Application of results: on the topic of educational inclusion
Changes in disability policy
As previously noted, the definition of disability can have important effects on both academic applications and practical matters of life with a disability. For this reason, one short definition included in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has made quite an impact on legal and developmental concepts of disability.[1] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is an international project of the United Nations designed to help protect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities by calling for the cooperation of signatory countries. At the time of this writing, the UNCRPD had 158 signatories and 138 ratifications, the ratified countries having agreed to fulfill the obligations of the convention, report on the progress of fulfilling these obligations, and be held accountable to international monitoring system. These obligations focus on protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities that may have been ignored in the past, while also attempting to support the identity of persons with disabilities with dignity and respect. Furthermore, the UNCRPD included an Optional Protocol that offers citizens the opportunity to direct complaints to the international monitoring committee when avenues within the country are not options or are not functioning properly. Sierra Leone signed both the UNCRPD and its Optional Protocol on March 30, 2007, and ratified the Convention on April 10, 2010. This ratification was accompanied by the Sierra Leone Persons With Disability Act of 2011, which called for the formation of a National Commission for Persons with Disability, the protection of human rights as outlined by the UNCRPD, and the implementation of programs that would protect these rights such as healthcare programs and educational inclusion.
What do these policy changes mean for persons with disabilities?
Perhaps one of the most important facets of the UNCRPD was that it defined disability in a relatively unfamiliar way. The relatively brief definition reads, “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” With this focus on interactions, participation, and equality in society, the convention regarded disability as a social issue, rather than a medical category as may have been previously assumed. With this somewhat subtle change, disability became internationally defined as a human rights issue.[2]
This transition did provide Sierra Leoneans with disabilities support in that, as a human rights issue, the UNCRPD was targeted towards humans. Though it may seem quite obvious and nearly insignificant, the country’s ratification of the UNCRPD and the promised actions to follow therefore acknowledged persons with disabilities as, indeed, persons, rather than at best medical patients and at worst useless non-persons. However, some criticism has been wary of the possible effects of the UNCRPD, fearing that the convention could exacerbate the very problems it seeks to mend. One critical position is that the idea of human rights action has overpowered the dialogue of emancipatory struggle. In closing other ways of analyzing and overcoming discrimination, human rights interventions such as the UNCRPD has shifted focus almost entirely to the globalization of “Northern” (i.e. "Western", or "developed") attitudes pertaining to disability.
First, perhaps a bit in here about how aid sometimes doesn’t work due to the shortsightedness and inapplicability of Northern/Western aid, and how the enactment of the UNCRPD may reflect a lot of the issues that come up in aid. [3]
In addition, the goals and methods set forth by human rights interventions are typically unrealistic in the communities that may be committing the worst violations, simply because they are out of reach of the humanitarian perspectives and tactics employed by the North.[4] The teachers at the school for the hearing impaired, for example, were very aware of the complications that could prevent realistic progress of such interventions as educational inclusion. Of those I interviewed, only a very small minority did not voice reservations about educational inclusion, while a minority on the other end of the spectrum argued against it all together. The large majority of the teachers regarded educational inclusion as a good idea, but warned against the dangers of implementing it too soon.
Lastly, some of the concepts within the convention are still problematic in and of themselves. The convention assumes that the North has “gotten it right” and should serve as a model for the global South. But even the basic ideals of the convention that seem so obvious to Northern concepts of human rights are more problematic than they appear. The current concept of inclusion is, even at its best, based on able-bodied terms.[5] It remains exclusive, outlining how it will incorporate the disabled minority into the majority without equalizing the common ground. The disabled are still the exception, rather than truly being welcomed into the whole.
What does this mean in terms of education?
This is a fear echoed by many of the teaching staff participants, who often commented on the suspicion that children with hearing impairment would end up in “the back of the classroom”, falling behind in classrooms that were not designed to include them with teachers who were not trained to teach them. These teachers expect that dramatic changes, would have to occur regarding the perspectives on special education training in Sierra Leone for true inclusion to be possible. These changes must be on both practical and philosophical terms.Philosophically, these teachers are hoping that their students may one day enter a mainstream classroom that does not look at them as a necessary evil, but welcomes them simply as a student. Inclusion should not simply focus on placing the disabled within mainstream school walls and trying to work them into the curriculum. Instead, inclusion should be seen as an initiative that will affect all involved in the classroom, and will therefore require the input and responsibility of all involved. Such a distinction redirects focus to the ability of the society to let the disabled in.[6]
With these complex factors warning against the dangers of jumping to Northern actions too quickly, the teachers fear that the guilt of the imminent failure may fall on the backs of their students. Rugiatu, a teacher with eight years of experience and a diploma in Special Education, remarked, “The teachers will not know the strategies that we use. And since they don’t know how to teach them, they will think it’s a waste of time.” Rugiatu’s statement draws a clear parallel to the depictions of discrimination towards the disabled explained by both nurses and teachers in this study: discrimination based on a “useless” virtual social identity. If educational inclusion fails, it will continue and propagate the existing notion that persons with disabilities are “impossible to teach”, “bad investments”, and ultimately “useless”. The guilt will be placed with the children who did not appear to learn, rather than the system that did not adequately teach. It is not better than nothing, could actually take away from resources already educating children with disabilities, and could ultimately be detrimental to the dignity and social status of Sierra Leoneans with disabilities.
The discussion of inclusion is extremely complex, and growing more so without the utilization of realistic research concerning impacts of social and cultural beliefs on special education. I hope that my work can provide a perspective that has not found much voice in the argument as of yet, tying such a powerful topic of human rights with human cultural practices.
[1] United Nations. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Electronic document, http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml, accessed September 12, 2013.
[2] Meekosha, Helen and Soldatic, Karen. 2011. Human Rights and the Global South: the case of disability. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1383-1397.
[3] Dichter, Thomas W. 2003 Despite Good Intentions: Why Development Assistance to the Third World has Failed. University of Massachusetts Press.
[4] Meekosha, Helen and Soldatic, Karen. 2011. Human Rights and the Global South: the case of disability. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1388.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Allan, Julie. 2005. Inclusion as an Ethical Project. In Foucault and the Government of Disability. Ed. Shelley Tremain. Ann Arbor: The University of Michgan Press. Pp. 281-297.
[7] Miles, Susie, Lorraine Wapling & Julia Beart. 2011. Including Deaf Children in Primary Schools in Bushenyi, Uganda: a community-based initiative. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1515-1525.
As previously noted, the definition of disability can have important effects on both academic applications and practical matters of life with a disability. For this reason, one short definition included in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has made quite an impact on legal and developmental concepts of disability.[1] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is an international project of the United Nations designed to help protect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities by calling for the cooperation of signatory countries. At the time of this writing, the UNCRPD had 158 signatories and 138 ratifications, the ratified countries having agreed to fulfill the obligations of the convention, report on the progress of fulfilling these obligations, and be held accountable to international monitoring system. These obligations focus on protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities that may have been ignored in the past, while also attempting to support the identity of persons with disabilities with dignity and respect. Furthermore, the UNCRPD included an Optional Protocol that offers citizens the opportunity to direct complaints to the international monitoring committee when avenues within the country are not options or are not functioning properly. Sierra Leone signed both the UNCRPD and its Optional Protocol on March 30, 2007, and ratified the Convention on April 10, 2010. This ratification was accompanied by the Sierra Leone Persons With Disability Act of 2011, which called for the formation of a National Commission for Persons with Disability, the protection of human rights as outlined by the UNCRPD, and the implementation of programs that would protect these rights such as healthcare programs and educational inclusion.
What do these policy changes mean for persons with disabilities?
Perhaps one of the most important facets of the UNCRPD was that it defined disability in a relatively unfamiliar way. The relatively brief definition reads, “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” With this focus on interactions, participation, and equality in society, the convention regarded disability as a social issue, rather than a medical category as may have been previously assumed. With this somewhat subtle change, disability became internationally defined as a human rights issue.[2]
This transition did provide Sierra Leoneans with disabilities support in that, as a human rights issue, the UNCRPD was targeted towards humans. Though it may seem quite obvious and nearly insignificant, the country’s ratification of the UNCRPD and the promised actions to follow therefore acknowledged persons with disabilities as, indeed, persons, rather than at best medical patients and at worst useless non-persons. However, some criticism has been wary of the possible effects of the UNCRPD, fearing that the convention could exacerbate the very problems it seeks to mend. One critical position is that the idea of human rights action has overpowered the dialogue of emancipatory struggle. In closing other ways of analyzing and overcoming discrimination, human rights interventions such as the UNCRPD has shifted focus almost entirely to the globalization of “Northern” (i.e. "Western", or "developed") attitudes pertaining to disability.
First, perhaps a bit in here about how aid sometimes doesn’t work due to the shortsightedness and inapplicability of Northern/Western aid, and how the enactment of the UNCRPD may reflect a lot of the issues that come up in aid. [3]
In addition, the goals and methods set forth by human rights interventions are typically unrealistic in the communities that may be committing the worst violations, simply because they are out of reach of the humanitarian perspectives and tactics employed by the North.[4] The teachers at the school for the hearing impaired, for example, were very aware of the complications that could prevent realistic progress of such interventions as educational inclusion. Of those I interviewed, only a very small minority did not voice reservations about educational inclusion, while a minority on the other end of the spectrum argued against it all together. The large majority of the teachers regarded educational inclusion as a good idea, but warned against the dangers of implementing it too soon.
Lastly, some of the concepts within the convention are still problematic in and of themselves. The convention assumes that the North has “gotten it right” and should serve as a model for the global South. But even the basic ideals of the convention that seem so obvious to Northern concepts of human rights are more problematic than they appear. The current concept of inclusion is, even at its best, based on able-bodied terms.[5] It remains exclusive, outlining how it will incorporate the disabled minority into the majority without equalizing the common ground. The disabled are still the exception, rather than truly being welcomed into the whole.
What does this mean in terms of education?
This is a fear echoed by many of the teaching staff participants, who often commented on the suspicion that children with hearing impairment would end up in “the back of the classroom”, falling behind in classrooms that were not designed to include them with teachers who were not trained to teach them. These teachers expect that dramatic changes, would have to occur regarding the perspectives on special education training in Sierra Leone for true inclusion to be possible. These changes must be on both practical and philosophical terms.Philosophically, these teachers are hoping that their students may one day enter a mainstream classroom that does not look at them as a necessary evil, but welcomes them simply as a student. Inclusion should not simply focus on placing the disabled within mainstream school walls and trying to work them into the curriculum. Instead, inclusion should be seen as an initiative that will affect all involved in the classroom, and will therefore require the input and responsibility of all involved. Such a distinction redirects focus to the ability of the society to let the disabled in.[6]
With these complex factors warning against the dangers of jumping to Northern actions too quickly, the teachers fear that the guilt of the imminent failure may fall on the backs of their students. Rugiatu, a teacher with eight years of experience and a diploma in Special Education, remarked, “The teachers will not know the strategies that we use. And since they don’t know how to teach them, they will think it’s a waste of time.” Rugiatu’s statement draws a clear parallel to the depictions of discrimination towards the disabled explained by both nurses and teachers in this study: discrimination based on a “useless” virtual social identity. If educational inclusion fails, it will continue and propagate the existing notion that persons with disabilities are “impossible to teach”, “bad investments”, and ultimately “useless”. The guilt will be placed with the children who did not appear to learn, rather than the system that did not adequately teach. It is not better than nothing, could actually take away from resources already educating children with disabilities, and could ultimately be detrimental to the dignity and social status of Sierra Leoneans with disabilities.
The discussion of inclusion is extremely complex, and growing more so without the utilization of realistic research concerning impacts of social and cultural beliefs on special education. I hope that my work can provide a perspective that has not found much voice in the argument as of yet, tying such a powerful topic of human rights with human cultural practices.
[1] United Nations. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Electronic document, http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml, accessed September 12, 2013.
[2] Meekosha, Helen and Soldatic, Karen. 2011. Human Rights and the Global South: the case of disability. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1383-1397.
[3] Dichter, Thomas W. 2003 Despite Good Intentions: Why Development Assistance to the Third World has Failed. University of Massachusetts Press.
[4] Meekosha, Helen and Soldatic, Karen. 2011. Human Rights and the Global South: the case of disability. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1388.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Allan, Julie. 2005. Inclusion as an Ethical Project. In Foucault and the Government of Disability. Ed. Shelley Tremain. Ann Arbor: The University of Michgan Press. Pp. 281-297.
[7] Miles, Susie, Lorraine Wapling & Julia Beart. 2011. Including Deaf Children in Primary Schools in Bushenyi, Uganda: a community-based initiative. Third World Quarterly 32(8): 1515-1525.