Inclusion of Deaf Students in Mainstream Rural Primary Schools in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities

The study sought to find out the challenges and opportunities of including deaf students in secular and missionary mainstream primary schools in a rural area in Zimbabwe. Twentyseven participants (2 school heads, 2 specialist teachers, 8 mainstream teachers and 15 deaf students) were purposively selected. All participants were interviewed individually and lesson observations were carried out by one of the researchers. Theme identification methods were used to analyse data and it was found that there were more similarities than differences in the way secular and missionary mainstream schools tried to include the deaf students. All the deaf students had hearing aids and were mostly taught by regular class teachers in the mainstream but with constant withdrawal to the resource rooms for specialised services such as auditory training. Despite wearing hearing aids most deaf students could not hear the spoken languages used by teachers. All mainstream teachers were not conversant with Sign Language. There was occasional Sign Language ‘interpretation’ in the mainstream classes whenever the specialist teachers were available. Sign Language interpreters were unable to sign many abstract concepts and used spoken language grammar in the ‘interpretations’. Deaf students participated in most out-of-class activities with hearing peers. It was concluded that the deaf students were socially included but were academically excluded because of lack of linguistic access to the academic curriculum in the primary schools. Recommendations were made. Address for correspondence: Professor Regis Chireshe Psychology of Education Department College of Education Box 392, UNISA, 0003 South Africa E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] INTRODUCTION In the past, children with disabilities were believed to be inferior to non-disabled peers that it was deemed essential to teach them in separate special schools where they would not only receive specialist services but also avoid disturbing the learning of others (Green and Engelbrecht 2007). These authors observed that ‘special education’ developed as a system parallel to mainstream education and conceptualized those with disabilities as ‘abnormal’ and in need of the attention of specialists. As the frontiers of ignorance gradually receded, it was realised that it might not be in the best interests of those with disabilities or even society, for them to be separated from the mainstream. There was a paradigm shift to what Mpofu et al. (2007) call the expression and promotion of egalitarian societal values of equal opportunity and access to the resources necessary for the acquisition of abilities and skills that enable meaningful societal participation by individuals in their communities. UNESCO (1994) marked this turning point to inclusive education as the celebration of differences and the support for all learners. Focus had shifted from the individual’s shortcomings and how they could be overcome to focusing on how the shortcomings of ordinary schools could be overcome to accommodate all learners. Support was now thought to be possible as there was the perception of children with disabilities as only having special educational needs which needed to be accommodated in least restrictive environments. This therefore paved the way for the education of children with disabilities together with non-disabled peers in ordinary schools rather than in the specialized institutions which had been founded by missionaries on charitable ethos. Like other groups of children with special educational needs, deaf children in Zimbabwe began to be educated together with hearing children in this new dispensation. The global egalitarian foundations of education which were laid in such conventions as Education for All (1990) and UNESCO (1994) found expression in Zimbabwean legislation such as the Education Act (1996) which institutionalised the right of every Zimbabwean child to school education at © Kamla-Raj 2012 Stud Tribes Tribals, 10(2): 107-116 (2012)