Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

South African inclusive education policy – celebrating human rights?

Prof Johnnie Hay
University of the Free State, P O Box 339, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Hayjf.rd@mail.uovs.ac.za

Junel Malindi
District-based Support Team, Bethlehem
Free State Education Department
South Africa

INTRODUCTION

South Africa has, since the advent of democracy in 1994, arguably managed to develop some of the best policy documents in the world.   A specific example is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), which often draws praise from abroad because of its quality, comprehensiveness and attention to as well as protection of human rights.

The relatively late advent of democracy in the southernmost region of Africa was beneficial in terms of policy development, as the country could draw on all the latest international policy developments that were supported by good practice.

In the field of inclusive education the above is particularly relevant, as lessons could be learnt from many countries which instituted inclusion in education before 1994. The White Paper on Special Needs Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System (2001) is probably testimony to this: various lessons from developed and developing countries have apparently been included.

On the other hand, the mentioned policy document is, however, also testimony to the idealism that has swept the country since the start of a democratic order. Although more realistic than the preceding consultative documents, it still airs the idealism of a totally transformed new order which will dawn like paradise.

This optimism is particularly evident in the field of promotion of human rights, where commentators like Naicker (1999) views inclusive education as the culmination of the struggle for human rights in South Africa within the educational field.   Separation and stigmatization will cease to exist, and every learner’s rights to equality, human dignity and education will be realized (Malindi 2004).

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The problem that was investigated revolved around the question whether South Africa’s new inclusive education policy would improve the human rights of learn-ers, as compared to the dual system of education that was (partially) in place in pre-democratic South Africa?   This must be viewed against the background of the excellent policy that is in place but also the contention that the excellent policies are often too idealistic.

This paper aims to explore the following issues relevant to the problem state-ment, in order to eventually respond to the question implicit in the title – namely whether South African inclusive education policy promotes human rights and provides reason to celebrate? The issues are:

• the universality of the rights of children;
• essential rights in the South African Constitution;
• the nature of the human rights culture in the dual education system of the pre-democratic South Africa;
• idealism in South African policy development;
• inclusive education and human rights, and
• an investigation into the perception of teachers on the relationship between human rights and inclusive education.

THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN

The rights of children are universally accepted in principle at the start of the 3 rd millennium, although not universally practiced.   The process of developing these rights has come a long way, and was obviously preceded by adult rights. The latter issue should perhaps be clarified – although not termed adult rights but “human” rights, the last mentioned in effect pointed to adult rights as human beings were (unintendedly?) equated with adults.

The history of the development of human rights may be viewed from many perspectives, but can probably be traced back to the 3 rd century before Christ, when the Stoics promoted the idea that all human beings are equal and that justice is an essential component of human societies. It was due to the influence of the Stoics that the Emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius came up with “… the revolutionary idea of one state with one law for all people with equal rights and freedom…” including women and slaves (Nel & Bezuidenhout, 1997:4).

The life and teachings of Christ was a further exemplification of the process of developing human rights; especially the way in which He attended to the poor, the disabled and those in need.

The historical events of the Renaissance and the Reformation furthermore heralded a new era for people whose rights had not enjoyed due recognition before – including those with disabilities.

In the 17 th century the English philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke added their voices to those who promoted the idea that human beings have “inalienable rights” which should not be undermined by any government. Their work was incorporated into the American Declaration of Independence and in various other declarations (Nel & Bezuidenhout, 1997).

The revolutions of the 17 th and 18 th centuries also represented catalysts of human rights development: the Glorious Revolution (17 th century England), the American Revolution (1776) and the French Revolution (1789). These occurrences initiated the birth of the Bill of Rights and other ideas such as liberty, equality and fraternity.

Gradually children’s rights activists realized that it would not suffice to include children’s rights under human rights, but that separate attention should be focused on their rights. In 1924 the General Assembly of the League of Nations endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of the Child that had been put forward by the non-governmental organization called Save the Children International Union (Hay & Hay, 2000:2). This development was further strengthened by the adoption of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations on the 10 th of December 1948, and even further entrenched by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1979.

South Africa was and is also a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the irony was that the country did not have a good human rights record at the time of signing. Adult and children’s rights could really only be effectively implemented after the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996.

ESSENTIAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA

The mentioned South African Constitution focuses strongly on 3 basic rights, namely the right to equality, the right to human dignity as well as the right to education. It can be deduced that these rights were often violated in pre-demo-cratic South Africa.

In terms of the right to equality, section 9 (1-5) of the Constitution states that every citizen enjoys equality before the law. The state may not unfairly discriminate against anyone, directly or indirectly on the basis of race, gender, colour, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. The Constitution also prohibits anyone from unfairly discriminating, directly or indirectly, against anyone on the basis of the factors already listed above.   

The right to human dignity is dealt with in section 10 of the Constitution: it is stated that everyone has a right to human dignity and the respect that goes with it. No one can e.g. insult another because of his or her race, colour or appear-ance. A child’s right to human dignity is also spelled out – every child has a right to family or parental care and appropriate care if and when such a child should be placed in an alternative environment. Section 28 (1) further prohibits anyone from maltreating, neglecting, abusing, degrading or placing the child’s well-being, education, physical or mental health or spiritual, moral or social development in jeopardy in any form whatsoever.

The right to education appears in section 29, and states that everyone has the right to basic education, including adult basic education. Everyone further has the right to further and higher education, which the state must make progressively available and accessible. Education is a right for every learner of school going age, including learners experiencing barriers to learning and development.

THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE IN THE DUAL EDUCATION SYSTEM OF PRE-DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA

The impression has often been created by policy makers and departmental officials that human rights have been grossly abused in the old dual system of special and regular education, especially because learners with special needs were separated from the mainstream. Is it true that these learners’ right to equality, to human dignity and to education has been violated all along, and will inclusive education adequately attend to these rights in a developing South Africa? And has the rhetoric of human rights within an inclusive system been matched with the realities of human rights practices in overcrowded inclusive classrooms?

Perhaps it is unfair to simply describe this section as the “dual education system of pre-democratic South Africa,” as it may create the impression that the country had a fully fledged dual education system. In fact South Africa had racially segregated education departments with a continuum of dual education system provisioning – from developed to developing. The white and Indian education systems had well developed dual education systems, whilst the coloured and to the least extent the black communities only had a semblance of a dual education system.   By 1990 the white education department had 89 special schools repre-senting 37,1% of the total special schools, whilst the learners made up only 9,7% of the total learners. The special schools for black learners totaled 71 which constituted 29,6% of special schools, whilst the learners represented 79,1% of all learners. The Indians had 60 special schools (25% of all special schools), where-as the learners were only 8,7% of all learners. The Coloured communities had 20 special schools (8,3% of special schools), whilst constituting only 2,4% of the learner population (NEPI report, 1992).

From the mentioned exposition it is clear that the country experienced the dual education system on a continuum, with black learners having the slimmest chance of being placed in a special school. South Africa thus had a varied dual education system where some parts were comparable to the established systems of developed countries such as the United Kingdom, whereas other parts of the system could be compared with countries with developing dual education systems such as Namibia. It must, however, be noted that nowhere was there a total absence of special schools, even though they were thinly spread in especially the black education departments.

It is against this background of a continuum of provision of the dual education system that the question should be asked on human rights – have the rights to equality, human dignity and education been violated within the “old” education system?   Years of experience within this system have led the authors to believe that it is not that simple to pronounce the dual education system as inherently bad and as negating human rights. The separation of learners with barriers from others surely can be viewed as infringing on the rights to equality and human dignity, but the other side of the coin is that the individual, specialized attention received with low ratios may have contributed to human dignity and quality education.  These issues will be explored further in the empirical investigation.

IDEALISM IN SOUTH AFRICAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The dawn of a new era in South Africa in 1994 brought with it a huge swell of optimism and ideals of people that were excluded from decision-making for nearly three and a half centuries. In emotional terms it can possibly be described as feelings and ideals that were suppressed for generations, which could now come to the fore with explosive power.   Previously excluded and disadvantaged members of society suddenly had the opportunity to develop and build the ideal state and country that they often just dreamt of.

In this process some of the best policy makers, academics and other stake-holders came together to develop policy that would be befitting the ideal country; a country that had been liberated from colonialism, suppression and apartheid. In this process some of the best policies in the world were given birth to – to act as catalyst for the ideal new South Africa and to be a semblance of the kind of country that was always dreamt of.

It must at this point, however, be remembered that many of the stakeholders in policy development post 1994 never had the opportunity to be in managerial positions before, and therefore probably contributed to the policies in terms of the ideals that they had for the new country. This in itself is commendable, but implicitly carries with it the danger of being too idealistic.

The issue of human rights of course featured very strongly in all policy develop-ment, against the background of pre-democratic human rights abuses and the happenings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

An issue that, in the authors’ minds, contributed substantially to the (often) idealistic policies was the notion that everything of the previous dispensation(s) was bad and unacceptable. Colonialism and apartheid were (and are) often presented as only evil and bad, with the result that very little (if none) of the previous dispensations were included in policies. Transformation in South Africa implies a total break from the past, without the option of building on that which may have been good.

This was probably also the case with the development of policy for learners experiencing barriers to learning and development.

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The right to education for learners experiencing barriers to learning and develop-ment has taken much longer to be established than for those not experiencing barriers (Malindi, 2004:35). The initial phase of dual education provision has been gradually transformed to mainstreaming, integration and currently inclusive education provisioning.

Inclusive education refers to a single education system that is tailored to respond to the diverse needs of learners (Engelbrecht, Green, Naicker & Engelbrecht, 1999:19) and is about maximizing the participation of all learners in education and minimizing barriers to learning and development (Macleod, 2001:19).

The Salamanca Statement of 1994 (UNESCO, 1994: viii) really articulated the relationship between human rights and inclusive education, by reaffirming the education of all learners in the regular education system:

• It is believed that every child has a fundamental right to education ….
• The unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs of every learner must be recognized in the practice of education.
• Learners experiencing barriers to learning and development must have access to regular schools that should be made to accommodate them in a child centred pedagogy that will meet their needs.
• Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effective-ness of the entire education system .

Proponents of inclusive education therefore view a system of inclusion as most beneficial to children’s rights, including the rights to equality, human dignity and education.

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

An investigation was undertaken amongst a small group of teachers with vast special education experience, to determine whether they envisaged that the implementation of the recent inclusive education policy would represent an improvement on the older system of specialized education in terms of the human rights of learners (Malindi 2004). Twelve teachers from the Eastern Free State were selected in a purposeful way, as they were either teaching in special schools or in special classes in mainstream schools during the course of 2003. They were interviewed via in-depth interviews according to a semi-structured interview schedule. A second data collection method was also used to triangulate the findings – participant observation was utilized through which the researcher spent time in the special schools’ classes as well as in special classes of mainstream schools, in order to obtain a sense of the human rights practiced in these classrooms.

Results indicate that these teachers are not necessarily convinced that imple-menting inclusive education will ensure improved human rights practices in schools. At least half of the teachers believe that the human rights of learners in specialized settings are adequately attended to and even promoted. On direct comparison of the human rights in the two systems however, a larger percentage of the teachers felt that inclusive education with its tolerance of diversity may go a longer way to promote the human rights of learners. On a question whether the human rights of learners without disability may be compromised within an inclusive setting, nearly two thirds responded affirmatively.       

When interpreted holistically, it can be stated that these teachers with special education experience are somewhat tentative about human rights in South African inclusive education: although the majority hopes that inclusive education will bring about improvement in the rights culture, it is still an issue of hope and not total certainty.

THE WAY FORWARD

The South African education system is faced with a plethora of challenges which may jeopardize the practicing of human rights within inclusive education. The following challenges are particularly relevant in this regard:

• a large percentage of overcrowded classes which are not in line with the national norm of 1:40 for primary schools or 1:35 for secondary schools. Despite efforts from provincial education departments, this problem continues without an imminent solution;
• underqualified educators that do not have the capacity to implement inclusive education well. Huge efforts are under way to improve these educators’ qualifications, but only time will tell whether this improve-ment will have a bearing on inclusive classrooms;
• capacity of education managers to implement inclusive education in a coordinated, focused way. It appears as if many provincial managers do not have adequate background to manage this complex process;
• change overload that educators are experiencing. The stream of new policies seems neverending, and is affecting educator morale;
• remnants of the dual system that are still operational in combination with the new inclusive education system. Special classes at mainstream schools still exist, and the majority of special schools have not been transformed into resource centres yet.

The mentioned challenges attest to the fact that human rights of specifically learners experiencing barriers to learning and development may (again) be compromised within the evolving South African inclusive education system.

CONCLUSION

South Africa has no choice but to continue on its way to inclusive education, as it is financially impossible and morally untenable to implement a fully fledged dual education system.

South Africa has much to celebrate in terms of envisaged human rights in its inclusive education policy, but still has a very long way to go to celebrate the actual realization of these rights within inclusive classrooms.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact