Educating deaf Children in an
Inclusive Setting in Kenya:
Abstract
Educators of the deaf have
been of the view that placement of deaf students in classrooms with their
hearing peers often may not be conducive to their social and academic
development. This is because the two groups often experience difficulties in
communication with each other and that such difficulties often include
loneliness, rejection and social isolation. These experiences as observed by
the educators do not promote social and academic development. This paper
discusses perspectives on inclusive education in general and the deaf in
particular. Challenges encountered in placing the deaf child in an inclusive
classroom are highlighted and possible solutions to the administrators and
teachers are suggested.
KEY
WORDS: special needs education,
integration, inclusive education, mainstreaming, deafness, communication, Sign
Language.
Deaf education in Kenya falls under the ministry
of education, special education division. This section of the ministry deals
with the administration of education of persons with special educational needs,
deaf education being one of them. History of deaf education in Kenya dates back to the founding of
Kenya Society for Deaf Children (KSDC) in 1958 and the subsequent establishment
of the first two schools for the deaf, Nyangoma and Mumias primary schools for
the deaf in western Kenya in 1961. Later Vocational and Technical and academic
secondary schools for the deaf girls and boys were set up. The number of students in the schools
for the deaf according to KSDC (2001) statistics has tremendously increased
over the years from 1,710 in 1982 to 6,000 in the year 2001. No empirical study
has been carried out to ascertain reasons for the steady rise but it is
speculated that it could either be due to the increasingly high prevalence of
diseases causing deafness such as malaria, measles, meningitis or could be due
to effective campaigns, awareness and establishment of Educational Assessment
and Resource Services (EARS) across the country and the subsequent availability
of educational opportunities for the deaf. Despite the improvement, there are
still about 30% of deaf children not attending school (KSDC (2001).
Every district in Kenya has an Educational
Assessment and Resource Center (EARC) and before a deaf child is placed in a
school for the deaf, he must be screened and diagnostic assessment carried out
on him. Upon entry into a special
school, there are two groups of children; those from hearing parents who
constitutes 97.9% and have no structured language whether signed or spoken
except a few gestures acquired naturally.
On the other side of the spectrum is a group of deaf children of deaf
parents who constitute about 2.1% and who come to school better adjusted,
socialized, have positive attitudes due to developed sign language, cognition
and socio-emotional skills critical for education (Adoyo 2004).
Most deaf children in Kenya join pre-primary classes (Nursery
and Infant Classes) at the age of 5 years for two years. A small percentage is
identified late and therefore starts school late. In the third year, they move to class (grade) one, which
runs up to grade eight at which they sit for a national examination, Kenya
Certificate for Primary Education (KCPE), together with their hearing
counterparts in regular schools. The only rebate offered is an extra 30 minutes
during the examination period. There are two academic secondary schools for the
deaf, one for the deaf girls and the other for the boys who qualify to proceed
for secondary education. The universities in Kenya have no interpreting
services for the deaf. The few deaf graduates in Kenya studied overseas e.g. in
America.
1.2.
TEACHER TRAINING, CURRICULUM AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Teachers of the deaf are either holders of
Diploma in Special Needs education from Kenya Institute of Special Education
(KISE) or Degree holders in Special Needs education from either Kenyatta or
Maseno universities. There is another category of teachers who although trained
in general education, have not received special education training and are also
ÒhelpingÓ in the institutions. This is due to lack of adequate specially
trained teachers in Kenya.
Language of instruction policy in schools for
the deaf in Kenya has changed over the years. From 1958 to 1985, Kenya used a pure oral system of
Education. From 1986 to date teachers are using Total Communication, which according
to Adoyo (2002), is Simultaneous Communication (SC). Although the communication
mode has not produced the wide scale expected improvement, there has been a
marked improvement in curriculum access and academic improvement. There is
still however dissatisfaction on the type of education for the Kenyan deaf
graduates as they have continued to lag behind their hearing counterparts in
all academic achievements. As away of improving deaf education suggestions have
currently been offered to implement the popularly advocated sign bilingual
approach, a strategy in which sign language and spoken (written) language are
used complimentarily as languages of instruction.
1.3. INTEGRATION
Changes
in the education systems in Kenya has been closely linked to tendencies and
changes occurring in western countries especially Britain which enacted
integration in their education policy way back in 1981 and where most of the
pioneers of special education in Kenya took their training. On arrival in
Kenya, they pushed for integration policy within the education system. This
gave rise to adoption of Educational Sessional papers on integration of deaf
children in regular schools. Special units were established in a few regular
schools. Pupils in these units were and are taught by specialist teachers. Deaf
children in the integrated programmes were and are still provided with
education geared towards normalization. There is great emphasis on the teaching
of speech and language development at the expense of other academic subjects. Republic of Kenya (1976) on the
national evaluation committee report on the educational objectives and policies
observed as follows;
The committee would therefore like to see a change
whereby the staff of special school considers the residence of handicapped
children as a temporary expediency, designed to fit them for return to normal
living outside the school or institution. In particular the committee urges
that every effort be made to counter a tendency to isolate handicapped persons
from their fellowsÉ(pg.75).
After
all these years integration has not lived up to the expectations as it only
takes care of social and not academic aspect of integration. There are
difficulties including lack of proper policy structures/guidelines, poor
implementation, inadequate itinerant teachers for peripatetic services and
above all negative attitudes towards the programme by the stakeholders. In a further attempt to bring pupils with special
needs on board and at par with their hearing counterparts, the Kenyan education
policy is currently advocating for inclusive approach.
2. WHAT IS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
The
term inclusive education has attracted much attention in the recent years. An
examination of the theory and practice has revealed that the term has come to
mean different things to different people. According to UNESCO (2005), the term
refers to the diversity of needs of all learners through increased curriculum
content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which
covers all children of the appropriate age range and a conviction that it is
the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. It is a
process of reforming schools and attitudes, which ensures that every child
receives quality and appropriate education within the regular schools. In this
way, inclusion is more complex than mere physical placement of children with
special needs in the regular classroom.
As
Jenkins, Pious & Jewell, (1990) put it, inclusion implies that the regular
classroom should change to accommodate all different learners and in the
process, desirable services be offered to all children within the regular
classroom. One major assumption is that in an inclusive setting, the classroom
teacher rather than the special needs educator has the primary responsibility
for educating all children in the classroom.
How
therefore does inclusion differ from the related terms such as mainstreaming
and integration? Integration as
explained by Jenkins, Pious & Jewell (1990), means that the child adapts to
the regular classroom whereas in inclusion, the regular classroom adapts to the
childÕs needs. Conceptually in inclusion deaf children are members of the
regular classroom. Antia & Stinson (1999) provide a broad but equally
simple definition, which considers inclusion as the practice of educating the
child with special needs and the ÒnormalÓ child in the regular classrooms,
while integration refers to the results of such practice.
Friend
& Bursuck (1996) have reiterated that in order to make the classroom
inclusive for all learners, regular teachers should work in partnership with
special needs educators to make adaptations in the curriculum and to structure
the classroom in a manner that allows for effective learning by a diverse group
of learners. Inclusion means enabling all students to participate fully in the
life and work of mainstream settings, whatever their needs. For inclusive
education to be effective, governments, schools and all stakeholders have to
adapt their approach to curriculum, teaching support, funding mechanism and the
built environment. Biklen, Lehr, Searl, & Taylor, (1978) have identified
some of the philosophical premises that advocate for inclusion and these
include; preparing individuals for life, learning from typical peers, having
normal life experiences, changing attitudes of individuals without
disabilities, challenging societal rejection and teaching democracy.
Inclusion
involves adopting a broad vision of Education For All (EFA) by addressing the spectrum of needs of learners,
including those who are vulnerable and marginalized such as the abused,
refugees, migrants, language minority, ethnic minority, and children of
conflict zones, children with disabilities, nomadic children and HIV/AIDS
orphans. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on Education also provide a
framework of reference on making EFA a reality by 2015 while the Salamanca
Statement on the principles, policy and practice in special needs education has
also provided valuable reference points for inclusive education as it provides
a framework for thinking about how to move the policy into practice.
At
the core of inclusive education is also the human right to education,
pronounced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949. A logical
consequence of these rights is that all children have the rights to receive the
kind of education that does not discriminate on any grounds such as caste,
ethnicity, religion, economic status, refugee status, language, gender and
disability. Specifically the rights include access to free and compulsory
education, equality, inclusion, non-discrimination, the right to quality
education, content and learning process.
One
of the greatest challenges in an inclusive classroom and which is of concern in
this paper is managing students with hearing impairments in an inclusive
setting.
3.
DEAF CHILDREN IN AN INCLUSIVE SETTING
Including
deaf children in mainstream schools has been an extremely complex,
controversial and contentious issue across the globe. Many deaf adults in deaf
communities across the world have campaigned for the rights of deaf children to
be educated separately in special schools in which they can access information
through their most natural first language, Sign Language, the language of the
deaf community.
A
pragmatic question that needs an answer is whether special needs educators and
regular classroom teachers can work in an equal partnership to provide deaf
children with relevant and adequate education within the regular classroom.
Further, to what extent can the classroom practice be modified to optimize the
deaf childÕs academic and social integration, considering that the ideal of
inclusive education is a student who is well integrated both academically and
socially? The basic problems faced when deaf and hearing students are educated
together according to Antia and Stinson (1999), are lack of mutual access to
communication.
Arguing
against the move to place deaf children in an inclusive class, Kaupinnen (1994)
has pointed out that the fundamental goal of educating deaf children is not
actually to ÒnormalizeÓ or to be the same but to provide the deaf with the same
possibilities of participating in the society in adult life. The then World
Federation of the Deaf (WFD) secretary general reiterated that because of the
special communicative consequences of deafness, deaf people risk being isolated
if they are put together with hearing pupils who do not know how to sign and
that a deaf individual has no chance of real participation if he is surrounded
by people who do not know how to sign. According to Kaupinnen including a deaf
child in a regular system increases his handicap.
Liu,
Saur & Long (1996) have reported deaf children in inclusive settings
experiencing a number of problems some of which include; rapid rate at which tasks
in the classroom are discussed, abrupt and quick turn taking in the
discussions, rapid change of the conversational theme or topic, the high
numbers of speakers involved in a group discussion. These may create
difficulties in the control of the communication cop and may result in the deaf
not benefiting from the group discussion.
Although
a section of hearing-impaired students (especially the post-lingually deaf and
those who are hard of hearing) can be educated with their hearing counterparts
in public schools, Antia & Stinson (1999) have empirically documented that
the outcomes of the academic and social integration are not satisfactory. It
has been pointed out that there are some difficulties that are inherent in
inclusive practices such as the regular classroom teachers who possess negative
attitude towards inclusion. Further, although the rationale of inclusion is to
foster friendship and provide access to full curriculum, Jones (2006), has
reported that this only works for some deaf groups of children where there are
viable groups to support and befriend one another and where they are nurtured
in communicating naturally in signs. It has also been noted that placing a deaf
child in a regular classroom requires increased instructional, collaboration and
management demands on the part of the regular classroom teacher.
According
to Antia & Stinson (1999), there is a dire need for a true culture of
collaboration between the teacher of the deaf and the regular teacher. The
exact nature of the collaboration as observed by Antia and Stinson is
influenced by the culture of the instruction and can be impossible when
collaboration is not valued or actively pursued.
The
benefit of collaboration and teaming according to Antia and Stinson (1999) is
that both the classroom teacher and the specialist teacher of the deaf can
broaden their perspectives and can examine their stereotypes about their
students and classrooms. The process develops studentsÕ expectations based on
their shared abilities rather than their differences. The perceived equality of
status between teachers is an essential component for successful collaboration.
Recent
research have emphasized the importance of deep meaningful learning that is
associated with hypothesis construction, problem solving and conceptual
organization as opposed to memorization and retention of facts. This kind of
learning has been found to be more effective in in-group activity discussions.
The inability of deaf children to discuss and communicate academic issues
easily in spoken language in an inclusive setting may make group participation
for the deaf, even with an interpreter difficult, a situation, which may affect
learning and final academic success.
3.1. THE SITUATION OF INCLUSION IN KENYA
A
number of countries in the North have drummed up support for inclusive
education and the idea is rapidly penetrating Kenyan education system. The Kenyan government is currently
documenting inclusion in its policy framework and has provisionally projected
availability of at least one special needs educator in every institution of
learning by the year 2015. The question is whether this will be possible in a
country where material resources required for this undertaking might be
limited, given that inclusion requires adaptations of the structures to fit the
learners needs.
There
are a few international private inclusive schools in Nairobi. The only known
public inclusive programme in Kenya is the Oriang Inclusive Project in western
Kenya, which coordinates five regular schools. The pilot project is supported
by Cheshire International from the United Kingdom. A recent visit to the
project however revealed that 80% of the students included in these schools
were physically handicapped. There were a few partially deaf, and a handful of those
with low vision and mild mental disabilities. I would have loved to see deaf
children with spoken language communication difficulties. According to the
project manager, all was well except the news that the Cheshire International
would soon be leaving creating project sustainability problem. It was difficult
to assess the impact of the programme on the academic performance, as those who
started with the project had not done the national examination.
4.1
CHALLENGES
Curriculum
is one of the obstacles or tools that needs to be carefully designed and
adapted in order to facilitate the development and implementation of a proper
inclusive system. It facilitates the development of more inclusive settings
when it leaves room for the center of learning or when the individual teacher
makes adaptations to enhance sense in the local context for the individual
learner.
Special institutions in Kenya follow the
regular curriculum, which is extensive and demanding, centrally designed and
rigid, leaving little flexibility for adaptations for teachers to try out new
approaches. The timing for the completion of the curriculum is also unrealistic
for the deaf people as the teaching and learning processes are slowed down due
to the processes involved.
Commenting
during a Kenyan television interview on April 27th 2007, one of the
leaders from the nomadic Northeastern province of Kenya demanded a curriculum,
which takes cognizance of their origin, culture, lifestyle and their values. He
further observed that the curriculum should be flexible and be able to
facilitate and responds to their childrenÕs diversities and that it should
provide diverse opportunities for practice and performance in terms of content,
methods and levels of communication. Kenya needs to emulate Uganda, which has
designed a curriculum for its semi-nomadic cattle keepers living in North
Eastern Uganda. In Uganda, the Education Strategic Investment Plan 1998-2003
includes a strategic priority of access and equity in education. It is reported
that the introduction of the Universal Primary Education programme in 1996 has
led to much higher numbers of learners with special educational receiving
mainstream education.
Although
there are serious discussions and campaigns towards inclusive education, an
interview with the Kenyan Deaf community focus group on March 2nd
2007 at the Kenyan National Association for the Deaf office revealed that they
were apprehensive of inclusion and foresaw the following fears and challenges
for a deaf child in an inclusive class:
á
That a deaf child in an
inclusive class may lack attention from the teacher as the number of pupils in
the regular classes is normally high due to free primary education.
á
That due to the broad
regular curriculum, adaptation to fit the needs of those who are deaf might be
difficult.
á
That because schools in
Kenya are ranked according to the mean scores obtained in national
examinations, regular head teachers may be uncomfortable with the deaf for fear
of lowering their mean scores based on the low expectations also expressed by
Johnson et al (1989). The group claims that in the past some schools for the
deaf were denied examination registration of candidates by the district
education officers for fear of lowering the schools mean scores.
á
That although deaf people
have now and again cited difficulty in learning a second spoken language there
is fear that once a deaf child is placed in a regular classroom he/she will be
forced to take Kiswahili, a second language in the national examinations.
á
That teachers in special
schools have negative attitudes towards learning Kenyan Sign language. This
results in incompetence in the medium of instruction and once placed in a
regular classroom, they may find it difficult to convey the curriculum content
effectively.
á
That parents have the
rights to choose where their children learn and since many of the parents still
view deafness as a curse, they might find it difficult to have their children
share classes with their deaf counterparts.
á
That Kenya has acute
shortage of sign language interpreters. It may be very difficult to supply
adequate interpreters in regular schools in Kenya to assist the deaf.
á
That lack of social and
academic interactions due to language barrier may lead to isolation and
loneliness on the part of the deaf.
á
That deaf children who
would otherwise get educational financial support in schools for the deaf would
loose the same because donors do not support regular schools.
á
That this is a move
towards normalization in disregard to the linguistic and cultural difference
that exists between the deaf and the hearing.
4.
CONSIDERATIONS
Although
the Kenyan deaf community strongly hold the fears as stated in the foregoing, a
better job can still be done.
Awareness
on inclusive education should be created and benefits of inclusion should be
articulated to all stakeholders in Kenya. Personnel involved in the teaching in
an inclusive setting with the deaf should be appropriately trained and should
be bilingual in spoken (written) language and Sign Language.
Regular
and special needs teachers should acquire competence in strategies for
effective inclusion for the deaf, which deal with attitudes and behaviors of
professional staff, whether hearing or deaf. Additionally, regular teachers
should create a healthy communicative environment for the entire class and they
should encourage classroom participation as well as be able to control the pace
of discussion with pauses in between communication turns.
The
specialist teacher of the deaf should be prepared to disseminate information on
psychology and culture of deaf people to the regular teacher and pupils. This
will assist the regular teacher and may enhance the establishment of effective
communication and culture. The information so provided can also promote
understanding and will create positive attitudes to other hearing and deaf
students. Children in the inclusive settings should have access to deaf
adults. Social contact and support
to the children and their parents is crucial for the social-emotional and
linguistic development. In the absence of an established deaf indigenous sign
language, the inclusive process can be very challenging and requires careful
facilitation.
Russel-Fox (2001) has observed that for an
effective inclusion process, a professional relationship should be developed
with audiologist, hearing specialists, sign language interpreters, and speech
and language therapists. In addition communication lines should be kept open.
Visual and tactile aids should be used as much as is possible, in the classroom.
Language in-group activities should be encouraged by allowing time for children
to start and finish communication. Further, Kenyan deaf adults should be
involved as sign language instructors in inclusive settings as they are often
the best teachers in sign language. Deaf and hearing children should be
encouraged to use sign language for social interaction and for academic
purposes.
Teachers in inclusive classes whether
regular or special should recap the lesson through sign language for the deaf
students or alternative spoken and sign language during the lessons. Necessary
arrangements for an interpreter/teachers of sign language should be made to
visit the school on a regular basis. Deaf adults should be employed in the
school to support the deaf child and to facilitate communication between
children, teachers and classmates.
As deaf childrenÕs language skills
develop, serious reading lessons should be introduced as this offers the most
important medium of learning for the child and in communicating with others. It
should also be ensured that the deaf students receive written copies of lessons
from the teacher or their peers. Books and written materials to the level of
pupils should also be provided. The schools infrastructure e.g. paths should be
made appropriate for training in orientation and mobility, taking care of the
architectural barrier that could hamper mobility and that also pose threats to
safety especially for the deaf blind.
Strong
policies, documented goals and objectives governing the implementation of
inclusion process should be put in place. Such policies should address issues
regarding language of instruction in an inclusive setting, language with a
negative connotation towards the excluded, requirements on competence and
quality of teachers in inclusive settings. There should be awareness
campaigns/workshops geared towards attitude change by hearing teachers and the
hearing society at large towards deafness and language. The change should
involve significant changes in conceptions and role behavior. Strong awareness
of the need to go inclusive should be created. Stakeholders (parents, pupils
managers, communities) should be consulted and involved in the elaboration of
the plans.
Social mobilization and development of
communication strategies/ materials to support and create awareness for
inclusion of deaf people in the communities should be put in place. The curriculum should be flexible to
allow for appropriate adaptation with a content that is relevant to real lives
and future, taking cognizance of gender, cultural identity and language
background.
Categories of children suitable for
inclusion should be clearly defined, as not all hearing impaired children can
be included in a regular classroom. Children with severe to mild hearing
impairment will need hearing aids in an inclusive class. Teachers in the
inclusive classes should be able to use the aids and to communicate in Sign
Language so as to increase the student–teacher interaction and to
facilitate learning. Issues of class size and availability of in-service
teacher education programmes should be of prime concern.
4.
CONCLUSION
Since
communication is the most salient area in deaf education, a focus on the same
should provide a good platform from which to build inclusive teaching practices
with the deaf. Because deaf children may have poor spoken language skills,
clear communication in a language they understand with ease and comfort is of
paramount importance for the comprehension of the curriculum content. The
policy should consider the value of deaf children to establish a bond with
others who speak the same language as an important aspect of the deaf culture
as many members associated with the Deaf culture believe that deafness is a
difference rather than a disability.
Inclusion
is a right and not a privilege.
Placing deaf children in an inclusive setting therefore demands the
provision of relevant facilities such as teachersÕ competent in sign language,
appropriate hearing aids and interpreters. Deaf learners who can benefit from
the inclusive classrooms should be given a chance to learn in regular
classrooms while those who may not fully benefit like the prelingually and
profoundly deaf, should be placed in special institutions.
Although
inclusive education for the deaf is being advocated for in Kenya to enable them
feel as members of the same class and school community, there is still a need
to be conscious of providing quality Special Needs Education. This means that
Kenyans must ensure that all children no matter their difficulty or disability,
or severity of disability are given the kind of education that is relevant for
them. Such an education must be adjusted to their potentials, and needs and
must be given through a relevant system.
The special needs educator should not only focus on the particular
childÕs level of functioning, but more on the childÕs whole world situation
including the community where he grows up and develops.
REFERENCES
Adoyo
P.O (2002). Emergent approaches
towards sign Bilingualism in Deaf education in Kenya In: Stichproben Wiener
Zeitschrift Fur Kritische Afrikastudien, Nr.3/2002; (2) 83-96
Adoyo
P.O (2004). Kenyan Sign Language and
Simultaneous Communication. Differential Effects on Memory and Comprehension
in Deaf Children in Kenya
Antia,
S., & Stinson M. (1999. some
conclusions on the education of students in inclusive settings. Journal of
Deaf studies and Deaf Education, 4, 246-248. deaf and hard of hearing.
Baker,
J., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The
meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities:
Themes and implications from the five cases. Journal of Special Education,
29, 163-180
Bilken,
D. Lehr, S. Searl, S. J. & Tailor, S (1978). Purposeful Integration inherently equal. New
York: Syracuse University, Center on Human policy
Bunch,
G. (1994). An interpretation of full inclusion. American annals of
the Deaf, 139, 150-152
Christensen,
K. (1997). ÒSpecial Needs Education
in A School for allÓ, African Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol.2 No.
Jensen,
J. R. Pious, C.G, & Jewell, M. (1990). Special and the regular education initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional
Children, 56, 479-491
Johnson
et al (1989). Unlocking the
Curriculum. Principles for achieving Aceess in Deaf Education. Working Paper,
Washington DC. Gallaudedt Research Institute.
Jones,
S. (2006). Structure and Agency in
Deafness Discourse: Binaries of power In Ed. Douglas, M: Deaf Worlds: Volume
22: 2.
Kaupinnen,
L. (1994). Sign Language Gains
Ground. In World Federation of the Deaf News: Magazine of the world Federation
of The deaf Vol. 1: 18-19.
Moores
D. (1996). Educating the Deaf Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Republic
of Kenya (1976). National Committee
on Educational Objectives and Policies. Government printer, Nairobi
Russel-Fox,
J. (2001). Together is Better:
Specific tips on How to Include Children with Various Types of Disabilities.
Annual Editions, Educating Exceptional Children, 01-02, 337-39
UNESCO
(2001b). Including the Excluded.
Meeting diversity in education. Example from Uganda. Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO
(2005). Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring
Access to Education for All