INCLUSIVE EDUCATION – CHALLENGES IN THE INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION – CHALLENGES IN THE INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

In 1994 India became one of the 92 countries to sign the Salamanca Agreement . One of the provisions of this agreement specifically said that  “those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should accommodate them within a child centered pedagogy capable of meeting these needs” thus emphasizing the right of children to inclusive education. This signing of the agreement demonstrated that India was willing to make the move from integration to inclusion.

India is a country where inclusive education is an emerging model and special schools are the largest among the educational facilities for CWSN.  ( Narayan et al 2005). India’s efforts at integrating children with special needs date back to the early fifties (1954) when the Kothari Commission had recommended that children with special needs be educated along with typical children. The National Policy of Education 1968 clearly stated that “children with physical and mental handicaps” should study in regular schools. One of the earliest formal initiatives undertaken by the Indian Government was the Integrated Education for Disabled Children ( IEDC) scheme of 1974. The objectives of this scheme included the retention of children with disabilities in the regular system, preschool training for children with disabilities and 100% financial assistance to schools to over the expense associated with educating the children.  (Das and Sharma Supprt for learning 2015)

In the National Policy of Education of 1981 and subsequent policies of education the commitment to integrated education was reiterated. At this point the focus is on integrated rather than inclusive education. The National policy on Education (1986) specifically recommended a goal “to integrate the handicapped with the general community at all levels as equal partners to prepare them for normal growth and to enable them to face life with courage and confidence”

The Project for Integrated Education of the Disabled (PIED) 1987 saw great success in the area of integrated education. This is because of the adoption of the Composite Area Approach that converted all regular schools within a specified area, referred to as a block, into integrated schools. These schools had to share resources such as specialized equipment, instructional materials and special education teachers. One key aspect of the project was the teacher training component. The teacher training program, available to teachers in each selected block, followed a three-level training approach:

1. a five day orientation course for all the teachers in the regular schools,
2. a six-week intensive training course for 10 percent of the teachers, and

a one-year multi-category training program for eight to ten regular school teachers think about this in the context of human resource develop

In India, "integrated education" has been provided mainly to students with mild disabilities who are considered "easy" to include into regular school programs. Students with severe disabilities, in a majority of cases, do not attend a school, or in rare cases, attend a special school. Sharma and Deppler 2005 Disability quarterly journal

In 1994 the government launched yet another project aimed at integrating children with disabilities into the mainstream.  This was the DPEP (District Primary Education Program). This program laid special emphasis on the integration of children with mild to moderate disabilities in the primary section. In addition The program had a number of objectives including 1) detection of disabilities 2) in service teacher training 3) provision for resources, 4) provision of educational aids and appliances 5) removal of architectural barriers Mangal Educating Exceptional Children

It is interesting to note that both the PIED and the DPEP laid stress on the training of teachers thus underscoring the fact that for inclusion to succeed it is the general educator which needs to be trained.

 All of these efforts got a boost by a shot in the arm when the Government of India passed The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act in 1995. This law required that all states and Union Territories must ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the same educational opportunities and basic human rights as their peers without disabilities. The Act further emphasized that, whenever possible, students with disabilities should be educated in regular school settings.

There have been other policy initiatives by the government of India to further the cause of inclusive education such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in 2001. The policy of SSA which talked about education had a zero policy for admission of all children. There was a clear statement that no child could be refused admission into a school due to disability. The National Action Plan for the Inclusion of Children and Youth with Disabilities (2005) MHRD was another policy supporting inclusive education. In 2009 the IEDC was revised and renamed the Inclusive Education of the Disabled at the Secondary Stage (IEDSS) Das and Sharma

2009 also saw the passage of the Right To Education Act (RTE) which included a clause supporting inclusive education.

However, even though support for inclusive education in India looks promising in policy, it cannot be overemphasized that the incongruity between policy and practice remains an unfathomable challenge. The mere existence of ambitious goals in policy has not ensured their expression such as to reach anywhere near the desired results (Sharma and Madan 2013).

The number of reasons that inclusive education has failed to be implemented on a large scale are numerous.

The first reason for this is lack of clarity as to what inclusion truly is. There is very little empirical research about inclusion in India and researchers themselves are unclear as to what inclusion entails. This lack of clarity is reflected in government schemes as well. Most of the schemes passed (till 2000)talk about integration of the CWSN. From 2005 onwards the terms used is inclusion but there is no specific explanation as to the reason for difference in terminology. Nor has there been any explanation as to how inclusion will be implemented differently from integration.

Secondly it is clear from the policies of the government that the problem is still perceived as being the child. The policies mention financial assistance being given to the child but nowhere is money being given to modify the environments.  Most government schemes do not have a clear picture as to what is entailed in making a school inclusive and therefore do not allocate funds accordingly.

Thirdly government policy is unclear as to whether it supports segregated or inclusive education. E.g. The PWD (1995) talks about supporting the integration of students with disabilities as well as promoting  the growth of special schools.  ( Singal (2005), Das &Sharma ( 2005) Johannson (2014)). Government policy also foall short when it comes to funding for any of these programs. Many schemes promise funding but the actual release of the funds is long and cumbersome process which most principals choose to avoid. In many cases funds promised to schools are simply not released making other mainstream schools vary of starting any programs of inclusion. 

There also seems to be a lack of a comprehensive view of how inclusive education will be implemented. E.g. The RTE has one sentence which talks about not refusing CWSN admission in schools but does not say that schools have to mandatorily have a special educator. Thus CWSN sometimes get admission but do nothing in the class. In other cases guidelines for accommodations and concessions are only mentioned at the secondary level therefore most schools persist in forcing CWSN to write papers or will not provide readers upto Std. 9. There is no plan to train principals of special schools so that they will tie up to regular schools in their areas to ensure that more CWSN attend schools.

The last reason that inclusive education has failed to gain a firm footing in schools is due to the fact it is seen as the responsibility of the special educator. Inclusive education means that CWSN are educated primarily in the general classroom but yet there has been no concrete move to implement this concept at the pre service training level. Till today inclusive education is an optional subject at the B.Ed level. In some in service training  programs it is taught at the theoretical level and the  training to in service teachers focuses more on characteristics of disabilities rather than on developing an inclusive attitude or inclusive teaching strategies.

CWSN Children with Special Needs