DE LAS RESPONSABILIDADES RESARCITORIAS

Chapter two (section 2.5.1) highlighted the values of taking into account cultural factors when planning for and implementing IE. It was argued that this would require identifying, within the cultures, the factors that harmonise with inclusion – and then build on them in order to develop IE. In support of this call, Mbambo (2002) favoured recognition of people’s cultural practices when developing programmes for them. The author considered people’s cultures as being their strengths and resources, which should be learned from prior to any anticipated developments. The current study reflected on the Basotho-valued communality – believing in “we” before “I”, and hence the African belief that: “It takes the whole village to raise a child” (Mbambo, 2002:7). Clearly, this can serve as a background for developing an IE programme for Lesotho. Thus, all stakeholders should play a role in the development, implementation, and sustainability of an IE programme. This will bind together all stakeholders – which will provide support and the sharing of ideas and expertise. It is hoped that this will help produce policies that can be implemented in schools, rather than generate policies that teachers do not fully understand. This does not imply that Lesotho cannot benefit from Western research and ideas about IE; rather, it means that the implementation of such ideas in Lesotho should take into consideration the Basotho’s cultural, moral and ethical repertoires.

It is argued that with IE, there has to be strong policy in place at governmental level as well as in schools – that will guide the implementation of IE (Fraser, 2005). Considering that teachers are the “pillars of IE” (as the participants put it), it is imperative that they are assisted to have a hands-on experience of the inclusion policy document (their symbolic capital), so that they can gain an in-depth understanding of its content. This will guide them in relation to what they have to do in order to implement it. Grenfell (2010) attested that teachers must be provided with

the education policy, because they require it in order to be part of the field that negotiates educational activities for children with disabilities. The government, through MOET, can play a role in this regard by providing schools with such a policy document. Then, individual schools will devise means to disseminate the document to stakeholders to promote common understanding and contextualisation of the document. The policy will then guide schools to develop their own IE sub-policies that will be more relevant to their environments.

It is imperative that teachers are equipped with the appropriate skills and adequate knowledge of IE, so that they can effectively practice inclusion in their schools. When teachers lack capital, their habitus of practising inclusion within their schools becomes compromised. The participants in this research study considered that they lacked skills to effectively include learners with all types of abilities and needs. Consequently, they pleaded for in-service training programmes and improvements in teacher training institutions, so that they equip trainee teachers with theoretical and practical skills to teach inclusive classes. Several scholars have also called for teacher training institutions to improve on the practice component of IE (MacBeath et

al., 2006; Engelbrecht, 2006; Haihambo, 2010; Kuyini and Mangope, 2011).

Scholars such as Margolin (2011) and Buzdar and Ali (2011) stress that teachers who are sufficiently equipped with skills and knowledge make more impact on the success of IE initiatives. Petrie and McGee (2012) argue that professional development does not end at one stage; instead it is an ongoing learning process. It is recommended that teacher training (pre-service and in-service) build on teachers’ cultural understanding of inclusion – as also having social benefits for children with disabilities and/or special educational needs. This means that teacher training institutions in Lesotho should design their pre-service and in-service curricula, such that they build on trainee teachers’ cultural knowledge and practices related to inclusion. The curricula must engage learners in problem-based learning communities, transforming their understanding and experience of learning, teaching and inclusive practice (Agbenyega and Deku, 2011). In-service training of teachers and workshops could also be organised (probably on a quarterly basis) by principals and teachers, in collaboration with MOET and NGOs. Trainers or facilitators could be sourced from relevant ministries in the government of Lesotho – for example, the

special unit centre in MOET. Trainers or facilitators could also be provided by NGOs – for example, organisations of people with disabilities; institutions of higher education; community associations; churches; and independent researchers in the field of IE.

As the teachers have demanded, their training should also equip them with skills around Braille competency, sign language, curriculum differentiation, different assessment strategies, and dealing with different types of disabilities such as handling epileptic learners. It should also equip teachers with skills to effect collaboration with relevant stakeholders to develop and implement IEP. In essence, teacher training should equip teachers with all the skills that Van Zyl (2002) identified as being crucial for IE practices (section 2.5.3). It should build on teachers’ current practices (section 5.3.3) that appeared to promote inclusion. Indeed, Egbo (2011:32) states that teachers: “must understand the need for adopting authentic approaches to assessment that have written, verbal and performance components in order to accommodate preferred learning styles, differential linguistic and communicative competence, as well as cultural backgrounds.” The in-service teacher training programmes should avoid the downfalls highlighted in section 2.5.3, while taking into consideration the proposals that are made by Mittler et al. (2004) in the same section (section 2.5.3).

Ralejoe’s (2011) proposed tool for continuous formation of teachers (TCFT) schema could also be used to strengthen teachers’ understanding and implementation of IE. Through this schema, representatives from different schools (teachers, non-teaching staff, parents and learners), those from different NGOs, professionals from other fields, as well as the school governing bodies (of which the principal and regional chief are members), IE professionals, secondary school inspectors, the school secretariat (in the case of church-owned schools), and anybody else who might make a valuable contribution to the discussion – would be allowed to partake in an annual discussion about IE. The discussions would be arranged at district level and each of the key stakeholders mentioned above would have one elected representative on the panel that would select the items to be discussed. A regional hall could be used as a discussion venue. Informed by Van der Merwe, Prinsloo and Steinman (2003), the discussions would be facilitated by a person selected by the

participants, would be held in a round-table form, and ideas would be prioritised and voted on. The group would then develop a plan for implementation, an action plan, and a plan for evaluation and accountability. Then, the ideas that emerged from these discussions would be incorporated into the national and school-level policies on IE. School representatives would then share information about the discussions with others, on returning to their schools. This would make all stakeholders ‘own’ the policies – hence ensuring that IE becomes a reality in Lesotho secondary schools. This process would also ensure that more expertise and knowledge are made available for developing sound IE policies.

This development plan could also be used at school level, in order to closely monitor IE progress at each school. At this stage, teachers, representatives of learners, parents and non-teaching staff, the chief and member of the local council, an inspector (assigned to the school), IE professional(s) and anybody else invited, would meet on quarterly basis to evaluate progress. Among other things, the group would look into classroom challenges, teachers’ satisfaction, teachers’ career development, appraisal systems, classroom activities (for example curriculum adaptations), and learner performance and satisfaction. The discussion would take the format described above (i.e. facilitated by a person decided upon by the participants, held as a round-table discussion, and ideas prioritised and voted on). It is hoped that this will combat challenges related to teacher burnout, inadequate skills, large teacher to learner ratios, and also demotivation.

It is worth reiterating that curriculum adaptations are impossible when the national curriculum is static, centralised and examination orientated. Therefore, it is vital that the current curriculum be overhauled in order to give teachers the autonomy to adapt it to individual learner needs. Thus, the national curriculum should focus on broader developmental areas, such as literacy, technology, sports, manual work and other issues – but should only serve as a basic framework to which individual schools would attach their own ‘flesh’, based on their particular contexts and needs. Clearly, this will promote the development of proper IEP, without compromising education quality, and will also enable teachers to execute different assessment methods based on individual learner capabilities.