The literature links disability with poverty (see section 1.0). The participants corroborated this view. In their context, poverty referred to having little or no economic and social capital. It appeared that due to poverty, most children with disabilities could not afford food, clothing or school fees. According to Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier and Maczuga (2009), children from low socio-economic status households and communities develop academic skills more slowly compared to those from higher socio-economic status groups. Thus, poverty can result in higher incidences of “slow-learners”. It is obvious that children from lower socio-economic families who are fortunate to go to school will be stressed because they are aware they have less economic capital compared with most school mates. The teachers stated that it was difficult for them to access close relatives or guardians for children with disabilities. They also mentioned cases of ill treatment of children by their parents at home, and those children brought their frustrations to school with them. This was considered to be poor parenting that necessitated parental education about the proper nurturing of children.
To the researcher, the above-mentioned issues poverty and poor parenting raised concerns about the Basotho culture of extended families and community care for children. In this culture, people share their material possessions, including food. Every adult had a duty to instil values and respect in children (Mbambo, 2002). However, the data suggested that the Basotho spirit of ubuntu – “it takes a community to raise a child” (Mbambo, 2002) – had diminished due to the pervasiveness of the Western culture of individualism in Lesotho. The participants argued that the situation was exacerbated by contemporary trends of child-headed households as a result of children being orphaned or parents working far from home. Thus, most children lacked parental guidance and supervision. Children who grew up without parents were also perceived by teachers to present behavioural problems. Lebona’s (2013) study “The implementation of inclusive education in primary schools in the Lejweleputswa education district” in South Africa, found that participating teachers also believed that child-headed households acted as social
barriers to learning, and this was experienced mostly with learners from informal settlements.
Bourdieu (1990) proposes that social capital forms a binding social network that includes the form of support an individual requires to be added to the capital he/she already has (Grenfell, 2009). Social capital influences the overall capital a person may possess, that enables him/her to be part of the social network, and it comes in the form of networking, communication and supporting inclusive practices – so that the person feels worthy of exercising their capital in their field (DiGiorgio, 2009). The challenges of schools in implementing IE were compounded by very little support they received from parents and government. The schools were forced to compete against their non-inclusive counterparts and this raised pressure on them – resulting in compromise in some of their inclusion endeavours (Duckworth et al., 2009).
The teachers seemed concerned about pessimism in some parents and guardians regarding the educational successes of their children with disabilities. Those in the rural focus group believed that parents and guardians valued traditional schooling over academic schooling. The teachers believed it was the duty of parents or guardians to collaborate with teachers to promote the successful education of all children in the school. They thought that their Ministry of Social Development was entitled to inform parents about the benefits of taking their children to academic schools. Bourdieu (1990) considers that in the field of school, the general school environment, among other facilities and resources, equates to the realm of economic capital (DiGiorgio, 2009). Thus funds are needed to improve the general school environment. The teachers were concerned about their government’s empty promises about subvention funds. They appealed to their government to pay school fees for its sponsored learners on time, to enable the smooth running of their schools’ activities.
It is recommended that the ratio of learners with disabilities to non-disabled learners in mainstream schools should approximate that within their communities (“Natural Proportion”; Salend, 2001). The teachers claimed that the numbers of children with disabilities in their schools were extremely low compared to the numbers in the surrounding villages. Culturally, having a child with a visible disability was perceived
to be a great misfortune by the Basotho (see section 1.1), and thus people used to hide their disabled children in their houses. The teachers argued this could still be the case: parents could still be keeping their children with disabilities at home – so depriving them of academic education. They stipulated other possible contributory factors as being poverty and limitations in their field (the education system), which could discourage the schooling of these children. It was also thought that the educational barriers that children with disabilities faced at primary schools could prevent them from progressing and reaching secondary education.
The teachers disclosed that children with disabilities attended school at a comparatively older age because of a lack of safety and security in mainstream schools, and due to challenges related to physical access in secondary schools. It is argued that many children with disabilities become victims of exclusion when schools lack inclusion features that are needed to nurture IE (DCDD, 2006; Mpya, 2007; Charema, 2007).
Although they appeared to understand their role in helping all learners understand the content of their subjects, the teachers seemed concerned that re-teaching slow- learners took too much of their instructional time – making it difficult for them to teach all the syllabus content. In their opinion, this made learners fail final examinations, which then made their superiors unhappy. Consequently, the teachers opted for a teacher-centred method, which they believed allowed them to teach at a faster pace (but involved leaving the majority of learners with disabilities behind). Indeed, Otukile-Mongwaketse (2011) warns that when teachers are focusing on teaching for examinations, they concentrate on learners who can cope with the speed at which lessons are taught – leaving behind learners who might need extra time or help in accessing the prescribed examination-related curriculum.
Although they claimed not to have adequate skills to teach learners with diverse needs, the teachers disclosed that being passionate, tolerant and having a positive attitude when dealing with learners with disabilities and/or special educational needs, were the character attributes that worked best for them in terms of helping learners pass their individual subjects. The merits of these attributes for inclusive classrooms, are also acknowledged by Mittler (2000). The participants criticised some common
teaching practices in some of their schools – dodging slow-learner classes and monopolising teaching methods – as being unsuitable for some learners. Thus, the teachers seemed to understand the importance of catering for all learners in their schools.
Drawing from MOET’s annual examination result records for JC and COSC/LGCSE, final examination results have consistently reflected science and mathematics as being the most failed subjects. It appeared that MOET had attempted to improve the pass rate in these subjects by introducing the core syllabus for learners considered to be less gifted in those subjects (slow-learners) – while others studied the extended syllabus. It was found, however, that the teachers did not know how to categorise learners so that they could be streamed into those two syllabi. Worse still, there was a shortage of classrooms and teachers, so creating further confusion for the teachers. Arguably, the arrangement of core and extended syllabi still falls short of curriculum adaptations which are recommended for inclusion.