The current study has found out that both national and regional curriculum was not considerate. The regions have a mandate to develop curriculum from Grade 1 to Grade 8. However, personnel in the regions developed the curriculum in line with the national curriculum. Following this fact, the regional curriculum was not different in its approach and dimension from the national curriculum. Hence, the drawbacks that the national curriculum had were replicated in the regional curriculum.
As the data again witnessed, the curriculum at both national and regional level was inflexible to meet the diversified needs of learners particularly of those children with special needs (Naicker, 2006; Mafa, 2012). As the researcher reported, a rigid curriculum that does not allow carrying out tests or the use of different teaching methods can be a big barrier to inclusion. Similarly, the inconsiderate curriculum in Ethiopia has hindered the full inclusion of CwDs. For instance, textbooks contained charts and diagrams without verbal description for students with visual disabilities.
Overall, as the participants agreed, teachers, textbooks and other personnel in the education were not free from using derogatory terms, which could degrade personality of PwDs. In support of the above finding, researchers noted as barriers to inclusion may arise from within the various interlocking parts of the curriculum. Among which, using derogatory language and unmodified content of a curriculum were reported as challenges to implement inclusive education (Naicker, 2006; Mafa, 2012).
5. 6.5 Lack of financial statute
Lack of budgetary title has been learned as one of big obstacles to the realisation of inclusion of CwDs in the country. Inadequate funding could be regarded as the main reason for delayed and slow pace of development in inclusive education in all levels of educational system as it is well documented by Unesco (2005). Public schools in Ethiopia had two financial sources. Primarily, the government allocates finance with a title of “Block grant”. As the education
heads witnessed, the allocation of such budget was based on per-head of learners rather than the special need of each student. This fact has been confirmed by Mukhopadhyay’s finding of (2009). As the same researcher reported, direct funding is not allotted to primary schools for buying equipment and structural modification.
However, the challenge of the education officials was its thoughtlessness towards students who have special needs. As participants informed, “Block grant” did not have financial guidelines. Subsequently, school principals used the aggregated budget to school priorities for the benefits of the majority. However, those students who have special needs and very few could not receive school heads’ attention and were not able to claim their right since it was not documented. Similarly, as it is reported in other research works, funding guidelines impact negatively upon the implementation of inclusive education. The guidelines of finance and their implications for expenditure can either foster or hinder inclusive education (Mitchell, 2010; Unesco, 2009). Nwoagba (2013) has also identified funding as the major constraint and barrier to the development of inclusive education.
The other observed challenge to implement inclusive education was the absence of uniformity of regions in allocating budget for students with disabilities. As it is stipulated in the data, some Regional Education Bureaus had allocated four, three and two million of Birr for students with special needs in the last three years. On the contrary, other Regional Education Bureaus used to allocate based on budget surplus instead of the need of students with disabilities. This finding is consistent with the finding of Nwoagba, 2013). As the same author found out, most often, accommodation decisions are made based on budgetary considerations rather than on the assessment of the actual needs of students with disabilities (Nwoagba, 2013). This type of allocation is based on budgetary consideration rather than on the practical needs of students with disabilities.
Even inequity of financial allocation to the beneficiaries with special needs was observed. The findings reveal that a large amount of the finances has been allocated to students with visual disabilities. For instance, among equipment that were purchased by regional educations,
Braille, cane, slate, and stylus took the highest portion of the budget. Hence, with such practice, the implementation of inclusive education could not be reality.
Moreover, for the majority of the participants, problems of students with visual limitation came to their mind whenever they thought of inclusive education. This in turn violated the principle of “EFA”, which was the primary mission of inclusive education (Unesco, 1994) Hence, this partiality has been found out as one of big barriers of inclusive education in the regions where this study was conducted. The study understood the observed partiality among CwDs and lack of uniformity in financing SNE by regions was because of the absence of financial act regarding inclusive education in the country.
5. 6.6 societal negative attitude
Among countless barriers of inclusive education, the current study has highlighted negative attitude that parents, teachers and the society possessed as a leading factor to hinder the implementation of inclusive education. Similarly, Unesco (2009) recognised that negative attitudes as greatest barriers associated with inclusion in education. As the data show, negative attitude mostly exhibited itself with the cause of disability. Once the ‘disability’ happened to a child, the society perceived the ‘disability’ as a sign of shame to the family and incapability to the child or beholder. In view of this, one researcher from Ethiopia has remarked as it was a common belief in Ethiopia that a child with a disability is a punishment to the families for their sin in the past (Tirussew, 2005).
The deep-rooted ignorance that the society developed has prevented CwDs from full inclusion. Disability has segregated the children not only from schooling but also from the family life. Because of misperception of the society, CwDs
were deprived from their right to learn and play together with their non-disabled counterparts under the pretext of church education. In line with this, Natasha (2014) reports that parents were unaware of the rights of their children to education and may accept the community’s view that these children cannot learn. The attitudes and abilities of general education teachers
and education heads in particular had been major limitations to the practice of inclusive education in the regions where this study has been conducted.
The participants’ experience did not enable them to predict the social, academic and psychological benefits of inclusive education. For them, the treatment that children received in segregated education unquestionably had no alternative. However, as Unesco (2009) posits, if the inclusion of children with special needs is recognised, accepted and respected, it is being involved in the learning process and social life of the community. The study investigated the negative attitudes and stereotypes that the education heads developed was because of lack of knowledge about the benefits of inclusive education. Whatever the case might be, the negative attitudes and stereotypes the society in general and the education heads in particular have dawdled the realisation of inclusive education in Ethiopia.
5.7 Chapter summary
The study has explored a number of barriers that held back the implementation of inclusive education in Ethiopia. As the study was also guided by Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological model human development, the researcher understood the multidimensional factors that affect the implementation of inclusive education (1979; 1986; 1989). The interactional nature of micro, meso, exo, and macro systems have influenced the inclusion of children with special needs in to regular schools. Having made a number of interviews and discussion, the researcher found out the systemic nature of barriers of inclusion of the children of special needs. Subsequently, the challenges of inclusive education ranged from family to policy- related issues have embedded themselves within the micro, meso, exo, and macro systems.
CHAPTER SIX
CONTEXTUALISING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, LIMITATION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.1 Introduction to the chapter
In the previous chapter, themes, which were identified as barriers to implement inclusive education, have been discussed in relation with research findings of other researchers. In this chapter, I contextualise the theoretical framework of the study, and highlight the strength of the study. In line with this, the contribution of the study to the body of knowledge is discussed in relation to theory, policy and the practice. The limitations of the study are highlighted with an assumption that it could be lesson to the novice researchers. Finally, I adequately summarised and put forwarded possible recommendations based on the research findings.