Previous| Next | Content| Main |Home 

Issues in Special Education in Canada and Kenya

James A. Oloo*

Key words: Exceptionality, disability, special education, policy, Canada, Kenya

Introduction

Today, the education and training of persons with special needs is an important and growing initiative in most nations of the world. In the Western industrialized nations, such as Canada, that have a long history of providing special education services, new paradigms and thrusts have emerged, echoing the Salamanca principles of 1986 and supported by various forms of enabling legislation. In developing nations, such as Kenya, the 1981 Year of the Disabled stimulated interest and intervention for persons with special needs.

As the concern for both universality and quality becomes a part of education systems in both Canada and Kenya, the education of children with special needs has developed as an important means of striving to ensure that education of the masses does not result in schooling geared only to the ‘average’ pupil. As Mazurek and Winzer (1994) point out, special education has been “individualized and adjusted to accommodate the unique learning needs of students who are, in some domain of functioning, above or below what is considered normal in their culture and social context” (p. xvii).

Special Education: Definition

Unlike Kenya, Canada has no federal ministry of education. Each Canadian province and territory sets its own education policies. Thus, in Canada, ‘exceptionality’ and ‘special education’ have been defined in various ways. For example, in British Columbia, students with special needs are those who “have disabilities of an intellectual, physical, sensory, emotional or behavioral nature or have exceptional gifts and talents” (British Columbia Special Education Branch 1995, 1). In Alberta, special education refers to “… a program based on the results of ongoing assessment and evaluation, and includes an Individualized Program Plan (IPP) with specific goals and objectives, and recommendations for educational services that meet the student’s needs” (Alberta Education 1996, 1).

These definitions of exceptionality and special education generally adhere to the expectations of developed countries. Most African countries have developed their own definitions of disabilities and special education that tend to be similar among them but slightly different from the ‘Western definitions.’ For example, the Kenya Institute of Special Education defines special education as “education of children who have learning difficulties as a result of not coping with the normal school organization and instruction methods” (Kenya Institute of Special Education 2001, 2). Writing about special education in Nigeria, Eduwen (1995) defines special education as “those additional services over and above the regular school program that are provided for exceptional children to assist in the development of their potentialities and/or amelioration of their disabilities” (p. 193).

Despite such broad perspectives, special education in Kenya tends to be more concerned with children who have physical and sensorial disabilities rather than those suffering from mild cognitive deficits (Eduwen 1995). To this end, it is common, for example, to see hard of hearing children attending regular classrooms but without any special interventions. Compounding this lack is the fact that most teachers in regular schools are not qualified, or have limited knowledge in special education, and teach and handle class sizes of up to seventy pupils.

In summary, while special education is defined differently in Canada and Kenya, in the most general terms it is designed to ensure adequate attention to those whose schooling is either hindered by disabling conditions or is significantly above or below school standards. Such students require programmes in addition to or instead of regular classroom instruction so as to maximize their development (Winzer 1999).

Special Education in Kenya

To date, preventable diseases that cause death and various forms of disabilities plague many people in Africa. Polio, measles and leprosy; as well as war, ignorance and poverty are among the major causes of disabilities in Kenya and other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa today.

According to the estimates by UNICEF, the proportion of people with disabilities in Kenya is about 10 percent of the total population (or just over three million people). About 25 percent of these are children of school-going age. Out of a total of 750,000, an estimated 90,000 have been identified and assessed. However, only 14,614 are enrolled in educational programs for children with disabilities; while an equivalent number are integrated in regular schools (Ministry of Education 2004). This implies that “over 90 percent of school-aged children with disabilities are either at home or in regular schools with little or no specialized assistance” (p. 6). The enrolment level of students with exceptionalities further decreases significantly with the level of education.

In general, access to education in Kenya is generally determined by identifying those who are most likely to produce positive economic outcomes for the family and the nation in general (Mutua 2001). However, quite apart from the extra funds needed for the provision and improvement of special education, gestures can mean a great deal and need not always cost anything. For example, even though some analysts argue that deaf children can only be effectively taught through sign language (Eleweke 1999), only Uganda, uniquely in the African continent, has entrenched sign language in its constitution (Maja-Pearce 1998). This situation becomes more serious when considering that the United Nations (UN) recognizes sign language as the first language of the Deaf.

Identification and Intervention

Unlike Canada, Kenya has no system of universal newborn screening for disability. Most of Kenya’s special education programmes are funded by various international development agencies and NGOs. It thus follows that there is a direct foreign influence on special education programmes in Kenya. For example, as in Britain, most screening programmes for hearing impairments in Kenya have focused on infants who satisfy one or more of a number of criteria for inclusion in a ‘high-risk register’ (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1995). Yet, the use of high-risk criteria to limit the population being screened excludes about one half of infants with hearing impairments (Yoshinaga-Itano et al. 1998). This percentage is possibly higher since many births in the rural parts of Kenya do not take place in the hospitals and are not registered.

This study endorses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (1995) that all infants with hearing impairments should be identified, and treatment initiated by six months of age. As well, because of the unique accessibility of many infants in the newborn nursery, screening all newborns for hearing impairments prior to hospital discharge may necessitate adequate diagnostic follow-up and treatment facilities. However, this will only be effective if the proportion of births in hospitals is ascertained and encouraged, especially, in the remote and poor rural areas.

Family and Societal Attitudes

Writing about beliefs and attitudes toward disabilities in developing countries, LeVine (1977) argues that among African peoples, “parents frequently expect the child to contribute his labour to the domestic productive unit and when mature, to support his aging parents” (p. 17). LeVine (1977) cites cases of passive euthanasia, where an infant who is sick or has disability is allowed to die because in such cases, the child is less able, perhaps unable, to generate any resources on his or her own that would contribute to the family’s well being. Today, euthanasia is not a common practice in Kenya, due to among other factors, human rights advocates and education.

Although research in the area of traditional African attitudes toward disability is scanty, there is a general consensus that diversification in perception of individuals with disabilities exists in Kenya. Disability has been attributed to witchcraft, curses resulting from parental violation of traditional norms, or a condition that originates from vengeful ancestral spirits (Kisanji 1995). Hence, there is a feeling of fear and pity, which may result in the isolation of the child with exceptionality. The result is that many children with disabilities do not attend school. Sometimes the family has false hope and spends much valuable time either in denial, consultations with religious leaders, or witchcraft, hoping to find a cure for their child’s disability. Usually, by the time the child seeks medical attention, it is too late to help him/her. For example, a deaf child who cannot speak and who has not been exposed to sign language or skills like speech-reading, does not fit into the Deaf community or the hearing community. Disability, therefore, deteriorates to inability.

More positive examples can also be found: The Suba of western Kenya treated the mentally challenged with awe. They believed that the mentally challenged children were the reincarnation of a deity. Hence they were treated with kindness, gentleness, and patience. As well, children born with anomalies among the Pokomo of Kenya and Tanzania were believed to be under the guardianship of special supernatural forces and so would bring blessings (see Ogot 1981).

Legislation

The absence of enabling legislation and clear policy on special education in Kenya remains a major obstacle to effective provision of education to children with exceptionalities. For example, evidence show that most of the promises in the National Policy on Education relating to the implementation of the 8-4-4 system (that is, 8 years in elementary school, 4 years in secondary school, and 4 years for bachelor degree/post secondary diploma) in general, and special education in particular, have remained at the theory level due to lack of legislation that support their implementation. For example, the policy calls for free and compulsory primary education, yet the country has not achieved universal primary education enrolment even for the students without exceptionalities.

When universal primary education is not in place, it is easy to dismiss the needs of the children with disabilities, especially when the value judgment placed upon them by the society is a negative one and there is a stiff competition for scarce resources (Eleweke 1999). Without supporting legislation, the implementation of the educational and related services contained in the national policy document is not mandatory. Thus, in the absence of enabling legislation, the contents of the national policy document lack governmental backing and administrative clear-cut lines of action (Eleweke 1999). Mandatory laws not only advocate for appropriate services to be provided, but also require the establishment of agencies to develop and provide necessary services for individuals with disabilities (Eleweke 1999). Considering the importance of mandatory laws for the implementation of meaningful social programmes, it is not surprising that the implementation of educational services to children with exceptionalities in Kenya is faced with grave obstacles since its educational policies have no legislative backing.

Special Education in Canada

When Canada adopted the Constitution Act containing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the federal government assumed a role in the education of students with disabilities. Section 15(1) of the Act states, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has a right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on disability” (as cited in Friend, Bursuck, and Hutchinson, 1998, p. 4). However, because Canada has no federal ministry of education, each province and territory sets its own education policies. This provincial/territorial control has resulted in a diversity of services and contributed to the growth of innovative and creative solutions to meet the very different needs of different parts of the country. Yet, this decentralized administrative control has contributed to a lack of continuity and cohesive development across the country as a whole (Bibby 1999).

Inclusion

Inclusion of students with exceptionalities into the regular classrooms is one of the most contentious issues in Canada. Proponents of inclusion argue that inclusive education aims to integrate all children and ensure that they have fair and equal access to ‘normal’ school experiences (see Mazurek and Winzer 1994). Others, however, suggest that inclusive education may be harder to realize in large, departmentalized secondary schools than in neighbourhood elementary schools (Friend, Bursuck, and Hutchinson 1998). Still others argue against what they call ‘full inclusion.’ For example, while acknowledging that inclusive classrooms may meet the needs of students with severe disabilities for social development, Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) assert that full inclusion does not provide instruction that is intense enough to meet the needs of students with high-incidence mild disabilities such as learning disability.

Across Canada, the amount of integration into the regular classroom depends on provincial or territorial policy and the individual school district. Some Canadian school jurisdictions have adopted policies of full inclusion where all students, regardless of the severity of disabilities, are educated in regular classrooms with their peers. Others have chosen to maintain a continuum of services that includes segregated options and typically approach inclusion on a case-by-case basis (Winzer 1999).

Litigation

In Canada, the power of the courts of law has been used to settle educational disputes. Parents initiate much litigation, usually when they disagree with the decisions regarding their children’s placement in or exclusion from a particular programme. Currently, the impetus for judicial intervention seem to be the principles of the inclusion movement, the willingness of the advocacy groups to support parents, and interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Winzer 1999).

While in most litigations, such as Elwood versus Bedford School District (in Halifax, Nova Scotia), Rowett versus Board of Education of the Region of York, Ontario, and Brant County Board of Education versus Carol Eaton and Clayton Eaton, the ruling was in favor of the parents and their children in the issue of placement, in 1996 and 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada reached a different verdict. The court decided that an individual child’s needs are to be considered to determine the most appropriate placement from a range of options (Friend, Bursuck and Hutchinson 1998). Hence, when a student with disability has been placed in a regular classroom with appropriate support and modifications and where objective evidence shows that the child’s needs are not being met, then there is no violation of the child’s rights in placing him/her in a special classroom. Thus, excluding some children from mainstream classes is an accepted form of discrimination, provided that it is done in the best interest of the child (Winzer 1999).

Transition from School to Job Market

One of the primary objectives of education is to prepare students to lead productive and rewarding lives. Indeed, in both developed and developing countries, the prosperity of the general society requires that a majority of the adult population have jobs, and preferably jobs that generate reasonable income. In turn, reasonable incomes are not possible without a reasonable level of education (Richards and Vining 2004). To this end, education in general and special education in particular in Kenya, is not reasonable. On the other hand, although special education in Canada is more reasonable, a lot more still needs to be done. For example, available data show that transition programmes have not been very successful as the vast majority of young graduates with disabilities from various levels of education “never attain a satisfactory level of career development consistent with their capabilities” (Brolin and Gysbers 1989, 155).

In general, Canadian schools are doing a plausible job in accepting greater leadership and responsibility for transition of students with exceptionalities. As well, community advocacy and self-help groups, such as the Canadian Association for Community Living, are increasingly providing youth with disabilities with the opportunities for enhanced career and social development. However, critics argue that transition services are still in their infancy. Winzer (1999) contends that there is “lack of a systematic approach to providing transition services … to young adults with disabilities” (p. 565).

Special education in Canada is further complicated by the rapid socio-cultural and demographic changes taking place in most parts of the country, and particularly in the schools. In bigger cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, large numbers of students are immigrants whose first language is neither English nor French. For example, just 43.9 per cent of the children in Vancouver schools report English as the language they speak at home. ... More than 56 per cent of the population of the city speaks a language other than English at home. (Canadian Immigration Hotline 1996). As the demographic composition of the school-age population shifts to include more students from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, the need for special services in the schools increases.

Kenya and Canada: A Comparison

Kenya and Canada contrast hugely in area, levels of economic development, and in socio-political and ideological orientation. Canada achieved its independence from the British about 140 years ago. Kenya got its independence from the British 40 years ago. Because the two countries are former colonies of Britain, English is the language of instruction in Kenyan schools, while in Canada it is used by over 60 per cent of the population, alongside French (C.I.A. 2003).

In both Kenya and Canada, the general goal of special education is to place students who are exceptional in least restrictive environments that would allow them to maximize their potential. Similarly, in both countries, the placement of students with disabilities in school programmes has continued to be controversial. However, while Canada provides a range of services to broad groupings of students, in Kenya, only 50 per cent of special education teachers are qualified, while no recognized facilities exist for early childhood special education in any of the categories of exceptionalities (Ministry of Education 2001).

Policy Options

As discussed above, the premium of the more over the less educated appears to apply to historically disadvantaged groups in the society, including those with disabilities, as much as to others within the paid workforce (Richards and Vining 2004). As the level of education of citizens with disabilities increases, so do their chances of getting jobs with reasonable earnings. Weak special education outcomes, coupled with the tightening link between levels of education and employment opportunities suggest that it is time to consider more aggressive interventions to improve special education outcomes in both Canada and Kenya. In view of the problems enunciated above, the following recommendations are made.

The curriculum provisions of special education programmes in both Canada and Kenya should be restructured to cater for a direct transition of youth with disability from one school level to the next, and from school to the job market.

There is need for regular training and retraining of professionals involved in special education through organized seminars, workshops and in-service programmes. In the case of Kenya, there must be serious efforts to maintain quality and standards in special education programmes. Consequently, a situation where the academic and professional competence of the special educators is left in the hands of untrained teachers must be discouraged. It is necessary that only professional teachers should handle special education programmes.

Finally, it is strongly suggested that Kenya enact laws to give strong support to the policy on the provision of services. Although mandatory legislations may not be the panacea with regards to the provision of effective services, at least such laws will spell out clearly the kinds of services to be provided, who is to provide them and how. Further, a mandatory legislation will create room for on-going monitoring and evaluation of the service delivery programme so that changes could be made when and where necessary to achieve even greater improvement. Also there would be provision for accountability to guard against corruption and misuse of funds meant for service provision.

Back| Next | Content| Top| Main