promoting inclusive education in mashonaland west province ... · inclusive education project –...

1

Leonard Cheshire Disability International; Leonard Cheshire Disability

and Inclusive Development Centre; Leonard Cheshire Disability

Zimbabwe Trust; and the Department for International Development

(DFID)

Inclusive Education Project – Zimbabwe

DFID GPAF-IMP-071

PROMOTING THE PROVISION OF INCLUSIVE PRIMARY

EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN

MASHONALAND WEST PROVINCE, ZIMBABWE

Research Report

Pre and Post-Intervention Comparative Analysis – School level data and

Survey on Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice on Disability and Inclusive

Education

February 2016

Contents

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 4

Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 5

Part I .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

School level data.................................................................................................................... 7

Attitudinal KAP survey ........................................................................................................... 8

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 9

Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 9

Results ................................................................................................................................... 9

Spread sheet for school information ................................................................................. 9

Survey questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 10

Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 10

Part II ....................................................................................................................................... 11

School-level data, 2013-2015 .................................................................................................. 11

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11

School/Type of provision (mainstream classes, special classes, resource units) ................ 12

Number of teachers............................................................................................................. 12

Enrolment figures ................................................................................................................ 15

Disability breakdowns ......................................................................................................... 20

Summary.............................................................................................................................. 21

Comparative analysis 2013-2015 KAP data ............................................................................. 23

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 23

Sample ................................................................................................................................. 23

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 25

Results ................................................................................................................................. 25

Knowledge ........................................................................................................................... 25

Training in Inclusive education/ Special Needs Education .............................................. 25

Provision of services and Practices ...................................................................................... 28

School provision as reported by Head teachers ............................................................... 28

3

Teachers and extra resources as reported by teachers ................................................... 28

Teachers and extra resources as reported by head teachers .......................................... 29

Number of students in mainstream classes, as reported by head teachers .................... 30

Number of students with disabilities as reported by Head Teachers .............................. 30

Number of students with disabilities as reported by Teachers ....................................... 35

Daily practices – teachers’ perceived self-efficacy .......................................................... 37

Barriers, concerns, attitudes and beliefs ............................................................................. 38

Physical barriers - accessibility ........................................................................................ 38

Distance and transportation ............................................................................................ 40

Attitudinal barriers .......................................................................................................... 40

Financial barriers (direct and indirect costs) ................................................................... 42

Assistive devices .............................................................................................................. 43

Concerns .............................................................................................................................. 44

1. Related to the individual .......................................................................................... 44

2. Related to the school ............................................................................................... 46

3. Attitudes other students/parents might have ......................................................... 47

4. Other concerns......................................................................................................... 48

Attitudes and Beliefs ........................................................................................................... 49

Positive attitudes and beliefs ........................................................................................... 49

Negative beliefs and Frustrations .................................................................................... 51

Parents’ beliefs and attitudes .......................................................................................... 53

Parents’ expectations ...................................................................................................... 55

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 57

Recommendations: ............................................................................................................. 62

Annex 1 KAP 2013-2015 Comparative analysis ....................................................................... 64

Abbreviations

BEAM Basic Education Assistance Module

CWD Children with Disabilities

EC European Communities/Commission

ECD Early child development

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IT Information Technology

IE Inclusive Education

KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices

LCD Leonard Cheshire Disability

LCDIDC Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre

LCDZT Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe Trust

MoE Ministry of Education (old label)

MoPaSE Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (new label)

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MWP Mashonaland West Province

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

S.D. Standard Deviation

SEN Special Education Needs

UCE United College of Education

UCL University College London

UNCRPD UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation

ZOU Zimbabwe Open University

5

Foreword

This report was prepared by Ms Marcella Deluca, Dr Monica Pinilla-

Roncancio1, and Dr Maria Kett, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive

Development Centre, University College London.

Data were collected by the Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe Trust

Inclusive Education project team: Mr Innocent Chimonyo (Project Manager);

Mr Joannes Mbaimbai, (Project Officer, Kariba district); Ms Evelyn Verina

Chomsora (Project Officer, Mhondoro-Ngezi district); and Mr Martin James

(Project Officer, Sanyati district).

The research team would like to thank all the LCDZT staff for their assistance

and support during the course of the research.

This research was funded by UKAID from the UK Government. However, the

views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official

policies.

1 Monica was hired as a consultant research assistant to undertake the data analysis

This report is divided in two parts: Part 1 of the report describes the

background to the study, the methodology, the sampling, and results. Part 2

provides a comparative analysis of the current state of education for children

with disabilities in mainstream primary schools in four districts (Kariba,

Hurungwe, Mhondoro Ngezi, and Sanyati) in Mashonaland West Province. It

gives an overview of the numbers of children in school by age, gender and

impairment, between 2013 and 2015. The chapter also provides a

comparative review of research on how parents, teachers and head teachers

think and act about disability and inclusive education between the years 2013-

2015.

Part I

Introduction

The overall goal of the research study was to demonstrate how effective

LCDI’s Inclusive Education (IE) approach was for girls and boys with

disabilities in mainstream primary schools. The research was undertaken over

the course of three years to measure and demonstrate to the government and

other stakeholders the impact of LCDI’s IE model by comparing outcomes of

teacher training, parental sensitisation and peer support of teachers, families

and children with disabilities. The research presented here compares results

before and after the IE project intervention from a sample drawn from 30

model primary schools, 240 cluster schools as well as nine control schools2 in

four districts (Kariba, Hurungwe, Mhondoro Ngezi, and Sanyati) in

Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe.

The research was complemented by focus group discussions and key

informant interviews during the course of the project to triangulate findings

and establish a deeper understanding of the issues and challenges facing

children with disabilities and their families in the region, including transport to

school and assistance in the classroom, as well as identify possible areas for

long term, sustainable solutions to the barriers identified. These results are

summarised in two reports available separately [LCDIDC website].

This report summarises the information gathered on girls and boys with

disabilities in the project schools, as well as the knowledge, attitudes and

practices (KAP) of their parents or caregivers, teachers and head teachers.

2 Each model school represents a cluster, influencing an average of 8 cluster schools, each less than 20km from the model school. Control schools were selected on the basis of their distance/proximity from both cluster and model schools. No intervention took place in control schools. The list of schools identified and selected for this project was provided by the Ministry of Education

7

This information is based on data collected in 2013 and again in 2015 at the

school level and through a knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) survey

administered to parents, teachers and head teachers. The survey measured

the levels of knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of parents (or

caregivers), teachers and head teachers before (2013) and after (2015)

interventions linked with LCD IE programme.

The comprehensive account of the 2013 baseline research (including the

tools used) is available in the centre’s publications repository:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-

ccr/projects/outputs/DFIDGPAF_Zimbabwe_Baseline_Report.pdf

The comprehensive account of the 2015 KAP analysis is available HERE.

School level data

In 2013, baseline data were gathered from schools on enrolments of children

with disabilities (CWD) in mainstream schools. In these schools, children with

disabilities may be placed in mainstream classrooms, or in resource units or

special classes. Resource units mostly cater for children with hearing and

visual impairments; while special classes are intended for children with

varying degrees of general learning difficulties3, but whose social adaptation

skills can meet most of the demands of the environment.4

The school level information was collected again in 2015 by the project staff

by re-administering the Excel spread sheet designed by the research team

specifically for this purpose (and as used in 2013). This detailed information

included:

Name, address, school pin (identification number), district;

Type of school (e.g. Council; Government; Church, etc.);

Type of provision (resource unit, special class, mainstream class);

Enrolment figures for school year 2015 (disaggregated by disability,

gender and age);

Number of children with disabilities for school year 2015

(disaggregated by disability, gender and age);

3 Children with disabilities in Resource Units comprise children with Hearing impairments after

being assessed by Audiologists, Children with Visual impairments are assessed by Medical personnel together with SPS/SNE personnel, Children with intellectual challenges and learning disabilities are assessed by Educational psychologists using standardised tests. Standardised tests are used to measure IQ to determine the correct placement. 4 From David Chakuchichi, Auxilia Badza and Phillipa Mutswanga, Inclusive Education in

Selected Districts in Zimbabwe – A Baseline Study 2009.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/projects/outputs/DFIDGPAF_Zimbabwe_Baseline_Report.pdf


Number of repeaters for school year 2015 (disaggregated by gender

and age);

Number of dropouts for school year 2015 (disaggregated by gender

and age);

Number of dropouts with disabilities for school year 2015

(disaggregated by gender and age);

Number of teachers, mainstream (disaggregated by gender);

Number of teachers, special education needs (SEN) (disaggregated by

gender);

Numbers of children with disabilities already enrolled (disaggregated by

age, sex and location where possible).

At school level, head teachers record and keep such information in their

offices. Therefore, information for this component of the research was

typically solicited through verbal request from the head teacher, or by copying

the data from the publicly displayed charts in the office or through the monthly

returns sent by every school to the district office. The schools have class

attendance registers. The District Education Office is typically provided with

monthly returns from schools, which give information on teachers, classes

and students.

Attitudinal KAP survey

In order to gauge pre-intervention knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of

head teachers, teachers and parents/caregivers in the project areas and a

control group, a survey was undertaken in 2013 prior to any project activities

taking place. The survey was repeated in 2015, six months prior to the

completion of the project activities to allow for comparison and measurement

of any changes over the duration of the project. The questionnaires were

developed in 2013 by the research centre at LCD based on standardised sets

of questions used internationally in research of this kind.5 The same

questionnaires were then re-administered in 2015 to enable comparison.

The results of the 2015 KAP survey – presented in a separate report help

establish a measure of the effectiveness of the IE intervention., since the

same information was collected on the same samples (head teachers,

teachers, and parents) at the beginning of the project.

5 The research was approved by the UCL Ethics Committee prior to its undertaking UCL

Ethics approval (ref.1661/002). The questionnaires are in the Annex of http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/projects/outputs/DFIDGPAF_Zimbabwe_Baseline_Report.pdf


9

Methodology

In order to allow for a before and after analysis, the same methodology was

used in both 2013 and 2015; along with the same data collection instruments,6

and (to the extent where it was possible), to the same respondents..In cases

where it was not possible to collect information from the same person,

sampling by replacement was used. Further details of this are given below.

Sampling

Aiming to reduce the negative effects of attrition in the sample, an extensive

and careful process of preparation was undertaken, before data collection. In

each district, project officers attempted to trace and match each person that

was interviewed during the 2013 baseline survey to their questionnaire

number, as well as to the same interviewer/enumerator and data entry person

to ensure continuity. Where it was not possible to collect the information from

the same subject in 2015, a process of sample by replacement was used.

Head teachers (or chiefs) were contacted prior to the re-survey in order to

arrange and schedule interviews and ensure that only one trip per school/area

was undertaken by the enumerators.

After replacement, the final sample in 2015 was 92.5% of the 2013 sample

with a success rate7 of 68.5%. The largest numbers of observations lost were

found in the parents sample with a deficit of 25 observations for 2015.

Reasons for this high rate of attrition ranged from parents moving out of the

area through to parents not being able to participate on the day of the

interview.

Results

Spread sheet for school information

Information was gathered at school level using the same form used to collect

baseline data in 2013. The school level data were collected at the same time

as the survey was undertaken, requesting the information at the district

education office. Data were subsequently sent to the research centre at the

beginning of August 2015. The project officers reported that they had

gathered school-based information as part of the monitoring and evaluation

activity which was updated to March 2015.

6 Available in the centre’s publications repository: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-

ccr/projects/outputs/DFIDGPAF_Zimbabwe_Baseline_Report.pdf 7 Those informants who were interviewed both in 2013 and 2015



School based data was requested for the total of 279 schools (30 model

schools, 240 cluster schools and 9 control schools). Due to incomplete or

inconsistent information, some schools were discarded from the analysis. It

should also be noted that no information was provided from Hurungwe due to

administrative reasons, so this district has not been included in the analysis.

Survey questionnaires

The total number of questionnaires administered in 2015 was 408 The sample

included 90 questionnaires from Mhondoro Ngezi, 102 from Sanyati, 68 from

Kariba, and 148 from Hurungwe.

However, given the problems of attrition, only 289 questionnaires were

included in the 2013-2015 comparative analysis. However, this still gave

enough power to the analysis,

Limitations

In order to comply with the requirements of the government, the international

team were unable to carry out the survey themselves. Therefore to save time

and money, it was decided to replicate the use of the ‘training of trainers’

approach as undertaken in 2013, though this may be less effective than

training the enumerators directly. Nevertheless, three of the four project

officers were in post, so had already undertaken the survey training

previously. As the Project Officer for Hurungwe had left the project, the project

team used the available resources to cover the research in the district (in this

case the Project Manager and the Kariba project officer).

It was also revealed that in order to save time with transport, in some

instances representatives from more than one school were brought together

in one location (this was contrary to what was agreed during the training, and

may have led to some of the data issues detected during the analysis phase).

Another limitation included retracing and replacing subjects for interviews and

this generated challenges in data sampling and collection.

Notwithstanding the limitations, it should be noted that undertaking research

in Zimbabwe can be challenging. Parents/caregivers of children with

disabilities can be a difficult sample to reach and there has been very little

engagement with them in previous research in Zimbabwe. The results still

provide some insights into the activities, issues and opportunities for children

with disabilities in MWP, their families and their teachers.

11

Part II

School-level data, 2013-2015

Introduction

The following section presents a comparative analysis of the school level data

gathered at two time periods – the first in 2013 (pre-intervention); and the

second in 2015 (post-intervention), from target schools in four districts of the

Mashonaland West province (Kariba, Mhondoro Ngezi, Sanyati and

Hurungwe). Information was collected on:

enrolment rates of children with and without disabilities;

the number of teachers, including those trained in IE;

the number of mainstream classes, special classes and resource units

per school in model, cluster8 and control schools for both years.

Although the baseline sample in 2013 comprised of 268 schools (30 model

schools, 229 cluster schools and 9 control schools) in 2015 it was only

possible to collect data from 166 schools (18 model schools, 143 cluster

schools and 5 control schools) in three of the four districts9. The data were

collected by the project officers in each district, using official information

provided by the District Education Office or by the Head teacher in each

school10.

Given the changes that occurred with cluster and model schools during the

three years of the project, it was not possible to analyse if actual differences

existed between cluster and model schools to test the intervention. As a

result, this section will mainly focus on the comparison between model and

control schools; however, data from cluster schools will still be presented for

informative purposes.

8 Cluster schools included two special schools and one institution that enrols pupils who are

considered ‘vulnerable’ and those who need rehabilitation. 9 As noted above, it was not possible to collect data from Hurungwe due to administrative

reasons. 10

While it is acknowledged that the sources of information are similar, the data presented in this section do not match the data provided by head teachers in part II of this report; therefore absolute comparisons between sources should be made with caution.

School/Type of provision (mainstream classes, special classes,

resource units)

The district distribution for 2015 included 42 schools in Kariba (25.3%), 57

schools in Mhondoro Ngezi (34.3%) and 67 schools in Sanyati (40.7%)11. The

majority of schools in the sample analysed for 2015 were council schools

(67.7%), followed by government schools (21.6%).

Out of the 166 schools, there was an average of 13.4 mainstream classes per

school with a maximum number of 56. Compared to the 2013 data collection,

there was an increase in the average number of mainstream classes per

school. This was more pronounced in model schools, and may be a direct

result of project strategies implemented with the objective of increasing the

total number of children attending primary education.

In 2015, 54 schools (32.5%) reported one special class and seven schools

(4.2%) had two special classes. 105 schools (63.3%) reported that there were

no special classes at all. When the data were disaggregated by type of

school, of the 18 model schools included in the analysis, 12 reported one

special class and 5 reported two special classes.

More than 91% (152) of the schools did not have resource units, with nine

schools (5.4%) reporting one unit and three schools (1.8%) reporting two

resource units12. Notable is the high number of schools (7) with resource units

in Sanyati, and that one model school reported not having any special classes

or resource units13.

Number of teachers

In 2015, the total number of teachers in the 166 sampled schools (mainstream

classes, special classes, and resource units) amounted to 2,381 (excluding

Hurungwe). Of these teachers, 530 taught in model schools; 1,763 in cluster

schools and 88 in control schools.

Table 1 below shows the number of teachers in 2013 and in 2015

(disaggregated by type of school and gender) in mainstream classes and

11 For details of the 2013 data collection see Deluca, M., Tramontano, C., Kett, M. (2014).

Research Report: Inclusive primary education for children with disabilities in Zimbabwe (Mashonaland Province). London: Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/projects/outputs/DFIDGPAF_Zimbabwe_Baseline_Report.pdf 12

Two schools reported to have more than two resource units, nevertheless these are special schools, included in the cluster sample - This is because of Rubatsiro and Jairos Jiri which are reported as cluster schools (but in fact are special schools – so no mainstream classes are expected there). 13

This can be associated with the fact that this school changed from cluster to model school during the duration of the project.



13

tables 2 and 3 show the numbers of teachers in special classes and resource

units disaggregated by type of school and gender.

Table 1 Number of teachers in mainstream classes, by gender and type of school

2013 2015 (Excluding Hurungwe)

Total number

of male teachers

Total number of female teachers

Total number of teachers

Total number of male teachers



Model schools

285 366 651 170 331 501

Cluster schools

1,349 1,370 2,719 750 948 1,698

Control schools

59 83 142 39 45 84

TOTAL 1,693 1,819 3,512 959 1,324 2283

Table 2 Number of teachers in special classes, by gender and type of school


Total number

of male teachers






Model schools

8 18 26 6 16 22

Cluster schools

14 22 36 13 23 36

Control schools

0 5 5 0 3 3

TOTAL 22 45 67 19 42 61

Table 3 Number of teachers in resource units, by gender and type of school


Total number

of male teachers






Model schools

0 7 7 1 6 7

Cluster schools

4 1 5 9 20 29

Control schools

1 0 1 1 0 1

TOTAL 5 8 13 11 26 37

The 2015 data revealed that the average number of teachers per school (all types of

provision included – mainstream classes, special classes, and resource units, valid data

only) was 14, with a range from 2 to 57. On average, an increase in the number of

teachers in model schools was observed between 2013 and 2015. Disaggregation by

district showed that Kariba had the lowest average number of teachers (11) and Sanyati

had the highest (15). No evident differences were found when the data were compared

between years and type of schools (model and control). Table 4 shows the average

number and range of teachers by type of school.

Table 4 Number of teachers by type of school (Average number, s.d., and range)

N Average number S.d. Minimum Maximum

2013

Model schools 30 22.8 9.3 9 45

Cluster schools 229 12 7.8 3 60

Control schools 9 16.4 3.3 12 21

2015 (Excluding Hurungwe)

Model schools 18 28.1 14.0 12 57

Cluster schools 142 12.0 8.2 2 53


In 2015, the pupil/teacher ratio (total enrolment/teachers (mainstream classes, special

classes, and resource units) was 37.7 ranging from 4.7 to 83.

There is no evident difference between pupil/teacher ratios in resource units or special

classes in 2015 compared to 2013. The analysis in 2015 revealed that the pupil/teacher

ratio in resource units and special units followed the national education policy14. Indeed, as

table 5 below shows, the pupil/teacher ratio for resource units was on average 7.4 with a

range from 3 to 15 children per teacher; and in special classes was on average 18 with a

range from 14 to 22.

With regard to mainstream classes, interestingly the pupil/teacher ratio of the sample was

on average 38.5 with a range from 4 to 8315. In a more detailed analysis of the data on

children with disabilities in mainstream classes, it was found that given the low number of

students with disabilities in this type of provision, the pupil ratio (CWDs/teachers) was

lower than one child per teacher (on average). However, this is assuming an equal

distribution of children with disabilities in mainstream classes; though it is acknowledged

that this rarely is the case. Nevertheless does indicate the possibility of increasing the

number of children with disabilities in this type of provision. It is also important to highlight

that increasing the demand generates higher expectations for the type and quality of

education that is provided in mainstream classes (e.g. additional resources/support should

be provided such as classroom assistants).

14 Education Director’s minute n. 20 of 2000 which outlines class sizes and teachers student ratios 15 Ume, in Kariba

15

Table 5 Pupil/teacher ratios, by type of school (Average number, s.d., and range), 2015

Average number S.d. Minimum Maximum N

Model schools

Pupil ratio 34.9 5.6 24.2 46.4 18.0

Pupil ratio: Mainstream class 36.0 5.4 26.2 46.4 18.0

Pupil ratio: Special class 18.1 1.7 14.0 21.0 17.0

Pupil ratio: resource unit 8.7 4.0 4.0 14.5 5.0

Cluster schools

Pupil ratio 38.0 10.6 4.8 83.0 141.0




Control schools

Pupil ratio 36.3 4.0 31.6 41.7 5.0



Pupil ratio: resource unit 6.0 . 6.0 6.0 1.0

Total

Pupil ratio 37.6 10.0 4.8 83.0 164.0




Enrolment figures

In March 2015, the total enrolment rate in the 166 schools - according to data provided

by the project team (excluding Hurungwe) amounted to 84,556 students, with 43,439

males (51.4%); and 41,117 females (48.6%), as the table below reveals.

Table 6 Total number of students enrolled, by type of school and gender


Total number of males Total number of females Total enrolment

Model schools 8,832 7,796 16,628

Cluster schools 33,143 31,731 64,874

Control schools 1,464 1,590 3,054

TOTAL 43,439 41,117 84,556

The average number of students per school was 515.5 with a range from 21 to 1971 (see

table 7). The table below also shows that on average, the number of students enrolled per

school increased in the last three years, with a slightly higher increase in model schools.

As indicated earlier, this is a direct effect of the project strategies, whose main objectives

were to increase enrolment rates in primary schools.

Table 7 Average number of students enrolled, by type of school (Average number, s.d., and range)

Average Number S.d. Minimum Maximum N

2013

Model schools 893.3 406.8 311 1725 30

Cluster schools 446.5 260.4 21 1621 229

Control schools 591.8 165.4 367 902 9


Model schools 979.9 496.6 363 1971 18

Cluster schools 453.7 320.1 21 1890 143

Control schools 610.8 143.9 405 750 5

The total number of children with disabilities across the 166 schools was 3,359 with

1,967 males (58.6%) and 1,392 females (41.4%). Table 8 provides the disaggregation of

the sample data by type of school and gender, with higher numbers of boys than girls.

Similar results were found in the 2013 analysis and in EC/OECD (2009) .

Table 8 Number of students with disabilities, by type of school and gender

2013 2015 (No including data from Hurungwe)

Total number of Total number of Total enrolment Total number of Total number of Total enrolment

boys with disabilities

girls with disabilities

students with disabilities

boys with disabilities

girls with disabilities

students with disabilities

Model schools

452 289 741 534 389 923

Cluster schools

987 712 1,699 1351 936 2,287

Control schools

55 64 119 82 67 149

Total 1,494 1,065 2,559 1,967 1,392 3,359

Although the data from Hurungwe were not included in the sample (one of the largest

district in the province), a significant increase (p-value< 0.000) in the number of students

with disabilities in model schools was observed when compared with 2013. This is likely to

be a possible positive effect of the IE intervention in the three districts included in this

analysis. It is expected that in Hurungwe the same trend would have been observed given

that results of the analysis of the KAP survey showed that this district had on average a

high enrolment rate of children with disabilities (see separate report on 2015 KAP results -

chapter 2 on HT). The data on students with disabilities were further disaggregated in the

table below by type of school and district.

Table 9 Number of students with disabilities, by type of school, gender and district, 2015

Kariba Mhondoro Ngezi Sanyati

Model Cluster Control Model Cluster Control Model Cluster Control

Boys with disabilities 118 277 21 182 399 17 234 675 44

Girls with disabilities 80 191 22 129 292 14 180 457 31

Total 198 468 43 311 691 31 414 1132 75

The average number of students with disabilities per school was 19.5, with a range from 0

to 9716, as table 10 reveals. The school with the largest number of children with disability

was a model school in Sanyati17. There were no students with disabilities noted in 14

schools (8.4%), all of which were cluster schools18.

16 Excluding special schools from the analysis e.g. Jairos Jiri (140 students with disabilities) 17 Dalny 1 Mine 18

3 in Mhondoro Ngezi, 3 in Kariba and 8 in Sanyati

17

Table 10 Average number of children with disabilities by type of school (Average number, s.d., and range)

N Average number S.d. Minimum Maximum

2013





Model schools 18 51.3 20.2 21 97



A significant increase in the average number of children with disabilities enrolled in model

and cluster schools was observed when the data from 2013 and 2015 were compared. It is

expected that the increase in enrolment rates would be even higher, if the large number of

schools in Hurungwe had been included in the analysis. This positive change is an effect

of different strategies implemented by LCDZT, whose main purpose was to increase the

number of children with disabilities in the 30 model schools included in IE project. It should

be noted that although the data from control schools showed an increase, this was not

significant (p-value=0.126).

The average percentage of children with disabilities over the total student population was

4% in 2015, with a range from 0 to 17.4%19, as highlighted in table 11. Comparing the

results with 2013, a positive and significant increase in the ratio of children with disabilities

enrolled in model primary schools in MWP was found. By contrast, control schools did not

present significant changes between the years (although positive). These differences are

likely to be a positive effect of the large number of strategies implemented during the IE

project, which aimed to increase the total enrolment rate of children with disabilities in

model primary schools.

Table 11 Average percentage of children with disabilities by type of school (Average number, s.d., and range)

N Average ratio sd min max

2013

Model schools 30 3.19 1.6 0.77 7.6

Cluster schools 229 1.79 2.41 0 12.96

Control schools 9 2.22 2.3 0 6.06


Model schools 18 5.68 2.96 0 12.67

Cluster schools 141 3.98 3.98 0 24.00

Control schools 5 5.35 3.66 0.80 9.84

According to the 2015 data (which do not include information from the Hurungwe district),

on average, the number of children with disabilities in mainstream classes in model

schools was 2520, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 5121. In control schools the

19 This excludes Rubatsiro and Jairos Jiri in Sanyati and the Kadoma training institute in Mhondoro Ngezi - Kadoma Training Institution is a cluster school that enrols pupils who are vulnerable and those who need rehabilitation (24%) 20 N.B. no equivalent 2013 data to compare with. 21 A primary school in Sanyati district (Golden Valley Primary) – with a ratio children with disabilities in the school equal to 6% and a total enrolment rate of 1155 students

average was 17.4, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 37 children with disabilities in

mainstream classes. Further analysis of the data showed an evident difference in the

average number of boys and girls with disabilities - with the largest number in model

schools (see Table 12).

Further disaggregation by district highlighted that on average Kariba has the lowest

number of children with disabilities in mainstream classes than any other district. Table 12

also provides the number of students with disabilities by gender in mainstream classes in

the three districts and by type of school.

Table 12 Average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes per school, by district and by type of school (average number, s.d., and range), 2015

Average number

S.d. Minimum Maximum N

Kariba district

Total number of students with disabilities

6.86 6.73 0 35 42

Total number of boys with disabilities

3.95 3.98 0 21 42

Total number of girls with disabilities

2.90 3.02 0 14 42

Mhondoro Ngezi district


10.61 10.37 0 40 57


6.07 6.01 0 24 57


4.54 4.76 0 16 57

Sanyati district


14.89 13.01 0 51 64


9.00 8.05 0 28 64


5.89 5.56 0 23 64

Model schools


25.39 12.64 8 51 18


14.28 7.58 3 28 18


11.11 5.51 2 23 18

Cluster schools


9.30 9.41 0 43 140


5.56 5.91 0 28 140


3.74 4.03 0 16 140

Control schools


17.40 14.81 0 37 5


10.60 8.73 0 23 5


6.80 6.30 0 14 5

Total


11.33 11.17 0 51 163


6.67 6.77 0 28 163


4.65 4.86 0 23 163

In 2015, on average the number of children with disabilities in special classes was higher

in model schools than in control schools, again this might be an effect of the IE

programme. Disaggregation of the data at the district level revealed no important

difference between districts.

19

With regard to resource units on average the number of children with disabilities was

higher in model schools than control schools. Moreover, when the data were

disaggregated by district, schools in Sanyati22 had on average the largest number of

children with disabilities in resource units (16). Notable is that the school with the largest

number of children with disabilities in resource units was a model school23 (29 children

with disabilities in two resource units).

Differences between the number of children with disabilities in special classes and

resource units were found when the data were compared between years by type of school.

Indeed, an increase (however not significant) was observed in the average number of

students with disabilities in special classes and resources units in model schools. By

contrast, a not significant decrease was observed in control schools when the data were

compared between years. Table 13 presents the number of students with disabilities in

special classes and resource units by type of school.

Table 13 Average number of students in special classes and resource units by type of school (average number, s.d., and range)

N of schools Average number S.d. Minimum Maximum

2013

Special classes

Model schools 23 20.3 6.8 12 40


Control schools 4 21.5 11 11 37

Resource Units



Control schools 1 7 0 7 7


Special classes

Model schools 17 23.4 8.6 14 38



Resource Units



Control schools 1 6 . 6 6

In summary, the comparative analysis of the enrolment rates of children with and without

disabilities in the three districts showed that there has been a significant increase in the

number of students with disabilities who attend model primary schools. Although the

data revealed a general increase in the number of students enrolled in primary education,

it is notable that the total number of children with disabilities increased significantly, with an

increase in the ratio of children with disabilities/total children in school. These positive

results might be direct effect of the strategies24 implemented during the LCD IE project.

22 Excluding Jairos Jiri and Rubatsiro 23 Dalny 1 Mine 24 e.g. community sensitisation, transport, CAs

Disability breakdowns

This section presents data on the children enrolled in the 18 model schools in Sanyati,

Kariba and Mhondoro Ngezi, disaggregated by type of disability. However, we should note

that this information does not link in any way with the data provided in the 2015 KAP

survey report (available HERE) because the sources of data can be different and were

provided by different informants at different points in time (e.g. March 2015 versus July

2015).

The total number of children with disabilities reported for this analysis was 446: 277

males (62.1%) and 169 females (37.9%). The average age was 10.5, with a range from 1

to 22 years of age.

Table 14 presents the number and percentage of students with disabilities disaggregated

by type of impairment. The types of disabilities were classified following the nationally

agreed categories of impairment and disabilities25. The majority (65%) of children with

disabilities had a learning difficulty; the second most prevalent impairment was mental

challenges (12%), which included children with cerebral palsy.

Table 14 Number of students by type of disability, 2015

N Percent

Visual Impairment 28 6.3

Hearing impairment 11 2.5

Learning disability 291 65.3

Mental Challenges (includes cerebral palsy) 53 11.9

Physical and motor disabilities 31 7.0

Speech and language disorders 8 1.8

Emotional and Behavioural Disorders 4 0.9

Health-related disorders 14 3.1

Multiple disabilities 4 0.9

Other (Albinism) 2 0.5

Total 446 100.0

Comparing the 2015 data with that of 2013, similar trends were found. Indeed, learning

difficulties were reported as the most prevalent impairment in both years in model schools

(65% in 201526, more than 73% in 2013). When the results were compared between

districts, the same trends were found (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Percentage of students, by disability and district, 2015

25 However, in practice they were reported freely (described) by the project team and then aggregated by the research team – hence the categorisation of ‘cerebral palsy’ under the ‘Mental challenges’ label 26 However, this data only includes children with learning disabilities in model schools in three districts out of four so direct comparisons are not advisable – but it is expected that the same trend would be evident should the sample be complete.

21

Figure 2 presents the distribution of students with disabilities in mainstream classes,

special classes and resource units, disaggregated by type of impairment. It shows that the

majority of children in special classes had a learning disability but small percentages

children with mental challenges and health related disorders were also attending this type

of provision in model schools. Additionally, students with disabilities in mainstream classes

had a mix of impairments, with learning difficulties and mental challenges as most

prevalent; finally, 33.3% of students in resource units had mental challenges.

Figure 2 Percentage of students, by disability and type of provision, 2015

Summary

The results of the analysis revealed that for the three types of provisions (mainstream

classes, special classes and resource units) offered in primary schools, the pupil/teacher

ratio followed the national policy. On average, an increase in the number of teachers in

model schools was observed between 2013 and 2015.

The data also revealed a general increase in the number of students enrolled in primary

education. It is notable that the total number of children with disabilities has had a larger

and significant increase, with an increase in the percentages of children with disabilities in

school. These positive results might be direct effect of the strategies implemented during

the IE project.

Additionally, the comparative analysis of the enrolment rates of children with disabilities in

the three districts showed that over time there was a significant increase27 in the number of

students with disabilities who attended model primary schools. An increase (however not

significant) was observed on the average number of students with disabilities in special

classes and resources units in model schools.

Students with disabilities in mainstream classes in model schools had a mix of

impairments, with learning difficulties and mental challenges as most prevalent in 2015.

27 No data were available for 2013 to allow for comparison with 2015 due to technical issues with 2013 data

23

Comparative analysis 2013-2015 KAP data

Introduction

The following section presents the comparative analysis of the information collected using

the KAP survey for head teachers, teachers and parents in 2013 and 2015.

In order to gauge pre-intervention knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of head

teachers, teachers and parents/caregivers in model, cluster and control schools in the

project areas a survey was undertaken in 2013 prior to any project activities taking place.

A control group was also identified and selected for comparison purposes.

The survey was repeated in 2015, six months prior to the completion of the project

activities to allow for comparison and measurement of any changes. Further information is

available in a separate report on 2015 KAP survey [link].

This section of the report is divided in two main parts; first a detailed description of the

sample will be explained, followed by the results section. The results will focus on an

analysis of changes over time on the levels of training and knowledge of inclusive

education of head teachers and teachers; an analysis of aspects related to provision of

services for children with disabilities; and an analysis of changes over time on the levels of

agreement of head teachers, teachers and parents to statements related to barriers,

attitudes, beliefs and concerns.

Sample

As noted above, even though an extensive and careful process of preparation was

undertaken before the 2015 data collection, it was not possible to collect data from 100%

of head teachers, teachers and parents/caregivers. As a consequence, the sample of

observations included in the comparative analysis had an important reduction compared

to the 2013 and in 2015 samples. In total, 287 questionnaires were included in the

analysis. Of those, 99 were parents’ questionnaires, 52 head teachers’ and 136 teachers’.

With regard to parents, a high percentage of questionnaires were eliminated, either

because the information was not collected in both periods; the questionnaire was not

properly completed; the child was not currently attending school; or informed consent was

not given in 2013. Additionally, only questionnaires that were completed by the same

parent/caregiver in both years were included in the analysis (n=90), and when data related

to children with disabilities were analysed, only those questionnaires that specified the

same child in both years were analysed (n=70).

With regard to teachers, the information was included if it was collected both in 2013 and

2015 and the teacher had not changed schools. Finally, in the case of head teachers, all

questionnaires that were completed by the same person in both years were analysed.

Table 15 shows the number of questionnaires that were thus eliminated from the

comparative analysis - a total of 248 (disaggregated by type of respondent). Additionally,

Table 1 in Annex 1 shows the number of questionnaires that were excluded from the

comparative analysis by informant and by year.

Table 15 Number of questionnaires included in the comparative analysis, 2013-2015

Excluded % Included % Total %

Parents 129 52.0 99 34.5 228 42.6

Head teachers 31 12.5 52 18.1 83 15.5

Teachers 88 35.5 136 47.4 224 41.9

Total 248 100.0 287 100.0 535 100.0

As a consequence of the reduction of the sample due to problems in attrition (sample

bias), the results of the comparative analysis for parents/caregivers and teachers should

be read with caution, and no generalisation can be done. On the other hand, given the

process of sampling and selection of head teachers, the results are representative of this

group, especially for model and control schools.

Three sources of measurement error were identified during the collection process: Firstly,

the questionnaire; Secondly, the data collection method and thirdly, the respondent. Two

questions were included in the head teachers’ and teachers’ questionnaires, in order to

collect information on the number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes,

special classes and resource units, per grade and per type of impairment. It was expected

that head teachers and teachers would provide this information using valid sources (e.g.

registers) and that the total number of students with disabilities would be equal to the sum

of individual categories of disabilities (e.g. questions 17 and 18 in the HT questionnaire).

However, during the process of data cleaning and data analysis it became evident that the

numbers did not match and that major differences existed with regards to the responses of

head teachers.

Additionally, during the process of interviewing head teachers, face to face interviews were

not used, but instead, head teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire

independently and then return it to the enumerator28. Finally, given that between the two

points of data collection (2013 and 2015) respondents took part in training on IE, it was

expected that their perceptions and understandings of disability would change. Even

though answers to questions related to number of children with disabilities did not ask

those perceptions, the analysis revealed that important changes related to their

understanding of disability typology were observed between years.

28 As a consequence, it is not possible to know what the main source of information was when they provided the numbers of students with disabilities, and it is not possible to confirm if they used the official registration or not.

25

Methodology

In order to allow for a before and after analysis, the same methodology used in 2013 was

followed. The same instruments of data collection were used and when possible the

survey was implemented to the same participants. When it was not possible to collect the

information from the same person, sampling by replacement was used.

Results

This section presents the main results of the changes over time on the levels of

knowledge, provision of services, barriers, concerns, attitudes and beliefs on disability and

inclusive education of head teachers, teachers and parents in model, cluster and control

schools. Given the difficulties to control the project interventions and their effects on

cluster schools, this analysis will focus only on model and control schools. Nevertheless,

information on cluster schools is presented for informative purposes in some instances

and it is available on demand.

Knowledge

Training in Inclusive education/ Special Needs Education

The number of head teachers and teachers who reported having received training in

inclusive education or special needs education increased over the duration of the project.

Indeed, in the 2013 sample, seven head teachers reported receiving training in special

needs education, with no one reporting receiving any training in inclusive education. In

2013, LCDZT was not mentioned as a provider of training. By contrast, in the 2015

sample, 21 head teachers reported having received inclusive education training, with

LCDZT cited as the major provider of this type of training.

With regards to teachers, the increase in the number of teachers trained in IE education

was more pronounced, from 8 teachers who reported receiving special needs education

in 2013 to 23 in 2015, and from 0 who reported having been trained in inclusive education

to 52 in the same time period29. As for head teachers, LCDZT was cited as the major

provider of this training.

Further analysis of the data revealed that head teachers in the four districts consistently

reported an increase in the number of teachers trained in inclusive education over the

course of the project as Table 16 reveals, with the highest peak of teachers trained in the

Mhondoro Ngezi district.

29 However, note that feedback to the 2013 data collection was included in the 2015 questionnaire and as a result this question asked about training in topics related to Special Needs Education and IE combined

Table 16 Average number of teachers trained in 2013 and 2015, by district, according to Head Teachers

District 2013 2015 Difference

Hurungwe 0.3 5.1 4.8

Kariba 0.6 6.4 5.8

Mhondoro Ngezi 0.6 14.1 13.5

Sanyati 2.0 11.7 9.7

Total 0.8 9.6 8.8

Differences on the levels of knowledge of teachers about inclusive education were also

notable; in 2015 all teachers included in the sample reported having heard about IE, as

opposed to 2013, when 31 teachers out of 135 (23%) reported not having heard about IE.

In addition to the positive changes in the levels of knowledge related to Inclusive

Education topics, the results showed that the overall percentages of head teachers and

teachers who agreed with the statement I am interested in IE increased in both groups

(see table 17). Nevertheless, important differences were identified when other reasons for

their participation in the training on IE were analysed. While on the one hand, an increase

in the levels of agreement of head of teachers was observed between 2013 and 2015 to

the statements [IE] ‘involves important things that should be learned’ and ‘it is helpful for

students’; on the other hand, in 2015 the percentage of teachers who agreed with these

statements was 2% and 1% respectively lower than in 2013 - these percentages were

even higher (2.4% for both cases) when data from model schools only were analysed. This

can be associated with the fact that teachers might consider that receiving a second

training in a similar topic may be less useful than the first training (decreasing marginal

utility).

With regard to teachers, a higher percentage in 2015 recognised that receiving training in

IE will increase future job opportunities; this was recognised by teachers working in model

schools. This can be associated with the acknowledgment that in the near future, more

schools will implement IE and this will require teachers to be trained on the topic.

Table 17 Differences in the percentages of agreement to statements related to reasons to participate in IE training-

Head teachers and Teachers

Head teachers Teachers

I will participate because… 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

It is a requirement of my school 77% 75% -1.9% 42% 29% -13%

It will enhance my work performance/HT will assess work performance

88% 98% 9.6% 26% 11% -15%

I would feel uncomfortable if I refuse to get involved 25% 31% 5.8% 19% 15% -4%

I don’t want others to think I am uninterested in doing it 13% 8% -5.8% 6% 3% -3%

It involves important things that I should learn 92% 98% 5.8% 97% 95% -2%

It is helpful to my students 90% 100% 9.6% 97% 96% -1%

It will improve my promotion prospects/ increase my opportunity to find a better job in the future

40% 37% -3.8% 39% 42% 3%

I am interested in IE 85% 92% 7.7% 90% 96% 7%

The percentage of agreement to the statement “the lack of expertise of teachers is a

barrier that prevents children with disabilities from going to school” reduced for both head

teachers and teachers over the two time periods; and it is notable that for head teachers in

model schools this reduction was equal to 17%, as table 18 shows. By contrast, when

27

comparing the percentages of agreement to this statement of teachers in model and in

control schools, it was found that the percentage of teachers in control schools who agree

with this statement was 8% lower in 2015 than in 2013. This change was larger than the

observed change for teachers interviewed in model schools (4%). This major reduction is

likely to be associated with the positive effect of the training received by teachers and

head teachers in model schools.

Table 18 Teachers’ lack of expertise perceived as a barrier to education of children with disabilities, by informant

and by year

Head Teachers Teachers

2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Lack of expertise of teachers - total sample 87% 85% -2% 67% 60% -7%

Working in model schools 100% 83% -17% 63% 59% -4%

Working in control schools 77% 73% -5% 63% 55% -8%

Finally, the positive effect of the training provided by LCDZT is also notable when the

levels of concern of teachers’ and head teachers’ about their having knowledge and skills

required to teach students with disabilities were analysed. In general both teachers and

head teachers reported a reduction in their levels of concern over the two time periods.

Additionally, important differences were found between teachers and head teachers in

model and control schools. Reductions equal to 50% for head teachers and 18% for

teachers were observed in model schools. By contrast, head teachers in control schools

reported an increase of 33% of their levels of concern to this statement, and no differences

were found for teachers in control schools, as Table 19 demonstrates.

Table 19 Percentage of concern of teachers and head teachers, by type of school and year



I do not have the knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities 59.6% 36.5% -23.1% 56% 37% -19%

Working in model schools 73% 23% -50% 51% 34% -18%

Working in control schools 50% 83% 33% 60% 60% 0%

In summary, the project activities and interventions implemented with the aim of increasing

the knowledge of teachers and head teachers on inclusive education and on dealing with

disability had positive effects.

Between 2013 and 2015, the perceptions of parents on the levels of knowledge and

support teachers give to their children with disabilities improved. In general, 67% of those

who in 2013 reported that teachers were not knowledgeable and supportive changed their

opinion in 2015. Additionally, 75% of those who did not have an opinion in 2013 agreed

that teachers had become knowledgeable and supportive with their children with

disabilities in 2015 (Table 20).

Table 20 Parent’s perception of teachers being knowledgeable and supportive of their child with disabilities, 2013-

2015

2015

2013 Yes No Do not know Total

Yes 64 3 0 67

% 95.52 4.48 0 100

No 8 3 1 12

% 66.67 25.00 8.33 100

Do not know 6 2 0 8

% 75 25.00 0 100

Total 78 8 1 87

% 89.66 9.20 1.15 100

Provision of services and Practices

School provision as reported by Head teachers

According to the information provided by head teachers, the overall number of mainstream

classes had a small increase in all types of schools (model, cluster and control schools)

between 2013 and 2015 (less than one class per school). Equally, a small increase on the

average number of mainstream classes per grade was found, with no important

differences between model and control schools. Indeed, the average number of classes

per grade was three in model schools and two in control schools for both years. Similar

tendencies were found when the data were disaggregated by rural/urban areas and by

districts.

Additionally, in the last two years, three schools created one special class30, and one

school a new resource unit. Of those none was a control school. This could be an artefact

of the LCD programme

Teachers and extra resources as reported by teachers

According to the information collected in the KAP survey administered to teachers in the

two time periods (2013 and 2015), no important changes were observed in the types of

provision teachers were working in between the observation years. 99% of teachers

working in mainstream classes in 2013 were still working in this type of provision in 2015.

By contrast, it was found that seven teachers working in special classes in 2013 moved to

teach mainstream classes in 2015 and one moved to a resource unit. Equally, two

resource unit teachers in 2013 became mainstream classes teachers in 2015 as Table 21

shows. However, this trend was only evident in model schools. 100% of teachers in control

schools were working in the same type of provision in 2015 as in 2013.

30 Kundai Railway Block 4, cluster school in Mhondoro Ngezi from 0 to one special class; Golden Valley, a model school in Sanyati went from 0 to one special class. Chikangwe, a cluster school in Hurungwe went from 0 to one special class. Cam and Motor primary school, a model school in Mhondoro Ngezi went from 0 to one resource unit. In addition the Sir John Kennedy Primary school, a cluster school in Sanyati went from one to two special classes.

29

Even though it is not possible to be certain about the causes of the relative mobility of

teachers between types of provision in model schools this finding is likely to be associated

with a positive effect of the IE project strategies implemented during 2013-2015, which

would entail more familiarity with different types of provision, thus increasing the likelihood

of movement between classes.

Table 21 Number and percentage of teachers by type of provision, 2013-2015

2015

2013 Mainstream classes Special classes Resource Units Total

Mainstream classes 100 1 0 101

% 99.01 0.99 0 100

Special classes 7 18 1 26

% 26.92 69.23 3.85 100

Resource units 2 0 6 8

% 25 0 75 100

Total 109 19 7 135

% 80.74 13.97 5.15 100

Teachers and extra resources as reported by head teachers

Head teachers reported information on whether and how often additional teachers,

assistants or other personal were available in their school. Important changes were

identified between 2013 and 2015. Indeed, in 2013, 69% of head teachers reported that

extra resources were never or rarely available, a percentage that was reduced to 6% in

2015. When the data were analysed by type of school (model and control schools) it was

found that this reduction was only evident in model schools, where 69% of head teachers

who in 2013 answered never/rarely having additional support staff available, in 2015 said

all the time – which would indicate a positive impact of the LCDZT IE programme (which

included the provision of classroom assistants). By contrast, 67% of head teachers in

control schools mentioned that support staff were never or rarely available in 2015.

A similar trend (but in a smaller proportion) was observed when information related to

specialist teaching materials was analysed. Data from 2013 revealed that 90% of head

teachers mentioned that such materials were never available, a percentage that was

reduced to 73% in 2015; again, this reduction was only reported in model schools, and it

can be related to the IE programme, as such materials were provided.

Findings related to access to/availability of additional staff and teaching materials suggest

that although positive and important improvements were made in the number and type of

resources available in model schools, still there is a need to improve the quality and type

of care provided to children with disabilities.

Head teachers also provided information about student/teacher ratios in mainstream and

special classes in both years. According to findings, the teacher/student ratio in

mainstream classes was reported as adequate or more than adequate. Indeed, in 2015

none of head teachers reported that this ratio was too low and 78% of them considered it

more than adequate. Similar responses were obtained when the teacher/student ratio in

special classes was analysed.

Number of students in mainstream classes, as reported by head teachers

Although no important differences were found in the total number of students (disabled

and non-disabled) attending mainstreams classes, when the data were disaggregated by

type of school, a reduction in the total number of students in model schools was found,

with a major reduction in grades three and six. Additionally, an important increase in the

total number of students in grade one, six and seven was found in Hurungwe (comparing

2013 and 2015). By contrast, an important reduction in the average number of students in

all grades was found in Kariba.

The significant differences between the number of students in rural and urban areas are

highlighted in table 22. In fact, head teachers in rural areas reported on average half the

numbers of students than head teachers in urban areas, in contrast with the fact that more

that 60% of the schools were in rural areas.

Table 22 Average number of students per urban/rural area, 2013 and 2015, head teachers

Total number students 2013 Total number students 2015

Urban areas 1052.35 1045.238

Rural areas 555.931 568.2581

Total 758.551 760.8846

Number of students with disabilities as reported by Head Teachers

In mainstream classes

Contrary to what was expected and found in the comparative analysis of the school level

data - according to the information provided by head teachers - the average number of

students with disabilities in mainstream classes decreased between 2013 and 2015.

The largest reduction in the average number of students with disabilities was in grades

three, six and seven. Nevertheless, there was an important reduction in the dispersion of

the data (standard deviation), meaning that students with disabilities are now more

equally distributed between schools.

Further analysis of the data revealed that the differences in the total number of students

with disabilities in mainstream classes were significantly higher in model schools (26

students with disabilities on average). Additionally, comparing schools in urban and rural

areas, a reduction of 40 students with disabilities (on average) was observed in urban

areas. Although the reduction in rural areas was not as pronounced as in urban areas, on

average, the total number of students with disabilities was reduced from 32 in 2013 to 22

in 2015. Finally, the disaggregation of the data by district revealed that the major

reductions were observed in Sanyati and in Kariba. An increase in the average number of

children with disabilities was observed in Mhondoro-Ngezi (see Table 23).

Table 23 Average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes by district, urban/rural

areas and type of school

31

Mean S.D. Max Min Number of observations

Hurungwe district

2013 29.60 81.2 320 0 15

2015 25.07 47.1 152 0 15

Kariba district

2013 40.78 74.5 232 0 9

2015 10.78 10.3 30 2 9

Mhondoro-Ngezi

2013 9.86 14.4 44 0 14

2015 10.86 9.8 28 0 14

Sanyati district

2013 75.86 90.1 289 0 14

2015 16.57 11.9 31 2 14

Model schools

2013 53.64 92.9 320 0 22

2015 27.50 37.5 152 0 22

Cluster schools

2013 29.46 61.1 232 0 24

2015 6.75 7.8 29 0 24

Control schools

2013 20.67 16.6 35 0 6

2015 15.00 12.6 30 0 6

Urban areas

2013 48.71 71.9 232 0 21

2015 8.76 8.9 29 0 21

Rural areas

2013 31.87 75.3 320 0 31

2015 21.71 33.2 152 2 31

Total

2013 38.67 73.7 320 0 52

2015 16.48 26.9 152 0 52

When the number of students with disabilities was disaggregated by type of impairments, it

was found that the largest reduction was in the number of students with learning

difficulties. Indeed, according to the information provided by the head teachers, a reduction

of 21 students was observed between 2013 and 2015. By contrast, an increase in the

number of students with physical and motor disabilities and health related disorders was

observed in the same period (see Figure 3).

Activities associated with the implementation of the IE programme had the objective to

train teachers and head teachers not only in specific topics related to IE, but also to

improve the process of assessment of children with disabilities. Given the constraints in

the process of identification and assessment of children with learning difficulties31, an

increased knowledge of what a learning disability is and how to identify/ assess children,

will have had a direct effect on the number of children that were “labelled” as having a

learning difficulty. Put differently, teachers may have a more nuanced understanding of

what learning disabilities are, which may well explain the reduction in the number of

31 Secretary’s policy circular P36 of 1990

children identified as having ‘learning difficulties’ as reflected in the changes observed in

the data. However, it should also be noted that the questions on school level data of

number of children with disabilities per grade and per type of impairment were subject to

high levels of measurement error associated with the respondent and the questionnaire,

as explained in the previous section (Part 1).

Figure 3 Average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes by type of impairment, 2013- 2015

Further disaggregation of the data by type of school (model, cluster and control schools),

district and urban/rural areas revealed that the largest reduction was in the number of

students with learning disabilities who were attending cluster schools, who lived in Sanyati,

and were in urban areas (Table 2 in Annex 1).

Even though there was a general reduction in the reported number of children with

learning disabilities, this result does not mean that a lower number of children with

disabilities were included in school; nor should the decrease be attributed to children

dropping out of school. On the contrary, upon discussion with the project team, it became

clear that some children were already in school, and others were identified through the

project; but as the project progressed, teachers became more able to differentiate the

types of difficulties, and understood more what such definitions entailed; including that

disability was not a permanent condition, especially learning difficulties. As a result of the

project, there were also more assessment services present in allowing children with

learning disabilities (and other disabilities) to be assessed, diagnosed, labelled (and

ideally resourced). These factors seem to have resulted in a reduction in the number of

children perceived by teachers and head teacher as having learning disabilities.

In special classes

The analysis of the number of children with disabilities in special classes revealed no

important differences between the number of children enrolled in 2013 and in 2015.

Indeed, head teachers reported that on average special classes cater for 19 students in

33

both years, and this is in line with the existing policy on number of students per special

class32. When the data were disaggregated by district, a reduction of three students

(between 2013 and 2015) was found in Kariba and an increase of three students was

found in Mhondoro-Ngezi and Sanyati. With regard to rural and urban areas, no important

differences were found. Finally, only model schools presented an increase in the number

of children with disabilities in special classes as Table 24 reveals.

Table 24 Average number of students with disabilities in special classes by district, urban/rural areas and type of

school

Mean S.D. Max Min Number of

observations

Hurungwe district

2013 15.10 6.08 20 0 10

2015 15.70 6.36 23 2 10

Kariba district

2013 20.11 9.20 37 2 9

2015 17.67 8.89 35 0 9

Mhndoro-Ngezi district

2013 19.20 8.84 31 1 10

2015 23.82 9.11 46 17 11

Sanyati district

2013 22.89 9.03 39 15 9

2015 19.10 6.90 38 13 10

Model schools

2013 20.40 8.83 39 2 20

2015 21.10 10.37 46 0 21

Cluster schools

2013 17.80 8.94 38 0 15

2015 17.00 4.60 23 2 16

Control schools

2013 18.33 1.15 19 17 3

2015 18.00 1.73 19 16 3

Urban areas

2013 22.57 10.97 39 1 14

2015 23.19 9.68 46 13 16

Rural areas

2013 17.25 6.08 27 0 24

2015 16.58 5.93 28 0 24

Total

2013 19.21 8.49 39 0 38

2015 19.23 8.22 46 0 40

As expected, children with learning disabilities represented the largest group attending

special classes. Head teachers in control schools reported having children with learning

disabilities only in special classes in both years. However, head teachers in model schools

reported the presence of students with visual, hearing and mental challenges in special

32 Education Director’s minute n. 20 of 2000 which outlines class sizes and teachers student ratios

classes in 2013, but an important reduction in the number of students with such

impairments was observed in 2015.

An increase of one child with learning difficulties (on average) was found between 2013

and 2015. When the data were disaggregated by district similar results were found with the

highest increase in Mhondoro-Ngezi (three children on average); and a reduction of two

children on average in the Kariba district.

In resource units

Finally, the number of children with disabilities in resource units had a significant increase

between 2013 and 2015. The largest increase in the average number of students was

reported by head teachers in Sanyati (from 8 in 2013 to 15 in 2015) whereas a small

reduction was reported in Mhondoro-Ngezi. Additionally, an increase of four students in

resource units was also evident in model schools, in contrast with the reduction observed

in control schools as table 25 highlights. As expected, students with hearing and visual

disabilities and mental challenges were on average the most representative groups in

resource units in both years.

Table 25 Average number of students with disabilities in resource units by district, by urban/rural areas and by type

of school

Mean S.D. Max Min Number of observations

Hurungwe district

2013 8 3 12 6 3

2015 11 3 14 8 3

Kariba district

2013 2 3 4 0 2

2015 5 . 5 5 1

Mhndoro-Ngezi

2013 7 . 7 7 1

2015 7 4 9 4 2

Sanyati district

2013 9 2 10 7 2

2015 16 6 20 11 2

Model schools

2013 7 4 12 0 8

2015 10 5 20 4 8

Cluster schools

2013 4 6 10 0 3

2015 10 3 13 7 3

Control schools

2013 8 1 9 7 2

2015 6 . 6 6 1

Urban areas

2013 7 3 12 1 10

2015 10 4 20 5 11

Rural areas

2013 2 4 7 0 3

2015 4 . 4 4 1

Total

2013 6 4 12 0 13

2015 10 4 20 4 12

35

In summary, although an important reduction in the number of children with disabilities in

mainstream classes was found over time, it is not possible to conclude that the decrease is

attributed to children dropping out of school; rather it is attributable to improved

identification processes and procedures, etc. Indeed, given that no significant differences

in the total number of children attending school and in the total number of children in

special classes and resource units were found, the reduction in the total number of

children with disabilities (especially children with learning disabilities) in mainstream

classes might rather be associated with an increased understanding of what a learning

disability (as explained above) or related to a measurement error. Further discussions with

the project team corroborated this conclusion - that some of the children were already in

school, and others were identified through the project; but as the project progressed,

teachers became more able to differentiate types of difficulties, and understood more what

such definitions entailed. There were also more assessment services present in schools

through the project. These factors resulted in a reduction in the number of children

perceived by teachers as having learning disabilities, but not the overall number of children

with disabilities in the schools. It should also be noted that as resource units and special

classes have a fixed pupil: teacher ratio (and that special classes can only be created

when a certain number of pupils fit the criteria for creation), then these numbers were

unlikely to change.

Number of students with disabilities as reported by Teachers

The KAP survey asked teachers to report on the presence and number of students who

have been identified as having disabilities in the class you are currently teaching.

According to the information reported, no significant changes in the total average number

of students with disabilities in mainstream classes were found. When data were

disaggregated by urban/rural areas, an increase of two students per mainstream class was

found in urban areas between 2013 and 2015. No significant changes were found when

the analysis was conducted for model schools. Nevertheless, a reduction of two students

(on average) was found in control schools, and this means that on average teachers in

control schools reported a lower number of children with disabilities than teachers in model

schools. When changes over time were analysed, on average model schools kept the

same number of students with disabilities over the course of the project, contrary to control

schools, where the number decreased. These results can be associated with students with

disabilities possibly moving from control to model schools due to parents/caregivers

getting to know about the IE programme and looking to obtain the best benefits for their

children; as well as teachers in model/cluster schools being better able/willing to identify

and support children with disabilities.

In mainstream classes

When the number of students in mainstream classes was analysed by type of impairment,

the results showed the same trend of the results found for head teachers. Indeed, a

reduction in the average number of students with learning difficulties was observed from

2013 to 2015. This reduction was more pronounced in model schools (-3.5 children with

disabilities) than in control schools (2.2 children with disabilities) as figure 4 shows.

Additionally, according to the information provided by teachers, the average number of

children with other types of impairments increased between 2013 and 2015 in both model

and control schools, with the gifted/talented/creative learners as the group with the highest

increase in model schools and children with speech and language disorders in control

schools (Table 3 in Annex 1).

Figure 4 Difference in the average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes by type of school,

teachers

In contrast with the results from the analysis of the information provided by head teachers,

when the data were disaggregated by urban/rural areas, the reduction in the average

number of students with learning disabilities was observed not only in urban areas but also

in rural areas. Teachers in rural areas reported a reduction of 3.5 students with learning

disabilities (again see Table 3 in Annex 1 for further details). A similar explanation to that

given in the section above is likely in these cases too.

In special classes

On average, teachers in special classes reported 19 students with disabilities per class,

and students with learning disabilities were the most representative group (as expected).

No significant changes on the total number of students with disabilities were observed

between years or in the average number of students with other impairments in special

classes. Again, this is unsurprising as the maximum number of students in a special class

is 19 according to the GoZ.

Comparing the results between types of schools and type of impairment in special

classes, a mix picture was observed. On the one hand, teachers in model schools

reported a reduction of two students with learning disabilities (on average) per special

class, and of one student with hearing impairments and mental challenges respectively per

class. On the other hand, an increase of five students with learning difficulties per special

class was reported by teachers in control schools.

37

In resource units

Finally, no significant differences were found in the average number of students in

resource units. Nevertheless, a reduction in the maximum number of students in this type

of provision was observed - from 21 to 1433.

In summary, the results from the analysis of the KAP survey of teachers over time

followed the same trend as that of head teachers, with an important reduction in the

average number of students with learning disabilities in mainstream classes and no

important changes in the total number of students in special classes and resource units. In

addition, differences were found in the number of students with other types of impairments

in mainstream and special classes between model and control schools - with special

classes in control schools only catering for the needs of children with learning difficulties

and special classes in model schools including other types of impairments as well. Finally,

it should be noted the results of the analysis of the data reported by teachers corroborated

the hypothesis that the reduction in the number of students with learning disabilities might

be associated with changes on how a child with a learning difficulty is assessed.

Daily practices – teachers’ perceived self-efficacy

Aspects related to teaching students with disabilities - such as developing lesson plans

and adapting assessment procedures to take into account specific needs of students -

were explored in the KAP survey administered to teachers. In general, teachers reported

higher levels of agreement to self-efficacy statements such as being able to teach students

with disabilities effectively, no matter the specific nature of disability and being able to

adapt assessment procedures to take account of the specific needs of students with

disabilities. However, differences between the total percentage of agreement of teachers

in model and control schools were observed. In model schools in 2015, 47% of teachers

agreed that they were able to teach students with disabilities…, compared to 35% of

teachers in control schools. Although, the percentage of teachers’ agreeing with the

statement I am able to adapt assessment procedures to consider the needs of children

with disabilities, was higher for teachers in control schools (75%), this percentage did not

change over the years (contrary to what happened in model schools), and might be

associated with the fact that teachers’ knowledge did not change.

Table 26 Percentage agreement daily practice items - teachers

Teachers in model schools Teachers in control

schools All teachers

2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

I am able to teach students with disabilities effectively, no matter the specific nature of disabilities 39% 47% 8% 30% 35% 5% 40% 46% 5%

I am able to develop lesson plans that do not leave any student with disabilities behind 69% 66% -2% 55% 60% 5% 68% 66% -1%

33 6 teachers only reporting though

I am able to adapt assessment procedures to take account of specific needs of students with disabilities 60% 67% 7% 75% 75% 0% 66% 71% 5%

Barriers, concerns, attitudes and beliefs

Questions related to attitudes, beliefs, concerns and barriers around the inclusion of

children with disabilities in primary schools were administered to teachers, head teachers

and parents. The following section will present a comparative analysis of the changes in

the percentages of agreement to various statements according to each informant, by type

of school.

Physical barriers - accessibility

As expected, given the activities implemented in the IE programme, a reduction in the

percentage of agreement to items related to physical barriers was reported by the three

informants, with the largest change related to school accessibility (for parents) and toilet

accessibility (for teachers). A smaller reduction was reported by head teachers, but

nonetheless following the same trend, as table 27 reveals.

Table 27 Percentage of agreement to physical barriers preventing children with disabilities from going to school, for

head teachers, teachers and parents, 2013-2015

2013 2015 Difference

Head Teachers

Schools are not physically accessible 75% 69% -6%

Toilets in the school are not physically accessible 79% 71% -8%

Teachers



Parents



Upon disaggregation of the data by type of school, important differences were found

between model and control schools, with major reductions in the percentages of

agreement to both statements for the three informants in model schools. By contrast, a

higher percentage of teachers and head teachers in control schools reported agreement

on schools and toilets not being accessible. However, a reduction in agreement with these

statements was observed for parents in control schools (table 28). These differences may

be accounted by the fact that parents do not directly experience the physical barriers in the

school which create difficulties for children with disabilities and inhibit their inclusion in the

school.

39

Table 28 Percentage of agreement to physical barriers, by type of school and informant

Model schools Control schools

Schools are not physically accessible

Toilets in the school are not physically accessible

Schools are not physically accessible

Toilets in the school are not physically accessible

Head Teachers

2013 68% 73% 83% 67%

2015 55% 55% 83% 83%

Difference -14% -18% 0% 17%

Teachers

2013 79% 88% 53% 47%

2015 54% 55% 65% 85%

Difference -25% -33% 12% 38%

Parents

2013 55% 62% 86% 79%

2015 31% 53% 64% 64%

Difference -24% -9% -21% -14%

Similar results were found when the levels of agreement to statements related to how

infrastructural barriers affected or limited daily experiences of teachers and head teachers.

Indeed, the analysis of the data revealed a small reduction (1%) in the levels of agreement

to the statements my teaching is often limited by the poor infrastructure of the school and

the lack of accessible toilets in the school is a problem in the school for teachers and a

larger reduction (10%) for head teachers, between 2013 and 2015. Important differences

were identified when the data were disaggregated by type of school, with reductions larger

than 18% for teachers and head teachers in model schools and increases in control

schools (10% for teachers and 17% for head teachers) (Table 29). These changes may be

linked to the fact that head teachers and teachers became more aware of the need to

address physical and environments barriers.

Table 29 Physical barriers limiting daily practices, by type of school, according to head teachers and teachers


My teaching is often limited by the poor infrastructure of the school

The lack of accessible toilets in the school is a problem in the school

My teaching is often limited by the poor infrastructure of the school

The lack of accessible toilets in the school is a problem in the school

Head teachers 2013 81.8% 54.5% 66.7% 66.7%

2015 63.6% 36.4% 83.3% 83.3%

Differences -18.2% -18.2% 16.7% 16.7%

Teachers 2013 55% 52% 45% 50%

2015 34% 33% 50% 60%

Differences -22% -19% 5% 10%

Additionally, 100% of head teachers in model schools reported in 2015 that schools where

they worked were modified or adapted. By contrast, only 17% of head teachers in control

schools reported that the structure of the school was modified in the last two years.

In summary, the results of the analysis of the information reported by head teacher,

teacher and parents revealed that the general perception on how school accessibility acts

as a barrier for the inclusion of children with disabilities has improved. These changes

were more pronounced in model schools, where the IE project intervention made

structural modifications (e.g. built concrete pathways, ramps and accessible toilets) within

schools.

Distance and transportation

Head teachers, teachers and parents were asked about their perceptions on how the lack

of transportation to school and the fact schools are a long distance from home were

barriers for children with disabilities in accessing education. Overall, in the three groups, a

general reduction in the levels of agreement with these statements was found, with the

largest reduction with the statement related to transportation.

Given the strong emphasis of the LCD IE programme on improving access to

transportation systems for children with disabilities in model schools, it was not surprising

to find an important reduction in the levels of agreement to the statement there is no

means of transportation to the schools from teachers, head teachers and parents in model

schools (Table 30). While it was not expected to observe differences over time in the

levels of agreement to the statement on distance Schools are a long distance from home,

however, a reduction of 22% in the levels of agreement with this statement was observed

for teachers in model schools. This is likely to be associated with a direct association

between (ease of) transportation and distance, and the fact that the question analysed

perceptions and not actual (physical) changes.

Table 30 Percentage of agreement to distance and transportation barriers items, by informant and by year

Head Teachers Teachers Parents

2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Schools are a long distance from home 87% 84% -2% 83% 72% -12% 65% 58% -7%

There is no means of transportation to the schools 81% 67% -13% 78% 56% -22% 69% 57% -12%

Model

Schools are a long distance from home 86% 91% 5% 88% 67% -21% 63% 53% -10%

There is no means of transportation to the schools 68% 50% -18% 80% 48% -32% 73% 49% -24%

Control

Schools are a long distance from home 100% 100% 0% 67% 80% 13% 71% 79% 7%

There is no means of transportation to the schools 83% 83% 0% 74% 70% -4% 77% 71% -5%

Attitudinal barriers

One important element of the LCD IE programme was raising community awareness

about disability and the importance of including children with disabilities in schools. As a

consequence, a general reduction (especially in model schools) was expected in the levels

of agreement that head teachers and teachers had to statement such as parents think

children with disabilities should not go to school; people generally think children with

disabilities cannot learn; people generally think it is not worthwhile for children with

disabilities to learn and parents are worried their children with disabilities will be abused

(bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.). As expected, a reduction was evident between years in

the levels of agreement that informants had with the four statements. With regard to head

41

teachers, the most important change (34% reduction) was related to the perception

parents have about children with disabilities attending to school. With regard to teachers a

difference of 18% was observed in the levels of agreement to the statement parents are

worried their children with disabilities will be abused (bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.) as

Figure 5 shows.

Figure 5 Percentage of agreement to attitudinal barriers items, head teachers and teachers, by year

As expected, when the data were disaggregated by type of school, a reduction in the

levels of agreement with the four items was observed for teachers and head teachers in

control and model schools. However, it is also notable that there was a 67% reduction in

the levels of agreement with the statement parents think children with disabilities should

not go to school that head teachers in control schools reported; though this is likely to be

associated with the community awareness raising activities of the LCD IE programme

which may have (unintentionally) tainted the control sample. Interestingly, only a 41%

reduction in the levels of agreement with this statement was observed from head teachers

in model schools. With regard to teachers, although a reduction was observed it was not

as important as for head teachers as Table 31 below highlights.

Table 31 Percentage of agreement to attitudinal barriers items, head teachers and teachers, by type of school and

by year



Model schools

Parents think children with disabilities should not 77% 36% -41% 74% 55% -19%

go to school

People/parents generally think children with disabilities cannot learn 73% 41% -32% 77% 61% -16%

People/parents generally think it is not worthwhile for children with disabilities to learn 64% 45% -18% 77% 54% -23%

Parents are worried their children with disabilities will be abused (bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.). 95% 59% -36% 85% 65% -20%

Control schools

Parents think children with disabilities should not go to school 100% 33% -67% 63% 50% -13%

People/parents generally think children with disabilities cannot learn 67% 50% -17% 50% 74% 24%

People/parents generally think it is not worthwhile for children with disabilities to learn 67% 33% -33% 61% 50% -11%

Parents are worried their children with disabilities will be abused (bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.). 100% 67% -33% 89% 70% -19%

With regard to parents/caregivers, the levels of agreement to statements related to

attitudinal barriers were reduced in general, with a reduction in both model and control

schools (table 32).

Table 32 Percentage of agreement to attitudinal barriers items, by type of school and by year, according to parents

2013 2015 Difference

Model schools

Other parents in the community do not want their children to be in the same school as

CWDs 57% 47% -10%

Other parents in the community worry that non-disabled children can "catch" disabilities

from CWDs 43% 37% -6%

Control schools


CWDs 71% 57% -14%


from CWDs 50% 36% -14%

Total


CWDs 51% 45% -6%


from CWDs 41% 38% -3%

Financial barriers (direct and indirect costs)

Direct and indirect costs of education were identified as two major barriers to children’s

access to school, and play a major role in parents’ ability to keep sending their children

with disabilities to school. The KAP questionnaire asked head teachers, teachers and

parents about their levels of agreement to statements related to direct costs (e.g. uniforms,

books and fees) and indirect costs (e.g. meals, transportation) acting as barriers that

prevent children with disabilities going to school.

With regard to head teachers, a general reduction in the levels of agreement to the two

statements was observed over time. Contrary to what was expected, the percentage of

agreement to both statements in 2015 was lower for head teachers in control schools,

compared to 2013 and to head teachers in model schools. The major reduction was in the

percentage of agreement to the statement parents cannot afford the indirect costs for the

school. With regard to teachers, a general reduction was observed for both statements,

with 51% of teachers in model schools recognising that indirect costs are a barrier and

43

53% agreeing that direct costs are a barrier. In the case of parents in control school, no

changes were observed between years when indirect costs were considered and an

increase by 7% was observed with direct costs (Table 33)34.

Table 33 Percentage of agreement to financial barriers (direct and indirect costs), by informant, type of school and

by year

Head Teachers Teachers Parents

Schooling 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Cannot afford the direct costs 60% 58% -2% 62% 52% -9% 84% 80% -5%

Cannot afford the indirect costs 73% 62% -12% 71% 55% -16% 77% 72% -6%

Model

Cannot afford the direct costs 55% 73% 18% 64% 53% -11% 88% 76% -12%

Cannot afford the indirect costs 64% 64% 0% 71% 51% -20% 78% 71% -8%

Control

Cannot afford the direct costs 50% 33% -17% 79% 55% -24% 86% 93% 7%

Cannot afford the indirect costs 100% 50% -50% 68% 65% -3% 86% 86% 0%

Assistive devices

With regard to the statement on Lack of assistive devices being a barrier preventing

children with disabilities from going to school, model schools showed higher reductions

over time for the three informants, as figure 6 reveals. There was an increase in the

percentage of agreement with this statement for teachers in control schools (indicating

they see this as a barrier) and no changes for parents in control schools. This can be

associated with the IE intervention because assistive devices were provided in model

schools but not in control schools. For head teachers a reduction in the percentage of

agreement occurred in both model and control schools (unexpectedly, but again may be

due to unintended interference from the LCD IE project in the district) but with a larger

reduction in model schools (see tables 4 and 5 in Annex 1).

34 BEAM – was funds based on a pool of resources from government and donors, but ceased in

2012. Successful applications have not been paid since 2013. In some cases, donors and other

alternative partners paid for fees for children with disabilities in special schools (e.g. Liliane

Funds), or direct child assistance through the school.

Figure 6 Percentage of agreement to lack of assistive devices item, head teachers, teachers, and parents, by type of

school and by year

Concerns

The levels of concern of teachers and head teachers if students with disabilities were

placed in their class or school were analysed in both 2013 and 2015. The changes in the

percentage of concern to each item were analysed and compared between years and

informants. In order to facilitate the analysis, the list of 21 concerns was divided in four

main subject areas: 1. Related to the individual (teacher or head teacher); 2. To the

school; 3. To attitudes other students/parents might have; and 4. To other members of

staff and to academic performance.

The IE interventions had a direct effect on factors related to individuals (teachers and head

teachers); the school (accessibility, resources and transportation) and the attitudes others

have (community awareness). Important differences were expected between model and

control schools especially in the first two areas, and similar changes in model and control

schools in the levels of concerns with regard to attitudes were demonstrated. These are

further discussed below:

1. Related to the individual

Eight statements were analysed in this part. Three were related to concerns inside the

classroom (difficult to maintain discipline; difficult to give attention and not being able to

cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self-care skills). The major

changes over time were observed with teachers, amongst who an average reduction

higher than 22% was found for the first two items. With regard to the item not be able to

cope with disabled students who do not have self-care skills, it is surprising that even in

2013 (before the project implementation) less than 50% of teachers were concerned with

this, and this may mean that teachers felt they were prepared (to some extent) to cater for

45

the educational needs of students with disabilities, and in 2015 only 31% agreed with this.

With regard to head teachers, the largest reduction was observed for the statement difficult

to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom. Indeed, a difference of

30% was found between years, revealing that head teachers feel more confident about

their abilities to pay attention to all students (including children with disabilities).

It is notable that both sets of informants (in both years) reported low levels of concern with

aspects related to extra paper work; increase of workload; decline of performance and not

receiving enough incentives. Nevertheless a reduction was observed for all these

statements (table 34). It is also interesting to note that incentives or additional

remuneration were sometimes mentioned in the open answers.

When comparing model and control schools, important differences were found in the levels

of concern of head teachers. In model schools, a general decrease in the levels of concern

for all items was observed. The statement with the largest change (45%) was it will be

difficult to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom. In control schools,

an increase in the levels of concern for four statements was found but no changes with the

other statements. The most important change was an increase of 50% in the levels of

concern to the statement I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have

adequate self-care skills. Contrary to expectations, teachers in control schools reported

lower levels of concern to all statements, although in a smaller percentage than teachers

in model schools. With regard to teachers in model schools, this increase in concerns may

be attributed to an increased awareness of the necessary requirements to ensure

equitable and quality education for all children – many of whom may still not be being

adequately resourced or supported in mainstream schools. Put differently, teachers may –

certainly those who are less experienced - may become more concerned about their level

of skills and abilities to support children with a range of impairments in a mainstream class.

This needs to be addressed and teachers adequately resourced and supported to ensure

they feel they are able to deliver equitable and quality education for all children.

Table 34 Percentage of concern to statements related to how individual factors will be affected by the inclusion of

children with disabilities in the school, head teachers and teachers, by type of school and by year



Total

I will not have enough time to plan educational programmes for students with disabilities 34.6% 21.2% -13.5% 45% 23% -22%

It will be difficult to maintain discipline in class 25.0% 11.5% -13.5% 35% 11% -24%

I will have to do additional paper work 36.5% 19.6% -16.9% 32% 13% -19%

I will not receive enough incentives to include students with disabilities 19.2% 5.8% -13.5% 23% 10% -13%

My workload will increase 13.5% 9.6% -3.8% 18% 8% -10%

My performance will decline 17.3% 9.6% -7.7% 23% 15% -8%

It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom 47.1% 17.3% -29.8% 49% 27% -22%

I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self-care skills 42.3% 26.9% -15.4% 45% 31% -14%

Model schools

I will not have enough time to plan educational programmes for students 45% 27% -18% 45% 22% -23%

with disabilities

It will be difficult to maintain discipline in class 32% 18% -14% 38% 15% -23%

I will have to do additional paper work 45% 27% -18% 31% 13% -18%

I will not receive enough incentives to include students with disabilities 27% 9% -18% 19% 9% -11%

My workload will increase 14% 9% -5% 21% 8% -12%

My performance will decline 18% 9% -9% 23% 11% -12%

It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom 55% 9% -45% 52% 27% -25%

I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self-care skills 45% 27% -18% 47% 37% -10%

Control schools

I will not have enough time to plan educational programmes for students with disabilities 0% 33% 33% 45% 23% -22%

It will be difficult to maintain discipline in class 0% 17% 17% 35% 11% -24%

I will have to do additional paper work 17% 33% 17% 32% 13% -19%

I will not receive enough incentives to include students with disabilities 0% 0% 0% 23% 10% -13%

My workload will increase 17% 17% 0% 18% 8% -10%

My performance will decline 17% 17% 0% 23% 15% -8%

It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom 50% 50% 0% 45% 31% -14%

I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self-care skills 17% 50% 33% 57% 44% -13%

2. Related to the school

Six statements were included in this section and related to levels of concern with aspects

associated with the school (e.g. funding, para-professional staff; resources, materials,

etc.). In general, a reduction in the levels of concern with those statements was observed

for both teachers and head teachers. Teachers reported a reduction higher than 20% in

how concerned they were with the following statements: There will be inadequate para-

professional staff available to support CWDs (e.g. speech therapist, etc.); my school will

have difficulty in accommodating students with various types of disabilities because of

inappropriate infrastructure; and my school will not have adequate special education

instructional materials and teaching aids (e.g. Braille). For head teachers, a 30% reduction

was found in the levels of concern related to inadequate administrative staff. However,

only a 9% reduction was observed for the statement inadequate para-professional staff. In

the case of head teachers, it was evident that given their administrative role, they

recognise that aspects related to para-professional staff are a concern, and as discussions

with education officials made clear, they are right to be, as currently there is no appetite to

take on additional para-professional staff, given that schools are already having to fund

Early Childhood Teachers from existing budgets, so there are limited funds available to

include classroom assistants to support children with disabilities. Moreover, there was

much debate about the nomenclature (regardless of the job description) of the LCD

classroom assistants – who eventually became known as ‘care givers’. This shift alone

indicates how these roles were perceived by many. For additional work on this, please see

link to CA report.

Comparing model and control schools, an increase (or not change) was found in the levels

of concern to the six statements for head teachers in control schools. In fact, a 33%

increase was observed in the case of inadequate para-professional staff and 17% for

school has difficulties accommodating students. It is notable that for both teachers and

head teachers in control schools, there was a reduction in the levels of concern for the

inadequate number of administrative staff. In model schools, the results were as expected,

with reductions higher than 40% to the levels of concern related to resources and

47

administrative support for head teachers, and a 33% reduction in the levels of concern of

teachers to the statement school has difficulty accommodating students (table 35).

Table 35 Percentage of concern to statements related to school factors, head teachers and teachers, by type of

school and by year

Head Teachers teachers


My school will not have enough funds for implementing inclusion successfully

59.6% 42.3% -17.3% 60% 43% -17%

There will be inadequate para-professional staff available to support CWDs (e.g. speech therapist, etc.)

61.5% 51.9% -9.6% 70% 51% -20%

My school will have difficulty in accommodating students with various types of disabilities because of inappropriate infrastructure

58.8% 34.6% -24.2% 65% 41% -24%

There will be inadequate resources or special teachers to support inclusion

63.5% 40.4% -23.1% 63% 44% -19%

My school will not have adequate special education instructional materials and teaching aids (e.g. Braille)

67.3% 40.4% -26.9% 76% 51% -26%

There will be inadequate administrative support to implement the inclusive programme

52.9% 23.1% -29.9% 57% 44% -13%

Model schools


68% 32% -36% 58% 41% -17%


59% 41% -18% 66% 49% -17%


64% 32% -32% 67% 34% -33%


68% 27% -41% 63% 41% -22%


73% 41% -32% 76% 51% -25%


59% 18% -41% 53% 42% -11%

Control schools


67% 67% 0% 55% 60% 5%


67% 100% 33% 75% 65% -10%


67% 83% 17% 65% 55% -10%


83% 83% 0% 65% 45% -20%


83% 83% 0% 70% 50% -20%


50% 33% -17% 65% 30% -35%

3. Attitudes other students/parents might have

The levels of concern to statements related to attitudes of non-disabled students and

parents of non-disabled students were analysed based on answers by teachers and head

teachers in both years. In general a reduction was observed with both statements, with the

largest reduction in how concerned teachers and head teachers were with the statement

Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students. Important

differences were found in the percentage of teachers and head teachers concerned with

the attitudes parents of non-disabled children in control schools may have. In the case of

head teachers, a 50% increase was found between 2013 and 2015, contrary to the 40%

reduction in the case of teachers (table 36). Again, this may be an (unintended)

consequence of the LCD IE project, as teachers and head teachers would only have a

partial understanding of the programme, and are likely to therefore be more anxious about

inclusion.

Table 36 Percentage of concern to statements related to attitudes other students and parents may have, head

teachers and teachers, by type of school and by year



Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students 40.8% 29.4% -11.4% 53% 28% -26%

Parents of non-disabled children may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom as students with disabilities 38.5% 32.7% -5.8% 55% 32% -23%

Model schools

Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students 48% 27% -20% 54% 24% -30%

Parents of non-disabled children may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom as students with disabilities 50% 32% -18% 52% 29% -23%

Control schools

Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students 17% 50% 33% 45% 35% -10%

Parents of non-disabled children may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom as students with disabilities 17% 67% 50% 65% 25% -40%

4. Other concerns

This section included concerns related to the academic achievement of other students,

general academic standards of the school and levels of stress of staff. These items were

not directly affected by any of the IE interventions; however, given the strong emphasis on

community awareness and training teachers, a general reduction in the levels of concern

for each item was to be expected.

In general, a reduction in the levels of concern for teachers and head teachers was

observed. Small reductions in the levels of concerns of teachers were found in aspects

related to levels of stress and anxiety of other members of staff (1%); in addition, in 2015

teachers were less concerned with aspects related to how the inclusion of children with

disabilities in the school would affect the academic achievement of other non-disabled

students and the general academic standards of the schools. With regard to head

teachers, their levels of concern decreased from 2013 to 2015, with the largest reduction

associated with levels of stress of other staff members, as table 37 reveals.

Head teachers in control schools reported higher levels of concern in 2015, signifying that

the inclusion of children with disabilities in their schools might affect not only teachers and

head teachers, but also other members of staff and the general academic achievement of

the school. It is notable that teachers and head teachers in model schools reported lower

levels of concerns with regard to the academic achievement of non-disabled children.

Table 37 Percentage of concern to statements related to general achievement and levels of stress and anxiety of

other members of staff, according to head teachers and teachers, by type of school and by year



Other staff members of the school will be stressed 19.1% 11.8% -7.4% 16% 15% -1%

The overall academic standards of the school will suffer 23.1% 15.7% -7.4% 29% 17% -13%

The academic achievement of non-disabled students will be affected 27.5% 21.6% -5.9% 31% 19% -12%

The inclusion of a student with disability in my class or school will lead me to have a higher degree of anxiety and stress 13.5% 9.6% -3.8% 10% 9% -1%

Model

Other staff members of the school will be stressed 24% 14% -10% 17% 20% 3%

The overall academic standards of the school will suffer 23% 14% -8% 30% 20% -11%

49

The academic achievement of non-disabled students will be affected 36% 14% -23% 29% 18% -12%

The inclusion of a student with disability in my class or school will lead me to have a higher degree of anxiety and stress 23% 9% -14% 10% 9% -1%

Cluster

Other staff members of the school will be stressed 33% 50% 17% 16% 0% -16%

The overall academic standards of the school will suffer 17% 33% 17% 15% 0% -15%

The academic achievement of non-disabled students will be affected 20% 33% 13% 30% 10% -20%

The inclusion of a student with disability in my class or school will lead me to have a higher degree of anxiety and stress 17% 33% 17% 5% 0% -5%

In summary, the results of the analysis of the information reported by head teachers and

teachers revealed that a general reduction in the levels of concerns for all items was

evident. Informants in model schools had lower levels of concern than informants in control

schools. In particular, head teachers in control schools always showed higher levels of

concern; teachers in control schools showed a reduction but lower than teachers in model

schools.

Attitudes and Beliefs

The items concerning beliefs and attitudes were divided in beliefs that were positive such

as willingness and negative such as frustrations.

Positive attitudes and beliefs

With regard to positive items, head teachers showed an increase in the levels of

willingness to include students with disabilities in their school overall, with the highest

increase in the percentage of agreement to the statement willing to physically include

students with a severe disability. A mixed picture was found with regard to teachers, with a

reduction in the percentage of agreement to statements such as willing to physically

include students with a severe disability and willing to adapt the assessment of individual

students. On the other hand, there was an increase of 11% in the level of agreement to the

statement that an inclusive school is one that encourages academic progression of all

students regardless of their abilities.

With regard to model schools, it is notable that teachers show that they are less willing to

physically include students with a severe disability and willing to modify and adapt the

assessment of individual students in order for inclusive education to take place. This might

be the result of their increased knowledge on the actual requirements to include children

with disabilities in the classroom and perceived difficulty in making it happen in practice,

due to the lack of resources and support outlines above.

The table below shows that overall head teachers in model schools were more willing to

include students with disabilities in 2015 than in 2013. Head teachers in control schools

also showed more willingness to include children with disabilities in schools and to modify

practices to accommodate them. However at the same time there was a reduction in the

percentage of agreement to the statement Inclusion facilities socially appropriate

behaviour amongst all students.

An increase in the percentage of willingness to modify the curriculum or encourage the

inclusion of children with disabilities was noted on the part of teachers in control schools.

However they were not willing to physical include students with severe disabilities in the

classroom. It is important to highlight that the increase in the percentage of agreement with

positive statements was higher for teachers in control schools, and this might be

associated with the lack of experience that teachers in these schools have working with

children with disabilities, but at least demonstrates a willingness on their behalf to do so –

though of course this is different to putting it into practice.

In general, an improvement in the levels of agreement to include students with disabilities

was observed in the two years, with differences between schools and informants, which

can be associated with their levels of knowledge and experience working with children with

disabilities.

Table 38 Percentage of agreement to positive attitudes and beliefs statements, according to head teachers and

teachers, by type of school and by year



I believe that an inclusive school is one that encourages academic progression of all students regardless of their ability 96% 94% -2% 82% 93% 11%

I believe inclusion facilitates socially appropriate behaviour amongst all students 90% 96% 6% 88% 88% -1%

I believe that any student can learn in the regular curriculum of the school if the curriculum is adapted to meet their individual needs 96% 98% 2% 91% 94% 3%

I am willing to encourage students with a disability to participate in all social activities in the regular classroom 90% 98% 8% 91% 93% 2%

I am willing to adapt the curriculum to meet the individual needs of all students regardless of their ability 92% 94% 2% 89% 92% 3%

I am willing to physically include students with a severe disability in the regular classroom with the necessary support 81% 94% 13% 83% 79% -4%

I am willing to modify the physical environment to include students with a disability in the regular classroom 90% 96% 6% 87% 90% 3%

I am willing to adapt my communication techniques to ensure all students with an emotional and behaviour disorder can be successfully included in the regular classroom 90% 94% 4% 87% 89% 2%

I am willing to adapt the assessment of individual students for IE to take place 94% 96% 2% 92% 90% -2%

Model schools

I believe that an inclusive school is one that encourages academic progression of all students regardless of their ability 91% 95% 5% 82% 93% 11%

I believe Inclusion facilitates socially appropriate behaviour amongst all students 95% 100% 5% 90% 93% 2%




I am willing to physically include students with a severe disability in the regular classroom with the necessary support 86% 100% 14% 84% 78% -6%

I am willing to modify the physical environment to include students with a disability in the regular classroom 91% 100% 9% 88% 92% 4%


I am willing to adapt the assessment of individual students for IE to take place 95% 100% 5% 95% 89% -6%

Control schools

I believe that an inclusive school is one that encourages academic progression of all students regardless of their ability 100% 100% 0% 80% 95% 15%

51

I believe Inclusion facilitates socially appropriate behaviour amongst all students 100% 83% -17% 85% 75% -10%




I am willing to physically include students with a severe disability in the regular classroom with the necessary support 83% 100% 17% 80% 80% 0%

I am willing to modify the physical environment to include students with a disability in the regular classroom 83% 100% 17% 85% 80% -5%


I am willing to adapt the assessment of individual students for IE to take place 100% 100% 0% 80% 95% 15%

Negative beliefs and Frustrations

Three statements on beliefs and six statements related to frustrations were included in this

section. In general, a reduction in the percentage of agreement with the statement

students with a disability should be taught in special education schools was observed for

head teachers and teachers overall. With regard to head teachers, there was a small

increase (2%) in the levels of agreement to the statement related to segregation of

students with disabilities because it is too expensive to modify the physical environment of

the school. This is surprisingly because it was to be expected that head teachers

recognised the extra cost of implementing physical modifications to the school; however,

this is indicates a small number do not thing this is cost effective. A mixed picture was

found in the analysis of changes over time in the percentages of agreement to statements

related to frustrations for teachers. Nevertheless, it is notable that a reduction equal to

10% was observed in the percentage of agreement with the statement I am disconcerted

that students with a disability are included in a regular classroom, regardless of the

severity of the disability for both teachers and head teachers, and this might be associated

with an increase in awareness as a result of the implementation of the IE programme.

Teachers working in model and control schools reported different levels of agreement to

statements associated with beliefs that students with disabilities should be segregated or

taught in special education schools. Indeed, a reduction of 25% was observed in the

percentage of agreement to the statement I believe that students with a disability should

be taught in special education schools for teachers in model schools. By contrast, no

changes to the same statement were observed for teachers in control schools. In both

groups (teachers in model and control schools) a reduction was observed in the

agreement with beliefs related to the segregation of students with disabilities because it is

too expensive to modify the physical environment of the school. Finally, following the same

trend of a mix picture was found when items related to frustrations were analysed.

Contrary to what was expected, an increase of 9% in the levels of agreement to the

statement I believe that children with disabilities should be in special education schools so

they do not experience rejection in mainstream schools was found for head teachers in

model schools (Table 39). Again, this may reflect the realisation that inclusion requires

additional resources and support, most of which are in scant supply in mainstream schools

in Zimbabwe at the present.

Table 39 Percentage of agreement with negative beliefs and frustration statements, according to head teachers and

teachers, by type of school and by year



I believe that students with a disability should be taught in special education schools 19% 8% -12% 31% 12% -19%

I believe that students with disability should be segregated because it is too expensive to modify the physical environment of the school 2% 4% 2% 10% 4% -7%

I believe that children with disabilities should be in special education schools so they do not experience rejection in mainstream schools 8% 8% 0% 21% 15% -5%

I get frustrated when I have difficulty communicating with students with a disability 13% 15% 2% 15% 15% -1%

I get upset when students with disabilities cannot keep up with the day-to day curriculum in my classroom 6% 2% -4% 10% 6% -4%

I get frustrated when I am unable to understand students with a disability 29% 13% -15% 22% 24% 1%

I am uncomfortable including students with disabilities in a regular classroom with other non-disabled student 12% 4% -8% 13% 14% 1%

I am disconcerted that students with a disability are included in a regular classroom, regardless of the severity of the disability 17% 8% -10% 24% 14% -10%

I get frustrated when I have to adapt the curriculum to meet the individual needs of all students 10% 4% -6% 10% 6% -4%

Model schools

I believe that students with a disability should be taught in special education schools 9% 5% -5% 34% 8% -25%



I get frustrated when I have difficulty communicating with students with a disability 14% 14% 0% 14% 14% 0%

I get upset when students with disabilities cannot keep up with the day-to day curriculum in my classroom 9% 0% -9% 7% 8% 1%


I am uncomfortable including students with disabilities in a regular classroom with other non-disabled student 9% 0% -9% 12% 18% 6%



Control schools

I believe that students with a disability should be taught in special education schools 17% 17% 0% 20% 20% 0%



I get frustrated when I have difficulty communicating with students with a disability 0% 17% 17% 20% 20% 0%

I get upset when students with disabilities cannot 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% -10%

53

keep up with the day-to day curriculum in my classroom


I am uncomfortable including students with disabilities in a regular classroom with other non-disabled student 17% 0% -17% 10% 5% -5%



In summary, the results imply an increase in the percentage of teachers and head

teachers who believe students with disabilities should be included in mainstream schools

and in their willingness to make this possible. In addition, a reduction in the percentage of

agreement to statements related to segregation of students with disabilities was found for

both groups, with a more mixed picture when aspects related to extra costs were

included as a reason to segregate children with disabilities. This result is not surprising,

given the small number of financial resources schools have in order to implement

modifications. Finally, a mixed picture was observed when changes in the levels of

frustrations of teachers and head teachers were analysed.

It is important to highlight that in most cases, the percentages of agreement are less than

20% (for negative statements) or higher than 90% (for positive statements). As a

consequence, changes over time do not reflect the general perception of teachers and

head teachers, but instead how their perceptions changed – whether they followed a

positive (more inclusive) or negative perspective.

Parents’ beliefs and attitudes

Parents were asked their level of agreement to 10 statements related to beliefs and

attitudes on including children with disabilities in schools. In general, there was an overall

improvement to the positive levels of the beliefs of parents/caregivers. Indeed, reductions

of at least 3% were observed in the levels of agreement to items related to the non-

inclusion of children with disabilities to school. In addition, a reduction of 23% was

observed in the percentage of agreement to the statement there should be special schools

for children with disabilities and an increase of 10% to the percentage of agreement to the

item children with disabilities should be in the same class as non-disabled children (Figure

7).

Figure 7 Percentage of agreement to statements related to beliefs and attitudes for parents 2013-2015

Parents also recognised the positive changes with support staff that were implemented

over the years. In fact a reduction by 15% was found with the statement schools do not

have enough support staff. A higher reduction (24%) was observed for parents in model

schools (where classroom assistants were made available in order to improve the levels of

care of students with disabilities). In addition, parents in model schools also recognised

that teachers are better prepared to teach children with disabilities, given the reduction of

14% to those in agreement to the statement teachers at school are not able to teach

students with disabilities.

Although in both model and control schools a reduction in the percentage of agreement

was observed, it is evident that parents in model schools had improved perceptions about

the abilities of children with disabilities, and the importance of their education. Indeed, a

reduction of 32% was observed in the percentage of agreement to the statement there

should be special schools for children with disabilities for parents in model schools, and

this is in contrast with the no changes in agreement to the same statement for parents in

control schools and a reduction by 14% to the agreement to the statement children with

disabilities should be in the same class as non-disabled children for parents in control

schools as table 40 reveals.

Table 40 Percentage of agreement to statements related to beliefs and attitudes, according to parents, by type of

school



Children with disabilities should not go to school 6% 2% -4% 7% 0% -7%

Children with disabilities cannot learn the same as non-disabled children

18% 10% -8% 29% 14% -14%

It is not worthwhile for children with disabilities to learn 6% 0% -6% 0% 0% 0%

55

Children with disabilities can be abused (bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.) at school

56% 44% -12% 64% 57% -7%

Non-disabled children do not want to be in the same class as children with disabilities

52% 42% -10% 64% 57% -7%

There should be special schools for children with disabilities 58% 26% -32% 64% 64% 0%

Teachers at school are not able to teach children with disabilities

32% 18% -14% 43% 36% -7%

It is pointless for children with disabilities to study since they will not find any work in the future

4% 0% -4% 7% 0% -7%

Schools not have enough support staff (e.g. classroom assistants) for children with disabilities

74% 50% -24% 71% 57% -14%

Children with disabilities should be in the same class as non-disabled children

54% 80% 26% 71% 57% -14%

Parents’ expectations

In both sets of surveys (2013 and 2015) parents were asked what their expectations were

in relation to the future of their children with disabilities (compared to their non-disabled

siblings). In general, parents/caregivers of children with disabilities have similar

expectations for both disabled and non-disabled children. Nevertheless, small changes

were found when data from both years were compared, especially for the statement [that

they] will take care of him/herself. When comparing the information from model and control

schools, important differences were found. Indeed, parents in model schools reported

higher levels of expectations to all statements than parents in control schools. In addition,

an increase in the levels of expectation for each of the statements was observed in model

schools (figure 8), and this was not corroborated when the data from parents in control

schools were analysed (figure 9).

Finally, it is notable that there was an increase in the expectations that parents in model

schools have related to children with disabilities attending further education, contrary to

what was observed in control schools.

Figure 8 Levels of expectations for future of their children with disabilities (compared to their non-disabled

siblings), parents in model schools

Figure 9 Levels of expectations for future of their children with disabilities (compared to their non-disabled

siblings), parents in control schools

57

Conclusion

Part 1 of the report explained the background to the study, the methodology, the sampling,

and results. Part 2 provided a comparative analysis of the school-level data gathered pre-

and post- project intervention on the education for children with disabilities in mainstream

primary schools in four districts (Kariba, Hurungwe, Mhondoro Ngezi, and Sanyati) in

Mashonaland West Province. It gave an overview of the numbers of children in school by

age, gender and impairment, in both time periods (2013 and 2015). Part 2 also provided a

comparative insight on the way parents, teachers and head teachers think and act about

disability and inclusive education (KAP), between the years 2013-2015.

The results of the analysis of the school-based information (gathered by the project staff)

revealed a general increase in the number of students enrolled in primary education in the

three districts (n.b. Hurungwe was not included in this analysis). It is notable that the total

number of children with disabilities had a larger and significant increase, with an increase

in the percentages of children with disabilities in school. These positive results are likely to

be a direct effect of the strategies implemented during the LCD IE project. MWP was

initially chosen to roll out the IE project because of low enrolment rates of children with

disabilities. Throughout the course of the project these rates increased from 0.4%-2% to

an average percentage of children with disabilities over the total student population of 4%

in 2015, with a range from 0 to 17.4%.

Additionally, the comparative analysis of the enrolment rates of children with disabilities in

the three districts showed that over time there was a significant increase in the number of

students with disabilities who attended model primary schools35. An increase (however not

significant) was observed on the average number of students with disabilities in special

classes and resources units in model schools. For the three types of provisions

(mainstream classes, special classes and resource units) offered in primary schools, the

pupil/teacher ratio followed the national policy. On average, an increase in the number of

teachers in model schools was observed between 2013 and 2015, though this cannot be

directly attributable to the LCD IE project.

The data also revealed that students with disabilities in mainstream classes in model

schools had a range of impairments, with learning difficulties and mental challenges being

the most prevalent in 2015.

Although not directly comparable, these findings were corroborated by findings from the

KAP surveys. The main results and points of discussion can be summarised as: an overall

increase in the number of children with learning disabilities in mainstream classes; higher

35 No data were available for 2013 to allow for comparison with 2015 due to technical issues with 2013 data

number of children attending schools in urban areas versus high number of children with

disabilities in rural areas; teachers and children moving from special classes to

mainstream classes; increase in numbers of teachers trained in IE; extra resources and

more teaching materials available in model schools; positive changes in perceptions on

physical barriers; main changes in attitudes and beliefs and concerns of head teachers,

teachers and parents.

When changes over time were analysed, on average model schools showed an increase

in the number of students with disabilities over the course of the project, contrary to

control schools where the number decreased. In addition to usual movement (e.g.

parents transferring to another area), these results may be associated with students with

disabilities moving from control to model schools as parents/caregivers got to know about

the IE programme and seek to obtain the best opportunities for their children (there is

some evidence from the project staff that this happened in some of the districts. It is also

likely that some of the children were enrolled but did not actually attend the schools in the

first place).

Children with learning disabilities in mainstream classes; According to both teachers

and head teachers, over time there was an important reduction in the average number of

students with learning disabilities in mainstream classes and no important changes in the

total number of students in special classes and resource units. In addition, differences

were found in the number of children with different types of impairments in mainstream

and special classes between model and control schools, with special classes only for

children with learning difficulties in control schools and the inclusion of other types of

impairments in special classes in model schools. Finally, the results of the analysis of data

from teachers supported the hypothesis that the reduction in the number of students with

learning disabilities might be associated with changes on how a child with a learning

difficulty is assessed – or even identified in the first place, with the hypothesis being that

children may be labelled as having ‘learning difficulties’ for a variety of reasons – including

failure to pass an exam.

Even though there was a general reduction in the reported number of children with

learning disabilities, this result does not mean that lower numbers of children with

disabilities were included in school; nor should the decrease be attributed to children

dropping out of school. On the contrary, upon discussion with the project team, it became

clear that some children were already in school, and others were identified through the

project; but as the project progressed, teachers became more able to differentiate the

types of difficulties, and understood more what such definitions entailed; including that

disability was not a permanent condition, especially learning difficulties. There were also

more assessment services present in schools through the project allowing children with

learning disabilities (and other disabilities) to be assessed, diagnosed (and by extension,

labelled), and hopefully resourced. These factors resulted in a reduction in the number of

children perceived by teachers and head teacher as having learning disabilities.

Higher number of children attending schools in urban areas versus high number of

children with disabilities in rural areas; significant differences were evident between the

number of students in rural and urban areas. Head teachers in rural areas reported on

59

average half the number of students than head teachers in urban areas, in contrast with

the fact that more that 60% of the schools were in rural areas. This substantiates the fact

that urban schools are more crowded, and children may need more support and resources

to be equitably included in urban schools.

Teachers and children moving from special classes to mainstream classes; There

was movement of both teachers and children moving from special classes to mainstream

classes. Even though it is not possible to be certain about the causes of the relative

mobility of teachers between provisions in model schools this finding is likely to be

associated with a positive effect of the IE strategies implemented during 2013-2015. In

addition, teachers have a degree of mobility and transfer in and out of school in particular

from rural to urban areas. The movement of both teachers and children moving from

special classes to mainstream classes may be a direct result of the LCD IE project which

facilitated inclusion – however, it should be noted that the number of children in special

classes is controlled by the schools and regulated by the MoE.

Higher numbers of teachers trained in IE: An increase in the number of head teachers

and particularly teachers who reported training in SEN/IE was evident over time and it is a

direct effect of the LCD IE project (teacher training was a key component). The levels of

knowledge on IE also increased; with improvements in conceptual understanding of IE, as

well as willingness to participate in further training (though for teachers there is an element

of decreasing marginal utility – once they have completed the training once, the benefits

accrued will lessen). Nevertheless, it was recognised by teachers in model schools that

training in IE will increase future job opportunities. This may be associated with the

acknowledgment that in the near future, more schools will implement IE and this will

require teachers to be trained on the topic, giving them an advantage. In sum, project

activities and interventions undertaken with the aim of increasing teachers and head

teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices toward inclusive education and educating

children with disabilities had demonstrably positive effects.

Extra resources and more teaching materials available in model schools: Information

related to specialist teaching materials was analysed and data from 2013 revealed that

90% of head teachers mentioned that such materials were never available, a percentage

that was reduced to 73% in 2015; since this reduction was only reported in model schools,

it can be related to the IE programme, as such resources were provided as part of the

programme.

Findings related to access to additional staff and teaching materials suggest that although

positive and important improvements were made in the number and type of resources

available in model schools, still there is a need to improve the quality and type of care

provided to children with disabilities.

Classroom assistants – a key feature of the LCD IE project – were provided to model

schools, and overall were a success; however, there is much debate about their

sustainability, and this may have coloured perception of their importance. According to the

project staff, while the support provided by the 45 classroom assistants (CAs) in model

schools made a significant difference to children with disabilities, helping them participate

in lessons/school life, the number of CAs provided by the project was rather low. As the

number of children with disabilities in each class grew, so too did the pressure on the CAs

for their support services and it was therefore not possible for them to provide the same

level of one-to-one assistance as at the start of the intervention. This impacted negatively

on the ability of some children to participate fully in lessons. Evidence from the focus group

discussions also suggested that some CAs worked longer hours to counter the lack of

staff.

While some of the CAs were given additional funding by the SDCs, others were not, which

created some tensions between the CAs, as well as between the schools. Moreover, the

MoE were reluctant to take on any additional ancillary staff (such as CAs), and so there

was some debate about the sustainability of the CAs, as well as debates around their role

vis-a’-vis trained teachers; this led to a change in the terminology used to describe them to

avoid them being seen as the responsibility of the MoE – by the end of the project they

were commonly called ‘care givers’.

Overall, there were positive changes in perceptions on physical barriers; as well as

attitudes and beliefs and concerns of head teachers, teachers and parents. The

results reflect an increase in the percentage of teachers and head teacher who believed

students with disabilities should be included in mainstream schools and in their willingness

to make this possible. In addition, a reduction in the percentage of agreement to

statements related to segregation of students with disabilities was found for both groups,

with a mixed picture when aspects related to extra cost were included as a reason to

segregate children with disabilities. This result is not surprising, given the small number of

financial resources schools have in order to implement modifications. Finally, a mixed

picture was observed when changes in the levels of frustrations of teachers and head

teachers were analysed.

The results of the analysis of the information reported by head teachers, teachers and

parents revealed that the general perception on how the physical structure of schools acts

as a barrier for the inclusion of children with disabilities improved. These changes were

more pronounced in model schools, where the LCD IE intervention made modifications

(e.g. concrete pathways and ramps) in the architecture/structure of the school.

With regard to the statement on the lack of assistive devices as a barrier preventing

children with disabilities from going to school, model schools showed higher reductions for

all three informant categories. There was an increase in the percentage of agreement to

this statement for teachers in control schools (they see this as a barrier) and no changes

for parents in control schools. Again this can be associated with the LCD IE intervention

because assistive devices were provided in model schools but not in control schools. For

head teachers a reduction in the percentage of agreement occurred in both model and

control schools, but with a larger reduction in model schools – and this was unexpected for

control schools, but may be an unintended consequence of the LCD IE project in the

61

district (even if the school was not included, it was possible that head teachers met and

spoke about it at district forum, etc.).

The IE interventions had a direct effect on factors affected individuals (teachers and head

teachers); the school (accessibility, resources and transportation) and the attitudes other

have (community awareness). Important differences were expected between model and

control schools in the first two areas and similar changes in model and control schools in

the levels of concerns with regard to aspects related to attitudes.

Head teachers in control schools reported higher levels of concern in 2015, meaning that

the inclusion of children with disabilities in their schools might affect not only teachers and

head teachers, but also other members of staff and the general academic achievement of

the school. However, as noted above, this may be a direct effect of head teachers

increased realisation of the lack of resources and support currently available in schools

(without NGO support) to facilitate equitable inclusions and quality learning for all students.

However, it is notable that teachers and head teachers in model schools reported lower

levels of concerns on aspects related to academic achievement of non-disabled children.

The results showed an increase in the percentage of teachers and head teachers who

believe students with disabilities should be included in mainstream schools and in their

willingness to make this possible. In addition, a reduction in the percentage of agreement

to statements related to segregation of students with disabilities was found for both

groups, with a mixed picture when aspects related to extra cost were included as a reason

to segregate children with disabilities. This result is not surprising, given the small number

of financial resources schools have in order to implement modifications. Finally, a mixed

picture was also observed when changes in the levels of frustrations of teachers and head

teachers were analysed.

The percentages of agreement are less than 20% (for negative statements) or higher than

90% (for positive statements). As a consequence, changes over time do not reflect the

general perception of teachers and head teacher, but instead how their perceptions

changed, if they followed a positive (more inclusive) or negative perspective.

Parents recognised the positive changes that occurred over the course of the project with

regard to support staff. In fact a reduction by 15% was found in relation to the statement

schools do not have enough support staff. In this context, a larger reduction (24%) was

observed for parents in model schools (where classroom assistants were made available

in order to improve the levels of care of students with disabilities). In addition, parents in

model schools also recognised that teachers are better prepared to teach children with

disabilities, given by a reduction by 14% in the percentage of agreement to the statement

teachers at school are not able to teach students with disabilities. Additionally, 75% of

those who did not have an opinion in 2013 agreed that teachers had become

knowledgeable and supportive with their children with disabilities in 2015. Finally, it is

notable that there was an increase in the expectations that parents in model schools have

related to children with disabilities attending further education, contrary to what was

observed in control schools. All these positive changes may be attributed to the LCD IE

project.

It was also clear that parents found it more difficult to pay for their children with disabilities

going to school over time, and this was likely to be exacerbated by the fact that the Basic

Education Assistance Module (BEAM) was suspended for review in 2013 and currently no

other mechanisms of social protection exist. Moreover, it was unclear how many parents of

children with disabilities actually accessed the BEAM in the first place, as they may not

have fulfilled the criteria. There is also a general lack of information regarding any other

social assistance programmes that may offer support to adults and children with

disabilities. Most families tend to borrow from family or friends, or more often or not ask

schools to wait for fees etc. This obviously has repercussions on the schools, lessening

their available funds and resources in turn.

Overall, it is clear from the comparison data presented here that the LCD IE project had a

positive impact on the schools (including the teachers and head teachers), communities,

parents and above all the children. We have outlined some of the specific mechanisms

that led to these improvements (as outlined in the LCD IE manual), as well as some of the

unintended consequences of the project. Obviously it is also difficult to make causal links,

or detail which specific activities made the most difference; rather, the project

demonstrates an overall improvement when all activities are undertaken. The next steps

would be to scale up this pilot to more schools in different districts and observe if the

positive benefits are transferable to other locations.

Some components of the project, such as the transport provision or classroom assistants,

may be more difficult to replicate or sustain, but it is hoped that with regards to the

transport (tricycles) solutions, communities’ themselves will take ownership and

responsibility. With regards to the classroom assistants, again, school development

committees have already taken an interest in the role they can play in facilitating inclusion,

but there needs to be more sustained discussion about the need for, and role of,

classroom assistants specifically, and inclusive education more generally36.

There are a number of recommendations that can be made on the basis of this

comparative work, and these are outlined below.

Recommendations:

There needs to be a clear policy and road map for implementation to ensure sustained and

effective inclusive education. This should include adequate resources and support, as well

as (additional) para-professional staff (including speech and language therapists as well as

classroom assistants to support children with disabilities).

36 For more detail about the transport and classroom assistants, please see corresponding reports on

LCC website

63

Teachers need to be trained, supported, and adequately resourced to ensure effective,

equitable inclusion and quality learning for children with disabilities – it is not that they are

unwilling to undertake this role, but are aware of the gaps in resources, staffing and

environment to perform effectively. Ideally IE will be included in pre-service training, with

regular continuous professional development days after qualification.

Parents need to have more advice and information about where to access resources and

support for their children with disabilities, as well we information about where they can get

recourse for any complaints they may have. This includes targeted social assistance (for

example, cash transfers) for parents of children with disabilities to ensure they can go to

school.

In the current political milieu in Zimbabwe, it is likely it will be non-state actors that deliver

such services for a while to come – these actors need to work in close collaboration with

the line ministries and local politicians, etc. to ensure that they are ready and willing to take

over the running of such programmes if and when the time comes.

Annex 1 KAP 2013-2015 Comparative analysis

Table 1 Number of questionnaires excluded from the comparative analysis, by year

Questionnaires 2013 2015

Head teachers 15 16

Teachers 41 47

Parent 80 49

Total 136 112

Table 2 Average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes reported by Head teachers in 2013-

2015, by type of impairment, type of school, and area

2013 2015

Mean S.D. Max Min Mean S.D. Max Min

Hurungwe

Visual Impairments 0.93 1.4 4 0 3.0 7.8 30 0

Hearing Impairments 2.07 4.0 12 0 3.2 8.6 34 0

Learning disabilities 27.80 56.6 199 0 16.4 30.4 92 0

Mental challenges 1.07 1.5 5 0 1.9 4.2 15 0

Physical and motor disabilities 1.20 1.5 4 0 1.6 2.0 7 0

Speech and language disorders 0.73 1.4 5 0 1.0 1.5 4 0

Emotional and behavioural disorders 0.47 1.1 3 0 0.3 0.6 2 0

Health-related disorders 1.73 4.9 19 0 1.4 2.8 8 0

Gifted/talented/ creative learners 0.93 2.7 10 0 1.2 4.6 18 0

Multiple disabilities 0.47 1.1 3 0 0.3 0.9 3 0

Kariba











Mhondoro Ngezi








65




Sanyati











Urban areas











Rural area











Model schools











Cluster schools











Control Schools











Total











Table 3 Average number of students with disabilities in mainstream classes reported by teachers, by type of

impairment, type of school, and area

2013 2015

Mean S.D. Max Min N Mean S.D. Max Min N Mean

Model schools

Visual Impairments 0.31 0.57 2 0 39 0.49 0.72 3 0 47 0.18

Hearing Impairments 0.11 0.40 2 0 35 0.23 0.48 2 0 47 0.12

Learning disabilities 6.33 8.25 40 0 39 2.79 2.88 10 0 47 -3.55

Mental challenges 0.36 1.05 5 0 36 0.34 0.73 3 0 47 -0.02

Physical and motor disabilities 0.21 0.41 1 0 39 0.32 0.52 2 0 47 0.11

Speech and language disorders 0.13 0.41 2 0 39 0.30 0.51 2 0 47 0.17

Emotional and behavioural disorders 0.08 0.27 1 0 39 0.15 0.47 2 0 47 0.07

67

Health-related disorders 0.31 0.69 3 0 39 0.40 0.83 4 0 47 0.10

Gifted/talented/ creative learners 0.36 1.04 5 0 39 0.98 2.30 14 0 47 0.62

Multiple disabilities 0.05 0.22 1 0 39 0.11 0.37 2 0 47 0.06

Cluster schools

Visual Impairments 0.40 0.60 2 0 20 0.36 0.50 1 0 14 -0.04




Physical and motor disabilities 0.25 0.44 1 0 20 0.21 0.58 2 0 14 -0.04

Speech and language disorders 0.30 0.73 3 0 20 0.07 0.27 1 0 14 -0.23

Emotional and behavioural disorders 0.05 0.22 1 0 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 14 -0.05




Control schools


Hearing Impairments 0.33 0.50 1 0 9 0.29 0.49 1 0 7 -0.05






Health-related disorders 0.33 0.71 2 0 9 0.14 0.38 1 0 7 -0.19



Total











Urban areas


Hearing Impairments 0.21 0.51 2 0 24 0.05 0.22 1 0 20 -0.16








Multiple disabilities 0.03 0.18 1 0 30 0.00 0.00 0 0 20 -0.03

Rural areas








Health-related disorders 0.42 0.68 2 0 38 0.40 0.84 4 0 48 -0.03



Table 4 Barriers, by informant (Teachers and Head teachers) and by type of school, 2013-2015

Teachers Head teachers

Model schools 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Schools are not physically accessible 79% 54% -25% 68% 55% -14%

Toilets are not physically accessible 88% 55% -33% 73% 55% -18%

The lack of assistive devices 95% 64% -31% 95% 77% -18%

Schools are long distance from home 88% 67% -21% 86% 91% 5%

There is not means of transportation to the school 80% 48% -32% 68% 50% -18%

Parents generally think children with disabilities cannot learn 74% 55% -19% 77% 36% -41%

Parents generally think it is not worthwhile for children with disabilities to learn 77% 61% -16% 73% 41% -32%


Parents are worried their children with disabilities will be abused (bullied, teased, ill-treated, etc.) 85% 65% -20% 95% 59% -36%

Parents cannot afford direct costs for the school (e.g. uniform, books, fees) 64% 53% -11% 55% 73% 18%

Parents cannot afford indirect costs for the school (e.g. meals, transportation) 71% 51% -20% 64% 64% 0%

Lack of expertise of teachers 63% 59% -4% 77% 73% -5%

Natural environmental barriers 73% 58% -15% 73% 50% -23%

Control schools 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Schools are not physically accessible 53% 65% 12% 83% 83% 0%

Toilets are not physically accessible 47% 85% 38% 67% 83% 17%

The lack of assistive devices 79% 90% 11% 100% 83% -17%

Schools are long distance from home 67% 80% 13% 100% 100% 0%

There is not means of transportation to the school 74% 70% -4% 83% 83% 0%


Parents generally think it is not worthwhile for children with disabilities to learn 50% 74% 24% 67% 50% -17%



Parents cannot afford direct costs for the school (e.g. uniform, books, fees) 79% 55% -24% 50% 33% -17%

Parents cannot afford indirect costs for the school (e.g. meals, transportation) 68% 65% -3% 100% 50% -50%


Natural environmental barriers 74% 60% -14% 50% 67% 17%

Total 2013 2015 Difference 2013 2015 Difference

Schools are not physically accessible 76% 64% -12% 75% 69% -6%

Toilets are not physically accessible 81% 67% -14% 79% 71% -8%

The lack of assistive devices 92% 76% -16% 98% 85% -13%

Schools are long distance from home 83% 72% -12% 87% 84% -2%

There is not means of transportation to the school 78% 56% -22% 81% 67% -13%


69




Parents cannot afford direct costs for the school (e.g. uniform, books, fees) 62% 52% -9% 60% 58% -2%

Parents cannot afford indirect costs for the school (e.g. meals, transportation) 71% 55% -16% 73% 62% -12%


Natural environmental barriers 70% 57% -13% 66% 56% -10%

Table 5 Barriers, reported by parents, by type of schools, 2013-2015

2013 2015 Diff

Model schools



There is lack of assistive devices 82% 65% -18%

Schools are long distance from home 63% 53% -10%

There is no means of transportation 73% 49% -24%

Direct cost 88% 76% -12%

Indirect costs 78% 71% -8%

Other parents in the community do not want their children to be in the same school as CWD 57% 47% -10%

Other parents in the community worry that non-disabled children can "catch" disabilities from CWD 43% 37% -6%

Natural environmental barriers 37% 51% 14%

Control schools



There is lack of assistive devices 93% 93% 0%

Schools are long distance from home 71% 79% 7%


Direct cost 86% 93% 7%

Indirect costs 86% 86% 0%




Total



There is lack of assistive devices 88% 76% -11%

Schools are long distance from home 65% 58% -7%


Direct cost 84% 80% -5%

Indirect costs 77% 72% -6%




promoting inclusive education in mashonaland west province ... · inclusive education project –...

Documents