The participants listed some benefits of inclusion – with regard to sporting activities in mainstream schools. Teachers in the urban focus group argued that despite infrastructural challenges, high-quality sporting activities found in mainstream schools could help to nurture sporting talents in children with disabilities. One participant stated it as follows:
“Ke shebile taba ea li sports joale ka ha utla fumana hore bana banang le disabilities ha ba ea catereloa lipapaling. So ka inclusive education, bana bohle ba tla atleha ho iponahatsa hore litalenta liteng ho bona tseo ba ka khonang ho iphelisa ka tsona.” [I am looking at inclusive education from the sporting perspective. Although the sporting conditions within our schools do not cater for learners with disabilities, a proper setup would nurture sporting talents in children with disabilities – so that they could ultimately make a living out of those talents.] (P4U)
Interestingly, the teachers did not link physical activity with good health. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM, 2007) recommends that adults become physically active for a minimum of 30 minutes a day, while children from infancy and throughout school should have at least 60 minutes of activity per day. Research links physical inactivity to many serious illnesses facing modern society. It contributes to about 3% of the global burden of disease and causes major economic costs and indirect costs such as loss of productivity (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2002). Ayvasoglu, Ratliffe and Kozub (2004) and the British Heart Foundation (2000) concur, indicating that the benefits of physical activity include decreased blood pressure; decreased heart rate; reduction in incidence of diabetes; increased bone mass and strength; increased lung capacity; increased muscular strength and endurance; an increased sense of wellbeing; increased flexibility, balance and coordination; and improvements in the immune system.
The teachers also highlighted some disadvantages of IE, and these are discussed next.
4.8 Disadvantages of inclusive education
The interviewees stated that interactions between those with disabilities and their non-disabled peers would keep reminding those with disabilities about their deficits. According to the teachers, this could result in the isolation of those with disabilities:
“... those kids ba nang le disabilities ba qetella e eba centre of attraction somehow …. Joale u tlo fungoana hore such a person does not feel part and parcel of that school, within that community ea batho ba normal. O qetella a hlokomela as he/she goes to school hore “I am not the same as these people.” As a result, taba eno ka boeona e mo sitisa ho interacta hantle despite the type of disability …” [Children with disabilities may become the centre of attraction. Their interactions with non-disabled children could make them aware of their personal deficits, [and] so positive interaction will be compromised. Consequently, they will feel isolated.] (P4U)
Another participant in the same focus group consolidated this idea by stating the following:
“They (those with mobility impairment) are disadvantageous to them (the non- disabled) because they will be willing to play with them, but u fumane hore [you find that] they are not able to play. They will be sitting in a wheelchair u fumane hore [and you find that] the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. So, the person will feel solitary.” (P3U).
The possibility of isolation and loneliness when learners with mobility impairment attend mainstream schools was mentioned again in the rural focus group’s discussions. One teacher put it as follows:
“Haeba emong a sebelisa wheelchair, o lokela bana babang ba mophushe haeba mohlolo o mong ho tsuoa classeng ho u oa laboratory. So, bana ba mophushang ba ka teneha e be ba qetella ba mo dodga. Seno se ka etsa hore a ikutloe e kare o lahlehile.” [Children who use wheelchairs require others to push their wheelchairs when changing classes. When tired of pushing [the wheelchairs], the non-disabled children may dodge the wheelchair users – and this will make those using the wheelchairs feel neglected and lost.] (P5R)
Thus, those with disabilities would become non-disabled children’s burdens, as they will have to assist them even when they are not willing to do so.
Two of the six teachers in the urban focus group thought that inclusion would make children with disabilities the centre of attraction for others. One of these teachers stated that: “… I don’t think it [inclusion] is a good idea because ha u shebile, those
kids ba nang le disabilities ba qetella e eba [children with disabilities end up being
others who asserted that if children without disabilities were sensitised about their school mates with disabilities, things would run smoothly:
“I think it is a good idea hore ba kenele classeng le bana babang. Se kampang sa etsahala ke hore bana bano bao re nkang ba le normal, ba lokisoe ka lihloohong hore ba tsebe hore ho na le batho ba joalo. Nna mane moo ke sebetsang bana bano u tla bona hore they understand hore batho bana ba nang le bokooa ba pono, le masofe, ke batho joalo ka bona. Ke hore motho emong le emong o phuthulohile mono, mme ha ho kebe hobe le hotlakana. Taba kehore bana bano ba lokisoe ka hloohong.” [I think it is a good idea that children with disabilities learn together with those without disabilities, in the same classroom. What teachers need to do is to sensitise those without disabilities about those with disabilities. In my school, there are some learners with visual impairment and the albinos, but there is no discrimination among learners.] (P6U)
The teachers highlighted the possibility of children with disabilities monopolising some of the mainstream school services – such as occupying front seats (those with visual and hearing impairments), and their teachers giving them excessive attention at the expense of their non-disabled counterparts. Furthermore, they stipulated the possibility of children with disabilities getting excessive support while in mainstream schools, so making them dependent on others. One participant frantically stated:
“Babang ba slow-learners ba qetella ba le dependent ho fast-learners, e be ba batla ho etsetsoa lintho ka nako eohle. Ha ba sa batla ho iketsetsa letho. E ba parasites.” [Some of the slow-learners end up depending on fast-learners to always do school work for them. They become parasites]” (P4R).
The teachers stated that inclusion could also waste learning time for fast-learners. While teaching at a slower pace, in order to accommodate those who learn best at that pace, fast-learners might get bored and less enthusiastic about schooling, the teachers stated. The teachers also shared the idea that teaching at a slower pace could also result in slow-learners feeling guilty about holding back the normal progress rate of the class. On the other hand it was argued that those with disabilities could lose out academically while in mainstream schools, as mainstream school teachers could teach at a fast pace – ignoring their presence in class.
Although children are considered to be accepting of others with disabilities (National Council for Special Education [NCSE], 2010), the teachers highlighted the possibility of some non-disabled students not accepting disabled children: “[It] ... is not all of
their normal peers who will appreciate children with disabilities” (P6R). Furthermore, it was declared that inclusion could include some children with deficiencies in mainstream schools that would irritate others. The example cited was a child who might not be able to retain saliva in his/her mouth. Some relevant extracts are:
“Hona le bana bao e leng li genius, bao ke eng ke bone taba eno e ba senyetsa nako hangata. Because hona le ngoana e mong oa ka eo ke eng ke bone eka ke mosenyetsa nako le ha e le hore ka nko e’ngoe ke tlabe ke ntse ke mofa extra work.” [Some learners are brilliant and inclusive education wastes their time. It wastes their time – despite giving them extra work.] (P1R)
“… sometimes ha re sheba [when we look into the] interaction of those who are non-disabled and those with disabilities, sometimes those who are non- disabled may become disgusted. Imagine sharing a desk with a person who is always salivating – it is disgusting and you are not able to learn well. The person is always salivating and the saliva even falls onto the desk.” (P4U). IE is considered by its advocates to be comparatively cost-effective. UNESCO (2005:17) asserts that “[a]ccording to a recent World Bank study and a growing body of global research, inclusive education is not only cost-efficient but also cost-effective ...” Shannon (2004) questions the authenticity of this assertion (see section 2.9). Corroborating Shannon (2004), the participants in the urban focus group thought that IE was comparatively expensive with regard to hiring support teachers. One of them stated that: “... so, for me it is answering my question, though it is somehow expensive. Now there will be regular teachers and ... support teachers” (P1U). To the contrary, those in the rural focus group thought that taking children with disabilities into special schools was even more expensive – although it would benefit them. One of them put it as follows:
“Hape ke ee ke bone eka hona le likolo tse itseng libakeng tseling tse nang le resources tse hantle molemong oa bana banang le disabilities. Joale, bana banang le disabilities, hantle ba lokela ho isuoa likolong tse joalo. Lehoja ho le turu haholo ho isa bana likolong tseno ....” [I think that special schools are well equipped for learners with disabilities. It might be a good idea to take them to such schools, although they are normally too expensive.] (PR)
On a positive note, the teachers repeatedly emphasised that the disadvantages of inclusion did not justify the exclusion of children with disabilities and/or special educational needs from mainstream schooling:
“Ha re bolele hore bana bano ba seke ba rutoa mmoho le babang, empa le ha bana bano ba ntse ba rutoa, ha maemo a sa lokisoe a thuto, u tla fumana hore ha re fihlelle litlhoko tsa bona ...” [We are not implying that children with disabilities should not be part of mainstream schooling, but we are saying that reforms are necessary in order for teachers to meet their individual needs.] (P4R)
Another teacher in the urban focus group also stated this point, although she also emphasised the idea of partial inclusion:
“Ke nahana hore nna moo monyetla o leng teng, kapa li resource li le teng, e kaba hantle hore ba ithute ba le bang…. Ke itse re sa ba exclude completely, but fela eka ba ka ba moo eleng bona feela ha ho ithutoa.” [In my opinion, if we still have equipped special schools in our country, then they should enrol in such schools. But, like I mentioned earlier, they should not be completely excluded from mainstream schooling.] (P3U)
The above response re-emphasised that the teachers were still viewing their learners with disabilities through a medical model lens – in which their embodied cultural capital (their impairments), called for their placement in special schools (DiGiorgio, 2009).