INCLUSION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABLITIES
An article extracted from the book entitled
"Disability in Ethiopia: Issues, Insights and Implications"
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Printing Press
Tirussew Teferra, PhD, Professor of Special Needs Education
Addis Ababa University, 2005

3. INCLUSION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABLITIES
3.1 Introduction
This chapter attempts to investigate the theoretical basis and practical ramifications of the different modes of educational deliveries in the education of children with disabilities. Following this, understanding of the meanings, challenges and opportunities of inclusive education are discussed.
Finally, the need for the paradigm shift towards inclusive education in Ethiopia is argued and implementation strategies for successful inclusion are suggested.
Inclusive education initiatives often have a particular focus on children with disabilities, as well as children living in poverty, largely those from linguistic and ethnic minorities or special educational needs in general (UNESCO, 2004). Inclusion of children with disabilities goes beyond far the regular classroom setting to the home, early childhood establishments, the community and the society at large. The positive psycho-social consequences and reciprocal educational benefits of inclusion have been encouraging in diverse social settings. The empirical linkages between family support and child progress are now being established (Thompson et al., 1997). The operating assumption is that children with disabilities who live with their families and participate in community life (for example the natural environment) are more likely to be similar to their siblings and aged peers without disabilities than if they lived in a facility with only individuals who have disabilities (Odom & Wolery, 2003).
The number of children with disabilities in regular schools has been on the rise since the last decade. Recently, the education of children with disabilities, with a shift of emphasis on inclusive education, has gained pronounced momentum globally. This chapter will revisit and analyze the linkages of the different theoretical models of disability with the various modes of educational
2

delivery and rationales which led to inclusive education. The theoretical framework of inclusive education, meanings, challenges and opportunities of inclusive schooling are discussed. Finally, implications of the shift towards inclusive education within the context of the education of children with disabilities in Ethiopia will be described. In this endeavor, it tries to shed light on a set of factors which may need due consideration for the successful implementation of inclusive education in the country.
3.2 The Education of Children with Disabilities in Ethiopia
In the last four decades the education of children with obvious sensory disabilities such as blindness and the deafness were served by special schools initially initiated by overseas missionaries. However, until now, the intake capacity of these few special schools was limited and the number of children served in these schools remains small. The education of children with mental retardation started with the opening of special classes in Kokebe Tibeha Primary School at
Addis Ababa in the late eighties. Since then, special classes for children with mental retardation have emerged in different regular schools settings.
A good number of children with motor disorders (polio cases and others with neurological problems), reading writing difficulties, visual and auditory impairments, mild developmental disabilities, behavioral problems as well as others with special educational needs have been going to regular schools with children without disabilities. There has never been a placement service in the school system which makes assessment at entry point to help identify children who need back-up support, nor were the schools prepared to provide the necessary support to address the children’s needs. Consequently, most of these children seem to be left without any educational support. They often suffer from psychological and academic difficulties and are destined to leave school early in life without success.
In recent years, there is a general trend towards inclusive education with the goal of mainstreaming children with disabilities in the regular school settings. This movement has resulted in a drastic increase in the scale of special classes in regular school settings for children with visual and hearing problems and children with mental retardation. The current trend which promotes the
3

philosophy of inclusive education as opposed to segregated education has stimulated public debate and discourse among the stakeholders, policy makers, professionals, special school teachers, community-based rehabilitation workers and non-governmental organizations.
By and large the educational scenario of children with disabilities in Ethiopia seems to have the following five faces:
 Special day schools (schools where children with the same type of disabilities attend during the day time);
 Special boarding schools (residential schools where children with the same type of disabilities attend during the day time and stay the night together);
 Special classes (classes in regular school settings where children with disabilities are placed);
 Inclusive Schools (regular schools where children with disabilities are placed fully or partially in regular classes with children without disabilities); and
 Regular Schools (schools where children with undetected disabilities are attending regular classes with others).
In the first four types of educational deliveries, attempts have been made to meet the special needs of the children by providing the necessary educational back-up support and making available necessary instructional resources. However, most of the special schools suffer from over crowdedness, scarcity of special instructional materials and facilities as well as shortage of teachers trained in special education. The special schools and classes as well as inclusive schools whose financing is dependent on the government report a serious problem of financial constraints.
Even worse is the situation of the children with undetected or hidden disabilities who are attending classes with the non-disabled peers in the regular schools without any special educational support.
4

As indicated earlier, the enrollment rate of children with disabilities in public special schools and classes in Ethiopia is extremely low. The following two tables depict the enrollment of children with disabilities by the school’s type and mode of educational delivery (Ministry of Education,
1997).
Table 1: Enrollment in Special Boarding and Day Schools by Gender
Type of Disability
Special Boarding School
Grade 1-6
Special Day School
Grade 1-6
Female Total Male Female Total Male
309 157 466 11 11 22 Children Visual
Impairment
Children Hearing
Impairment
Children Mental
Retardation
Total
81
-
390
56
-
213
137
-
603
161
65
247
147
68
226
308
133
463
Source: MOE, 1997
As Table 1 reveals the number of children served in special boarding and day schools is about
1,066. It is further reported that about 1,210 children with disabilities attend special classes. Table
2 portrays the general participation profile of children with disabilities in special classes at primary and secondary regular schools.
5

Table 2: Enrollment in Special Classes by Grade Level and
Gender
Type of Disability
Children with Visual
Impairments
Children with Hearing
Impairments
Children with Mental
Retardation
Grand Total
Level of Education
Grade 1-6
Male
65
186
122
373
Female
20
152
96
268
Total
85
338
218
641
Male
228
141
-
375
Grade 7-12
Female
119
105
-
194
Total
347
246
-
569
Source: MOE, 1997
Accordingly, the total number of children who are served by special schools and special classes is
2,276, which is negligible figure compared to the prevalence of the respective impairments.
Moreover, the children served in these programs are those with obvious sensory impairments like
6

blindness and deafness as well as children with mild and moderate mental retardation. Children with mild sensory and other forms of disabilities such as motor disorders, chronic health conditions, reading writing difficulties and children with autism are in the regular school without any support.
That means the vast majority of school-age children with disabilities do not have access to education or any sort of rehabilitational services and are left out of the school system.
A study conducted in Kechene Debre Selam Primary School in Addis Ababa observed that a substantial number of children with hidden disabilities have been attending in first grade with their non-disabled peers without their needs being recognized. A trend analysis study of low achievers of first grade students from the 1993/94 to 1996/97 academic year in primary schools revealed that 16.5 % of this group of children had different types of sensory, socio-emotional and emotional problems as well as health problems (Tirussew, 2001). The following table shows the impairment profiles of children identified by the study.
7

Table 3: Children’s Impairment Profiles
Impairments
Hearing
Vision
Motor
Social-emotional
Health
No. of children
7
1
4
2
3
Specific Behavioral Difficulties
Unable to fully grasp and follow what is being discussed in class
Needs to sit near the chalkboard, hardly reads black print
Right limbs paralyzed, difficulty in sitting and balance
Impulsive, restless, shy, apathetic for learning, misdemeanors and cannot concentrate
Displayed chronic headaches, often away from school
In this study, none of the class teachers noticed that these children need special attention or help.
On the contrary, a lot of misunderstandings between class teachers and these children were noted, which in some instances have triggered maltreatment as well as corporal punishment. Some of these children were also found to be the subject of similar abuses by their parents. According to the study, these were among the children who constituted the bottom five per cent of the academic achievement among first grade students.
Thus, the lack of educational access, inadequate educational provisions and resources, confounded with other socio-cultural factors, deprive children with disabilities the possibilities of developing their potential, pushing them towards a vicious cycle of poverty. As empirical evidences suggest, there are multiple problems surrounding the different scenarios of the education of children with disabilities in Ethiopia. In order to redress the art and state of affairs of the education
8

of children with disabilities in the country a concerted and coordinated effort involved the government, stakeholders, professionals as well as other concerned organizations or agencies is be necessary.
In describing its vision for Education for All, the Dakar World Education Forum (2000) stated clearly that inclusive education is vital if this goal is to be achieved. As a result more and more countries are working to help their schools become inclusive. Inclusive education is about helping mainstream schools to overcome the barriers so that they can meet the learning needs of all children (UNESCO, 2004). Generally, inclusive education is found to be ethically acceptable, psycho-socially sound, pedagogically commendable and cost effective compared to segregated education. It is also considered to be the most effective tool for combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all
(UNESCO, 1994).
3.3 The Shift to Inclusive Education
The education of children with disabilities seems to be linked with the change in the conceptualization of disability and also the changing paradigms of education. The following is a brief revisit of the basic conceptions and major educational shifts leading towards inclusive education.
3. 3.1 Off-Site/Segregated Educational Provision
There have been as many different views and understandings of disability and persons with disabilities in the history of mankind as there are today in Ethiopia. The view towards disabling factors and persons with disabilities was predominantly embedded in religious, socio-cultural values and beliefs of society. In most societies, ill-humored ancestors or “divine forces” at one time
9

saw disabilities as a curse and punishment. In earlier times in some societies, as well as in more recent brutal regimes, extermination of persons with disabilities has been recorded. Most often, however, individuals with disabilities remained hidden behind the home as a sign of shame and disappointment for the family. They were considered as dependent, subject to charity, unable to learn and to work. This sort of societal misconception and unfounded beliefs deprived persons with disabilities of educational opportunities and work, leaving them out of the mainstream of society.
Such understanding of disability is sometimes described as the traditional model, which is a construct created by religion and culture in a society (Coleridge, 1993).
Following this model, a paradigm based on the understanding that a child's disability lies “within” the individual has emerged. The paradigm has its origin in the biomedical understanding of impairments, according to which disability is usually seen as a lack of competence due to a dysfunction in an individual's mind and body (Reindal, 1995). This conceptualization led to the definition and classification of children with their respective disabilities. This is what is considered as a medical model. As a result different categories and labels have been created. The consequence of such understanding has led to segregation and isolation of children with disabilities from the mainstream. The emergence of special schools and institutions serving children with disabilities was the result of the medical model (Evans, 1998).It gave the impetus for religious and/or charitable organizations to open special schools in most parts of the world, particularly in developing countries (Claesson, 1995; Evans, 1998).
For over forty years, the medical model of diagnosing, labeling and treating children in segregated provision dominated the thinking of special education. It has become an area of debate and controversy. It is found to be mono-dimensional, or focusing on singular causes and solutions. By isolating problems and focusing on them in some detail strips away the complexities often found in real situation (for example classrooms), and it creates solutions of varying efficacy which usually share a disregard for the larger situation. The model of diagnostic / prescriptive teaching, which became popular in the early seventies and which tried to isolate children’s problems and design remedies for them, has been shown to be of very limited utility (Thomas & Feiler, 1988).
10

Consequently, there has been a major shift in the understanding of the nature of learning difficulties over the past twenty years. The view that some children were defective in various ways, and they needed to be separated and taught in a special method quite different from that of other children has been critically scrutinized. The understandings attached to a student have an effect on the choice of the educational program and setting that is rated the best one for an individual student. The prevailing structures and settings of meeting special educational needs have also an effect on how a student with special needs is seen and what is thought of as the best for that student (Moberg, 1997). As noted by O’Toole (1991), the individual and the problem were lifted out of social context in which they existed and attempts were made to impose a solution in a new context of the therapist's making. Ainscow (1994) further indicated that in reality the isolation of institutional settings was a modern form of hiding children with disabilities that was the characteristic of earlier times. He proposed that there is a growing understanding that disabling conditions are much more widely spread, more varied and more complex than the systems of categorization based largely on the information that medical criteria tend to indicate. This means children's behavior and their characteristics are more accurately reflected on a continuum than in discrete categories. Furthermore, Tuunainen (1997) contends that “in order to help, we accept labeling, discrimination, and exclusion which in many cases can cause severe problems to the children and to their families". Generally, there exists a consensus among educators and researchers that secluded educational setting has failed to equip children with the necessary psychological strength and social competencies for leading quality life in mainstream society. The failure in this method of educational delivery called for a change in the conceptualization of disability and disabling conditions which may pave the way towards integrated education.
3.3.2 Integrated Education
Conceptual problems and negative implications of segregated services necessitated a major change in the mode of educational provision for children with disabilities. The main shift in the delivery of education was geared towards integration. A drift to an accelerated movement against the practice of off site-services started. Concepts like integration and mainstreaming have been widely used in the literature pertaining to the education of children with disabilities. Integration is a more generic term applied to the school situation, and may include departures from mainstreaming
11

such as when more limited contact during part of the day between children with and without disabilities is planned (Guralinck, 1997). In its broadest sense, integration refers to the process of educating children with disabilities in regular classrooms whenever the placement best fits their particular learning and/or social needs (Banbury & Fox 1987). That is, the majority of children will be enrolled in regular classes with specific program modifications made or with children with disabilities pulled out of the regular classroom for special instruction. It is a process of integrating children with special needs into regular schools and classrooms instead of placing them in special institutions. Specifically it is the instructional and social integration of children with disabilities in a regular class or at least for a portion of a school day. It refers to both the functional instructional inclusion as well as social integration for an unspecified portion of the school day (Mercer &
Mercer, 1989; Schulz, et al., 1991; Safford, et al., 1994).
Perhaps no question has preoccupied special education professionals more in the past two decades than the effects, real and potential, of integrating children with disabilities. Integration with a move to recognizing the merits of educating children with disabilities still considers the individual's disability as the core problem in the learning-teaching processes (IDDC, 1998). It has tended to focus on “within individual deficits” geared towards providing special back-up support, and little attention has been given to restructuring the learning teaching environment. This approach can, be considered as a continuation of the medical or the individual model but in a different way. Although a belief in the educational or developmental benefits of integration may provide the foundation for other rationales for integration, there is little evidence that these potential benefits actually occur (Cole et al., 1991). Hundert and Houghton (1992) reported that compared with peers without disabilities, children with disabilities placed in regular pre-schools tended to be more socially rejected by peers, displayed more social isolation, placed more demands on teachers’ time, were less attentive, and more often were the recipient of negative behavior.
Findings consistently revealed relatively modest benefits in peer interactions for children with developmental delays when participating with typically developing children. Although the outcomes of comparisons between integrated and specialized settings have been generally consistent in favor of the integrated setting, the actual mechanisms, through which the peer interactions of children with developmental delays are influenced by settings containing typically developing children, are poorly understood (Guralnick et al., 1996).
12

Thus, integration carries the risk of making things worse as well as making things better
(Tungaraza, 1992). In a six-country study in Europe, segregation was defined as an educational setting that does not allow children with special needs to have social contacts with their peers as happened in both special schools and permanent special classes in regular school settings (Meijer et al., 1995). Special classes in this study located in the regular school compounds, did not ensure social contacts between children with disabilities and their non-disabled peers, the arrangement provided the necessary conditions but not the sufficient conditions for effective integration.
Differences across countries in terms of understanding and realizing integration were also observed. In the six-country study of integration, three broad categories of integration policies were identified. These include one-track integration, which is mainly oriented towards regular education and avoiding segregation by all means, a two-track system oriented towards both regular and special education, where the separate system of special education plays a key role in the integration efforts; and finally, a multi-track system which offers a continuum of services for special needs of students.
When one considers these approaches, the question arises about the extent to which integration can be judged as successful arises. This is a very difficult question to answer. Successful in what respect? To whom? By what criteria? How can it be assessed? By whom? (Meijer et al., 1995). In addition, there are other issues surrounding the process of integration which need to be clarified.
There is a critical lack of information on the characteristics of regular classrooms into which, for example, mentally retarded children could be mainstreamed. Some of the questions which need to be addressed, particularly in referring to the mentally retarded, include the following: What do we mean when we speak of appropriate placement? Do we mean opportunities of interaction with peers? Do we mean maximizing academic achievement? Do we mean maximizing the opportunities functioning “normally”? Do we mean enabling the child to lead an independent life?
(Gottlieb et al., 1991).
Whatever the case may be, it is during integrated education that children with disabilities begin attending the same school within the regular school setting. Studies indicate that initially children
13

were placed into separate classes within the regular school setting. Over time, however, these children were mainstreamed or integrated into existing classrooms or services for at least part of the day. While this approach was an improvement over isolation of many institutional settings, the reality of children's mainstreaming experience was that their needs often went unmet in classes designed for the sighted, hearing or those without any developmental or learning difficulties. And the supplemental special services they received were not only costly, but they set children apart from peers (Evans, 1998).
3.3.3 Inclusive Education
Inclusive education required a shift of emphasis on the task of persons providing educational services to make sure that the educational settings were adjusted to accommodate the special educational needs rather than trying to make the children with disabilities fit into the given educational setting (Claesson, 1995; Evans, 1998). The question, therefore, needs to be reformulated by asking what is wrong with the school rather than what is wrong with the child. This implies framing the question towards how schooling can be improved in order to help all children to learn successfully (Ainscow, 1994 & 1997). That is, disability should not be considered as a phenomenon that exists only within an individual; it has also a social meaning (Savolainen, 1995).
The social model is a move away from the medical model to social, ethical and economic implications of what it means to have a disability. Evidences suggest that the social construct of disability has been found to be more disabling than the bodily dysfunction. This view arises from a realization that a child's progress can be understood only in respect to particular circumstance tasks, and a set of relationships. This understanding and similar questions led to the emergence of inclusive education, with the conceptual shift from special education to special needs education.
These conceptual drifts encompass children without any physical disability but who are at-risk of failure in the general education setting for various reasons. This includes economically and socially disadvantaged children such as children coming from low income families, single parents, working children, orphans as well as female students.
14

Inclusive education means welcoming all children, without discrimination, into regular or general schools. By the change of attitude against differential treatment of education differences in people will likely be seen in a positive perspective. It calls for a respect of difference and celebration of diversity. Indeed, it is a focus on creating environments responsive to the differing developmental capacities, needs and potentials of all children. Inclusive education means a shift in services from simply trying to fit the child into “normal settings”; it is a supplemental support for their disabilities or special needs and promotes the child's overall development in an optimal setting (Evans, 1998).
Therefore, the task becomes one of developing the school in response to a pupils’ diversity. This has to include a consideration of overall organization, curriculum and classroom practice, support for learning and staff development (Ainscow, 1997). It does not mean that we should cease to identify and refer to the special needs of the learners, or to provide particular kinds of support when and where needed. It does mean that we should cease perceiving learners as all being similar because they have the same diagnostic label (Bridge & Moss, 1999). Inclusive education implies that education is about learning to live and learn together (Claesson, 1995). Central to the present thinking is the approach towards learning, which is termed “inclusive learning“, a move away from labeling the student and towards creating educational environments; concentrating on understanding better how people learn so that they can be better helped to learn; and seeing people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties first and foremost as learners (Tomlinson, 1996).
Therefore, the need to work out the necessary modifications and adaptations of educational materials, teaching methodologies, facilities, equipment and environmental conditions so that the child’s specific educational needs can best be served is essential in an inclusive setting. The special support children with disabilities require in the classroom may range from minor modifications such as altering seating arrangements to major adaptations and considerable assistance such as using sign language interpreter for deaf children (Smith et al., 1983; Gearheart et al., 1988; Heward & Orlansky, 1988; Ysseldyk & Algozzine, 1995).
In favor of the move towards the inclusive approach, the Salamanca Statement and Frame for
Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) provides the clearest and most unequivocal call in its articles 2 and 7 respectively.
Article 2 states:
15

…that ordinary school should accommodate all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, emotional, social, linguistic or other requirements. It further states that all educational policies should stipulate that children with disabilities attend their neighborhood school.
Article 7 also states
… that all children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Inclusive schools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs of their students, accommodating both different styles and rates of learning and ensuring quality education to all through appropriate curricula, organizational arrangements, teaching strategies, resource use and partnerships with communities.
Proponents believe that the general education classroom can and will be able to accommodate all students with disabilities, even students with severe and multiple disabilities. They hold the view that no student should be excluded from the general classroom. For example, according to full inclusion advocates, the idea of accommodation means placing a 14 year-old student with a severe cognitive disabilities into a general ninth grade class, but providing him or her with an individualized educational program at a first-grade level. Advocates of this kind of full-inclusion placement argue that it achieves social inclusion, but not academic inclusion. Age and gradeappropriate placement is the most controversial component of inclusive education (Kochhar, West
& Tymans, 2000). In contrast, many professionals in the field believe that while inclusion should be achieved to the extent possible in school activities (academic, social, physical education, technology, music and drama, service and extra curricular), some students are unlikely to receive appropriate academic or functional education without placement into alternative instructional groups such as part-time or full-time special classes (Lieberman, 1990; Kauffman & Hallahan,
1993).
16

Indeed, there are some children with severe disabilities for whom it would be extremely difficult to create a truly inclusive educational environment; it would neither benefit the child nor others in the setting. However, this does not mean that the child should be segregated and isolated from all life in the community. There should be a range of inclusive settings whereby the child can feel included and be best served. Such arrangements of educational settings should be based on the needs of the learner and could be served in special classes within the general school premises, at home in the family circles, in the community and other places which are likely to ensure the opportunities for social interaction (Evans, 1998).
3. 4 Theoretical Overview of Inclusive Education
In order to improve the educational services for all students, professionals are beginning to apply a different set of assumptions from those used in the past, emphasizing that it may not be effective to focus simply on individual deficits or environmental deficits alone. Solutions to human problems require that we look at all aspects of the problems. That is, the individual, the environment and the interaction between them. These understandings have evolved from different developmental and educational theories of human disability and learning. The following approaches reflect the roots of the different perspectives regarding the education of children with disabilities (Kochhar et al.,
2000).
3. 4.1 Individual-Based Paradigm
In this paradigm the unit of analysis is the person. The cause of individual deficits or failure rests within the individual and his or her physical body (Golby & Gulliver, 1985).Individuals do not progress satisfactorily because of inadequate cognitive, behavioral sensory, motor, medical and physical characteristics (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988). In the same way a disease is understood as
17

being “owned” by the infected individual; learning problems are thought of as the exclusive property of the student (Fedoruk, 1989). Intervention strategies under the individual-deficit orientation involve assessing individual attributes and include such strategies as correcting conduct disorders and remediating sensory deficits. This line of thought has influenced the type of treatment as well as the mode and place of educational delivery to be given for individuals with disabilities. It is unfortunate that this paradigm remains linear and mechanistic and does not account for the complex experiences of individuals in social settings.
3.4.2
Environment- Based Paradigm
In this paradigm the unit of analysis is primarily the environment. While internal factors may make the individual more or less responsive to the environment, these internal factors are not the chief cause of poor achievement. Since behavior is learned individuals fail to progress because of inappropriate or inadequate environmental circumstances in which they develop or learn. Within the environment-deficit orientation, typical intervention strategies include evaluating the learning environment, matching characteristics of teachers and related service providers to individual student characteristics, evaluating student teacher-ratios, and facilitating family involvement
(Kochhar, West & Tymans, 2000). This model is criticized for using a mechanistic approach to human complex behavior, undermining the role of the individual by promoting single-cause or single-effect understanding on human behavior.
3.4.3 System–Based Paradigm
System theories (for example ecological, interactive and transactional) share the view that all facets of the individual and the environment are important and that development is a complex process in which outcomes are determined through the active interaction of these facets. What is more, system theories, rather than focusing on one element like emotion, cognition, or learning, tend to attempt to understand developmental change in its entirety, that is, the whole child and the whole environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Sameroff, & Fiese, 2000). It is the grasp of these theoretical framework which leads to the understanding that learning and behavior deficits are not the result of the individual factors or the environmental factors but the interplay of the two factors.
18

The transaction between the individual factors (genotype) and the environmental factors (environ type) acting upon each other in a dynamic and reciprocating manner determine the behavior possessed by the individual (phenotype) (Sameroff, & Fiese, 2000). It is important to note that unlike the transactional view, the interaction system theory considers factors related to the individual’s functioning as separate and discrete entities, each impacting one another in an unidirectional manner. The first view, interactional, is mechanistic, while the second view, transactional, is contextual and organicistic in nature (Altaman & Rogoff, 1987).
Accordingly, approaches to remediating deficits in learning, development, or physical health are shifting away from the search for causes within the individual and toward specifying the condition under which different individuals can will learn and progress (Wixson & Lipson, 1986). This model is most useful for examining inclusion because it considers the individual, the environment, and the interaction between the two. It also shifts the focus away from the search for causes of problems in individuals and their environments and toward defining the conditions that will lead to individual progress (Kochhar, West & Tymans, 2000). Under this model, the family, the school, the community and the society at large share the responsibility to provide the conditions to help the individual maximize his or her potential. That is, creating an inclusive and receptive setting which can enable the individual to mobilize his or her potential to the maximum possible may lead to a better quality and an independent life.
The tendency to consider disability as a medical or biological issue presupposes that problems lie exclusively within the individual and solutions consist of attempts of changing the individual
(Ratska, 1989). This view has been sharply challenged by an alternative view which stresses that development proceeds through reciprocal interactions between children and environments so that both the individual and their settings undergo change. In a transactional model, changes in the child's settings (for example family, educational and related environments) may radically alter interaction patterns with significant implications for child development and learning (Mitchell &
Brown, 1991). In this model, the development of the child is seen as a product of continuous dynamic interactions of the child and the experience provided by his or her family and social context (Meisels & Shonkoff, 1990). In the same line, children’s learning difficulties at school are considered not as emanating from within the child but from the transaction between personal and
19

school factors. The regular school itself is viewed as a major source of learning difficulties.
Inappropriate curriculum, content, teaching methods insensitive handling and an over-competitive school ethos could contribute to the failure to meet the individual needs of particular children, and these may result in failure for the child with disabilities. This would encourage one to assign such children to segregated education (Meijer et al., 1995).
According to Ainscow (1994), there is an Increasing recognition that difficulties encountered by young people in their general development are likely to arise as much from the disadvantageous circumstances as from individual characteristics. The ecological systems perspective elaborates the nature of obstacles faced at different levels in a society as well as respective strategies for their removal (Caesson, 1995). All these understandings on child development and learning are the basis for the drift in the direction of inclusive education.
3.5 Challenges and Opportunities of Inclusive Education
3.5.1 Challenges of Inclusive Education
The real challenge of inclusive education is to meet the needs of all children with and without disabilities in the general classroom (Kajubi, 1999). In a classic article, Dunn (1986) called for the abandonment of special day classes for students with high incidence of disabilities such as children with learning disabilities (LD).He also argued persuasively for part-time pull-out special education services to meet their special educational needs. Holloway in his study concluded that reading progress in combined models was significantly better than in either inclusive–only model or special class–only model (Holloway, in Zigmond, 2003). These studies reflect the need for a special educational pull-out program to accommodate the special educational needs of children with different types and varying degrees of disabilities.
Inclusion is not an easy process. It requires a lot of struggle and commitment to overcome attitudinal and social barriers. Inclusive education can only flourish in a system which generates inclusive ideology. Where distrust and uncertainty are fabrics of an institutional culture, inclusion
20

becomes almost impossible (Corbett et al., 1997). People have to change their established practices and modes of working. It is always simple and easy just to carry on operating in the welltried procedures. Indeed, practical problems could be encountered while including children with diverse educational needs. But often the practical difficulties have to do with bringing attitudinal change and the reorganization of learning environments and school activities. This inertia within the system is an important human issue, and any change requires effort and time, innovation, and sensitivity (Booth & Potts, 1987).
Many factors affect and regulate the development of inclusion. One of the determinant factors refers to attitudes of the community towards persons with disabilities and inclusion. A limited understanding of the concept of disability, negative attitude towards persons with disabilities and a hardened resistance to change are the major barriers impeding inclusive education (IDDC, 1998).
Of particular concern is the fact that teachers’ attitudes are seen as the decisive factor, for successful inclusion. Inclusion has been based on the assumption that teachers are willing to admit students with disability into regular classes and be responsible for meeting their needs. However, regular classroom teachers do not perceive themselves as having the appropriate training and skills to meet the instructional needs of students with disabilities (Moberg, 1997). Unfortunately, evaluation studies indicate that teachers rarely have the support they need to make inclusion successful. In some schools, regular teachers are asked to teach special needs students without receiving any form of training as well as administrative assistance. Without support, teachers who do not have sufficient background knowledge in special education are at a loss. An inclusive education demands that the teacher to be innovative, flexible, creative, ready to learn from the learners and capable of initiating active learning. These are some of the pedagogical challenges facing ordinary class teacher teaching students with diverse educational needs (Mather, 1992;
Rekkas, 1997). The development of an inclusive educational policy, curriculum and teacher training programs are frontiers of challenges encountered in course of implementing in inclusive education.
Generally, the challenge towards inclusive education could emanate from different directions such as attitudinal factors, rigid school systems, resistance to change, lack of clear educational guide lines, inadequate resources and fear of losing one's job on the part of special school teachers.
3.5.2 Opportunities of Inclusive Education
21

The general education classroom provides students with disabilities with access to students without disabilities; access to curricula and textbooks to which most other students are exposed; access to subject matter content taught by subject matter specialists; access to instruction from a general education teacher whose training and expertise are quite different from those of special education teacher; access to all of the stresses and strains associated with the preparation for, taking of, and passing and/or failing of the statewide assessments (Zigmond, 2003). As compared to segregated settings, in Inclusive settings students with disabilities are provided with the opportunity to be exposed to and reciprocate a broad range of social interaction behavior as well as have their social behavior reacted to. These beneficial interactions can be characterized as proximal interactions (sensory contact), helping interactions (non-disabled students voluntarily providing direct assistance promoting social and affective relationships), and reciprocal interactions
(the disabled and the non-disabled are both accruing personal benefits from the relationship, like playing a game) (Stainback & Stainback, 1985). This dynamic transaction contributes a great deal to the holistic development of the child like; for example; learning to perform skills across persons, places, materials, and language cues and establishing social and affective relationships.
Furthermore, Egel et al., (1981) found that students with disabilities can profit from learning basic educational tasks by observing non-disabled student peer models.
Studies confirm that inclusion has positive consequences not only for students with disabilities but also for non-disabled students. Growing up and attending school with children with disabilities will affect the attitudes of non-disabled children which may have implications for the future. This is tantamount to educating future service providers, managers and future parents. It is presumed that prejudices reflected by regular schools as well as employers in not accepting persons with disabilities rests on their lack of exposure to, knowledge of and experience with the competence of persons with disabilities. If they have grown up with peers who experience disabilities, it is doubtful that they would act in such negative and rejecting ways (Voeltz, 1982; Strainback & Strainback,
1985; Booth & Potts, 1987). Separate socialization breeds attitudes of prejudice, intolerance and self-depreciation; while inclusion, particularly at the formative stage of development, can do much to sweep away the barriers of traditional beliefs and misunderstanding that keep the persons with disabilities and the non-disabled persons apart (Booth & Potts, 1987). In general, non-disabled
22

students who have had opportunities to interact with students with severe disabilities have more positive and accepting attitudes than those who have not had such opportunities (Favazza &
Odom, 1997; Voeltz, 1982). Such interactions can also reduce non-disabled fear of students with disabilities and promote understanding and acceptance. Studies further suggest that there are many non-disabled persons who realize a tremendous range of emotional and social benefits from their involvement with persons who have disabilities, including realistically enhanced self-concepts.
The important maturational feelings that emanate from learning to assume responsibility, the expansive enlightenment that comes best from sincere attempts to communicate with, understand, and the like are somewhat different from the usual experience (Corbett et al., 1997).
Moreover, inclusive education developed out of a strong belief in human rights and social justice.
The advocates of inclusion perceive separate special education as dehumanizing, labeling, ineffective and expensive. The proponents of full inclusion believe that separate special education is not needed at all and that all students can receive appropriate and quality education within the contexts of regular classrooms (Stainback & Stainback 1984; Morbeg, 1997). Inclusive schools are viewed as essential to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights and to building solidarity between children with special needs and their peers. Inclusion is considered as an equity issue, a solution to a social problem, a philosophy concerned with rights and opportunities of fellow citizens
(Banbury & Fox, 1987; UNESCO, 1994). Finally, the shift towards inclusive education presents a challenge to the present delivery system of general education and helps to enrich and transform it to quality education by trying to accommodate and address the needs of all children in the class.
3.6 Prospects of Inclusive Education
3.6.1
Background
In Ethiopia, the participation rate of children with disabilities both in special schools and special classes is negligible when compared with the number of children with disabilities in the school-age bracket. According to a statistical report of the Ministry of Education (1997), there are seven residential special schools, eight special day schools and forty-two special classes. The reason for
23

the stagnation in growth of special schools in Ethiopia for the last forty years, which in most cases were initiated by missionaries, can be attributed to attitude, policy choice and financial constraints.
As mentioned earlier, children attending special schools and classes include the deaf, the blind and the mentally retarded; the number of students served is about 2,276 (MOE, 1997). Children who fall in the age bracket between 5 and 19 constitute about 37.4 % (23,058,825) of the total population in Ethiopia (CSA, 1998). As per the estimation of the national base-line survey of persons with disabilities in Ethiopia, this constitutes about 2.95% of the total population (Tirussew et al., 1995). That is, there are about 691,765 children with disabilities in the school-age bracket in the country among which only 0.33% have access to special schools and classes at primary and secondary levels. Similar survey reports in thirteen eastern and southern African countries revealed that only about 0.1% were enrolled in special school programs (Ross, 1988). What is more, over 95.5% of these services in Ethiopia were generally overcrowded, urban-based and illquipped with human and material resources (Tirussew, 1993). Whatever the case may be, the education of children with disabilities in Ethiopia has failed to reach and serve over 99% of schoolage children in the country. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, a substantial number of the student population in the regular schools have special educational needs unrecognized and unattended by the school or classroom teachers, which is believed to be one of the causes for unsuccessful school achievement and early school drop-out rates. A study on the prevalence of hearing impairment among first grade students in five primary regular schools at Awassa town was conducted using audometric and otoscopic testing. The study revealed that 7% of the student population has a hearing loss in the range of 26-48 dB, which could be classified as mild hearing impairment (Fransua, 1998). It means that these children miss a lot of speech signals, which has adverse effects on class discussion, peer interaction and overall academic performance. Neither the classroom teachers nor the parents detected that these children had hearing problem until the time this study was undertaken (Fransua, 1998). A high rate of early repetition and drop-out rate is recorded in the primary schools. A report of the Ministry of Education (1999) revealed that about 27
% of children leave school before reaching second grade. Presumably, children with undetected mild problems as a group may constitute a good number of early repeaters and drop-outs of the primary schools in Ethiopia.
24

The shift towards inclusive education in the country will open a big opportunity for children with disabilities to have access to education in the regular schools in their neighborhoods or respective communities. That means, regular schools will unlock their doors for children with disabilities and give them the right to be educated with their peers. This will encourage and motivate the parents of children with disabilities to send their children to schools instead of leaving them to “vegetate” at home. It is argued that special needs provision and rehabilitation would be more effective in their immediate environment rather than in institutions or special schools which are inaccessible due to their locations, possibly hundreds of miles away from home (Eleweke, 1998). That is, the opportunity for children with disabilities to live at home has both psychological and economic advantages for the children and the parents. Furthermore, the impetus towards inclusive education brings a wake-up call for regular school management as well as teachers to evaluate the school and classroom conditions, as well as the capacity of their human power in view of serving the needs of all children. This sort of exercise will benefit a substantial number of children in regular classrooms with undetected impairments. The change in the present scenario of the school system should attempt to ensure that every child benefits from the learning-teaching process and no child is left behind. In order to put the desired goals in place, it requires the necessary resources to overcome the three fundamental barriers (Kochhar et al., 2000): a) b) organizational (schools and classrooms structures and managements); attitudinal (teachers’ and administrators beliefs, motivations towards accommodating students with special need in general educations);and c) knowledge (teachers differences in knowledge and skills about instruction and adapting curriculum as well as providing support services for children with special needs).
Whatever the case may be, the need to make a shift to inclusive education in Ethiopia is a necessary and logical choice for addressing the education of children with disabilities in particular and children with special needs in general. The recent proliferation of special classes in regular schools in the country has indeed brought a rise in the education of children with disabilities. This is in fact part of the general trend in the inclusive education movement in the country at large. There
25

are reports in pockets of successful inclusive education attempts with children with mental retardation in Kokebe Tsebah Primary School (Gilnesh & Tibebu, 1999) and children with visual impairment in German Primary Church School (Dagne, 2000). Furthermore, a study conducted on blind students integrated in Mulugeta Gedle School at Sebeta showed positive experiences on the part of the teachers, sighted students as well as blind students. However, shortage of instructional materials, inconvenient school environment and lack of back-up support were considered as obstacles encountered in the course of their education (Teferi, 1996).
These and other strides towards inclusive education will have twists and turns and there is a long way to go to get everything in place. In the course of moving forward, it is always important to check whether the necessary preparations are in place or not. In seminars and conferences, concerns regarding inclusive education have been raised by the national associations of persons with disabilities as well as special educators in the country. Their serious concerns are about the readiness of the regulars schools, in terms of the availability of special facilities and resources required, the background of the regular school teachers in special needs education and the large class sizes (70 to 80 students in a class) of the schools which adversely affects the degree of attention to be given for a child with disability. The apprehension most frequently heard from the
Ethiopian National Association of the Deaf is about surviving in a classroom setting where by the medium of instruction the spoken language is. According to the Deaf Association, in the absence of sign language use and/or interpretation services, the regular classroom setting presents a strong challenge as well as a threat for their education, language acquisition and social development. This is a legitimate concern which needs to be addressed and requires a thoughtful, flexible and balanced implementation strategy from which deaf children can optimally benefit. It is also important to consider that the daily association of the deaf child with hearing students in an inclusive setting gives the child a contextual environment to develop oral and social skills which will possibly maximize his or her vocational and social opportunities in later years. Indeed, the education of the deaf in Ethiopia has not as such shown any significant development in the last four decades. Deaf education in the country is characterized by high drop-out rate and low educational achievement and there is a lot to be done to redress the present state of affairs (Berta,
2000).
26

3.6.2 Rationales for the Shift to Inclusive Education in Ethiopia
The main rationales for the shift towards inclusive education in Ethiopia are that it helps to:
 attain a broad national coverage by giving children the opportunity to have access to the neighborhood regular schools with their non-disabled peers;
 serve children with hidden or undetected disabilities (such as children with minor sensory and motor impairments, reading and writing difficulties as well as behavioral problems) who have already been “mainstreamed by default” in the existing regular schools;
 achieve psychological, social and educational benefits, by interacting, learning, playing and living together with their peers;
 overcome attitudinal barriers and foster positive attitude by promoting the value of appreciating differences, mutual understanding, tolerance and helpfulness among all children;
 empower and engage families of children with disabilities as well as the community to participate in facilitating the education of children with disabilities and their overall emotional, social and intellectual well-being;
 minimize the cost incurred by building special schools and providing special educational services though using the available local services and alternative approaches ;
 enhance the quality of the educational system; and
 curb the alarming early school drop-out rate in the country.
The review of literature indicates that two general positions have emerged from the debate on inclusive education. The first position is that all students with disabilities have the right to go to school with their non-disabled peers. The other position is usually labeled as “full inclusion” and is
27

stronger in its position that all children with disabilities should go to regular schools (Kochhar et al.,
2000). The first position is consistent with the principle of the education children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment which argues the need for varying levels of inclusion depending on the conditions of the children with disabilities. On the other hand, the second position completely dismisses the need for educational services outside the regular classroom settings such as in special schools or classes. Advocates of this kind of full inclusion argue that its goal is to achieve social inclusion, but not necessarily academic inclusion (Kochhar et al., 2000).
The present scenario of the educational system in Ethiopia, does not as such lend itself to full inclusion as proposed in the second position. Among others, the main reasons for opting for the first option are that the class sizes in our school system are large (mostly exceeding 70 students in a class), the teachers do not have training in special needs education and schools have not yet been equipped with the with the necessary resources and facilities. In order to equip the children with the special learning skills or to acquire functional academic education, there is a need for alternative learning environment outside the regular classroom on a part-time or full-time basis, depending on their special need. For instance, children with severe mental retardation, motor and communication disorders as well as children with debilitating health conditions may require full-time home–based or community-based educational services. Whereas others, such as children with visual impairment, hard-of hearing or residual hearing capacity, writing-reading difficulties and mild developmental disabilities may only need some time to spend outside the regular classroom to receive special educational support. With regard to deaf children, special arrangements should be made whereby they can attend most of their education in special classes and other school activities with hearing peers. Linguistic milieu which is the signing environment for the deaf child is equally important as spoken language for the hearing child. Therefore, in order to develop and achieve mastery in sign language, the deaf child should have access to an interactive linguistic environment as early as possible. However, this should not encourage the approach that the child must be segregated and isolated from all life in the community. There should be a range of settings where the child can feel included and have opportunities for social interaction (Evans, 1998).
Therefore, attempts should be made to make the classroom setting as inclusive as possible through modifying the structure and facilities, changing the attitude of the teachers, providing
28

training for general education teachers and availing resources for special assistance or aid as well as instructional and learning materials.
Whatever the case may be the need for research, dialogue and discourse among special needs education professionals, regular class teachers, school administrators, policy makers, persons with disabilities and parents about quality inclusive education should be underscored. Studies have confirmed that there is no one single “right” way to implement an inclusive program. Inclusion is a necessary, but is not a sufficient component of a high-quality program. The bottom line of inclusive education is how it meets the developmental and social needs of children with disabilities (Odom et al., 2001). It is clear from the forgoing discussions that there is no standardized format or recipe for obtaining quality inclusive education. However, based on the present conditions of the education of children with disabilities in Ethiopia and the experience of other countries, useful components which may lead to successful program of inclusive education are suggested.
3.6.3 Basic Ingredients for Successful Inclusion a) Educational Act on the Education of Children with
Disabilities/ Special Educational Needs
As it is stated in the Education and Training Policy of Ethiopia (TGE, 1994), one of its objectives is "to enable both the handicapped and the gifted learn in accordance with their potential and needs". It does not provide a clear guideline as to which mode of educational delivery would be followed to unfold the potentials of children with disabilities. Inclusive education is a global trend, even though there are variations observed in the implementation strategy of inclusive education in different parts of the world. For example, the Ministry of
Education in South Africa advocates a clear commitment to inclusive education (Nyewe, 1999).
The need for further elaborated educational acts for individuals with disabilities or with special educational needs in Ethiopia is in order. Despite the absence of such an official document from the government, a general movement with a shift towards inclusive education seems to be on the ground.
29

a) Overcoming Attitudinal and Organizational Barriers
The first important undertaking in the process of inclusion is to obtain the support for inclusive education from the school community, particularly from the teachers as well as school administrators. That is, changing the attitude and misconceptions of teachers as well as school administrators towards children with disabilities or special educational needs is very crucial for creating an inclusive educational environment. Getting a shared vision and winning the good will of the teachers as well as the educational leadership will facilitate the creation of an inclusive environment in the school. An attitudinal change on the part of the school leadership and teachers sets the condition for administrative as well as professional commitment to implement inclusive education. For the school administrator, that may entail many considerations but most importantly, availing the necessary resources and assistance to accommodate the educational needs of children with disabilities in regular classrooms, run special pull-out programs and to make the school environment accessible for all children. For the classroom teacher that may mean knowing the needs of all children, appreciating their differences, creating conducive learning environment and attempting to ensure that no child is left behind. b) Developing Inclusive Curriculum
The inclusive approach curriculum requires a certain degree of flexibility in that modifications, substitutions, exemptions as well as compensations are needed to accommodate the diverse educational needs of children. It should not be expected that all pupils will be doing the same work; that simply would not be realistic, particularly for those children with developmental delays. However, a common curriculum framework where the different educational programs pupils follow can be related to each other through common curricula principles is feasible
(Meijer et al., 1995). Such a framework makes it possible for pupils of different abilities to work together. It also provides a shared language to discuss the curriculum. This makes it easier for teachers to communicate with their colleagues about educational programs for pupils with
30

learning difficulties and to ensure that they participate in common programs of work to the greatest extent possible. d) Transforming Teacher Education Program
(i) Modifying the General Teacher Education
The teacher training program should reflect the necessary competencies needed by the teachers who are to take on leadership roles in order to facilitate the development of inclusive schooling.
The understanding and skills required should be clear so that the key training areas could be identified. It means that it is always important to recognize the implications of the concept of inclusion in designing curriculum for teacher education curriculum (Ainscow, 1997). A study conducted in South Africa revealed that training programs in the past have resulted in an almost total lack of awareness and skills among existing teachers in dealing with diversity, identifying needs of learners within the system and providing curriculum flexibility (Engelbrecht & Chris 1998).
The study further concluded that core special needs components in training programs should be organized around a curriculum that confronts issues of the accommodation of diversity in general education.
The teacher training programs fail to provide courses on special needs education for the general education teachers in initial training. This is a major drawback in promoting inclusion education
(Meijer et al., 1995). Special needs education courses should therefore be encompassed in all preservice teacher-training programs as part of the core material covered. This makes the would-be teachers academically and psychologically ready to deal with diverse educational needs of children with disabilities at schools. Addressing these needs would be an essential component of the job, not an optional add-on for some teachers. For those who are currently teaching in ordinary schools, organizing a continuous in-service training program on inclusion and disability issues is equally important as the pre-service training.
31

(ii) Modifying the Special Education Teacher Education
If most children with disabilities are to be accommodated in general education classrooms, special education curriculum must be modified and teacher educators must come to a new understanding of the work. The training of special education teachers needs to be restructured to enable them to work in different educational settings across all disability areas (Moberg, 1997). The tasks of the special educator, among others, should include: consulting general education teachers; running pull-out programs for children in need; joining teachers in classes to provide support in the course of a lesson; organizing professional development programs such as workshops and seminars for the school administrators and teachers; working with parents and liaising with external agencies; carrying out numerous administrative tasks that are necessary as well as monitoring and evaluating the program. In general, the teacher education program should enable the trainee to discharge the responsibilities of serving as a special class teacher and functions as an advocate and program planner for children with special educational needs in regular schools (Stainback &
Stainback, 1985; Meijer et al., 1995). f) Fostering Teamwork and Cooperative Learning among
Peers
The effectiveness of both peer tutoring and cooperative learning has been well established through applied research. There may be less need to refer students to special education programs in order to meet their interactional needs, because peer-mediated intervention is found to have a vital role in promoting social interaction as well as academic achievement. An additional advantage of peermediated intervention may be that once teachers learn how to implement peer tutoring or cooperative learning strategies they can apply this knowledge across a broad range of curriculum areas (Maher et al., 1987; Porter et al., 1991). However, research has indicated that providing interaction opportunities is not always enough, since interactions between non-disabled students and students with disabilities do not always occur spontaneously when opportunities are provided
(Guralnick, 1997). Teachers can encourage their non-disabled students to play, study and work as
32

tutors, or simply to spend a little time with a friend who has a disability (Stainback & Stainback,
1985).
This approach could be effectively utilized in our school system where the class size is large and teacher-student ratio is high. The widely prevalent teacher-centered approach has not only undermined the mobilization of the human resources available in the class, but has also encouraged passive learning which stifles analytical thinking. On the other hand, the present strategy needs to encourage active learning and mobilize the potential of the learners. This may be achieved through methods such as engaging children in individual and group projects in class as well as after school activities .
g) The Special Class/Resource Rooms
The opening of special classes or resource centers on the general educational school premises is part of the movement towards creating inclusive schools. As indicated earlier, the call for special classes or resource centers gives extra support for children who require additional skills or intensive educational training or psychological backing. Pull-out settings allow for smaller teacherstudent ratios and flexibility in the selection of texts, choice of curricula objectives and pacing of instruction. It is most appropriate if students need (a) intensive instruction in basic academic skills,
(b) explicit instruction in controlling behavior or interacting with peers and adults, or (c) to learn anything that is not customarily taught to everyone else (Zigmond, 2003). However, studies suggest that the effects of special classes in regular schools do not look very promising. Students with special educational needs seem to stick together and do not play and talk with other students because both groups share the same classes only a limited number of hours. Therefore, special classes should be carefully planned so that they do not promote segregation. That is, pull-out services or special classes should be limited in time, and be focused on special skills training (for the blind such as Braille reading and writing and mobility) as well as providing functional academic tutorials for those who need it (Meijer et al., 1995). The special educator can use the special class or resource center for preparing special educational materials and consulting regular classroom teachers as well as parents.
33

h) Resourcing and Funding
Next to teacher competence, the availability of appropriate support ranks high in the list of factors affecting teachers’ ability to educate pupils with special needs in regular schools. If regular schools are not resourced accordingly when they take on the education of these pupils, it is extremely difficult to discharge their responsibilities and build up positive attitudes on the part of teachers or to sustain them over a period of time (Meijer et al., 1995). A synthesis of 28 survey reports of
10,560 teachers indicated that training, personnel, equipment and materials necessary to carry out effective inclusion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). It is important to underscore that inclusion is cost effective but not cost free, and that any attempt towards realizing an inclusive educational environment is part and parcel of the whole-school improvement. i) Setting a Stage for Extra-curricular and Out- of- School
Inclusive Programs
Extra-curricular activities for all children are often suggested. This may include organizing field trips and visits and formations of clubs such as music, art, photography, debate, natural science, research, drama and other recreational programs. This is an important parameter not only for promoting inclusion outside the classroom among students but also for unfolding the diverse potentials and talents of children with and without disabilities. Such a tradition needs to be nurtured as early as the first grade so that children can develop the habit of using out-of-school time wisely. j) Parental Partnership or Involvement
A positive parental attitude to schooling will provide a sound foundation for improving children’s learning. Furthermore, what parents do to their children counts and have a direct impact on their learning (Thomas & Feiler, 1988). Parents as well as other family members can be trained to use special strategies to facilitate and promote the overall development of children with disabilities during their day to day encounters at home. In a country like Ethiopia, where the magnitude of the
34

problem is broad and the number of trained personnel in the field is small, the involvement of parents is of utmost importance.
It is also important to note that parents need to be encouraged to promote the participation of their children with disabilities with peers at home-based informal play groups, in play activities with individual children in the neighborhood and/or in organized group-programs in their general community. As much as children need to go to school in their own neighborhood and attend classes with kids typically of their own age, they equally need to be involved with kids in activities outside of school on weekends, evenings and other occasions
(Strully & Strully, 1989). The promotion of friendship development for children with disabilities is nowadays being considered as a primary educational goal (English et al., 1997). These peer social networks serve to complement and extend peer relationships and friendships formed while participating in the integrative setting. Specifically, results of research suggest that it is the manner in which parents monitor their children’s activities that is relevant here, particularly their degree of involvement (for example, ranging from monitoring from a distance to directly checking and directly participating in play activities (Guralnick, 1997).
The involvement of parents is generally perceived as a major dimension of successful inclusion
(Nywe, 1999). Empirical studies indicate that for desirable partnerships to prevail between teachers, parents and guardians, a mutual sharing of knowledge, skills, experiences and decisionmaking is required (Semakula, 1999). There is a need to involve parents or guardians in deciding the long-term and short-term objectives of the educational programs, based not only on the child's interest and abilities, but also on the families’ priorities. Although many parents look forward to enrolling their children with disabilities in a regular pre-school or school program, the child’s inclusion may precipitate certain concerns. A significant issue for parents is whether their children will receive the special support needed to be successful. Parents may also worry that both they and their children may experience rejection in the inclusive setting, that safety issues may surface or that programs may not be fully committed to inclusion. This suggests the need for professionals to be particularly sensitive to continuing concerns of parents (Safford, et al., 1994).
k) Inclusion in Early Childhood Education
35

Studies suggest that biologically at risk children attain normal development provided appropriate early intervention is carried out. Many disabilities, including many emotional problems, result from environmental influences. As indicated previously, early in life, the incompleteness of brain development makes it very open to the influence of experience and culture. It is an organizing influence the impact of which begins early and affects every domain. Human beings, are active organisms, their innate abilities change in the course of children’s development resulting from reciprocal transactions of the biologically maturing organism with the social and physical environment. The integration of diverse research findings provides a coherent and comprehensive view of early development as a foundation for early intervention (Anastasiow & Nucci, 1994).
As noted by Holdsworth (1997) exclusion in the early years can reinforce exclusion throughout life.
That is the success of the inclusive schools depends considerably on early identification, assessment and stimulation of the very young child with special educational needs. Programs at this level should recognize the principle of inclusion and be developed in a comprehensive way by combining early childhood education and early childhood health care (UNESCO, 1994). At the same time, this process helps to promote the development of the right attitude by the non-disabled peers towards persons with disabilities. Indeed, other home-based interventions should begin as early as in the first year of the new born child. It is therefore educationally sound and psychologically commendable to allow inclusion of children with disabilities into early childhood establishments available in the neighborhood as early as possible in order to enhance the unfolding of their potentials. l) Follow-up Study on Inclusive Education
Finally, undertaking a follow-up study on inclusive education in schools is envisaged to be helpful to know the practical problems and make the necessary adjustments as well as increase our knowledge of understanding about the subject. The empirical findings of such an endeavor can generate educational innovations and initiate a dialogue among school teachers, researchers, policymakers as well as other stakeholders. As inclusive education is the global trend for children
36

with special needs, there are still a lot of contextual issues to be investigated in the course of its implementation.
37

References
Ainscow M., (1997). Towards inclusive schooling. British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 24,
No.1.Ainscow M. (1994). Needs in the Classroom: A Teacher Education.
Guide. Paris: UNESCO. In Evans J. L. (1998). Inclusive ECCD: A
Fair Start for All Children. Coordinators' Notebook: An
International Resource for Early Childhood Development, No.22.
New York: UNICEF, The Consultative Group of Early Childhood
Development.
Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology:
Trait,interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives in
D.Stokkols, and Altman (Eds.) Handbook of environmental
psychology. New York; John Wiley and Sons.
Anastasiow N. & Nucci C.(1994). “Social,Historical and Theoretical
Foundations of Early Childhood Special Education and Early
Intervention”, In Safford et. al., Early Childhood Special Education
(1994).New York: Teachers College Press.
Banubury M, & Fox R. (1987). Issues in Special Education.
California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Berta F. (2000). The State of Deaf Education in Ethiopia. Unpublished paper, Special Needs Education Graduate Program, Addis Ababa
University.
Bronfenbrenner,U.,(1979).The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
38

CSA (Central Statistics Authority) (1998). Housing and Population
Census Statistical Abstract. Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Claesson P. (1995). Towards Inclusive Education: The
Vietnamese Experience. Rädda Barnen and Irene López :
KalmarSund Tryck.
Cole K.N. et al.,(1991). “Effects of Per-school Integration for Children with disabilities”, Journal of Exceptional Children, Special Issue:
Trends and Issues in Early Intervention.
Corbett J. & Norwich B. (1997). “ Special Needs and Client Rights: the changing social and political context of special education”, British
Educational Research Journal, Vol.23, No3, 1997.
Coleridge, P. (1993). Disability, Liberation and Development. In
Savolainen H. (1995). Special Education and Rehabilitation, IER
Flambeau, Vol.3, No.2.
Dunn, L.M. (1986). Special education for the mildly retarded-Is much of it justifiable ? Exceptional Children, 35,5-22. In Zigmond N. (2003).
Where Should Students with Disabilities Receive Special Education
Services ? Is One Place Better than Another? The Journal
Of Special Education, Vol.373, 193-199.
Dagne B. (2000). Educational Status of Students with Visual
Impairment: The Case of German Church School. Unpublished paper,
Special Needs Graduate Program, Addis Ababa University.
39

Egel et al.,. (1981). “Normal peer models and autistic children learning”, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14,3-11.
Eleweke J. (1998). A Review of Institutional Service Delivery
Provisions in Special Needs Education and Rehabilitation in Nigeria:
The best way forward. African Journal of Special Needs
Education, Vol.3, No.2.
Engelbrecht & Chris (1998). Pre-service teachers' acceptance of social interactions with persons with disabilities. African Journal of
Special Needs Education, Vol.3, No.1.
English et al., (1997). The Council Exceptional Children. Vol.63,
No.2, 1997.
Evans J. L. (1998). Inclusive ECCD: A Fair Start for All Children.
Coordinators' Notebook: An International Resource for Early
Childhood Development, No.22. New York: UNICEF, The
Consultative Group of Early Childhood Development.
Fauazza, P.C.,& Odom,S.L. (1997). Promoting positive attitudes of
Kindergarten-aged children toward individuals with disabilities.
Exceptional Children,63,405-422.
Fedoruk, G (1989). Kindergarten screening for the first grade learning problems. The conceptual inadequacy of a child deficit model.
Childhood education,66,40-42. In Kochhar A. C., West L. L. and
Taymans M.J. (2000). Successful Inclusion: Practical Strategies for a
Shared Responsibility New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Francsua D. (1998). Hard of Hearing and Classroom Interaction: Their
40

Effects on Social and Academic Performance, A Case Study of the
Selected Classroom in Awassa Town. MA, Thesis, Joensuu University.
Gilenesh H. & Tibebu B. (1999). From Exclusion to Inclusion: A case of children with Mental Retardation in Kokebe Tsebah Primary
School in Addis Ababa. Save the Children Sweden: Addis Ababa,
Eastern and Central Africa Office.
Heward, W. L. & Orlansky, M. D. (1988). Exceptional Children:
An Introductory. Columbus: Merril Publishing Company.
Holloway, J. 9(2001). Inclusion and students with learning disabilities.
Educational Leadership,57(6),86-88. In Zigmond N. (2003). Where
Should Students with Disablities Receive Special Education Services ?
Is One Place Better than Another? The Journal of Special
Education, Vol.373, 193-199.
Gearheart, et al., (1988). The Exceptional Student in the Regular
Classroom. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Golby, M.& Gulliver, J.R.(1985). Whose remedies, whose ills? critical review of remedial education. In Kochhar A. C., West L. L. and
TaymansM.J. (2000). Successful Inclusion: Practical Strategies
for a Shared Responsibility. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Guralnick M. (1997). “Peer Social Networks of Young Boys With
Developmental. Delays”, American Journal of Mental Retardation,
Volume 101, Number 6.
Guralnick M et al., (1996). “Immediate Effects of Mainstreamed
Settings on the Social Interactions and Social Integration of Pre-school
41

Children”, American Journal of Mental Retardation, Volume 100,
Number 4.
Holdsworth, J.(1997). International consultation on early childhood education and special education. In Evans J. L. (1998). Inclusive
ECCD: A Fair Start for All Children. Coordinators' Notebook:
An International Resource for Early Childhood Development,
No.22. New York: UNICEF.
Hundert J. & Houghton,A. (1992). “ Promoting Interaction of
Children with Disabilities in Integrated Preschools: A Failure to
Generalize”, Journal of Exceptional Children, Virginia: The Council of Exceptional Children.
IDDC (1998). Inclusive Education: Making a Difference. Enabling
Education Network. University of Manchester: Centre for Educational
Needs School of Education, Oxford Road.
Kauffman, J.M.& Hallahan D.P (1993). Toward a comprehensive
Service delivery system.In J.J Goodlad and C.Lovett(Eds.), Integrating general and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Meririll/Printice
Hall.
Kajubi S. (1999). Human Resource Development in Support of
Inclusive Education. Paper presented in the workshop organized by
UNESCO at UNISE, Uganda, Kampala, Feb.22- 3 March.
Kochhar A. C., West L. L. and Taymans M.J. (2000). Successful
Inclusion: Practical Strategies for a Shared Responsibility New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
42

Lieberman, L.M. (1988). Preserving special education, for those
who need it. Newtonville, MAGloworm.
Maher C. et al.,.(1987). Psychoeducational Interventions in
Schools. University of Oslo, Pergamon General Psychology Series.
Mather K. (1992). Educational Integration. The Essential Tool for the Development of Independence: The Perspective of a
student Today. Independence 92 Vancouver. Montreal Quebec:
Dawson College.
Meijer et al., (1995). New Perspective in Special Education: A six
–country study of integration. London: Routledge
Mercer, D.C. & Mercer, R.A.(1989). Teaching Students With
Learning Problems. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Mitchell D. & Brown R.I (1991). Early Intervention Studies for
Young Children with Special Needs. London: Chapman and Hall.
Ministry of Education (1997). Education Statistics (1995/96). The
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,. Addis Ababa: MOE- EMPDA.
Ministry of Education (1999). Education Statistics (1997/98). The
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: MOE- EMPDA.
Moberg S. (1997). Inclusive educational practices as perceived by prospective special education teachers in Estonia, Finland, and the
United States. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research,
Vol. 20, No.1.
43

Meisels & Shonkoff (1990). Handbook of Early Childhood
Intervention. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Nyewe K.(1999). The Attitude of some South African Parents towards the Inclusive education of their children with mild to moderate mental retardation. African Journal of Special Needs Education,
Vol.4,No.1.
Odom, Beckman, Hanson, Horn, Lieber,Sandall, Schwartz & Wolery
(2001).Widening the Circle: Including Children with disabilities
in Preschool Programs. New York : Techers College Columbia
University.
Ratska,A.D.(1989). Independent Living. Community Based
Rehabilitation. CBR News, No.3.
Reindal, S (1995). Discussing Disability: an investigation into theories of Disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education. In
Savolainen H., Special Education and Rehabilitation, Institute of
Educational Research Flambeau, vol.3,No.2 July,1995.
Rekkas Alexandria (1997). “Strategies of Inclusion” Journal of the
Association for Childhood Education International, Vol.73, No.3.
Richard, R & Joseph. I (1997).Educating Children with Deaf and
Hard of Hearing. Erick Clearing House on Disabilities and Gifted
Education. Retrieved on October 12,2004 from m:/http: www.ercdigests.org
/1998-2/Inclusion.htm.
Ross D. H. (1988). Educating Handicapped Young Children in
44

Eastern and Southern Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
Safford et al., (1994). Early Childhood Special Education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Sameroff, A.F.& Fiese, B.H. (2000). Transactional regulation: The developmental ecology of early intervention. In J.Shonkoff and
S.Meisels (Eds.) Handbook book of early intervention. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Saliva, J., & Ysseldyke, J(1988). Assessment in special and remedial education (4ed). Boston: Hough-Miffin. In Kochhar A. C.,
West L. L. and TaymansM.J. (2000). Successful Inclusion : Practical
Strategies for a Shared Responsibility New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Savolainen H. (1995). Special Education and Rehabilitation, Institute
of Educational Research Flambeau, vol.3,No.2 July,1995.
Schulz, B.J. et al. (1991). Mainstreaming Exceptional Students: A
Guide for Classroom Teachers (3rd.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Scruggs T. E. & Mastropieri M. (1996). “Teachers Perceptions of
Inclusion " A Research Synthesis Exceptional Children, Vol.63, No.1
59-74.
Semakula P. S (1999). Parent -Teacher Partnership in Educating
Children with Mental Retardation in the Central Region of Uganda.
African Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol.4, No.2.
Smith et al., (1983). The Exceptional Child: A functional
45

Approach. New York: McGraw - Hill, Inc.
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1985). Integration of Students
with Severe Handicaps in to Regular Schools. Virginia: The
Council of Exceptional Children.
Stainback, W. & Stainback S (1984). “A rational for the merger of
special and regular education”, Exceptional Children, 50.102-111.
Strully J.L. & Strully C. F. (1989)." Friendships as an Educational
Goal". In Educating All Students in the Mainstream of Regular
Education, Stainback S. & Stainback W and Forest M.
Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.
Teferi A. (1996). Integration of Blind Students in Regular Classroom at
Mulugeta Gedle School, Ethiopia, MA Thesis. University of Joensuu,
Finland.
Thomas G.& Feiler A.(1988). Planning For Special Needs: A
Whole School Approach. England: T.J. Press Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall.
Thousand J. S and Villa R. A.(1989). “Enhancing Success in
Heterogeneous Schools”, In Educating All Students in the
Mainstream of Regular Education,
Tirussew T. (1993). Problems and Prospects of Persons with Disabilities
in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Development Research,
Volume 15, Number 1.
Tirussew T. Savolainen H., Agdew R. & Danei D. (1995). Base Line
Survey on Disabilities in Ethiopia., Institute of Educational
46

Research, Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing
Enterprise.
Tirussew T (2001). Preventing Learning Difficulties and School-drop-out. In ed. P.-S., Klein, Seeds
of Hope: Twelve Years of Early Intervention in Africa, Oslo: Unipub forlag, Norway.
Tomlinson J., (1996). “Special Needs and Client Rights: the changing social and political context of special”, Education British
Educational Research Journal Vol.23, No3, 1997.
Tungaraza, F.D. (1992). Mainstreaming: The Logical Choice for
Tanzania. International Journal of Special Education, Volume 7,
Number 7.
Tuunainen, K. (1997). Interaction between different special education structures. Evans J. L. (1998). Inclusive ECCD: A Fair Start for All
Children. Coordinators' Notebook: An International
Resource for Early Childhood Development, No.22. New York:
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for
Action on Special Needs Education, Special Education Program.
Paris: : 7, Place de Fontenoy, UNESCO.
UNESCO (1998). Inclusive Education of the Agenda. Paris: UNSESCO.
UNESCO (1999). Welcoming Schools: Students with Disabilities in
Regular Schools. Paris: : 7, Place de Fontenoy, UNESCO.
UNESCO (2004). Open File on Inclusive Education : Support Materials for
Managers and Administrators. Paris : 7, Place de Fontenoy, UNESCO.
47

Voeltz, L.(1982). “Children’s attitudes toward handicapped peers”,
AmericanJournal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 455-464.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA
:MIT Press.
Wixson, K.K., & Lipson,M.Y. (1986).Reading disability research an interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56,11-136.
In Kochhar A. C., West L. L. & TaymansM.J. (2000). Successful
Inclusion : Practical Strategies for a Shared Responsibility.
New Jersey : Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ysseldyke, J. E. & Algozine, B. (1995). Special Education: A
Practical Approach for Teachers. Boston Houghton Mifflin
Company.
48