Prof. Sudesh
Mukhopadhyay
Head, Educational Administration Unit
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration,
“The success of the
inclusive school depends considerably on early intervention, assessment and
stimulation of the very young child with special educational needs. Early childhood care and education programmes
for children aged up to six years ought to be developed and/or reoriented to
promote physical, intellectual and social development and school readiness…
Programmes at this level should recognize the principle of inclusion and be
developed in a comprehensive way by combining pre-school activities and early
childhood health care.”
Things have changed but not
drastically since the World Conference on Education For All held in
Rightly, the World
Conference did not seek to prescribe how childhood care and initial education
were to be provided, knowing arrangements would differ enormously between and
within countries. Traditionally, institutionalized pre-school programmes have
been costly and aimed at
serving the better-off members of society, not the disadvantaged. It is
difficult to justify the growth of such programmes in countries where millions
of children are unserved by primary
education. The need, however, is not for costly programmes, but for the
provision of essential
services and assistance. To meet this need, an effort is being made in a number
of countries to institute low-cost, often non-formal, programmes for
disadvantaged children. The aim of these programmes is to promote health and
nutrition and provide the stimulation and experiences that will prepare
children to succeed in school.
The need for such programmes
is evidently great. Their establishment is often a response to the inability of
the primary school to serve the most needy children. Non-enrolment, dropout and
low achievement are often the result of health and nutritional as well as
cultural and social problems. Early childhood care and education seek to
prevent these difficulties from arising. The growth of
pre-school programmes is usually fastest in those countries in which the main
challenge is
no longer that of accommodating for the majority of children, who are already
in school, but that of enrolling the remaining ten to twenty per cent of
hard-to-serve children. Research demonstrates that children who have received
some form of pre-school care are more likely to be enrolled and retained in
school than are students from the same social milieu who have not had the
benefit of pre-school programmes. Hence, properly conceived low-cost programmes
of early childhood care should be seen not as a diversion of resources from
primary education, but as a complementary investment necessary to ensure the
enrollment of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As is true for
many other indicators of education and social development, poverty / under
development appears to be an important reason for the low profile of Early
Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) and adds to the vulnerability of the
children from such countries, areas, pockets and families. The table below provides a picture across the
Asian countries.
Gross
enrollment ratios for programs of early childhood care
and education/development, circa 1990 and 1998*
Country
8.9%
rural (96) 11.2%
rural
Japan 3-5 Data not available 82% (97)
Lao PDR 3-5 6.0% 7.3% (97)
* Robert G. Myers, The
Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development “Early
Childhood Care and Development: A Global Review, 1990-1999.
** If childcare and parental education
institutions were included the percentages would be 19.5% in 1990 and 55.7% in
1998 (
Poverty increases the risk that children
below 6 years of age who have sensory, physical or cognitive impairments will
not be identified and this increases the risk of developmental delay.
Inadequate initiatives and support for ECCE by governments are essentially
penny wise but pound foolish in the long run given the human resource
development investments and losses in the adult years.
At issue is the well-being and development of children in Nepal,
Nigeria, Nicaragua and
elsewhere who are managing to survive in spite of being born into poverty and
living in
life-threatening conditions. These young survivors are increasing in number. In
their survival they are at the same time a delight, a hope for the future, and
a daily problem for poor families struggling at the margin to survive.
At least 12 of every 13 children
born in 1990 will live to see a first birthday. When that statistic is compared
with the 1960 figure of 5 for every 6 children born, it is clear that an
important advance has been made in child survival over the 30 years.
Projections for the year 2000 suggest that 19 of 20 children born are expected
to survive to age one.
A great deal of emotional energy will be spent in the coming decade
worrying about the one child who is at risk of death. Large sums of money will
be spent trying to save her. And that should be. But what will happen to the
twelve, or nineteen, surviving children? Who is
worrying about them in their early and formative years? Who is looking beyond
survival to ask, and answer, the question, “Survival for what?”
Unfortunately, most surviving children continue to live in the same
conditions of poverty and stress that previously endangered their lives. These
and other conditions now put
them at risk of impaired physical, mental, social and emotional development
in their earliest months and years. Through neglect, millions of surviving
children are being condemned to lethargic, unrewarding, unproductive and
dependent lives. Deprived of the chance to develop their abilities, they are
often unable to cope adequately with a rapidly changing and increasingly
complex world. They are kept from participating in the construction of a better
world. These children deserve a “fair start” in life. Instead they experience a
“false start” and, from the outset must sit on the sidelines.
As Myers (1993) observes “Although the cost and financing have
frequently been given as reasons for the low level of investment and although
these will always be a concern, enough low-cost and effective alternatives are
available that the present under-investment in early childhood development does
not arise from a lack of resources. It is primarily a matter of acquiring new
ways of thinking, of taking advantage of existing knowledge about what to do,
of looking for ways in which existing governmental and non-governmental
organizations can be called upon and motivated to incorporate child development
into their on-going programmes, and of mobilizing the political and social will
and the available resources to do it. Finally, because we are
early in the process of establishing programmes of early childhood care and
development, we have room to shape the process, avoiding mistakes that have
been made in other programme areas. We have the opportunity as well as the
obligation to work diligently and creatively toward providing a ‘fair start’
for children as they move from the womb to the classroom and from the close
environment of the family to the larger world.”
In order to understand
issues relating to ECCE for children with visual impairment, one needs to see
the larger picture. The UNESCO document ‘Education for All, The Nine Largest
Countries’ (2000) summarizes this information provides a comprehensive
overview. The nine countries differ
considerably in the provision they make for ECCE. They differ as well in the
priority assigned to the future development of programmes in this area.
Early childhood education is
nearly universal in the large and medium-sized cities of
education as a means of overcoming disparities in home environments. While, at
present, only a small percentage of students are accommodated in government
pre-school programmes, future plans call for the addition of two classes to the
basic education cycle. Under this proposed arrangement, children would enter a
pre-school programme at the age of four, which would prepare them for entry
into primary school at the age of six. A National Conference on Development of
Curricula in Basic Education, held in February 1993, gave special attention to
the kindergarten curriculum. The Government is presently working out details of
a comprehensive plan to develop early childhood education.
In
In
In
private institutions or, in certain cases, NGOs. The role of the government is
limited to setting standards and inspecting institutions to make sure these are
observed.
As the above summaries demonstrate, the nine
countries differ quite sharply in both the
priority accorded to ECCE and the extent and nature of the programmes and
coverage
provided. All countries recognize that learning begins at birth and that the
first years of life are a critical stage of development. They differ in the
means with which and ways in which they are responding to the challenge of
ECCE. The common aim of all programmes can be seen as that of providing quality
services to disadvantaged children at a cost that the countries can afford. In
this respect,
The
general picture for ECCE is quite disheartening in the sense that much still
needs to be
accomplished. In such a scenario, one wonders what would be the possibilities
for the doubly
disadvantaged groups like children with disabilities especially those who are
born with sensory impairments. According to Mani (2000) “The life of any child
between 0-5 years is very crucial and it is more so in the case of visually
impaired child.” Piaget, an
internationally renowned psychologist, calls young children ‘little
scientists’. The early years of children
are extremely crucial for developing the right type of concepts, attitude and
skills…….imitation of tasks also play a vital role in the overall skill
development of a child, and puts the visually impaired child at a disadvantage.
The visually impaired child’s imitation from the non-vocal communication techniques
such as hand language, eye language, smile language, and facial expression is
limited.
All
those who work with children with visual impairment, know that these children
are dependent upon mediated learning. In the absence of general awareness by
the immediate care givers
(eg. mothers with low literacy levels), and in the absence of governmental
policy to provide
comprehensive services to these children, the outlook for development is quite
dismal. The sensory motor deprivation and absence of stimulation stunts the
emotional, social and even intellectual and physical growth of these
children. For the individual child with
a visual impairment, it can mean the loss of the potential and capability that
a well planned early intervention programme can optimise. Effective early
intervention also builds the confidence of parents and leads to healthy bonding
with parents and siblings. The advantages of ECCE as a school readiness
programme is equally important for these children.
In
most of the developing countries ECCE is a female caregiver’s domain and is too
often poorly paid, and poorly resourced. In a UNESCO initiative relating to
ECCE for children with disabilities in some of the Asian countries, the
following proposals were put forward.
Lessons
Learnt (
·
Early intervention programmes cannot be sustained unless the families
are active
partners.
·
The best possible support should be available at village level – 90% of
special
educational needs should be met at community level.
·
Integrated education should be seen as a way in to improving existing
primary
education. Inclusive schools, with an
inclusive curriculum, provide a cost-effective
education.
·
In Karnataka state, the government has set an advisory committee for
IEDC. This
committee has played a major role in bringing about policy changes, introducing
integrated disability contact in mainstream teacher training programmes, and
setting up an ICDS workers’ training programme.
Action groups on IEDC at state level are necessary to promote IED in developing
countries.
·
In CBR, people have the misconception that there is no need to look at
special
educational needs. It is important that
the CBR programme should see IED as an
integral component, as 80% of the needs of children with disabilities are
educational rather than medical.
(Indumati Rao in First Steps, UNESCO,1997)
Reports
from other countries suggest similar conclusions:
Since
January 1997, the government has given a grant to all children aged
are attending kindergartens. This has
led to a new problem, which is threatening inclusion. Often, disabled children stay at kindergarten
between the ages of three and eight.
Because
they do not fit the age criterion for a grant, some kindergartens, which were
formerly open
to integration now refuse to accept disabled children. This is a new struggle for APEIM,
which has begun by meeting with the Minister of Education to discuss this
important issue
and to make him aware of the value of inclusion in kindergartens and primary
schools.
(APIEM
in First Steps, UNESCO, 1997)
LAO PDR
The prognosis for children is better
when help is available at an early age; it is also easier to give that help
when they are young. Bringing in the
kindergarten sector makes sense. Perhaps
it is also worth considering whether integration may not be just a little
easier when it is introduced at the very start of service provision, rather
than when the ‘mature wood’ of a fully developed special school system makes
‘bending’ in new directions more difficult.
The experience of the Lao Integrated Education
Project has shown that with careful planning and implementation, and by using
all the resources available, the twin goals of improving quality for all and
providing for children with special needs can go hand in hand; each initiative
in the process feeds into the development, and in turn each benefits from the
combined effort. Determination and
co-operation are the keys to success.
( Janet C. Holdsworth and P. Thepphavongsa in First Steps,
UNESCO, 1997)
In view of the
fact that the ECCE in general still needs to be geared up in the Asian Region
as a whole and especially in
1. We may not need to begin our thinking from
scratch. ECCE programmes in our respective Asian countries may not be
strikingly different from those in many other countries; and
2. Any conceptualisation about ECCE programmes
for children with visual impairment need not be drastically different from other
ECCE activities planned for children who
have no disabilities. Let me quote some
of the most important and least important skills prioritized for child
development in this study.
·
The least important skills were:
·
Pre academic skills
·
Self-assessment skills
If teachers and educators of children with visual impairment were to
prepare a similar type of list, the chances are that they would agree with this
prioritization. It is in this context
let us look at the following points for consideration:
In conclusion, let our countries realise that
the pedagogy emerges from society’s attempts to meet
the needs of children. We all try to learn from west, then read and realize
that in the
children with special needs. The focus was initially on the handicapped, but it
was soon extended
to impoverished children, in the 1960s, when the awareness of civil rights
issues spread in to
education (Weikart, 2000). To day, with all the conventions, charters and acts
in place, the
planners and implementers need to really look at the priorities and come to see
ECCE as part of a service for all rather than an isolated activity for the
elite classes. This would lead to a realisation of the
Education for All : Meeting our
Collective Commitments
We hereby collectively commit
ourselves to the attainment of the following goals:
i) expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and
education,
especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children ;
ii) ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children
in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have
access to and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good
quality ;
iii) ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults
are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills
programmes ;
iv) achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by
2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing
education for all adults ;
v) eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education
by 2005, and
achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’
full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good
quality ;
vi) improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring
excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are
achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.
1. Govt.
of
2. Mani,
M.N.G. (1999). Services for the VI Persons: Challenges for the Future. In
Fernandez,G. et.al.(Eds) See with the Blind,
3. Mukhopadhyay,
S. (1999). Management of Education Programmes for People with Visual
Impairments. In Fernandez, G. et.al.(Eds) See with the Blind,
4. Mukhopadhyay,
S. and Mani, M.N.G., (2001). Education of Children with Special Needs. In
Govinda, R. (Ed.)
5. Myers
R.G. (1993). Towards A Fair Start for Children: Programming for ECCE and
Development in the Developing World(UNESCO’s Young Child and the Family
Environment Project)
6. Myers
R.G. (2000). Early Childhood Care and Development: A Global Review,
1990-1999,
7. UNESCO
(1996). Legislation Pertaining to Special Needs Education,
8. UNESCO
(1997). First Steps: Stories on Inclusion in Early Childhood Education,
9. UNESCO
(2000). Global Synthesis: Education for All 2000 Assessment,
10. UNESCO
(2000). The
11. UNESCO
(2000). World Education Forum: Final Report,
12. Weikart,
D.P. (2000). Early Childhood Education: Need and