Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Reconsidering prospects for young people with disabilities
Evariste Karangwa*
Pol Ghesquière*
Patrick Devlieger**
*Center for Disability, Special Needs Education and Child Care,
Department of Educational Sciences,
** Culture and Disability Research Program
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Address for correspondence:
Evariste Karangwa
Department of Educational Sciences,
Center for Disability, Special Needs Education and Child Care
Vesaliustraat, 2
B-3000, Leuven
Belgium
karangwa27@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
The paper sets from the background that the Rwandan post-genocide education reform agenda emphasises greatly the role of the community (Rwanda Republic, 2002b). However, the widespread deprivation and the large number of vulnerable groups including those with disabilities still impose enormous challenges. ‘The grassroots community in the vanguard of inclusion’ is thus a deliberate attempt to trace pathways for the development of inclusion in Rwanda. Basing on policy documents, personal and local experiences within schools and communities (EENET, 2003: 4; Anghion, 2002; FAWE, 2002; Rwanda Republic, 2003a; Suubi, 2003), it argues that the view that inclusion is no longer about adjusting the person with impairment in order to fit him/her into the existing setting, but rather about flexibility, creativity and sensitivity of the environment to suit the needs of the individuals with disabilities (Skjorten, 2001: 38 & UNESO, 1994) can also be applicable in under sourced-societies .
Introduction
The paper is prompted by three key concerns that question the prospects of inclusion of young people with disabilities in the Rwandan social, political and economic context: 1. The concern that the 1990s socio-political conflicts (including the 1994 genocide) were also expressions of exclusionary tendencies that bring into question possible inclusion programs and opportunities in the country. 2. The concern that for a number of young Rwandans with disabilities, education and other basic rights are not necessarily entitlements nor rights, since charitable organisations are still dominantly involved, and not necessarily the state. 3. The concern that a good number of People With Disabilities (PWDs) remain in their local communities, where they are cared for by family and community members despite widespread rural deprivation, illiteracy, local attitudes and absence of relevant services (Obidegwu, 2003; Republic of Rwanda, 2001a; Republic of Rwanda, 2002b; Republic of Rwanda, 2003a; World Bank, 2004).
Basing on these concerns this paper projects the ideas that have increasingly dominated the views of both activists and analysts in disability issues (Charlton, 2000; Christie, 2001; Gill, 1999; Mertens, 2003:138). They agree on an ever growing shift from the medical model which focuses on the individual’s impairment as a sickness and on the role of professionals to fix it, to the recognition of a progressing turn towards helping the individuals with disabilities regain as much normal independence as possible as a matter of entitlement and right. The paper argues that the search for an appropriate model of inclusion for Rwanda, hinges on appropriate translation into good practice the basic rights principles underlying the current global trends (CSIE, 2002:1; Hegarty, 1993: 17), and transmitting them correctly to the grassroots communities. It thus examines the position of disabled young people in their neighbourhood, and the capacity of this environment to provide solutions to their difficulties. The cultural sense of extended family, mutual support and peer interrelation are particularly viewed as potential sources of supports for inclusion. The experiences of the relatively recent grassroots–based innovation in justice ‘Gacaca’ or traditional judicial system (Anghion, 2002;Ciabattari, 2000; Drumbl, 2000), as well as casual inclusive education in G.S. Gahini (EENET, 2003; Suubi, 2003), are highlighted as testimonies of this opportunity.
This paper points to the fertile ground for inclusion prospects available within the recent Rwanda National Development Framework. It provides opportunities for the empowerment of the grassroots communities in what is termed as: Ubudehe mu kurwanya ubukene, or ‘community-based solidarity against poverty’ (Republic of Rwanda, 2002b: 52). It highlights among other policy statements, the affirmation expressed in the recently promulgated national policy of the Ministry of Local Government and the Social Welfare (MINALOC), underlining the importance of the community-based initiatives as the base for future inclusive programs: “… this offers opportunities to develop child focused, community-based programs, which encourages the inclusion of children with disabilities in the society, community activities and especially education system” (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a: 17). Through literature support and proven experiences (Christie, 2001), the paper warns that the Rwandan conditions of extreme resource constraints and weak managerial capacity, the reform for inclusion could be a complex and unpredictable process, mediated by the local as well as the powerful global influences.
1. People with disabilities in Rwanda
Until fairly recently, reports have revealed that disability issues are still given little consideration in the national and social developments. People with disabilities have traditionally been classified as cases for NGOs and charitable organisations. This explains why religious organisations still handle over 90% of only about 600 disabled children in schools (Karangwa, 2000; Kristensen, 1999 & 2000; Republic of Rwanda, 2002a). This leaves room for the observation that the majority of the Rwandan disabled people still live in their communities and are cared for by family members, about 94% of whom are part of the rural communities (Republic of Rwanda, 2002b).
The developments in the last 3 years however, indicate renewed government commitments and active involvement of the Rwandan PWDs. This is particularly evidenced by the ratification of the National Policy on ‘Orphans and other vulnerable children’ (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a) of MINALOC, recognising the rights of all ‘youth in difficult circumstances’ (including those with disabilities). It is in the same developments that the previously voiceless associations of PWDs have been encouraged to come together since 2002 in a National Federation (FACHER), and have embarked on the recruitment campaigns in rural communities. This has also given rise to provisions for their right of representation in the National Assembly enshrined in the 2003 National Constitution in Art. 76 (Republic of Rwanda, 2003b). It is observed however that among the many complex setbacks, the widespread deprivation and low level of functional literacy among the people of Rwanda features prominently (Republic of Rwanda, 2003a). These are also among the factors responsible for the perpetuation of certain backward attitudes about disability (see the cases in section 1.2), subjecting the disabled people in what has been described as the vicious circle of cause and consequences of disabilities, vulnerability and poverty (Barnes, 1991; DfID, 2000; Tumusani, 2003: 26; UPIAS, 1976). The implication of this situation explains the difficult conditions of living for many PWDs in Rwanda and the limited services available to them. The complexity and the wide range of disabilities manifested in well over 400 000 youths (Kristensen, 2000: 6) are thus some of the consequences. Hence, the need for an appropriate framework of inclusive practices in Rwanda, fitting the international standards while responding to the local demands remains an important prerequisite and yet enormously challenging.
1.1 Complex range of disabilities and vulnerabilities among the Rwandan youths
The national policy on orphans and other children with vulnerabilities of 2002 comes as a fairly overdue clarification of the Rwanda government commitment to provide for PWDs. The document defines young people with disabilities as: “People under the age of 18 years of age who have a physical or intellectual impairment which may present a handicap to social, intellectual, mobility, education, health, well-being and future employment potential” (p.17). However, the high number of different disabilities manifests such a complex range of impairments and vulnerabilities (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a) that they are only classified as ‘Children in Difficult Circumstances’. This paper focuses on those with different vulnerabilities, and recognizes rampant disabilities and special educational needs among them:
7. Other categories of children in difficult circumstances include those who are married before the age of 21 years set by the Rwandan law (especially girls), children who are affected or infected by HIV/AIDS; infants with mothers in prison (about 108 children live with their mothers in prison (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a); refugee and internally displaced children; children of single mothers and others. They are affected by different types of disabilities, ranging from body impairments to social and psychological problems.
The conditions and life of the above categories of children are usually little understood by the Rwandan community, because of the general absences of the related support mechanisms, and the complex socio-economic conditions within which they occur (implied in some of the above categories). Studies on disabilities in poor communities similar to those in Rwanda, point out the complex interrelationship between poverty, vulnerability and disability, each being both the cause and the consequence of the other (Devlieger, 2001:1; DfID, 2000: 4; Kisanji, 1995; Stone, 1999). However, Kisanji’s (1995) own experiences on the other hand, as a disabled youth growing up in a Tanzanian rural village provides a rather reassuring image of PWDs in Sub-Saharan African communities:
“Growing up disabled in a developing country may appear to the Westerners desolate and gloomy. Indeed the critical indicators of human development… present a gruesome picture. … however, in the midst of the struggle for economic survival and well – being, the general practice in developing countries is to raise disabled young people as members of their community” (p.199).
The assertion is shared by a few other studies (Devlieger, 2001; Ingstad, 1997; Tumusani, 2003 & Vanneste, 1997), confirming that deprivation in rural communities in developing countries does not necessarily deter the inherent cultural way of integrating and caring for disabled members. This disapproves yet equally convincing confirmations, which call to the developed world to focus their support to the South, where the majority of the disabled are, and in very needy conditions (Charlton, 2000; Helander, 1993; Miles, 1998; Lancaster, 1999; Mitler, 1993 and Stone, 2001). The controversy raised in these observations leads the focus of this paper into a closer examination of some of specific cases in Rwandan communities.
1. 2 The conditions of some people with disabilities in Rwanda
The situation of people with disabilities in Rwanda varies like in many other parts of the Sub-Saharan Africa (Ingstad, 1997 and Kisanji, 1995: 185). Their situation depends on the family economic and education standards, the type of disability and its condition, religion or/and the dominant beliefs, proximity to related services or to relevant information. The wide range of experiences of young Rwandan PWDs revealed in the cases below, represent the wide spectrum of conditions mentioned in section 1.1 above:
The cases above reveal the complexities within which disabilities in the Rwandan youth present themselves and the extent to which the community members react to their different conditions. However, it is worth noting here at the same time that though some families and practitioners show some isolated positive attitudes, their efforts are still greatly restrained by different types of discriminations (DfID, 2000) within the communities: 1. Institutional discrimination owing to inadequate legal and policy provisions;
2. Environmental discriminations due of physical barriers ignorantly imposed by the public and
3. Attitudinal discriminations related to some local cultural beliefs and practices in issues that concern disabilities. Consequently, the challenges to break these barriers for effective inclusion of young people with disabilities remains enormous, and the search for a meaningful solution may be guided by the deeper understanding of the Rwandan cultural way of life within the grassroots communities examined in the next sections.
2. Inclusion and the grassroots community
2.1 Defining the Rwandan context of inclusion within
It is worth noting at the start that the English definition of ‘inclusion’ finds limited direct equivalence in Kinyarwanda language, consequently this paper does not necessarily focus on the international meaning of inclusion per se, but draws from its multiple dimensions and the implication of these to the Rwandan cultural context. Whereas the term ‘Guheza’ for example is negatively used in Kinyarwanda to denote ‘exclusion’, the context within which its opposite is used ‘Kudaheza’ simply means ‘not to exclude’. Both of the terms are common in social contexts to allude respectively ‘acceptance and rejection of another’ while referring to people in the same social setting. In this sense, inclusive education to an average Rwandan may simply mean ‘an education that does not reject learners’. The major components of the inclusion that are of primary relevance to the Rwandan context may thus include: ‘…increasing theprocess of participation; reducing exclusion from the local community and culture, apparent inCSIE (2002:1) definition.
The attempt to define ‘inclusion’ that fit the Rwandan context, also brings into view the consideration of the global trends guiding the current models of inclusive practices. People with disabilities (like those in Rwanda) had earlier been viewed from both moral and medical perspectives. According to Gill (1999), the moral model suggests that disability results as a punishment for sin or as a means of inspiring or redeeming others, while the medical model sees disability as a problem or a measurable defect in the individual that needs a cure or alleviation that can be provided by medical experts. The new paradigm shifts the location of the problem from within the individual to the environmental capacity to respond to disability. It frames disability within the perspective of the social minority group, defining it as a dimension of human difference and not a defect. Inclusion is thus also a process of “increasing the participation of young people with disabilities in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools” ( CSIE, 2002: 1). Hence the goal in supporting people with disabilities is not to eradicate their impairments, but to cerebrate their distinctness, pursue their equal place in society and acknowledge that their differentness is not defective but rather valuable (Mertens, 2003: 138).
This paper is particularly sensitive to the country’s inability to provide adequate services to the population in general and to the disabled in particular. Rwanda has more than 63% of its people living below the poverty line, and ranks 164 th out of 174 poorest countries of the world (Republic of Rwanda, 2003a), and this socio-political background is arguably responsible for perpetuating both disability and deprivation in the society (DfID, 2000 and Tumusani, 2003). Consequently, the paper predicts that the prospects for inclusion may not come easily in the face of complex economic difficulties, suggesting that planners and policy makers can as well explore alternative avenues readily availed by families and neighbours of the PWDs within their communities.
The Education For All (EFA) plan of action (Republic of Rwanda, 2003a: 13-5) for example, reflects the vision in its emphasis on ‘addressing the human resource development needs of the population and also poverty reduction at the grassroots community levels (p. 13) that could serve to address the basic problems and needs’ (p 15). The report of Sangano, Nsanzabaganwa and Mpyisi (2003) explores the same strategy in catering for the vulnerable groups within the grassroots communities:
“ The development of policy to protect vulnerable groups (widows, child-headed households, disabled, the ageing, etc.) is the responsibility of the Ministry of Local Government and Social Affairs (MINALOC). Traditionally mutual help in terms of umusanzu and umuganda, all different forms of reciprocal support were used as strategies of social protection. These strategies have been introduced in the new local administrative structures. …Current efforts are also underway to decentralise the administration …The ubudehe programme has played a key role in improving access to economic opportunities for the poorest households” (p.5) .
The successful experiences of similar sub-Saharan African societies would particularly be of valuable interest (Ingstad, 1997; Kisanji, 1993 & Vanneste, 1997). Some have proved that families, household relationships and close community members present potentials to support their disabled kinsmen, even under the situation of resource constraints, limited know-how and mechanisms in place. It is noted that the emphasis on the community potentials to effectively include the vulnerable groups is also in line with the international agenda (UNESCO, 1994: IX and World Bank, 2004). In its article 3, the Salamanca statement for example, suggests the encouragement and facilitation of parents’ participation, communities and organizations of people with disabilities. It is also encouraged by the recent Rwandan constitution of 4 th June 2003, (Republic of Rwanda, 2003b) that emphasises the empowerment of all those that had previously been excluded from the decision making platforms (Art. 11 and Art. 76 No. 4) in matters that concern their lives.
2.2 The Rwandan context of grassroots community
Recognizing the importance of Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) for people with disabilities in developing countries, Finkenflügel (2004) admits that ‘community’ is an amorphous term. Being an ambiguous concept, many controversies may arise when looking more closely at it, because its definitions may only be constructed from any symbols or boundaries of membership and differences. Helander (1993) provides the impression of community as a social grouping, where members with similar attributes or background share in varying degrees, political, economic, social and cultural characteristics. Marquet’s (1954: 12) Aide–Memoir on African Ethnology asserts on the other hand that a community is a defined group of people who reside together and know each other.
For the purpose of the Rwandan context, we draw from all the above to reflect on earlier investigations of the Rwandan culture (Bazivamo 2002; Kagame, 1954; Nothomb, 1965) that claim abundance of qualities of humanism and solidarity within the grassroots communities, and the potentials of these to respond adequately to the problems of their members. Nothomb’s (1965) idea of the Rwandan grassroots community for example, underlines the strength generated by the solidarity and interaction within ‘Umuryango’ or wide family unit (p. 71) and ‘inzu’ or clan (p.84) of people who share the same family ancestry. Accordingly, they are constituted of nuclear families, close and distant relations (including the Bazimu or ancestral spirits); as well as their immediate neighbourhood inhabitants. He stresses the quality of solidarity within the grassroots community in the following descriptions:
“Man in Rwanda is not an island. He is much more than just an individual. ‘To be’ for him is ‘to be with’…that aspect of his life is only a minor phenomenon with much more fundamental humane values, expressed as ‘ubumwe” (translation from Nothomb, 1965, p.148).
It should thus be noted here, that the Rwandan idea of community emphasises the importance of both the social relations as well as the physical neighbourhood. It is shared by Bramston, Bruggerman & Pretty’s (2002) multidimensional description of community, which also delimits relational entities of people with common interests, as well as the identifiable geographical residential locations where the boundaries are recognised by community inhabitants. Their reference to the position of a young member in the assertion below reflects ‘inter alia’ the significance of community to inclusion of those with disabilities:
“A youth’s self-perception and categorisation as a community member, (I am like you so I belong here just as you belong here) in which the ‘I’ becomes part of the ‘we’ depends on the experiences that accumulate within the ordinary daily life in the residential neighbourhood. … the sense of community is a construct that is essentially ‘extra-individual’ in nature. … Hence, a community defined in terms of a setting … may be experienced as supportive” (p. 387).
Here, communities are considered to have physical and psychological environment attributes of a residential place. It is described in this sense as the extent to which a person feels part of a readily available, supportive and dependable structure (Sarason, 1974). The major dimension stressed here is community involvement, delineating a sense of shared emotional connection, in which one’s needs are recognised and fulfilled because one belongs. It is allied to Bramston et al.’s (2002) research confirmation that a sense of belonging to a community is associated with better quality of life for young people with disabilities.
All the above views appear to emphasise Nothomb’s (1965) earlier view of African Humanism with reference to the Rwandan grassroots community, that he characterised as ‘lesharmonies de la solidarité’ or harmony within solidarity (p. 149). Among the pillar of this solidarity, he highlights the culture of ‘Kubana’ or ‘to live with’ rather than just ‘to live’, as an important component of ‘Ubumwe’ or solidarity within the community. It reflects the cultural sense of ‘Kuvind’ imwe’ or fraternity through ‘Kunywana’ or blood pact between very close friends; ‘ubuhake’ or feudal solidarity; ‘ubuphura’ or upright conduct in relating to each other, and ‘Gacaca’ or transparent and reconciling justice among the conflicting members of the community. Much as these cultural elements are not so easily translatable into western cultural context, they retain Mead’s (1984) implication of community as ‘not just a place’, but for its cultural values and attitudes that the members are identified with and bind them together. The community administrative structures today, based on ten houses or Nyumba Kumi in Rwanda (Republic of Rwanda, 2002b), is actually recognition of the grassroots communities’ social and political qualities by the government administration.
2.3 The post-genocide Rwandan communities
The picture of the Rwandan community perspective presented in earlier studies above (Bazivamo 2002; Kagame, 1954; Nothomb, 1965) may admittedly seem short of the realities expressed by the recent history of social conflicts and especially the genocide background, for it is restricted to the cultural perspectives of the pre-colonial Rwandan community life. This section thus assesses the post-genocide Rwandan communities as a place for inclusion strategies ten years on.
The government documents like independent observers described the current socio-economic situation as characterised by ‘multiplicity of challenges that lead to a multiplicity of demands and priorities’ ( Obidegwu, 2003 & Republic of Rwanda, 2003b). Two eminent factors seem to dominate the post genocide Rwandan socio-economic situation: Rampant rural poverty and vulnerability of the majority of the people. Rwandans still remain characterised as ‘a poor rural society with about 90% of the population surviving on (mainly subsistence) agriculture’ (Bazivamo, 2002 ; Fact book, 2004; Obidegwu, 2003; Republic of Rwanda, 2002; Republic of Rwanda, 2003b; Sangano et. Al., 2003 & World Bank, 2004). The Rwandan delegates in the Regional Workshop on Ageing and Poverty in Dar es Salaam of October 29-31 2003, Introduces their presentation by underscoring the post-genocide social deformations:
“Using households as the unit, 57% live below the poverty line. Many are headed by widows… 62% of female-headed households lie below the poverty line as opposed to 54% of male-headed households. … Because of the 1994 genocide, the poverty rate rose dramatically in that year peaking at 78%. Since then, the rate has been falling steadily every year but remains much higher than it was before the genocide. The incidence of poverty is much higher in the rural areas (66%) than in urban areas (12% in Kigali and 19% in other urban areas” (p.1).
Whatever the nature and description of the situation, the post-genocide Rwanda was characterised by massive economic losses and the destruction of social, human and physical capital that impact heavily on the lives of the citizens even today. ChukwumaObidegwu (2003: 9) describes the period as ‘ the lost decade’ . The Rwandan delegates ( Sangano et. Al. , 2003) reported the post genocide Rwandan vulnerabilities as:
“Rwanda has a large number of vulnerable groups and the character of vulnerability takes on many forms. … 34% of all households were headed by widows as a result of the genocide. Households headed by a person of less than 20 years constituted 0.7% of the Rwandan population in 2001 (about 220 000 orphans resulted; some of them became and remain heads of households ) …Other categories of vulnerability in Rwanda are uneducated young people…disabled, orphans, street children and prisoners” (p.4).
It is thus of no surprise that t he 3 rd census of the population and housing of August 2002, put the proportion of people with disabilities in Rwanda to 4.7%, ranking physical disabilities as the highest (2.1%), while illnesses (37.5%) and accidents (including war) remaining the leading causes of impairments (12.4%) in the country (Republic of Rwanda, 2004) .
3. Pathways for grassroots-based inclusion
3.1 Opportunities of the youths with disabilities in extended family units
The adoption of the slogan “umnana n’ uw’ umuryango” meaning “a child belongs to the extended family unit”adopted in the national policy on ‘Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Rwanda’ (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a: 13), was obviously influenced by dominant cultural perceptions.It is the same culturalperspective that has guided the insertion of over 400 demobilised minors into their core and extended families (p.18), as well as the unknown number of orphans that are naturally absorbed into families, friendly neighbours and foster homes, that form the wide extended family system in every grassroots community (See the cases in section 1. 2 above).
In his earlier studies on family and cultural organisations of ancient Rwanda, Father Alexis Kagame (1954: 250), asserts that the obligation of bringing up a young child in Rwandan culture was the responsibility of the mother within the extended family unit at the first level, and the close supervision and support of the immediate social neighbourhood at the second level. The system directly implicated clan elders, family friends and the child’s peers in the community. It is not uncommon within the Rwandan popular expression to relate the failure or the successful achievements of a young person to any of the two interrelated levels of child rearing practices (Kagame, 1954: 254).
Consequently, the slogan mentioned above is only one of the testimonies that reveal the persistence of the same culture within the post-genocide Rwandan society, and its potential of accepting or integrating a child within the wide family. In the same way, expressions such as: Ibyaye ikiboze irakiligata, meaning that ‘the cow that gives birth to a rotten calf will still leak it’; and nyirumuphu niwe ujya ahanuka meaning ‘the nearest relative of the dead, should be closest to the body’, all bring out the cultural emphasis on the family’s close attachment to members in difficult circumstances, rather than avoiding them (Nothomb, 1965). According to Kagame (1954) these values were emphasised within the Rwandan family and community inputs to the cultural curriculum for all young people:
“ … every community in every social class, educated their children in accordance to their ideologies and means…this education was applicable to all community members, and was considered by the mothers like the fathers, as the major determinant traditional input than the social status…” ( translation, p. 263).
The rural communities are particularly known to cling strongly to traditions and cultural values and are often identified with these values. Through personal experiences, Kisanji (1995) shares the confirmation that family structures in rural sub Saharan Africa are the source of support (p.192). He maintains that in Africa and Asia, the aunts, uncles and grand-parents have specific roles to play, especially at puberty, in initiation and marriage ceremonies, placing the responsibility for care, education, welfare and employment of children and young people on competent members of the large matrix of relations. Citing Salia-Bao (1989), Kisanji (1995: 193) affirms that the members of the lineage help one another to build houses, farm their land, and maintain peace and unity within the co-operating groups that naturally include their disabled members.
The emerging interpretation of Kisanji’s (1995) argument is that despite the gross underdevelopment of western–type support systems, Rwandan disabled youth like those in similar cultures, have the benefits of shared responsibilities involved in caring for the disabled member within the extended family structures. It is of no surprise therefore that children like Olivier, Bunani and Karagi (cited above in section 1.2), have found relatively safe protection in their extended families despite inadequate provisions. It is in the same way that some of the children in the few special schools,are there because some of the relativesfound it part of their responsibilities to intervene when the natural parents proved ignorant. It goes without saying however that much as these explanations are convincing of the opportunities within extended families, they are still short of the challenges that may arise when difficult choices in sharing the limited family or community resources among the many members, such as school dues have to be made (see threats in section 3).
3.2 The prospects of inclusion within the Rwandan communal spirit
The government policy document (Republic of Rwanda, 2002a) admits that little is known about the number of PWDs in Rwanda and the type of disabilities they have, but the fact that it stresses the importance of the grassroots community and focuses on inclusion of the vulnerable children (p. 17), leave enough room to foresee positive orientations. The initiative of Groupe Scolaire Gahini, the first Rwandan school to integrate youths with visual disabilities and the subsequent support by the community (EENET, 2003), appears to be a firm proof that the Rwandan community’s potential to support inclusion is inherent and awaits to be encouraged. Notomb (1965) asserts that the Rwandan culture of mutual support was emphasized not only by action but in daily verbal expressions (p. 161). These include among others ‘Uwawe akuvuna utamuhetse’ meaning ‘your relative is always your heavy burden even though you are not carrying him’; ‘ntamugabo umwe’ or ‘man cannot survive alone’, which underline each individual member' s indebtedness to relatives and neighbours.
It is in the same way that the inspirations to retrace the inclusive powers of the grassroots communities in Rwanda within the culture of mutual reliance, is drawn from the successful experiences of similar African societies like Botswana. According to Ingstad (1997), remarkable Community–Based Rehabilitation (RBC) and inclusive developments have been registered, under the leverage of the Tswana communal way of life. Accordingly, despite the enormous setbacks in the Tswana cultural perceptions of disabilities (p. 83–107) like in any others in the sub-region, strategic planning of rehabilitation services from family compounds (Lolwapa) and traditional village meeting places (Kgotla) were able to reach even those with disabilities in the remotest communities (p. 59). Rwanda learns with interest that it is from the successes of this grassroots community–based innovation that the WHO was inspired to plan a cross-cultural model applicable now worldwide.
In light of the above observed experiences, it is important to note here that community-based inclusion in Rwanda, expects to benefit from the support of the recent national constitution of 4 th June 2003(Republic of Rwanda, 2003a) as well as other post genocide policies. The affirmation is underlined by the national community development policy strategy for example (Republic of Rwanda, 2001b):
“ ...community development policy for Rwanda is designed in order to bring together stakeholders in development, who operate at various levels and within the grassroots structures…in order to enable members within the structures to live in harmony, and have access to better standards of living …” (p 3).
It should be noted here that the way young people like Olivier, Karagi and Bunani (seen in section 1.2 above) are accepted in their extended families and communities, provides adequate basis for subsequent trace of programs and plans for inclusion. This paper argues that despite considerable loopholes based on functional illiteracy and poverty in the Rwandan communities, the culture of mutual respect and interdependence (Bazivamo, 2002; Kagame, 1954 & Nothomb, 1965) that can still be traced at every rural grassroots neighbourhood, offers yet an avenue to explore inclusion prospects.
3.3 Benefits of disabled young people within peer and co-operative groups
A personal experience in East African communities, which includes that of Gahini in Rwanda, remains the major source of inspiration for consideration of peer learning and inclusive education (EENET, 2003). They prove that cross-age and same age peer interdependence takes place naturally in schools. Patrick Suubi (2003: 89) through his own experiences as a partially sighted student in Kenyan schools, as well as his study conducted in the above mentioned school, confirms that once sighted students got used to their colleagues with visual impairment, they worked together in a positive way. This is supported by Allen’s (1976) view that peer-tutoring is a prevalent factor in large primate communities, and it occurs more often in heterogeneous age groups of non-industrialized societies as it used to in the 17th century Europe.
Studies on peer learning (Allen, 1976; Goodlad & Hirst, 1989; Wagner, 1982) and on cooperative learning (McCarthey & Mahon, 1992; Mills & Cottel, 1998; Salmon, & Claire, 1984) emphasise two fundamental elements that appear attractive to the grassroots based strategy for inclusion in Rwanda. They confirm that the approaches are very beneficial to all categories of learners and are very relevantly applicable in non urbanised and industrialised societies. Kagame (1954: 252) maintains that at 14 to 18 years of age, a Rwandan child was encouraged to join the peers of the same sex, who were at the same time under the close supervision of all the elders in the community. This Rwandan cultural aspect is also supported by Goodlad et al.’s (1989) view that cross-age and same-age peer tutoring can be beneficial to both the tutors and the tutees, in both academic and social achievements.
Goodlad et al. (1989) confirm that peer teaching is characteristically more formal and more complex than other types of activities in which non professionals instruct each other. Allen (1976) proves that even large and heterogeneous classes characteristically observed in developing countries have been successfully handled by other children since the 1st century. The assertion is summarized in Goodlad et al.’s (1998) words that:
“Peer tutoring has the potential to release huge amount of hitherto untapped energy because it has many point of contacts, both conceptual and administrative ” (p.120)
The learners with disabilities or other special educational needs benefit from the friendly, individualized interactions in which the material to be learnt, whether social or cognitive, can be matched with the learner’s ability and interest and the immediate feedback be assured. It raises social motivation, sense of responsibility and positive attitude towards schooling. Through the natural interaction between heterogeneous peer groups, educational goals are known to be easily achieved, and long-term personal and social benefits are enhanced.
It is thus of special pedagogical interest that this avenue be considered for effective inclusive education strategies in Rwanda. The cultural tendency for children to grow and learn through social interactions, recognized by Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus & Miller (1992) as potentially beneficial in child development strategies, also observed between the sighted and non-sighted learners in G. S. Gahini (Suubi, 2003), legitimately claims a chance to be recognized within the growing search for effective inclusion planning in Rwanda.
3.4 Experiences of traditional justice
Inclusion is also about justice and democracy for it refers to equalization of opportunities and providing level play ground for all. This paper is of the view that community-supported justice is also able to offer a strong foundation for the development of inclusion. Such potential has been demonstrated by ‘gacaca’ or the recently institutionalised traditional community-based judicial system in Rwanda (Anghion, 2002; Daly, 2002 & Notomb, 1965). It had long been forgotten since the influence of foreign systems. Faced with the challenges of over 130.000 genocide suspects however, and the disappointing performance of the conventional judicial systems, especially the international tribunal for Rwandans in Arusha, the powers of justice were given back to the community through Gacaca tribunals. Anghion (2002) reports that, Rwanda is rebuilding its physical and administrative infrastructure in response to its most difficult task of fostering reconciliation between the Hutu and Tutsi, and Gacaca Tribunals represent a remarkable democratisation of justice for a people accustomed to dictatorial authority, offering a voice and perhaps a therapeutic catharsis to survivors. Erin Daly (2002) underscores the powers and weaknesses of gacaca in the following observation:
“If the genocide was widespread, so is Rwanda’s innovative response…The gacaca project has much to recommend it. It could very well help the obscene backlog of cases piling up in the conventional courts. Furthermore, as a grass-roots effort, it could help to rebuild the communities that have been so profoundly damaged by the genocide. However, the gacaca process as currently envisioned does not solve all the problems of the conventional approach, and in fact creates some very serious new ones. … Rwanda could meet many of these concerns, while simultaneously reinforcing gacaca’s potential contribution to the rebuilding of Rwandan society, by shifting the authority of the gacaca tribunals from the power to convict and punish to the power to grant amnesty and assist in reconstruction” (p. 356-7).
The traditional justice is commonly referred to as restorative justice or grassroots justice (Anghion, 2002; Ciabattari, 2000; Drumbl, 2000) because it does not necessarily mean the penalties, but may mean justice through reconciling or reintegrating victims and criminals of the same community. This might involve community service, tilling the fields of victims, collecting firewood and drawing water, donating produce or money, assigning one's sons or daughters to help another family (Ciabattari, 2000). Though some analysts such as Daly (2002) and Professor Mark Drumbl (2000) argue that Gacaca may in fact aggravate ethnic identity politics within the highly interdependent yet dualist nature of the Rwandan society, this paper takes more interest in the inherent potential within the grassroots community for members to work together for justice and harmony, and it is on this ground that it suggests consideration of planning community- based inclusion of young members with disabilities.
4. Threats to the development of inclusion in Rwanda
4.1 The post-genocide cultural challenges
The conflict of 1990s bring into question the legitimacy of Kagame (1954), Bazivamo (2002) and Notomb’s (1965) claims of abundant humanism and solidarity in the Rwandan communities. Much as these qualities can still be traced within the Rwandan society, and still win support of post-genocide reconciliation and social reorganisation experiences, as well as experiences in the sub-region (Ingastad, 1997; Kisanji, 1995 & Vanneste, 1997), they clearly fall short of the colonial and post-colonial effects of divisionism and the resulting destabilising factors. It would for example be unrealistic to parallel the Rwandan social situation to Kisanji’s (1995) experiences in the post independent Tanzania, where the spirit of national unity or ‘ujamaa’ which emphasised fraternity in the grassroots communities, had been part of the national programs. Neither would it be accurately compared to Ingstad’s (1997) experiences in Botswana, where the post-independence policies had always recognised and reinforced the strength of the traditional grassroots-based decisions. If inclusion has to effectively take roots in the Rwandan society, some of the traditional systems and cultures in the post-genocide Rwanda will need and still demand to be reconstructed and reinforced.
4.2 The post-genocide socio-economic situation
The economy of Rwanda ranks among the last ten in the world, foreign aid accounted for 42.6% of GDP in 1998 and about 63% of the families still live under the poverty line (Republic of Rwanda, 2002b). The implication of this economic situation points to the obvious dire deprivation and needs of the grassroots communities. The poor health services and rural poverty being the major causes of impairment, the disabled people in such environment are pushed at the lowest levels of deprivation, or are kept mired in ‘the vicious circle of poverty, vulnerability and disabilities’ (DfID, 2000; Tumusani, 2003: 26 & UPIAS, 1976). The DfID (2000) issues paper explains this point in the following words:
“Poverty and disability reinforce one and other, contributing to increased vulnerability and exclusion … people with disabilities’ situation affects their chance to go to school, working for a living, enjoying family life, and participating as equals in social life”(p. 4).
As a matter of facts, the core material needs for food, water, health, education, clothing and shelter (according to ESCR, 1976 and ILO, 1995 standards) are hardly met in some communities in Rwanda. These are suggested as the most important needs suggested at the base of Maslow’s (1970) five-levelled hierarchy of human needs. Accordingly, when the physiological or survival needs are not catered for, there will be frustration and even other needs on the scale become less relevant. This argument explains adequately the desolation and despair among people with disabilities in deprived communities, also shared by Hurst’s (in Stone, 2001) observation:
“If we are talking about disability in the majority world, then we need to talk both of survival and of social change. It does not seem true to call for better policies, provision and attitudes without also pointing to … millions of people locked in poverty and powerlessness ” (p. 61).
The analyses here brings out the unpleasant fact that appropriate practice and plans for inclusion of PWDs, are some of those priorities likely to be masked by the relentless struggle for food, shelter, health and other survival needs, which are not easily accessible to many in Rwanda.
4.3 Foreign support for inclusion in Rwanda
The situation of needs explained above, obviously questions the prospects for inclusion in deprived communities of Rwanda bringing into view the need for support. It is noted moreover that the National Policy on the ‘youth in difficult circumstances’ brings the latter group under the Ministry of Local Government and Social Welfare, like in many other African French speaking countries (Kisanji, 1993; Republic of Rwanda, 2002a). This alone positions them directly for social welfare or as vulnerable groups needing support, and thus not necessarily for equal access to entitled rights such as health, education, training and subsequently for equal opportunities at the job market. The traditional response to such circumstances by developing countries has always been to turn to the generous and willing Western donors and their Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) (Ingstad, 1997: 19; Lancaster, 1999: 2). In fact, Mitler’s (1993) concern on the needs of children with disabilities in developing countries attracts the attention of the richer nations towards this direction:
“… if we look beyond our own immediate neighbourhood, we may be appalled by the sheer size of the task that face professionals and families in trying to meet the needs of children with disabilities. As we near the end of the Century, we should be working and thinking more internationally to achieve a vision of the kind of future which we would like to see for all disabled children, ... which they are entitled as matter of right” (p.14).
It is noted however that foreign aids and international NGOs, have been held responsible for perpetuating inefficiency and misguiding services for disabled people (Mitler, 1993: 10 & Jones et al., 2002: 130). They are accused of lack of experiences and knowledge of the local society, of transplanting unsustainable models of programs from other cultures. Jones et al. (2002: 128) argue that NGOs are in reality grassroots reactionaries, in the service of imperialism, operating in the interstices of the ‘global economy’ and complementing the work of the IMF and World Bank exploitative gaols.
The allegation pointed out by Jones et al.(2002) that NGOs image themselves as innovative grassroots leaders and the vanguards of the civil society in order to attract funds from donors, is apparent in the UNICEF report (real lives) on the cases of Bunani (in section 1.2 above). The self-projecting picture portrays enormous vulnerabilities among the Rwandan youths, the saving role the organisation is playing (UNICEF, 2003), but the effort in its partnership with the readily available community support for the children is remotely emphasised. The attention is thus diverted from the appreciable involvement of the extended, foster parents and neighbours who had willingly sheltered the children and shared the very limited basic resources to its own image. Such a situation questions the link between the humane missions and foreign aids and suggests that appropriate practice may involve partnership with the key grassroots community members, who are otherwise the right channel through which the targeted beneficiaries would be easily accessed.
4.4 The global influences
Inclusion in Rwanda may arguably find its support from the growing international trends in education today which Henderson (1998: 14) calls the growing power of the civic society and the emergency of global citizenship, influencing a renewed search for common humane values. However, it also draws the attention to the strong critics of the powerful global forces working against the developments of disabled people of developing countries (Arnove et al., 1999; Jones et al., 2002; Mitler, 1993; Stiglitz, 2002; Thomas & Allen, 2000; Van de Walle, 2001). Having had a long experience with the most important funding agencies to Africa, and as a former economic adviser to the U.S Government, Joseph Stiglitz, (2002) concludes that globalisation is not working for neither the world’s poor, nor for stability of the global economy as the claim goes. He puts the blame squarely on the IMF, WB & WTO which allegedly help to set the rules to manage global trends for their own benefits.
With due consideration that Rwandan education reform is one of the beneficiaries of the above mentioned organisations’ support to its educational reform programs (Rwanda Republic, 2003a), it is important to note Van de Walle’s (2001) warning that “of the 305 IMF programs surveyed in less developed countries between 1979 & 1993, 53% had not been completed in the loan period, and 75 % of them had failed to implement 20% of the conditions” (p. 67). He points to growing clientelism and the low capacity and elitist beliefs within the developing countries, arguing that these have interacted with the international aid system and resulted in dragging out the process of reform (p. 60). As a matter of fact, the Special Needs Education Project of the Rwandan Ministry of Education, proposed for support through UNICEF & UNDP since March 1998, has never taken off. Its planning clearly ignores not only the potentials within the local communities, but also the already existing and struggling inclusive initiatives in schools (e.g. G.S. Gahini) at the time (Republic of Rwanda 1998: 41). The UNESCO funded Special Needs Education consultancies for the Ministry of Education in March 1999 and in March 2000 (Kristensen, 1999 & 2000) still remain on paper. The same Ministry is ironically repeating for the third time the same consultancy using UNICEF funding in March 2005 before the previous takes off.
Emma Stone (2001: 164) argues that globalization is a mockery for most disabled people who cannot even ‘rapidly flow’ in their own homes and communities let alone globally. The services and information flowing through globalization are either not relevant or not accessible to disabled people (Charlton, 2000; Mitler, 1993; Swain Gillman & French , 1998). For disabled people in under-resourced communities, the impact of globalization has been to increase isolation, disempowerment and segregation from the mainstream activities and information.
However, much as the assertions above may appear threateningly on the extreme, a few realities remain disturbingly eminent. The Rwandan inclusion initiatives will need to be supported, like many other current and past educational reform projects (Rwanda Republic, 2003a). This need automatically calls for the wealthy Western-based donors, as well as the international measures in terms of the UNESCO, IMF or UNICEF models and conditions implied in the above paragraphs, then the chances for the local grassroots community to benefit through participation in decision and matters that regard the rights of their disabled members remain at stake.
Rwanda ought to take seriously the lesson from its recent past exclusionary history, for the sake of successful future inclusion. A good lesson from South African post-apartheid experiences appears to be of valuable relevance. Accordingly, Christie (2001: 277) warns that educational reforms go well beyond the rational ofproducing legal and policy frameworks. It is a complex; contradictory and often unpredictable process mediated by social, economic and political influences as well as the powerful global factors, especially within the conditions of resource constraints and limited managerial capacity.
This paper has argued that the search for an appropriate model of inclusion that would suit the Rwandan situation hinges on appropriate translation into good practice, the basic rights principles (Hegarty, 1993: 17) underlying the current educational trends. It strongly stresses that the ground for this opportunity is adequately available within the local grassroots communities. For they particularly offer the benefits of exploring the readily available local resources in terms of culture of mutual support among the members, peer interrelation and co-operative sharing of inadequate resources, still widely accepted and practised in Rwandan families and communities. The argument is supported by the Chinese experiences through Stratford et al.’s (2000: 13) study. Accordingly, joining with professionals; parents can be a powerful force with which slender resources can be appropriately directed towards the development of services of the children with disabilities. This view is summed up by Vanneste’s (1997: 37) long experiences in African communities:
“Africans are still limited to what people can do for themselves, or what can be provided by specialists and few unplanned school integration … By far the most positive resources are those already existing in the hearts and minds of African mothers, sisters, grandparents, neighbours, disabled persons themselves….if Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) is to have an impact… programs must study, value, enlist and enhance these vital existing community resources…a small amount of input can bring into play a much larger amount of latent energy” (p.37).
It is in the same perspective that Ingstad’s (1997: 9) theory that developing countries have a chance to move directly from a state of ‘natural integration’ into a more active inclusion policy, supportive of family solidarity and the local potentials, finds support in this document. The initiative to integrate the disabled children in G.S.Gahini (EENET, 2003) is a practical proof of this possibility, and a reinforcement of Emma Stone’s (1999: 68) observation that poverty is seldom the key barrier to integration and inclusion. Inclusion projects with a disability perspective can also run successfully in areas where living standards are very poor.
This paper predicts fertile ground for inclusion prospects within the recent National Development Framework of Rwanda. Because it empowers and supports the grassroots communities’ culture of collaboration and mutual support in what is termed as: ‘Ubudehe mu kurwanya ubukene’ or ‘community-based solidarity against poverty’ (Republic of Rwanda, 2002b: 52). This paper is of the view that the search for the way forward to inclusion in Rwanda may seem endless, and suggests to consider the old advice from Sophocles of 400 B.C. (cited in Rogers, 1983) for it may appear valuable at this stage: “One must learn by doing the thing, for though you think you know it, you have no certainty, until you try” (p.163). The conclusion being that in the final analysis, the effective inclusion of young people with disabilities in Rwanda will depend on the clear-sightedness of the planners, the implementation mechanism thoughtfully put in place to counteract the ills of flown policies and ineffective management (Lancaster, 1999: 221), while promoting healthy partnership that responds correctly to the local needs and demands.
References
Allen, V. L. (1976). Children as teachers. London: Academic Press.
Anghion, A. (2002). Living together again in Rwanda? Gacaca tribunal. Retrieved June 4, 2004
from http://www.frif.com/new2002/gac.html.
Arnove, R. F. & Torres, C. A. (1999). Comparative education ‘the dialectic of the global and the
local’. Oxford: Rowman & Little field Publishers.
Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. London: Hurst & Co.
Bramston, P., Bruggerman, K. & Pretty, G. (2002). Community perspectives and subjective quality of
life. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,. 49 (4), 385 – 397.
Bazivamo, C. (2002). Protection des sols et de l’environnent au Rwanda. Approaches Socio-
Economiques . Kigali: Select Graph.
Charlton, J.I. (2000). Nothing about us without us. Disability oppression and empowerment. Los
Angeles: University of Califonia press.
Christie, P. (2001). Inclusive education in South Africa. In J. Cains; D. Lawton & R. Gardner (eds.),
Values. Culture and Education. World Year Book of Education (pp. 269-277). London: Kogan.
Page.
Ciabattari, (2000). Rwanda gambles on renewal, not revenge. Women’s e News. Retrieved January
27, 2005, from http://www.womenenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/301/context.archive.
Daly E. (2002). Between punitive and reconstructive justice: The gacaca courts in Rwanda. International
law and politics 34, 355 -396.
Devlieger, P. (2001). Surviving with a disability: Strategies of production and reproduction in South and
North. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from http://www.phos.be/Engels/basisframe_engels.htm.
D f I D. (2000). Disability, poverty and development. London: DfID.
Drumbl, M. (2000). Punishment, post-genocide: From Guilt to Shame to Civic in Rwanda. New York
University Law Review (75), 1221- 1323
E E N E T. (2003). Challenging the exclusion of Blind students in Rwanda. Retrieved April 15 2004,
from http://www.eenet.org.uk/newsletters/news7/news7.html.
ESCR. (1976). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Geneva: ESCR, UN.
FAWE Report. (2002). Gender disparities in Rwanda education. (Unpublished). Kigali: Ministry of
Education.
Finkenflügel, H. (2004). Empowerment to differ. Stakeholders’ influences in Community-Based
Rehabilitation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Gill. C. (1999). Invisible Ubiquity: The Surprising relevance of disability issues in evaluation.
American Journal of Evaluation , 20 (2), 279-287.
Goodlad, S. & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring. London: Kogan.
Hegarty, S. (1993). Education of children with disabilities. In: P. Mitler; R. Brouillette,
& D. Harries (eds.), World Year Book of Education: Special Needs Education.
(pp. 17-27). London: Kogan Page.
Helander, E. (1993). Prejudice and dignity: An introduction to Community-Based Rehabilitation.
New York: UNDP.
Henderson, H. D. Hicks & R. Slaughter (Eds.), (1998). Future education. World Year Book of Education.
London: Kogan pages.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (ed.). (1992). Interaction in co- operative groups. New York:
Cambridge University.
ILO. (1995). The Framework of ILO action against poverty: The policy agenda and ILO. Geneva:
International Institute of Labour Studies.
Ingstad, B. (1997). Community Based Rehabilitation in Botswana. The myth of the hidden children.
Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Johnson, W.D. & Johnson, R.T. (1992). Positive interdependence: In R. Hertz - Lazarowitz. & N. Miller,
(eds.), Interaction in co operative groups. New York: Cambridge University.
Jones, P. & Vetmeyer, H. (2002). Globalisation unmasked: Imperialism in the 21 st Century. London:
Zed Books.
Kagame, A. (1954). Les Organisations socio-familiales de l’ancien Rwanda . Bruxelles:Institut Royale
Colonial Belge. Gembloux. J. Duculot.
Nothomb, D. P.B. (1965). Un humanisme Africain. Valeurs et Pierres d’Atteinte . Bruxelles: Lumen Vitae.
Karangwa, E. (2000). Report on education of disabled children in Rwanda. (Unpublished, Tec. Rep.)
Kigali: Ministry of Education.
Karangwa, E. (2001). Mental disability – A special education challenge. The New Times, Bi Weekly, 247,
p.22.
Karangwa, E. (2004). Developments in the situation of the people with disabilities in Rwanda.
PHOS-Newsletter inclusive (2004-10-15). Retrieved November 30, 2004, from
http://www.phos.be/Engels/basisframe_engels.htm.
Kisanji, J. (1993). Special education in Africa: In P. Mitler, R. Brouillette, Harris, D. (eds.), World Year Book of Education (pp. 159-171). London: Kogan Page.
Kisanji, J. (1995). Growing up disabled. In P. Zinkin & H. McConachie (eds.), Disabled Children and
Developing Countries (pp. 183 -199). London: Mac Keith & Press Cambridge University Press.
Kristensen, K. (1999). Report for special needs education and related services in Rwanda.
(Unpublished) Kigali: Ministry of Education.
Kristensen, K. (2000). Report for special needs education and related services in Rwanda.
(Unpublished) Kigali: Ministry of Education.
Lancaster, C. (1999). Aid to Africa. So much to do, so little done. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper Brothers.
Marquet, C. (1954). Aide – Mémoire d’ Ethnologie Africaine . Bruxelles: Institut Royale
Colonial Belge. Gembloux. J. Duculot.
McCarthey, M. & McMahon, S. (1992).From convention to invention. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N.
Miller (eds.), Interaction in cooperative Groups (pp. 71- 89). New York: Cambridge University.
Mead, M. (1984). Neighbourhood and human needs. Children’s environment.Education Research
Quaterley, 1 (4), 3-5.
Mertens, M.D. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The
transformative – emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashkkori & C. Teddle (Eds.).
Handbook of Mixed Methods and Social Behavioural Research (pp. 133-188) . London: Sage Publications.
Mills, J. B. & Cottel (1998). Co-operative learning for high education. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Mitler, P. (1993). Childhood disability: A global challenge. In: P. Mitler, R. Brouillette &
D. Harries. (eds.), World Year Book of Education: Special Needs Education. (pp. 1-17)
London: Kogan Page.
Mugarura, K.V. (2002). Gacaca should be permanent. The New Times Bi- Weekly. 348, 1 - 4.
Obidegwu, C. (2003). Rwanda: The search for post-conflict socio-economic change,
1995-2001 . Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 27678. New York: World Bank.
Republic of Rwanda. (2001a). Community development policy. KIGALI: Ministry of Local
Government and Social Affairs.
Republic of Rwanda, (2001b). Organic law setting up Gacaca jurisdictions and organizing
prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of Genocide, or crimes against humanity . Official Gazette. KIGALI: Prime Minister’s Office.
Republic of Rwanda. (2002a). The national policy for orphans and other vulnerable children in
Rwanda . Kigali: Ministry of Local Government and Social Affairs.
Republic of Rwanda, (2002b). The nationalprogram of poverty reduction. KIGALI: Ministry of
Finances and Economic Planning.
Republic of Rwanda, (2003a). Education For All (EFA): Plan of Action. KIGALI: Ministry of Education.
Republic of Rwanda, (2003b). The national constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. Official Gazette.
KIGALI: Prime Minister’s Office.
Republic of Rwanda, (2004). 3 rd Census 2002 of the population and housing of Rwanda. Kigali: Ministry
of Finances and Economic Planning.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). The diffusion of innovations. London: Macmillan.
Salmon, P. & Claire, H. (1984). Classroom collaboration. London: Routledge.
Sangano, K., Nsanzabaganwa, S., Mpyisi, E. (2003). Rwanda, country position paper . Regional
Workshop on Ageing and Poverty in Dar es Salaam. Kigali: UNDP.
Sarason, R. L. (1974). The Psychological sense of community: Perspectives for
community psychology. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Skjørten, M. D. (2001). Towards inclusion and enrichment. In B. H. Johnsen and M. D.
Skjørten (Eds.), Education – special needs education: An introduction. Oslo: Unpublished.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2002). Globalisation and its discontents. London: Penguin Press.
Stone, E. (ed.). (1999). Disability and development in the majority world. Leeds: The Disability Press.
Stone, E. (2001). A complicated struggle: Disability, survival and social change in the majority world.
In M. Priestely (ed.), Disability and the life course: Global Perspectives (pp. 60-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stratford, B. & Hannah Ng (2000). People with disabilities in China: Changing outlook—New solutions
—growing problems. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, (1) 7-
13.
Suubi, P. S. (2003). Towards inclusive schools in Rwanda: The Experiences of Gahini High School.
Oslo: University of Oslo.
Swain, J., Gillman, M. & French, S. (1998). Confronting disabling barriers: Towards Making
organizations accessible. Birmingham: Venture Press.
Thomas, A. & Allen, T. (Eds.). (2000). Poverty and development: Into the 21 st Century. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Thomson, R.G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and
literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tumusani, M. (2003). Disabled people and economic needs in developing world. A Political
perspective from Jordan. Hampshire: Ashgate.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and the framework for action on special needs education.
Retrieved April 17, 2004, from http://www.ovids.ac.uk/ovidweb.ovidwed.cg.i.
UNICEF (2003). At a glance: Rwanda real lives. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/rwanda_20343.html.
UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: Sage.
Van de Walle, N. (2001). African economies and the politics of permanent crisis 1979 - 1999.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Vanneste, G. (1997). CBR in Africa: A Critical review of the emerging scene. Asia Pacific Disability
Rehabilitation Journal . 8 (2) 34-37.
World Bank, (2004). Rwanda: The Impact of conflicts on growth and poverty.
Conflict prevention and reconstruction. New York: World Bank.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |