In Kenya, similarly to other developing countries, there is a lack of robust data regarding disability prevalence rates in (Groce, et al 2011; Grech, 2009). This has been linked to a lack of consistency in identifying and defining the categories. Over the years, Kenya has used estimates for the data on children said to have SEN. The Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities (KNSPWD, 2008) has attempted to provide up to date data for persons with disabilities.
63
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) disability affects 10% of every population. An estimated 650 million people worldwide including 200 million children, experience some form of disability. It is not clear whether the 10% refers to children with physical and sensory impairments, or emotional difficulties. This may imply that the total figure of children with some form of learning disability would be much higher where one includes acquired disabilities as a result of poverty, non-attendance, accidents and diseases. The recent political insurgences after the 2007 general elections in Kenya, is evidence for an increase in children with acquired disabilities. Surveys conducted in 55 countries by the Disabilities Statistics Compendium show a prevalence rate of 0.2 – 21% of children with impairments.
Kenya uses the WHO 10% figure which roughly translates to approximately 4million people in different categories (Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities KNSPWD, 2008, p1). It is fundamental to have reliable data on children’s needs in order to facilitate forward planning, ensure appropriate range of provision and expenditure priorities. The incidence would be an indicator of what category of SEN is common or rare within a particular gender, age, region or circumstances. Further research is required in this area.
The Kenyan government (KG) established the Kenya Institute of Education to offer a specialised teacher training programme in 1986. In 1988, the Kamunge Report recommended the mainstreaming of children with disabilities in schools as policy (Kiptarus, 2005). The integration policy was enforced in 1990 with the opening of units in the mainstream primary schools. Children said to have SEN would be withdrawn in turns into the mainstream classes for specific subjects. The units for children with hearing impairments were among the first ones and comprised less than 12 pupils in a class. A mainstream class teacher would accept up to three children said to have SEN at a time.
In an Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress (ISEC) – International Special Education Conference on ‘Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity’ held in Glasgow,
64
Scotland on 1 – 4 August, 2005, Kiptarus presented a paper entitled ‘Including the deaf in the mainstream class in Kenya’. According to Kiptarus (2005), there was a shortage of specialised trained personnel and teachers. Teachers also required that these children be taught by special education teachers. Although Kipatarus (2005) argues that pupils with hearing impairments are able to socialise in class, no mention is made on how these children are able to participate in the classroom and school activities, access the curriculum or interact with others when they have communication difficulties.
In the United Kingdom, the education of disabled children and young people with special educational needs was driven by the Warnock Committee Report, 1978 [Department of Education and Science (DES, 1978)]. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Discrimination Act, 2001 part of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, promoted the initiative that wherever possible children with SEN should be included within the mainstream school instead of being taught in separate special schools (Shah, 2007; Vislie, 2003). The concept of ‘Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) stresses that it is a legal duty for the education providers to treat children with disabilities no less favourably and for schools to make reasonable adjustments in order to enable such children to benefit from the available curriculum. The LRE is a United States (US) not United Kingdom (UK) concept although the UK disability legislation does include the reasonable adjustment requirement.
The principle of integration was established through the Education Act (1981) and was reaffirmed by the Education Act (1988) when all children were entitled to equal education opportunities which was enshrined in the National Curriculum (Lloyd, 2000). This kind of governmental and legal support is necessary for any reform to thrive. In the UK, despite the 1981 and subsequent Acts, integration was not required but to be pursued wherever possible. Inclusive education practices were the policy goals of the New Labour Administration under the Blair Government from 1997 onwards. However, there remain caveats to the inclusion of all children with disabilities and/or learning difficulties in ordinary classrooms. The important caveat relates to the provision of efficient education for other
65
children and further the judgement as to whether the ordinary classroom provides a context in which the child may thrive.
When the Kenyan government (KG) enforced integration it had not launched the (SNE)Policy (Ministry of Education, 2009); there was no accompanying government legislation stipulating how the needs of the children said to have SEN are to be met in the special units or the accommodations to be made in the mainstream in support of the diverse needs. Several Education Commissions and Reports were initiated at different times and while some recommendations were applied as circulars, guidelines or policy for a specific time, other recommendations were not initiated. These Commissions and Reports of Education are discussed in section two of this chapter. However, after the launch in 2009, the terms resource teacher (p5) and special units (p6) of the policy are defined without specifying accommodations to be made to support the diverse needs of the children said to have SEN joining the mainstream.
Alqurani (2011), Avramidis and Norwich (2002) and Norwich (1996) avow that this association may be educational or social.
In the Kenya SNE policy (MOE, 2009) integration is defined as: ‘A progress through which, learners with and or without special needs are taught together to the maximum extent possible in a least restrictive environment. The child is expected to adapt to the environment (MoE, 2009, p 5).
Although children are educated with non-disabled peers in regular schools in Kenya, Kiarie (2004, p51) states that, ‘there is no support, adaptation or modification’ made for the children said to have mental impairment in primary schools. In other research, Pontefract and Hardman (2005, p100) describe the general condition of mainstream primary schools in Kenya as follows:
‘…schools lack electricity, resources and other facilities, as do the homes of the teachers, support staff and children … most of the classrooms had a traditional seating arrangement with all desks facing the chalkboard and many were overcrowded resulting in cramped conditions’
66
The above evidence from Kiarie (2004) and Pontefract and Hardman (2005) does not depict an educational landscape that is focusing on the placement of children with SEN. As Farrell and Ainscow (2002) point out, the problem with defining integration solely in terms of placement is that it tells us little about the quality of the education received in that context. The emphasis of integration was the provision of support to individual pupils in order to make it possible for them to ‘fit in’ to the mainstream programme without any changes being made to that programme.
The goal of meeting the needs of all children of school age depends upon their being at school. Whilst the Kenyan government is committed to free primary schools, most of the schools still require parents to contribute towards the development and maintenance of the school. These additional charges and levies occasionally discourage attendance of children especially in a country where poverty and inequalities are predominant (Tikly 2009). Challenges of tackling widespread poverty involve understanding compound types of disadvantages and the process of marginalisation which revolve around funding and resources and increasing equity of access to education. In order for meaningful, relevant and valued education which reinforces goals for education for social justice within the extensive scope of the historical and contemporary context of the country, it is imperative that education reforms reorganise, represent and involve the excluded group of indigenous people to meet the goals for social justice (UNESCO, 2011).