10
	Schools for All: National Planning in Lesotho

	Pholoho Khatleli, Lilian Mariga, 
	Lineo Phachaka and Sue Stubbs

Policy makers and planners in developing countries do not have an easy task in creating educational opportunities for disabled children which are  appropriate, affordable, effective and sustainable.   One of the major difficulties they face is to gain access to reliable, relevant, useful and critical literature about policy development and practice that is relevant to developing countries.  Not only is such literature extremely sparse (particularly in relation to Africa), but it is also characterised by an unreliable and misleading use of hard data, a confusing and uncritical presentation of key concepts and unacknowledged cultural bias (Stubbs 1994).  These will be discussed in turn.

Fact or Fiction?
First, a glance at situation analyses at a country or regional level reveals a plethora of 'facts and figures' that aim to set the scene in relation to the education of disabled children.  Statistics relating to numbers of disabled children are not only extremely inconsistent, but are presented as fact, whereas in reality disability is defined and perceived very differently according to culture and context.  Hence data about numbers of children with disabilities can be very unreliable.
	Reliance on statistics is disturbing for other reasons too. It encourages a belief in the necessity of surveys as a precursor to services; yet there is little evidence to show that such surveys are followed by the provision of services.  Indeed there is evidence to suggest that more reliable data can be obtained once services are established (Saunders and Miles 1990).  
	Another concern is that the 'problem' is located in the disabled child rather than in the country's attitudes, policies and institutions which are often negative or discriminatory towards disabled children.  Proposed solutions to the problem of disability therefore focus on its prevention and cure rather than on changing societies. 
	Statistics referring to 'formal educational provision' usually refer to special schools and units and are often taken as an indication of the status of special education in a country.  Yet again, the assumptions frequently go unchallenged.  Disabled children or children with special needs are by no means a clearly defined group.  There is certainly no clear consensus on what is special about them and even less as to the best way of meeting their needs.  Ironically, countries with the most special schools (therefore appearing to have the best formal provision) often demonstrate great resistance to the principles and practice of integrating disabled children into mainstream schools (Barnartt and Kabzems 1992).  On the other hand, mainstream schools which respond flexibly to the different needs and abilities of children without labelling them are ignored in such data.

Key Concepts
Another key characteristic of the literature is the uncritical presentation of key concepts such as 'special needs', 'special education', 'disability' and 'handicap'.   In their countries of origin, these concepts have always been fluid and highly debatable (see Ainscow 1991, Slee 1993).  Yet in the literature on developing countries they are presented as fixed and self-evident, and the debates surrounding them are either missing or only partially presented.  
	Although efforts are made to export 'state-of-the-art' thinking about education (UNESCO 1993), the key issue is that the research underpinning this thinking has its origins entirely in the West.  There is often a substantial time-lag, resulting in policies being created in developing countries on the basis of beliefs which have been discredited in their country of origin.  
	In addition, inaccurate transmission can lead to some interesting interpretation; for example, in one workshop, 'integration' was understood to mean that children with all types of impairment would be educated together in one big special school (Save the Children, 1993). 
	The concepts of 'special needs' and 'disability'  are often used interchangeably yet they are in many ways distinct.  Children using wheelchairs or callipers may be disabled by attitudes and inaccessible schools but their educational needs are in no way 'special'.  Their disability is not an educational problem, but rather it is a social issue.  The literature on 'special needs education' increasingly focuses on changing the classroom environment and teaching methodology to embrace a wide range of learning ability (Ainscow 1991).  But this ignores the issue of 'disabled' identity (Swain et al. 1993) and the need for disabled children to have positive role models.

Cultural Bias
The third predominant characteristic relates to the lack of a cross-cultural perspective not only on concepts of special needs and disability, but also in terms of key concepts such as 'child' and 'education' (Miles and Miles 1993).  Peters (1993) argues that both education and disability are social constructs and as such need to be defined within the context of individual countries.  The concepts of 'emotional/behavioural' problems  or 'learning disability' are increasingly seen to be dependent on the socio-economic and educational environment rather than being located in the child.  
	These changed perspectives are even more pertinent in non-Western cultures.  The whole existence of the learning disability paradigm is being challenged by South African writers (Kriegler 1989, Guma 1992, Kriegler and Farman 1994). The small literature which does examine disability and education cross-culturally reveals some major differences between cultures (Hawkins 1989, Connors and Donnellan 1993) and according to Serpell, Mariga and Harvey (1993), research on child development has been conducted 'through Western filters'.
	In summary, the literature relating to the education of disabled children in developing countries is on the whole sparse, dubious in terms of its hard data; it is uncritical of key concepts and culturally blind. 

Gaps in the Literature
In addition, the literature ignores several key issues which are crucial in the development of sound policy and practice. 
	The first of these relates to participation in the process of the development of educational policy and practice by consumers - namely disabled people,  parents and children from developing countries (Oliver, 1992).  Despite a growing recognition by development professionals and educationalists that participation is essential for sustainable, effective and relevant change, the voices of consumers are rarely heard or acknowledged as important. Community-based Rehabilitation (CBR) programmes (O'Toole 1993) have tried to address some of these issues and the more 'grass-roots' programmes do try to involve disabled people and parents.  Although they often promote the integration of disabled children into mainstream schools, their approach to education tends to be on a 'one-off, bottom-up' basis with a weak conceptual understanding of special education issues.  As a result, these initiatives make little impact on the system as a whole.
	Secondly, there is hardly any acknowledgment of indigenous belief and practice in relation to the education of disabled children.  It has already been pointed out that cross-cultural studies do reveal great conceptual differences, yet such studies are rare. The occurrence of 'casual integration' - where children with a range of impairments are already attending mainstream schools - has been highlighted by Miles (1985), Kisanji (1981) Tungaraza (1993) and Mariga and Phachaka (1993a).  Yet formal integration programmes rarely acknowledge or build on this.  Equally  communities have cared for and educated their disabled members for thousands of years, yet this too is ignored in the literature.  Extended family networks, systems of apprenticeship (Anson-Yevu 1988) and a broad tolerance of difference have all been important features of informal community care and education down through the years and from which formal programmes could learn much.
	A third major gap is sources of influence. UNESCO has been a major influence on special education for many decades, yet the role, function and limitations of UN agencies in a changing world is never discussed.  Policy and practice is often determined entirely by the funding criteria of major, bilateral donor agencies such as DANIDA.  The impact on education of the World Bank structural adjustment policies and the 'New World Order' cannot be ignored, and yet it is rarely examined and discussed.   
	The role of the West in keeping developing countries poor is not mentioned.  Instead  a deficit model of the developing country is presented, where such countries are characterised by death, sickness, poverty, disease, lack of services and lack of political will (Wiesinger 1986, Mittler et al. 1993).  Hence descriptive country or regional situation analyses abound; albeit with all the weaknesses discussed above.  Descriptive accounts of programme implementation are also plentiful as are Western experts' recommendations for solving the problems of developing countries.  
	What is too often missing is critical evaluations of past and current practice, together with discussions of criteria for judging the 'success' or otherwise of development programmes.  A thorough understanding of the potentially conflicting aims of such programmes is a crucial factor in determining policy and practice.  For example, is the aim to fit all children into the existing school system or is it to adapt systems to children; is it to empower disabled children or to improve teaching methodology?
	The following account of the Lesotho programme has tried to avoid the weaknesses discussed above and to address some of the gaps. It is hoped that this will pave the way for a more reliable, relevant, useful and critical literature which can provide a more substantial basis for development of policy and practice in the future.

	

Insert Photo 10.1 here

Introduction to the Lesotho Programme
The integrated education programme in Lesotho is a national programme which aims to include all primary schools. It is being implemented by the Ministry of Education with support from international Non-Government Organisations, such as Save the Children (U.K.) and the United Nations agencies. 
	The programme is innovative in a number of ways.  One central aspect is the focus on changing teachers' attitudes, knowledge and teaching methodology in order to enable a broader range of children to benefit within a mainstream environment. There will be no separate cadre of teachers, no separate training courses, certificates or salaries, and no special units.  Existing special schools (only four) will be used to support integration in the mainstream primary schools.  Parental education and involvement is seen as crucial, together with a range of other sectors of society such as organisations of disabled people, different professionals and different government ministries. Children with all types of disability, over a wide age range are being supported in the programme; many are already in schools, and others have been integrated as a result of the programme. 

Lesotho: the country
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.  Throughout its history, Lesotho's economy and stability has been inextricably linked to that of South Africa where a quarter of the workforce has sought employment (Mariga and Phachaka 1993a).  Lesotho is divided into 10 districts, with Maseru as its capital (Figure 1).

	Insert Figure 10.1 here

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.

Traditional Beliefs and Practices
The Birth of a Disabled Child:  The traditional beliefs and practices surrounding disability are a complex mixture stemming from practical experience, the need for survival, spiritual beliefs and traditional attitudes to health.  When a disabled child is born, this is usually perceived as negative.  The mother in particular feels responsible, and is desperate to discover the cause.  Some beliefs about causes include contact with other disabled people when pregnant, eating protein, transgression in a previous life, unfaithfulness during pregnancy, witchcraft, incest, evil spirits, lack of proper attention to ancestral spirits and heredity.  Health professionals often contribute to this negative response by breaking news in an insensitive manner or concealing information.

Coping Strategies:  Once the child is born, there are several possible consequences.  The marriage may be threatened, although strictly speaking there can be no divorce because a Basotho woman does not marry her husband; she marries into the family or lineage and so is the wife of that lineage.  The woman will feel responsible for the child and will believe it her duty to keep the child at home in order to please the spirits.  Greater misfortune could befall the family if the child was sent away and came to any harm.  Boy children are more desired than girls, and for disabled boys, greater effort will be made to seek a 'cure'.
	A variety of coping strategies exist within traditional Basotho culture. The extended family system of care depends on a complex system of responsibilities and reciprocations, which ensure that the needs of family members are met despite the destabilising influences of migrant labour and cash economy. These are supported and perpetuated by Basotho customary law and indigenous education (Simms, undated).  An indigenous system of parent education is still practised and helps parents better understand their disabled child, the causes of the disability and coping strategies needed.  This occurs informally for members of extended families and formally for adolescents at initiation schools.  The extended family also contributes towards the non-formal education of the disabled child, focusing on self-care and activities of daily living. Social integration within the community is regarded as very commendable amongst the Basotho, and children are encouraged to play with, and to help disabled children.

Education and Employment:  Although education is usually8 not prioritised for the disabled child because there are no perceivable benefits, many disabled children do attend school. The feasibility study revealed that 17% of primary school children  experience a  learning difficulty related to visual and hearing impairment, mental handicap and other disabilities (Mariga and Phachaka 1993a).  
	Most begin school at a much older age than their peers.  There could be a range of reasons for this including parents waiting until they have gained basic social and functional skills, a lack of knowledge about the benefits of schooling, and delayed access to mobility aids.  However, primary schools in Lesotho already accommodate a very wide age range, particularly for boys who often spend many years herding animals and then begin or re-join primary school in their late teens.  Although these disabled children are physically and socially integrated and teachers often try to help them, the relevant knowledge and skills to meet their specific educational needs is missing (Snell 1987).  
	Employment is also assumed not to be an option because children with disabilities are discriminated against or the workplace is not accessible. Not surprisingly, disabled children and adults often lack self-esteem and face many other difficulties in developing their full human potential.

Origins of the Programme
Prior to the 1980s, specialist provision for disabled children had been the responsibility of NGOs, churches and individuals.  During the Decade of Disabled People (1983 - 1992), disabled people, parents and their organisations began to demand national educational provision for disabled children.  At the same time the concepts and language of universal human rights, social justice, solidarity and individual dignity were spreading and gaining support and influence.  Lesotho, in the heart of South Africa, was inevitably strongly affected by this.  It was increasingly recognised that marginalised and vulnerable groups need to participate in change and to 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 consultant, Marg Csapo from Canada,  to undertake a study and devise guidelines on special education.  This work initiated the process of policy development and programme planning which led to the current programme.  The report by Csapo (1987) highlighted that the small number of institutions offering specialist care and education not only violated the traditional care-taking practices of the Basotho extended family, but they were costly, were unable to meet more than a minority of needs, and were even detrimental to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing.  She made several recommendations including; 

	 build on traditional care-taking practises, 
	 promote integration into mainstream schools,
	 use specialist services in a more targeted way and ensure they 
		support mainstream education, 
	 promote sustainability by making programmes self-supporting,
	 up-grade teacher training,
	 provide itinerant special education teams to support mainstream 
		teachers,
	 encourage families to send their children to school,
	 promote public information on disability,
	 include special education in both in-service and pre-service 
		curricula.

From 1988 to 1990, discussions developed between the Ministry of Education, the Lesotho National Federation of Disabled People and Save the Children Fund (UK).  SCF is an international non-governmental organisation.  SCF was developing its disability work within the Southern African region, and became instrumental in finalising the Special Education policy and developing an operations plan for its implementation. 
	The Ministry of Education sent the Head of the Early Childhood Education Department, Lineo Phachaka to the United States to study special education in order to be able to implement the programme on her return. The 1990 conference on Education for All (Jomtien) also gave added impetus to promoting the integration of disabled children. 
	In 1991, the Special Education Unit was founded within the Ministry of Education.  SCF seconded Lilian Mariga, a special educationalist with extensive practical experience from Zimbabwe, to work in collaboration with  Lineo Phachaka to develop and implement the programme.

Feasibility Study
In line with the principles of participation and the importance of respecting and building on traditional beliefs and practices, an extensive feasibility study was carried out. The aim of this study was:

 	to provide baseline information which will enable the Ministry of Education to implement its stated policy of promoting the integration of children with special educational needs into the regular school system at all levels. (Mariga and Phachaka 1993a).

The specific objectives were: to create awareness about the policy among primary school teachers; to assess the numbers and types of children with special needs already in primary schools; to investigate the attitudes of teachers, pupils and parents towards integration, and to identify pilot schools.  A sample of 314  randomly selected primary schools (26% of all schools) in 8 of the ten districts formed the basis of the study in which 2,649 teachers, a sample of pupils in grades 5, 6 and 7 and nearly 1,000 parents were interviewed.
	The study took over six months and was very thorough; providing not only a wealth of information on which to build an appropriate programme but also involving the community right from the initial stages of implementation. Some of the key results included;

	 Over 17% of all primary children had some sort of impairment which affected their education; including visual, hearing, physical and learning impairments;  mental retardation and epilepsy among others. 
	 Children with learning disabilities formed the largest group (over 12% of children in school).
	 Over 85% of teachers were in favour of the policy of integration.
	 All of the pupils interviewed were in favour of integration as were 99% of parents.  A small number of parents feared their children would be ridiculed, or that disabilities may be contagious.
	 Physical conditions of schools were very poor for all children and were mostly inaccessible to wheelchair users.
	 Although teachers do their best to help slow learners, they lack the knowledge, skills and support to benefit them significantly.  The teachers welcomed the idea of further training.

Whilst the feasibility study indicated that integration was feasible, it also highlighted some constraints to implementation. The existing policy did not have guidelines on implementation and there was no documentation on the existing specialist services. The largely NGO-funded specialist centres (twelve schools with 400 children) had negative attitudes towards integration and many of their policies and practises contradicted the government policy. There was a lack of both human and material resources; only one trained education officer, and no books or equipment. 
	These constraints were overcome in a variety of ways. There was no intention to close down the special schools.  A long process of awareness-raising and discussion helped staff realise that they had a role to play in support of the process of integration. 
	The Special Education Unit formulated its own objectives for implementation. These included: the development of curriculum materials and training in their use; piloting the material and integrating children in ten pilot schools; the development of a parent-training manual, on-going awareness-raising at all levels, and finally, the integration of the curriculum into the National Teacher Training Pre- and In-service training curricula. Substantial time was taken after these objectives were formulated to discuss them with key people in the Ministries of Education, Social Welfare and Health, and with Disabled People's Organisations and special school staff.

Key Principles
The principles at the heart of the programme are a blend of the best of traditional Basotho approaches to education and disabled children, and of the thinking on disability and education in relation to human rights which has been developing globally, particularly over the last decade (Helander 1993).  These three principles can be summarized as follows.

1. Human Rights and Social Justice
	Equality: disabled children are children first and should have equal rights, opportunities and dignity.
	Social Integration: disabled children belong with their families and communities.
	Social justice: services and opportunities should be available to the community as a whole and not limited to small privileged groups.
	Solidarity: responsibility for fostering human life is shared by all. Society has a duty to offer support to those who need it.

2. Involving communities
	Participation is a basic human need and essential for ensuring sustainable and appropriate change.
	Indigenous beliefs and practices should be respected and built on in innovatory programmes.
	Commitment and involvement at all levels is necessary for successful integration (i.e. policy-making, administrative, training, school, community and family levels) .

3. Schools and society must change to include all children
	Impairment is a feature of the individual, but disability is caused by the barriers - attitudinal, organisational, environmental - which society builds to exclude children and adults with impairments.
	All children can learn and have a right to education within their communities.
	Difficulty in learning is a normal part of schooling; children are all individuals.
	All children benefit from flexible and child-centred approaches to teaching.
	Mainstream schools have a responsibility to cater for pupil diversity.
	Learning should be meaningful and relevant to the context and culture.
	Promoting inclusive education requires that attitudes and power structures change; barriers to inclusive education need to be removed and negative stereotypes and discrimination should be challenged.
	Education is the responsibility of the whole community, and collaboration between parents/carers and teachers is central.

Integrated or Inclusive Education?
The term 'integration' is used to refer to a wide range of practices which have very different impacts on children.  If the child is seen as 'the problem', then integration will focus on trying to make the disabled child fit into the existing system.  Children will be described as 'not being able' to be integrated into existing mainstream classrooms, and therefore exclusion or separate provision (including special units) are justified. With this individual model, there will be an emphasis on professional diagnosis of the child and on identifying their 'problems' but very little emphasis on changing professional attitudes and the environment.  In this approach, the impression is that disabled children are a separate or special group, yet in reality there is no clear dividing line between children.
	Another approach, which also comes under the heading of integration, is based on very different principles;

		all children have a range of different abilities.
		all children can learn.
		all children can experience difficulty in learning.

In this model, if certain individuals are excluded then the focus will be on identifying those barriers which exclude them.  In education, these include policies (or lack of policies), teacher methodology, curriculum, attitudes, lack of knowledge and skills, school buildings and general development issues such as poverty and lack of transport.  
	This approach does not deny the fact that a disabled child is 'different' but says that being different is not a negative thing.  In fact it can be positive.  The disabled child is encouraged to be proud of who she is and positive disabled adult role models are seen to be an inspiration to all children.  This approach which focuses on the responsibility of the teacher and adaptation of the environment also means that other marginalized groups benefit, such as linguistic or ethnic minorities or traumatized children. The aim is to include all children, not just to integrate a chosen few.  For this reason 'inclusive education' is increasingly being used as a more accurate term for this fundamentally different approach.
	This latter approach forms the basis of what is meant by integration in the Lesotho programme.  Change is a process however, and the environment and attitudes cannot be changed overnight. Schools aim to reach large numbers and to achieve certain basic goals.  This has to be balanced with individual needs. Furthermore, education is not only the responsibility of schools, and sometimes the home/community environment supported by a CBR programme is a more effective way of providing appropriate education for the small minority of severely disabled children. Although the term 'inclusive education' has been developed from policy and practice in the West, in many ways this is a much more accurate way of describing the traditional approach to education in Basotho society.  Schools do not exclude children provided they can get there and their parents are able to send them.  Also the traditional non-formal education systems ensure that all children benefit from some sort of education.

Implementation Strategies
The implementation of the inclusive education policy was based on the twin themes of awareness raising and on the development of indigenously produced curriculum materials.

Awareness-raising:  Awareness-raising activities were considered to be integral to the whole process of implementation.  During the feasibility study itself, awareness of the policy on integration was raised amongst the community and most professionals.  Later, specific workshops were run for the Special Education Curriculum Committee, District Education Officers, school managers,  local chiefs, district administrators and parents of children with and without disabilities. 
	Training workshops on special education were held for the ten  pilot schools (see later) together with the seven district resource teachers. 
	A 45 minute recording was produced on special education to be broadcast to the public on radio Lesotho. 
	Finally, a meeting was held with the National Teacher Training College director and staff, to prepare them for the inclusion of the curriculum component into the mainstream syllabus. A key issue here is that the policy of including disabled children in schools was not presented as an option or a luxury, but as government policy which needed to be implemented. 
	In addition to written reports, the whole programme has been recorded in a series of informal video programmes. These are not only an excellent means of documenting the programmes' progress but also provide an accessible and effective resource for awareness-raising.

Curriculum Materials:  The feasibility study had revealed that there was hardly any literature on special education existing within Lesotho. Teachers needed access to basic information about impairment and teaching methodology, which they would be able to refer to during, and after, training.  Therefore the development of curriculum materials was one of the first tasks. 
	In line with the principles of participation and consumer representation, a Special Education Curriculum Committee was formed in order to develop and review the materials.  The committee had the following representatives from the following institutions: Ministries of Education, Health and Social Welfare, the University of Lesotho, National Teacher Training College, Lesotho National Federation of the Disabled (LNFOD), Early Childhood Development Department, International Labour Organisation (ILO), parents of children with and without disability, two physiotherapists, and teachers from mainstream and special schools. 
	The first draft of the materials consisted of curricula for in-service teacher training, syllabi in different areas of disability, an assessment booklet, along with in-service and pre-service training course content. The committee met regularly to review these materials paragraph by paragraph. 
	In addition to the primary aim of producing appropriate and relevant materials, this painstaking process meant that the committee not only gained considerable knowledge about impairment and teaching methodology, but professional barriers were broken down as the subject of special education was 'de-mystified' and made accessible and understandable to the wider community.
	These materials were produced in order to be incorporated into the mainstream curriculum.  Whenever and wherever possible, the child would follow the existing curriculum but given the limitations  and relative inflexibility of this curriculum, it was recognised that some children needed individual programmes.

Pilot Schools
The ten pilot schools identified during the feasibility study were chosen in order to reflect a range of situations.  A balance of schools which had positive, negative and neutral attitudes to integration were chosen.  Schools in close proximity to special schools and those in remote areas were included.  The ten schools are from eight of the ten districts in Lesotho (see Figure 1). The pilot schools each had about twenty children identified as disabled in some way.  They had a range of different impairments and covered a wide age range. 

Training of Personnel:   Once the draft materials were produced, they were presented to the heads of programmes at the Ministry of Education.  A one-day workshop was organised for twenty-four District Education Officers to introduce them to the materials.  A similar workshop was run for managers of schools. The participants were very positive about the materials and pledged their support to teachers.

	Insert Photo 10.2 here

From the pilot schools, one teacher from each grade, plus the headteacher, attended a three week, in-service training workshop on the materials. They received 120 hours of training in this initial workshop. The resource persons were all from within Lesotho and included both professionals and disabled people from LNFOD. At the end of the workshop some of the headteachers and class teachers who had felt negative about integration were some of the most enthusiastic and committed advocates.
	Although teachers had initially attended with some reluctance - giving up some of their holiday - the main feedback from teachers at the end was that the training had made teaching in general more interesting and had improved their overall teaching skills and understanding of how children learn.
	Follow-up workshops were then held at six monthly intervals in which teachers' recommendations and requests from the previous workshops were incorporated. For example, there had been a strong request for many of the key lectures to be repeated at the first follow-up. All the schools wrote and submitted their own reports on their piloting of integration. These hand-written reports are included in the official workshop report and provide colourful insights into the very practical experience of integration;

	Integration does wonderful things; 'Mathabo came to school without speech, but she now speaks! She came from home with her mouth open, but now she can close her mouth, even when she is not reminded.' (Mount Royal School).

	Insert Photo 10.3 here

	'We have come across some problems, but our feeling is that the programme will succeed since there are teachers who support the programme, and luckily they are hard workers. Above all the community we are serving is very pleased and would like to see the programme live.' (St. Bernadette's Primary School)
	(Mariga and Phachala, 1993b).

Each of the pilot schools is involved in raising awareness with their neighbouring primary schools as well as running their own workshops and training courses  for parents and the other teachers.

Parents:  All disabled children are different, and so are their families and their response to their disabled child.  Recognition of the distinctive and unique characteristics of each family is central to the programme, and the approach to partnership with parents is flexible.
	The involvement of parents at all stages is a key principle of the programme. However it was also realised that in order to promote the sustainability of the programme, parents should take responsibility and not expect everything to be provided by professionals and government ministries. 
	Therefore in response to the needs of a parent of a child with severe learning difficulties, the Special Education Unit encouraged the formation of a Parents' Association, which has been twinned with a Norwegian Association of Parents of Children with Mental Handicap (NFPU), who provided the  funding for this endeavour (see also Chapter 9).
	The Parents' Association then invited Mrs Mariga and Mrs Phachaka to run workshops for them on mental retardation and behaviour modification. It was a real eye-opener to parents that they had a role to play in modifying the behaviour of their children if they were to succeed in an integrated programme. A parent training manual has been developed and workshops given to parents involved in pilot schools. Parent workshops include parents of non-disabled children who often have concerns about how the programme will affect the education of their children. There are plans to establish a resource centre which will be controlled and run by parents.

Assessment and Programming:  There is a plethora of Western-developed tests which are inappropriate and invalid in the context of Lesotho. The Unit decided that assessment tools needed to be developed and standardized in the social and cultural context in which they would be used. Other considerations were that materials should be local and easily accessible, and that the tests should be simple and usable by local teachers and parents. Examples include covering one eye with a mug when using the 'E' chart, and using a mug and spoon as a rattle to test hearing.
	Following the feasibility study, the Special Education Unit identified an Educational Assessment Team (EAT) whose task is to support the teachers in developing their own assessment skills. The EAT consists of an orthopaedic technician, teachers of children with intellectual impairments, teachers of hearing and visually impaired children as well as the members of the Special Education Unit. The team visits the pilot schools and assesses children, giving advice to parents and teachers, makes referrals (e.g. for eye and hearing tests) and works with parents, teachers and other professionals to draw up Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs). They run workshops for teachers on the use of the assessment booklet and to support the training they have already received. 
	The focus is very much on responding appropriately to the child's learning needs rather than on labelling.

Networking:   From the start, it was recognised that the disabled child and their family are part of a community and have a range of different needs and priorities, not just educational. It was also realised that meeting the educational needs of disabled children would involve all levels of society, from government to community, and would require collaboration and involvement of different sectors such as health and social welfare. 
	The networking started with policy makers and other key people in different departments in Ministries of Health, Education, Social Welfare, Teacher Associations, Disabled Peoples' Organisations, and key institutions such as the University, Teacher Training College, National Curriculum Centre, teachers from the Resource Centre, Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) personnel and Parents' Associations.
	Regular consultation meetings are held with policy makers and teacher trainers, and they are represented on the Curriculum Committee.  The Lesotho Federation of Disabled People (LNFOD) has been committed to this programme since its initiation, and is represented on committees as well as being involved in the planning, training and placement of students.  Staff from the Special Education Unit have also participated in the LNFOD Disabled Activist Training workshops.  There are currently three CBR programmes operating in Lesotho.  Liaison includes awareness-raising, assessment, parent training, referrals and school placements. 
	Special school staff have been involved throughout and are encouraged to offer a supportive role but there have been problems in this area. Almost all the existing Special Education Centres are non-governmental and provide long term care facilities which are expensive and disruptive to family life. They lack clear objectives and insufficient staff to give a sound education. Attempts to involve staff at the planning stage met with a lot of resistance. This was partly because they feared their schools would be closed down. However, the recommendation from Csapo's report stated clearly that they should have a role as resource centres (Csapo 1987) so there has been a continuing effort to assure the special school personnel that they do have an important role, albeit a different one. Disabled children in special schools are now encouraged to spend some time in local mainstream schools. 

Sustainability
Finally we consider some of the issues which affect the sustainability of this integration programme.

Structures:   Throughout the piloting stage, meetings have been held with the National Teacher Training College and it is envisaged that the Special Education Component will be included in the professional studies programme by 1996.  The ten pilot schools will be used for teacher placements. Knowledge about different impairments and about teaching methodology which responds to pupil diversity will then be institutionalised and fully integrated within the Lesotho teacher training systems.  There will be no special courses, certificates or special salaries; the content and methods will be an aspect of good teaching practise for all children.  The specialist teachers will be part of the normal district resource team which is an itinerant team which supports schools on a range of issues.

Resources:  Resources have been limited throughout.  A lot of care was taken to ensure that the programme was not over-resourced at an unsustainable level. Over-resourcing also can create competition and power struggles and make true participation very difficult. The Special Education Unit consisted of only two officers (Mrs Mariga and Mrs Phachaka) for the first two and a half years of the programme. All materials had to be created by the Unit; this ensured that they were kept simple and were locally available. Financial and technical support has been provided by donors such as SCF and UNICEF but in such a way as to promote the development of internal financial and technical support. 

Government Commitment:  The Ministry of Education has now budgeted for the training and curriculum development aspects of the programme. They have also provided additional staff. Throughout the programme, efforts have been made to establish a wide funding base.  UNICEF funded the initial feasibility study, Save the Children Fund channelled the funds from Comic Relief to pay the salary of the Special Education Advisor along with various other contributions, and the Norwegian Parents' Association funds the Lesotho Parents' Association.

Participation:  The most important contribution towards appropriate sustainability has been the careful attention paid to the participatory process.  This has often meant that different aspects of the programme have taken much longer than if the Special Unit had just 'got on with it'.  The Special Education Unit officers Mrs Mariga and Mrs Phachaka, prioritised this process by going out to many different groups of people, spending a lot of time with them, listening to them and learning from them. The aim was to ensure that the whole programme was firmly rooted in the positive aspects of existing belief and practice. As in a traditional Basotho partnership, the knowledge and skills developed in other countries has been married into the Lesotho lineage of traditional family care and now that the whole community has been involved, there can be no divorce!

Impact
The programme has gained national recognition from policy makers, parents and many professionals. Attitudes have begun to change; in some cases in quite radical ways. Teachers have developed confidence, knowledge and skills which help them become better teachers of all children. A major strength is the establishment of formal and informal networks and support systems involving different sectors and levels of the community. 
	There have of course been constraints. Progress may have been faster with more resources but then again, the steady development has meant that the roots are firmly established. The programme has had to respond to external influences such as political instability within Lesotho, and also the major upheavals in the region due to the dramatic changes in South Africa. 
	Internal constraints such as changes of staff and the pressures for other aspects of educational reform have also had to be worked with. The changes that teachers are being asked to make are fundamentally different from traditional ways of working and teachers are not used to being agents of change. The approach used involves all levels in order to offer maximum opportunity for support and success; the government policy and national plan provides a very important basis for change, the involvement of several teachers plus the headteacher from the pilot schools ensures a whole school approach and mutual support, and the networking and community involvement ensures that the changes are relevant, appropriate and integrated into indigenous belief and practice.

The Future
The long term goal is that the programme will become an integral component of mainstream education. It may also be a model for other countries in the region to learn from, as it offers an alternative approach to other integration programmes operating in Africa.  The issues of early childhood education and vocational training and employment are very closely related to the programme.  It is hoped that increased collaboration with CBR and LNFOD, together with continued inter-ministerial collaboration will ensure that the goals of 'equalisation of opportunities and full participation' are getting closer.  A full evaluation of the programme is planned for May 1995, eighteen months after the piloting of training materials. 
References

Ainscow, M.(ed.) (1991). Effective Schools for All. London: Fulton.

Anson-Yevu, V. (1988). A Case Study on Special Education in Ghana. Paris: UNESCO.

Barnartt, S. and Kabzems, V. (1992). Zimbabwean Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Integration of Pupils with Disabilities into Regular Classrooms.  International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 135-146.

Connors, J.L. and Donnellan, A.M. (1993).  Citizenship and Culture: the role of disabled people in Navajo. Disability, Handicap and Society, 8, 3, 265-280.

Csapo, M. (1987). Basic, Practical, Cost-effective Education for Children with Disabilities in Lesotho. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Guma Mongezi, D. (1992). Special Education for a Whole Generation of Politically Constructed Learning Disabled: Republic of South Africa.  International Journal of Special Education, 7, 133-138.

Hawkins, P.J.F. (1989).  Law and the Rights of the Disabled Child in 	Lesotho. London: S.O.A.S London University.

Helander, E. (1993). Prejudice and Dignity: An Introduction to Community Based Rehabilitation. New York: UNDP.

Kisanji, J. (1981). Incidence of Handicapped Children in Ordinary  Primary Schools: Report on the IYC National Symposium on Early Childhood Development and Education. Nairobi: UNICEF Office of East Africa.

Kriegler, S. (1989). The Learning Disabilities Paradigm: Is it relevant in the South Africa context? International Journal of Special Education, 4, 165-171.

Kriegler, S. & Farman, B. (1994). Redistribution of Special Education Resources in South Africa: Beyond Mainstreaming Towards Effective Schools. International Journal of Special Education, 9, 1-12.

Lesotho Ministry of Education (1992). Education Sector Development Plan.  Lesotho: Ministry of Education.

Mariga, L. & Phachaka, L. (1993a). Integrating Children with Special 	Educational Needs into Regular Primary Schools: Report of a Feasibility Study. Lesotho: Ministry of Education.

Mariga, L. & Phachaka, L. (1993b). The Report of Special Education In-Service Teacher Training Workshop.  Lesotho: Ministry of Education.

Miles, M. (1985). Children with Disabilities in Ordinary Schools,  Peshawar: Mental Health Centre.

Miles, M. & Miles, C. (1993).  Education and Disability in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Pakistan,  In S.J.Peters (ed.) Education and Disability in Cross-Cultural Perspective. London: Garland.

Mittler, P., Brouillette, R. & Harris, D. (eds.) (1993). World Yearbook of Education 1993: Special Needs Education.  London: Kogan Page.

Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the Social Relations of Research Production? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 101-114.

O'Toole, B. (1993). Community-Based Rehabilitation, in P. Mittler et al. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1993: Special Needs Education.London: Kogan Page.

Peters, S.J. (1993). Education and Disability in Cross-Cultural Perspective. London: Garland.

Saunders, C. & Miles, S. (1990). The Uses and Abuses of Surveys in Service Development Planning for the Disabled - The Case of Lesotho. London: SCF.

Save the Children Fund (1993) Integrated Education in South East Asia. Workshop report, London: SCF.

Serpell, R., Mariga, L. & Harvey, K. (1993).  Mental Retardation in African Countries: Conceptualisation, Services and Research, International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 19.

Simms, F.A. (undated) An Evaluation of Children's Institutions in the Kingdom of Lesotho and Consideration of Alternatives. Maseru: Government of Lesoto with SCF.

Slee, R. (ed.) (1993). Is There A Desk With My Name On It? The Politics of Integration.  London: Falmer Press.

Snell, M. (1987).  Systematic Instruction for Persons with Severe Handicaps. London: Merrill Publishers.

Stubbs, S. (1994) A Critical Review of the Literature Relating to the Education of Disabled Children in Developing Countries. London:SCF.

Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S. & Oliver, M. (eds.) (1993). Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments.  Milton Keynes: Sage Publications and Open University.

Tungaraza, F.D. (1993).  The Prevalence of Children Needing Remedial Services in Tanzanian Regular Primary Schools. International Journal of Special Education  8, 146-154.

UNESCO (1993). Sub-Regional Seminar on Policy, Planning and Organization of Education for Children with Special Needs. Paris: UNESCO.

Wiesinger, R. (1986).  Disabled Persons in the Third World: Present Situation and Changing Perspectives for the Future. International Journal of Special Education, 1, 21-34.

Acknowledgement

	The photographs are by Sue Stubbs.

Pholoho Khatleli worked as teacher for six years in a regular primary school before studying at the Birmingham University, England where she obtained her B.Phil. in visual handicap.  She is currently an Assistant Inspector for Special Education in the Lesotho Ministry of Education.

Lilian Mariga is Special Education Advisor, Ministry of Education, Lesotho.  She is sponsored by Save the Children (UK) and had previously worked in Zimbabwe as a headteacher and national co-ordinator of a home-based learning programme.  She is currently a vice-President of the International League of Societies for Persons with Mental Handicap.

Lineo Phachaka trained as a primary school teacher and taught for 12 years before going to the National University of Lesotho and the University of Washington, USA,  where she obtained a postgraduate degree in early childhood special education.  She is head of the Special Education Unit (Integrated Education) in the Ministry of Education.

Sue Stubbs is currently Overseas Disability Advisor for Save the Children Fund (UK) and consultant for the British Overseas Development Administration on disability in India.  Her background is in special education and creative arts therapy and after teaching in East London for many years, she worked in South Asia training child care workers and teachers.  

Contact Address
	Save the Children, 
	17 Grove Lane, 
	London SE5 8RD, 
	England