‘Inclusive and equitable quality education’ for children with disabilities: a call for action

What do we know about what works in educating deaf children in middle and low income countries and what are the implications for the international development community in the promotion of ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’?

Lorraine WaplingMPhil/PhD studentUniversity College London

Introduction

60 million deaf children around the world: Most live in low-middle income countries; Much less likely to be in education or complete schooling

(Deaf Child Worldwide, 2010).

Education is a key component in the alleviation of poverty. BUT:Increased general enrolment rates have not produced parity improvements for disabled children:

Lower primary completion rates; Poorer literacy skills (Groce and Bakhshi, 2011; WHO, 2011).

What about access in education for deaf children?

General observations from projects in LMICs

‘Inclusive education’ / ‘mainstreaming’ are often used to describe interventions that support disabled children.

Generally not well defined concepts; especially by the host government’s education system.

Varied in the interventions offered: Identification and enrolment; Awareness raising / parental support programmes; Rehabilitation and/or provision of assistive technology; In-service teacher training; Teaching and learning materials.

General observations continued..

Teachers often have mixed feelings about the inclusion of disabled children in mainstream classes. Want to help, but: Large classes;

Lack of training & support;

No teaching and learning materials;

Rigid curriculum and testing processes;

Interesting paradox: teachers report deaf children as being some of the easiest to accommodate but although that is true physically is it really true from a learning perspective?

Evidence base for educating deaf children Direct evidence from LMICs is rare:

Search for deaf education (from 2005) produced 368 articles.

25 focused on LMICs, but 6 only briefly mention deaf students.

19 remaining but only 3 covered primary level.

Of the 19 only 9 specifically covered type of placement: 5 mainstream / inclusive

3 special education

1 special unit

Much more widely reported on from high income countries, especially the US, UK, Europe and Australia.

Evidence base continued…Key theme – language & communication

Central role of language and communication in promoting effective learning (Knoors and Marschark, 2014; Marschark and Hauser, 2012);

Deaf children face specific learning needs around language because they rarely have access to fluent language (Knoors and Marschark, 2014).

Early natural sign language has been shown to be beneficial for many deaf children (Marschark and Hauser, 2012).

Language is important for both formal and informal learning. Unless it is specifically addressed, deaf children will struggle in comparison to their hearing peers.

Evidence base continued…Key theme – learning differences

Need to acknowledge there are differences in the way deaf and hearing children learn.

There are differences in what creates the most effective learning environments.

Work around working memory function suggests deaf children are more prone to cognitive overload.

Deaf children rely more on one cognitive domain – visuo-spatial – than their hearing classmates (Cockcroft et al., 2010). This presents a challenge for the way teachers introduce new concepts.

Evidence base continued…Key theme – educational placement

No conclusive evidence yet on what educational placement benefits deaf children the most (Spencer and Marschark, 2010).

More research is needed but the best option currently seems to be to make sure that a range of placements exist so that deaf children can be placed in the most appropriate environment for their learning needs (Knoors and Marschark, 2014).

What is the experience from LMICs?Key themes - attitudes

Growing awareness that deaf children are not succeeding in ‘inclusive’ settings.

Sense that teachers and schools are not prepared for deaf children (Nkolola-Wakumelo and Manyando, 2013).

Negative attitudes impact on poor provisioning and low priority by governments. Regardless of the setting, funding for deaf education is minimal & overly reliant on the NGO sector (Abosi and Koay, 2008; Storbeck and Martin, 2010).

What is the experience from LMICs?Key themes - preparedness

A lot of focus on pre- and in-service training of teachers being inadequate to meet the specific challenges of educating deaf children.

Lots of focus on the expectations of teachers – generally they are low in relation to deaf children (e.g. Musengi et al., 2013).

Very little is known about how mainstream teachers actually cope with deaf children in their classes. What is known suggests there is a significant gap between ideals and practice (Arbeiter and Hartley, 2002).

What is the experience from LMICs?Key themes – natural sign language

Some research has focused on the language and communication skills of teachers.

Poor skills in sign language and a lack of understanding over its role seem to be a major barrier.

Common misunderstandings include: Sign language inhibits the development of spoken language

Sign language is inferior and not designed for conceptual learning

Sign language is a way to communicate with deaf children

Conclusion

Growing evidence from high income countries around how deaf children learn although there is still no definitive agreement over how best to teach them.

In LMICs the situation is one of confusion with a lack of urgency over the need to reflect on current practices.

LMICs show: Over reliance on the promotion of speech over primary

language;

Low expectations about deaf children’s ability to learn;

Poor identification and early intervention programmes;

Lack of AT and accompanying habilitation/rehab. Services.

Implications for international development

Need to review current approaches to the promotion of inclusive education.

Need to understand how to provide deaf children with access to learning opportunities – one size does not fit all.

More attention needs to be given to parents and children over the unique language learning needs of deaf children.

Much more needs to be done on improving primary language development in deaf children – greater emphasis may be needed on early identification and intervention programmes.

References

Abosi, O., and T. L. Koay, 2008, Attaining Development Goals of Children with Disabilities: Implications for Inclusive Education: International Journal of Special Education, v. 23, p. 1-10.

Arbeiter, S., and S. Hartley, 2002, Teachers' and Pupils' Experiences of Integrated Education in Uganda: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, v. 49, p. 61-78.

Cockcroft, K., H. Dhana, and K. Greenop, 2010, Working memory functioning in deaf primary school children: Implications for inclusive education: Education as Change, v. 14, p. 201-211.

Deaf Child Worldwide, 2010, Deaf Child Worldwide leaflet.

Groce, N. E., and P. Bakhshi, 2011, Illiteracy among adults with disabilities in the developing world: A review of the literature and a call for action: International Journal of Inclusive Education, v. 15, p. 1153-1168.

WHO, 2011, World Disability Report. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Marschark, M., and Hauser, P., 2012, How deaf children learn: What parents and teachers need to know: USA, Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M., and H. Knoors, 2012, Educating deaf children: Language, cognition, and learning: Deafness and Education International, v. 14, p. 136-160.

Marschark, M., P. E. Spencer, J. Adams, and P. Sapere, 2011, Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs: European Journal of Special Needs Education, v. 26, p. 3-16.

Musengi, M., A. Ndofirepi, and A. Shumba, 2013, Rethinking Education of Deaf Children in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities for Teacher Education: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, v. 18, p. 62-74.

Nkolola-Wakumelo, M., and M. Manyando, 2013, A situational analysis of the use of sign language in the education of the Deaf in Zambia: A case of Magwero and St Joseph's schools for the Deaf: Language Matters, v. 44, p. 69-88.

Storbeck, C., and D. Martin, 2010, South African Deaf education and the Deaf community: American Annals of the Deaf, v. 155, p. 488-490.

Contact information

The Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development CentreDepartment of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity College London 1-19 Torrington PlaceLondon WC1E 6BTUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 3146 

Fax: +44 (0)20 3108 3167

Email: lcc@ucl.ac.uk