality of experience and learning opportunities in school and

increase the probability of dropouts among learners with disabilities. In addition to these in-school

factors, girls with disabilities are especially at risk of dropping out due to early marriages and pregnancy

(Wodon et al. 2018). In the following section, we discuss three principal factors affecting learners’

experience in school: school accessibility, adaptive teaching, and bullying and violence.

14 Based on national census data from 11 Sub-Saharan countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia,

Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, South Sudan, and Zambia).

19 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

SECTION 4: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

4.1: ACCESSIBILITY OF FACILITIES

According to the Africa Report on Children with Disabilities, most educational buildings lack ramps,

handrails, and especially lifts to make facilities accessible to all children (ACPF 2014). The Global

Partnership for Education’s report, Disability and Inclusive Education: A Stocktake of Education Sector Plans

and GPE-Funded Grants, notes that 21 of 51 developing-country partners included in this stocktaking15

noted including “building new schools” or “renovating existing schools to make them more accessible to

children with disabilities” as a strategic priority, with considerations for accessible buildings, classrooms,

toilets, covered drains, and proper lighting in the classrooms (GPE 2018). Ackah-Jnr and Danso (2018)

find that carefully planning an inclusive physical environment affects the “feeling” of the school and the

“extent of social connectedness and respect for differences,” thereby setting the tone for more inclusive

attitudes and a safer space for learners with disabilities. However, few schools are actually adapting and

modifying the physical environments to meet the needs of learners with disabilities. According to the

Ghana Ministry of Education’s Education Sector Analysis (2018), for example, only 8 percent of schools

were equipped with ramps and hardly any had handrails. Even among special schools, only 32 percent

had ramps and just 23 percent had handrails.

Schools often have stairs, narrow doorways, and seating that does not accommodate those with special

needs, such as wheelchair users. When there are ramps in schools, it is common for them to be so

steep that it is dangerous or impossible for wheelchair users to navigate them. Although there might be

standards for the gradient of ramps, they are often disregarded. Many schools have a single ramp that

makes limited areas of the school accessible, leaving the remaining space inaccessible to learners who

require ramps or other accessible infrastructure to access buildings, upper levels, bathroom facilities, or

spaces for eating or recreation (ACPF 2014).

15 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,

Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana,

Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao, PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania,

Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe,

Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam,

Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

20 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Bathrooms are often inaccessible for learners who use wheelchairs or mobility devices or need support

in standing or sitting comfortably. Bathrooms are often extremely unsanitary, which can make it

especially challenging for learners who require assistance to avoid unhygienic conditions. This can be

particularly problematic for girls with disabilities during their monthly menstrual cycle. Many girls with

disabilities simply do not go to school during their monthly periods, or at all, to avoid situations where

their privacy is violated or equipment is inadequate to allow them to take care of themselves

independently (ACPF 2014).

For learners with sensory disabilities, low lighting can often be a barrier. It inhibits learners who are deaf

and hard of hearing and/or who might rely on sign language or lip reading to communicate. For learners

with poor vision, low lighting can further decrease their ability to see and concentrate.

Seating in the classroom can have an impact on a learner’s ability to engage in learning. Learners with

low vision, for example, might be better able to follow instruction if they are seated at the front of the

class. Learners who are hard of hearing could benefit from front-row seating so they can focus on the

sign language interpreter or hear with their residual hearing. Additionally, a front-row seat may increase

the learner’s ability and confidence to ask for more explanation or additional support. Unfortunately,

teachers are frequently unaware of learners’ sensory disabilities or are unaware of the benefits of front-

row seating for learners with sensory disabilities, and learners may be relegated to the back row.

Learners with disabilities often use assistive devices to mitigate barriers to learning, such as wheelchairs,

spectacles, and hearing aids. However, if they are not used appropriately, they do not provide the

potential benefits they could offer.

Accessibility of Facilities in Rwanda

The total percent of primary schools in Rwanda with adequate infrastructure for disabilities increased

from 18 percent to 24 percent between 2017 and 2018, reaching Rwanda’s Education Sector Strategic

Plan target of 21 percent. Similarly, the total percent of secondary schools in Rwanda with adequate

infrastructure for disabilities increased from 23.5 percent to 28.6 percent between 2017 and 2018,

reaching the target of 26 percent. This is important progress, especially considering that 36.9 percent

of learners with disabilities in Rwandan public primary schools and 46 percent of learners with

disabilities in Rwandan public secondary schools have physical disabilities. The Ministry of Education

states that especially because physical disabilities are the most common disabilities among enrolled

students, it is important to have adequate infrastructure that allows these learners to be comfortable at

school and pursue their studies. (Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Education 2018)

Use of Assistive Devices in Botswana

A School Vision Screen Pilot conducted in Botswana found that after 3 or 4 months, only 60.1 percent

of learners who participated in the follow-up wore their spectacles. Girls were more compliant than

boys, and learners in primary and lower secondary school were more compliant than those in upper

secondary school. It was concluded that improved compliance with the use of the assistive device

would increase the overall effectiveness of the program. This finding can be assumed for other types

of assistive devices as well. (McCormick et al. 2018)

21 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

4.2: BULLYING AND VIOLENCE

Learners with disabilities in Sub-Saharan Africa often have difficulties engaging at their schools for

reasons beyond the lack of adaptive instruction and physical accessibility of the facilities. Bullying and

violence are directed at children with disabilities at higher rates than for those without disabilities,

especially girls, creating an unsafe school environment. According to Stubbs (2008), if a learner is bullied

or struggles in any way, it is viewed as the learner’s problem rather than that of the teacher or the

environment, so little support is given to mitigate the problem. Very few schools have reporting

mechanisms in place for learners to alert the school of this type of behavior, and many learners have

communication barriers that would prevent them from saying something even if a system were in place.

In a study ACPF conducted, 100 percent of the 956 children with disabilities interviewed in Cameroon,

Ethiopia, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia had suffered at least one act of emotional or sexual violence, and

81.5 percent had suffered at least one instance of physical abuse (ACPF 2011). Given the stigma

surrounding disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, children with disabilities are often more likely to be victims

of abuse. In the ACPF study, boys with disabilities were more vulnerable to physical and emotional

violence, whereas girls with disabilities were more vulnerable to sexual violence. Sexual violence ranged

from 1.9 counts per child in Senegal to 3.9 counts per child in Cameroon, where 52 percent of the

sample had been raped, 30 percent forced into prostitution, and 43 percent touched inappropriately

(ACPF 2011).

These patterns of abuse are similarly observed in school settings where learners with disabilities report

higher incidences of abuse. Okyere and colleagues (2019) report peer bullying and victimization to be

especially high among learners with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ghana. When reports

were made concerning this type of violence, teachers often dismissed them, illustrating that these

learners are viewed with skepticism. The authors point to the importance of developing strategies that

will increase peer support to harness the overall positive peer interaction observed in mainstream

schools, as well as the need to sensitize teachers to respond appropriately to violence and bullying.

According to a study by Devries and colleagues (2014), the incidence of violence against learners with

disabilities is three to four times higher than against learners without disabilities. Girls with disabilities

are even more likely to endure physical violence and twice as likely to endure sexual violence than girls

without disabilities; 23.6 percent of girls with disabilities experienced sexual violence, compared with

12.3 percent of their female peers without disabilities. Boys with disabilities in Uganda saw four times as

much sexual violence compared to their peers without disabilities.

4.3: INSTRUCTIONAL ACCOMMODATION AND

TEACHER TRAINING

Learners with disabilities face an array of barriers that limit their ability to participate actively and

achieve learning outcomes. If a child can overcome the physical and social barriers that keep them out of

the classroom, they often encounter additional barriers in the classroom. A lack of local sign language

can exclude a child who is deaf from communicating and learning. The lack of an adapted learning plan

(with additional time to explain lessons and complete tasks, or modified lessons) can prevent a child

with an intellectual disability from learning. To address these barriers, it is imperative that teachers

receive adequate training to help create a classroom environment that can address a learner’s needs and

provide the opportunity for learning achievement. Although inclusive education policies exist in many

22 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

parts of the region, they frequently fail to provide teachers with guidance on how to address learners

with special needs and carry out inclusive education (Mwangi 2013).

Most teachers are not equipped with the skills necessary to provide an environment where every

learner can thrive. Teachers are introduced to “inclusive education” without guidelines, follow-up,

support, or training (Malungo et al. 2018). A World Bank note suggests, based on a review of 11

countries, that only 1 in 10 teachers receive in-service training to promote inclusive education (Wodon

et al. 2018). According to Mwangi (2013), teachers lack the repertoire of learning and teaching strategies

appropriate for addressing the barriers to learning and providing individual supports; she notes that

teachers have called for additional training to help them develop the strategies to respond appropriately

to the identified learning difficulties.

Kenya’s Education Cabinet Secretary has increased funding for special needs education, with an emphasis

on training teachers to work with learners with special needs, recognizing the grave need to equip

teachers with the right skills to work with all learners (Nyaundi 2019). According to Ogadho and Ajowi

(2013), 38.3 percent of teachers who work with learners with learning difficulties had participated in

special needs education training, while 59.9 percent had not had any sort of formal training on how to

work with learners with disabilities. When training programs are applied, adaptive teaching approaches

and attitudes toward inclusive education improve, as demonstrated via observations of trained teachers

in Kenya (Mwangi 2013).

The importance of adequately preparing teachers for inclusive education is emphasized in another study

by Ogahdo and Ajowi (2013) in Kenya that examines the high drop-out rates among children with

learning difficulties. This study found that very little adaptation of the curriculum took place (only 13.5

percent of respondents reported adapting the curriculum), presumably because teachers were not

equipped with the skills to do so. Teachers acknowledge the importance of adaptation; 97.7 percent said

they believe that when curriculum is not adapted, learners with disabilities are at increased risk of

dropping out. The dropout rate in this study was shown to be inversely related to the number of

teachers trained specifically in special education. Where there was a higher percentage of special needs

educators, there was an associated lower dropout rate (Ogahdo and Ajowi 2013).

In addition to the need for all teachers to receive training in inclusive education and adaptive practices,

there is a need for specialist support, such as itinerant (or “visiting”) teachers—qualified teachers or

specialists who travel from school to school to provide educational supports to multiple schools

potentially across several communities. Not every inclusive school has a blind student, for example, so

an itinerant teacher would rotate among schools with blind learners and provide services such as

supporting Braille literacy, transcribing materials into Braille, and advising teachers on how to support

each learner’s educational needs. If a school has a deaf student, an itinerant teacher could support sign

language and literacy acquisition and help adapt curriculum (Hayes et al. 2018). In Uganda, itinerant

teachers find children who are not yet in school and determine ways to ensure they can be included

appropriately in school, prepare them for entering school, and support inclusion in the mainstream

schools by, for example, providing individual classroom support and advice to regular teachers on how

to include these learners (Lynch et al. 2011). Greater percentages of special needs educators, who are

skilled and prepared to support their teachers in creating an environment that fully supports learners

with disabilities, is associated with lower dropout rates (Ogahdo and Ajowi 2013).

Another barrier that teachers often face is simply not knowing that a child has a learning difficulty or a

disability. Learners are not often properly identified, screened, or assessed early on. As a result, a

teacher might assume a behavioral issue when, in fact, the learner might be facing a difficulty that could

23 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

require particular support. Ensuring that proper screening and assessments take place in schools is

essential to making every child’s learning experience better. Mwangi (2013) also recommends using

individual education plans to influence and maintain high expectations for the learners.

Due to a lack of teacher training and appropriate

student screening, discipline is often misdirected

toward learners with disabilities. Children with learning

difficulties or intellectual disabilities are often

incorrectly identified as misbehaving and, therefore,

wrongly disciplined, frequently without any explanation

or understanding of what they are being disciplined for.

Discipline often comes in the form of corporal

punishment (Devries et al. 2014).

The lack of teacher training, student identification, and

adaptive learning has an impact on engagement, and

ultimately learning, among learners with disabilities. Of

those who graduate from primary school, half leave

unable to read or write, and only 25 percent go on to complete secondary school (Wodon and

Alasuutari 2018). Recent census data from Sub-Saharan Africa indicate 11.9 and 13 percentage point

gaps in literacy for girls and boys, respectively, living with disabilities (Wodon et al. 2018). Access to the

high-quality, equitable inclusive education the SDGs call for is achieved not when seats are filled, but

when each learner completes the educational experience equipped with the skills to successfully enter

and thrive in the job market and contribute to society in a meaningful way.

SECTION 5: USAID INITIATIVES TO

SUPPORT DISABILITY PROGRAMMING IN

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Of the 20 Sub-Saharan African countries considered in this report, at least eight have current USAID

initiatives that support inclusive education for learners with disabilities (

24 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Exhibit 7). The programs in these countries—Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, and

Zambia—implement a diverse range of initiatives, from teacher training to physical accessibility and

more (Exhibit 8). Notably, most of these programs focus on learners who have vision or hearing

impairment. Other disabilities (e.g., physical, intellectual) are addressed less frequently.

25 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Exhibit 7: USAID programs with inclusive education initiatives

COUNTRY USAID PROGRAMS WITH INCLUSIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVES

Kenya Tusome

Liberia Accelerated Quality Education (AQE)

Malawi Malawi Early Grade Reading Improvement Activity (MERIT)

Reading for All Malawi (REFAM)

Partnership with Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology*

Mali Inclusive Education for Visually Impaired School Children

Inclusion of Deaf and Blind Children into Mainstream Schools

Mali Mission’s Civic Engagement Project*

Rwanda Soma Umenye

Senegal Lecture Pour Tous

Our Children Read

Uganda General work to expand voice/political participation of persons with disabilities*

Zambia Let’s Read Project

Partnership with Ministry of General Education*

*Not a program, but a partnership or individual initiative

26 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Adapt/Develop Inclusive Learning Materials: Most USAID inclusive education programs in

Sub-Saharan Africa entail the development and distribution of inclusive learning materials. This

includes the adaption of textbooks and classroom materials into Braille and large print to cater to

visually impaired learners, as in the Malawi Early Grade Reading Improvement Activity and Senegal’s

Lecture Pour Tous program. In a unique case, Rwanda’s Soma Umenye program plans to digitize reading

materials to make them more accessible to learners with disabilities.

Adapt/Develop Inclusive Teaching Materials: Many programs develop and distribute

inclusive materials for teachers. As a part of Mali’s Inclusive Education for Visually Impaired

Primary School Children program, the early grade reading assessment was adapted to be used with

learners with visual impairment. Other programs more generally note that they distribute “specialized

teaching materials for learners with special needs.”

Advocacy/Raising Awareness: As a part of USAID/Mali’s Civic Engagement Project, a

subgrantee organized a meeting to raise awareness among civil society associations and

grassroots community organizations about including persons with disabilities into all sectors of

community life, including education. In Uganda, due to USAID’s work to expand the voice of persons

with disabilities, persons with disabilities developed 33 advocacy position papers that were presented to

local government and resulted in increased budgets for inclusive education.

Disability Identification: Some programs create tools to help teachers identify disabilities in

their learners. The Lecture Pour Tous program in Senegal produced student tracking data sheets to

help teachers identify learning impairments, while the Let’s Read Project in Zambia provides e-learning

audiology packages that help teachers identify learners who may be hearing impaired.

Distribute Assistive Devices: The Inclusive Education for Visually Impaired Primary School

Children in Mali distributes spectacles to children with visual impairment enrolled in schools.

Enrollment in School: The Inclusive Education for Visually Impaired Primary School Children

and the Inclusion of Deaf and Blind Children into Mainstream Schools programs in Mali enroll

children with disabilities in school.

Parent/Family Training: Programs in Malawi and Mali help train parents to support their

children with disabilities at home, especially with reading and writing. The Inclusion of Deaf and

Blind Children into Mainstream Schools program in Mali also trained parents in Braille and sign language.

Physically Accessibility: Two programs, including the Accelerated Quality Education program

in Liberia, prioritize making schools physically accessible to learners with disabilities.

Special Activities: The Malawi Early Grade Reading Improvement Activity held reading

competitions for vision- and hearing-impaired learners. In 2019, the reading competition for

vision-impaired learners included 46 learners from 16 schools, while the pilot reading competition for

hearing-impaired learners involved 18 learners from three schools.

Teacher Training: Several USAID inclusive education initiatives involve teacher training. For

example, Senegal’s Our Children Read program developed a training module to encourage

including learners with disabilities in the classroom. Mali’s Inclusion of Deaf and Blind Children in

Mainstream Schools program trained teachers, principals, and pedagogical advisors in pedagogy and the

use of course preparation sheets that facilitate inclusive teaching.

27 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Exhibit 8: USAID support of inclusive education initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa

This information comes from the 2019 USAID Performance Plan and Report (PPR) data. This chart represents the inclusive education

initiatives referenced in the PPR narrative submissions.

28 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

CONCLUSIONS Policies: Access to quality education is a fundamental human right, one that is essential to individual

development and effective participation in society. Lack of access to quality education limits the ability

for persons with disabilities to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to fully participate in society and

in the labor market, leading to social exclusion and poverty. This right is reflected in the UN’s

Sustainable Development Goals and has been enshrined in international and regional conventions and

frameworks. Many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa include policies that guarantee the right to inclusive

education for children with disabilities.

Finance: A lack of adequate funding for inclusive education represents a significant barrier to effective implementation. Increases in funding alone, however, do not necessarily guarantee effective

implementation of inclusive education commitments. Many countries’ funding systems support

segregated education, which is costly and not sustainable. Models exist that can support inclusive

education in low resource settings, though more systemic research is needed to identify the most

effective approaches.

Barriers: Despite inclusive education policies, evidence shows that children with disabilities are less

likely to attend school and are less likely to complete school if they are able to enroll. Children who are

able to enroll face increased probability of experiencing bullying, violence, and undeserved discipline

(UNESCO 2018a). Children with disabilities face additional barriers to the successful completion of

school, such as lack of government prioritization of inclusive education in strategies and policies; lack of

knowledge/resources for parents/caregivers to support their children in schooling, the prejudices and

discrimination that many still hold against children and adults with disabilities; a lack of qualified teachers,

principals and pedagogic supervisors to accommodate the needs of learners with disabilities; poor

accessibility of school infrastructure; the low supply of accessible teaching and learning materials; and the

low number of teachers with disabilities, who are better able to understand and show empathy toward

learners with disabilities (IDA 2020; UNESCO 2014; UNESCO 2020; GPE 2018).

Data: Through the collection of data on students disaggregated by disability and on the barriers and

facilitators of access, resources can be allocated equitably, budgets can be managed more efficiently,

inclusive education programs and policies can be implemented and monitored more closely, and efforts

to enhance education services can be strengthened (GPE Stocktake 2018). Though there are many

international efforts to systematize the collection of comparable, quality education data, the data needed

to ensure the achievement of the SDGs by 2030 remains severely limited (Washington Group 2016).

Local, country and subnational level data needed for advocacy, decision-making, and funding allocations

is particularly wanting.16

Donor Support: USAID and other donors are working with local ministries to raise awareness around

inclusive education and to pilot projects to increase accessibility to quality education for all learners.

Continued efforts to address systemic barriers, increase access, and improve the educational experience

for children with disabilities is essential if we are to achieve SDG4 by 2030.

16 DFID disability data portal. https://www.disabilitydataportal.com/about-the-portal/indicators/

https://www.disabilitydataportal.com/about-the-portal/indicators/

29 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

REFERENCES Ackah-Jnr, F., and J. Danso. 2018. Examining the physical environment of Ghanaian inclusive schools:

how accessible, suitable and appropriate is such environment for inclusive education? International Journal

of Inclusive Education, 1–21. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1427808

ACPF. 2011a. The lives of children with disabilities in Africa: A glimpse into a hidden world. Addis Ababa: The

African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF. 2011. Violence against Children with Disabilities in Africa: Field studies from Cameroon, Ethiopia, Senegal,

Uganda and Zambia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF).

ACPF. 2014. The African Report on Children with Disabilities: Promising starts and persisting challenges. Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia: The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF).

Charema, J. 2010. “Inclusive Education in Developing Countries in the Sub Saharan Africa: From Theory

to Practice.” International Journal of Special Education 25(2): 87–93.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890569.pdf

Codes and Laws of Rwanda – Ministry of Justice. Law N⁰ 01/2007 of 20/01/2007 Relating to Protection of

Disabled Persons in General. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-

content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Rwanda_Law-Relating-to-Protection-of-Disabled-Persons-in-

General.pdf

Devries, K.M., N. Kyegombe, M. Zuurmond, J. Parkes, J.C. Child, E.J. Walakira, and D. Naker. 2014.

“Violence against primary school children with disabilities in Uganda: a cross-sectional study.” BMC Public

Health.

Dubin, A. 2019. “Children, Disability, and Poverty: Enforcing the human right to inclusive education in

sub-Saharan Africa”. Repositorio Comillas.

Ebersold, S., and C. Meijer. 2016. “Financing Inclusive Education: Policy Challenges, Issues and Trends.”

In Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap International Perspectives on

Inclusive Education (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 8), by A. Watkins and C. Meijer,

37–62. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

EDT and UNICEF. 2016. Eastern and Southern Africa regional study on the fulfilment of the right to education

of children with disabilities. Berkshire, UK: Education Development Trust (EDT).

Florian, L., and Beaton, M. 2018. “Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child.”

International Journal of Inclusive Education 22(8): 870–884. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513

Ghana Ministry of Education. 2018. Education Sector Analysis.

Ghana Ministry of Education, Ghana Education Service, and UNICEF. 2017. Ghana Disability Statistics

Summary.

Government of Zambia. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 2012. No. 6 of 2012.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/94955/111598/F-353321041/ZMB94955.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1427808

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890569.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Rwanda_Law-Relating-to-Protection-of-Disabled-Persons-in-General.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/94955/111598/F-353321041/ZMB94955.pdf

30 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

GPE. 2018. Disability and Inclusive Education: A Stocktake of Education Sector Plans and GPE-funded Grants.

Washington, D.C.: Global Partnership for Education (GPE).

https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2018-07-gpe-disability-working-paper.pdf

Graham, N. 2014. Children with Disabilities. Paper commissioned for Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for

All: Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children. (UIS/UNICEF 2015) Montreal: UNESCO

Institute for Statistics (UIS).

Hayes, A., Turnbull, A., and Moran, N. (2018). Universal Design for Learning to Help all Children Read:

Promoting Literacy for Learners with Disabilities (First Edition). Washington, D.C.: USAID.

ICF. 2004–2017. Demographic and Health Surveys (various) [Datasets]. Funded by USAID. Rockville,

Maryland: ICF [Distributor].

IDA. 2019. Inclusive Education: IDA consensus paper on how to achieve SDG 4 in compliance with CRPD Article

24. International Disability Alliance (IDA).

http://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/resources/inclusive-education-ida-consensus-paper-how-

achieve-sdg-4-compliance-crpd-article-24

IDA. 2020. What an inclusive, equitable, quality education means to us: Report of the International

Disability Alliance. International Disability Alliance (IDA).

IDDC and IETG. 2017. Costing Equity: The case for disability-responsive education financing. International

Disability Development Consortium (IDDC) and Inclusive Education Task Group (IETG).

https://www.light-for-the-world.org/sites/lfdw_org/files/download_files/costingequity-

_the_case_for_disability-responsive_education_financing_15032017_acs_pdf.pdf

Journal Officiel De La Republique Du Senegal. Loi d’orientation sociale n⁰ 2010-15 du 6 juillet 2010.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Senegal_Loi-

d%E2%80%99orientation-sociale.pdf

Krishnaratne, Shari, Howard White, and Ella Carpenter. 2013. “Quality Education for All Children?

What Works in Education in Developing Countries.” Working Paper 20. New Delhi.

http://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/wp_20.pdf

Lynch, P., S. McCall, G. Douglas, M. McLinden, and A. Bayo. 2011. “Inclusive educational practices in

Uganda: evidencing practice of itinerant teachers who work with children with visual impairment in local

mainstream schools.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15(10): 1119–1134. DOI:

10.1080/13603116.2011.555070

Malawi Government. Disability Act, 2012. Act No. 8 of 2012.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/104036/126729/F-177386510/MWI104036.pdf

Male, C., and Q.T. Wodon. 2017. Disability gaps in educational attainment and literacy (English). The price of

exclusion: disability and education. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group:

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/396291511988894028/Disability-gaps-in-educational-

attainment-and-literacy

https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2018-07-gpe-disability-working-paper.pdf

http://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/resources/inclusive-education-ida-consensus-paper-how-achieve-sdg-4-compliance-crpd-article-24

https://www.light-for-the-world.org/sites/lfdw_org/files/download_files/costingequity-_the_case_for_disability-responsive_education_financing_15032017_acs_pdf.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Senegal_Loi-d%E2%80%99orientation-sociale.pdf

http://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/wp_20.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.555070

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/104036/126729/F-177386510/MWI104036.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/396291511988894028/Disability-gaps-in-educational-attainment-and-literacy

31 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Malungo, J.R.S., D. Nabuzoka, and N. Sachingongu. 2018. Disability and Education: Qualitative study from

Zambia on barriers to and facilitators of life-long learning. Lusaka, Zambia: Central Statistical Office and the

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services.

Mariga, Lilian, Roy McConkey, and Hellen Myezwa. 2014. “Inclusive Education in Low-Income Countries:

A Resource for Teacher Educators, Parent Trainers and Community Development Workers.” Cape

Town. http://uhambofoundation.org.za/new_wp/wp

content/uploads/2016/06/Inclusive_Education_in_Low_Income_Countries.pdf.

McCormick, I., P. Morjaria, I. Mactaggart, C. Bunce, C. Bascaran, M. Jeremiah, and A. Foster. 2018.

“Spectacle Compliance and Its Determinants in a School Vision Screening Pilot in Botswana.” Ophthalmic

Epidemiology 26(2): 109–116. DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2018.1523441

Ministry of Education. 2018. Sector Policy for Learners and Trainees with Disabilities. Nairobi, Kenya.

https://www.education.go.ke/index.php/downloads/file/510-sector-policy-for-learners-and-trainees-with-

disabilities

Ministry of Education, and VSO Jitolee. 2016. “Kenya National Special Needs Education Survey Report.”

Nairobi. https://www.vsointernational.org/sites/default/files/SNE Report_Full -2.pdf

Mont, Daniel. 2006. “Disability in Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Drawing on Experience in LAC.”

In Third International Conference on Conditional Cash Transfers. Istanbul.

http://gsdrc.org/docs/open/sp23.pdf

Mont, D. 2007. Measuring Disability Prevalence, Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0706. The

World Bank.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257262995_Measuring_Disability_Prevalence_Social_Protectio

n_Discussion_Paper_No_0706_World_Bank_2007

Mont, D. and B. Sprunt. 2019. “Adapting education management information systems to support

inclusive education.” In The SAGE Handbook of Inclusion and Diversity in Education by M. J. Schuelka, C. J.

Johnstone, G. Thomas, and A. J. Artiles, 249–261. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mpofu, E., Oakland, T., and Chimedza, R. 2007. Africa, East and Southern, Special Education. In Reynolds,

C.R. and Fletcher-Janzen, E. (eds). The Encyclopedia of special education. Vol. 1 (3rd edition), 7-077.

New York: Wiley.

Mwangi, L. 2013. Special Needs Education (SNE) in Kenyan public primary schools: exploring government policy

and teachers’ understandings. School of Sport and Education Brunel University, London.

Nyaundi, L. 2019. “Teaching Training: Magoha pledges more cash for special needs schools.” The Star.

https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2019-08-05-magoha-pledges-more-cash-for-special-needs-schools/

Ogahdo, W.A., and J.O. Ajowi. 2013. “Factors Influencing Dropout of Learners with Disabilities in

Regular Primary Schools in Kisumu East District, Kenya.” Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3.

Okyere, C., H.M. Aldersey, and R. Lysaght. 2019. “The experiences of teachers of children with

intellectual and developmental disabilities in inclusive schools in Accra, Ghana.” Journal of Research in

Special Educational Needs. DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12447

http://uhambofoundation.org.za/new_wp/wp

https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2018.1523441

https://www.education.go.ke/index.php/downloads/file/510-sector-policy-for-learners-and-trainees-with-disabilities

https://www.vsointernational.org/sites/default/files/SNE%20Report_Full%20-2.pdf

http://gsdrc.org/docs/open/sp23.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257262995_Measuring_Disability_Prevalence_Social_Protection_Discussion_Paper_No_0706_World_Bank_2007

https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2019-08-05-magoha-pledges-more-cash-for-special-needs-schools/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-3802.12447

32 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Nannyonjo, Harriet. 2016. Malawi-Inclusive Education for Childrne with Disabilities: P126025-

Implementation Status Results Report: Sequence 05 (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/102881468300296181/Malawi-Inclusive-Education-for-

Disabled-Children-P126025-Implementation-Status-Results-Report-Sequence-05

National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities

(Prohibition) Act, 2018. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-

content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Nigeria_Discrimination-Against-Persons-with-Disabilities-Prohibition-

Act-2018.pdf

Parliament of the Republic of Ghana. Persons with Disability Act, 2006. Act 715.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/86287/97299/F355459223/GHA86287.pdf

Repoblikan’ Madagasikara. Act No. 97-044 on Disability, 1997. https://www.handiplanet-

echanges.info/Members/acbhm_espoir_244/act-no-97-044-on-disability-1997-madagascar-en

Republic of Kenya. Persons with Disabilities Act. CAP. 133.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/69444/115499/F923058%20154/KEN69444%202012.

pdf

Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Education. 2018. 2018 Education Statistics.

http://statistics.gov.rw/publication/2018-education-statistics-report

Republic of South Africa. Children’s Act, 2005. Act No. 38, 2005.

https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2005-038%20childrensact.pdf

Republic of Uganda. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 2006.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/88100/100632/F69652940/UGA88100.pdf

Ruggles, S., S. Flood, R. Goeken, J. Grover, E. Meyer, J. Pacas and M. Sobek. 2020. IPUMS USA: Version

10.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. DOI: 10.18128/D010.V10.0

Stubbs, S. 2008. Inclusive Education: Where there are few resources. Oslo, Norway: The Atlas Alliance.

Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. n.d. Sustainable Development Goal 4.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2014. “Consideration of Reports Submitted

by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention, Initial Reports of State Parties Due in 2010:

Kenya.” https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=55c875f74

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2015a. “Consideration of Reports Submitted

by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention: Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, Initial Report of State Party Due in 2010: Uganda.” https://www.refworld.org/cgi-

bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=57038dda4

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2015b. “Consideration of Reports Submitted

by States Parties under Article 35 of the Convention, Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2012:

Ethiopia.” https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=57aae13b4

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/102881468300296181/Malawi-Inclusive-Education-for-Disabled-Children-P126025-Implementation-Status-Results-Report-Sequence-05

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Nigeria_Discrimination-Against-Persons-with-Disabilities-Prohibition-Act-2018.pdf

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/86287/97299/F355459223/GHA86287.pdf

https://www.handiplanet-echanges.info/Members/acbhm_espoir_244/act-no-97-044-on-disability-1997-madagascar-en

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/69444/115499/F923058%20154/KEN69444%202012.pdf

http://statistics.gov.rw/publication/2018-education-statistics-report

https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2005-038%20childrensact.pdf

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/88100/100632/F69652940/UGA88100.pdf

https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V10.0

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=55c875f74

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=57038dda4

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=57aae13b4

33 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

UNESCO. 2010. Reaching the Marginalized: EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Global Education Monitoring Report

(GEMR) team. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606

UNESCO. 2013. EFA Global Education Monitoring Report 2013/14. Teaching and Learning: achieving quality

for all. Global Education Monitoring Report Team. UNESCO. 2013/14. Paris.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660

UNESCO. 2015. EFA Global Education Monitoring Report 2015. Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements

and Challenges. UNESCO. Paris.

UNESCO. 2016. Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all: Global Education

Monitoring Report Team. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245752

UNESCO. 2018a. Education and Disability: Analysis of Data from 49 Countries. United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

UNESCO. 2018b. Global Education Monitoring Report summary on disabilities and education. Paris: United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265353

UNESCO. 2019. The Use of UIS Data and Education Management Information Systems to Monitor Inclusive

Education. Information Paper No. 60. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370915

UNESCO. 2020. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. Paris,

UNESCO.

UNICEF. n.d. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). United Nations Children’s

Fund (UNICEF). http://mics.unicef.org/

UNICEF. 2009. Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Report. United Nations Children’s

Fund (UNICEF).

https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/Global_CFS_Evaluation_Report_Uploaded_Version.pdf

UNICEF. 2013. Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration. Data and Analytics Section,

Division of Policy and Strategy. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_71514.html

UNICEF. 2017. Inclusive Education: Including children with disabilities in quality learning: what needs to be

done? United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_brief.pdf

United Nations. n.d. Disability Laws and Acts by Country/Area.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/disability-laws-and-acts-by-country-area.html

United Nations. 2018. UN Flagship Report on Disability and Development: Realization of the Sustainable

Development Goals by, for and with persons with disabilities Disability and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186606

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225660

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245752

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265353

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370915

http://mics.unicef.org/

https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/Global_CFS_Evaluation_Report_Uploaded_Version.pdf

https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_71514.html

https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_brief.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/disability-laws-and-acts-by-country-area.html

34 | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA USAID.GOV

Development. Division for Inclusive Social Development (DISD) of the United Nations Department for

Economic and Social Affairs. https://social.un.org/publications/UN-Flagship-Report-Disability-Final.pdf

United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020a. 11. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Depositary:

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020b. 15. Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Depositary: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-

15&chapter=4&clang=_en

United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020c. 15. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities. Depositary: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-

15-a&chapter=4&clang=_en

United Republic of Tanzania. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010. Act No. 9 of 2010.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/86525/97738/F727574943/TZA86525.pdf

Washington Group. 2016. “Report of Ability of Countries to Disaggregate SDG Indicators by Disability.”

2011. SUMMARY: World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf

Wodon, Q., and H. Alasuutari. 2018. The price of exclusion: Disability and education in Africa. Washington,

D.C.: World Bank Group: http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/price-exclusion-disability-and-education-

africa

Wodon, Q.T., C. Male, C.E. Montenegro, and K.A. Nayihouba. 2018. The Challenge of Inclusive Education

in Sub-Saharan Africa (English). The price of exclusion: disability and education. Washington, D.C.: World

Bank Group: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/171921543522923182/The-Challenge-of-

Inclusive-Education-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa

World Bank. 2019. Every Learner Matters: Unpacking the learning crisis for children with disabilities.

Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

World Bank. 2020. Microdata Library, Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS).

https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/lsms

https://social.un.org/publications/UN-Flagship-Report-Disability-Final.pdf

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&clang=_en

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15-a&chapter=4&clang=_en

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/86525/97738/F727574943/TZA86525.pdf

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/price-exclusion-disability-and-education-africa

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/171921543522923182/The-Challenge-of-Inclusive-Education-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa

https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/lsms

blog1

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.