SEAPRO Documentation Series
Southeast Asia and the Pacific Regional Office

Discussion Paper No. 1

Towards Inclusion: SCF UK's Experience in Integrated Education

Save the Children

Table of Contents

Preface
Integrated Education and Inclusive Education
A Brief History of SCF's Involvement in Integrated Education

Planning for IE - Situational Analysis
Planning for IE - Starting Points
Planning for IE - Implementation
Planning for IE - Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact

Case Studies
Anhui Province, China
Introduction of Integrated Education for Disabled Children

SCF Laos
Integrated Education Incountry Experience 1992-1995

Lesotho
The Lesotho Programme

Thailand
Integrated Education 1989-1995

Vietnam
Integrated Education


Preface
In April 1994 Save the Children Fund (SCF) personnel and partners, working in various sectors in the field of disability, came together at the SCF Global Seminar on Disability. This was the first time most of them had been able to share experiences and learn directly from each other. SCF's disability work spans all sectors, but there has been a significant increase in the education sector in recent years. Educational programmes now exist in Asia and Southern Africa.

The small group of people working in integrated education for children with special needs felt the time was right to document their experiences and try to produce a working paper which could guide non-specialists through the process of assessing and initiating programmes in this field and contribute to discussions on policy.

In May 1995 a workshop was convened in Vientiane in Laos and the group worked together to produce this paper. The group was joined by three SCF colleagues from South Asia with a background in the Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) which helped the group to broaden their thinking.

Contributions to this paper were made by the following people:

Henny Heyer: Relief and Rehabilitation Officer (Sri Lanka)
Janet Holdsworth: IE Adviser (China and Lao PDR)
Hazel Jones: Special and Integrated Education Adviser (Vietnam)
John Kay: Primary Education Adviser (Lao PDR)
Douglas Lackey: Head of Regional Office (SE Asia and Pacific)
Watthana Manoroth: Pre-school Project Manager (Lao PDR)
Lilian Maringa: IE Adviser (Lesotho)
Richard Mawer: Field Director (Uganda - previously Thailand)
Deepika Nair: Head of Technical Support Services (India)
Theerawong Sae Fung: IE Project Coordinator (Thailand)
Visiene Sayasensouk: Primary Education Programme Officer (Lao PDR)
Sue Stubbs: Disability Adviser PDU (London)
Tran Thi Nhieu: Disability Project Officer (Vietnam)
Neetha Wannipura: Disability Project Officer (Sri Lanka)

Editors: Janet Holdsworth and John Kay

Integrated Education and Inclusive Education
Integrated education is the term used to describe the process of bringing children with disabilities into mainstream schools. Inclusive education is a wider process of integration, incorporating the idea of access for all (other disadvantaged groups as well as those with disabilities), and the accommodation of the mainstream school to the diverse needs of all children. Both terms are commonly used to describe the process of providing access to mainstream education for children with disabilities. Internationally, 'integrated education' as a term to describe the process has been succeeded by 'inclusive education'.

The goals of inclusive education can be defined with reference to the educational issues of access and quality or with reference to the long term goal of an 'inclusive society'. It is likely that some potential partners (government and Ministries of Education), will see it primarily in terms of its educational goals, while others (Displaced People's Organisations and Non Governmental Organisations) will be more likely to concentrate on the social goals. For SCF, it is likely that both these aspects will be important.

In seeking suitable terminology, SCF is faced with a difficulty. In the current programmes, the term integration and the related translations into local languages are now well known and introducing a change in terminology might cause confusion. There are also those who are unhappy about presenting as inclusive, programmes which do not and can not cater for all children at present. In each programme cited in this document only a limited number of children have been included and in most countries some children will remain outside the mainstream system either in special schools or at home. And yet, SCF programmes more closely resemble the inclusive model than the integration model seen in countries with more developed education systems in that the major emphasis is on changing the general classroom. As this document aims to stimulate discussion and inform SCF staff rather than present a formulated policy, the issue of terminology has been left open. The acronym IE has been used throughout, and the title 'Towards Inclusive Education - SCF Integrated Education Programmes', is as near as we can go to resolving the issue at the present time.

Within schools, IE is an approach which aims to develop a child-focus by acknowledging that all children are individuals with different learning needs. Through an IE programme, teaching and learning can become more effective and relevant and meet the needs of all children, not just those with disabilities. Therefore IE will be good for all schools, although all schools may not be good for all children. As a catalyst for change, IE provides not only for school improvement but also for an increased awareness of human rights and a reduction in discrimination.

In the community, IE is a community responsibility requiring collaboration between sectors and extensive participation. Supporting and involving families is central to IE as the family has prime responsibility for the care and education of their children. Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) and other community development programmes offer important support to IE both within schools and beyond. They may also have a direct role to play in providing types of education which are beyond the scope of formal schools, such as helping children with severe disabilities learn basic skills in their own homes.

IE addresses a real need, is a readily understandable concept, and in most countries requires no new major resources, but primarily involves changes in attitudes, behaviour and ways of working. In addition it has the potential to make a very effective starting point to addressing the Rights of the Child in a range of cultures and contexts.

A Brief History of SCF's Involvement in Integrated Education
SCF's involvement in IE is new and as an organisation it has had only a few years of experience in this field. Nevertheless its activities, in the different countries, have encapsulated a wide variety of starting points and ways of working.

The work in China started in 1988 at the invitation of the Anhui Provincial Education Commission, who are responsible for the education of nearly 7 million children in a poor central province. They were new partners for SCF. The project aimed initially to integrate children with learning difficulties into local kindergartens. Starting in one school with 4 children, it extended to a second school in 1990, by which time children from the first school had started to move up to the primary level. This initial period was therefore one of building experience and confidence and providing a training base for later expansion.

During 1993-94 an SCF IE Advisor assisted with the expansion to a further 15 kindergartens - at least one kindergarten in each city or prefecture. In 1995, the kindergarten staff and local administrators began to train others within their prefecture. It is aimed that over the next two years at least 100 integrated kindergartens will be developed, one in each county of the province. Children who have been through the kindergarten programme are now attending primary school and this has been achieved without much input into the primary school system.

The IE programme in Thailand came from a very different background. Thailand SCF had been supporting a wide range of disability projects since 1983. These included homes for disabled children, units for hearing impaired children and a day care centre for mentally disabled children run by Rajanukal Hospital in Bangkok. The day-care centre had such a long waiting list that in 1989 the hospital, decided to approach a local primary school with the aim of starting a special class for special needs children who would then be integrated into mainstream classroom activities. This was extended to a second school in 1990, but the special class model achieved only a low level of integration and required a non-replicably high level of resources.

Real integration began in 1991 with a project run by a local NGO for blind children. After a period of preparation at a Centre, 56 children were returned to their home communities over a 3 year period. During this time they were supported by itinerant teachers from the Centre. After an evaluation in 1994, this project moved on to addressing sustainability and ownership issues by passing responsibility to government in a new project signed with the Ministry of Education (MoE) in 1995.

Another initiative towards IE began with the introduction of the UNESCO Resource Pack on Special Needs in the Classroom in February 1993. At a workshop in Bangkok teacher trainers from a number of colleges throughout the country were introduced to more child-focused teaching methods that would allow teachers to include children with a range of individual needs into their classes. In Thailand this initiative made little progress within the Teacher Training Colleges (TTCs). However, through SCF's lobbying, support and contacts in the Primary Education Department the MoE has taken up the initiative and is now implementing IE in a number of provinces.

Also at the workshop were, participants from Laos and Vietnam who were able to use these approaches and contacts to build further on IE initiatives and thoughts.

IE in Laos grew naturally from an SCF supported primary education project which aims to improve teacher effectiveness through teacher training. Looking at what was happening in classrooms it was recognised that children's individual learning needs were given little attention. Following on from this, a lengthy period of awareness raising (from 1991 onwards), on special needs issues was conducted within the project and MoE. This was backed up with study tours abroad to broaden perceptions of special needs provision. A UNESCO workshop held in October 1993, helped to concretise government commitment and clarify possible approaches. This led to implementation in one pilot school in 1993. Following an evaluation in 1994, an IE advisor was appointed to strengthen the pilot project school and to consider possible ways forward for the MoE. In 1995 six more primary schools and four kindergartens joined the programme.

In Vietnam, work in the area of disability began in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) in 1989, when a SCF consultant began initial investigation and collaboration with local agencies, one of which was the Centre for Research and Education for Disabled Children (CREDC) of the HCMC Department of Education. In 1990, SCF supported some pilot projects of CREDC, such as a resource library, a basic training course for special school teachers, and a scholarship for professional training overseas. In June 1992, a local programme team was set up in HCMC with three project officers, one of whom had responsibility for the disability programme. Since then, training and support activities have developed in three main areas: for a special school for children with learning disabilities run by a Buddhist monk, for local kindergartens piloting integrated education - initially one school in one district, now extended to four schools in two districts, and for a community-based care and support programme for disabled children, initiated by award level People's Committee.

In Lesotho, prior to 1980, special provision for disabled children had been the responsibility of NGOs, churches and individuals. During the Decade of Disabled People (1983-92) disabled people, their parents and their organisations began to demand national educational provision for disabled children. At that time the concepts and language of universal human rights, social justice, solidarity and individual dignity were spreading and gaining support and influence throughout Southern Africa. Lesotho, surrounded as it is by South Africa, was inevitably strongly affected by this. Arising from this it was increasingly recognised that marginalised and vulnerable groups need to participate in change and become empowered to promote their own development. Education is one key to this empowerment.

In 1987 the Lesotho Ministry of Education, funded by USAID, commissioned a study of the needs of disabled children. This initiated the process of policy development and programme planning which has led to the current programme. The report highlighted the fact that the small number of institutions offering specialist care and education worked against traditional care taking within the Basotho extended family, were costly, unable to meet more than a minority of needs and were even detrimental to the child's emotional and psychological needs.

Following the report, the Ministry of Education, Lesotho National Federation of disabled People and SCF (UK) worked together on a special education policy and on developing a plan for its implementation. In 1991 the Special Education Unit in the MoE was founded and SCF seconded an IE Adviser with extensive practical experience to work with the Head of Early Childhood Education Department. Since that time IE has been established in 10 schools.

Planning for IE
As outlined in the previous section, each of the IE projects in which SCF has been involved have arisen in their own way and under their own particular circumstances. In Thailand SCF actively sought opportunities to work in the disabled sector, and so has been involved in both Community Based Rehabilitation and IE. In Laos, IE grew naturally from the existing school improvement work where SCF was already in partnership with the MoE. The project in Anhui, China came about through a remark that SCF might be interested in early childhood development and in disability made to an official in Beijing who then passed it over to Anhui Provincial Education Commission who happened to be discussing similar issues with the same official!

The current world concern with Education for All and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is leading many countries to consider this issue. At the present time, within this region, integration is being discussed in Myanmar and Mongolia and within several Chinese provinces and in the Autonomous Region of Tibet. It is likely that SCF will be approached to discuss such issues in those places where SCF is already working with government departments. In other places IE may present SCF with opportunities to open new relationships with governments. In all countries, SCF advocacy for the CRC should include advocacy for disable children, for their educational rights and those of other disadvantaged groups.

The assumption that partners would primarily be government, or with government but through a national non government organisation, is because only government can consider the issue of Education for All or guarantee Child Rights. Projects suggested in non government schools would need to be considered with great care and are not fully discussed in this paper.

The issues involved in planning for IE projects are laid out under four main topic headings: 'Situation Analysis', 'Starting Points', 'Implementation' and 'Monitoring and Evaluation'. This framework is an adaptation of that used by UNESCO in 'The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education' (1994). Within each topic heading, these issues are discussed in relation to government legislation and policy, government organisation, schools, communities, training and awareness raising and external support and resource requirements. Reference is made to the various country experiences within the region. These are brief as the details are available in the country case studies which follow. At the end of each section a list of guiding principles is given. Some readers might prefer to read the case studies before reading these sections.

Planning for IE - Situation Analysis
A wide range of factors need to be taken into account in order to establish the situation of disadvantaged children and the potential to increase their educational opportunities. Where relevant information is available in-country, related to all disadvantaged groups (children with disabilities by age, gender, disability group) it should be collected although such statistical data may not be reliable. In many situations, however, new surveys will not be a productive way to gain new information as they raise expectations that may not be met immediately by subsequent programming. In addition, whatever methods are used, many of these children will continue to be 'invisible' and only emerge as relevant services are developed. As country situations change rapidly, a situation analysis is an on-going, never completed process.

Government Legislation & Policy
An understanding of existing related legislation and policy is necessary. This includes assessing the strength of international influences, via UN conventions etc., national legislation related to both education and disability, and judging the extent to which they are implemented in-country. SCF policy and experience world-wide are also part of the background knowledge needed.

1. International
Many countries have signed international conventions and treaties. It is necessary to clarify what the country's position is in relation to International Agreements, particularly those related to:

Children: - Convention on the Rights of the Child
Education: - Education for All
Disability: - Such as Asia & Pacific 'Agenda for Action'

The policies and practices of any major international donor involved in-country (UN, DANIDA, etc.) may have a major effect on government. An assessment of the level of influence they exert and whether this would aid or run counter to SCF intervention needs to be made.

2. National
Existing legislation, policy, rules and regulations governing local administration and schools should be looked at, as should the range of formal and informal educational activities engaged in. These may all offer openings or create obstacles.

A particularly important aspect is the perception of IE in the country. It may be seen as an educational, disability or developmental issue or some combination of these or even be such a new concept that it appears to fit in no existing category. Where IE becomes the responsibility of one particular department within the education sector, for example that of primary education, the lines of responsibility are clearer, but in most countries this is not the case. More likely, IE will be seen as something 'special'. In Laos, where IE was seen as a natural extension to primary school improvement, introducing IE was easier.

Another difficult area to investigate is to find out who is responsible for developing policy. It could involve more than one Ministry or Department. If this is the case, it is necessary to go on to judge the relative strengths of each of them and the mechanisms (or lack of mechanisms) used to cooperate in developing policy, allocating budgets and implementing programmes. In Thailand, three different MoE departments work on IE. In India the Ministry of Human Resource Development is responsible which means high levels of cooperation are needed for school based changes.

There may be formal mechanisms for reviewing legislation and guidelines which may involve a level of consultation with consumer groups and NGOs. SCF advocacy may need to be directed quite clearly at whatever power groups are in a position to effect policy changes.

It is probable that there will be a discrepancy between legislation and implementation on the ground. A key question might be whether there is political interest in narrowing this gap.

Centralisation of the decision making process can be useful at certain points in programme implementation. On the other hand, decentralised systems may allow for local experimentation which can then be used to demonstrate new policy to centralised authorities. In China central government makes policy and issues targets, but there is much leeway in how these targets might be reached at provincial level. In Ho Chi Minh City the ability of districts to experiment has been an important factor. In Lesotho policy and planning at national level was the key to the project.

It is probable that existing regulations governing schools actively work against the introduction of IE. One such regulation, common in many countries, is a rigid control of a child's progression through the grades. This is often related to passing the end of year exam. Such regulations will have to be changed in time, but at the start, what is needed is the power to implement experiments which can bypass such systems. A key factor is having potential partners at a sufficiently high level to make such a decision.

Similarly, a budget, albeit a small one, will be needed. An assessment of who has the ability to assign such a budget is needed.

3. SCF's Policy and Experience
SCF's policies and experiences related to education, disability and disadvantaged groups form another strand to the situation as does the regional and country strategy. SCF is currently recognised as a lead INGO by UNESCO. It may be possible to capitalise on this.

Within country, SCF may have key contacts and a level of credibility built up over the years on which to base the work. In confused situations, with several ministries and departments involved. SCF may have a particularly significant role in enabling collaboration and cooperation to develop across hierarchical structures which are unable to build such bridges themselves.

Government Organisation
Understanding key aspects of government's organisation, structure and power bases is helpful.

Who is responsible for providing services for the disabled and other excluded/marginalised children? In Thailand, as mentioned before, three ministers are involved; in Lesotho and Anhui Province, China who has responsibility is clear, so conflicts were minimised; in Laos, initially no Ministry had formal responsibility - both a problem and an opportunity.

What is the internal organisation of the MoE and other concerned ministries? Do departments cooperate with each other? What are their management structures and lines of reporting? Are there plans for change, such as decentralisation? In Vietnam complex management structures mean that it has been difficult to work out who should be approached.

Who is responsible for allocating budgets and controlling spending? This may or may not be the same body as the policy makers.

What level of expertise and skills for children with special needs exist in country, and are they willing to share it? In both Thailand and Lesotho, specialists were not keen to embrace IE, seeing it as a threat to their 'professionalism'.

What is the capacity of the various departments to absorb and implement new ideas? The fact that there were no specialists in Laos did not prevent the IE programme starting as there was considerable capacity and interest to achieve change.

What is Government's attitude and constraints to working with local and international NGO's and semi-government organisations e.g. women's and youth associations? How do they relate to consumer groups and community organisations? In Lesotho, DPOs have been consulted on policy formulation but then the political and social organisation in Lestho is quite different to that in the socialist and communist countries of Asia.

Community Factors 
Within the community, attitudes towards disability, and education will affect programme possibilities. Disabled children may already be in school (but probably failing), hidden at home, working within the family, or loose on the street and neglected. In many countries, children continue to be hidden by their parents. In this situation a survey will not reveal the numbers of children in need. It is not unusual for people to believe that 'There are no disable children here', as was the case when the issue was first raised in Laos.

There may be other community initiatives for the disabled such as Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR). If so, a clear understanding of their resources and influence is needed. Related to this is the level of community activities which involve disabled children and adults.

Community educational initiatives may also prove useful if available. In China many kindergartens have 'Parent School' which have been used to instruct parents in child health and welfare. In Anhui these have been used for initial awareness raising by the kindergartens and have gone on to be transformed into much stronger 'Parents Associations'.

School Factors
Social factors relate to the actual system itself, the role of the school in its community, and the detailed ways of working in school.

1. Systems
The linkages between schools and district, provincial and national MoE structures affect the way the schools actually function and this might differ from the state system or be supplemented by informal relationships. An understanding of the links between schools and other systems (such as health) would help, although much of this information may only gradually emerge.

It should be easier to assess the range of provision for children with special needs in kindergartens, special schools and units, or mainstream primary schools, as this should be a matter of public record. Similarly, discovering general class size, staff student ratios, general resource levels in schools and the level of staff training should not be difficult. Making the best of the situation offered is one of the keys to sustainable programmes. In China, resource levels are low and class size high, but staff student ratios are good. This enabled changes in the way staff were organised to increase teacher involvement with children, without needing to increase staffing levels.

In addition for formal school data, it is useful to consider the actual rate of school attendance by gender age and disability, and the impact of location on attendance rates. The drop out and repeater rates are also important as they indicate both pressure on the population and the appropriateness and quality of the education on offer.

2, The Wider Context
Each school will be seen by the community in a specific way. It may feel to 'belong' to the community, and so be used by community groups, and for non formal educational activities - either locally or centrally organised. If the community feels involved with the school it will be easier to include people in new directions, just as it will be easier if the teacher has a high status and is well regarded. In some situations real ownership of the buildings can cause problems. In Lesotho most are owned by churches and this complicated planning for weekend training sessions.

3. Inside the School
Within the school an assessment needs to be made about all aspects of the education on offer. This includes the classroom organisation, the teaching methodology, the curriculum and its appropriateness. School management structures and the actual quality of management in place are very important. The literature on school improvement highlights school leadership as a key factor. Where managers are open to change and have the confidence of the staff, change is easier.

Real staff working conditions are also important. Teacher wages are often very low leading to the need to supplement their income in some other say. Such teachers may find the additional training and workload very difficult to accomplish whatever their attitudes. In many countries teachers may experience long periods without pay. In China it is not unknown for teachers to be given IOUs for up to six months at a time. Under such conditions morale may be very low and absenteeism the rule rather than the exception.

Introducing new methods may be too difficult if teachers are under very great pressure. Alternatively, such teachers may find change motivating, work extremely hard, and feel self esteem grow as skills and knowledge increase. The Lesotho experience clearly shows that the level of staff motivation enables some schools to make faster progress, regardless of resourcing or staffing levels. In itself, to be part of a new venture can help teachers working under very difficult circumstances to re-assess their worth. Additionally the level of community involvement sought can be supportive for teachers who may have felt no one cared about them or their work.

Assessing local attitudes to working closely with the community is also important as is assessing local access to resources and possible support personnel such as physiotherapists.

Training and Awareness Raising
Awareness raising for policy-makers, planners, administrators, teachers, ancillary staff, community and religious leaders, parents and children are essential pre-requisites to successful IE. Other organisations may already be undertaking such training and this may provide a good opening for SCF.

Existing training opportunities should be investigated. This includes both pre- and in- service courses and in both formal and non-formal sectors. Of particular interest are courses in special needs which may be component of pre-service training, an in-service course or a separate qualification. These elements may or may not form a coherent training system. In Thailand, training on special needs is carried out by Teacher Training Colleges, Primary Education and Special Education departments, all with differing aims and objectives and little cross-fertilisation.

What is the fundamental aims and vision of existing training? Does it focus on difference and 'defective' aspects of individual children, or an understanding that children with special needs are first and foremost children heavily handicapped by society's attitudes, e.g. an understanding of individual/medical and social models of disability? What is the standard of this training? These are vital questions because using existing courses may bolster the attitudes with IE aims to combat. Under these circumstances it will be necessary to devise and run special courses.

It is very unlikely that existing training courses can be used to improve the general standard of teaching methodology. If that were so, no school improvement would be needed as teachers would already be using more child centred methods. Nevertheless seeking good potential trainers working in existing training situations is worthwhile.

External Support and Resource Requirements
Appropriate resources, people and organisations (DPOs. PAs, NGOs. INGOs, donors), and trained and experienced personnel may be available locally, provincially and nationally. If they are insufficient, support within the region might be possible thus avoiding the need for international resources.

Materials may also be available. This includes judging the local capacity to produce and distribute the equipment required, e.g., Braille, mobility aids.

DPOs, NGOs and Mass Organisations have very different ways of working, their potential to be partners relates to whether they are:

adopting charitable or developmental approaches?
service providers or aiming to influence policy?
working for or with persons with disabilities?
child-focused?
sufficiently experienced and have the capacity to become involved in IE initiatives.

In Lesotho, after discussions with adult focused DPOs, the organisation was able to change direction and to focus more on children through the training of parents and teachers.

Finally, the issue of funding will need to be discussed. Educational change is a slow process and commitment may be needed over an extended period of time. IE requires human resource development rather than material resources. Enabling teachers and administrators to learn from experience of others is often expensive. Funding for such activities may look top heavy on personnel costs and thus needs to be carefully explained to potential donors.

Guiding Principles
The initial situation analysis must be planned and well designed. It must address each of the major issues mentioned above in order for a comprehensive and balanced picture to be gained. Nevertheless, it may be that many of the details will be unclear at the start. For this reason and because country situations may change rapidly, the situation analysis should be seen as an ongoing process

An understanding of existing legislation and policy in relation to children, education and disability is necessary.

The government's organisational structure and power bases, particularly in relation to educational provision, including the formal, non-formal sectors and any local, home based educational initiatives are relevant.

Organisational levels (and possibly individual personnel) who are responsible for developing policy, allocating budgets and implementing programmes need to be identified.

Current attitudes towards disability within government, schools, families and communities may help in identifying possible opportunities and potential difficulties.

An assessment should be made on the likely resistance or openness to change at all levels.

The existence or non-existence of government / community / NGO initiatives for the disabled (such as a CBR programme or special schools), needs to be taken into account.

Knowledge of existing appropriate people, organisations (e.g. DPOs and PAs) training agencies and other local resources is useful.

Planning for IE - Starting Points
SCF's experience has shown that it is not possible to pinpoint a 'best possible starting point' but that the choice of starting point can have a far reaching effect on the development impact, commitment of partners and sustainability for IE.

The IE programmes that SCF is involved with have originated from a variety of starting points, from within a primary education project in Laos, from kindergarten in China and Vietnam, from wider disability work in Thailand, from DPOs as in Lesotho. When looking at staring points it is important to consider the following areas:

Government Legislation and Policy
Is change in policy/legislation or the interpretation of it important? Is new policy needed for a project to succeed? In many countries, particularly where SCF is working closely with government, the answer would be 'yes'. For example, in Ho Chi Minh City, although some disabled children were already in mainstream schools unofficially, a DoE circular issued in 1994 to all districts clarified the policy on the acceptance of disabled children. This has increased teachers' awareness of disabled children and, given the appropriate support, increased their willingness to accept them in their class. In Laos, policy relating to examinations determines whether a child progresses from one grade to the next and for those with disabilities progression may not be achieved unless this policy is relaxed.

To bring about a change in policy, there is a need for awareness raising among policy makers. Starting points for this can come from many sectors or from a combination of sectors, for example from NGOs in Thailand, DPOs in Lesotho, INGOs (SCF UK) in Laos, China, Vietnam, from inter-country networking (SCF UK Thailand and SCF UK Laos) from donors, UNESCO's initiative of promoting inclusive education and its Special Needs Resource Pack, as the Lao Case study shows, and so on.

On the other hand it may not be necessary or possible for policy changes to occur at the very start. A successful experiment pilot project may be needed before official policy can be changed. This allows policy makers to carefully consider new directions before making wholesale changes. It may be unrealistic for policy makers to risk changing their regulations before something is attempted under local conditions. In this case, what is needed is the permission to experiment and disregard existing regulations.

Government Organisation
In looking for starting points within government organisations, identifying the sector that can implement an appropriate, affordable, realistic and sustainable programme is vital for a programme's success. Who takes decisions, controls budgets, has the capacity to absorb and implement new ideas? In Laos and china, people within government that have both the commitment and power have facilitated and pushed along the programmes. This has occurred in national level in Laos and at provincial level in China.

However, it may not be immediately clear who these people are, and it may be necessary to begin work, change direction and find new starting points before people with the power to implement are identified. In Thailand, it took many false starts, for example working with the Ministry of Health and the Bangkok Municipal Authority before linkages with key MoE personnel were identified.

Other ministries, partners, NGOs, DPOs, PAs, mass organisations and individuals can be starting points for IE. They also may be the ones that sustain the implementation by the pressure they can bring to bear, for example the DPOs in Lesotho. Promotion and collaboration between ministries and departments can also create a starting point. In Laos, collaboration between the rehabilitation department which falls under Ministry of Health and the MoE has been a key factor in implementation as has the collaboration between the Department of General Education and the Department of Teacher Training within the Ministry.

School Factors
At school level, implementation of IE may start because of a decision from policy makers at the top, or may arise from initiatives from lower down (within or outside formal systems) who through lobbying have been able to influence government to start IE implementation. In Vietnam IE started by building on existing good practice in a school which had already enrolled disabled children, In Laos, awareness raising within the MoE initiated the start of a pilot school, In Thailand, it was convincing people at provincial level who then could persuade the MoE to start a pilot project. Starting points may also arise from work in other sectors, for example CBR programmes.

There is no right type of school to choose when it comes to starting IE. IE programmes have started from all kinds of schools; in special schools in India, in primary school in Laos and Lesotho, in kindergartens in China and Vietnam, in special teaching units in Thailand and in schools outside the MoE umbrella. In all situations, early intervention (working with the youngest age group possible) is recommended, as this has been shown to make success for children and teachers easier to achieve.

The choice of how many schools to include in a pilot project is not fixed, but it must be manageable. In Laos, China and Vietnam IE has started in one school and has then expanded. In Lesotho, several schools were chosen. In Thailand a school cluster unit (one school acting as a resource and training base for a group of 8 to 12 schools) was used.

Before starting IE in a pilot school or in a group of schools programmes have applied a variety of selection criteria. These have included: that the school has the potential for success. that the school is not atypical; that the school reflects a range of attitudes to children with disabilities; that there is one or more motivated individual at a school committed to integration, and that there is evidence of community support and participation within the school. Selection criteria should reflect the actual real situation and so relate directly to the situational analysis.

An understanding is needed of the level and nature of educational opportunities for the general population of children including what percentage of children attend school and whether they have access to full time school or have to attend school in shifts. We need to be clear as to what level of extra help and attention the disabled child can reasonably expect, without this impinging on the rights of other children. In implementing a programme these rights must be protected. Indeed, one aim of any IE programme should be the improvement of the education of all children in the school. Adhering to this principle has been very important and Anhui has, as much as anything, brought changed attitudes to the disabled in the local community. Disabled children are seen as an asset because, as they enter the school the educational services for all children are improved.

If disabled children are given better opportunities than other children many of the problems associated with special school, where special privileges are given the few, may re-emerge; disadvantage is turned into advantage and the disabled child is again seen as not belonging to the community. No amount of local community 'awareness raising' can offset the very real resentment resulting from disability being seen as an avenue to better, rather than, equal opportunities.

These issues are of particular importance during the design and early implementation of programmes when the balance of rights, time allocation, and concern in the classroom must be set. A consideration of this issue must inform the scale of integration attempted at an early stage. If children with very severe problems or older children who have missed early socialisation through being unable to attend school with their peer group or through overprotection or neglect in their family and community are brought into school when teaching skills are underdeveloped it may be impossible for the teacher to reach the necessary balance in the classroom. There is an argument, therefore, for limiting access to those children whose needs are not so difficult to cater for in the early stages of a programme.

Community Factors
Schools and other educational initiatives do not exist in isolation, they are part of the community and before starting IE, it is crucial that the community is informed and has an understanding of IE and how it is a part of whole child, whole school development, which will be beneficial to all children. If aware, communities through their organisation can be the starting point. IE developing out of CBR projects has often arisen in this way. Communities through families, PAs, DPOs, community leaders and others should be actively encouraged to participate not only in the start-up of projects, but to play an active role in their implementation.

SCF through its programmes in the community, can work actively to create awareness of IE and be a catalyst in creating starting points within communities.

Training and Awareness Raising
Who is trained, the type of training given, and who does the training before starting a programme, is dependent on needs and resources available and will vary from country to country.

Who needs to be trained before starting a programme would depend on existing knowledge levels and may involve a wide target audience or a specific one. This audience could include teachers, teacher trainers, children, families, communities, MoE and other ministries, provincial and district educational personnel. In Laos, because there was no knowledge of IE, or provision for children with special needs or disabilities, start-up in schools was dependent on training a large target audience. In other countries, because of existing knowledge and greater awareness the target audience may be narrower.

Who does the training depends on available resources, and may involve the use of specialists or non specialists. Non specialists were initially used in Laos as the programme developed out of a primary education project whose concern was whole school improvement. The preferable choice would be to use local resources wherever possible. Failing this, national or international sources can be drawn on. A starting point within the time frame of a project may be the need for an outside catalyst/facilitator to be brought in to take the project into its next phase.

External Support and Resource Requirements
Adequate resourcing determines the sustainability of a project. If resources are not in place, or can not be assured, there is little chance of project success. Before starting up IE, the minimum resources needed to sustain a determined level of improvement (minimum quality level) during the time frame of the project must be in place. Determining what factors would provide this minimal level would vary from country to county, but would include looking at:-

People resources. Who is available, for example specialists in Brialle or sign language, itinerant teachers, trainers, families, district supervisors, MoE and other ministry personnel, staff from NGOs, DPOs, NGOs, INGOs and so on. What is their level of knowledge and expertise?

Materials, What is available in terms of facilities? Are basic aids and equipment available? Is special equipment, for example Braille machine available?

Financing. Is there a government budget? Are teachers paid incentives? Is there community financing? What funding is available from donors? Who controls and allocates funding?

General development. Is access a problem? Is there adequate infrastructure to support programme development?

Participation. Does it occur? Who participates?

Collaboration. Between whom: donors, NGOs, INGOs, government, school, families, communities and so on?

Guiding Principles
Although a range of starting points can lead to IE, the chosen starting will have a major impact on the way IE develops. In SCF's experience some starting points have been more fruitful than others.

If possible start in the sector that can implement an appropriate, affordable, realistic and sustainable and, ultimately large scale project.

The starting point depends on the situational analysis as the possibilities are so varied. Preferably start small and proceed step by step while more information is gathered and the situational analysis is deepened.

Seek out local opportunities and resources before resorting to outside support. This may mean encouraging collaboration between organisations and sectors which are unused to cooperating in this way.

Early intervention is recommended. Always start with the youngest children possible i.e. at Grade 1 level in the primary school and/or any pre-school services available.

Awareness raising for policy makers is usually needed during the early stages. When the project starts awareness raising with the family and community is essential. Participation of families and the wider society should be encouraged from the start.

Planning for IE - Implementation
Effective implementation requires a flexible approach that is responsive to the changing situation and the gradual accumulation of knowledge and skills. Work cannot just be located within the schools as continued development of administrative structures and community involvement is required. At various points during the implementation phase many of the issues revealed by the situation analysis become clearer.

Government Organisation
Government structures can either support or hinder IE, and one way of ensuring that activities are owned by the MoE or implementing body, is to strengthen supportive structures where these exist, or to set them up where they are absent. In Laos, two years were spent on awareness raising within the MoE prior to initiating IE activities.

It may be helpful for small steering committees to be initiated at each point of implementation, that is, at district and school levels. This increases the sense of ownership and clarifies the roles and responsibilities. In Anhui, school level committees were made up of the principal teacher, local administrators and other local representatives, such as someone from a teacher training college, or health personnel or neighbourhood representatives. As the school gained experience, parents and others joined the committee. Such committees need to have a role, and mechanisms set up for open and regular reporting and monitoring, to enable them to understand what is happening in reality, and so make appropriate decisions, which are responsive to situations encountered.

This system helps to avoid the project becoming dependent on a few key individuals. It can then withstand unavoidable changes in government organisation or in key personnel. The kindergarten IE project in Vietnam is still vulnerable in this respect, in that it is not yet officially recognised by the Department of Education, and should one or two committed staff be transferred, the project could lose momentum.

Implementation needs the support of experienced education personnel, preferably from within the country or region. In Lesotho, that experience was missing in the MoE, so an experienced specialist from Zimbabwe was seconded to work with the staff responsible for implementing IE. The pace at which implementation proceeds depends on the capacity of experienced personnel available to support it, and the planning of expansion and scaling-up must take this into account. In Anhui an SCF adviser was appointed for a two year period, not at the start of the programme, but to help with initial scaling up following a successful pilot school phase. Further scaling-up will now draw on the expertise of the project leaders, local administrators, teachers and parents, which has developed.

The process of passing on skills and experience helps people to reflect on and develop their own practice. This model of support for further project expansion is thus not only cost-effective and sustainable, but is likely to produce better results than more traditional models using outside trainers with extensive expertise who come in for short periods.

Skills from other sectors may also be needed to enable children with physical and sensory impairments to gain access to mainstream schools and will need teachers to learn particular skills of educators that enables integration to take place.

School Factors
In many countries, traditional formal methodologies are used with children of all ages, and the curriculum is often inflexible and rigidly followed. This may be due to limited understanding of the subject areas: in Laos, many teachers are untrained, and some have only received primary education. This lack of experience is a major barrier to developing flexible teaching approaches and it is this situation, as much as any other, that has led to the exclusion of many children. While children with physical disabilities may need improved access to school, involving transport and rehabilitation, blind children may need access to the existing curriculum, children with communication or learning difficulties are often unable to learn in traditional classrooms. The introduction of IE may be a natural result of improving the educational environment, as in Laos, or may provide an opportunity for such improvement to take place, as in Anhui.

Curriculum changes may or may not be possible, but adaptation for individual pupils, and more flexible teaching approaches can make it easier to provide appropriate learning for more pupils. These changes bring benefits to all children, thus dispelling the fear among both parents and teachers that the presence of disabled children in schools will lower standards. This may result in improved teacher status and job satisfaction.

Community Factors
Education for any child is more than just formal schooling. Children from birth onwards learn in a variety of environments - firstly in the home, the neighbourhood, then at school and the wider community. IE encompasses all these different learning environments, and works with families and communities to ensure that children have access to all these learning opportunities, which in the past may have been denied the child because of mistaken concepts about children with disabilities and their learning potential.

In Thailand for example, the importance of the home as a learning environment is recognised for the many blind children who may need intensive teaching in the area of self-help skills and mobility, before they can attend mainstream school. This is a task ideally undertaken by the family in the home, but needs the collaboration and support of a specialist in mobility training. 

For some severely disabled children, formal schooling may not provide education appropriate to their needs, in which case questions need to be asked about what form their education should take, where and by whom this can be best provided. Where a CBR or other community-based programme exists locally, there may be existing networks of support to enable the child to be educated by the family in the home, or in a community centre.

Ensuring active participation by families, DPOs parents' associations and the education service is a priority. It should never be forgotten, however, that the primary responsibility for the child lies with the family, who should therefore be involved at all stages whenever decisions are being made about their child, or about decisions which affect their child.

Getting the right balance of programme 'ownership' between the Education service community groups, local leaders and NGOs is important. How this is resolved depends on each specific context.

Training and Awareness Raising
Awareness-raising needs to encompass all the people involved in IE, both within schools and from the local community - such as families, administrators, community leaders, religious leaders, NGOs, mass organisations, health and social work personnel.

Putting new ideas into practice is a process of change and can only proceed at a pace with which schools and teachers feel comfortable. Teachers need opportunities to try out new ideas, skills and methods learned in the classroom, to find out what works and what are the difficulties, to gain confidence, to adapt ideas and to develop new teaching strategies of their own. This process needs time, and must be monitored and supported in a way that ensures success. On-going training should always take account of teachers' problems in implementation, gaps in understanding and their need to develop further skills.

Training can take a variety of forms. It can be carried out either on site or away from school. It can be multi-disciplinary, and include parents, other professionals, and local community leaders, as in Ho Chi Minh City. It can be for the whole staff of one school, as in Laos, or for selected teachers from several schools as in Lesotho. Organisation of training will depend on selecting the best option to meet the implementation needs. After training the people who have been trained may then be responsible for training and supporting other colleagues, as in Anhui and Lesotho, or to act as resource teachers, as in Thailand.

As IE is largely a practical skill based on positive attitudes, flexible working methods and the ability to analyse situations and solve problems, training must be active and participatory. Creating opportunities for collaboration and the sharing of skills and understanding are important. Teachers in the classroom need to feel supported, that their ideas are listened to, and that their work is given recognition. This support can take a variety of forms:

teachers within schools supporting each other, by team-teaching, by sharing information and skills, by discussing problems and successes;

sharing between schools of information and skills - either in person or via newsletters as in Anhui;

on-the-job support from an external resource teacher/specialist as in Anhui, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam;

seminars or meetings to provide a forum for exchange of ideas and to provide mutual support and encouragement. In Anhui, these annual meetings have been hosted by different schools, which has helped raise the profile of the school in the locality.

It is also important to promote awareness of IE beyond the school, so that families know where to get advice and how to access available services; other professionals clearly understand the common purpose and can be encouraged to network with schools and families; and ideas and attitudes are positively influenced.

The local media can be used to good effect here as can leaflets and posters in clinics and community centres. In Anhui a leaflet giving a short description of the project and contact telephone numbers has been successfully used along with encouraging newspaper and local TV coverage.

External Support and Resource Requirements
As IE aims to provide local access to school for children so as to preserve and build their place in the family and community, no IE programme should see itself as limiting itself to a few chosen schools. Even where a pilot project is used to gain experience it should set a pattern for possible development throughout an educational service. This has implications for the nature and extent of external resources used, both material and human.

It is likely that some additional external resources will be needed, most likely in the form of an adviser/trainer with practical experience. Their primary task, however, will be to build a team of trainers and administrators within the education service who can continue the work without external help.

Training for teachers must be conducted in a cost effective way, although initially, higher resource levels may be needed. In Anhui teachers and administrators took short study tours to Hong Kong where practical training in schools was available. This was not sustainable, but it has enabled those early schools to become training centres within the province and when scaling up started all training could take place locally using existing teaching staff, programme leadership within APEC and one external adviser. In the third stage it was possible to withdraw the external adviser.

Material help for schools must be kept to a minimum if a replicable model is to emerge. This may include declining the use of imported teaching material or equipment and training teachers to make appropriate teaching equipment from junk (where available) and other local materials.

Mobilising families and the local community is cost effective and contributes to the changing attitudes which are required. In Anhui the child's family provides the basic support system that will enable the child to continue through the primary school and other parents in the school are making a growing contribution by collecting junk materials and helping with toy production. In Vietnam, local volunteer groups of retired people with an interest in children and time on their hands are proving to be a valuable resource.

Existing government programmes, such as health checks, nutrition programmes, CBR programmes and so on should be used to the full although difficulties can occur if disability is viewed in quite a different way: for example a very common medical view is that of disability being seen as something which cannot be 'cured' and so should be merely accepted, without any effort being made to improve the situation for the child through education and training.

Problems can also arise from the perceptions of external donors. This has led in the past to projects which cannot possibly be replicated. If at all possible, the addition of equipment and materials from outside and beyond the capacity of the national educational budget should be avoided. Occasionally donors offer very large sums towards the setting up of segregated institutions such as residential homes. It may be very difficult for governments to refuse such offers. SCF can have a real impact in helping governments to refuse such 'help'.

Ultimately projects must be accountable to both local and national education personnel and to the local community. Monitoring systems are needed and should be built into programme design. These should fit with local and national needs and may be quite different to the monitoring systems of external donors such as SCF. In Anhui for instance, IE is now part of the provincial 'inspection process' and successful implementation leads to the upgrading of the school and of the teachers involved. Every school in the programme is also required to produce and annual report detailing its work.

Guiding Principles
Success is not dependent on a large budget. A minimum level of resources should be used to sustain a determined level of development.

Implementation needs the support of experienced education personnel. This may be the one resource unavailable locally at the start. Enabling local educational personnel to build a body of experience should may be a primary aim of SCF involvement.

Putting new ideas into practice is a process of change which can only proceed at a pace which people feel comfortable with. Patience may be necessary.

Change can feel threatening. Support systems for families, teachers and schools are needed.

IE must bring benefits for all children not just disabled children. School improvement may be the result of the introduction of IE, or provide the opportunity for IE to happen, but whichever route is taken, school improvement must take place.

Building the capacity of key partners is essential.

Strengthening the family is important. Organisations responsible for implementation must ensure that each family and school share a sense of ownership and responsibility.

Planning for IE - Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact
Introduction
An important monitoring and evaluation principle is to ensure that lessons are learnt and fed back into the programmes. Other important purposes are to help in policy development, to find ways of approaching problems and for advocacy and influencing.

'Monitoring is the systematic and continuous assessment of the progress of a piece of work over time and is an important component of implementation, while evaluation is the assessment at one point in time of the impact of a piece of work and the extent to which stated objectives have been achieved.' (SCF Toolkits, 1994).

The selection of relevant information, the way it is collected, analysed and used; and who is involved at different stages will vary according to the type and purpose of the monitoring system, and the size and structure of the programme.

Monitoring of some kind is always essential. Monitoring systems should include information about process (use of inputs, progress of activities and the way they are carried out) and impact (progress towards achieving objectives). The country examples of monitoring in IE activities are mainly related to programme monitoring but include reference to both process and impact.

Indicators are ways of showing that progress has been made, that something has happened, or that an objective has been achieved. Examples are school attendance of disabled children, level of satisfaction with schooling by families with a disabled child. Some indicators are quantitative and can be measured using figures. Some are qualitative, and need to be measured using qualitative questions. Both types of indicators are referred to in the country examples.

Operation research and feasibility studies are also other important ways one can know more about the situation of IE, such as indigenous care, family-based education of disabled children, coping strategies.

A considerable amount of documentation will occur as a result of monitoring and evaluation systems. Systems will have to be developed to address who is responsible for coordinating this crucial information function. This is necessary to ensure that the decisions are taken on which are the key IE programme areas which need to be monitored and evaluated, and how will the information be analysed and utilised.

Numerous references were made in the above section on activities which will need to be monitored or evaluated, for example, attitudes towards disability and schooling in families, communities and teachers (situation analysis), the pace of putting new ideas into practice (implementation). Those points will not be repeated here but they should be kept in mind throughout this section.

Government Legislation and Policy
The international agreements, legislation and policy cited in the Situation Analysis should be monitored. For instance, does a disability act exist and how child-oriented is it? The government rapport on the Convention on the Rights of the Child offers another important opportunity to monitor government action. In some countries such as the Philippines, national NGOs submitted an alternative report on the CRC which included how the government was meeting those sections of the CRC which are particularly concerned with disability and IE, e.g., (Article 28, 29: The right to education, 39, 23: The right to physical and psychological rehabilitation and social integration, 23: The right to a full and decent life that promotes self-reliance and facilitates the child's active participation in the community).

DPOs and SCF should try to ensure that government policy respects the rights of disabled persons and children. This type of collaboration has occurred in Lesotho.

Government Organisation
The extent of involvement of different sectors and levels within government organisations in monitoring and evaluating IE programmes is an important indicator of performance for government organisations. Do those government departments responsible for supporting IE activities take the programme seriously, do they care if the programme succeeds? Positive examples where there is commitment, for programme success are Anhui, and Laos. In Laos, for instance, there was active involvement and senior Ministry of Education personnel as evidenced by their full participation in awareness raising and training sessions. Moreover, implementation is continually monitored by MoE district prefecture teacher trainers in Laos.

Another important indicator is the organisational changes and decisions that support IE. There are numerous country examples of these changes.

changes which have occurred in the school grading system in Anhui
government circular allowing integration in Vietnam
staff given administrative responsibilities in Anhui
committees established with responsibility for decision-making and implementing IE in Anhui and Laos
Primary Education Department in Thailand taking on responsibility for IE for the blind

The extent to which government organisations are responsive to the changing needs of disabled children is another important factor to be monitored. This can be assessed by identifying the changes that have come about in the past few years, for instance, in relation to resources allocation.

The impact of IE programmes on other levels, sectors, provinces can be judged by the increased interest, visits, and requests for information. This has happened in Anhui and Laos.

School Factors
Monitoring systems for assessing changes in schools can incorporate some of the following aspects:

keeping records of childrens' progress (assessing children) as in Lesotho
internal/external management system as in Laos and Anhui
assessment for children before and after enrolment in school as in Vietnam
records of teaching plans and activities as in Anhui
annual reports by head teachers and local administrators as Anhui and Lesotho 
accounts by parents of the effect of IE on their children

Some of the key indicators which can be incorporated into monitoring systems and which should be evaluated in regard to school factors would be:

socialisation of children in school and in society
reduction in repetition and dropout rates
changes in childrens' and teachers' knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour
change in community relations, participation, support for IE
change in school policy acknowledging pupil diversity
changes in the school organisation structure to support IE programmes 
learning improvement supported

The value of carrying out on-going monitoring and undertaking evaluations of IE programmes can be demonstrated by various country examples. In Thailand an evaluation study showed that the itinerant teacher model was unsustainable and unreplicable, and the next phase of the programme will now not include that element. In Lesotho the training programme was modified in response to the findings of the feasibility study. In Anhui experience at pilot project stage led to redesigning more cost effective training, increasing the ongoing support available and slowing the development of IE in new schools so as to give time for skills to develop and confidence to be built up.

Community Factors
A key factor which needs to be assessed is the roles the disabled children, disabled adults, families, community organisations, and consumer groups play in assessing needs, planning, implementing and monitoring the IE work. Another essential factor to monitor is the changes in attitudes towards the disabled and schooling by families, communities and teachers.

There are a variety of important indicators for assessing community-level involvement in IE programmes and its overall impact. These can be grouped into a few headings:

1. Ways of Working
community organisations, consumer groups become more child-focus and developmental in their approach

2. Quantitative Indicators
increase number of disable children who are attending school
DPOs are involved in family and teacher training
increased number of community initiatives for the disable as part of CBR programmes
increased level of community resources which are use for activities involving disabled persons

3. Process Indicators
more community ownership of the IE activities
participation of families, disabled children DPOs, PAs, community leaders in assessing needs, planning IE activities, and being actively involved in their implementation, and monitoring and evaluation systems
increase level of participation of disabled persons and disable children in community activities
increased awareness of community level groups and key individuals in IE approach
increased support of government for community participation

4. SCF Programmes
level of integration of IE activities into appropriate SCF and partner programmes

Training and Awareness Raising
The programme goals of training should be to achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum input, i.e. be cost-effective. Training for IE can encompass a variety of target groups as identified in the above section on implementation.

It is essential that training be monitored and evaluated within the context of the whole programme. Monitoring systems need to assess the impact of the training, but, equally important, is the influence of indirect aspects of the programme such as the technical support service, provision of a minimum level of materials, teachers salaries being paid on time.

Monitoring systems or approaches can include regular meetings which help teachers review IE strengths and weaknesses and identify what changes are needed. This has proven to be effective in Vietnam and Laos and Anhui. Also in Laos classroom monitoring is done in order to assess the impact of pre-service and in-service training.

Key indicators for training programmes are:

changing attitudes, knowledge and skills
changing classroom practices
recognition by teachers of their own training needs
changing parent behaviour and attitudes

A key impact of the IE programme, and particularly in relation to training aspects of the programme, is that teachers become better teachers of all children so it is insufficient to merely monitor the special education aspect.

External Support and Resource Requirements
Any IE programme needs to be sustainable, affordable, and effective. In relation to the influence of external support and resource requirements, this can be judged by indicators such as:

growth in the resource and support base, such as more donor involvement in the disability and IE area
increased government budget, both allocated and utilised
increased community input, involvement and participation
more direct benefits to children

Dissemination of expertise is another important factor which can be assessed by how extensively professionals and specialists share power, knowledge and skills.

Reporting procedures can be another way of regularly monitoring the programme, for instance, the reporting/monitoring procedures required by internal management and donor agencies.

Guiding Principles
Monitoring and evaluation must feed the lessons learnt back into the programme

Further Reading
Ainscow M (Ed): (1991) Effective Schools for All: Fulton.
Coleridge P: (1993) Disability, Liberations and Development: Oxfam.
SCF: (1994) Children, Disability and Development - Conference Report.
UNESCO: (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.
UNESCO: (1994) Special Needs in the Classroom - Resource Pack

Case Study - Anhui Province, China
Introduction of Integrated Education for Disabled Children

1. Background - Educational Situation for Disabled Children in China
Access to school for disabled Chinese children is still very limited. There are some special schools catering for a minority of pupils and some special classes attached to primary schools also exist. The special education system has many more facilities for those with sensory impairment despite the fact that, in numerical terms, mental disability is the greater problem.

Anhui Province is a poor province in Central China coming low on all development indicators. The population is around 56 million and the 1987 estimates of the number of children with mental disabilities were 236,000 (age 0-14). Very few of these children have had any access to education. In 1987 Anhui Province had a few special schools for sensory impaired children and had experimented with special classes attached to local primary schools for some children with mental disabilities.

The project came about by the coming together of SCF and Anhui Provincial Education Commission (APEC) through a third party in Beijing. SCF had expressed interest in early childhood development (ECD), pre-schools and disability; APEC was concerned about new legislation requiring provincial education commissions to work toward 'Education for all' which included making provision for disabled children. Their own research had suggested that integration might be a way forward, reducing the need for special schools and taking their existing experiment with special classes in primary schools further forward. APEC also felt that early intervention might make work easier, and so were interested in starting in kindergartens, although the ultimate goal was the primary sector to which the law on compulsory education applied.

Very early in the project, APEC concluded that the introduction of integration could be used as a catalyst for improvement of kindergarten curricula and methodology and thus benefit all children.

During this time SCF had no staff resident in Anhui. Contact was maintained through visits by the China Programme Officer (CPO) and Field Director and through visits of APEC staff and kindergarten and local education commission staff to Hong Kong. The form of the work and the training and support needed by the pilot school was very much decided and carried out by APEC. SCF was able to introduce important new aspects into the programme, such as working with the families and involving the community.

2. Pilot Project phase - 1988 - 1992
Integrated Education (IE) began with the development of one kindergarten in a rural town and this was joined by a second kindergarten in a city in 1990. Changes were brought about in the general teaching methodology moving from a formal teaching system to one in which learning was based on play, and small group activities. Special programmes were instituted for the children with special needs which included short daily one-to-one sessions, close cooperation with the family and access to all normal kindergarten activities. As it was impossible for teachers to learn the practical skills needed in China, (as there was no model to see), small groups of teachers and administrators spent short periods in Hong Kong working alongside teachers in the integrated kindergartens run by the Salvation Army. This proved very effective in bringing about change. In addition APEC organised and ran some training for staff and families within the province.

SCF helped finance the Hong Kong training and provided some other limited assistance. SCF also arranged some visits and backup help for the Elementary Division of APEC. There was a great need for toys and educational equipment. These have all come from the efforts of the schools using mostly natural and junk materials.

3. Scaling Up Phase - 1993 Onwards
By 1992 APEC felt that sufficient experience had been gained to justify the first stage of scaling up. It was felt that the IE programme was proving to be a benefit for all children, able to provide a good start for children with special needs and to enable integration in the primary school, and to be cheap and relatively easy to accomplish. However a system was needed that did not rely on Hong Kong and would be replicable many times so that all 1800 kindergartens in the province would eventually be integrated. To accomplish this APEC requested the help of an adviser to help them for two years through the initial scaling up period.

Programme for new kindergarten joining the project in 1993-1994
Each kindergarten received training for a principal teacher and up to two classroom teachers in June. By September the school was required to have instituted the new teaching methods based on play and small group work and have recruited up to 2 children with disabilities (preferably aged 3 to 4) into, at least, one class. The schools were instructed to take only those children with mild/moderate disabilities as it was felt that they would not have the skills to educate those with more severe disabilities at this time. Special programmes for each child and work with families were to be started immediately.

The schools were expected to explain the programme to the parents of all children in the school and establish a small committee which included families, teachers, and local leaders and resource persons. They were also required to begin training all their staff in the new methods and spread the new methods to other classrooms as soon as they felt able. By the following year the two children should move up into the next year group and more children recruited. Within 3 years, each school is expected to have transformed the teaching method throughout the school and be admitting disabled children of an appropriate age, into their classes for the youngest children each year.. At this point, the local primary school should be able to continue with the children having gained a good grounding and having a support system from the family in place. Each kindergarten will liaise with their local primary school to ensure that the children make a smooth transition into primary education.

The scaling up was accomplished by using short initial training courses, monitoring and supervision visits, annual seminars and a newsletter. Most of the training has been conducted by APEC personnel and it has all been sited within kindergartens themselves. An important element has been the involvement of teachers in the training of colleagues through newsletter contributions, the holding of seminars and training sessions and the giving of demonstration lessons. Within each school the principal teacher and the few classroom teachers who have attended training courses have has the responsibility to spread the new methods throughout their own kindergarten.

Using this methodology fifteen more kindergartens successfully joined the programme between 1993 and 1994. They were chosen so that there would be at least one in each city and prefecture across the province which would be able to support counties within their administrative district at the next level of expansion. This has already started and during 1995 the number rose to 49. By 1997 every county will have at least one kindergarten.

4. Results
Most kindergartens have instituted the new teaching methods throughout the school, leading to much improved education for all the children. This has laid to rest any fears of families and the community about the policy, and the project kindergartens are heavily oversubscribed as ordinary families see the benefits for their children in terms of confidence development.

In terms of numbers of places it is, of course, a mere drop in the ocean. nevertheless, it looks as though the transformation of the whole sector will be possible in the not too distant future. Those children who have completed kindergarten and moved onto primary school are generally doing all right with only small changes being necessary in the primary school. This is fortunate as to transform the primary school system would be very difficult. Many primary schools are so overcrowded (70 children per class is not unusual) that introducing new less formal teaching would be difficult. With the grounding gained in the most children with mild or moderate disabilities to continue to make progress with just some preferential help from the teacher, small amounts of individual help at break times, some peer group help and continued collaboration between the school and the family.

Although the programme was initially directed at children with mental disabilities it now includes other children as the techniques needed are not dissimilar (for example, individual programmes, cooperation with the family etc.). Whether it would be possible to provide for children with severe disabilities remains a matter of concern for APEC.

This programme is now causing interest in other Chinese provinces and it is likely that the model will be adopted elsewhere.

5. Factors in the Development of Anhui Province Integrated Education Programme

The success of the project relates to the fact that the programme was suited to the Chinese situation, answered a real and pressing need and was simple and cheap to put into practice.

The Strength of Government Organisations (GO) in China
China has strong government organisations able to make decisions and carry them out. Although budgets are very low and personnel often under pressure it is nevertheless possible for Provincial Education Commissions to decide on policy, to assign staff and carry forward plans. In this sense, well planned projects which are in line with national policy have every chance of sustainability if inaugurated by government organisations with the right level of power and influence.

Working with the growing number of private institutions or government bodies with insufficient power would not have proved so fruitful. At present China has no independent NGO's. Even when these develop, it seems unlikely that they would provide such broad opportunities for development as GOs.

In other countries local NGOs have been important but in the field of education it seems likely that working through GOs may be the key. No NGO can undertake the responsibility to educate all children. Within disability work, NGOs have provided limited access to some children. This is usually selective, segregated, and high cost. If disabled children are to truly have access to education then only governments can supply this.

Access to education is also a 'rights' issue. Only governments can guarantee rights. It is also on the agenda at the present time as a result of international agreements. If the 'right to education' excludes disabled children and the promises of 'education for all' are considered met without access for the disabled a great opportunity will have been lost. This could happen if governments can see no way of providing access because it is seen as a very expensive and difficult thing to achieve. SCF (and other NGOs) have a real role in placing this issue before governments, showing relatively simple and cheap ways of accomplishing it and helping with technical assistance at key points.

Project Ownership
Development work acknowledges the need for partners to 'own' the project. This has been very strongly felt within Anhui. That ownership has been clear from the start. It has been bolstered by:

going at the pace APEC felt comfortable.

following agreement between SCF and APEC on principles and broad plans, decision making was left firmly in the hands of APEC with SCF playing an advisory role.

the lack of SCF employed local staff and the concentration of all training opportunities on APEC staff. Thus the 'human resource development' (HRD) effort went directly into strengthening APEC rather than indirectly into SCF employed local staff. This may, or may not, be feasible in other situations. For long term development of GOs in China it might be important to work in this way as there is no route back into government systems by staff who have worked outside the government so that with the end of direct SCF input all effort on HRD with local staff would be lost to the project.

using an adviser for only the key scaling point and being sensitive to the needs and concerns of GOs. This entails keeping a low profile, accepting many limitations on access and activities, behaving as a paid consultant rather than an independent person, being patient and understanding, and accepting that the GO has other important responsibilities. If SCF cannot work in this way then it is not possible to work with GOs particularly in countries with strong governments such as China. This may cause problems for organisations such as SCF as the needs of fund raising may clash with this need for quiet self effacement and long term relationships.

understanding that within each district and school there is also a need for sense of ownership. The responsibility for the spread of the work within each school, the requirement for each school to solve some of the problems themselves (for example, devising recording systems) as well as following some clear guidelines, and the encouragement to contribute oral and written material in seminars and newsletters have all helped in the process of identification with the project and ownership of the work.

Scaling Up - Clear Methodology
While still giving schools time to introduce change, the development of the second tier of kindergartens has been much faster than for the two pilot kindergartens. The experience of the pilot kindergartens had allowed time for APEC to clarify the essential elements that were needed and thus make training and ongoing support more effective. It was possible to devise a programme for the new schools which gave very clear guidelines as well as measure of independence. This meant that training time could be minimised and that schools could clearly see for themselves whether the guidelines were being followed.

Also, the two pilot schools were able to take over some of the training functions of the Hong Kong kindergartens but in a more effective manner as conditions and expectations were shared. Indeed, many new teachers on the programme were able to quickly assume training roles for teachers within their own schools and for other schools through contributions to the newsletter, and links with other kindergartens which were encouraged by APEC.

Early Intervention
This project testifies to the importance of early intervention. Compared with IE programmes in primary schools, everything has been easier. This is particularly striking when looking at those children who have moved onto primary school where the majority have continued to make good progress, to work alongside others, to pass the tests with minimal extra help and without major changes in the primary school.

Early intervention:

prevents children suffering developmental delay in addition to the primary handicap
enables the family to assume shared responsibility with the school
allows the child to receive a lot of help on social and independence skills at a 'natural time' for such learning
allows for easy acceptance by other children who then remain friends throughout childhood leading to social acceptance and greater integration into society.

During the life of the project early intervention has assumed greater importance and schools are endeavouring to recruit all children at 3-4 years of age. This allows the child to complete 3 years at the kindergarten and be educated with her peer group.

In the development of services a policy of early intervention allows education authorities to work first of all in a sector which is often more open to change, less rigid and less controlled be examinations, detailed curricular and inflexible regulations.

School Improvement
IE can either follow school improvement or be a catalyst for school improvement, but it cannot be just grafted on to highly structured formal teaching methods. Using IE as means to change school has the advantage of avoiding the need for overt criticism or current practice at the early stages. Change can be presented as need to accommodate the new circumstances. This ensures the process of change is less threatening to all involved.

Despite much general prejudice against those with disabilities and thus some initial concern from many families of 'ordinary' children about the admission of those with special needs, the fact that education of all children is improved by the use of new methods has brought about a great change in public opinion. Children with special needs have been seen to bring about benefits for all. Discrimination and prejudice are difficult to counter but, when schools and classes with disabled children in them become the most sought after situations for children this can only help in reducing discrimination in the community. In this way school improvement, rather than propaganda, becomes a vehicle for changing attitudes.

Other Sectors
The major problem that has occurred in the programme has been the inability to cross the divide between the health and education sectors. The very different attitude towards disability which is bolstered by quite different concerns and methods of working has proved to be unassailable. This continues to be a problem.

On the other hand, there have been no inter-division problems. Co-operation from the small education sector has been good. During the life of the project, reorganisation of responsibilities in APEC has helped to avoid any such problems as the responsibility for basic education, special education and pre-schools have all come under the same director. This has helped ensure the transfer of children through the system and is enabling the gradual introduction of new regulations which support integration.

Case Study - SCF Laos 

Integrated Education Incountry Experience 1992-1995 

1. Situation of Education for Children with Special Needs Prior to the Start of SCF's Work on Integrated Education 

No special provision for children with disabilities was available. In September 1992, a school for the deaf catering for 30 pupils (present numbers), was opened at the National Rehabilitation Centre located in the capital Vientiane. A school for the blind (17 pupils) on the same site was opened in 1993. 



2. SCF's Starting Point in Laos 
SCF's involvement in Integrated Education came about through the programme's primary education project, which aims to upgrade teacher effectiveness in primary schools through the reform and development of pre-service and in-service teacher training.

The major focus of the primary education project was to develop a one year pre-service teacher training course for students who had had eleven years of formal education. It was decided to develop a course that would be as practical as possible, concentrating on teaching skills and methodologies that related to the different stages of a child's development. Emphasis was placed on what was happening in the classroom, how children were or were not learning, and whether the teaching methodologies being used were effective. Learning to see what was happening in the classroom was seen as being the key to improving practice and to the development of the training programme.

The most striking factor to emerge from classroom observations was that children's individual learning needs were given scant attention. Assessment was found to occur infrequently, and when it did take place it was invariably normative. Little evidence of formative or diagnostic assessment was seen. Arising from these observations, debate on children's learning needs and on helping children with learning difficulties developed.

It was these discussions at the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992, which in effect marked the beginning of SCF's involvement in Integrated Education. Throughout the development of SCF's Integrated Education work in Laos, it has been seen as being an integral component in meeting the aims of the primary education project of whole school improvement and the provision of effective education for all.

3. Development of Integrated Education in Laos 
In the development of the project since 1992, two distinct phases can be recognised: An awareness raising/preparation phase, and an implementation/pilot stage.

Awareness raising/preparation phase 
Initial situational analysis revealed that few of the people working with the primary education project had any perception of special needs or integrated education, or how the learning difficulties of children with special needs could be addressed. To remedy this, what followed over the next two years, was a process of awareness raising within the primary education project and the Ministry.

A visit to Laos in early 1992 by the SCF Regional Disability Advisor helped to focus senior officials at the Ministry of Education on disability issues within education, and how strategies could be developed for implementing educational provision for children with special needs. Further awareness raising opportunities were provided. Study tours to the UK, Thailand, Japan, Indonesia and Australia contained special needs components or concentrated on special needs provision in the countries visited. These visits helped to broaden people's perceptions and inform them of what approaches were being used elsewhere to provide education for those with special needs. SCF regional workshops provided additional input.

Participation in the UNESCO workshop in Thailand introducing the UNESCO Resource Pack in January 1993, and in the UNESCO Regional Seminar on Planning and Organisation of Education for Children with Special Needs held in Harbin China in February 1993 provided further exposure. This exposure and the government's wish to fulfil its obligations under the treaty on the Rights of the Child accelerated the need for action. After the Harbin meeting, a joint working party (Project Board) drawn from the Ministry of Education and the National Rehabilitation Centre was formed with the mandate to develop strategies for special needs education within the country. With the help of SCF's Field Director in Thailand (formally the Regional Disability Advisor), funds were secured from UNESCO for and incountry workshop to introduce the UNESCO Resource Pack. The working party decided that this workshop would be an ideal time to initiate the start of a pilot school for integrated education. Having been involved in much of the awareness raising for integrated education as an approach to special education needs provision in Laos, SCF was asked to provide technical and financial support for the pilot programme.

Implementation/pilot stage 
The setting up of the pilot school marked the beginning of the implementation stage. The pilot school (Saphanthong Neua) was selected by the Ministry on the basis of it having a good administrative structure, an active parent/teacher association and the fact that three children with special needs were already attending the school. In its first year the school admitted 12 pupils with special needs, at present the number has risen to 22.

The aims of the pilot project were to: ascertain the feasibility of integrated education in Lao primary schools; mobilise the support of decision makers, communities and families, in order to make the education system more responsive to the needs of all children, including those with special needs. More specifically, its objectives were to improve the teaching skills of primary teachers in order to provide an effective learning environment for children with special needs and to adapt curricula, testing systems and other regulations which prevent successful learning.

Since the pilot school started in September 1993 a number of training courses for teachers, teacher trainers and for Ministry, district and provincial officials have been held at the school. All the teachers attended a three week training course in Chiang Mai, Thailand in February 1994, and in December 1994, the Director of UNESCO's Special Needs in the Classroom Resource Pack conducted a seminar on school improvement at the school. These training courses were also supplemented with additional classroom support and the progress of the school was monitored on a regular basis. As there was no special needs expertise available in the country, the training endeavoured to de-emphasise the `special' in special needs, concentrating rather on how teaching and classrooms could be organised in order to meet the needs of all pupils. An evaluation in May 1994 by the Project Board indicated that good progress had been made. However, there were still some feelings of insecurity amongst the teachers. To counter this and to take the project forward, and Integrated Education Advisor was appointed to work with the project, taking up the post in February 1995.

4. Situation Now for the Education of Children With Special Needs
Following an assessment by the Integrated Education Advisor and from previous monitoring and evaluation evidence, it was clear that Lao schools could provide education for children with special needs providing there was sufficient training and support. It was therefore recommended that the project be extended. Education for children with special needs was on the Government's and the Ministry's agenda and was supported by them, this support being manifested in plans to change the policy and regulations governing schools in order to end discrimination against children with disabilities. The pilot project school had had considerable success with many children although it had been difficult for newly trained teachers to successfully implement programmes for some children. These tended to be children with more severe disabilities and those entering primary school very late without any previous education or training. Such children may have additional problems due to their social isolation and the neglect of their development during early years.

Discussions took place about how IE could be taken forward and introduced in several schools. A replicable model was needed which did not need extensive external training and relied, instead on the growing skills of the small implementation group made up of MoE staff and teacher trainers. Methods of supporting schools new to IE were needed as was time for schools to increase skills gradually.

The chosen model included the following aspects:

using the small but effective kindergarten system so as to allow many children to benefit from early intervention before entering primary school 

limiting entry to primary schools to grade 1 and 2 and to age appropriate children. This would reduce the level of initial training needed, give schools more time to increase skills, avoid teachers being faced with very difficult situations early on when skill levels were just developing, and give each child the best chance of success

limiting entry, at first, to children with less severe disabilities 

admitting on to the programme older children, who had repeatedly failed and had to repeat grades

implementing the programme as part of a whole school development initiative 

Two centres were chosen for the extension of the project: Vientiane and the southern province of Savanakhett. Both locations had the advantage of a rehabilitation centre which can offer advice and support to schools. Before opening the programmes in new schools short training courses were held for local administrators, headteachers, kindergarten teachers and teachers from Grade 1 and 2 of the primary schools. In September 1995 six primary schools and four kindergartens recruited disabled children. Support for these schools continues at the present time and early indications are that the programme is progressing smoothly.

5. Key Factors in Programme Development 
In the development of integrated education in the Lao PDR since 1992, a variety of factors, both internal and external, can be identified as having been significant in programme development. These include: government policy; UNESCO's initiative in special needs education within the region; regional support by the Save the Children Fund; other Save the Children education programmes within Laos; lack of conflicting interests within special needs education within Laos; external support in terms of professional expertise; easy access to decision makers within the Ministry of Education; programme costs; early intervention; ways of working and sustainability.

Government policy 
The Ministry of Education's implementation of the government's policy of compulsory education in pursuit of 'Education for All' has provided a foundation and impetus for the introduction of the integrated education programme. This policy has cleared the way for the entry of children with special needs into mainstream schools, and recognises that curricula, teaching and organisational changes may need to occur within the system to accommodate the different needs of children.

In addition, the implementation of the policy has created a `climate of change' within the country with regards to education. This `climate of change' is a major motivating factor throughout the education system. People are expecting change and want to participate in the changes occurring, and this works to the advantage of new approaches such as integrated education. 



The UNESCO initiative 
Being able to participate in UNESCO's regional initiative to promote integrated education through its 'Teacher Education Resource Pack for Special Needs in the Classroom', has been important in several ways. First, it has legitimised and given status to the project's ways of working. The methods advocated in the Resource Pack mirrored approaches that were already being implemented in Save the Children's primary and pre-school programmes. Secondly, it internationalised the programme, providing Ministry of Education personnel with the opportunity to observe the provision of education for children with special needs in other countries as well as giving them access to networks that previously they had no participation in. Thirdly, it provided the funding for a high profile initial training course opened by the vice-minister of education, which marked the beginning of the implementation phase.

Other Save the Children programmes within Laos 
Save the Children's other programmes in pre-school and primary education, which concentrate on child-centred approaches to teaching and whole school development, have provided the framework on which the integrated education programme has been built. Integrated education was to some extent already being enacted in both programmes, although it was not specifically defined as such. Both decision makers at the Ministry of Education and practitioners (teachers and teacher trainers) were already comfortable with changes in practice that were taking place, and the concept of integrated education, based as it was on these approaches, posed no threat.

Support from Save the Children's Regional Office, Bangkok, and Save the Children's regional work in integrated education 

As mentioned earlier in the section on programme development, Save the Children's Regional Office in Bangkok has played an important role in both phases of the programme's development. The start of the programme can be traced back to a country visit by the Regional Disability Advisor in 1992, and much of the early development of the programme was dependent on the support of the Regional Office and other Save the Children programmes within the region (in Thailand, Vietnam and China), as were the initial links with UNESCO.

Lack of conflicting interests 
As mentioned earlier in the report, there is only very limited provision for children with special needs in Laos. Because of this, there has been no opposition to integrated education from professionals who have their own vested interests in keeping special educational needs separate. Nor has there been any conflict between the education and health sectors as to who should control educational provision for special needs. Co-operation between both sectors has been good, and has been an important factor in programme development. The steering group set up to supervise the implementation of the programme contains members from both sectors, and both are mutually supportive.

Early intervention 
Experience from the pilot school of the entry of children at different age levels (most of whom have never been to school before) has revealed difficulties for teachers new to integration. Early intervention is recommended, and the programme is resolving these difficulties by bringing children with special needs into education at the earliest possible age through the kindergarten programme.

Professional expertise - external support
Laos has very limited technical expertise in special needs education. As a consequence, the time frame for the development of a sustainable programme may take longer than in countries where there is established special needs provision. Because of this, until local skills can be developed, technical input from outside has been and will remain essential if integrated education is to succeed.

Involvement of decision makers 
Involvement of decision makers in the Ministry of Education and their close support and supervision of the programme from the beginning has meant that implementation has gone forward with the minimum of fuss. Having this involvement also means that practice can more easily influence policy, and programme adjustment is more easily achieved.

Costs 
Where resources for education are limited, integrated education is the most cost-effective approach in providing education for children with special needs. Initial costs have been moderate, and although costs may increase over the coming years due to the training required to establish a local cadre of expertise and the initial expansion of the project, future costs should be within the ministry's budget.

Ways of working 
Perhaps the most important factor in the programme's progress has been the ways of working within the programme. Decision making has always been through consultation, and all parties affected by the project (education and health officials, teacher, trainers, parents, children and local communities) have been involved. Because everyone is aware of the developments and has a chance to affect them, work is facilitated. Commitment to the project from the people working with it has always been strong and this has particularly facilitated the implementation phase. An example of this commitment can be seen in the activities of two deputy-directors of major departments at the Ministry of Education, who are chair and deputy chair of the project steering board. With few exceptions, they have attended every workshop and meeting connected with the project and have been a major influence in maintaining project momentum.

Sustainability 
Working with government in line with its national policy builds into the project the potential for sustainability. If integration is feasible, and this seems to be the case, only the government has the capacity to carry it forward.


Case Study - The Lesotho Programme 
Background 
Lesotho is a small mountainous kingdom surrounded by the Republic of South Africa. Harsh winters and high altitudes make much of the country inaccessible in winter. The population is estimated at 2 million, mostly consisting of Basotho peoples whose language is Sesotho. For over a hundred years, until independence in 1966, Lesotho was a British Protectorate. The provision of education in Lesotho is a joint venture between the Government, churches and the community. In 1992, there were over 370,000 children in primary schools, which is about 75% enrolment (Lesotho Ministry of Education, 1992). The pupil teacher ratio is estimated at 54:1, and about 85% of teachers are qualified. However, a study conducted in 1990 shows a high drop-out rate, nearly 80,000 children are enrolled in grade 1, with less than 30,000 remaining in grade 7 and two thirds of these are girls due to boys spending their time herding animals. 

The integrated education programme in Lesotho is a national programme currently being piloted in 10 schools, in 8 of Lesotho's 10 districts. In future, the aim is to expand the programme to include all primary schools. The programme is being implemented by the Ministry of Education with support from international non-government organisations and the United Nations agencies. The programme has the following characteristics: 

The focus is on changing teacher attitudes, knowledge and teaching methodology in order to enable a broader range of children to benefit within a mainstream environment.
 
There is no separate cadre of teachers, no separate training courses, certificates or salaries. 

There are no special units, and existing special schools (only twelve) will be used to support integration in the mainstream primary schools.
 
Parental education and involvement is seen as central. 

The involvement of disabled peoples' organisations as representations of the consumer group is seen as essential. 

A multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach reflects a holistic approach to the child.
 
Children with all types of impairment and with a wide age range are being included; many are already attending primary schools. 

Response of the schools involved in the pilot programme has varied, with some responding to the implementation better than others. To examine why this was so, and to identify factors that have contributed to successful integration, two schools, one considered to have successfully implemented the programme and one considered to be less successful were examined in detail. A variety of techniques were used to look at the effectiveness of the school in implementing the programme and included: observation, semi-structured interviews, storytelling, diagrams and profiles to show networking and progress, and focus groups. Teachers, children, parents and key community people were involved and all the findings were shared and analysed with the teachers, district education officers and district resource teacher. 

The 'Successful' Pilot School 
The school was located in a very remote, mountainous, rural area, eight hours by road from the capital Maseru. The school was deemed to be positive in its response to the implementation of the programme according to the following criteria: 

wide dissemination of the knowledge and skills teachers had acquired 
good follow-up of individual children 
teachers acting on their own initiative in a variety of ways 
involving other schools and agencies 
promoting parental involvement 
asking for help appropriately 
promoting the independence of parents 
good documentation and record keeping. 

Some teachers with over 115 children in their classes had started to respond to the needs of children with hearing, visual and physical impairment. They had begun to assess, plan and implement programmes for children who were struggling in the classroom. They had begun to learn sign and Braille, and involve children in helping each other. They spend extra time at lunch, after school and sometimes even on Saturdays to help children who need it. They visit families and take histories, and have even been making referrals and taking children to clinics when parents do not have the resources. In the words of the teachers themselves: 

"This programme has lessened the drop-out rate and the repeaters it benefits all children. My job satisfaction has improved, I enjoy teaching more even though I work longer hours. The programme has equipped us with different techniques for our so-called normal pupils"(class teacher). 

"The programme benefits everyone. The non-disabled benefit from interaction, they learn a lot from disabled children such as social responsibility. We have been asking the question 'how can we cater to individual needs' for a long time, but it was not until this programme that we understood how to do it to stop this programme would be like asking a repentant sinner to return to their sins! Education is for all" (District Education Officer). 

The children themselves were one hundred percent in favour of the inclusive approach; 

"Disabled children and non-disabled children should not be separated we would be losing our good friends. We help each other, we make those who can't see feel what they don't know, we push those in their wheelchairs if they can't walk. We (disabled children) lend them things they have forgotten, we help them in subjects they don't know" (disabled and non-disabled children's focus group).

The main lessons that contributed to the success of the school emerging from the research can be summarised as follows: 

Obstacles such as large teacher/pupil ratio, lack of resources are not an absolute barrier to integration. 

Participation has been integral from the start; local chiefs, parents, other schools churches, education officers and resource teachers, health professionals have all been involved. 

There was strong leadership and support from head teachers and district education staff.

Parents have been visited in their homes, a parents' association has been established, parents are given work to help their children, and are welcome in the school. 

Teachers were already aware of a problem (children dropping out and repeating, disabled children in school but not benefiting) so the programme has helped them solve a problem they had already identified. 

There is a strong sense of being a part of a community rather than just being an individual. Therefore promoting a sense of responsibility and caring in other children is very highly valued, arguably over and above personal development.

The teachers experience the programme as a sort of religious conversion; they have 'seen the light' and now know that disabled children have rights and can learn, so there is no going back. 

Being in a poor, remote area they are used to overcoming very severe obstacles, and dealing with hardship as a daily reality. 

The 'Unsuccessful' Pilot School 
The second school was chosen because it was apparently 'negative' towards the programme. This was confusing because the school was relatively near to the capital, Maseru (and therefore more resources), and already had a small hostel facility for physically disabled children. Some of the negative responses included: refusing the special education team access to classrooms, not attending or dropping out of training courses, overtly stating their lack of belief in the programme and not keeping up records. 

Contributing factors to the lack of success at this school can be summarised as follows:

The school had no support from the District Education Officer, resource teacher or church, and lacked positive leadership. 

The hostel for disabled children had been founded by a missionary priest, and so had been imposed on the teachers, who had had no training or preparation. 

The school had a very good academic reputation, and felt that this would be threatened by spending time on the 'slow learners'. 

There was a very strong status quo; a core group of teachers had been at the school between twenty and thirty years. New teachers who wanted to introduce new ideas were outnumbered. 

Because they felt negative to begin with, they dropped out of workshops, then therefore lacked the skills, and therefore became more demoralised and more negative. 

They had initially tried to reach out to other schools, the church, parents, and district education staff, but had received nothing in return. 

Because the hostel was not their responsibility, and they knew of special schools in Maseru, they felt that other people should be responsible for disabled children. 

All the children were very positive about integration, and appeared to be happy and involved in the school; the teachers were not acknowledging their considerable existing level of success. 

Conclusion 
From examination of the two schools, three issues emerge from the research and the programme as a whole, which deserve further investigation and are of particular relevance across cultures in relation to promoting sustainable change. These are participation, resources, and roles and responsibilities. 

Participation: inclusion is seen as the business of the whole community, not just the education sector. Although the policy was 'imposed' from above, implementation succeeded where everyone was involved every step of the way. At central level this included consumer representatives, disabled people and parents, who have a vested interest in sustainability. 

Resources: the programme has worked largely with existing levels of resources. The research strongly indicates that lack of resources is not an absolute obstacle and is relative; these teachers considered that a class size of fifty to fifty-five children would be ideal, but were still managing to organise lessons to respond to diversity with over a hundred children. 

Roles and Responsibilities: the government, disabled people, parents, teachers, teacher trainers, district education resource teachers all have their part to play in this programme. From the start, the responsibility for the education of 'all children' has been firmly with the class teachers in the context of the whole school and community. The decision not to set up special units with special teachers has been a crucial factor in promoting that responsibility, and therefore the long-term sustainability.

Case Study - Thailand
Integrated Education Programme 1989-95 

1. Situation of Education for Children with Special Needs prior to the start of SCF's IE Programme in 1989 

Since 1952, Special Education in Thailand has primarily been the responsibility of the Special Education Division (Sp Ed) within the Department of General Education. It therefore has considerable experience in running its own 14 segregated special schools (primarily for hearing impaired children and some with mental disabilities or visual impairment, VI) and supervising and supporting 6 NGO run special schools. 

Primary Education (PEd) began some experimentation in IE in 1982, but this remained at the level of small-scale training and experimenting in implementation, but with few mechanisms for monitoring and support, or budget (£20/school/year). After initial training, teachers were largely left to solve their own problems. There was only one person in the country with full-time responsibility for IE and being within the Research and Development Department had no authority to monitor. It is therefore not surprising that the programme's impact was slight. 

Responsibility for training Special Education Teachers came under a third division, the Teacher Training Division. In 1989, one Bangkok college trained approximately 20 Special Education Teachers, but there was no component on special needs in the general teacher training courses. 

In 1980 government policy changed to require all children to enrol in primary education - apart from disabled children whose parents had requested and exemption! In practice this clause was used to exclude children with disabilities, so although the policy of integration existed since 1980, by 1993 only 1,293 children were integrated into 52 regular schools (116 children with visual impairments, 295 with hearing impairments and 882 children with mental disabilities). 

2. SCF Thailand's Starting of IE Projects/Activities 
SCF Thailand's IE programme developed from its earlier work in the field of disability - support in the 1980's for various institutions: Pakkret Home for Crippled Children, Day Care Centres for Children with Mental Disabilities in Bangkok and Chiangrai, a Unit for Hearing Impaired Children in a Bangkok slum school. 

Initially, integration activities developed as an extension of work in the Din Daeng Day Care Centre for children with mental disabilities which was run by Rajanukul Hospital. Hoping to reduce the number of children on their waiting list the hospital gained permission in 1989 to set up a special class within a nearby primary school run by the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA), with support from SCF. This set out to progressively integrate children with mental disabilities into regular classes, starting with lunch and play, moving to sports, music and art and for some more academic lessons. The reasons for this starting point were: 

(1) Close relationships with Rajanukul Hospital and partnership in their work with children with mental disabilities.

(2) Having failed to identify anyone interested in IE within PEd, it was thought that BMA might be more open to looking at different and more inclusive ways of working.

(3) It was also felt that conducting training and demonstrating the positive effects of IE in Bangkok would be more accessible to and therefore have more influence on policy makers. 

At the same time IE was becoming an element of the Chiangrai CBR project initiated in 1988, as individual teachers were encouraged to accept individual children into their classes with support from the CBR team. 

3. Development of SCF's IE Programme and Strategy 
As children from all disability groups were SCF's IE target group, we were keen to extend activities to include visually impaired children. 

A Thai NGO, the Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand (CFBT), had been running its Centre for visually impaired children in North East of Thailand since 1978. From its inception as a residential special school, it had developed a wide range of services, training in daily living skills as well as more academic subjects, a Material Resource Centre producing Braille texts, and by 1991 had started to integrate some children into government schools, travelling daily from the Centre. 

From 1991-1994, a CFBT/SCF project returned 54 students from the Centre to their home communities, studying at local primary and secondary schools. Initial training was also provided for teachers, administrators and parents and ongoing support given by Itinerant Teachers who paid regular visits, staying overnight with the families.
 
As students progressed normally through the school, the project was clearly successful, but key questions remained as to the time of preparation, the high costs of support, the ownership of the project and other sustainability issues. 

Another strand to the IE strategy had been our involvement in the introduction of the UNESCO Resource Pack 'Special Needs in the Classroom' by UNESCO Resource persons to 20 participants from 3 Teacher Training Colleges (TTC) in Bangkok in 1993. SCF financed the translation and printing of this pack into Thai. But unfortunately there has been very little follow-up to this training from the TTCs. In a country with an experienced and entrenched Special Education establishment, there are many conflicting interests and some may not be so keen to co-operate with integration as this could be seen as acting against their 'professionalism'. 

Working with the TTC and the Provincial Primary Education Office (PPEO) in Chiangmai, we were able to assist in the training of 24 primary school teachers. However, disagreements between the TTC and PPEO on follow-up support and supervision meant that it became necessary to choose one or other as a future partner. Clearly as PPEO have the primary responsibility for 'Education for All', we continued to work with them on training teachers and developing suitable mechanisms of support. We are now in the process of producing with them a school-based video on working with children with mental disabilities. 

While by 1991, the Rajanukul Hospital project was successful in achieving a degree of integration and extended to a second school, most children made only limited progress in regular classes - they were returned to the special class whenever problems arose. Class teachers felt that the special education teacher was better trained, had more experience, and was paid additionally to deal with such problems. 

Despite the production of a video explaining the project's concept and successes, policy makers remained unconvinced of its suitability as a model. Owing to the high cost of specialist teachers and support, this model was non-replicable and consequently not appropriate for the majority of children with disabilities who were living in the rural areas. For them the only options were the local primary school or staying at home. Consequently SCF support for this 'special class' model was judged to be inappropriate for wider replication, and financial assistance was ended in 1994. 

However the Hospital team has since become key resource persons in training Ministry of Education (MoE) teachers in aspects of working with children with mental disabilities - a much more suitable role for Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) staff. 

Throughout this period links had been developing with the Office of the National Primary Education Commission (ONPEC). Assistance was given with their training programme for classroom teachers, and linking them to MoPH and NGO experience. 

In 1994 a review of the CFBT project was conducted. The findings highlighted the need to transfer ownership to ONPEC and following the production of a project video and after one year's lobbying, a new project document was signed by ONPEC with CFBT and SCF providing technical and financial support, to concretise this initiative in 4 provinces. Special Education Liaisons were to sit in each PPEO and coordinate IE activities, training, awareness raising and develop methods of support to teachers and students. While visually impaired children are the initial target group, it is expected that whatever mechanisms are put in place will later be able to be expanded to include other disability groups. 

Recently SCF has run training for teachers from all schools in the cluster where our CBR project operates in North Thailand. The teachers initiated the training and are looking at ways to support each other at a cluster level, rather than through vertical supervisory structures. 

Over time, our partners have changed from MoPH and NGOs to concentrating on working primarily with PEd. Our attempts at cooperation with both Sp Ed and TTC have largely floundered as they hit the brick wall of 'professionalism'. 

We have been using our various initiatives at cluster/provincial/national levels to mutually support each other - feeding experience into the national policy debate relating to the National Special Education Plan, and the related components of the next 5 year Plan, 1997-2001.

4. Situation of Education for Children with Special Needs Now 
Since the passing of the Disability Act in 1991, disability has increasingly been seen as a Rights issue, of which Education is a major component. In March 1995, the government passed a National Special Education Plan which aims to develop educational services to children with disabilities by involving all concerned departments of the MoE (rather than Sp Ed alone). However, the related budget increases are still awaited. Until then, ONPEC continues with only one person working full-time on IE issues. Its on-the-ground implementation remains limited, and NGO activities remain few and isolated. But most are optimistic that these budget increases will materialise and that they will focus more on the IE components of the Sp Ed Plan rather than the request from Sp Ed for 12 new special schools. This will allow ONPEC to spread its limited training to all provinces, but the challenges will still remain to find appropriate mechanisms of preparation, training and support for students, parents, teachers and administrator, ways to ensure the provision of teaching and learning aids, investigate future roles of Sp Ed (Resource Centres rather than special schools) and the inclusion in TTC curriculum of elements on IE. 

With its detailed and lengthy in-country and regional experience and contacts, SCF is in a good position to make an important contribution. 

5. With the Benefit of Hindsight, Where Would We Have Started 
Our early activities in collaboration with MoPH and NGO special schools, while giving us an understanding of the problems, clouded the fact that we would need to feed all experience to PEd - they were the long-term target. We therefore got confused in the convoluted interdepartmental and inter-ministry complications between BMA/Sp Ed/PEd/TTC/MoPH, etc. 

Encouraging the MoPH to play unsuitable roles, BMA to be innovative, and TTC to implement pilot projects in primary schools all ended up as cul-de-sacs. 

We should have spent more effort in developing PEd at national, provincial and local levels, identifying individuals or even clusters within the system who were motivated to try IE (we have identified and worked with some from our CBR projects) and also identifying higher MoE policy makers.
 
Collaboration with UNESCO should have concentrated on using their 'profile' to influence senior Ministerial policy makers who alone could insist an interdepartmental cooperation. Once they were closely associated with a TTC initiative, they could not be `impartial brokers'. 

More thou