Historical
Developments of Special and Inclusive Education in the Education of Students
with Disabilities in India :
The UN General Assembly's
declaration of 1981 as the international Year of Disabled Persons; proclamation
of 1983-1992 as the Decade of the Disabled by UN; followed by the UNESCAP
Decade of the Disabled Persons from 1993-2002; and subsequently the World
Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca in June 1994, have all
played an important role in bringing the spotlight on to people with disabilities,
especially on education as a vehicle for integration and empowerment. Not
surprisingly, many of these mandates have shaped new national legislation and
policies, undertaking an analysis of two Government reports, nearly two
decades apart - the Sargent Report produce in 1944 and written prior to
independence (Central Advisory Board of Education, 1944) and the Kothari
Commission (Education Commission 1966) - highlights the government's approach
towards the education of children with disabilities. Both these reports
recommended the adoption of a "dual approach" to meet the educational
needs of these children. These reports suggested that children with
disabilities should not be segregated from normal children; rather,
integrated education should be adopted. The Kothari Commission observed that
"many handicapped children find it psychologically disturbing to be placed
in an ordinary school" ( Education Commission, 1966, p.109 )
and in such cases they should be sent to special schools. The Sargent Report
also endorsed similar recommendations.
Thus both these reports stressed the
need to expand special and integrated facilities. This dual approach continued
for the next 20 years and was reaffirmed in the National Policy of Education
(MHRD, 1986). Section IV of the National Policy of Education entitled
"Education for Equality" state that" states that "where
feasible children with motor handicaps and other mild handicaps will be
provided for in special residential schools" )MHRD, 1986; 6). A
similar focus is articulated in the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (Ministry
of Law and Justice, 1996), which notes that, "it [the Act] endeavours to
promote the integration of students with disabilities in the normal
schools" (p 12 ) and also promotes the "establishment and
availability of special school across the nation" (p 12) in both
Government and Private sector.
Over the years, the government has launched various programmes
and schemes to meet its commitments towards the education of children with
disabilities. Among the first of these efforts was the Project integrated
Education of the Disabled Children (PIED) launched in 1987 in collaboration
with UNICEF, in 10 blocks in 10 States and Union Territories across the nation.
Taking note of the outcomes and recommendations of PIED, the integrated
Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) scheme, which was initially launched in
1974, was subsequently revised in 1992. This scheme was shifted from the
Ministry of Welfare to the Department of Education and greater assistance was
provided to children with disabilities in mainstream schools. The IEDC is
currently operative and offeres financial assistance towards the salary of
teachers, assessment and provision of aids and appliances training of special
teachers, removal of architectural barriers, provision of instruction
materials, community mobilisation, early detection and resource support (MHRD,
1992). It covers 15,000 schools and has enrolled a total of 60.000
children (RCI,2000).
With India becoming signatory to the Salamanca
Statement (UNESCO,1994), the 1990s saw the rapid incorporation of the term 'inclusive education' in various official documents, reports published by
institutions such as the NCERT and media. The background paper of
workshop organised by the RCI stated: while special education began in India
with the establishment of special schools, It was in 1960s-1970s that
integrated education began to be advocated; however, after 1994, inclusive
education is strongly recommended'(RCI, 2001: 2). This focus on inclusive
education is evident in the approach adopted by the District Primary Education
Programme (DPEP). At a national workshop organized to discuss the role of
inclusive education, the Director of Elementary Education and Literacy
argued;\:
Zero rejecation policy had to
be adopted as every disabled child had to be educated. But multiple option
could be used.... [thes] include inclusive education, distance education,
home-based education, itinerant model and even alternative schooling (DPEP,
2001: 3)
The Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, SSA
( into which DPEP was incorporated) thus extends the dual approach historically
adopted towards the education of children with disabilities, by propagating a
"multi-optional delivery system". It categorically brings the
concerns of children with disabilities, or those it terms as
"children with special needs (CWSN)" under the framework
of "inclusive education" (IE):
SSA will ensure that every
child with special needs, irrespective of the kind, category and degree of
disability, is provided education in an appropriate environment. SSA will
adopt 'zero rejection' policy so that no child is lift out of the education
system. (SSA, 2007:1)
SSA further extends the range
of options from special and mainstream/ 'regular' schools to Education
Guarantee Scheme /Alternative and innovative Education ( EGS/AIE) and
Home Based Education (HBE). Therefore the implicit assumption that
inclusion should strengthen or enable mainstream educational participation of
children with disabilities does not necessarily hold true in the model proposed
by SSA. Rather it seems to advocate a stance that education should be
imparted in an environment that is most suited to the child's needs and there
should be flexibility in planning, While the SSA objectives are expressed
nationally, it is expected that various states and districts will endeavour to
achieve universalization in their own respective contexts and by 2010. It
therefore offers each district, flexibility to plan for activities aimed at
educating CWSN, depending on the number of children identified and the
resources available to effectively implement the IE programmer. While such
flexibility might be regards as a positive step. It is not surprising
that this has resulted in many different models of inclusive education
operative across the country - raising concerns about the quality and
effectiveness of provision.
Reference:
John
Beattie, LuAnn Jordan, Robert Algozzine,(2006). Making Inclusion Work:
Effective Practices for All Teachers. SAGE Publication, California Retrieved
from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TqD3a5LTAjYC&pg=PA250&dq=approaches+of+inclusion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu8uL79cLjAhXq4HMBHQ-zBuQ4FBDoAQgpMAA#v=onepage&q=approaches%20of%20inclusion&f=true
Rita Cheminais (2002).
Inclusion and School Improvement: A Practical Guide. David Faltin Publisher,
USA. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=IttkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT74&dq=approaches+of+inclusion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu8uL79cLjAhXq4HMBHQ-zBuQ4FBDoAQhMMAU#v=onepage&q&f=false
No comments:
Post a Comment