2016/7/15

1• Background and context• Education for SN-Children in Kenya• Challenges in Implementing IE in Kenya• Research Objectives• Data collection• Findings• Reflections• Suggestions
21

2016/7/15• Initially, the concept of disability was explained by useof the individual mode, which considered it in terms ofindividual impairments and abnormal conditions.
• Since the 1970s, the concept has been transformed
from the individual model to a social model, which
views disability as a result of discriminatory social
attitudes and environmental barriers (Anthony 2013).

•Disability is therefore an umbrella term including (WHO & WB 2011):– Impairment: a problem of body function or structure (e.g. paralysis)– Activity limitation: a difficulty encountered by an individual in
executing a task or action (e.g. walking, eating)– Participation restriction: a problem experienced by an individual in
involvement in life situation (e.g. facing discrimination in employment).
3• The Salamanca Statement in 1994: ‘ll children should learn
together regardless of any difficulties or differences andschools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs ofthe learners’ (UNESCO 1994).
• Accordingly, the Kenyan government developed and launched
the Special Needs Education (SNE) Policy in 2009.
– The government places emphasis on inclusive education throughregular schools for learners with special needs and disabilities as
opposed to the practice of using special schools and special units
attached to regular schools. However, special schools and units areessential for learners with severe special needs and disabilities in theareas of hearing, visual, mental and serious physical challenges.
(MOE 2009, p.37, emphasis added)42

2016/7/15• About 15% of the world’s population aged 15 and above(based on 2010 global population) experience disability (WHO & WB2011).

• About 5% of children aged 14 and below have disabilities,
according to the Global Burden of Disease (WHO & WB 2011).
• Prevalence of persons with disabilities in Kenya ranges
from 4.6% (NCAPD & KNBS 2008) to 10% (MOEST 2015).
• In Kenya, of 102,749 learners with special needs, 21,050(20.5%) are in special schools and 81,649 (79.5%) areenrolled in integrated special units in primary andsecondary schools (MOEST 2015).
• These enrolment figures represent a third of expected
number of learners with special needs (MOEST 2015).
5• Studies in Malawi reveal that teachers prefer theseparation of children with disabilities (CwDs) from regularclassrooms so as to give them a quality education.
• In Kenya, the absence of operational guidelines, particularlyfor IE, makes the implementation of IE rather difficult.
• Lack of adequate funding, infrastructure, teaching andlearning materials, and trained teaching staff are further
obstacles for IE smooth implementation in Kenya• Lack of pre-service and in-service training limits teachers’
abilities for teaching and dealing with CwDs.
• Negative attitudes and beliefs in communities lead tostigma and discrimination.

63

2016/7/15• To establish the understanding of the policyof Inclusive Education by teachers inselected primary schools in Nairobi informalsettlements.
• Identify the challenges faced by teachers inrelation to the implementation of Inclusive
Education policy in selected primary schoolsin Nairobi informal settlements.

7Study Locale: Kasarani sub-county, Nairobi
Study period: A total of two weeks between Feb and April, 2016
Study design: Descriptive survey
Target Popln: Public[5], Private[2] and Low-cost private/NFS[5]Methods: Questionnaires (132), semi-structured interviews withheadteachers (12), Focus Group Discussion (FGD) (6)Participants

PublicFemale

MaleTotal

11

Non-formal

20

Private

Total

57

24

1394

68

44

19

132

637

84

2016/7/15

Level

PublicNon-formal

Private

Total

ECD

2 (3.0%)9 (20.9%)

3 (15.8%)

14 (10.9%)

Diploma

18 (27.2%)

3* (7.0%)

2 (10.5%)

23 (18.0%)

2 (10.5%)

8 (6.3%)

Secondary
Certificate

1 (1.5%)P1 certificate

4 (6.1%)

B.Ed

Other

2 (10.5%)

22 (17.2%)

8 (18.5%)

8 (42.2%)

37 (56.1%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (10.5%)

66 (100.0%)43 (100.0%)

19 (100.0%) 128 (100.0%)

4 (6.1%)Total

19 (44.2%)

2 (4.7%)20 (15.6%)

41 (32.0%)

9

Have you heard of the term
Inclusive Education?

No
20%

Yes
80%

Yes

No

Tb.1¥Where do the ones who
have heard/not heard teach?

Response Public

Nonformal

Private

Total

Yes

64(94%)

25(56%)

15(75%)

104(78.7%)

No4 (6%)19(44%)

5 (25%) 28(21.3%)

Total684420132
105

2016/7/15

Tb.2¥Do you agree that you wellunderstand the government policy ofIE?

Response

Agree

Undecided

DisagreePublic

73.5%

4.4%

22.1%

NonFormal

54.5%

9%

36.5%

Formalprivate

65%

15%

20%

Observations

 On the pie chart, a significant % ofteachers do not have an idea of IE
 On Tb.1 of where the teachers
teach – NFS suffer the most On their understanding of IE policymajority claim that they
understand IE policy= see Tb.2
 But despite this, NFS posted acomparatively higher % of those
who do not understand the IE
policy.
 Notably, private schools have thehighest % of those undecided interms of understanding this policy
11Tb.3¥Do you agree that you havesufficient knowledge, skills & confidence
to handle SNC in a normal classroom?

Tb.4¥Do you agree that it is better that
SNC learn separately with non-SNC?

Response

Agree

Undecided

DisagreeResponse

Agree

Undecided

DisagreePublic

52.9%

9.1%

38%

Public

50%

3%

47%

NonFormal31.8%

13.6%

54.6%

NonFormal

68%

2.5%

29.5%

Formalprivate

55%

5%

40%

Formalprivate

55%

10%

35%

1262016/7/15• Higher % of teachers in public and private schs feel they
have knowledge skills & confidence to handle SNC innormal classrooms than those in NFS (NFS also have high % ofundecided) see Tb.3
• On whether to learn separately, it is consistent that NFSteachers, whose knowledge was found to be generally low,form the majority supporting separation – possibly due tolack of skills to implement IE and/or sheer ignorance of IE
policy- see Tb.4
• Private schools also have a higher % supporting separation.
This is consistent with literature which shows that privateschs and NFS would rather avoid such children sinceadmitting them increases their running costs due toadditional requirements for catering for their needs.= [thecontinued growth of these private schools vis-à-vis lack of such growth in public schooling implies acontinued denial of such children their right to education]- see Tb.4
13Do you agree that SN-Children have aright to learn with normal children in
the same classroom?

Response

Agree

Undecided

DisagreePublic

90.6%

3%

6.4%

Non-Formal 43%

6.8%

50.2%

Formalprivate

5%

15%

80%

Observations• There appears to be enoughawareness among teachers inpublic and formal private
concerning SN Children having aright to education including
those with disabilities learning
together with those without
disabilities in the same classes.
• Nonetheless, this awareness isstill evidently low in NFS yet
they are a major provider ofeducation especially in UIS.
1472016/7/15• Lack of clear understanding of the IE policy• Lack of more affordable teacher training opportunities
limits teachers’ understanding and implementation of IE,
especially amongst the NFS teachers• Inadequate capacity needed for proper implementation of
the IE policy on the part of teachers• Attitudinal challenge- majority of teachers still feel that SN
children should learn separately- a feeling that isinconsistent with the mode of operation of the IE Policy.
• General lack of awareness of the rights of SN children tolearn together with others in the same classroom especiallyin NFS despite the larger constituency of learners that theyserve.
15• Shortages of funds, specialized teachers and learningmaterials are common obstacles for IE.
• Teachers limited knowledge of the various conditions of
the children hence not confident/sure of how to takecare of SNC thus registered their wish to work withmedical professionals in order to understand individual
health conditions.
• Teachers were concerned about poor health conditionsof CwDs as well as the sense of disillusionment on thepart of the children given their very poor rate oftransition to secondary/vocational institutions/labourmarket.
• Lack of clear policy guidelines OR the sheer insensitivityof the existing policy to the SN-children’s circumstances.
168

2016/7/15• The principles of IE underscore the need to meeteducational needs for all children[as is affirmed in SDG
Goal 4] including those with special needs, within theregular education system regardless of individual
circumstances.
• Although the Government of Kenya supports IE, theschool environments in terms of human, physical andfinancial capacities limit the implementation.
• As the social model indicates, there are barriers in theschool environment as well as within the education
system, a few of which have been explored here fromthe perspective of the teachers.
17• Such barriers restrict the children’s – especially SNC’saccess to opportunities and resources thereby limiting theirability to enjoy their right to education as well as otheropportunities and resources available to the rest of thechildren in their society, and which are fundamental totheir social integration within the society.
• This tends to socially exclude such children even more,hence marginalization.
• The IE policy, by sheer lack of some accompanying
implementation guidelines, exhibits a possibility for failure
to adequately prepare SNC to be well integrated in theeconomic and social life of the society thus becoming,
itself, an instrument of exclusion.
1892016/7/15• There is need for the relevant department in the MoE
to step up their awareness creation efforts topopularize this policy among the esteemed
implementers, and in particular, teachers in low-costprivate schools.
• In-service and pre-service teacher training would help
teachers to understand and implement IE.
• There needs to be a policy and clear guidelines about
implementation of IE.
• Even as IE policy is implemented, there is need to focus
more on acquisition of vocational skills (on the part ofthe SNC, over and above the cognitive ones, given thepoor transition rates to secondary sch/labour market.
192010