AID, ATTITUDES AND AMBIVALENCE: THE IMPACT OF AUSTRALIAN AID IN THE INTRODUCTION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVES IN THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
Rodney Brian Yates
Bachelor of Arts, Diploma in Education (University of NSW)
Master of Arts (Macquarie University)
Master of Analytical Psychology (University of Western Sydney)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology 2018
Keywords
Australian Aid, Critical Pedagogy, Developing Countries, Development Aid, Inclusive Education, Kiribati, Pacific Island Nations
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati i
Abstract
Foreign aid is political; donor governments set the agenda and oversee the use of aid in developing nations. Inclusive education is a socio-political construct emerging from the human rights movements in developed countries. This study examines the research questions of dependency on Australian Aid and local ownership/sustainability in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati through data analysis of documents, individual interview responses and school-based focus group discussions. The participants were key local stakeholders from both the aid recipient and donor viewpoints for the individual interviews and classroom teachers for the focus groups. The document analysis focused on the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (2015). Adherence to international (western) principles was predominant in the policy which was developed with significant input from external advisers. Process and values coding was used to examine the individual interviews and focus group responses. These responses indicted that a positive commitment towards inclusive education is emerging in Kiribati, particularly for local education professionals. Australian Aid funded inclusive education initiatives have provided advocacy for disadvantaged children in Kiribati, particularly children with disabilities, who have historically been excluded from school. Without Australian Aid support, initiatives to address this social justice issue may not have occurred through local processes. The process of introducing inclusive education initiatives, through the Australian Aid funded education project, has incorporated elements of Freire's Critical Pedagogy to generate critical dialogue to re-evaluate values and issues. There is a question as to whether this dialogue is generating local ownership for inclusive education or simply echoing an adherence to western (Australian) values of inclusion in education. Inclusive education initiatives remain dependent on Australian Aid for direction and sustainability. Sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati will depend on continued development of local ownership including community support and commitment by the Government of Kiribati, particularly budgetary support.
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati ii
Table of Contents
Keywords ...... i Abstract ...... ii Table of contents ...... iii List of figures ...... vi List of tables ...... vii List of abbreviations ...... viii Statement of original authorship ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Foreign aid and inclusive Education ...... 2 1.2 The researcher ...... 7 1.3 Purpose ...... 8 1.4 Method ...... 11 1.5 Significance...... 12 1.6 Thesis overview ...... 13 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 15 2.1 Topic 1: The contradictions and dilemmas of foreign aid in a globalised world ...... 15 2.1.1 Political and economic influences on aid provisions ...... 16 2.1.2 Neo-liberalism and globalisation ...... 18 2.1.3 Human rights approaches ...... 20 2.1.4 Aid effectiveness and accountability ...... 22 2.1.5 Neo-colonial control ...... 24 2.1.6 Neo-liberal influence on education ...... 25 2.1.7 The professionalisation of aid support ...... 26 2.1.8 Local ownership and participation ...... 29 2.1.9 Foreign aid complexity and control ...... 31 2.2 Topic 2: Inclusive education as a global socio-political issue ...... 32 2.2.1 Inclusive education as a universal principle or an ill-defined concept ...... 32 2.2.2 Values, human rights and social justice ...... 34 2.2.3 The ‘Other’ as a view of individual and cultural difference ...... 37 2.2.4 Community, a support or barrier to inclusive education? ...... 38 2.2.5 The challenges of a systems approach to inclusive education ...... 40 2.2.6 UN, ‘champion’ of global inclusive education rhetoric...... 43 2.2.7 Criticism of UN and development initiatives for inclusive education ...... 45 2.2.8 Education for All and the UN Development Goals an ongoing challenge ...... 47 2.2.9 Implications of the ratification of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for inclusive education in Kiribati ...... 51 2.2.10 Inclusive education policy development ...... 53 2.2.11 Inclusive education and foreign aid...…………………………………...... 55 2.2.12 What is inclusive education and its relevance in developing countries? ...... 57 2.3 Topic 3: Australian foreign aid and inclusive education in the Pacific ...... 58
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati iii
2.3.1 Australian Government directions and re-directions ...... 59 2.3.2 Criticisms and cutbacks ...... 60 2.3.3 Development for All: Australia’s disability-inclusive strategies ...... 62 2.3.4 Australian Aid for inclusive education in the Pacific region ...... 64 2.3.5 Inclusiveness in the Pacific ...... 66 2.3.6 Pacific policy commitments towards inclusive education ...... 68 2.3.7 Australian Aid in Kiribati ...... 70 2.3.8 Kiribati culture and inclusion ...... 72 2.3.9 Inclusive education in Kiribati ...... 73 2.3.10 Inclusive education policy development in Kiribati...... 76 2.4 Topic 4: Summary and implications from Chapter 2 ...... 80 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ...... 83 3.1 Critical Theory ...... 83 3.2 Critical Pedagogy ...... 86 3.3 Participatory Inquiry...... 92 3.4 Framework application ...... 93 Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 95 4.1 Critical pedagogy and research ...... 96 4.2 Qualitative research ...... 97 4.3 The case study ...... 99 4.4 Positioning the researcher and the research ...... 100 4.5 The research design ...... 101 4.6 Participants and settings ...... 104 4.7 Data collection ...... 107 4.8 Data from documents ...... 108 4.9 Data from individual interviews ...... 110 4.10 Data from focus groups ...... 112 4.11 Data analysis ...... 114 4.12 Document analysis ...... 115 4.13 Coding of individual interviews and focus group responses ...... 118 4.14 Trustworthiness ...... 123 4.15 Ethics ...... 124 4.16 Results interpretation ...... 125 Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” ...... 129 5.1 Directing Australian Aid policy ...... 131 5.2 Managing inclusive education initiatives ...... 133 5.3 Funding inclusive education ...... 136 5.4 Depending on Australian Aid ...... 138 5.5 Continuing dependency ...... 140 Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy ...... 143
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati iv 6.1 Relevance and adherence of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy ...... 144 6.1.1 Definitions of inclusive education ...... 144 6.1.2 Quality education ...... 145 6.1.3 Resource allocation ...... 146 6.1.4 Participatory data collection ...... 147 6.1.5 Teacher education ...... 148 6.1.6 Flexible curriculum development ...... 148 6.1.7 Inclusive education as a rights issue ...... 149 6.1.8 Cultural aspects ...... 150 6.1.9 Evaluating the sub-themes in terms of relevance to Kiribati and adherence to imported ideals ...... 151 6.2 Policy implementation ...... 152 6.3 Significance of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy ...... 154 6.4 Themes from other Kiribati documents ...... 156 6.5 From rhetoric to ownership ...... 158 Chapter 7: “It’s Ownership Issues” ...... 159 7.1 Attitudes towards disability ...... 162 7.2 Support for inclusive education ...... 165 7.3 Local responses to inclusive education initiatives ...... 167 7.4 Local attitudes regarding the contribution of Australian Aid ...... 169 7.5 Sustainability with or without aid support ...... 170 7.6 The challenge of ownership ...... 172 7.7 Ownership/sustainability summary ...... 172 Chapter 8: Critical Pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati ...... 175 8.1 Australian Aid and critical pedagogy in Kiribati ...... 175 8.2 Contradictions ...... 183 8.3 Implementation of inclusive education ...... 187 8.4 The research as critical pedagogy ...... 188 8.5 Critical dialogue: A way forward ...... 189 Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions ...... 191 9.1 Aid ...... 192 9.2 Attitudes ...... 194 9.3 Ambivalence ...... 195 9.4 Research contribution ...... 197 9.5 Limitations of this study ...... 198 9.6 Continued development ...... 199 9.7 A final word ...... 202 9.8 Stop press ...... 203 References ...... 204 Appendices ...... 224
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati v
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Map of Kiribati
Figure 1.2 Dependency Model (RQ1)
Figure 1.3 Ownership Model (RQ2)
Figure 2.1 ‘The White Man’s Burden’
Figure 2.2 Community gathered at the school play yard during the opening
Figure 2.3 Millennium Development Goals
Figure 2.4 Australia’s aid generosity over time
Figure 2.5 Factors contributing to the implementation of inclusive education
in Pacific Island countries
Figure 2.6 Inclusive education policy development process
Figure 4.1 Interaction of research stages and data analysis
Figure 4.2 Coding procedure
Figure 5.1 Coding process for dependency
Figure 7.1 Coding process for values
Figure 8.1 Process of changing local values and programs
Figure 8.2 Developing local ownership through Australian Aid advocacy
Figure 8.3 Synthesis of cultural values
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati vi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Freire’s process in the research
Table 4.2 Participant groups
Table 4.3 Participant roles
Table 4.4 Documents
Table 4.5 Content analysis
Table 4.6 Document analysis processes
Table 4.7 Process coding sub-themes
Table 4.8 Values coding sub-themes
Table 6.1 Policy implementation: key lessons
Table 7.1 Values and attitudes coded phrases and sentences
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati vii
List of Abbreviations
ACFID- Australian Council for International Development AQEP- Access to Quality Education Program AusAid- (now) Australian Aid AVID- Australian Volunteers for International Development CRPD- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities DFAT- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade EAC- Education Advisory Committee EENET- Education Enabling Network EFA- Education for All ESSP- Education Sector Strategic Plan GDP- Gross Domestic Product GMR- Global Monitoring Report GoK- Government of Kiribati HRBAs- Human rights based approaches IMF- International Monetary Fund KEF- Kiribati Education Facility KEIP- Kiribati Education Improvement Program KTC- Kiribati Teachers’ College IEWG- Inclusive Education Working Group IMF- International Monetary Fund IDC- International Development Community MC- Managing Contractor MoE- (Kiribati) Ministry of Education MDG- Millennium Development Goal NCAF- National Curriculum and Assessment Framework NGO- Non Government Organisation ODA- Official Development Aid OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PM&E- Participation Monitoring and Evaluation PRSD- Pacific Regional Strategy on Disability RQ- Research Question SIP- School Improvement Plan TPD- Teacher Professional Development UN- United Nations UNCRC- United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children UNESCAP- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNESCO- United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF- United Nations Children’s Fund
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati viii Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
QUT Verified Signature
Date: 27 April, 2018
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati ix Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the people I worked with in Kiribati during my volunteer year in 2013 who contributed to the ‘spark’ behind this research, in particular, Lucy Kumon, Principal Kiribati Teachers College; Toaki Arinoko, Lecturer Kiribati Teachers College; Brucetta Toatu, Gender and Social Inclusion Co- ordinator (May-October, 2013); Teburantaake Kaei, Gender and Social Inclusion Co- ordinator (October, 2013-present) and Cara Ellickson, Gender and Social Inclusion Mentor.
The Australian Volunteers for International Development program provided the opportunity to live and work in Kiribati.
I would like to thank my QUT supervisors Professor Suzanne Carrington (Principal Supervisor) and Professor Hitendra Pillay (Associate Supervisor) for their guidance, complementary expertise and patience in supporting this novice research student. Also to Dr Jenna Gillett-Swan who joined the supervisory team at a later stage.
Adjunct Professor Yoni Ryan provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’.
Finally to my wife Aurora who has provided tolerance and support as I chase my elusive dreams around the world.
Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: the impact of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati x Chapter 1: Introduction
The focus of this study is the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati. The Republic of Kiribati is a small island nation centrally located in the Pacific Ocean with 32 atolls straddling the equator across a distance of 3,900 kilometres east to west (see Figure 1.1). The population according to the 2015 census was 110,136 (Kiribati National Statistic Office, 2015) with over 50,000 living in the capital, Tarawa. The population is 99% ethnically I-Kiribati1. Kiribati is classified as a least developed nation; “Kiribati has few natural resources and is one of the least developed Pacific Island countries. Kiribati is dependent on foreign aid, which was estimated to have contributed over 43% to the government’s finances in 2013” (World Fact Book, 2015). In 2017 foreign aid contributed 48% ($A153M) to the government’s budget (Government of Kiribati, 2016). Primary school enrolments were 15,117 students (Kiribati National Statistic Office, 2015). Attendance figures (including children of school age not attending school) were not reported.
Figure 1.1 Map of Kiribati
1 I-Kirbati is the local term for the people of Kiribati
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
This chapter introduces the concepts of foreign development aid and inclusive education and the relationship between these concepts. The researcher’s practical experience, which led to the questions for the research, is then outlined. The purpose of this study is to investigate the research questions:
1. How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati?
2. What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati?
Following discussion of the purpose of this study, the method and significance of the research is outlined. Finally, the structure of the remaining chapters is presented.
1.1 FOREIGN AID AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Foreign aid, by which developed countries provide assistance to poorer developing countries, is political. Donor governments set the agenda and oversee the use of the aid in developing nations (Riddell, 2014). Inclusive education, by which all children have the right to access education generally at their local neighbourhood school (UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2016), is socio-political in nature, emerging from the human rights and social justice movements in developed countries (Terzi, 2014) rather than from educational practice. That foreign aid is political and inclusive education is socio-political are the two primary assumptions underlying this research. As both foreign aid and inclusive education are political, power relationships and local ownership of inclusive education initiatives (or lack thereof) play an important role in determining outcomes.
Foreign aid provision is an area of controversy, contradictions and dilemmas for the recipient countries, particularly when dealing with concepts like ‘inclusive education’. Some of the triggers for the controversy and contradictions may be summarised as:
Political/economic agendas (Bauer, 1972; Ellerman, 2005; Greech, 2012; Riddell, 2007, 2014; Shah, 2010) versus human rights and social justice
Chapter 1 Introduction 2
approaches (Law, Valiente-Riedl & Celermajer, 2012; United Nations, 1948, 1989, 2006).
Short term ‘assessable’ projects versus long term sustainability (Nastios, 2010; Riddell, 2014).
External professional management and implementation by donors (James, 2016; Kothari, 2005; Schein, 1972) versus local ownership (Howes, 2013; OECD, 2005; Rahnema, 2010).
The concept of development has been critiqued as it “undermines confidence in oneself and one’s own culture, clamours for management from the top-down [and] converts participation into a manipulative trick to involve people in struggles for getting what the powerful want to impose on them” (Esteva, 2010, p. 3). The role of development in imposing programs on developing countries is extenuated when dealing with sensitive reforms like inclusive education that have implications for local cultural and educational practices.
Foreign aid is generally provided through short-term projects which have been identified, developed and funded by the donor country using technical assistance which has been sourced from that donor country. Riddell (2014) notes that, the impact of individual projects “is overwhelmingly positive even though sustaining benefits remains a challenge” (p. i). Bilateral aid, which flows between two countries, can be restrictive in that it is generally linked to the donor country’s specific agenda as opposed to the broader agendas of multilateral aid organisations such as the World Bank, UNICEF and non-government organisations such as Save the Children. Australian bilateral aid reflects this specific agenda. For example, Australia’s specific foreign aid agenda was enunciated in a speech by the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop when she stated, “We are refocussing our efforts, placing our aid program more clearly in the context of Australia’s national interest” (Bishop, 2014, para. 12). Bilateral Australian Aid has been particularly influential in a number of developing nations in the Pacific region including the Republic of Kiribati (DFAT, 2008, 2017a).
Inclusive education is also an area of controversy, contradictions and dilemmas. Some of these controversies include:
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
definitions of inclusive education (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010; Liasidou, 2012, 2015; Mitchell, 2005);
the imposition of developed countries’ concepts of inclusive education (even if subtly) onto developing countries which do not take into account the cultural factors of the developing countries (Nguyen, Elliot, Terlouw & Pilot, 2009); and
the capacity of developing countries to implement programs associated with inclusion (Le Fanu, 2013; Miles, 2007).
Globally inclusive education has been concerned with groups of children who have been historically excluded from schools because of perceived differences, such as gender, ethnic origin, language, religion, nationality, poverty, rural and geographic isolation and disability (UNESCO, 2017a). UNESCO (2017b) defines inclusive education as the “process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners” (p. 7). Definitions of inclusive education are varied, ranging from a specific focus such as the inclusion of students with disabilities to much broader definitions of inclusion that includes all students who may be excluded from accessing schooling. What does an inclusive educational system look like? Is it radically different from traditional schooling? What does this imply for teaching practices? What is inclusion? The complexity of inclusive education makes these questions difficult to answer. These are challenges that each educational system needs to consider as inclusive education practices evolve according to the unique characteristics and needs of that system and its communities. For the inclusion of children with disabilities, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has provided a comprehensive report on what an inclusive education system should look like (United Nations, 2016). These recommendations could be well beyond developing nations’ capacity to meet, such as providing assistive technology or additional staffing to cater for individual needs, that requires costly resourcing to implement.
Different interpretations of what is inclusive education have determined the focus of programs. In Pacific Island nations the primary concern of inclusive education has been the inclusion of students with disabilities (Puamau & Pene, 2009). This has been influenced by the primary role of Australian Aid in the
Chapter 1 Introduction 4 introduction of inclusive education initiatives which, through the Development for All Strategy (DFAT 2009b, 2015), has placed a focus on disability-inclusion. Other issues such as catering for gender inequalities are being addressed within their own targeted initiatives.
In the local Kiribati context, inclusive education is seen as primarily related to children with disabilities accessing education, although the Kiribati Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) reflects a broad definition of catering for all children who may be excluded from school programs. As commented by an educational program evaluation in Kiribati, “this has created confusion as to what inclusion means” (Emmott, 2014, p. 26). The implications of the local views of what inclusive education means are examined in Chapter 6.
For this study the focus is on the inclusion of children with disabilities as the functional interpretation of inclusive education in Kiribati. Internationally the term inclusive education is used even when functionally it could be more appropriately designated as ‘disability inclusive education’. Note that in this study the generic term ‘inclusive education’ is used throughout. ‘Inclusive education’ is the term used in Kiribati, for example, in the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) and in the responses by the participants in this study. The following broad working definitions were applied for this study:
Inclusive Education: Programs which enable children who have previously been excluded from schools (in Kiribati particularly children with disabilities) to access education.
Disability inclusion: Programs which promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in their communities. Inclusive education promotes the inclusion of children with disabilities in their local school communities. For this study, the term disability-inclusion is used only in conjunction with discussion related to Australian Government Policy and its influence (Development for All, DFAT, 2009b, 2015). The phrase; ‘the inclusion of children with disabilities’ is used when discussing a disability focus within inclusive education.
Inclusive education is socio-political in nature, emerging from the human rights and social justice movements in developed countries rather than from educational practice; “The concept of inclusion has emerged in the last 30 years
Chapter 1 Introduction 5
within European social theory” (Terzi, 2014, p. 1). The international human rights movement and associated conventions such as, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990), Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994), Education for All (UNESCO, 2000), Development Millennium Goals (United Nations, 2000), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006), Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015a), and Education 2030 Incheon Declaration (UNESCO, 2015b), have promoted the introduction of inclusive education policies and practices in developing nations and highlighted the importance of inclusive education worldwide. Le Fanu (2013) sees inclusive education as ‘global evangelization’ promulgated through United Nations organisations. In carrying out this ‘campaign’ through strategies such as ‘Education for All’, local conditions are often discounted; “The adoption of international approaches such as inclusive education and its subsequent policy development in the Pacific disregarded cultural and local issues, thus making implementation ineffective [ and unsustainable]” (Duke et al. 2016, p. 5).
Although aspects of inclusion have been promoted by church and non- government organisations well before aid program interventions, the formal introduction of inclusive education policies and programs in developing nations has come largely from foreign interventions that are initiated and supported through international aid funding. This creates a paradox in which values and attitudes to inclusion are imposed (even if subtly) which can obstruct inclusive programs and practices which are sustainable.
Developing countries, such as small Pacific Island nations, have particular challenges regarding inclusion of children with disabilities. Access to education, such as found in geographically isolated outer islands, is often restricted given the challenges of limited resourcing and local cultural factors (Klees, 2010; Miles, 2007). The local neighbourhood school is generally the only educational provision, and local factors such as community attitudes, teacher skills and lack of resources present significant barriers to enrolment of children with disabilities.
The introduction of inclusive education in many Pacific Island nations has been initiated and supported through Australian Aid provisions. A project approach has meant that initiatives have been short-term, dependent on Australian Government
Chapter 1 Introduction 6
funding cycles and that the outcomes achieved in individual projects may not be sustained (AusAid, 2009). The impact of these projects has generally not been evaluated externally and therefore is questionable. Similar to many other developing countries in the South Pacific region, the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati has been initiated and directed through the Australian Aid funded Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) which has overseen education reform in Kiribati generally. This creates issues of local ownership and commitment.
1.2 THE RESEARCHER
My interest in inclusive education came from a long career in regular and special education. I have played an active role in inclusive education since 1983, establishing programs of inclusion and administrating a state wide program at the very beginnings of the ‘seeds’ of inclusive education (then called integration) in Australia. Through these experiences I developed a strong commitment to social justice and inclusive practices. This culminated in volunteer placements in Kiribati as Inclusive Education Teacher Trainer at Kiribati Teachers College in 2013 and as Inclusive Education Advisor at the Maldives Ministry of Education in 2015, both positions funded through the Australian Volunteers for International Development (AVID) program. In 2016 I returned to Kiribati for two months, planning staff development at the Kiribati School for Children with Special Needs, during which I carried out this research.
My interest in the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education policy and practices in Kiribati came from apparent contradictions and dilemmas encountered during the 2013 volunteer assignment in Kiribati. The research interest arose initially from the dilemma that important pre-requisites for my role such as policy, awareness, identification and resources for inclusive education were either non-existent or in the very early stages of development. The role of aid in these processes became a focus when my role was cited as one of the achievements of the Australian Aid funded education project even though I was funded through the AVID program, not the education project. It seemed like I was the only person directly supporting the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati at that time and that the aid funded education project was taking credit for this.
Chapter 1 Introduction 7
In undertaking fieldwork it is not possible to be emotionally unattached. The researcher also needs to be attuned to the emotional experiences of the participants. To do this, the researcher should:
have good familiarity with the phenomena [and context];
use a multidisciplinary approach;
have good investigative skills/ability to draw people out;
pay attention to detail;
be comfortable, resilient and non-judgmental; and
have empathic engagement balanced with objectivity.
(Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014, p. 42)
For this study, I have a strong familiarity with inclusive education globally and, in particular, within the Kiribati context, having been directly involved with the early stages of the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. Through these activities I established good relationships with key stakeholders in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives and, through these relationships I have been able to draw people out by being comfortable, non-judgmental and empathic with the participants. This research can be seen as a cooperative activity between the researcher and the participants.
I see the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in developing countries as an equal partnership between participants in which all stakeholders have an important contribution to make, and not as a top-down process where the donor partner provides the expertise to achieve the donor’s objectives. Inclusive education initiatives should be based on the recipient country’s needs and priorities, even if these are not necessarily seen as priorities by the donor country. For many developing countries lacking resources to support inclusive education, the basic provision of education is the major priority, with inclusive education often a very low priority, if a priority at all.
1.3 PURPOSE
Against the discussion in section 1.1, this research explores the dilemma of the political and controlling role that Australian Aid plays in determining the direction of
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati and the seemingly lesser role of local stakeholders in ownership of these initiatives. This raises questions of dependency on Australian Aid programs and ultimately the sustainability of these initiatives.
The following research questions are the primary focus:
1. How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati? [Research Question 1 (RQ1) dependency]
2. What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati? [Research Question 2 (RQ2) ownership/sustainability]
As the research questions postulate that the impact and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives may be influenced by dependency on aid provisions and on the extent of local ownership of these initiatives, two contrasting models, a dependency model and an ownership model were developed by the researcher to conceptualise the influences that shape the introduction and implementation of inclusive education initiatives.
A dependency model is a top-down model with little local ownership (Figure 1.2). External factors determine the direction and control of these initiatives. Therefore, there are limitations in terms of ownership and sustainability (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010). Given that inclusive education policy and practice has been introduced and supported through projects funded by Australian Aid and managed by the externally contracted Kiribati Education Facility (KEF), the introduction of inclusive education policy and practice in Kiribati may have followed the dependency model.
Chapter 1 Introduction 9
Figure 1.2 Dependency Model (RQ1)
International Philosophy of Inclusion
Australian Aid Objectives
Local Kiribati Objectives Values Attitudes Conditions
Inclusive Education Policy and Practice
An ownership model sees a sharing between the philosophy of inclusion, Australian Aid objectives and local national factors (Figure 1.3). In the ownership model local factors are the primary determinant in developing inclusive education policy and practice (Sharma, Loreman & Macanawi, 2015). Aid provision supports (not directs) this development. The ownership model depends on the active participation of and a level of control by the aid recipients (local stakeholders).
Figure 1.3 Ownership Model (RQ2) (Note the primacy of local factors)
International Philosophy of Inclusion Australian Aid Objectives
Local Kiribati Objectives Values Attitudes Conditions
Inclusive Education Policy and Practice
Chapter 1 Introduction 10
Evidence regarding the extent of local commitment and ownership of inclusive education for this study was examined by engaging local stakeholders (both recipients and donor representatives) in critical dialogue about the inclusive education initiatives being introduced in Kiribati. By engaging local stakeholders in this research, a fuller picture of the impact of Australian Aid funded inclusive education initiatives may emerge. Local ownership is crucial for long-term sustainability of these initiatives.
1.4 METHOD
Data were collected using a range of methods:
1. Document analysis, particularly the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015), Development for All (Australian Aid’s Disability- Inclusion policy, DFAT 2009b, 2015) and KEF Management Plans (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a; Coffey International, 2013).
2. Interviews with ten key stakeholders associated with the introduction of inclusive education initiatives. Seven interviewees were identified as representing the recipients of the aid assistance, including Ministry of Education administrators (3), school executive (2), a teachers’ college representative and a representative from the disability organisation (Te Toa Matoa). Three interviewees were classified as representing the donors which included the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) inclusive education coordinator and Australian High Commission staff. All interviewees were local I-Kiribati people.
3. Two school-based focus groups consisting of ten teachers provided a check of implementation of inclusive education initiatives at a practical level.
Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) underlies the theoretical framework for this research. This theoretical approach helps to identify and explain what is oppressive within social reality in the Kiribati context, to identify the actors (stakeholders) to change it, and to provide both a critique of social phenomena (inclusive education) and achievable practical goals for social transformation. In this study, this theoretical framework has informed a focus on the stakeholder’s voice and this has influenced the analysis and identification of generative themes reported in this research. For this study, engaging the participants, through individual interviews and focus group discussion, in critical dialogue around themes related to dependency on Australian
Chapter 1 Introduction 11
Aid and local ownership of inclusive education initiatives provides the vehicle to express local voice concerning these topics. Local ownership of programs will not develop unless seen as relevant to local needs and values by the local stakeholders. The study is situated within a broader theoretical framework of aid effectiveness and uses inclusive education as the unit of analysis, with the context for empirical work being the Kiribati education system.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE
There has been little research linking the provision of foreign aid directly to initiatives which aim to introduce inclusive education policy and practices into developing countries. Research into the impact of initiatives related to inclusive education, particularly in Pacific Island nations, is also limited and tends to have not been conducted independently but conducted by funding agencies themselves. Lack of independent research runs the risk of being biased and self-serving. By providing an examination of the implementation of inclusive education initiatives in a developing Pacific Island nation, this research has the potential to further inform practice, particularly for Pacific Island nations.
The research has the potential to contribute to the overall implementation strategy for the recently adopted Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015). The participants in this study are key stakeholders in the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. The research aims to engage the participants in critical dialogue in examining the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy and its implementation. The benefit for the participants is to gain a greater understanding of inclusive education initiatives and how these initiatives will benefit students. However, awareness won’t necessarily result in action, particularly if the participants feel as though they have little power/control over their context through the imposition of educational programs from external sources based on foreign aid agendas.
The research also has the potential to inform Australian Aid processes in implementing the ‘Development for All 2015-2020: Strategy for strengthening disability-inclusive development in Australia’s Aid Program’ (DFAT, 2015). Ongoing critical dialogue is essential in developing local ownership of issues concerning disability-inclusion and is discussed further in Chapter 8. In facilitating
Chapter 1 Introduction 12
this dialogue, Australian Aid can provide an advocacy role for the disadvantaged which is not being provided through local or government sources, such as for children with disabilities (and their parents) who are excluded from schools.
This research has the potential to inform future research into inclusive education in Pacific Island nations and aid effectiveness in this area. Local ‘indigenous’ researchers should take the lead as they will provide local knowledge and leadership. Inclusive education is a concept being introduced across developing Pacific nations. The sharing of each nation’s experiences and processes provides opportunities for collaboration and learning from each other. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat provides an agency for collaboration between the member countries. The Secretariat aims to support persons with disabilities across the fourteen Pacific Island member countries (including Kiribati) to;
Provide maximum opportunities for informed national deliberation,
Reflect on how to improve enjoyment of human rights,
Provide useful advice and guidance to States and help raise awareness
Promote international cooperation
Facilitate full participation of those whose rights are in question, and
Provide effective remedies for those whose human rights are violated
(Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2018)
From this support a ‘Pacific’ approach to inclusive education can emerge rather than borrowed or imposed concepts from developed countries (Luke, 2007).
1.6 THESIS OVERVIEW
This Chapter has provided an introduction to the issues relating to foreign aid and inclusive education. The researcher’s background and interest in this area of research was outlined. The two research questions, which emerged from the researcher’s background experiences in Kiribati, were presented. These research questions concern the major themes of dependency on Australian Aid and local ownership of inclusive education initiatives. The research methodology employs document analysis, individual interviews with key stakeholders and focus group discussion to examine these questions. Finally the potential significance of the
Chapter 1 Introduction 13
research in terms of contributing towards informing inclusive education policy practices in developing countries, particularly for Pacific Island nations (including Kiribati) and Australian Aid policy in the region was discussed.
The thesis is subsequently arranged as follows:
Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the following topics. Topic 2.1 considers the contradictions and dilemmas of foreign aid in a globalised world. Topic 2.2 reviews Inclusive Education as a global socio-political issue. Topic 2.3 introduces Australian Aid and Inclusive Education in the Pacific.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the theoretical framework for this study which is based on Freire’s Critical Pedagogy.
Chapter 4 outlines the methodology used for this study.
Chapter 5 reviews findings related to dependency on Australia Aid.
Chapter 6 reviews findings related to analysis of documents particularly the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy.
Chapter 7 reviews findings related to ownership of inclusive education.
Chapter 8 discusses critical pedagogy in the implementation process of inclusive education initiatives.
Chapter 9 provides an overview of findings and conclusions.
Chapter 1 Introduction 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter provides a critical review of the contextual and theoretical groundings that inform this research. There are four major topics that will be reviewed. Topic one (2.1) explores the contradictions and dilemmas of foreign aid in a globalised world. Topic two (2.2) explores inclusive education as a global socio- political issue. Topic three (2.3) considers Australian Aid and inclusive education in the Pacific. Topic four (2.4) looks at the implications of these topics in terms of their relationship with the research themes of dependency (Research Question 1) and ownership/sustainability (Research Question 2).
2.1 TOPIC 1: THE CONTRADICTIONS AND DILEMMAS OF FOREIGN AID IN A GLOBALISED WORLD
The central theme of this topic is that foreign aid comes with conditions, which determine how (and where) aid money is spent. This creates an unequal power relationship in which the practices and philosophies of the donors are imposed, although often indirectly, onto the recipient country. The philosophy of neo- liberalism2 has created a situation where economic determinants and individual rights, as defined by the donor countries, have become the central concern in the provision of aid rather than a more human rights/ social justice based approach.
Developing countries are seen as part of the global economic political system, with aid provided to support the aid donor countries’ systems rather than supporting the recipient countries’ needs (Klees, 2010). The donors’ control is reinforced by the professional bureaucracy of consultants and technical advisers from the donor countries who, using their own cultural and professional lenses, ‘know what is best’ for the recipient (Schein, 1972). Although local participation may be commonly specified in funding submissions and reports as a feature of aid projects, this can be limited in application because of the unequal power relationship and overall donor control of projects (see 2.1.8).
2 “Neo-liberalism: An ideology that gives individual rights over collective rights and responsibilities, supports privatisation and a competitive market model as the way to organize education, health and other institutions, and argues for minimal state including low, if any, social welfare support” (Carrington & Macathur, 2012, p. 69).
Literature Review 15
Associated with this argument are issues such as aid effectiveness (see 2.1.4), the neo-liberal concept of social capital which puts much of the burden back on the local communities (see 2.1.2), and the emphasis placed on outputs and (measurable) outcomes rather than long term impact and sustainability of initiatives (see 2.1.4).
2.1.1 Political and economic influences on aid provisions In its most political form, a donor nation (or organisation) provides aid in order to seemingly obtain a favour from the receiving nation, such as the controversial aid given by the Australian Labor Government associated with securing votes for a seat on the UN Security Council (Bishop, 2012, Corbett, 2017). The relevance of this in influencing the introduction of inclusive education policy and practices is beyond this study; however, the point is that any bilateral aid will have an element of expectation of allegiance which may be political or economic.
Historically, aid has been linked to economic growth with broad quantitative measures such as increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the benchmark of success. The rationale behind linking aid to economic growth is that all people in a developing nation would benefit from increases in the nation’s GDP based on the notion of a ‘trickle down’ effect which would eventually reach the most disadvantaged as the nation modernises (Akinci, 2017). This has often proven to be illusionary as rapid growth has generally been accompanied by increasing inequalities; “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time” (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015, p. 4).
Foreign aid has been widely criticised. Four decades ago Bauer (1972) argued that by creating dependency, distorting priorities, fostering corruption and exacerbating market imperfections, “foreign aid is likely to obstruct development” (p. 95) which is still evident forty years later (Phillips, 2013). The failures of aid have been seen as coming from inherent problems with planning and social engineering (Easterly, 2006). The donor country owns the process, which the recipient country accepts. Development aid results in a culture of ‘dependency’ or ‘addiction’ and aid “engenders laziness on the part of policy makers” (Moyo, 2009, p. 66). The high dependency of Kiribati on foreign aid makes it very vulnerable to these issues (World Fact Book, 2015).
Literature Review 16
Aid funding usually comes with conditions. Economists from developed countries, notably the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), impose requirements such as currency devaluation, low inflation, balance of payments equilibrium and opening up local markets to foreign trade and investment, which benefit developed countries as much as they are supposed to help developing countries (Riddell, 2007). Riddell further argues that control is exercised by the donor/lender, “predominantly for the IMF and the World Bank ownership is understood as the process whereby recipient countries come round to accepting the respective financial institution’s programmes, policies and approaches to development, growth and poverty reduction” (pp. 240-241). For example, the Education for All 2015 National Review Report: Kiribati reported that, “multilateral banks have advised the government of the need to reduce unnecessary public expenditure to strengthen the country’s fiscal position. This includes efforts to privatize public enterprises to strengthen the potential for more robust private sector activity” (Government of Kiribati, 2014a, p. 11).
Ellerman (2005) argued that organisations such as the World Bank have a monopoly on economic thinking and strategy that they impose on developing countries “turning the government into a marionette that will believe and do what it is told as long as the aid or loan is forthcoming” (p. 136). In addition, Riddell (2014) notes that “the impact of aid on growth has been comparatively small: a sustained contribution of about 10% GDP raises GDP levels by only about 1%” (p. 7). The problem with this economic definition of development is that it is too narrow and does not meet all needs, particularly social concerns; “As a conceptual construction, economics strives to subordinate to its rule and subsume under its logic every other form of social interaction in every society it invades” (Esteva, 2010, p. 14).
Criticism of the economic domination by the developed world has been informed by dependency theory. Crossman (2018), in defining dependency theory, comments that “the world economic system is highly unequal in its distribution of power and resources and places most nations in a dependent position in relation to the industrial powers” (para. 1). Developing countries are, therefore, economically dependent on the developed countries. Developed countries exploit developing countries which provide a ready supply of cheap labour and natural resources (Matunhu, 2011).
Literature Review 17
The imposition of values and conditions by the traditional western developed countries, through the IMF and World Bank, is being challenged by emerging economies particularly the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China) which are providing development funding to developing nations through new institutions such as; the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB); the New Development Bank (formerly the BRICS bank); the China-Africa Development Fund; The Silk Road Fund and the South-South Development Fund (Lin & Wang, 2017). These initiatives are providing an alternative to IMF and World Bank funding without their conditions for economic reform (Hulme, 2016). Lin and Wang (2017) comment, “It is high time for the IMF and World Bank to welcome new, different development theories and ideas from the east as ingredients in their policy recommendations” (p. 14). The above discussion illustrates the changing view of what may constitute development support including how inclusive education may be perceived by the new funding agencies.
In Kiribati economic exploitation is not apparent because, apart from fisheries, Kiribati has few natural resources to exploit. Kiribati is highly dependent economically on developed nations, particularly through the provision of aid support. Foreign aid was estimated to be contributing approximately 48% ($A153) of the total 2017 government budget” (Government of Kiribati, 2016).
2.1.2 Neo-liberalism and globalisation In an attempt to justify world economic order, neo-liberalism is the predominant economic view (still) being exported from developed countries. The main points of neo-liberalism include:
The rule of the market — freedom for capital, goods and services, where the market is self-regulating allowing the trickle down notion of wealth distribution;
Reducing public expenditure for social services, such as health and education, by the government;
Deregulation, to allow market forces to act as a self-regulating mechanism;
Privatisation of public enterprise; and
Literature Review 18
Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility (Shah, 2010, para. 4).
Critics of neo-liberalism would argue that neo-liberalism supports the economic priorities of the developed industrialised nations and ignores the human needs of (exploited) developing nations; “Neo-liberalism (is) an ideology that gives emphasis to individual rights over collective rights and responsibilities, supports privatisation and a competitive society and argues for minimal state (intervention) including low, if any, social welfare support” (Carrington & MacArthur, 2012, p. 69).
Efficiency and productivity are the focus of neo-liberalism and often assessed only through macro indicators such as increases in GDP. Developing countries lack development because they are seen as less efficient than the highly industrialised developed countries. To address efficiency, aid programs emphasise developing governance and social capital3 to address the problems facing a developing country. Communities are expected to take greater responsibility for their own situations drawing from their own resources, particularly those generated through social interactions. As Grech (2012) comments, “the ambitious claim by parties such as the World Bank to be able to build social capital, just like building a school, remains problematic, arrogant and resonates with imperialist overtones” (p. 81). In the brave new world of neo-liberalism the disadvantaged have few ‘safety nets’ for addressing their disadvantage.
Community capacity to address social justice issues can be limited by a lack of resources and local conditions. In Kiribati, efforts to address issues of inclusion have stalled due to local conditions. For example, on an outer island a follow up to a previous consultation by Te Toa Matoa (a disability advocacy group) to establish networking for people with disabilities stalled because an allowance to attend meetings was not provided (T. Arinoko, personal communication, May 12, 2013).
Closely associated with neo-liberalism is globalisation. Globalisation is “the integration of economies, industries, markets, cultures and policy-making around the
3 The World Bank defines social capital as “the institutions, relationships and norms that shape the quality of a society’s interactions… Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin society – it is the glue that holds them together” (World Bank, 1999, p. 2).
Literature Review 19
world” (Financial Times Lexicon, 2017, para. 1). The aim of globalisation is to create a unified system of economies, societies and cultures across the world. Developed countries through their global power control the course of globalisation, which is seen by many critics as neo-colonialism (see 2.1.5). Developing countries are at risk of being forced into the global market place without consideration whether this is in the country or its people’s best interest;
Where globalization means, as it so often does, that the rich and powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and weaker, we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom (Nelson Mandela, 2000, para. 12).
In Kiribati cultural globalisation can be seen in the development of the inclusive education policy which reflects a global cultural view rather than a local view of inclusive education. This is discussed in Chapter 6.
2.1.3 Human rights approaches A humanistic approach to development emerges from human rights and social justice movements. Sen (1999), for example, argued that, “Development can be seen as a process of expanding real freedoms” (p. 3). Human rights based approaches to development have been promulgated through the rhetoric of the United Nations and largely carried out by humanitarian non-government organisations (NGOs).
UN Conventions have reinforced a human rights focus, notably The Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly 10 December 1948. Relevant to this study is Article 26 which declares:
1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The right to education has been promulgated in subsequent United Nations declarations and conventions (see 2.2.6).
Literature Review 20
The Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) defines a human rights approach to providing aid to developing countries as “distinguished from other traditional approaches to delivering aid and development (such as a needs-based or charity-based approach) by their emphasis on discrimination, exclusion and the intersectionality of disadvantage as the underpinning causes of poverty” (ACFID, 2010, p. 2). Law, Valiente-Riedl and Celermajer (2012) note that human rights based approaches to the provision of development aid are based on;
The belief that people living in poverty should understand their experiences of want, fear, discrimination and exclusion in terms of human rights abuses, violations and exploitations and not as a consequence of their own failings. Human rights based approaches focus on [overcoming] exclusion and disempowerment (p. 6).
A human rights approach is very different from a neo-liberal approach because a human rights approach places people’s circumstances at the centre of analysis of need, rather than economic analysis, and focuses on addressing these disadvantages. The neo-liberal point of view supports the market economy with little concern for the individual who may or may not benefit from the market economy. For neo-liberalism the individual is responsible for their own circumstances. Human rights approaches attempt to place a normative limit on market excesses whereas “neo-liberalism has obliterated the ceiling on inequality” (Moyn, 2014, p. 149).
Closely aligned to human rights approaches is the concept of social justice which is based on the concepts of fairness and equity. In terms of globalisation, the populations of developing countries are seen as disadvantaged in terms of access to resources, services, standard of living etc. when compared to those in developed countries (although there can also be significant internal differences within the population of developing countries in terms of standard of living). Social justice becomes even more of an issue when the advantaged are seen as controlling the conditions of the disadvantaged for their own benefit (Freire, 1970). Social justice movements would argue that inequalities should not be exploited but eliminated, or at least minimised.
Literature Review 21
2.1.4 Aid effectiveness and accountability The conflicting aims of aid programs from neo-liberal and human rights agendas make the evaluation of aid effectiveness a murky field. In the short-term aid has seemingly made important contributions to development. Riddell (2014) notes that, the impact of individual projects “is overwhelmingly positive even though sustaining benefits remains a challenge” (p. i). Riddell and Nino-Zarazua (2016) reviewed what has been learned ‘over many decades’ regarding the contribution that foreign aid has made to education. They concluded that aid has made a positive contribution to “education in aid-recipient countries, the most tangible outcome of which is the contribution that aid makes to expanding enrolments especially of basic education” (p. 23). They caution that, “Development agencies which focus only on demonstrable short-term impact may well be contributing, unwittingly, to an undermining of long-term impact on the education systems” (p. 23).
The analysis of aid effectiveness has depended on the underlying assumptions and the availability of the data often producing contradictory results; “Many studies have documented the positive effects of aid but a large number of studies have shown that aid can have a negative impact on growth, institutions, democratisation and governance” (Baliamoune-Lutz, 2017, p. 388). The evidence provided can be selective depending on the point of view of the writer selecting mainly favourable examples to present the case that aid works (e.g. Sachs, 2015) or mainly unfavourable examples to demonstrate the failure of aid (e.g. Moyo, 2009). As summarised by Hulme (2016), “In practice we know that aid does work (in some forms, in some places, at some times) and also that aid fails (in some forms, in some places, at some times)” (p. 43). The impact of aid in improving conditions in developing countries remains a contested area.
The World Bank reported in the 2011 Global Monitoring Report that despite significant increases in aid provisions for the education and health sectors, there had not been an improvement in outcomes and that “the quality of education and health services remain low in many developing countries” (p. 71). Concerns over aid effectiveness, such as those expressed by the World Bank, have led to greater accountability requirements by donor organisations such as the governments of developed countries; “Development agencies have experienced heightened pressure to show that their work is having a positive impact on the communities and people
Literature Review 22
they work with” (Law, Valiente-Riedl & Celermajer, 2012, p. 8). Riddell (2014) notes that “in spite of a steady expansion in the numbers of [aid] projects assessed and an increase in analytical rigour, most projects are still not evaluated and only a small proportion (considerably less than 1%) are the focus of any in-depth evaluation” (p. 4). The implication is that the effectiveness of aid remains unclear and un-evaluated, particularly over the longer term.
Law, Valiente-Riedl and Celermamjer (2012) discuss three elements of evaluation of aid projects; outputs, outcomes and impacts. Outputs are the activities associated with the project. For example, an output in Kiribati would be community meetings to discuss the inclusive education policy. Outcomes are what are produced in the short-term by these outputs. For example, in Kiribati an outcome would be an increase in the number of children with disability attending school. Impacts are the long-term effect on the lives of the people. For example, in Kiribati a long-term impact would be an inclusive society in which all children are accepted in school communities.
The short-term nature of aid projects limits the long-term sustainability of the outcomes (de Renzio, 2016). Accountability requirements have led to an emphasis on outputs and outcomes which can be measured across the short-term (for example number of meetings, school attendance data). Impacts are difficult to assess and may only develop with time. A criticism of aid in terms of impact is that aid provides little in the long-term impact on people’s lives (Riddell, 2014).
This draws into question the sustainability of foreign aid initiatives. Whereas short-term projects are easiest to evaluate, at least on a surface level, they are probably the least effective in terms of impact; “Those development programs that are most precisely and easily measured are the least transformational, and those programs which are most transformational are the least measurable” (Nastios, 2010, p. 1). Short-term projects are generally based on achieving specific measurable objectives (deliverables) over a specific timeline. Systemic changes such as inclusive education policies and practices are difficult to assess in the short-term (and some would say in the long-term) as they are multifaceted (Mitchell, 2015), requiring qualitative evaluation of the change made to people’s lives (Riddell, 2014). Inclusive education is not just a matter of children attending school but a matter of how school communities accept and embrace diversity.
Literature Review 23
2.1.5 Neo-colonial control Neo-colonialism can be described as “the subtle propagation of socio- economic and political activity by former colonial rulers aimed at reinforcing capitalism, neo-liberal globalization, and cultural subjugation of their former colonies” (Afisi, 2017, para. 3). Rather than by direct rule, developed nations and corporations control developing countries through economic and political means, thereby exerting a de facto sovereignty over the developing countries in terms of the countries’ policies and programs. This is often a remnant from the colonial legacy whereby the colonial masters controlled (and exploited) all aspects of the colonised with little reference to their subjects (MacQueen, 2014). Figure 2.1 metaphorically illustrates the historical colonial exploitation of the people of their colonies with the colonial masters of the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France being carried by their colonial subjects.
Figure 2.1 ‘The White Man’s Burden’ (Life, 1899)
Most developing countries obtained independence from their ‘colonial masters’ within the last 60 years. Kiribati obtained independence from Great Britain in 1979.4
4 Independence came when the major source of colonial income for Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, who controlled phosphate mining on Banaba, had been exhausted. “Beginning in 1900 and ending 80 years later, phosphate rock mining stripped away 90 per cent of the island’s surface”. (Cranston, 2015).
Literature Review 24
Aid funding can be likened to an attitude of neo-colonial control. The question of who controls aid funding and projects is a central concern particularly in terms of sustainability. Developed countries have a tendency to dictate the direction of aid flows either overtly through direct administration of projects or subtly through technical assistance (see 2.1.7). While the developing country remains dependent on aid funding from the aid provider/s, there will be an expectation by the provider to maintain control of this funding and, therefore, control of the initiatives that it is funding.
Formal education systems in colonies were ‘imports’ of education systems developed in the colonising countries; “Schools were primarily designed to meet the conceptions and needs of the colonisers rather than the colonised” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). Odagu (2015) relates that, “mainstream historiography often turns to Europe's era of empire building to explain the expansion of Western formal education in Africa” (p. 241). The education systems developed by the colonisers continued after the colonisers had supposedly left, through vestiges of indoctrination regarding the superiority of developed countries’ educational methods supported by aid to develop educational provision. In Kiribati, the development of the National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (2012) has followed this pattern of western (Australian) influence; “The writing process was managed by the Curriculum and Assessment division of the Ministry (CDRC) with technical and financial assistance provided by AusAid” (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2012a, p. 4).
The adoption of western education curricula and implementation supported by expatriate teachers and advisers, has led to a discounting of local conditions and experience. As Nguyen et al. (2009) note, “in the rush to adopt and import educational theories and practices based on western thinking, cultural aspects of pedagogy have often suffered serious neglect” (p. 112). The wholesale adoption of western policies can be seen as a ‘false universalism’ which, by failing to recognise the developing nation’s unique cultural dimensions, leads to continuing neo-colonial influence (Nguyen et al., 2009).
2.1.6 Neo-liberal influence on education Neo-liberal concepts based on market forces are being applied to education globally (Giroux, 2012). As discussed in 2.1.2 above, programs which are subject to neo-liberal influences can experience close financial scrutiny and even reductions in
Literature Review 25
public expenditure by the government for social services, such as health and education. The neo-liberal argument is that inefficiency is largely responsible for poor outcomes. This is closely aligned to accountability requirements to justify the use of public expenditure.
Klees (2010) argues that foreign aid provisions to support education development have been very much caught up in neo-liberal philosophy and globalisation; “Education, like other social services sectors, has been a victim of the neo-liberal onslaught that has argued that schools generally do not need to spend more money but need to spend it more wisely” (p. 17). Klees dismisses the neo- liberal emphasis on efficiency by arguing that lack of resources such as teachers, classrooms and learning materials etc. are vital to address educational needs in poorly resourced developing nations. Klees declares, “What nonsense! Of course, spending wisely is important but more money is desperately needed. We have 75 million children of primary age out of school. They need teachers, classrooms and learning materials” (p. 17).
A consequence of neo-liberal influences on aid programs has been a focus on improving accountability implemented through time-line targets, indicators and benchmarks (see 2.1.4). This places developing countries under a huge expectation to comply with unsustainable expectations. The focus shifts from a lack of resources to questions of inefficiencies within developing countries’ education systems and places further demands on the education system in terms of accountability.
Neo-liberalism with its emphasis on individual achievement also places pressures on the classroom. Schools are expected to achieve standards so that their students will become productive economic citizens in the future (Hursh, 2000). Inclusion of some students (such as children with disabilities) in school programs not only increases the pressure to bring these students up to the required standards but may be seen as a failure of the school system overall when these standards are not achieved.
2.1.7 The professionalisation of aid support Professionalisation is an increasing feature of aid projects requiring planning, budgeting, management structures, accountability, measurable outcomes, reporting
Literature Review 26 and professional qualifications (Roth, 2015). Professions are characterised by four criteria:
•Specialisation of knowledge;
•Establishment of the profession as a livelihood;
•Organisation and institutionalisation; and
•Legitimacy and authority.
(James, 2016, p. 186)
The perception of the professional’s legitimacy and authority makes them “susceptible to the delusion that their knowledge tradition and its associated practices and discourses are objective and inherently correct” (Skrtic, 1991, p. 85). The professional, through their training and experience, possess a knowledge that others who are less well trained or experienced do not have; “The professional is assumed to know better what is good for the client than the client himself” (Schein, 1972, p. 8). In developing countries, post-colonialism sustains the superiority of western expertise; “In a postcolonial environment, the colonizers or dominant group that have power always refer to the colonized and oppressed group as inferior, underdeveloped, unrefined, less capable of thinking and unqualified to present their voices” (Salifu & Agbenyega, 2013, p. 9).
Directing the march of the developed country’s philosophies into the hearts and minds of the developing country’s systems are the legions of technical advisers and consultants heading a global invasion of sorts. In the case of aid to developing nations, the professionals are generally sourced from the donor countries (Riddell, 2007). The expatriate adviser has the technical knowledge that only they possess. They come armed with a surety that they (the expatriate professionals) know what is best for the developing country and what is best for the less experienced local staff; “In this way there is a separation between ‘expert’ and ‘local’ knowledge and an intellectual distance between donor and recipient is maintained” (Kothari, 2005, p. 428). Sharing expertise with less experienced staff can be a challenge for the professional who often discount local knowledge and expertise; “In many cases, professionals seek to acquire and monopolise specialised knowledge” (James, 2016, p. 187).
Literature Review 27
Given the generally short-term nature of aid projects, technical advisers have the added task of imparting their knowledge as quickly as possible, justifying their inputs through immediate measurable outcomes (deliverables). This is expedited for the adviser if the local staff adopts the advice as given; “Sometimes it is good to have power and say ‘this is how we are going to do it’ but I don’t think it is good for sustainability if an outsider has so much power” (Roth, 2015, p. 128). This reinforces an approach whereby the adviser knows what the best course of action is for the local staff to follow. Technical Advisers (TA) also are advantaged financially as compared to locals who “tend to earn on average four times as much as local workers despite [similar] levels of education and job experience” (Roth, 2015, p. 130). “TA pay disparities can cause resentment amongst local staff, who work alongside these consultants, as well as privilege western ‘expert’ advice over local knowledge and experience” (Aid Watch, 2010, para. 3). The potential conflict between local indigenous knowledge and experience and western expert advice is providing a challenge to international aid agencies (Sarvi & Pillay, 2015).
Advisers may control the ownership of programs from the planning stages without fully incorporating local input or considering local conditions; “Plans that look good on paper may have been drafted with strong support by donor agencies but bear little relationship to countries’ political processes and education system realities” (UNESCO, 2015a, p. 33). This means that plans and policies may have little meaning to the local participants and, therefore, may be implemented without strong commitment and, therefore, long term sustainability. Freire (1970) would see programs which are imposed as ‘cultural invasion’ with little ownership or relevance to local stakeholders.
Historically, the role of the adviser has been to make the ‘unfamiliar familiar’; “New meanings can be produced through messages coming from outside a group (e.g. other cultures, experts and active minorities)” (Wagoner, 2008, p. 467). Alternatively, the adviser can utilise local knowledge to make the familiar unfamiliar to explore the exceptionality of what is taken for granted (for example, the exclusion of children with disabilities from schools), “by creatively using social tools one already possesses by belonging to a society” (Wagoner, 2008, p. 467). Some researchers are highlighting the second approach to acknowledge local knowledge and promote local ownership of programs (e.g. Carrington & Duke, 2014).
Literature Review 28
Aid is a profitable business, as indicated by the large number of both commercial and so called not-for-profit organisations based in developed countries exporting aid programs to developing nations. As Ditcher (2003) comments, “Aid has become a business whose main stake is its own survival – [which] begins to explain why there has been so little apparent learning or fundamental change in how things are done” (p. 4). Aid expenditure flows back significantly to donor countries in terms of technical advisers and programs which are tied to spending in the donor country (Riddell, 2007). Aid funding of expensive technical advisers and consultants, building companies and educational material suppliers from developed countries, is justified by a global system which supports these sources as the only way to address the problem.
2.1.8 Local ownership and participation Local ownership of and participation in aid initiatives have been and still are major issues; “It is commonly and no doubt rightly said that aid projects will only succeed if recipients ‘own’ them” (Howes, 2013, p. 69). Local ownership and participation have the advantages of providing knowledge of local conditions which foreign advisers do not have, and the networks of relationships essential to the success of ongoing projects are already in place. A participatory approach provides opportunities for the people to participate in all activities related to their own development. A participatory approach provides “dialogical interaction for people to address the issues that are important to them” (Rahnema, 2010, p. 133). Critical dialogue, as argued in later chapters, has been central to the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati (see Chapter 8).
The Paris Declaration (OECD, 2005) was a significant step towards formalising and focusing international efforts to improve the quality of aid and its contribution to development. The Paris Declaration sets out the principles of ownership of foreign aid funded projects whereby the aid recipients should take an active leadership role over policies and development programs. The declaration states that aid donors need to align their support based on the developing country’s strategies and procedures; that the donors’ programs should be transparent and collectively effective in achieving results rather than solely benefitting the donor; and that both the donors and partners are required to be accountable for development results. The rhetoric of the Paris Declaration (2005) and subsequent Accra High
Literature Review 29
Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2008) and Busan Partnerships for Effective Development Partnerships (OECD, 2011) placed recipient ownership and participation at the centre of focus for effective aid provision. However, does the rhetoric meet the practice? An overview of the monitoring framework of development partnership developed from Busan concluded that while the results “testified to the important progress towards achieving the development effectiveness goals agreed in Busan, the platforms, regulations and capacities for structured multi- stakeholder engagement is missing in most countries” (Republic of Korea, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017, p. 4).
The control by consultants imposing their expertise on aid projects and bureaucratic constraints can be a significant barrier to genuine participation. Participation is a popular ‘catch call’ which, it could be said, is given ‘lip service’ in aid projects. Expatriate consultants generally appear to conform to the mantra of participation. Participation has become a new consultancy skill “acting as a promoter or professional of participation rather than a sensitive party to the process of mutual learning” (Rahnema, 2010, p. 136). The consultant brings their own values and biases. The consultants project these values, even if unconsciously, onto those with whom they are consulting (Roth, 2015). For example, in Kiribati, the researcher in 2013 (prior to this research) observed expatriate ‘facilitators’ armed with ‘butcher’s paper’ proceeding to project their own agendas on the generally compliant local participants. A particular illustration of this process was when brainstorming the vision statement for the Kiribati National Disability Policy at a workshop, the consultant, flown in for a two week period, was asked by a local stakeholder ‘how would this be translated into Te Kiribati’ (the national language)? This was a very good question in terms of incorporating local understanding and ownership of the vision statement. The response by the consultant was, after a long pause, left unaddressed.
The delivery and management of aid can be highly bureaucratic, particularly from the donors’ viewpoint. Projects are generally administered through companies from the donor country, which are accountable to the donor government. For example, in Kiribati, the education project funded by Australian Aid is administered through the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF), which is a part of Coffey International, a for-profit provider of aid projects for the Australian Government.
Literature Review 30
This administrative organisation can lead to the project operating in isolation from the recipient country's bureaucracy; “Bureaucracy works best where there is high feedback from beneficiaries, and agencies, unfortunately, all of these conditions are unfavourable in foreign aid” (Easterly, 2002, p. 226). It is little wonder, where there are competing bureaucratic interests the dominant partner (donor) will prevail, keeping the junior partner (recipient) in a subordinate ‘advisory’ role.
Evidence of ownership and participation may be reported by many aid organisations as central to their operations, however, the professionalisation of the technical adviser/consultant role creates a scenario whereby “the participants do not feel that they are being forced into something, but are actually led to take actions which are inspired by centres outside their control” (Rahnema, 2010, p. 127). Controlled, directed participation may be just a cover for the legitimatisation and maintenance of neo-colonial dominance. However, there are times where there have been genuine participatory relationships depending on the organisations and personalities involved (Carrington & Duke, 2014; Carrington et al., 2016).
2.1.9 Foreign aid complexity and control The review of the literature for this topic, ‘the contradictions and dilemmas of foreign aid in a globalised world’, has demonstrated that foreign aid is a complex area coming from a range of underlying motives of political and economic domination, through to altruistic guilt, to human rights and social justice advocacy.. Although the economics of neo-liberalism still influence the conditions of aid provisions this influence may be changing with new donors such as the BRIC countries bypassing the IMF and World Bank through new aid funding organisations. By supporting aid programs through expatriate professionals, the message of superiority is maintained. In Kiribati this is very much the case with development aid providing a significant role in ‘propping up’ services and the economy. This is notable in the education sector, with the Australian Aid funded program Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) being the dominant player in determining policy and direction across the sector, including inclusive education initiatives. Australian Aid contribution for education in 2017 is estimated to be $8.5M (Government of Kiribati, 2016, p. 104).
In many countries, aid has seemingly made important contributions to development and poverty reduction, for example enabling ‘millions to go to school’
Literature Review 31
(Riddell, 2014, p. 39), but development can and does occur without aid. In terms of the role and effectiveness of aid, the question is that the cost of dependency on aid may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the benefits are of a short-term nature and not sustainable due to lack of local ownership. Although local ownership and participation are acknowledged as key components for effective aid programs, structured multi-stakeholder engagement is missing in most aid projects (Republic of Korea, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017).
2.2 TOPIC 2: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AS A GLOBAL SOCIO- POLITICAL ISSUE
This topic explores concepts related to inclusive education such as the definitions of inclusive education and the challenges for developing nations, human rights and social justice values that underpin inclusion, the ‘Other' as a neo-colonial psychological construct, community support and barriers, and inclusive education as a reorganisation of education systems and practices. United Nations initiated policies and programs have been central to the introduction of inclusive education globally. These policies and programs are critically examined in terms of the impact and relevance to developing countries, including Kiribati.
2.2.1 Inclusive education as a universal principle or an ill-defined concept The moral rationale for inclusive education was elegantly expressed by Nelson Mandela;
There can be no contentment for any of us when there are children, millions of children, who do not receive an education that provides them with dignity and honour and allows them to live their lives to the full. It is not beyond our power to create a world in which all children have access to a good education. Those who do not believe in this have small imaginations (2007, para. 1 & 2).
Inclusive education has become a global concern with many practical and philosophical challenges for both developed and developing nations. UNESCO (2017b) defines inclusive education as the “process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners” (p. 7). Mitchell (2005), in reviewing international perspectives towards inclusive education, suggests that inclusion is “underpinned by the philosophy that all students belong and can learn in regular
Literature Review 32
classrooms and schools, [and that] inclusive education is one of the most dominant and controversial issues confronting educational policy-makers and professionals around the world today” (p. xiv). He argues that social, political, economic and cultural contexts play a central role in determining whether or not inclusive education is implemented around the world. For developing countries the context includes the influence of aid programs from developed countries which place a priority on inclusive education initiatives.
Inclusive education can encompass all aspects of the education system from positive community and teacher attitudes towards inclusion, to accessing education in local neighbourhood schools in age-appropriate classes, to the provision of programs and appropriate aids which address individual learning needs, to differentiated curriculum and assessment, and to system wide policy; “Educational inclusion requires careful consideration of every aspect of schooling and the social context in which it finds itself” (Sayed, Soudien & Carrim, 2003, p. 245). The rhetoric of inclusive education is espoused by most nations, however, this rhetoric often falls short in practice; “Many countries seem committed to inclusive education in rhetoric, legislation and policies but their practices often fall short” (Mitchell, 2005, para. 3). Given confusion as to what inclusion means, there can be a significant gap between an ill-defined philosophical concept and implementation (Watkins & Meijer, 2016).
This means it may be difficult to introduce clear programs in which “commitments to equality and diversity are not just respected ideas but enacted practices” (Gibson & Hayes, 2009, p. 1). As Liasidou (2012) puts it, “Inclusion has taken many configurations, has been variously interpreted, understood, conceptualised, theorised and yet, it remains a largely vague, contested and debated notion, which can be either enthusiastically proclaimed or blatantly denounced” (p. 145). Or as put more cynically, “the reality is not that inclusion means different things to different people, but rather that inclusion may end up meaning everything and nothing at the same time” (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010, p. 29). Inclusive education is an ill-defined and misunderstood concept; “Inclusive education lacks a tight conceptual focus that may contribute to its misconception and often confused practices” (Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler and Sharma, 2013, p. 6).
Literature Review 33
For this study, the stakeholders’ interpretations and perceptions of what inclusive education means, from both an aid donor and aid recipient perspective, will help in understanding the focus of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. The compatibility of the western ideals of inclusion to the social and cultural values of Kiribati will impact on the conceptualisation, implementation and sustainability of these initiatives.
Developing countries are faced with many challenges to the implementation of inclusive education initiatives. Challenges to inclusion can include gaps between policy and practice, teacher attitudes and professional conservatism, parental resistance, community attitudes, lack of teacher skills and training, curriculum inflexibility, inadequate infrastructure and resources particularly in rural and remote areas, large class sizes and the top-down introduction of inclusive education initiatives from the centralised administration without preparing or supporting schools and their communities (Adebayo & Ngwenya, 2015; Eleweke & Rodda, 2002; Mitchell, 2005; Salifu & Agbenyega, 2013; Srivastava, de Boer & Pijl, 2015). For developing countries, these challenges may seem overwhelming and not high in their education priorities despite the provision of some foreign aid support for inclusive education initiatives.
2.2.2 Values, human rights and social justice
In developed countries the concept of inclusion draws from a broad set of values which include social justice, democracy, equity, participation, community, moral and ethical integrity, respect for diversity, sustainability, human rights and entitlement (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Carrington & MacArthur., 2012). Booth (2005) stresses “the importance of understanding inclusion as the putting into action of particular values” (p. 1). Liasidou (2015) comments that, “Inclusive education epitomises a values-based approach to schooling; it is concerned with the education we value and the society we envisage creating, while advancing new conceptualizations of students’ diversity, emotional development, human rights, citizenship and social justice” (p. 36). Values regarding inclusive education may or may not be common to both the donor country and the recipient country; “If it is not related to deeply-held values, then the pursuit of inclusion may represent conformity to a prevailing fashion or apparent compliance with instructions from above” (Booth, 2011, p. 308). When the values of aid providers are not aligned with local values,
Literature Review 34
changing society and individual values towards inclusive education, through the processes of foreign aid funded programs, may become a futile exercise in social engineering to enforce conformity to the values of the donor country.
Norwich (2014) proposes that inclusive education features the interrelated themes of “accepting and valuing all, not leaving anyone out, school re-organisation as a problem-solving organisation, promoting fraternity, enhancing equal opportunity, listening to unfamiliar voice, empowering, active participation in school life and a means to inclusive society” (p. 496). Such a wide-ranging task is difficult to achieve through short-term aid projects. Local acceptance and commitment to change is required if inclusive education is to become embedded in the culture of Kiribati school communities. Changing local attitudes and values takes time. The Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP), through which inclusive education initiatives are funded, is subject to short-term funding phases (currently KEIP Phase 3, 2016-2019). Local ownership of inclusive education initiatives may not develop over the short-term, which is the focus of Research Question 2 for this study.
Values underlying inclusion are held by many societies across the world, at least at a surface level. For example, the Australian Curriculum “emphasises such values as democracy, equity, justice, moral and ethical integrity, an appreciation of diversity, and the importance of contributing to and benefitting from a deeper understanding of other cultures” (Carrington & MacArthur, 2012, P. 8). It could be argued that inclusive values are more widely demonstrated in many developing countries than in the more materialistically, individualistic developed countries. Carrington and Duke (2014) note that, “values such as participation, community, trust, compassion, honesty, joy, love and hope are clearly evident and demonstrated in community life in many of the [developing] countries that we have worked in” (p. 200). Who is included and who is excluded from school programs depends on factors such as attitudes towards particular groups such as people with disabilities. This means that some individuals may still be excluded through the actions and attitudes of the society. For example, a child may not be sent to school because of the shame associated with disability or fears by the parents that the child will not be looked after.
Human rights and social justice ideals are at the heart of the philosophy behind inclusive education. Barton and Armstrong (2007) write;
Literature Review 35
For us inclusive education is about contributing to the realisation of an inclusive society with a demand for a rights approach. The question is fundamentally about issues of human rights, equity, social justice and the struggle for a non-discriminatory society. These principles are at the heart of inclusive education policy and practice (p. 6).
The notion of human rights becomes ‘muddied’ when considering the questions of whose rights and under what conditions. For inclusive education, the issue becomes who are to be included in schools, particularly mainstream schools, as opposed to special education facilities. Some groups of students, such as those with moderate to severe disabilities, are seen as requiring a separate form of education. Noted British pioneer on special education needs in the UK, Dame Mary Warnock (2010) argues that mainstream placement may undermine children with ‘special needs’ the right to quality education, as well as other children’s rights if compromised by the inclusion of children who are difficult to teach. This mirrors concerns about the integration movement of the 1970s which was classically named ‘maindumping’ (Stainback & Stainback, 1992; Charema, 2007), whereby students were expected to meet the standards of mainstream education with little change to teaching practices or any additional support. Miles (2007) links the unsupported placement of students with disabilities into mainstream classes in developing countries to the influence of aid agencies;
Researchers are reporting [that] aid agency pressure resulted in children with disabilities and special needs being thrust into mainstream classes in an ad hoc way, ignoring all existing experience with 'casual integration', and without additional resources ( para. 27).
Srivastava, de Boer and Pijl, (2015), in reviewing inclusive education implementation in developing countries over a 10 year period, note, “in developing countries over the last decade, the primary goal is that students with disabilities start attending regular schools and the quality of the education they receive or the academic and social outcomes come second" (p. 182)
Placement of students in mainstream classrooms without adequate resourcing and teacher training to address the students’ learning needs can lead not only to frustration for the student but also frustration for the teacher who may see the student as an ‘added burden’ (see 2.2.10 Le Fanu’s epistemological critique). Aspirations
Literature Review 36
regarding the right to access education are limited by the education system’s ability to meet these aspirations given the socio-economic conditions of developing countries. The only alternatives are often placement in under-resourced programs or exclusion (see 2.2.10 Le Fanu’s capacity critique).
2.2.3 The ‘Other’ as a view of individual and cultural difference A related social concept, relevant to attitudes towards excluded groups such as people with disabilities and towards developing countries generally, is the concept of the ‘Other’ (Sartre, 1969). Early colonial administrators and western anthropologists were said to view the colonised as lesser humans (Mountz, 2009) and, therefore, not entitled to the same human rights (for example enslavement at the extreme). The concept of ‘Otherness’ when applied today may mean that certain groups may be excluded because they are perceived as different, such as ethnic groups or persons with disabilities. They may be seen by the cultural majority as not meeting that society’s norms (Zevallos, 2011). This is reflected in the language of dichotomies where the ‘Other’ is labelled as lesser (for example able/disabled). The imposing of labels by society often becomes a negative stereotype for minority groups, justifying society’s suppression of these groups (Bauman, 1991). The minority group as a whole is seen as lesser and, therefore, not a part of society’s perception of itself; “It is far easier to judge others by measuring them against our own egocentric self-image than it is to accept those who we perceive as different from ourselves are of equal worth” (Rose, 2010, p. 1).This leaves the minority group vulnerable to exclusion.
Inclusive education confronts the concept of the ‘Other’ in seeing all children as having learning needs. Inclusive education is more than pedagogy for supporting particular students (although teaching skills in curriculum differentiation to cater for learning diversity are often lacking), but a philosophical rethinking of the purposes of education. Education has a responsibility to address the learning needs of all students; “If we deny our responsibility to the ‘Other’ we thereby estrange ourselves from what calls us to our work” (Veck, 2014, p. 462).
Minow (1990) identifies a ‘dilemma of difference’ by which “treating people differently can emphasise their difference, thus stigmatising them and hindering them on that basis, whilst treating people the same can ignore their needs” (p. 20). Norwich (2008) argues that the recognition of difference risks labelling some students and thereby contributing to their marginalized status within mainstream
Literature Review 37
settings, whilst failing to recognise difference can lead to failing to address and provide for individual needs. Minow (1985) poses the question “how can schools deal with children defined as ‘different’ [the ‘Other’] without stigmatizing them on that basis?” (p. 157). Norwich (2014) turns the dilemma of difference from “not recognising [being insensitive to] difference as hindering – into actively recognising difference as enabling” (p. 502). In education the dilemma of difference can be a positive, with recognition of student learning differences (which applies to all students) leading to more effective teaching practices. This is reflected in teaching programs and strategies to support individual learning needs.
The concept of the ‘Other’ is also relevant to foreign aid with those from the donor countries, including expatriate consultants, possibly viewing those in the recipient countries with whom they will be working with as the ‘Other’. This is not necessarily based on racial difference. Consultants from the developed countries bring different and often considered superior technical knowledge, albeit knowledge based on their own cultural biases, to the ‘Other’, that is those to whom they are imparting this knowledge. It implies superiority even if at a subconscious level (Roth, 2015).
Interestingly, in the Kiribati language there is a widely used term given to visitors from overseas, ‘Imatang’ which can be loosely translated as ‘stranger’. This perhaps suggests a suspicion of foreigners given the colonial history (the Euro- centric ‘Other' in reverse). Lack of trust by local stakeholders can impact on programs which are supported by ‘foreign’ advisers.
In Kiribati, like in other Pacific Island nations, people with disabilities have been generally seen as the ‘Other’ and excluded from local society; “We understand that persons with disabilities in the pacific are often excluded from the mainstream of the society and denied their human rights” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2018, p. 2). For this study, this view in the community determines negative attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities in schools. Changing these negative attitudes towards inclusion is a focus of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
2.2.4 Community, a support or barrier to inclusive education? The strong communities within many developing countries have both positive and negative aspects for inclusive education. This is a starting point for general
Literature Review 38
acceptance, support and participation by those within the community (for example acceptance of persons with disabilities from included family groups). The social capital (see section 2.1.2) provided within the community can support individual’s needs within that community. For example, in Kiribati, there is virtually no abject poverty as the extended family system provides support for all its members.
Strong communities can also magnify exclusion for those not perceived as belonging to that community. Grech (2012) notes that, “increasing evidence indicates that while social relations can enable access to resources, they can also be a means of control; exacerbate or maintain social differentiation; exclude non-members; a source of conflict, violence, oppression and subordination and a threat to personal freedom” (p. 80). Given the highly stratified society of many developing countries, such as is found in Pacific Island nations, strong community controls can also exclude those who are not seen as being within that community. For example, in Tarawa, the disabled persons organisation Te Toa Matoa have set up their own Maneaba to live in, separate from the rest of the Tarawa community.
In order to develop support for programs such as inclusive education initiatives, community culture and attitudes need to be taken into account. Aid projects can overlook these factors in the rush to ‘enforce’ given universal (western) principles. This can have ramifications in terms of local ownership of these concepts and can jeopardise the long term sustainability of these programs. For this study the consideration given by Australian Aid to local factors in the implementation of inclusive education initiatives is examined.
The school is a central focus of the community in which it practices and can reflect community attitudes and prejudices. School staff, generally live in and are a part of the local community and share in community life. This is particularly so in the village structures of countries such as Kiribati, even within the capital Tarawa. As an example of school/community close interactions, Bareaumai Primary School, in Tarawa, involved 125 parents and community members, divided into four teams, for a school grounds improvement project which culminated in a community prize giving on April 5, 2016 (Figure 2.2). The school is seen as part of the community and the community as part of the school.
Literature Review 39
Figure 2.2 Community gathered at the school play yard during the opening
The community can also exert strong pressure on the school and teachers to conform to its values and oppose the inclusion of children who are not seen by the community as being appropriately placed within the school.
2.2.5 The challenges of a systems approach to inclusive education Inclusive education has been seen as a transformation of education systems; “Inclusion and equity in and through education is the cornerstone of a transformative education agenda. No education target should be considered unless met by all” (UNESCO, 2015b, p. 7). There can be a conflict between a rights based approach to education based on individual need and a neo-liberal approach based on efficiency;
Tensions that reflect the intersection of the social justice principles of inclusion, where education is a human right of intrinsic value, and education reform policies that are based on the principles of the marketplace, where education is a means to other ends such as individualism and economic competitiveness. (Florian & Rouse, 2014, p. 510)
The neo-liberal concept of education in developed countries is standards-based whereby students are expected to gain the skills necessary to become productive, economic citizens (Hursh, 2000). Inclusiveness, from a neo-liberal perspective, is not seen as the rights and social justice based concepts of belonging and participating in
Literature Review 40
local schools, but is “rather perceived in relation to its potential to re-engage disaffected students in the learning process, in order to achieve educational excellence that is solely measured against examination results and league tables” (Liasidou, 2012, p. 19). For some students, such as those with significant disabilities, this outcome for ‘inclusion’ will never be achieved as their learning needs are unlikely to be ‘cured’ (the medical model of disability5) or achieve the educational standards deemed to be the requirement of the economic system. This has “given rise to the contradictory character of inclusive education policy documents” (Liasidou, 2012, p. 19) which attempt to incorporate both human rights and excellence constructs. Human rights advocates would argue that students with disabilities have the right to be educated with their regular peers, whilst excellence advocates would argue that this should not be at the expense of receiving a quality and appropriate education supported by adequate resourcing and staffing. For this study, the rhetoric of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy in terms of rights as compared to the practicalities of implementation in terms of quality and appropriate education, is examined.
A systems approach to inclusive education attempts to address the rights versus excellence dilemma. As a philosophical concept which includes all students within a learning environment and which caters for each student’s individual social and learning needs, inclusive education has been seen as a transformation of educational practice in which the structure of schools and educational systems need to be changed in order to cater for diversity; “Inclusion requires educational systems to be radically restructured so as to provide quality education for all students especially the most vulnerable” (Liasidou, 2012, p. 9). Kozleski and Siuty (2016) contend that;
Inclusive education is an educational agenda that, in its ideal form, can transform educational policies, structures and agencies. Its implementation demands new patterns and routines in what counts as education, the delivery of opportunities to learn and the forms and processes of student participation” (p. 56).
5 In the medical model, disability is seen as an illness or impairment which prevents the individual from being ‘normal’. The problem is inherent within the individual not the system. The individual requires treatment (Brisenden, 1986: Carrington & MacArthur, 2012).
Literature Review 41
This transformation of educational systems in both developed and developing countries requires funding. Ebersold and Meijer (2016) contend that, “High on the agenda of financing inclusive education [is] the need to re-think resource allocation mechanisms, the issue of empowerment, the way funding mechanisms support inclusive education, and the importance of governance and accountability mechanisms” (p. 37). In developing countries the funding for inclusive education initiatives largely is coming from foreign aid provisions.
The process of change requires the two elements of “pressure and support” (Fullan, 2010, p. 126). Liasidou (2015) contends that, “The absence of pressure honours inertia and perpetuates the status quo. Simultaneously, pressure without support is a futile measure that can easily lead to frustration and perpetuate inertia” (p. 51). Australian Aid funding provides implied pressure by directing how the funding is applied but also some support through the implementation of inclusive education initiatives (see Chapter 8).
The Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP) is attempting to restructure educational provisions in Kiribati. This program is multifaceted, and includes curriculum reform, resourcing, school buildings and teacher training. Inclusive education is just one element (and a relatively minor element) of this restructure. Some attempt has been made to include inclusive education in the restructure of the Kiribati education system. For example, an Inclusion and Gender Sensitive Pillar was featured in the School Improvement Plan Standards (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2013) and the Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2016-2019 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016) added “Goal 6: Effective implementation of the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy” (p. 10), as a key strategic goal for the education system.
In developing countries there are different issues that need to be addressed initially for movement towards inclusive education practices to be a reality, for example getting all children attending school (Srivastava, de Boer and Pijl, 2015), and providing basic resourcing such as well-trained teachers (Kiribati Education Facility 2013a). A transformation of educational systems to incorporate learning diversity in developing countries may be unrealistic for educational systems which are struggling to provide the most basic educational provisions (trained teachers, resources, classrooms etc.).
Literature Review 42
2.2.6 UN, ‘champion’ of global inclusive education rhetoric Internationally, the United Nations and associated organisations have overseen the promulgation of the concept of inclusive education into developing countries. Kiribati has been a signatory to a number of United Nations declarations and associated conventions, which would suggest a commitment towards inclusive education. Although the content of these documents suggest a commitment towards inclusive education, the application of this rhetoric is questionable. Chronologically, the following are important examples of a historical obligation yet to be fulfilled.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations, 1989) required signatory countries to “recognize the right of the child to education and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity” (Article 28). Article 23 required access to education for children with disabilities.
Kiribati ratified the UNCRC on 11 Dec 1995 with the following rider;
The Republic of Kiribati considers that a child's rights as defined in the Convention, in particular the rights defined in articles 12-16 shall be exercised with respect for parental authority, in accordance with the Kiribati customs and traditions regarding the place of the child within and outside the family.
The rider technically meant that parents could choose not to send their child to school.
In 2010 the UN Universal Periodic Review reported that there was a need for Kiribati to “incorporate the [UNCRC] into domestic legislation. A lack of financial and human resources was an obstacle to the effective ratification of [the UNCRC], but willingness to progress ratification was indicated if supported with resources from the international community” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2012, p. 74). Resource and capacity constraints are examined in Chapter 7 as barriers to the Government of Kiribati’s contribution to inclusive education initiatives and the reliance on Australian Aid funding.
The World Declaration on Education for All (EFA), adopted in Jomtien, Thailand (1990) reaffirmed education as a fundamental human right and urged countries to intensify efforts to address the basic learning needs of all. Goals
Literature Review 43
included universal access to learning; a focus on equity; emphasis on learning outcomes; broadening the means and the scope of basic education; enhancing the environment for learning; and strengthening partnerships, by 2000.
One of the Kiribati delegates to Jomtien recalled the experience as overwhelming and enlightening;
Sometimes we were lost, it was a very big conference however, the ideas in the EFA declaration were already in our plans, in the minds of people and it is difficult to say which targets came from the conference - we have different targets at different times, depending on priorities (Interview 7/11/95, World Education Forum, p. 3).
In 2000, Education for All was reviewed to assess progress made since 1990. The review concluded that the targets set at Jomtien had not been achieved. This resulted in the Dakar Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2000) which set the direction for the EFA over the next 15 years (see section 2.2.7). The Assessment Country Reports: Kiribati (World Education Forum, 2000) commented that, “one is tempted to raise the question as to whether the picture would not have been different if there were a concerted follow-up action from someone outside the body” (p. 3). Lack of follow-up, either internally or externally to commitments made by declarations, demonstrate the failure of systematic implementation at the country level and even confusion as to what the declaration itself meant in terms the individual country’s capacity to implement.
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Educational Needs (UNESCO, 1994) is a particularly notable milestone globally because it nominates the regular school as the most appropriate placement for ‘the majority of children’. It stated that an inclusive education system can only be created if ordinary schools become more inclusive – in other words, if they become better at educating all children in their communities. The Salamanca Statement is cited throughout the literature as the ‘most significant’ statement of inclusive education for children with disabilities (Ainscow & Miles, 2008). The Statement declares;
Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes; creating welcoming communities; building an inclusive society and achieving education
Literature Review 44
for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost- effectiveness of the entire education system (UNESCO, 1994, pp. viii- ix).
Reviewing the impact of the Salamanca Statement after 20 years, Vargas- Baron (2014) writes, “We have now established a strong international normative base for promoting and implementing education systems that are fully inclusive. Indeed, some countries have established national laws, policies or strategies for inclusive education. However, many nations have not yet done so” (p. xv). In Kiribati, the local community school is the only education option in the outer islands (there is a special needs school in Tarawa).
The signing or ratification of conventions and declarations does not necessarily ensure commitment to implementation; “Widespread neglect of conventions by many countries has provided professionals in international organizations an opportunity to declare ‘crises’ and to raise funds and hold conferences to address them” (Chabbott, 2014, p. 17). For developing countries, the signing or ratification of international policies and declarations may be a token gesture on the part of the ‘participating’ country in order to conform to international norms and to gain ‘benefits’ such as aid support.
2.2.7 Criticism of UN and development initiatives for inclusive education Development programs for inclusive education emanating from UN policies and organisations have been criticised. Armstrong, Armstrong and Spandagou (2011) caution that, “the exhortations of first-world aid agencies and international donors for [developing] countries to adopt inclusive education as a policy prescription to address system failure and individual disadvantage can seem idealistic” (p. 33).
Le Fanu (2013) maintains that inclusive education has become the justification for many development initiatives in education. He attributes this to ‘global inclusionism’ as a rights-based approach promoted through UNESCO as the lead agency. He sees this as ‘global evangelization’ promulgated through the provision of technical assistance and the dissemination (and enforcement) of inclusive education thought and practice. He argues that the concept of ‘global inclusionism’ is particularly appealing to the international development industry “as it describes how
Literature Review 45
approaches promoted by the [international development community] are efficacious in a range of development contexts” (p. 41).
Le Fanu cites the UNESCO vision for inclusive education as outlined in Embracing Diversity that every school should provide “[an] inclusive, learning friendly environment (that) welcomes, nurtures, and educates all children regardless of their gender, physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other characteristics” (UNESCO, 2004, p. 6). This approach he sees as too extreme, citing a capacity critique which overestimates how a ‘hard pressed’ education system (e.g., lack of resources, teacher training, class sizes) can achieve curricular inclusion; an epistemological critique in which stakeholders may be unwilling to implement these approaches; and a disability critique that questions the efficacy to meet some students’ needs (e.g. students with specific disabilities). He argues that, “National governments need to resist the transfer of international policy and practice, a task that requires them to generate their own situationally appropriate solutions to problems besetting their education system” (Le Fanu, 2013, p. 50).
In terms of Le Fanu’s capacity critique, implementation of inclusive education in developing countries may be logistically difficult due to cost and other factors.
Meaningful ‘inclusion’ is hardly a realistic option in the typical hugely crowded classrooms where isolated teachers with little support, no equipment and tiny (often unpaid) salary struggle to give a smattering of education to half the world’s children many of whom have unnoticed impairments, chronic illnesses and disabling nutritional deficiencies (Miles, 2007, para. 29).
This also may influence Le Fanu’s epistemological critique with under- resourced and under-paid teachers, who are struggling to survive, resistant to what they see as further imposition and exploitation. The education of some groups of students, particularly those with disabilities, is seen as the role of specialists and not the generalist class teacher. However, there are many teachers who are working hard to address student learning needs and there are many examples of effective inclusive classrooms across both developed and developing countries.
In terms of Le Fanu’s disability critique, the establishment of special school facilities through non-government sources, particularly external charities such as the
Literature Review 46
Red Cross, has often led to privileged funding by which the special school is better resourced than its mainstream counterparts (as is the case in Kiribati). The disability critique is acknowledged even in the key document for inclusive education in the regular local school, the Salamanca Statement which states, “If special education was initiated because ordinary schools failed to cater for special needs, there was no point in switching the children back to ordinary schools unless those schools were substantially improved” (UNESCO, 1994, pp. 98-99).
The issues raised by Le Fanu’s critiques may create tensions which, if not addressed, will affect attempts to change practice. The globalisation of inclusive education thought and practices have generally led to ‘policy borrowing’ from developed countries with little consideration given to local factors; “Inclusion has proved to be very high in the educational reform agendas, which are characterised by false universalism” (Nguyen et al., 2009, p. 109). Le Fanu’s critiques may represent a more accurate view of local issues to be addressed rather than a passive acceptance of (or passive resistance to) the UNESCO creed for global inclusive education practice.
2.2.8 Education for All and the UN Development Goals, an ongoing challenge Educations for All (EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been the major focus of education development projects from 2000 to 2015. Education for All and the MDGs are a particular focus for this study as they lead up to and parallel the period of the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. The outcomes for aid programs related to the EFA and the MDGs have been mixed. The annual comprehensive Education for All Global Monitoring Reports highlight the issues related to these programs.
The Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2013-14 reflected, “With just two years until the 2015 deadline for the Education for All goals, the goal of universal primary education is likely to be missed by a wide margin” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 2). In 2012, nearly 58 million children of primary school age were not even enrolled in school; “Global progress in reducing the number of children out of school has come to a virtual standstill” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 1). The 2015 Global Monitoring Report noted that, “By the 2015 deadline, one in six children in low and middle income countries or almost 100 million – will not have completed primary school.”
(UNESCO, 2015, p. xii). The 2013–14 EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO,
Literature Review 47
2014) commented that, “Access is not the only crisis – poor quality is holding back learning even for those who make it to school” (p. 5). The report estimated that there were approximately 250 million children of primary school age who were not reaching minimum learning standards in reading and mathematics, “even though 130 million of them have spent at least four years in school” (p. 85). UNESCO’s most recent figures indicate that 263 million children and youth 6-17 years, most of them girls, are not in school. Projections indicate 25 million of these children will never step foot in a classroom (UNESCO, 2017b). The structures of global systems act as a barrier to achieving Education for All; “Whilst all governments have signed up to Education for All protocols, the growth of global inequality makes it very difficult for these principles to be realised in practice” (Riddell, 2015, p. 30).
Despite the Dakar commitment that, “no country seriously committed to Education for All will be thwarted in their achievement of this goal by a lack of resources” (UNESCO, 2000, p. 9; UNESCO, 2010, p. 13), the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010 commented that there has been a mixed commitment towards aid funding in which some countries such as the US fall well short of their ‘fair share’. Aid flows are often unpredictable. Also that “overly rigid application of rules on aid governance and reporting has hampered the development of more effective and flexible responses” (UNESCO, 2010, p. 14). The 2013/14 EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2014) noted that, “Even before the economic downturn, donors were off track to fulfil their education finance promises. A more recent decline in aid to basic education increases the difficulty of this task” (p. 11).
A specific criticism of the Education for All program, is that it has overlooked marginalised groups; “Failure to reach the marginalized has denied many people their right to education” (UNESCO, 2010, p. 1). Miles and Singal (2010) state that, in particular, children excluded are those seen as having special educational needs or impairments and disabilities. They argue that “the explanation lies in the view that these children are ‘ineducable’ and that overcrowded and under-resourced schools would not be able to cope” (p. 1). The World Health Organisation and World Bank (2011) noted that many more children with disabilities in developing countries miss out on an education than those without a disability. The realities of a country’s resources to meet the learning needs of its students may determine whether inclusive
Literature Review 48
practices can be more than an abstract conformity to unrealistic (developed countries) ideals.
The UN Millennium Declaration (2000) committed nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and set out a series of time-bound targets, with a deadline of 2015. These targets became known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations, 2002). Figure 2.3 illustrates the Millennium Development Goals.
Figure 2.3 Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2002)
Although the goals are interrelated, for example poverty and hunger are underlying factors in student non-achievement and gender inequality can exclude girls from education, the MDG most directly relevant to inclusive education is Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education.
The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 reported that for MDG 2;
The primary school net enrolment rate in the developing regions has reached 91 per cent in 2015, up from 83 per cent in 2000.
The number of out-of-school children of primary school age worldwide has fallen by almost half, to an estimated 57 million in 2015, down from 100 million in 2000.
The literacy rate among youth aged 15 to 24 has increased globally from 83 per cent to 91 per cent between 1990 and 2015. The gap between women and men has narrowed. (United Nations, 2015b, p. 4)
Literature Review 49
The Millennium Goals were reshaped in 2015 given that targets had not been met. A new set of seventeen goals called the Sustainable Development Goals provided new targets to be achieved by 20306. Hulme (2016) argues that the Sustainable Development Goals are moving beyond development as an aid ‘project’ towards genuine partnerships.
Goal 4 is to ‘Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning.’ Two of the targets within Goal 4 are:
By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations (United Nations, 2015a, para. 23)
The Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (UNESCO, 2015b) set the direction to achieve education for all by 2030 under the aegis of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Declaration focused on the “unfinished business of the EFA agenda” (p. 7). In particular the Declaration states, “We therefore commit to making the necessary changes in education policies and focusing our efforts on the most disadvantaged, especially those with disabilities, to ensure that no one is left behind” (p. 7). The Declaration also called on an increase in aid for education; “We call upon developed countries, traditional and emerging donors, and international financing mechanisms to increase funding to education” (p. 10). Relevant to Kiribati, the Declaration noted that, “Particular attention needs to be paid to the needs of vulnerable countries such as small island developing states” (UNESCO, 2015b, p. 69).
6 In Kiribati, the priority from the Sustainable Development Goals is on climate change, given its geographical vulnerability as a low-lying nation (Republic of Kiribati, 2015).
Literature Review 50
The goals of Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals have fallen short of their targets. The Kiribati Education for All 2015 National Review (Government of Kiribati, 2014a) reports, “it is not expected that the 2015 Millennium Development Goals related to education will be achieved and new dates for the achievement of these goals have been set within the Education Sector Strategic Plan process” (p. 5). This has resulted in the resetting of education goals internationally, through the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015a; UNESCO, 2015b), and domestically, through the Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2019 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016).
2.2.9 Implications of the ratification of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for inclusive education in Kiribati The most recent international agreement made by the Government of Kiribati committing to the principles of inclusion in education (as of 2017) was the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD was adopted by the United Nations General assembly on 13 December 2006 but signed and ratified by Kiribati on September 27, 2013, almost 7 years later. This Convention requires governments to develop an inclusive education system for all children. Article 24 – Education states that governments that are signatories and have ratified this convention shall “recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education [and] ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and life-long learning” (United Nations, 2006, p. 16).
Through the signing and ratification of the CRPD, the Government of Kiribati demonstrated its international obligations, joining “70 per cent of nations in South East Asia and the Pacific demonstrating strong global support and increasing regional support for the rights of people with disabilities” (DFAT, 2015 p. 7). The signing and ratification of the CRPD by Kiribati in 2013 paralleled the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. Under article 4 of the CRPD, Kiribati was obliged to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. This did not result in consequent developments to date either in policy or practice. For example, the Kiribati National Disability Policy, which has been in the process of being developed since 2007, still had not been adopted in 2017.
Literature Review 51
The CRPD is relevant to inclusive education in Kiribati as it provides a framework for policy and practices for inclusion, particularly for children with disabilities. As a signatory to this convention, it could be expected that the Government of Kiribati would adopt and implement policies such as the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy which was being developed at the same time as ratification of the CRPD. However, there is lack of accountability for implementing UN conventions as intended and little incentive or motivation for timely and effective adoption. Even as a signatory the government ultimately is not legally bound to UN mandates; “Lack of authority has resulted in an inability to bring the rhetoric of principles agreed upon and shared into reality at national and local levels” (Fletcher, 2005, p. 282). There are also cost implications which the government may not wish to or be able to meet.
A United Nation’s interpretation on inclusive education, as outlined in the CRPD, is enunciated in the ‘General Comment 4 Article 24: Right to inclusive education’ (United Nations, 2016). The document is very prescriptive in detailing what signatories to the convention are required to do. Inclusive education is seen as a fundamental right and “parental responsibilities in this regard are subordinate to the rights of the child” (p. 3). This has ramifications in Kiribati where specifically the child’s rights are subject to “respect for parental authority” (United Nations, 1995). The General Comment states that the CRPD requires that, “Children with disabilities are able to attend [schools] within the communities where they live” (United Nations, 2016, p. 9). In Kiribati, a child with a disability may be living on an outer island and the local school significantly under-resourced. In terms of resourcing, the General Comment states that, “[CRPD] requires States parties to provide reasonable accommodation, for individual students” (p. 9). For this accommodation the General Comment provides a long list of possible accommodations such as use of assistive technology and additional support staff. At this stage, many of these accommodations are well beyond the capacity of the Kiribati education system to supply (Le Fanu’s capacity criteria). As a document based on western concepts of inclusive education ideals, the CRPD, as interpreted by the General Comment, may have little practical or cultural relevance for education in Kiribati.
Literature Review 52
2.2.10 Inclusive education policy development There has been a proliferation of inclusive education policies across many developing countries globally this century (e.g. in Pacific Island Nations; ‘Policy in effective implementation of inclusive education in Fiji’, 2011; Samoa ‘Inclusive Education Policy for students living with disability’, 2017; ‘Solomon Islands National Disability Inclusive Education Policy 2016-2020’; ‘Vanuatu Inclusive Education (IE) Policy’, 2011).
Inclusive education policies worldwide can range from symbolic, broad, abstract goal statements to policies which outline implementation and resourcing commitments. There is a dilemma by which the more abstract policies may be mere rhetoric and may not have practical implementation, whilst the more practical policies may stall on issues such as “mainstreaming and regular classrooms and occupied by concerns about cost and more human capital conceptions of worth” (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015, p. 158). For example, in Kiribati concerns regarding funding contributed to delays in the approval process for the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Kiribati Ministry of Education expatriate Senior Education Management Specialist, personal communication, 15 October, 2013).
The diversity of interpretations of inclusive education has led to a somewhat confusing picture of what is inclusive education and this is reflected in the development of inclusive education policies. As Slee (2013) points out, “education jurisdictions around the world have adopted the vocabulary of inclusive education (it is a flawed vocabulary, but it is distinctive and recognisable)” (p. 896). The concern is that “inclusive education policies have been uncritically introduced and implemented without taking into consideration the contextual dynamics impacting on the policymaking process” (Liasidou, 2012, p. 104).
There is also generally a gap between inclusive education policy and practice in schools and educational systems; “Despite global and national policy, the practice [of inclusive education] has been sporadic and elusive” (Sailor, 2017, p. 1). The implementation of inclusive education policies can be difficult given challenges such as negative attitudes and lack of a country’s capacity to support inclusive education;
Prejudice and discrimination against people with disabilities remain strong in many societies. Even if appropriate policies are adopted,
Literature Review 53
these may have relatively little impact on actual practice due to the prevalence of negative social attitudes and the lack of capacity of governments at all levels. (Le Fanu, 2014, p. 73)
The development of inclusive education policies, particularly in developing countries, is often initiated and, therefore, controlled by donors. Liasidou (2015) states that, “Powerful social agents such as policy makers and other professionals vie to impose their own ‘will to truth’7 according to their beliefs and vested interests. The policy making process is characterised by contesting and unequal power relations” (p. 29). The policy of the developing country may ‘borrow’ from developed countries’ policies and terminology (Phillips, 2015) for an articulated statement of intent and direction for inclusive education (and, therefore, endorsed by donor governments and organisations). The policy of the developing country often is drafted directly or indirectly by technical advisers and, therefore, has little relationship to the country’s political processes and education system realities or local support. Rambla (2014) illustrates the reliance of developing countries on external sources for inclusive education policy development; “International organisations are the hubs of exchanges affecting education policy. Somehow they have become banks of knowledge about policy evaluations [and development]. The major role of UNESCO consists of this legitimation of norms” (p. 97). Chapter 6 analyses the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy in terms of adherence to imported policy guidelines as opposed to locally developed concepts and the extent of advisers’ input into the policy development.
Two documents have been used in this study to examine the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) in terms of adherence to developed countries concepts of inclusive education. The Education Enabling Network (EENET) produced a list of criteria for conforming to (western) inclusive education requirements in reviewing education policy and planning documents from Nepal, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia (Lewis, 2008). This list included: definitions of inclusive education; quality education; holistic approaches, resource allocation; participatory data collection; teacher education; flexible curriculum development; and inclusive education as a rights issue. UNESCO (2009) produced a document
7 Foucault(1984) postulates a dynamic whereby the ‘will to power is refigured as ‘the will to truth’.
Literature Review 54
‘Policy guidelines on inclusion in education’ which identified a number of issues. These issues included: needs analysis and diagnosis of needs must proceed the formulation of polices and plans; systems and methods of collecting education- related data are necessary to inform policy and practice; policies and plans must be pro-poor and stress the rights basis for inclusion; policies have rather unclear definitions; inclusive education is seen primarily in terms of special needs; allocating funding to inclusive education is a challenge; inclusive education is mainly presented as a set of separate interventions for different groups of learners; an holistic education system requires an information flow among professionals at different levels as well as between school and families; access to school buildings and curriculum; improving quality in education is not given as much attention as increasing enrolment rates and access; curriculum reform needs to be more prominent and involve relevant stakeholders in development of new and revised curriculum; teacher education is often discussed in detail but not addressed in the context of promoting diversity; capacity development is important at all levels of the education system; and monitoring and evaluation are necessary to improve planning and implementation (see Appendix B for cross referencing of EENET and UNESCO Policy Guidelines).
A further UNESCO document ‘A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education’ (UNESCO, 2017b) examined key lessons These lessons learned include clarity of purpose, understanding of the added value of the proposed changes; evidence to enable informed judgements; champions and strategic communication. The issues raised by the EENET and UNESO documents, as they apply to the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015), are explored in Chapter 6.
2.2.11 Inclusive education and foreign aid Foreign aid funding for inclusive education projects has been provided to developing countries, both through broad education programs such as ‘Education for All” (see 2.2.8 above), and through specific programs such as Australian Aid funding of inclusive education initiatives in the Pacific (see 2. 3.4 below). This support has been provided by:
Multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, UNESCO and the European Commission,
Literature Review 55
Bilateral country to country agreements such as through USAID and Australian Aid and
A range of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as Save the Children and World Vision
The range of projects funded can be diverse ranging from specific programs such as pilot projects in mainstream schools to broader in-country system building, policy development, awareness raising and advocacy (Le Fanu, 2014). An issue faced by these projects is that broad education programs can overlook some groups, for example students with disabilities in Education for All (Miles and Singal, 2011; UNESCO, 2010), whilst specific school-based pilot programs may only benefit a few without being able to be generalized across the education system given differential funding levels and external consultant support.
The inclusion of children with disabilities has become an increasing focus of foreign aid funding support (Lei & Myers, 2011). Le Fanu (2014) raises concerns about the “commitment of large sections of the international development community to creating capabilities-focused educational opportunities for young people with disabilities [and] also raises concerns about the capacity of international development agencies actually working in the field to perform this task” (p. 71). Evaluation of aid projects regarding inclusive education initiatives is an issue. Srivastava, de Boer & Pijl (2015), in reviewing projects undertaken by governments and international organisations in developing countries to include students with disabilities in regular schools over a ten year period, reported that of the fifteen studies reviewed only two studies reported their effects.
The project management approach to foreign aid projects means that the fundamentals of a project are generally specified from the outset. These fundamentals are pre-determined by the donors based on the principles of ‘global inclusionism’ (Le Fanu, 2013). Le Fanu (2014) concludes, “growing linkages between international development agencies, their growing focus on global advocacy, and their growing disconnection from development realities creates the possibility that these agencies will pursue increasingly problematic agendas generated within a hermetically-sealed ‘policy bubble” (p. 77).
Issues associated with aid funding of inclusive education initiatives include:
Literature Review 56
A re-thinking of resource allocation,
The issue of empowerment,
The way funding mechanisms support inclusive education, and
The importance of governance and accountability mechanisms (Ebersold & Meijer, 2016).
These issues are relevant to the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati as each issue is dependent on Australian Aid influence and direction.
Rather than control by development agencies, local ownership should be a key element in the implementation of inclusive education initiatives; “Inclusive agenda are incomplete unless understood and acted upon by [local] educational professionals [who] should be empowered to gain ownership and become actively engaged in the process of transformational change” (Liasidou, 2015, p. 56).
2.2.12 What is inclusive education and its relevance in developing countries? Globally, inclusive education is generally understood as providing access to education for children who have been historically excluded from school programs (UNESCO, 2017a). There is considerable variation in the interpretation and implementation of this broad definition (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010; Liasidou, 2012, 2015; Mitchell, 2005). As discussed above (2.2.1), there can be a significant gap between the philosophy of ‘entitlement’ (rights) and the practicality of implementing programs which provide appropriate resources, support services, individualised programs etc. Although this gap is an issue confronting both developed and developing countries, resource implications make the implementation of inclusive education initiatives a greater problem for resource- poor developing countries.
Criticisms have been raised regarding the appropriateness of inclusive education approaches which blindly adopt policies and practices that come from developed countries. Brown (2005) notes that, “confusions and controversy over the semantics of inclusion abound in many countries with long experience with its implementation [therefore] when the term crosses over into use in other cultures, it is no surprise that it is interpreted and applied in even more different ways” (pp. 255- 6). Mitchell (2005) comments, “since there is no one model of inclusive education
Literature Review 57
that suits every country’s circumstances, caution must be exercised in importing a particular model” (p. 19). Importing inclusive education policies and practices may ignore significant social and cultural aspects on which successful acceptance and implementation of inclusive education initiatives may depend; “When policies on inclusive education are abstracted from the broader social context within which they are situated it is unlikely that they will be effective” (Armstrong et al., 2010, p. 118).
In developing countries the competing needs of school improvement, given the lack of resources, make inclusive education initiatives just one of many priorities. In Kiribati, for example, Emmott (2014) comments that, “MoE is too small and there is too much reform going on to manage more than one new policy at a time” (p. 29). Developing countries may not have the capacity to implement inclusive education initiatives, given a general lack of resourcing for educational programs (Miles, 2007). Artiles and Dyson (2005) note that inclusive education in developed countries as compared to developing countries “seem to be quite different from those economically poorer countries where special education has never been fully developed and where regular education is desperately lacking in resources” (p. 37).
Even with support from foreign aid there may be uncertainty between the donor and the recipient. The complexity of inclusive education philosophies and implementation can mean that the ‘exporters’ (from developed countries) may not fully comprehend what they are exporting, resulting in a borrowed approach that emphasises rhetoric rather than real change. Not surprisingly the ‘importers’ (the developing countries), therefore, adopt a similar approach, as they do not have ownership but conform to the developing countries’ guidelines in order to ensure continued aid support.
This is not to say that developing countries are not open to the philosophy of inclusion. This will depend on local cultural factors which may or may not support the concept of inclusion. Equally importantly, there may not be the capacity to support inclusive education (Le Fanu, 2013).
2.3 TOPIC 3: AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN AID AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN THE PACIFIC
The Australian government [through Australian Aid] has been “one of the largest and most influential in providing support to Pacific governments” (Miles,
Literature Review 58
Lene & Merumeru, 2014, p. 3). Australian Aid has been very much the catalyst for inclusive education initiatives in many Pacific island nations including Kiribati. In light of the contribution made through Australian Aid, this topic explores the related themes of Australian Aid and inclusive education in the Pacific.
2.3.1 Australian Government directions and re-directions Australia’s aid program has been directed by motivations concerning “national security; self-interest; being a good international citizen; and acting as a regional partner” (Corbett, 2017, p. 144). Pacific Island Nations have been a focus with aid provisions demonstrating Australia’s role as a good international citizen and regional partner. As Corbett (2017) contends, “providing assistance to the region serves both short-term and long-term geopolitical, commercial and diplomatic interests. And the region is home to considerable development challenges, thereby allowing Australia to pursue a role as a good international citizen” (p. 154).
The Port Moresby Declaration (DFAT, 2008) outlined Australia’s commitment to providing aid to Pacific nations. The declaration echoes with pronouncements of “a new era of cooperation” (para. 1); respect for “the independence of the island nations, and their diversity” (para. 2); “achieving shared goals” (para. 7); and “working jointly to help the Pacific island nations meet their [UN] Millennium Development Goals” (para. 10). Within the Port Moresby Declaration there is also the presence of the neo-liberal agenda based on economic accountability; “In a spirit of mutual responsibility embracing commitments by the Pacific island nations to improve governance, to increase investment in economic infrastructure” (para. 8). Economic advantages for Australia are encompassed; “Through pursuing a region- wide free trade agreement and enhancing other private sector development opportunities” (para. 13). The declaration reflects the contradictions within aid provisions between espousing principles of cooperation, partnership and respect for the aid recipient, and the imposition of the donor’s own agendas and standards of improving governance and economic advantages for the donor country.
More recently the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, presented a self- interest/political/neo-liberal approach to Australian Aid; “We are refocussing our efforts, placing our aid program more clearly in the context of Australia’s national interest. We will remain committed to our overseas aid program but we want to see value for money” (Bishop, 2014, Para. 12). Terms such as national interest,
Literature Review 59
economic diplomacy and opportunity, value for money, effectiveness, statecraft, broader interest, prosperity and sustainable growth were prominent throughout the speech. Ms Bishop also highlighted the direct benefit for Australian companies “to design and build bridges and railways and schools and ports – that is a significant economic opportunity” (Bishop, 2014, Para. 27). The speech confirmed that the priorities and delivery of Australian Aid programs will be largely determined by Australia’s political and economic interests rather than the needs of the recipient countries.
2.3.2 Criticisms and cutbacks Specific criticisms of Australian Aid include allegations that it services Australian commercial interests through its procurement policies; “In addition to programs which blatantly work in favour of Australian interests, is the incidence of boomerang aid where aid money to foreign countries ends up funding Australian companies and consultants rather than the people it is meant for” (Narayanasamy, 2013, para. 5). The employment of expatriate consultants has been a particular target for this criticism in terms of cost effectiveness. For example, Aid Watch (2013) noted that, “technical consultants employed by AusAid to assist Papua New Guinea (PNG) were earning more than [Australia’s] Prime Minister” (para. 3). The preference for projects contracted to companies in Australia and delivered by consultants sourced in Australia was criticised by the then Australian Aid government department (AusAid) as limiting local input and ownership; “This resulted in power and influence residing with managing contractors and the consultants they employ [and] undermined capacity to develop joint strategies grounded in strong policy dialogue between AusAid and partner governments” (AusAid, 2009, p. 6). This perpetuates a power differential which undermines input from local stakeholders.
Further criticisms are that Australian Aid promotes particular economic and trade policies such as the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER-plus) free trade agreement (DFAT, 2017c) through which “Australia is aggressively pursuing an agreement that sees Australia and New Zealand overwhelmingly gain, with nothing of value for Pacific island countries on the table, except aid” (Narayanasamy, 2014, para. 7), and that aid allocations have been diverted to fund foreign policy initiatives such as the so-called Pacific Solution for
Literature Review 60
illegal refugees and for onshore refugee support programs (Bryant, 2013). Lack of transparency of aid programs is also a concern “with some organisations awarded contracts involving hundreds of millions of dollars, it is essential that aid programs under their management are scrutinised for accountability and effectiveness” (Aid Watch, 2012, para. 12).
Australian Aid also has its supporters. The Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), for example, argues that, “Australia has the capacity to make a difference in the lives of thousands of poor people. 18 out of our 20 closest neighbours are developing countries, with some of the highest rates of child malnutrition and maternal deaths in the world. Australian Aid can help solve these problems” (ACFID, 2011, p. 1). The former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser commented, “Aid builds the capacity of people, communities and countries to move out of poverty. This capacity-building works” (Aid Watch, 2011, para. 5). Expressions of support for Australian Aid have galvanised in response to Australian Government cuts to the foreign aid budget (Martin, 2017).
An extensive survey of Australian Aid providers, ‘Benchmarking Australian Aid’ (Howes & Pryke, 2013), found the aid program was viewed as good and improving and that the strong focus of the aid program on the Asia-Pacific region was supported. However, a number of aid effectiveness issues were identified. High staff turnover of consultants and slow decision making by governments were identified in the survey as the most serious weaknesses in the delivery of Australian Aid programs. In Kiribati there has been a significant turnover, particularly for expatriate advisers (however, for inclusive education initiatives the Australian- based mentor and the locally employed Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator have both remained in place since 2013). Slow government decision making has also been experienced, such as the process leading up to the approval of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. Strategic and commercial interests were perceived by the Australian Aid providers surveyed as having a higher priority for the Australian Government than poverty reduction, and were being given more weight than they deserve. As the survey was largely taken from aid providers there was an acknowledged risk of bias as “most people are vested in what they are doing. The self-rating bias extends well beyond the aid business, and is known as the ‘illusory superiority’ effect” (Howes & Pryke, 2013, p. 46).
Literature Review 61
The Australian Government has made significant cuts to the amount it has allocated to foreign aid provision. As noted by Davies (2017), “there have been unprecedented reductions in Australia’s overseas aid spending since the Coalition came to office in 2013” (Para. 15). Over time the percentage of the government’s budget allocated for foreign aid has steadily declined. Figure 2.4 below tracks aid expenditure over time as a percentage of national income.
Figure 2.4 Australia’s aid generosity over time (Flitton, 2014, Davies, 2017)
The Australian Government’s extensive cutbacks to development aid, although not currently impacting on programs in Kiribati, highlight the vulnerability of projects which are highly dependent on Australian Aid for their implementation. Further cuts in aid provision in the future may mean that projects which are supported by Australian Aid, such as the introduction of inclusive education policy and practices, may be shelved before they can gather the momentum necessary for change because of lack of ‘seed’ funding. This relates to the future sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati if Australian Aid support was reduced or ceased. This issue is relevant for Research Question 2 and is discussed further in Chapter 7.
2.3.3 Development for All: Australia’s disability-inclusive strategies A priority has been given by Australian aid in recent years to disability- inclusive development based on the ‘Development for All’ (DFAT, 2009b; 2015) strategy through which “Australia will support partner countries efforts towards disability-inclusive development where there is evidence of strong national commitment and existing efforts underway to address the needs and priorities of
Literature Review 62
people with disability” (DFAT, 2009b, p. 3). Included within this strategy is a commitment to inclusive education, in which “Australia will direct the increasing resources in the aid budget to help get all children to school, including those with disability and to support staff at all levels of the education system to improve access to quality education” (DFAT, 2009b, p. 16). Based on Australian Aid’s focus on disability-inclusive development, inclusive education has tended to be seen by both the donor and the recipient nation as getting children with disabilities into schools.
The ‘Development for All 2015-2020: Strategy for strengthening disability- inclusive development in Australia’s aid program’ reaffirmed this commitment. The report identifies inclusive education as a major issue which “requires a range of interventions such as education policy and curriculum that supports the inclusion of students with disabilities, and access to training that enables teachers to provide for the individual needs of students with diverse disabilities” (DFAT, 2015, p. 21). There is a commitment that Australian Aid programs will “encourage and support the implementation of inclusive education in Australian-supported education programs” (p. 22). The strategy, however, states that, “For external stakeholders, this strategy is non-binding” (p. 2) and that the strategy “is to promote Australia’s national interests” (p. 3).
Disability-inclusion is just one of many competing priorities for the Australian Aid dollar. Added to this is the low priority often given to disability-inclusion within recipient countries receiving Australian Aid. The Mid Term Review of the Development for All strategy noted that Australian aid should actively be used in a leadership role to promote and develop disability-inclusion; “AusAid, therefore, is in a position of needing to lead many of the stakeholders at country program level to enable them to understand the rationale and benefits of disability-inclusive development” (Kelly & Wapling, 2012, p. 27). Australia’s stated role in ‘leading’ the stakeholders raises the problem of Australian Aid imposing its agenda on the recipient country. The recipient country is obliged to conform in order to maintain funding. The problem is further complicated if the expatriate in-country staff of the donor country, grappling with a range of ‘cross-cutting’ issues, cannot communicate the strategy as benefitting the recipient other than as a requirement for continued aid support.
Literature Review 63
2.3.4 Australian Aid for inclusive education in the Pacific region In the Pacific region, Australian aid has been the ‘driving force’ not only in providing aid for specific projects related to inclusive education but also in determining policy directions; “In the Pacific region AusAid has provided particular leadership on disability-inclusive development” (Kelly & Wapling, 2012, p. 34). The role that Australian Aid has taken in providing ‘particular leadership on disability- inclusive development’ reinforces the question of the imposition of values (Australian) on aid recipients in the Pacific region.
Bilateral Australian Aid has funded extensive projects for inclusive education in the Pacific. For example, in Samoa, through the Samoa Inclusive Education Demonstration Program “Australian Aid supported over 400 children to access education by funding of inclusive education providers, ensuring that children with a disability in Samoa have access to a quality education” (DFAT, 2016, P. 4). Evaluation of the project identified difficulties in implementation; “The partners agree that while there is heavy criticism in the evaluation report regarding the impact of the program, it should be acknowledged that achieving and identifying success in inclusive education is challenging (DFAT, 2017d). The implementation of inclusive education in Samoa has been criticized “as a borrowed policy that has overlooked cultural issues and ownership. It was borrowed mainly due to the influence of bilateral and multilateral agreements and the desire to improve education for all students” (McDonald & Tufue-Dolgoy, 2013, p. 270). In Fiji, Access to Quality Education Program (AQEP) was funded and managed through Australian Aid. The program’s planned outcomes included increased access to schools to enable girls and boys from poor communities, including those with a disability, to access a quality education. The strategy aimed to achieve three outcomes for children with disabilities: increased access (measured by enrolment and attendance), increased retention and completion rates, and improved learning outcomes (Sprunt, 2014). The AQEP project was managed through an external contractor raising issues of local control of the program (AusAid, 2009).
Australian donor influence has been criticised in other parts of the Pacific. McCormick (2011) states that;
Education policy processes in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, including sector-wide approaches (SWAps), reflect ambiguous responses to Education
Literature Review 64
for All as a holistic and inclusive program. Processes continue to be fostered by dominant financial donors, sustaining narrower conceptions of state leadership” (McCormick, 2011, p. 54).
This appears to be the case for Australian Aid inclusive education initiatives across Pacific nations.
The issues of aid effectiveness and accountability discussed in 2.1.4 apply to Australian Aid programs in the Pacific. DFAT needs to justify its aid expenditure to the Australian Government whilst the contractor must provide accountability to DFAT (and, therefore, continued funding). Results tend to be in the form of concrete ‘deliverables’, often assessed by DFAT or the contractor themselves, which can mask the wider impact, such as ownership and sustainability, being addressed. The Centre for Global Development describes this as ignoring “a central principle of development theory—that those development programs that are most precisely and easily measured are the least transformational, and those programs that are most transformational are the least measurable” (Nastios, 2010, p. 1).
Australian Aid funded four research projects related to inclusive education in the Pacific region during the period 2013-15. One of these projects was conducted by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) project in collaboration with the University of the South Pacific (USP). Action research was carried out in schools by local national researchers in Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, which featured local ownership and authentic partnerships to develop understandings and empower the participants to “take the lead in changing attitudes and practices” (Pillay et al., 2015, p. 65) based on local contexts. Another project, funded through the Australian Aid research program, also advocated that “local culture and context must be accounted for, if inclusive education is to be successfully implemented in the region” (Sharma, Loreman & Macanawi, 2015, p. 1) (see section 2.3.5). Programs which increasingly take into account local context, involvement and ownership may be the basis for future sustainability. For this study, the extent of incorporation of local Kiribati culture and context in guiding inclusive education initiatives is examined in section 8.3.
Literature Review 65
2.3.5 Inclusiveness in the Pacific Pacific island communities generally value participation of all members of society at a village and wider community level. The opening address at the Regional Workshop on Advancing Inclusive Education in the Pacific, 2007, highlighted the inclusiveness found across the Pacific; “We are very inclusive societies in the sense that everyone has a place, a traditional role to play in the community” (Rabukawaqa, 2007, p. 2).
Because formal schooling was introduced and subsequently supported by models imported from developed countries into Pacific Island nations, there is the potential for a culture clash between the inclusiveness of the local society and the hierarchical, competitive approach often found in formal schooling. Rabukawaqa (2007) comments that, “our colonial legacy of modern education has also taken its toll on the value we place on inclusiveness” (p. 5). She argued that “schooling was used as the avenue for people to become competitive individuals in a progressive world and, in allowing that to happen we inadvertently created an education system that became exclusive” (p. 4). School systems could not cope with the child who did not fit this western model of formal schooling. Thus these children were excluded from schooling. She sees inclusive education as an opportunity to return to traditional values; “We believe that we are in the exciting process of reclaiming the concept of inclusiveness in education that we have allowed to slip over the years” (p. 4).
Pacific societies also have highly stratified social structures. In Kiribati, the Unimwane (male elders) control the village Mwaneaba meetings with women and children excluded from participation. The traditional role of persons with disabilities, for example, “is to be looked after or cared for and cannot be expected to take a full and active part in village life” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009, p.5). Children with disabilities “tend to be over‐protected and cared for to the extent that they are not encouraged to attend school or learn skills that would lead them to an independent life, this high level of dependence means their potential is not realized” (Tavola & Whippy, 2010, p. 12). The rights of children generally and children with disabilities in particular are not a consideration in Pacific cultures (Tavola & Whippy, 2010). This means that exclusion from school (either by parental choice or barriers presented by the school) is not seen as an issue by the society. As reflected in Development for All (DFAT, 2009b, 2015), Australian values advocate the right to
Literature Review 66
disability-inclusion. This presents a challenge in assimilating or changing local cultural values through aid-funded inclusive education initiatives. The findings from this study regarding this issue will be explored in Chapter 8.
Sharma, Loreman and Macanawi (2015), noted that the strongest themes in the successful implementation of inclusive education in four Pacific nations (Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands) related to culture, community and religion. They comment that these themes are “central to Pacific Islanders’ understandings of inclusive education implementation, and result in some tensions between western educational ideas and the local context” (p. 1). A model of the factors that they identified as being particularly relevant to Pacific Island countries was developed. Figure 2.5 reproduces their modelling of these factors.
Figure 2.5 Factors contributing to the implementation of inclusive education in Pacific Island countries (Sharma, Loreman & Macanawi, 2015, p. 11)
This model suggests a bottom-up approach in which inclusion within the culture leads to inclusion within the community, leading to inclusion within the family, leading to inclusion within the school and eventually to policy developed from the ‘grassroots’ level. They maintain that, “Within the Pacific context inclusive practice should precede policy” (p. 13). In Kiribati, implementation of inclusive education has been, at least initially, a top-down approach through Australian Aid
Literature Review 67
directed programs. The factors identified by Sharma, Loreman and Macanawi need to be incorporated into the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati for local ownership and sustainability to be established (see Chapter 8).
2.3.6 Pacific policy commitments towards inclusive education Pacific island nations have participated in regional initiatives related to inclusive education with a particular focus on children with disabilities. The Biwako Millennium Framework for Action Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights- Based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, 2003) provided a set of principles, strategies, goals, targets and directives for action to use in developing policies, and on planning and implementing programs for persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific. The Biwako Framework extended the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002, for another decade, 2003-2012. Among the seven targets and actions in the priority areas were early detection, early intervention and education. At the 2003 Pacific Islands Forum, member countries endorsed the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF). Pacific Island Forum member countries consist of Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. “The BMF has been very influential in the Pacific region and has been used as the basis for national disability policies in several Pacific Island Countries” (Tavola, 2012, p. 4).
The Pacific Islands Forum Workshop: Advancing Inclusive Education in the Pacific, 2007, identified key strategies needed for wider implementation of inclusive practices and implications for children with disabilities in Pacific Island countries. The Pacific Regional Strategy on Disability (PRSD) was developed in 2009 by Pacific Island Forum Ministers for Disability. The PRSD provides the mandate and identifies the support and resources needed to ensure national level improvements in policy and legislation that is inclusive of people with disabilities. The forum communiqué stated, “Leaders reaffirmed the need for more attention to be directed to the region’s most disadvantaged group – people with disabilities – who are among the poorest and most vulnerable in the world” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009, p. 2). Within the six thematic areas of the PRSD was a commitment to include disability concerns into a number of areas including education and training. The
Literature Review 68
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat convened a meeting in October 2011 of Directors of Education. The meeting focused on the importance of including persons with disabilities in the school systems of Forum island countries. The outcome of this meeting was a plan of action at the national level. Inclusive education is one of the cross-cutting issues in the Pacific Educational Development Framework (PEDF).
The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat is providing ongoing support for member governments’ policies and programs for persons with disabilities. The Secretariat aims to:
Provide maximum opportunities for informed national deliberation,
Reflect on how to improve enjoyment of human right
Provide useful advice and guidance to States and help raise awareness
Promote international cooperation
Facilitate full participation of those whose rights are in question, and
Provide effective remedies for those whose human rights are violated
(Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2018)
The Incheon Strategy: To Make the Right Real for Persons with Disability in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, 2012) builds on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action. It contains regional disability-inclusive development goals, targets and indicators. The strategy aims to “accelerate disability-inclusive development and CRPD ratification and implementation” (p. 20). Within the ten goals contained in the Incheon Strategy is Goal 5: Expand early intervention and education of children with disabilities.
Luke (2007) proposes a process of ‘Pacificisation’ which localises education systems in developing countries in the Pacific so that the provisions are based on local needs and local decision making. Through this process;
Choices over which reforms to make, how they should be developed and adopted, and how they are blended with local needs, traditions and practices are determined by local educational leaders, policy-
Literature Review 69
makers, researchers, teacher educators, principals and ultimately teachers and students (p. 25).
This ideal is far from reality at this stage with fragile education systems dependent on Australian Aid for support. Inclusive education is a relatively new concept in Pacific Island nations and is only slowly developing in practice; “Even though the Pacific Island countries have strongly adopted this move towards disability-inclusive education, there is still limited evidence of inclusive practice within schools” (Forlin, 2015, p. 4), and that “widespread implementation [in Pacific Island nations], has been slow, and inclusive education has not gained significant traction at the level of practice” (Miles, Lene & Merumeru, 2014). For Kiribati, despite participating in and endorsing numerous regional conference declarations, progress in inclusive education initiatives has lagged.
2.3.7 Australian Aid in Kiribati Kiribati is very dependent on support from developed nations particularly in addressing social problems such as in education and health. The total Aid Development Fund Budget from foreign aid donors for 2017 was $153M8 as compared to the Government Consolidated Fund Budget for 2017 of $164M (Government of Kiribati, 2016, p. 3). The Development Aid Budget from foreign aid donors for education was $13M, with the Government Consolidated Fund Budget for education $22M. In 2016 Australian Aid contributed $36M (Government of Kiribati, 2016, p. 93), however, a significant proportion of this was the construction of the road in Tarawa. “Australia is the largest aid donor to Kiribati [which] comprises about 33 per cent of total Official Development Aid to Kiribati” (DFAT, 2017b). Australian Aid contribution for education in 2017 is estimated to be $8.5M (Government of Kiribati, 2016, p. 104).
In Kiribati, poverty and lack of infrastructure make children particularly vulnerable. For example in the health area;
Acute respiratory disease and diarrhoea top the list for children under the age of 15 years and malnutrition is an underlying cause of much of their ill-health. A 2014 audiology study in Kiribati found 75% of
8 All figures are in Australian dollars. Kiribati uses the Australian Dollar as its currency.
Literature Review 70
children sampled had ear infections. These factors also directly bear on children's ability to learn in school and reflect the disadvantages that many experience. (Kiribati Education Improvement Program, 2015, p. 4)
In 2009, the Australian and Kiribati governments signed the Kiribati- Australia Partnership Agreement for Development which forms the basis of aid programs in Kiribati. The agreement aimed for “improved governance, sustained macroeconomic stability, public sector capacity development, enhanced private sector development, investment in economic infrastructure, improved access to quality health and education, community development, environmental sustainability and disaster risk reduction” (DFAT, 2009a, p.1) in Kiribati. Note the neo-liberal tone of the agreement with terms like ‘improved governance’, ‘sustained macroeconomic stability’ etc. predominating. The human needs focus areas of improved health, education and community development are given a seemingly lesser priority.
Education reform has been substantially funded by Australian Aid, particularly through the Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP) Phases 1, 2 and 3 2010-2020; “Education is a key priority in Australia’s Aid Investment Plan for Kiribati for 2015/16-2018/19” (Kiribati Education Improvement Program, 2015, p. 4). The Australian Government supports a number of education development programs in Kiribati through:
1. Direct funding of an organisation such as direct financial support of the Kiribati School for the Disabled which, until recently, was virtually 100% funded by Australian Aid.
2. Individual support for local organisations through the Australian Volunteers for International Development (AVID) program.
3. Project support of technical advisers through the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) and through the Pacific Technical Assistance Mechanism (PACTAM).
The major source of aid support for education in Kiribati is through the Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP). Australian Aid is by far the most significant donor in the education sector and the Australian Aid education contract
Literature Review 71
component is managed through the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF), a division of Coffey International, a for-profit company;
The MoE [Kiribati Ministry of Education] is responsible for the program with management support from a Managing Contractor (MC), in this instance Coffey International. Under contract with AusAid [Australian Aid], the MC is providing a package of management support and technical assistance to MoE (2013-2015) to support implementation of the program. (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, p. 2)
The KEF budget for 2013 was $A8.4 million. Of this approximately 10% went directly to the parent company for administration. Of the remainder, most of the budget is for expatriate advisers and school buildings.
2.3.8 Kiribati culture and inclusion Family and community are central to Kiribati culture even in the capital, Tarawa (Jones & Lea, 2007). The people live in close proximity to each other and are often members of the same extended family; “Unlike societies which stress individualism over collectivism, Kiribati emulates the social patterns found across Micronesia, which are made up of extensive webs of interdependent relationships that support individuals” (Roman, 2013, p. 18). Having a supportive network may seem conducive to the concept of inclusive education, however, social structures and community values may have the opposite effect. Kiribati is a very structured society (Kahn, Kiste, Fischer & 2017). This structure is demonstrated by the formal structure of Maneaba meetings dominated by the ‘Unimwane’ (male elder). The Maneaba (village meeting place) “functions as the centre of social life, where matters pertaining to the social, economic and political life of the community are discussed and resolved” (Kiribati Tourism, 2013, para 3). Women and children are not expected to actively participate. The values of the community are, therefore, very important in determining what can and cannot occur. For example, a child with a disability may be seen as unable to benefit from school. Family values may mean that the child is seen by the family as being better looked after at home rather than going to school. There may also be an element of shame in having a child with a disability; “Few things go unnoticed in a small community, and privacy becomes a premium” (Kiribati Tourism, 2013, para 2).
Literature Review 72
People in Kiribati are non-confrontational. Consensus with the majority view in a close knit community is necessary for social harmony. Social justice is not an issue for people in Kiribati who are generally content with the status quo (T. Rokete, personal communication, April 11, 2016). The rights of the child are not seen as important, as illustrated by the rider to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child which prioritise “Kiribati customs and traditions regarding the place of the child within and outside the family” (United Nations, 1995, para 36). Government interventions in matters which are seen as concerning the family and the local community can be minimal. The family providing for and guiding their children is one such matter. By contrast, Australia’s social structure, although multi-faceted, place an emphasis on the rights of the individual and government regulation, e.g. Disability Services Act (Australian Government, 1986).
2.3.9 Inclusive education in Kiribati In Kiribati inclusive education is a very new concept. The following factors have contributed towards a lack of interest or awareness in addressing inclusive education as an area of educational need:
Historically, the government has been reluctant to become involved in issues which are seen as primarily family concerns. Whether a child attends school or not is one such issue;
Lack of government finances to provide anything beyond basic educational provisions of classroom provisions and teacher salaries;
Negative community attitudes, particularly towards the education of children with disabilities; and
Lack of strong advocacy for excluded groups.
A report on absenteeism noted that many children in Kiribati were not accessing school as indicated by high absenteeism rates (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013b). Reasons for this include families not seeing school as important (most prevalent reason), family mobility within Kiribati, and children engaged in work at home, particularly older female siblings looking after younger pre-school siblings or engaged in domestic chores.
Literature Review 73
Children with disabilities, particularly in the outer islands, have been generally excluded from accessing school programs. In a report; ‘Operational research on disability and inclusive education in Kiribati’9, Jolly and Rokete (2012) comment, “anecdotally very few of the mainstream schools visited were able to identify any children with disabilities in their school system, and if so they were very often mild impairments” (p. 13). They identified attitudes towards children with disabilities as a significant factor in school exclusion;
There was a strong finding that attitudes were the most disabling barrier for children with disabilities being able to attend school. This included the attitudes of the community, parents, teachers, principals, the Ministry of Education, students and children with disabilities themselves. Many people believe children with disabilities cannot learn (p. 17).
Inclusive education in Kiribati has primarily been concerned with providing access to education for children with disabilities. Other issues, such as absenteeism, have also been a focus which has created some confusion; “It is not clear whether the [Inclusive Education] policy is about access for all children or access for children with disability” (Emmott, 2014, p. 28).
An Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG) was established in 2012. This group, although representative of government and non-government organisations, is directed by the Australian Aid funded Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) who set agendas and organise meetings; “Work generated by the IEWG has been driven by KEIP (now KEF) with no real ‘home’ in MoE and no clear linkage to MoE’s Operational Plans” (Government of Kiribati, 2013, p. 3). The implication is that the IWEG, although consisting mainly of local Kiribati members, is directed by the imposed agenda from KEF, thereby giving lip service to local ownership in overseeing the direction of inclusive education in Kiribati.
In 2013, a Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (GSIC) was employed within KEF. The GSIC is a locally based position funded through KEF; “The coordinator is available to work closely with MoE staff, advisers and stakeholders to provide ongoing assistance to support their gender, disability and social inclusion
9 Commissioned by Coffey International and funded by AusAid.
Literature Review 74
work” (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, p. 8). In reality, the position is directly linked to KEF priorities, as there are no equivalent positions within the Ministry of Education (Government of Kiribati, 2013; Emmott, 2014). The coordinator is supported by a Gender and Social Inclusion Adviser based in Australia, also employed through KEF funding.
The KEF Annual Plan (2013) included a number of inclusive education initiatives. The major initiative was the development of a draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (IEWG, 2013) and Implementation Strategy. Cabinet approval of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was expected in 2014, but was not endorsed until 2015. Another initiative, as part of the teacher professional development program (TPD), was that all Year 1 and 2 teachers across Kiribati (approx. 250) received training via two 2 hour inclusive education modules. The first module addressed raising awareness of inclusive education and the barriers impacting on student access to education (co-developed by the researcher). Results from a survey conducted by the researcher in 2013, as part of this module were encouraging, with a cohort of 100 teachers of Year 1 and Year 2 classes rating that they were not extremely concerned about inclusive education practicalities in principle. Appendix E provides an overview of this survey. The second module was developed by the researcher and addressed good teaching practices which support individual student learning. Appendix F provides the presenter’s guidelines for this module. The researcher, as part of the Australian Volunteers for International Development (AVID) program (not KEF), was directly involved in these initiatives in 2013 including the development of the draft Kiribati Education Policy.
In Kiribati, inclusive education initiatives seem to be a very donor driven project. Programs are initiated and controlled by KEF, which is not in keeping with the Paris Declaration (see 2.1.8 above). This raises questions over the introduction of inclusive education policy and practices when it is the donor country initiating this agenda, as is the case with KEF. Furthermore, one must question the sustainability of such initiatives following the withdrawal of aid when local ownership is not apparent. The issue of sustainability of inclusive education initiatives with or without Australian Aid support is discussed further in Section 7.5.
Literature Review 75
2.3.10 Inclusive education policy development in Kiribati10 The KEIP Phase 2, 2013 Annual Plan (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a) set a target for a draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy to be developed by the Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG). The development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy involved a number of steps of development, review and approval 2013-2015 as per IEWG recommended procedure (community consultations) and Ministry of Education protocols. The steps are outlined in figure 2.6 below.
Figure 2.6 Inclusive education policy development process
A writing team was formed by invitation of the Inclusive Education Working Group executive. (IEWG Minutes, August 1, 2013).
The writing team consisted of:
MoE Senior Officer (Basic, Early Childhood and Inclusive Education)
Local Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (KEF/KEIP) Parent of a child with a disability
Principal of a Junior Secondary School
Head Teacher of a Primary School with experience of successful inclusion
KTC Teacher Trainer Inclusive Education (AVID volunteer)
Gender & Social Inclusion Mentor (external consultation from Australia).
10 This section is sourced from personal communications: T.Kaei, C.Ellickson (2013, 2014, 2015) and the researcher’s observations.
Literature Review 76
The writing team was small. All members of the team came from an education background. The clear majority were I-Kiribati locals (5 out of 6 for the writing sessions). The team worked well together with each member making positive contributions and participating in lively discussion. Between writing sessions all team members voluntarily developed individual contributions. The first draft was completed over four Saturdays.
The development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was a collaborative process which fostered the development of a broad acceptance;
Another example of the benefits of strong partnership and engagement with key stakeholders including teachers and parents was the policy development process for the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. This process was initiated by small policy writing groups of stakeholders to draft key sections of the policy supported by the Australian Volunteers for International Development Program. These writing groups established a level of local ownership amongst these stakeholder groups and within the MoE (Ellickson, 2015, p.3)
The writing team meetings experienced some organisational difficulties with absences of members restricting full participation, which perhaps suggests a lack of ownership and/or commitment. Of particular significance was the absence of the MoE Senior Officer Basic Education who was the key person in overseeing the IEWG and presenting the policy to Ministry of Education Senior Management. However, all team members maintained input and updates via email.
The Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG) reviewed the draft. The first meeting of the IEWG scheduled to review the writing team’s first draft was unable to make recommendations or approval, due to lack of a quorum resulting from the non- attendance11 of representatives from organisations outside of the Ministry of Education. A second meeting was scheduled.
Prior to the second meeting the Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator met with the Minister for Education on another matter. The Coordinator mentioned that the draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was being formulated. The Minister
11 There is a fairly ‘laissez faire’ attitude towards meeting attendance in Kiribati.
Literature Review 77
expressed an interest in this and requested a copy. The Minister subsequently provided written feedback and suggestions which reflected a sound understanding of the policy’s principles and application to the Kiribati education system. The Minister’s suggestions were incorporated into the draft policy (but mostly deleted in the final version) (IEWG, 2013, see 6.1.7).
The second IEWG meeting was well attended with representatives from the Ministries of Education and Health, KEF, the School for Students with Special Needs, Catholic Education, UNICEF and the Kiribati Women’s Organisation (IEWG Minutes October 9, 2013). The only notable absences were representatives from Social Services and the Disabled Persons’ Organisation (Te Toa Matoa). The Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG) reviewed the draft at this meeting. Minor additions were added, for example the phrase, “to establish strong inter- ministry coordination and collaboration to ensure the global needs of children with disabilities are met” (IEWG, 2013 p. 3, see Appendix A). Following approval by the IEWG, the draft was submitted for approval by the Ministry of Education (MoE) Senior Management.
The Draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was approved by the Ministry of Education senior management in November, 2013 and was submitted “for wider community and stakeholder consultation” (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, p. 22). Two consultation workshops were held in Tarawa (the capital) and Tabiteuea Meang (an outer island). The consultation workshop in Tarawa was presented by the Senior Education Officer from the Ministry of Education and conducted in Te Kiribati (not English)12. The workshop in the outer island, Tabiteuea Meang (Tab North), was conducted by the locally employed KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator and included representation across the island including islets. The consultations were demonstrating at least a token local commitment and developing ownership for the policy. Subsequent community consultations have been a feature leading up to and following the endorsement of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy by Cabinet on March 17, 2015.
12 The researcher attended this meeting and although only being able to understand a very small proportion of the discussion was ‘inspired’ by the enthusiasm and tone (personal view).
Literature Review 78
Despite approval from Ministry of Education Senior Management and the Education Advisory Committee the policy stalled in submission to Cabinet. The danger of the impetus stalling could significantly have long term effects. Sections of the draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy were re-written by the Expatriate Senior Education Management Education Specialist in the Ministry of Education (see Appendix A). Some of the essence of the policy such as the rights of parents and teachers were removed. These elements had been largely suggested by the I-Kiribati members of the writing team (teachers and parent). The final policy was endorsed by the Kiribati Government on March 17, 2015.
The development process of the policy is relevant to this research as each of the group’s input to the policy’s development had its own particular focus regarding the concept of inclusive education and how it could be implemented in Kiribati. The major contributing groups were the writing team, the Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG) and the Ministry of Education senior management. Each group’s contribution also had input from external sources such as expatriate advisers suggesting the influence of the donor in imposing policy. The policy may, therefore, seem to be a passive adherence to western professional interpretations rather than reflecting local conditions and viewpoints (see Chapter 6).
The teacher representatives on the writing team were concerned with teacher training and the provision of adequate resources (modified to reduce MoE funding commitment in the final version of the policy). The writing team also included items concerning student, parent and teacher rights (which were largely deleted from the final version of the policy). For the IEWG, provisions for children with disabilities, particularly girl with disabilities, were the concerns of the representative of the national disability association (Te Toa Matoa). The Ministry of Education added items concerning administration of the policy including collecting data on the enrolment of children with disabilities and assessing the funding implications in implementing the policy. Generally the Ministry’s focus and edits predominated (see Appendix A). Community consultations were more like forums to provide information rather than seeking input into the policy’s development. Limited community consultation may represent token engagement and discounting of local knowledge and expertise (Rahnema, 2010).
Literature Review 79
2.4 TOPIC 4: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FROM CHAPTER 2
Whereas foreign aid effectiveness has been widely debated, aid is a prominent feature of the economies and programs of developing nations such as Kiribati. Development aid can be seen as a means by which developed nations exert economic and social control over developing nations. This raises the question of power relationships which are explored further in the next chapter. Inclusive education is also a complex and often confusing concept. Internationally, implementation of inclusive education philosophies and practices in developing countries has been driven by international declarations and United Nations policies supported largely through foreign aid projects. Pacific Island nations have focussed on the inclusion of children with disabilities in education programs supported by the priority given by Australian Aid to its ‘Development for All’ disability-inclusive policy. Inclusive education is a relatively new concept in Kiribati and as such is being introduced mainly through the Australian Aid funded Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) staffed predominantly by expatriate advisers. This approach raises questions of dependency, local ownership and ultimately sustainability of these initiatives.
The literature informs the two research questions for this research:
1. How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati? [Research Question 1 (RQ1) dependency]
2. What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati? [Research Question 2 (RQ2) ownership/sustainability]
For Research Question 1 (dependency), the literature would suggest that the political influences of neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism would place Kiribati in a position of dependence on support and direction from developed counties. Kiribati is a resource poor nation with foreign aid representing a significant percentage of its national budget. Inclusive education is a complex concept requiring educational restructuring and may not be high on Kiribati education system priorities. For this restructuring of its education system Kiribati appears dependent on expatriate
Literature Review 80
consultants through the KEF/KEIP project. Ministry of Education staff are dependent on the consultants’ expertise which is based on the consultants’ own cultural biases. The assumption is that the consultant knows what is best for the recipient country’s programs (James, 2016; Salifu & Agbenyega, 2013; Schein, 1972). This can create conflicts regarding expectations, priorities, and cultures within the program which may be implemented without due consideration of these factors by the donor. Commercial interests such as the managing contractor’s profits can play a role in maintaining this dependency. In the case of the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, the support is primarily from Australian Aid through the KEF program.
For Research Question 2 (ownership/sustainability), Kiribati has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which would suggest a level of commitment to the concept of inclusion. The literature would suggest that despite local ownership and genuine partnerships as prerequisites for aid effectiveness (Paris Declaration), the ownership of aid programs for inclusive education initiatives is very often solely in the hands of the donors. In Kiribati, this is the Australian Aid funded KEF/KEIP program. The development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy has been important in establishing a base for future ownership/sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati (see Chapter 8). The sustainability of inclusive education initiatives will only be possible if the concepts are owned both at the systems level and at the school and community level; “Creating an inclusive school community cannot take place without the wider community, service structures and society being committed to this goal” (McConkey & Bradley, 2010, p. 8). This takes time. Developing countries have particular challenges; “Thus establishing an inclusive education system within any country will not be achieved quickly and the extra challenges faced by low-income countries are especially daunting” (McConkey & Bradley, 2010, p. 9).
The next chapter discusses the theoretical framework for this study which employs critical pedagogy to examine human rights and social justice values in the implementation of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Literature Review 81
Literature Review 82
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
This chapter presents the theoretical framework for this research, which is based on the work of critical theorist Paulo Freire. Freire’s theory (1970) is termed critical pedagogy, a philosophy of education and social movement that combines education with critical theory. The general concept of critical theory is first presented, followed by an in-depth analysis of critical pedagogy. Finally the related concept of participatory inquiry which draws on participants’ local knowledge and voice to explore social issues (Tacchi, 2008) is considered. The application of these topics to the issues of development aid and inclusive education is discussed in the following sections.
3.1 CRITICAL THEORY
Critical theory emerged from the Western European, neo-Marxist philosophical movement known as the Frankfurt School. Critical theory links philosophical normative claims of truth, morality and justice to practical and interpretive human and social sciences by applying philosophical ideas to diagnosing social problems. Critical theory aims, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer, 1982, p. 244). Critical theory is, therefore, a social theory which aims at critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory in which the focus is solely on understanding society. The term ‘critical theory’ has been applied to many social movements identified with liberation from perceived oppression, therefore, “any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a ‘critical theory’, including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism” (Bohman, 2016, p. 1). Critical theory is underpinned by a framework that could be described as ethical, explanatory, practical, normative, transformative and emancipatory. The aim is to investigate concerns regarding social justice issues, identify the actors to address social injustice, and provide both norms for criticism and achievable, practical goals for social transformation. In Kiribati, the social reality is negative or ambivalent attitudes towards inclusive education, particularly for children with disabilities. The actors to address this social injustice include Australian Aid and KEF personnel, Ministry of Education administrators,
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 83
school executive, teachers and (in the long run) the wider community. The norms for critical examination will come from critical dialogue by the actors, particularly the local stakeholders. The achievable, practical goals should be found in the implementation plans (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a) which incorporate due consideration to local factors.
The philosophy of inclusion, as a social justice ideal, lies very much in the province of critical theory. Exclusion of some children from educational programs may be seen as a modern form of oppression in denying human rights and social justice. In relation to this study, inclusive education, as a focus for critical inquiry, may be seen as based on two premises:
1. That groups of children are being oppressed by exclusion from school
programs, and
2. That inclusive education is an emancipatory approach of ‘social
transformation’ to overcome this exclusion.
Inclusive education is a normative, socio-political construct emerging from western philosophical thought (see topic 2.2). As such, critical theory provides the basis for examining the application and imposition of this construct onto (non- western) developing nations through the (western) donor’s priorities. Similarly, the role of foreign aid to developing countries has been seen as political exploitation (see topic 2.1). Critical theory provides a basis to examine if there is exploitation, given the accusation that the aid donor impose programs onto developing countries that reflect the donor’s values and interests, rather than local needs and priorities. Ironically, foreign aid is also seen as emancipatory in attempting to address issues such as poverty, equity and social justice (Riddell, 2014).
McLaren (2009, pp. 61-72) outlines a number of underlying assumptions of critical theory. The assumptions include emancipation as central to critical theory; knowledge as socially constructed; culture as how social groups make sense of their lives; maintenance of domination; and practices which govern the rules of discourse and who has the authority. These assumptions can be applied to the analysis of inclusive education and Australian Aid provisions in Kiribati. Emancipation to achieve social justice for children excluded from school programs is central to
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 84
inclusive education. Inclusive education is a socially constructed concept, which has developed from western culture and philosophy (Terzi, 2014). Cultural practices, ideologies and values may differ markedly between the aid provider and the aid recipients as discussed in section 2.2.2. Domination can be exerted by the aid provider to ensure compliance by the aid recipient. Practices are very much in the control of the aid provider and expatriate advisers who have authority. Inclusive education is a social construction which may be difficult to accept in Kiribati society. The imposition of the concept of inclusive education by the dominant power (the aid provider) without this cultural acceptance may mean that the introduction of inclusive education initiatives could be seen as cultural invasion (Freire, 1970) and as such is unlikely to be successful or sustainable (Armstrong et al., 2010).
In critiquing society, critical theory is applied through critical inquiry to examine social issues based on the “idea of inclusive critical discussion, free of social and economic pressures, in which [stakeholders] treat each other as equals in a cooperative attempt to reach an understanding on matters of common concern” (Bohman & Rehg, 2014, para. 4). Those directly disadvantaged by social issues need to be central in voicing their view of these social issues and how these issues directly affect them (Freire, 1970). As discussed above, the unequal power positions of the donor and the recipient of aid may make critical, cooperative discussion, free of ‘social and economic pressure’, unachievable. Further, the voice of children excluded from schooling and their parents’ voice may not be valued.
Critical theorists argue that, “knowledge should be analysed on the basis of whether it is oppressive or exploitive and not [just] on the basis of whether it is true” (McLaren, 2009, p. 74). But who determines what is oppressive or exploitive? Foreign aid programs may be affected by different views as to what is oppressive between the donor and the recipient. Values are central to critical theory. The world view of the stakeholders regarding social issues is based on the values held by the stakeholders; “Values are the importance we attribute to one oneself, another person, thing or idea” (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014 p. 245). Skrtic (1991) comments, “some values simply cannot be negotiated away. Given the radical humanist grounding of critical inquiry, social justice is one of these values” (p. 129). Human rights and social justice are not major issues for people in Kiribati who are generally content with the status quo (T. Rokete, personal communication, April 11, 2016). In
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 85
Kiribati, local values, such as community attitudes towards the education of children with disabilities (Jolly & Rokete, 2012), need to be addressed in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives.
Aid projects are usually generated by the donor country (Riddell, 2007; 2014). This presents a genuine barrier to critical dialogue between the provider and the recipient in that the recipient may not have the chance to engage in critical discussion regarding a project which has already been decided upon by the donor country. The donor country needs to be ‘transparent’ as to their motives behind the project as noted by the Paris Declaration (see section 2.1.8). The unequal power base makes critical dialogue unnecessary for the provider and, therefore, irrelevant. The active role of those directly involved (the donors and the recipients) is central to critical analysis and action; “A pluralistic mode of critical inquiry suggests a different norm of correctness: that criticism must be verified by those participating in the practice this demand for practical verification is part of the process of inquiry itself” (Bohman & Rehg, 2014, para. 18). Unfortunately aid programs often ‘skip over’ this by providing ‘guided’ social evolution in terms of what has been pre-determined as best for the recipients for various reasons, including economic and political expediency.
Critical theory provides the means to examine social justice issues such as the exclusion of some children from schools. Critical discourse (dialogue), as a means to adopt a deeper understanding of stakeholder intentions and subsequent ownership of inclusive education interventions, is central to this study. Critical discourse assists both as a means to engage the participants in critical analysis regarding the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, and as a strategy employed by the Australian Aid funded education project to develop an understanding of and commitment to inclusive education in Kiribati (see Chapter 8).
3.2 CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
The work of Paulo Freire was central to development of the philosophy and practice (praxis) of critical pedagogy. Freire was, “striving for greater social justice and imagines a world, not as it is now, but as it should and can be” (Mayo, 2013, p. 9). Freire was able to give particular voice to the issues in developing countries as he was from a developing nation, Brazil. In his most well-known work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire examines how oppressors (those in power) control the
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 86
oppressed. He comments that, “concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, as an individual perceives the extent of dehumanization he or she may ask if humanization is a viable possibility” (p. 25). Those excluded may be seen as the dehumanised ‘Other’ (see section 2.2.3).
Critical pedagogy and inclusion share similar aims; “Both disciplinary fields seek to uncover the ways in which power and domination are surreptitiously implicated in the dominant social and institutional realities” (Liasidou, 2015, p. 120). Values such as freedom and equality are central to humanisation. Following a similar argument, inclusive education can be seen as humanisation and exclusion as dehumanisation. Freire’s pedagogy is “committed to the collective struggle to restore our humanity” (Darder, 2002, p. 53). For this study, children with disabilities excluded from school and their parents may be seen as the oppressed, and inclusive education as a strategy of humanisation. Children with disabilities may be seen as dehumanised and their inclusion in school programs as humanising. Also the aid recipient country and its community may be seen as oppressed in terms of having imported programs and values imposed on them with little, if any, consultation. Note the contradiction between aid provisions to address the social justice (oppression) of exclusion, and aid oppression in imposing the implementation of these provisions. This contradiction is discussed in Chapter 8.
Freire sees that the attainment of humanisation is through an education process based on critical analysis; “The prerequisite is a form of education enabling the people to reflect on themselves, their responsibilities and their role in the new cultural climate, indeed to reflect on their very power of reflection” (Freire, 1973, p. 16). This education is achieved through unrestrained critical dialogue between two (or more) persons. The educational dialogue to understand the situation is generated between the donor and the recipients in which the recipient brings to the dialogue their own forms of knowledge regarding the reality of their local situation. The recipients create their own words that allow them to become aware of reality in order to fight for their own emancipation. Freire calls this developing awareness conscientização (consciousness raising by connecting personal experience with the social circumstances people find themselves in). The role of the teacher is to problematise the reality that surrounds the oppressed, however, “this lesson and this apprenticeship must come from the oppressed themselves and from those who are
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 87
truly [in] solidarity with them” (Freire, 1970, p. 27). In Kiribati, the teaching of issues regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in school programs, at least in the preliminary stages of introducing inclusive education initiatives, could be seen as being provided by Australian Aid funded project staff. This represents a power differential in which the ‘lessons’ are not being generated by local stakeholders themselves.
Active critical dialogue and action by all stakeholders are central to Freire’s concept of critical pedagogy; “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re- invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (1970, p. 53). He concludes;
Finally, true [critical] dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking, thinking which discerns an indivisible solidarity between the world and people. Thinking which perceives reality as process, as transformation, rather than a static entity thinking which does not separate itself from action (Freire, 1970, p. 73).
Dialogue has been generated in Kiribati, to some extent, by considering the concept of inclusive education through the various contributions to the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy and subsequent (limited) community consultations. However, this occurred after inclusive education had been identified as a priority area by the aid provider (Australian Aid and KEF) with little consultation.
Greenstein (2016) maintains that critical pedagogy provides important ideas, “To challenge the ways schools work and promote transformation and social justice. The focus on conscientisation, praxis and dialogue are promising for the inclusion of disabled people” (p. 54). Conscientisation (conscientização) raises the awareness of the education community of the issues related to inclusive education, praxis is demonstrated through inclusive education initiatives and dialogue provides the mechanism to collaboratively problem solve issues (as well as raising awareness).
Critical dialogue and critical inquiry are based around what is termed by Freire as ‘generative themes’ and the ‘limit-situations’ contained within these themes. These terms reflect the “concrete representation of the ideas, values, concepts and
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 88
hopes [of the participants], as well as the obstacles which impede the people’s full humanization” (p. 82).
Generative themes are the ideas and perceptions which constitute and guide people’s view of the world and their relations with this world. He notes, “I have termed these themes ‘generative’ because they contain the possibility of unfolding into again as many themes, which in turn call for new tasks to be fulfilled” (p. 83). Inclusion can be seen as an all-encompassing generative theme. The unfolding generative themes for this study are the dependency (RQ1) on Australian Aid and the ownership/sustainability (RQ2) of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Limit-situations are barriers to freedom. Pinto (1960) states that;
Once [the limit-situations are] perceived by individuals as fetters, as obstacles to their liberation, these situations stand out revealing their true nature as concrete historical dimensions of a given reality. Limit- situations are not the impassable boundaries where possibilities end, but the real boundaries where possibilities begin (cited in Freire, 1970, p. 80).
The limit-situations of aid could be seen as the domination by the provider of aid in determining the priorities and implementation of programs. Freire comments, “underdevelopment, which cannot be understood apart from the relationship of dependency, represents a limit-situation characteristic of societies of the Third World” (1970, p. 84). The limit-situations for inclusive education are attitudes towards excluded children and the inability of school systems to include and cater for some students. Limit-situations to the implementation of inclusive education in Kiribati include addressing community attitudes particularly towards the education of children with disabilities, education priorities, lack of finance for resources, and inadequacies of teacher training, which lead to dependency on Australian Aid to address these limit-situations rather than generating local solutions.
Freire would see the imposition of western values and programs through foreign aid as a form of oppressive cultural invasion; “The invaders mold; those they invade are molded; invaders choose; those they invade follow that choice or are expected to follow it; invaders act; those they invade have only an illusion of acting, through the actions of the invaders” (Freire, 1970, p. 133). Recipients of aid accept
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 89
the imposed norms and values of the donor and perceive the donor as superior and, therefore, themselves as inferior. Freire comments, “one cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding” (1970, p. 76). Cultural invasion within development aid programs can be seen in the ready acceptance of developed countries’ values and practices by developing countries, which are introduced and enforced by an invading force of expatriate advisers.
To counter cultural invasion (and other oppression), Freire proposes that local (oppressed) stakeholders engage in unrestrained dialogue to examine themes and limit-situations to decode issues that directly affect them, and generate their own actions to address these issues. This presents a useful framework for analysis of the dynamics of the introduction of inclusive education initiatives from the stakeholders’ point of view. It appears that authentic stakeholder engagement and action does not often happen in aid projects (Rahnema, 2010). So, although stakeholder engagement is theoretically sound, there is a gap when put into practice.
In order to study and engage with generative themes and limit-situations relevant to particular communities, Freire maintains that the educator (and the researcher) should establish dialogue with the community to study the language, practice and thought of the individual’s reality. Local knowledge, drawing from the elements of language, practice and thought, is the basis for problematising education. Freire (1970, pp. 91- 98), outlines a process for investigating generative themes and limit-situations based on engaging local participants. For this research, elements of this process have been employed. Table 4.1 in Chapter 4 presents the elements of this process which parallel procedures employed for this research.
Although Freire cautions against imposing the investigator’s own values but rather “acting as sympathetic observers with an attitude of understanding towards what they see” (1970, p. 91), this is difficult to achieve. The external researcher subjectively controls the process (Ratner, 2002) and, therefore, is subject to their own agendas, whether these are obvious and stated (such as aid objectives) or directed by the investigator’s hidden values (such as a passion for inclusive education). This may determine the investigator’s selection of the generative themes to be studied and the problems posed, which may not be relevant to the inhabitants’ reality. The
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 90
participants become support actors or audience in the researcher’s show. Taylor (1993) discusses Freire’s selective choice of generative themes in his work with rural workers arguing that; “Freire’s approach differs only in degree, but not in kind, from the system which he so eloquently criticizes” (p. 148).
Kidd and Byram (1982) outline difficulties encountered in Botswana in applying a Freirian development approach to community issues. They attribute the shift away from the goals of authentic participation, critical awareness and collective action to “inadequate understanding of power structures at the village, national and international levels and by the technocratic conditioning and modernization framework of the organizers” (p. 104). In Kiribati, consultation regarding the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, whilst containing elements of Freire’s approach to engaging the community, did so primarily at a surface level through one-off meetings. Engagement in developing local commitment to inclusive education occurred mainly at the professional level of Ministry of Education administrators and to some extent teachers. The findings related to this are discussed in Chapter 8.
Freire’s work has been under-utilised for research purposes; “He has been silenced and misread in the academic agenda, both in the North and in the South, to fit research models which accommodate well to the neoliberal subjectivity and which deactivate the transformative character of Freire’s proposal” (Altamirino, 2016, p. 677). Greenstein (2016) cautions that, “disability remains marginalised within many critical pedagogy texts” (p. 57) which focuses predominately on social justice issues contained within the “sociological trinity of race, class and gender” (p. 58). However, he maintains that critical pedagogy’s focus is promising for inclusion of children with disabilities in schools “to challenge the ways schools work and promote transformation and social justice” (Greenstein, 2016, p. 54). Freire’s influence on the global impact of inclusive education thought and methodology has been demonstrated through UNESCO with his work being cited as a major reference for the ‘Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education’ (UNESCO, 2009).
Critical pedagogy is a means to involve stakeholders in participatory inquiry through engaging in critical dialogue regarding issues which may be new and challenging for them. The introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati is one such issue.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 91
3.3 PARTICIPATORY INQUIRY
This study uses participants’ voice as central mechanisms to understanding the dynamics of the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. The valuing of the ‘inhabitants knowledge’ of their own reality is a step towards overcoming the view “from the vantage point of the colonized” (Smith, 1999, p. 1). In their introduction to their ‘Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies’, the editors write;
We seek a productive dialogue between indigenous and critical scholars. This involves a re-visioning of critical pedagogy, a re- grounding of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed in local, indigenous contexts. It understands that all inquiry is both political and moral. It uses methods critically, for explicit social justice purposes. It values the transformative power of indigenous subjugated knowledge. It values the pedagogical practices that produce these knowledges and it seeks forms of praxis and inquiry that are emancipatory and empowering (Denzin, Lincoln & Smith, 2008, p. 2).
Inclusive education is a relatively new concept in Kiribati requiring new learning and understanding, particularly as this concept is being introduced through the external source of Australian Aid programs. The stakeholders can be seen as critical scholars. Whilst learning about the concept of inclusive education, they must also determine how this concept applies to Kiribati and how it will be implemented. As Sheehy, Nind, Rix, and Simons (2005) contend, research in inclusive education should be seen as “part of the process developing inclusive educational practices and thereby improving the educational experiences of all learners” (p. 1).
Regarding the role of Australian Aid, productive (critical) dialogue provides a voice to those directly involved (donors, implementers and recipients) in development projects “so defined, ‘voice’ insists on a ‘bottom-up’ approach giving people an opportunity, voice and influence to drive their own social change, then ‘voice’ can be related to active participation in the project itself” (Tacchi, 2008, p. 1).
This study puts the onus very much on the researcher, not only to fully involve participants, but to be aware of my own values, biases and agendas. Authentic collaboration can be achieved through engaging in research “with empathy, with meeting and feeling the presence of people and their world” (Heron, 1996, p. 58).
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 92
Collaboration between the external researcher and the local participants doesn’t necessarily need to be seen as cultural invasion;
The actors who come from ‘another world’ to the world of the people do so not as invaders, the actors become integrated with the people who are co-authors of the action that both perform upon the world. They do not come to teach or to transmit or to give anything but rather to learn, with the people, about the people’s world” (Freire, 1970, p. 161).
Whilst this study cannot claim to be true participatory research, given that there was little local input into the research design, engagement with the local participants in eliciting local voice concerning the issues being investigated is a central focus. Because the issues being investigated are directly relevant to the participants as key stakeholders, the participants may be viewed as co-investigators rather than subjects for this research.
3.4 FRAMEWORK APPLICATION
For this study, three aspects of critical pedagogy are important. The first aspect is to examine if a power relationship, based on dependency, exists in which Australian Aid imposes its goals for inclusive education onto Kiribati (Research Question 1). The second aspect is to question if the introduction of inclusive education philosophy, policy and practices in Kiribati has engaged meaningful critical dialogue and ownership by the local stakeholders (Research Question 2). The third aspect is the need for the researcher of this study to fully engage the participants in critical dialogue regarding the research so as to maintain an authentic voice in the research (Methodology).
This study aims to incorporate critical/dialectical methods “that place a premium on the clarification of values and human interests through informed discourse and action” (Sirotnik & Oates p. 19). In other words, the study aims to conform to the critical and participatory approach employed from critical pedagogy, using an exploratory case study to unpack the relationships between the aid provider and the aid recipient in implementing inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
The next chapter outlines the methodology applied for this study.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 93
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 94
Chapter 4: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology and research methods used in this study. Firstly, critical pedagogy as a research approach is discussed in section 4.1 and the use of qualitative research incorporating case study methodology is examined in sections 4.2 and 4.3. The positioning of the researcher and the research is then considered in section 4.4 to explain how the potential for research bias will be mitigated by utilizing participant’s voice as the primary mode of analysis. The overall research design is then provided in section 4.5 to inform the sections following. The next section (4.6) describes and discusses the participants and the research settings. This section is followed by an outline of the three sources of data; analysis of key documents related to Australian Aid and Government of Kiribati policies and procedures, individual interviews with key stakeholders and school based focus group discussions (sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10). How the data were analysed is described next in sections 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13. The analysis involved thematic analysis supported by process coding and values coding to unpack generative sub-themes related to the major themes of dependency and ownership/commitment of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. The major themes are the basis of the two research questions:
1. How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati? [Research Question 1 (RQ1) dependency]
2. What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati? [Research Question 2 (RQ2) ownership/sustainability]
Finally, the trustworthiness of the methodology used in this study (section 4.14) and ethics of the study (section 4.15) are described and discussed.
Chapter 4: Methodology 95
4.1 CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND RESEARCH
The theoretical framework discussed in Chapter 3 underpins this study. The critical pedagogy researcher explores questions concerning “the epistemological, ontological and axiological aspects of being human [and] what roles education and research play in [the] quest for a more humane world ” (Kress, 2011, p. 262).
For epistemology (knowledge), critical pedagogy considers that “knowledge should be analysed on the basis of whether it is oppressive or exploitive and not on the basis of whether it is true” (McLaren, 2009, p. 74). Whilst it may be a dramatic overstatement to describe inclusive education initiatives supported and directed by Australian Aid programs in Kiribati as oppressive, a power differential may exist between the donor and the recipient. This power differential, if present, needs consideration to determine the degree of dependency and local ownership (see research questions above). Critical pedagogy views the nature of being (ontology) through the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed.
The study of values (axiology) is central to critical pedagogy research because values such as freedom and equality are central to humanisation (Freire, 1970). Kress (2011) suggests that the critical pedagogy researcher asks the questions “whose values are represented (or not) in practices and discourses [and] who is advantaged and disadvantaged?” (p. 262). The concept of inclusive education is based on values of human rights and social justice (see 2.2.1). Whether these values, held by the donor, are shared by the recipients will impact on the sustainability and local ownership of inclusive education initiatives supported (and directed) by the donor.
This study incorporates critical dialogue with key stakeholders to explore epistemological, ontological and axiological aspects of being human. In critical pedagogy the local stakeholders’ voice is central in creating critical dialogue which enables the stakeholders to examine the issues confronting their world. For this study, the introduction of inclusive education initiatives is one such issue. Critical dialogue enables the local participants to “reflect on themselves, their responsibilities and their role in the new cultural climate, indeed to reflect on their very power of reflection” (Freire, 1973, p. 16).
There is considerable methodological diversity in critical pedagogy research applications (Kincheloe & Berry 2004). However, researchers with a critical
Chapter 4: Methodology 96
pedagogy focus are “[all] working towards the common goal of making education (and humanity) more humane” (Kress, 2011, p. 363). Kress sees common themes within the diversity of critical pedagogy research as critical dialogue, learning from difference, citizenship, collaboration, historical consciousness, alternative ways of knowing, humility, self-reflection, and social justice. The research themes examined in this study relate particularly to critical dialogue to engage the stakeholders (see above), collaboration (or lack thereof) between the donor and the recipients (e.g. KEF and the Ministry of Education), historical consciousness in considering past attitudes towards inclusive education, self-reflection through critical dialogue of the participants’ roles, and attitudes towards social justice.
Qualitative research and case study methodology provide a means to examine the depth of the dynamics of the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati through a critical pedagogical lens.
4.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Inclusive education is a concept based on values held by the stakeholders (Booth, 2011), therefore, a qualitative research approach was adopted to incorporate stakeholders’ voice as central to investigating the research themes. As Corbin and Strauss (2008) contend, “qualitative research allows researchers to get at the inner experiences of participants to determine how meanings are formed through culture” (p. 12). For this study, the researcher has some direct experience of the culture of Kiribati through living in the country for a calendar year in 2013. To access the inner experience of the participants, the researcher needs to understand where the participants are ‘coming from’ and establish relationships with the participants which are open and empathetic, allowing in-depth critical dialogue to fully explore the topic;
Qualitative research is multi-method in focus involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural setting attempting to make sense of or interpret the phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 2).
For this study, a qualitative research approach provided the means to explore the research questions under investigation in order to gain a deeper understanding
Chapter 4: Methodology 97
from the perspective of local stakeholders in their natural setting. Qualitative research typically uses methods such as interviews and focus groups to elicit participants’ voices regarding the research focus. By drawing from a range of ‘living’ data, the researcher is able to present a ‘montage’ which invites “viewers [e.g. the researcher] to construct interpretations that build on one another as the scene unfolds” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 5). For this study, the montage includes the viewpoints of various stakeholders including Ministry of Education administrators, teachers college representative, school executive and disabled persons organisation representative, locally employed KEF staff and locally employed Australian Consular staff.
Denzin and Giardina (2010) comment that qualitative inquiry should incorporate the two dimensions of Freire’s critical analysis, “reflection and action” (Freire, 1970, p. 68). Qualitative inquiry “is not just about ‘method’ or ‘technique’ but also an inherently political project that works towards making the world visible in ways that implement the goals of social justice and radical progressive democracy” (Denzin & Giardina, 2010, p. 14). As inclusive education is a socio- political concept which is being introduced in Kiribati through the political mechanism of Australian Aid, the reflection and actions by the stakeholders of these processes are central to a qualitative research approach to understanding these dynamics.
There are many views as to what is qualitative research; “The open ended nature of the qualitative research project leads to a perpetual resistance against attempts to impose a single, umbrella like paradigm over the entire project” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. xiii). For this study, the qualitative approach fits under the ‘umbrella’ of critical pedagogy through which “the investigation of thematics involves the investigation of people’s thinking – thinking which occurs only in and among people together seeking out reality” (Freire, 1970, p. 89). Engagement with the stakeholders (participants) through individual interviews and focus groups is central to this study’s investigation of the ‘thematics’ regarding inclusive education and Australian Aid in Kiribati.
Chapter 4: Methodology 98
4.3 THE CASE STUDY
A ‘case’, in case study methodology, is an example of some wider category of events (or settings, groups, organisations etc.) which are bounded together by some common features such as culture or aspects of education such as inclusive education. In this study, the influence of aid in directing the course of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati can be seen as a single case of this event in developing countries.
Given the complexity of the relationship between the aid provider in influencing initiatives such as inclusive education and the aid recipient attempting to implement these initiatives, this study adopted a critical case study approach. As noted in Chapter 3, developing critical insight is the key to unpacking the complex and layered meaning from the case study data relating to people’s lived experience. Yin (2009) defines the critical case study research method as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context; when the boundaries between the phenomena and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p. 18). In this study, inclusive education is a new ‘real life’ concept in Kiribati and as such, the boundaries, particularly between the roles of the aid donor and recipient in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, can be unclear. For example, the role of the locally employed Gender and Social Inclusion Consultant “is an ambiguous role” (Emmott, 2014, p. 23) crossing over responsibilities between KEF and the Ministry of Education.
Cases “are complex systems [that] consider all of the whole, the parts, the interactions among parts and whole, and the interactions of any system with other complex systems among which it is nested and with which it intersects” (Byrne & Ragin, 2009, p. 1). A case study allows the researcher to probe deeper into underlying factors influencing education reform and within that, the embedded inclusive education initiatives. Boundaries need to be set for the particular case under investigation because social reality and interactions among people are complex and for pragmatic reasons needs to be manageable. The boundaries set for this study are the roles and perspectives of key stakeholders in the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati.
Chapter 4: Methodology 99
4.4 POSITIONING THE RESEARCHER AND THE RESEARCH
The researcher brings to the research a social history of values, perceptions and biases; “As a carrier of this complex and contradictory history, the researcher must confront the ethics and politics of research” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 22). The ethics and the politics of this research relate to the historical positioning of the researcher as an advocate of inclusive education in Kiribati, and the established professional relationship of the researcher with most of the participants in this regard. This is discussed in section 4.15 below.
This study can be seen as having elements of being an example of insider research. The term `insider research' is used to describe projects where the researcher has a direct involvement or connection with the research setting. Generally, insider research is defined as “conducting research with communities or identity groups of which one is a member” (Hanson, 2013, p. 388). Insider research offers advantages as “interviewees may feel more comfortable and freer to talk openly if familiar with the researcher [and] has the potential to increase validity due to the added richness, honesty, fidelity and authenticity of the information acquired” (Rooney, 2005, p. 7). The researcher also has knowledge of the organisation enabling “richer data to be obtained because [of the] insider position, the key to delving into the hidden crevices of the organisation” (Hanson, 2013, p. 391). The rich data obtained in this study has largely been a product of the researcher’s relationship as an ‘insider’. The researcher can be seen as an ‘insider’, to a certain extent, given my role in the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati including teacher training and the development of the inclusive education policy.
The researcher is also an ‘outsider’ not being a native I-Kiribati nor having an ongoing role in inclusive education initiatives. This creates a somewhat hybrid research role. This is not a particularly unusual situation as Hanson (2013) has observed; “Many insider researchers writing about their experiences illustrate the fluidity of their role and the impossibility of adopting an absolute position of being either inside or outsider” (p. 391).
The methodology applied in this research was designed to create an interactive shared space between the researcher, the data and the participants. Within this space, critical analysis is generated by the interactions. This is a subjective approach in
Chapter 4: Methodology 100
which the researcher is sharing the ‘lived experience’ to a certain extent, “[the] best way to enter a person’s life is to participate in it” (van Manen, 1990, p. 69).
The choice of research methods is also subjective;
Qualitative methodology recognizes that the subjectivity of the researcher is intimately involved in research. Subjectivity guides everything from the choice of topic, to formulating hypotheses, to selecting methodologies, and interpreting data (Ratner, 2002, para 1).
To moderate researcher subjectivity, the direct participants’ voice has been given primacy in analysis for this study. During this analysis the researcher must remain aware of their own subjectivity in the choice of responses.
This research has been driven by the researcher’s desire to tell the story about the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. The methodology employed for this study is the means of telling this story; “It is more important to be clear about ‘your passion to inquire’ than a methodology, i.e. methodology must serve your passion and not your passion be subservient to a methodology” (Hill, 1996, p.3).
4.5 THE RESEARCH DESIGN
This research was designed to generate sub-themes to explore the major research themes of dependency on Australian Aid and local ownership/sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati from local and Australian Aid perspectives. The research followed a set of inter-related stages. These stages were:
Stage 1: Initial contact and research approval;
Stage 2: Analysis of documents;
Stage 3: Individual interviews with key stakeholders;
Stage 4: Focus group generative theme discussion;
Stage 5: Transcription of audio recordings;
Stage 6: Identification of generative sub-themes; and
Stage 7: Analysis of responses based on the sub-themes.
Chapter 4: Methodology 101
Stages 3 and 4 were undertaken onsite in Kiribati over the period February to April, 2016.
The data were collected from the three methods of document analysis, individual interviews, and focus groups discussion which informed the generative themes and sub-themes used to analyse the data (see 4.11). Figure 4.1 illustrates the interaction of the data sources and the analysis.
Figure 4.1 Interaction of research stages and data analysis
Interviews
Analysis of Generative Themes
Documents Focus Groups
The research procedure for this study utilises aspects of Freire’s (1970) process for generating critical dialogue and analysis of themes to immerse the local stakeholders as central to the investigative process. Table 4.1 below outlines parallels between procedures used for this study and elements from Freire’s process. Column 1 outlines the research procedure for this study and column 2 the parallel elements from Freire’s process. This study did not fully conform to Freire’s method, as the aim of the research was not to initiate social change but to understand the change process from the stakeholders’ point of view. The research did, however, aim to challenge the participants regarding the issues raised for the adoption of inclusive education in Kiribati.
Chapter 4: Methodology 102
Table 4.1 Freire’s process in the research
______
Research Procedure for Elements from Freire’s Process this study (Freire, 1970, pp. 91-99) ______
Stage 1: Negotiation with ‘meeting with a significant number of key stakeholders (local) persons (to) explain the reasons for the investigation, and to what use it will be put’ (p. 91)
Stage 3: Individual investigators observe certain moments interview responses. of the life of the area- sometimes directly, Observations drawn from sometimes by means of informal responses by stakeholders conversations with the inhabitants’ (p. 92)
Stage 4: Focus ‘thematic investigation circles are held group discussion with participants to decode the material in order to raise consciousness and prepare for action’ (p. 98)
Codes identified, by the ‘the investigators will select some of researcher, for sub- themes these contradictions to develop the related to Dependency (RQ1) codifications used in thematic and Ownership (RQ2) investigation’ (p. 95)
Analysis and feedback was ‘during the decoding process, the continuous throughout the coordinator must not only listen but study. Interaction between challenge them, both the codified the participants and the researcher situation and their own answers provided opportunities for and their own answers’ (pp. 98-99) participants to evaluate their own views
______
Freire’s method was achieved through the critical dialogue generated in the individual interviews and the focus groups. By engaging the stakeholders (participants) in critical dialogue concerning the themes related to inclusive education and Australian Aid, ‘thematic investigation circles’ were created “to decode the material in order to raise consciousness” (Freire, 1970, p. 98). For example, a question regarding the participants’ understanding about what is inclusive education generated critical dialogue which clarified the participants’ focus (raise consciousness) and contributed towards the researcher’s understanding of how inclusive education is viewed primarily as the inclusion of children with disabilities
Chapter 4: Methodology 103
in Kiribati. This critical dialogue was two-way with mutual respect and cooperative involvement between the researcher and the participants. The data procedures were designed to fully elicit the participants’ voice through interactive dialogue around the themes related to inclusive education initiatives and Australian Aid support in Kiribati.
4.6 PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS
As noted by the critical theory proponents discussed in Chapter 3, understanding the collective voices of those undergoing the lived experience is central to critical analysis. The process should aim to understand and recognise the transformative power of local subjugated knowledge. Pedagogical practices that produce this knowledge strive for inquiry and praxis processes that are emancipatory and empowering. Hence, the participants for this study were all local I-Kiribati people who are key stakeholders in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives.
A total of twenty participants were involved in this study. These participants were chosen through consultation with MoE, KEF and DFAT and because they represent key stakeholder groups in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. Table 4.2 outlines the participant group, the number of participants from each group, and the data collection method.
Table 4.2 Participant groups
Participant Group Participants Data collection method
Ministry of Education 3 One to one individual interview
Kiribati Teachers College 1 One to one individual interview
School executive 2 One to one individual interview
Disabled persons’ organisation 1 One to one individual interview
Australian Aid funded 1 One to one individual interview education project (KEF)
Locally employed Australian 2 One to one individual interview Consular staff
Inclusive education pilot school 6 Focus group discussion
Traditional village school 4 Focus group discussion
Chapter 4: Methodology 104
The individual interviews involved ten participants targeted as having a direct involvement with inclusive education initiatives and/or Australian Aid programs in Kiribati. Informed contribution and sustained support from key personnel are essential for successful policy and program implementation. This particularly applies to social justice policies such as inclusive education (Brundrett, de Cuevas & Anderson, 2008).
For the individual interviews, seven of the interviewees could be grouped as representing direct recipients of Australian Aid. Of the seven interviewees, three were senior Ministry of Education personnel who were responsible for the implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy; one interviewee represented Kiribati Teachers College which conducts teacher training in inclusive education; two interviewees were senior school executives, one of whom was a member of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy draft writing team and the other directly responsible for the pilot school for inclusive education in Kiribati; and one interviewee was a representative of the Disabled Persons’ Organisation (Te Toa Matoa) who was also a member of the Inclusive Education Working Group (IEWG). In terms of donor groups, three interviewees could be designated as representing the donor as they all worked directly for Australian Aid organisations. Of these, one was a local employee of the Australian Aid funded Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) who was responsible for initiating and overseeing inclusive education initiatives. The other two interviewees were locally employed Australian Consular staff responsible for education and disability programs respectively.
The ten individual interviewees were designated as M1, M2, M3 (Ministry of Education Administrators), TC (Teachers College representative), SE1, SE2 (School Executives), DPO (Disabled Person Organisation), and D (Donor representatives- locally employed KEF and Australian Consular staff)13. Table 4.3 outlines these groups and their role in inclusive education.
13 The locally employed donor staff (D) were not coded individually in order to comply with the DFAT condition for the research that; “the comments made (during the interviews) are not for attribution to DFAT or the individuals” (see Appendix H).
Chapter 4: Methodology 105
Table 4.3 Participant roles
Participants Role in inclusive education initiatives ______
Ministry of Education Oversee the implementation of the inclusive (M1, M2, M3) education policy
Teachers College Provide teacher training in inclusive education for (TC) pre-service and post-service teacher professional development
School Executive Provide education leadership for inclusive education (SE1, SE2) at the school level
Disabled Persons‘ Advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities Organisation (DPO) (including children) across Kiribati
Donor Coordinates inclusive education initiatives for the (D) Kiribati Education Facility (KEF)
Donor Oversees Australian Aid funding for education and (D) disability in Kiribati ______
The distinction between recipient and donor is not clear cut because all of the interviewees were local I-Kiribati, and consequently their viewpoints tended to take a recipient focus of how Kiribati could benefit from donor-supported interventions. For example, the Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (GSIC), a KEF employee, works very closely with the Ministry of Education and, therefore, generally took a Ministry of Education point of view on issues; “The GSIC is an ambiguous role being a staff position of KEF but acting in a line role in the SIU [Ministry of Education School Improvement Unit]” (Emmott, 2014, p. 23). Interviews were conducted in Tarawa at the participants’ work places with a 45 minute time allocation.
The focus group participants were a total of ten primary school teachers who came from two schools at the eastern end of the capital Tarawa in relatively less populated areas. The purpose and process for the focus group was outlined at a school staff meeting and volunteers and group times arranged through the Head Teacher. The group sessions were held at the respective teachers’ schools during a recess time for group 1 and after school for group 2. Sessions were allocated 60
Chapter 4: Methodology 106
minutes duration. The focus groups were designated as FG1 and FG2 for the analysis. Individual members of the focus groups were designated as FG1.1, FG1.2 etc. Focus Group 1 (FG1) consisted of six teachers from a school nominated as a pilot school for inclusive education. This was a newly built school funded by Australian Aid. Focus Group 2 (FG2) consisted of four teachers from an older, traditionally built village school nearby, with limited facilities by comparison with the pilot school. The teachers from both groups were experienced with at least ten years’ experience and had taught in the outer islands at some stage.
4.7 DATA COLLECTION
In order to construct a ‘montage’ of the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati through a qualitative research approach, three sources of data were generated:
Document Analysis
Individual interviews with key stakeholders
Focus group discussion at the school level.
The official ‘voice’ was considered through analysis of Government of Kiribati documents particularly the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015), and Australian Aid documents such as the Development for All Strategy (DFAT, 2015) and the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) management plans. Section 4.8 provides details of data collected from these documents. Document analysis provided insights into the official position adopted by Kiribati and Australian policies and programs.
These documents alone were limited in providing a full picture from the ‘inner experience’ of those stakeholders directly involved in the implementation of these policies and programs. Critical dialogue with the stakeholders provided the researcher with the means to explore the research questions under investigation in order to gain a deeper understanding from the perspective of local stakeholders in their natural setting. To achieve this, two methods were employed; individual interviews with key stakeholders, and focus group discussion at the school level. Individual interviews provided insights as to how key stakeholders view the implementation of inclusive education in Kiribati. Stakeholders from both the
Chapter 4: Methodology 107
recipients of Australian Aid support and from the donors were interviewed (see Table 4.3). The interaction within the focus group explored commitment and the practicality of implementation of inclusive education at the school level, which may be at odds with the expectations ‘from above’. The details of how the data were collected using each of the three methods is described below.
4.8 DATA FROM DOCUMENTS
Data were sourced from documents relating to the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati and the role played by Australian Aid in the introduction of these initiatives. The major documents sourced were the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015), Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) Management Plans, and the Development for All 2015-2020 Strategy (DFAT, 2015). The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was sourced to provide evidence of the priority given by the government to inclusive education and adherence to developed countries concepts of inclusive education. The development and implementation of the policy is the major inclusive education initiative to date. Other government of Kiribati documents which relate to the concept of inclusive education were also sourced (listed in Table 4.4 below). KEF Management Plans were sourced to provide evidence of the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, which also relates to dependency on Australian Aid for these initiatives. Development for All 2015-20: Strategy for strengthening disability-inclusive development in Australia’s aid program (DFAT, 2015) was sourced as the major document outlining the philosophy, values and rationale behind Australian Aid promoting inclusive education. This document is the driving force from Australia behind the funding and directing of inclusive education initiatives.
The Table 4.4 lists all the documents sourced in this study. Documents were selected by the researcher as containing statements supporting the concept of inclusive education and/or the provision of Australian Aid programs in Kiribati. The table also outlines the relevance of these documents to the major research themes for this study, which are local ownership of inclusive education initiatives (RQ2) and dependency on Australian Aid for implementation of these initiatives (RQ1).
Chapter 4: Methodology 108
Table 4.4 Documents
Document Relevance to research Major Theme
______
Kiribati Inclusive Provides the policy Ownership Education Policy for inclusive Government of Kiribati, education in Kiribati (2015)
Kiribati Education Act Sets out legislative Ownership (Republic of Kiribati, 2013) requirements
National Curriculum and Sets the overall principles Ownership Assessment Framework for educational practice (Kiribati Ministry Education, 2012a)
Kiribati Education Sector Sets the direction for Ownership Strategic Plan 2012- 2015 development of the (Kiribati Ministry of education system Education, 2012b) across Kiribati
School Improvement Plan Sets guidelines for school Ownership Standards 2013-2015 development (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2013)
Kiribati Education Sector Sets the direction for Ownership Strategic Plan 2016-2020 educational development
Kiribati Education Facility Outlines funding for inclusive Dependency (KEF) Management Plans education projects in Kiribati
Development for All: 2015-20 Reinforces priorities for Dependency Strategy for strengthening disability-inclusion in disability-inclusive Australian Aid development in Australia’s aid program (DFAT, 2015)
The procedures used to analyse the documents is outlined in section 4.12 below.
Chapter 4: Methodology 109
4.9 DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS
Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted to generate discussion regarding the attitudes of key stakeholders towards inclusive education initiatives. Through this discussion, the level of commitment by the participants (local stakeholders) to inclusive education initiatives and participants’ attitudes toward Australian Aid support/direction for these initiatives were examined.
The interview questions were based on topics from the literature review. Questions related to the research theme of ownership/commitment (RQ2) were drawn from the topics: understandings of inclusive education (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010; Liasidou, 2012, 2015; Mitchell, 2005); application of inclusive education in Kiribati (Emmott, 2014; Jolly & Rokete, 2012); challenges and barriers to inclusive education (Miles, 2007; Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2012), and government commitment to inclusive education (Government of Kiribati, 2015). Questions related to the research theme of dependency (RQ1) were drawn from the topics: Australian Aid support (DFAT, 2009a, 2017b); accountability (Law, Valiente-Riedl & Celermajer, 2012; Riddell, 2014); the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in developing countries (Armstrong et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2009) and sustainability, without aid support (de Renzio, 2016; Nastios, 2010).
The interview questions, asked to both recipient and donor participants, are presented below. All interviewees were asked the same set of questions to provide consistency and comparability in analysis of the responses. However, the interviews were flexible, allowing the participant to raise other issues (themes) and for the researcher to follow up issues raised.
Individual interview questions
What is your role?
What is your understanding of inclusive education?
How does this apply to education in Kiribati?
What are the challenges and barriers?
What is needed to address these challenges and barriers?
How realistic are inclusive education initiatives for your schools?
Chapter 4: Methodology 110
What Australian Aid programs help to support inclusive education?
How have these programs contributed to the introduction of inclusive education?
What guidelines do aid programs provide for these programs?
What are the accountability requirements?
How was a focus on inclusive education initiated?
What is the government’s commitment to inclusive education?
What is the government doing to address this commitment?
What would happen if there was reduced or no foreign aid support?
The interviews were arranged through the relevant organisations’ protocols particularly through the Ministry of Education and DFAT (see Appendix G for MoE approval and Appendix H for DFAT approval). Once approval for the research was obtained the researcher invited individuals to participate as stakeholders in the study.
English was used for the individual interviews as the participating interviewees held senior positions in the government or their respective organisations and had a high level of competency in English language. This allowed the researcher to freely interact and converse with the interviewees. The researcher included a question at the introduction of each interview: “What is your understanding of inclusive education?” in order to establish what the interviewee saw as inclusive education. This definition was used as the basis in subsequent responses for each individual interview (rather than a definition imposed by the researcher).
The interviewer had worked with many of those interviewed so there was an established professional relationship. Whilst this expedited the interviews with established rapport and common understandings, there was a possibility of interview bias. In Kiribati, an established relationship is fundamental to genuine social interaction. The risk of bias was counterbalanced by the potential of increased authenticity of responses. The researcher took into account possible bias from both the interviewees and the researcher himself when analysing the responses (see ethics discussion 4.15).
Chapter 4: Methodology 111
The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim into text by the researcher14. The coding procedures used to analyse the individual interviews are outlined in Section 4.13 below.
4.10 DATA FROM FOCUS GROUPS
For the focus group, a broad set of questions was used to generate discussion. Although the core set of questions was similar, there was some variation to focus on particular local issues and clarifications. This analysis provided a comparison between Focus Group 1 which, as a pilot school for inclusive education, had received extensive input and support from Australian Aid, and Focus Group 2 which had received little input or support concerning inclusive education (as for most schools across Kiribati). The amount of input and support a school receives from Australian Aid relates to Research Question 1 (Dependency). Commitment to the principles of inclusive education may also be dependent on the amount of input and support a school receives which relates to a consideration of Research Question 2 (Ownership/Commitment). The comparison between the two focus groups is discussed in Chapter 8. Both sets of questions for Focus Group 1 and Focus Group 2 are outlined below. Clarifying questions are marked (C).
Focus Group questions
Focus Group 1: Pilot school (6 teachers) What do you think about inclusive education? Is it a good idea? (C)
What is being done in this school to make the school inclusive?
How successful is what you are doing in this school?
What do you see are the challenges for this school?
What’s stopping children coming to school? Do you think attendance is improving? (C)
What outside help does the school get?
14 The researcher processed this data by transcribing the responses manually from listening to the recordings and then checking the accuracy of the transcriptions by cross checking with the recordings by re-listening several times.
Chapter 4: Methodology 112
What do you think about Australia giving money to Kiribati to help inclusive education?
What would happen if Australia stopped giving money?
What do you think is the Kiribati Government commitment to inclusive education?
Do you have any comments or anything else you’d like to say?
Focus Group 2: Traditional school (4 teachers)
What do you think inclusive education is?
What do you think about inclusive education?
What are you doing in this school for inclusive education?
Is this a friendly school? (C)
How successful do you think the school is in including everyone?
What are the challenges with including all children?
What stops you from being able to do all you want to include children?
What would you do to change things?
What outside help does the school get?
Do you know of anything that comes from Australian Aid?
What do you think the Kiribati Government’s commitment is to inclusive education, to having all children included in schools?
What do you think would happen if there was no Australian Aid helping to include children?
These questions were generally open-ended allowing participants to contribute their own views and understandings. Sessions were conducted in English as all the participants had a good level of conversational proficiency. The focus groups’ discussions were audio recorded with the group’s permission and transcribed verbatim by the researcher.
Chapter 4: Methodology 113
Although English was used for the discussion, language had the potential to be an issue for the study as language concepts may have different meanings across cultures; Nees, Amba, Jonsson and Deeg (2010) note, “this is in particular relevant for qualitative research, because it works with words; language is central in all phases ranging from data collection to analysis” (p. 313). Generally all the participants had a good command of conversational English and the potential for misinterpretation of cultural meaning was minimal. Clarification was sought by the researcher when this was unclear.
The coding procedures used to analyse the focus group responses were the same as for the individual interviews (see Section 4.13 below).
4.11 DATA ANALYSIS
A qualitative content analysis approach was used for each set of data sources; documents, individual interviews and focus group discussion. Qualitative content analysis provided a means “for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data [including transcripts] through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). Qualitative analysis is inductive in constructing inferences from the patterns emerging from the content. For this study, whilst the major themes of Dependency and Ownership/Commitment are deductive coming from the review of the literature, the sub-themes related to the major themes are inductive, being derived from the participants’ responses. Qualitative content analysis, rather than producing numbers, relies on the participants’ own reflections on how they view the social world; “Qualitative content analysis pays attention to unique themes that illustrate the range of the meanings of the phenomenon rather than the statistical significance of the occurrence of particular texts or concepts” (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009, p. 2).
Content analysis treats social action as text, as explained by Berg and Lune (2012);
Human action can be seen as symbols expressing layers of meaning. Interviews and observational data then can be transcribed into written text for analysis. How one interprets such a text depends in part on the theoretical orientation taken by the researcher (p. 350).
Chapter 4: Methodology 114
To deal with large and multiple data sets coding was used to analyse the content of the text. The text of the documents was coded in terms of thematic analysis coding with dependency represented as (d), local ownership/commitment represented as (oc) and adherence to western (Australian) values represented as (a) (see 4.12). The individual interviews and focus group responses were transcribed into text verbatim and analysed using process and values coding to generate sub-themes which related to the research themes of dependency and ownership (see 4.13). Table 4.5 below outlines the content analysis procedures and which procedures were used for each of the three data sources. Examples of the coding are also illustrated in the table.
Table 4.5 Content analysis
Coding Applied to Example Procedure ______
Thematic Analysis Documents “A child can not be refused enrolment at a school on the basis of his or her sex, religion, race or disability” (Kiribati Education Act 2013, 12:2). Coded as ownership/commitment (oc)
Process Coding Individual Interviews “It’s guiding most of the development Focus Groups projects even in Kiribati” (D). Coded as major theme: dependency (sub-theme: directing).
Values Coding Individual Interviews “It [inclusive education] is a very good Focus Groups idea and no one is going to be locked away from the teacher” (FG1.3). Coded as major theme: ownership (sub- theme: support for inclusive ed.)
Chapter 4: Methodology 115
4.12 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
The text of the documents was coded directly through content thematic analysis15 (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) by identifying phrases that:
Demonstrated the theme of dependency on Australian Aid for the implementation of inclusive education initiatives (d);
Indicated the theme of adherence to western concepts of inclusive education (a).
Reflected the theme of local ownership/commitment of inclusive education (oc); and
Examples of phrases and sentences which were coded according to these themes are outlined below.
Phrases which were coded as dependency (d) were identified primarily in the KEF Management Plans. The KEF Management Plans were coded in terms of phrases which indicated initiating and directly supporting inclusive education initiatives. For example, the phrase that the Australian Aid funded education project “developed a Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Strategy” (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, Annex 2, p. 1), reflected the degree of dependency on Australian Aid for the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, therefore, this was coded as (d).
The Development for All 2015-20: Strategy for strengthening disability- inclusive development in Australia’s aid program (DFAT, 2015) was analysed in terms of phrases which indicated Australian Aid policy directing disability-inclusive strategies and, therefore, imposing dependency on Australian-held principles rather than locally held values. For example, the phrase “leverage broader change” (p. 14) reflected a strategy to directly influence change processes and was coded as adherence (a).
Phrases which reflected some local ownership/commitment (oc) towards inclusive education were identified from Government of Kiribati documents (see Table 4.4). An example of a phrase reflecting a degree of ownership/commitment
15 Thematic analysis is a form of pattern recognition within the data, with emerging themes becoming the categories for analysis (Bowen, 2009, p. 32).
Chapter 4: Methodology 116
from the Kiribati Education Act is: “A child cannot be refused enrolment at a school on the basis of his or her sex, religion, race or disability” (Republic of Kiribati, 2013, p. 6).
The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) is the most comprehensive statement of commitment to inclusive education in Kiribati. The policy is the major inclusive education initiative funded through Australian Aid and is the basis for current inclusive education initiatives. The policy is also the basis of comments made by stakeholders during the individual interviews.
An extensive analysis of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was undertaken in terms of adherence (a) to western concepts of inclusive education to determine the extent of imported ideals (imposed through Australian Aid). To achieve this, a framework was developed using a set of a priori themes which represent a western view of issues related to inclusive education policies. These themes were derived from a study by the Enabling Education Network (Lewis, 2008) cross-referenced to the UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education (UNESCO, 2009) (see 2.2.10 and Appendix B) which provided an official view of (western) inclusive education guidelines for inclusive education policy. Chapter 6 provides an analysis of these themes. These listed themes were:
Definitions of inclusive education
Quality education
Holistic approach
Resource allocation
Participatory data collection
Teacher education
Flexible curriculum development
Inclusive education as a rights issue.
As these themes are based on aid provider’s concepts of what is important in effective inclusive education policy and implementation the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was analysed in terms of adherence (a) to these (western) criteria.
Chapter 4: Methodology 117
The document analysis processes applied for this study are summarised in the following table-
Table 4.6 Document analysis processes
Theme Documents analysed
Dependency (d) KEF Management Plans Development for All (DFAT, 2015)
Ownership/Commitment (oc) Kiribati Government documents (see Table 4.4)
Adherence (a) Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy
4.13 CODING OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES
Coding was employed to systematically organise the data from the individual interviews and focus groups before interpretive analysis began. Codes help the researcher search for patterns, which provide the most sufficient answers to their research questions; “A code, in qualitative research, is a word or short phrase [or sentence] which symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence capturing and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language based data” (Saldana, 2013 p. 3). Coding is a method for the researcher to sort through the data to provide:
Techniques for finding and marking the underlying ideas in the data;
Grouping similar kinds of information into categories; and
Relating similar ideas and themes to one another (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
A variety of coding approaches is possible (Saldana, 2013, p. 59), with the choice of the coding schemes to provide further insights depending on the focus of the investigation. For this study, the investigation focused on actions (processes) that the participants in the individual interviews and the focus groups were taking to support inclusive education, and the values and attitudes (values) being expressed by the participants towards inclusive education and Australian Aid.
Consequently, two forms of coding were used. Process Coding was used to examine participants’ actions and Values Coding was used to examine the
Chapter 4: Methodology 118
participants' values (V), and attitudes (A) (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014, pp. 74-76). These forms of coding were chosen as appropriate for this study because Process Coding identified the actions (or otherwise) that the participants were taking in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives, and Values Coding identified the values and attitudes participants may have towards inclusive education. Process Coding links to the theoretical framework, as praxis (actions) by the stakeholders and is central to a Freirean approach in addressing social issues which directly affects them. Values Coding links to the theoretical framework as the values (world view) of the stakeholders needs to be incorporated in addressing social issues. Coding is also a means for identifying Freire’s generative themes. Process coding relates particularly to Research Question 1 (Dependency) because actions by the aid recipients may indicate independence, and lack of action may indicate dependency on the donors. Values coding relates particularly to Research Question 2 (Ownership/Commitment) because, unless inclusion is a value held by the participants in this study, it is unlikely that inclusive education will be accepted. Negative attitudes can also be seen as a limit-situation to inclusive education.
From the coding, sub-themes from the Process Coding and the Values Coding were identified through grouping coded responses with a similar focus across the individual interviews and the focus groups responses. This focus was then given a sub-theme label by the researcher. For example, in Process Coding phrases such as “It’s guiding most of the development projects even in Kiribati” (D) and “[Australia] has supported [inclusive education] because we saw that it wasn’t something that the previous [Kiribati] government was committed to” (D) were grouped and assigned the sub-theme ‘directing’. For Values coding phrases such as “It’s very important to be inclusive” (SE1) and “the project is now very important for Kiribati” (DPO) were grouped and assigned the sub-theme ‘support for inclusive education’. These groupings were fairly arbitrary and there is considerable overlap across the sub- themes. Figure 4.2 below outlines the procedure to determine these sub-themes.
Chapter 4: Methodology 119
Figure 4.2 Coding procedure
______
Process Coding Values Coding ______Purpose: Identify participant’s Identify participants’ values (v) actions and attitudes (a)
Procedure: Identify gerunds (‘ing’ words) Identify phrases containing in texts values and attitudes
Group words and phrases according to similar focus
Determine sub-themes based on the groupings
Identify further phrases which contain the essence of the sub-theme ______
Process coding provided insight into the degree of participants’ involvement in inclusive education initiatives and barriers to participation. The gaps between philosophical commitment and action underlie successful (or unsuccessful) implementation of the initiatives. For Process Coding the transcripts were examined to identify words in phrases and sentences which could be made into gerunds. For example “to be empowered’ was coded as ‘empowering’. A list of these gerunds was then compiled. The list included; accessing, understanding, including, consulting, training, enforcing, supporting, negotiating, empowering, letting go, affording, finding a way (see appendix C1). The phrases and sentences containing these concepts were then grouped and the following sub-themes identified by the researcher. These sub-themes are:
Directing Australian Aid Policy
Managing inclusive education initiatives
Funding inclusive education
Depending on Australian Aid.
Chapter 4: Methodology 120
Table 4.7 below provides a definition of these sub-themes and examples drawn from the texts.
Table 4.7 Process coding sub-themes
______
Sub-theme Definition Example from interview text
Directing Australian Policy which sets the “[Australia] has supported Aid policy priorities for Australian [supporting] [IE] because we Aid projects saw that it wasn’t something that the previous government was committed to” (D)
Managing inclusive The management project “I think it was through education initiatives model applied in Kiribati KEF who have been advocating this” (M2)
Funding inclusive The source of funding for “Local people have the education inclusive education capacity but they still need initiatives finance [needing] for a time now” (D)
Depending on Dependency on external “If we lose foreign aid Australian Aid funding and management [losing ] at this point in for inclusive education time [inclusive education] will be gone” (M2) ______
These sub-themes related particularly to the major theme of Dependency (RQ1), as reliance on Australian Aid for the introduction and support of inclusive education initiatives is a significant consideration for this study.
Values Coding related particularly to the major theme of Ownership (RQ2) as inclusive education initiatives ultimately rely on an acceptance and commitment to these values. Values and attitudes are central to the philosophy behind inclusion. Booth (2005) notes “the importance of understanding inclusion as the putting into action of particular values” (p. 1). Adoption of inclusive values is essential for developing a commitment to and ownership of the implementation of inclusive education initiatives (see Section 2.2.2).
Chapter 4: Methodology 121
To identify values and attitudes of the participants, the following definitions were utilised; “Values are the importance we attribute to oneself, another person, thing or idea; Attitudes are the way we think and feel about ourselves, another person [or people], thing or idea” (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014 p. 245). Using these definitions, to identify participants’ values, the word ‘important’ was word searched16 in the transcribed texts for both the individual interviews and the focus groups. Then, to identify attitudes, the words ‘think’ and ‘feel’ were word searched in the transcripts. A list of phrases and sentences linked to the words ‘important’ ‘think’ and ‘feel’ was generated from these searches (see Appendix C2). These phrases and sentences containing these words were grouped by colour coding according to similar focusses (see Appendix D). From these groupings sub-themes were identified by the researcher. Further examples of the sub-themes identified through the coding were then sourced directly from the transcripts as containing the essence of the sub-theme. The sub-themes were:
Attitudes towards disability
Support for inclusive education
Local responses to inclusive education initiatives
Sustainability with or without aid support
Local attitudes regarding the contribution of Australian Aid
Table 4.8 below provides a definition of these sub-themes and examples drawn from the texts (see Table 7.1 for further examples).
Table 4.8 Values coding sub-themes
______
Sub-theme Definition Example from interview text
Attitudes towards Negative and positive “People with disabilities disability attitudes towards are not seen as important disability inclusion in my culture” (D)
16 Using a word search based on the specific words may overlook equally significant phrases for the participants. This was addressed by identifying further phrases and sentences which reflected the sub- themes directly from the texts.
Chapter 4: Methodology 122
Support for Inclusive Participants’ positive “We believe that inclusive Education expressions towards is a very important inclusive education initiative” (M2)
Local responses to Engagement in inclusive “Make sure that outer inclusive education education initiatives and island children with initiatives barriers to inclusion disabilities access education (DPO)
Sustainability with Participants’ views “I think we’ll be OK” or without Aid towards the future (M1) support
Local attitudes Stakeholders’ views on “It’s contributed a lot. regarding the how Australian Aid has Without Australian contribution of contributed to inclusive Aid where can we be?” Australian Aid education in Kiribati (M1) ______
4.14 TRUSTWORTHINESS
Lincoln and Guba (1985) have proposed four criteria for judging the trustworthiness of qualitative interpretative research. These criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. The four criteria were addressed in evaluating this research. The credibility of this study was evaluated through the researcher’s engagement in the field, “being present with empathy, meeting and feeling presence of people and a world” (Heron, 1996, p. 58), and the researcher’s shared experiences with the participants. Credibility was confirmed through participants’ consensus and cross-referencing of the three sources of data.
The transferability of this study depended on the assumption that the research methodology was appropriate to similar situations such as in other developing Pacific Island nations. The questions used to generate discussion were drawn from the literature regarding dependency and ownership/commitment (see Section 4.6) and, therefore, could be appropriately applied to other settings. However, as qualitative research in which the researcher is an insider, the research cannot be replicated identically, even in Kiribati, as the relationship of the researcher, the research methods and the participants is central to the research.
Chapter 4: Methodology 123
The dependability of this study depended on the rigour that the research processes were implemented, specifically, the critical dialogue generated from the individual interviews and focus group discussions and from the coding processes and analysis employed. A detailed document trail was maintained so that issues could be revisited to review and verify (see appendices).
The confirmability of this study was the most problematic as the study focuses on one setting and one set of stakeholders from that setting. The major technique for establishing research dependability and confirmability was through audits of research processes and findings. This was achieved through QUT research degree protocols such as consultation with supervisors. Documentation and maintaining a robust data system to archive all information provided the basis for future confirmability.
4.15 ETHICS
The scope of the research was outlined for participants and informed consent obtained. This needed sensitivity to ensure that the participants were not agreeing to participate for social politeness reasons only. Ethics approvals were sought through the relevant authorities including the Kiribati Ministry of Education (Appendix G), DFAT (Appendix H) and QUT ethics (Appendix I). Adherence to the agreed ethical procedures of the research was monitored through QUT research ethics processes.
This research was considered low risk because participation was voluntary and fully informed consent was obtained. The individual interviewees were professionals involved in the field who had a good understanding of the topic and a professional interest in the research questions asked. The participants could ‘pass’ on any questions they were uncomfortable with. This was explained at the beginning of the interview sessions. For the focus groups the risk was low because the research emphasis was on local dialogue around specific topics. The focus group participants were briefed on procedures such as confidentiality within the group and staying with the topic.
Whilst being a conduit to open discussion, the background of the researcher with inclusive education in Kiribati and established relationships with many of the participants could be seen as pre-directing the discussion towards a positive outlook on inclusive education and thereby creating bias. As a researcher who could also be seen as an influencer, I needed to be mindful of facilitating an open discussion in
Chapter 4: Methodology 124
which the participants could express their own opinions and observations. The researcher adopted the following guidelines (Hanson, 2013, p. 392) to address insider research bias by;
Monitoring the potential for filtering when analysing interview transcripts and noted how my respondents’ positioning of the researcher as an ‘expert’
Fostering greater ‘objectivity’ in this situation. The advice to the insider researcher is to take measures that ‘make the familiar strange’ (Mannay, 2010), which means to explore the exceptionality or strangeness of what we take for granted.
Following a semi-formal approach using set interview questions.
In order to follow these guidelines an objective approach was maintained by focussing on the participants’ voice and following a structured approach to the interviews.
Generally, the responses by the participants contain both positive and negative illustrations of inclusive education in Kiribati. This study considers the issues of inclusion raised by the generative themes of dependency and ownership/commitment rather than an evaluation of the impact of inclusive education initiatives. The researcher was, therefore, not evaluating his own contributions.
4.16 RESULTS INTERPRETATION
The findings generated from the coding of the three sources of data; document analysis, individual interviews and focus group responses (process and values coding), are reported and interpreted in the following chapters using a thematic approach which draws from cross-cutting data from all relevant sources. Participants’ voice is presented as the primary interpretative critique of the findings discussed in these chapters. It is how the participants are experiencing the issues that is important for genuine critical analysis; “This lesson must, however, come from the oppressed [stakeholders] themselves and from those who are truly solidary with them” (Freire, 1970, p. 27). Note that participant responses are quoted verbatim throughout this thesis without alteration in the interests of expressing the views of the participants without contaminating their responses by changing the grammar etc.
Chapter 4: Methodology 125
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present the findings of this study. Chapters 8 and 9 further examine these findings. The chapters are as follows:
Chapter 5: ‘Without Australian Aid where would we be?’ considers the findings related to sub-themes underlying dependency on Australian Aid for the introduction and support of inclusive education initiatives. The sub-themes link to the major research theme: Dependency (RQ1). These sub-themes are:
5.1 Directing Australian Aid policy
5.2 Managing inclusive education initiatives
5.3 Funding inclusive education
5.4 Depending on Australian Aid
(See Table 4.7 above for definitions of sub-themes)
Chapter 6: ‘The rhetoric of policy’ considers the level of commitment/ownership by the Government of Kiribati through analysis of policy documents. The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) is the major document examined in terms of relevance to Kiribati and the degree to which the policy reflects adherence to western held values rather than as a genuine commitment based on local values. Other Kiribati government documents are also considered (see Table 4.4). This chapter links to the major theme: Ownership (RQ2).
Chapter 7: ‘It’s ownership issues’ considers the findings from sub-themes generated through values coding. The sub-themes link to the major research: Ownership (RQ2). These sub-themes are:
7.1 Attitudes towards disability
7.2 Support for inclusive education values
7.3 Local responses to inclusive education initiatives
7.4 Local attitudes regarding the contribution of Australian Aid.
7.4 Sustainability with or without aid support.
(See Table 4.8 above for definitions of these sub-themes.)
Chapter 8: ‘Critical Pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati’ proposes a model through which the
Chapter 4: Methodology 126
Australian Aid funded education project utilises critical pedagogy/dialogue to achieve changes in commitment towards inclusive education and increasing local ownership of inclusive education initiatives.
Chapter 9: ‘Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence Conclusions’ draws together the findings to review the research themes of dependency and ownership/sustainability in terms of aid, attitudes and ambivalence. Recommendations regarding future directions for both research and inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati are proposed.
Chapter 4: Methodology 127
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 128
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?”
This chapter examines the data to address Research Question 1: ‘How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati?’ The rhetorical question “Without Australian Aid where can we be?”, as stated by one of the interviewees, highlights this dependency. The chapter first describes how the empirical data were examined to determine the sub-themes related to dependency. Then, each of the sub-themes is presented and discussed in terms of providing evidence related to the major theme of dependency on Australian Aid in directing and sustaining inclusive education in Kiribati. Finally, the continuing need for Australian Aid funding is discussed and, therefore, continued dependency well into the future.
To recap, the analysis draws from the three sources of data: document analysis, individual interviews and focus group responses (cross-cutting across the data). Both deductive (thematic document analysis) and inductive methods (process coding for interview and focus group content) were used across the data sets to identify phrases and sentences which were grouped according to having a similar focus. Thematic analysis was applied particularly to the analysis of the following documents; ‘Development for All Strategy’ (DFAT, 2009b, 2015) which outlines Australian Aid policy for disability-inclusion and KEF Management Plans (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a; Coffey International, 2013) which outline inclusive education initiatives conducted by KEF. Process coding was applied particularly to the individual interview responses. Data from the individual interviews were drawn from responses from the key stakeholders. The key stakeholders interviewed were Ministry of Education representatives (M1, M2, M3), a Teachers College representative (TC), school executives (SE1, SE2), Disabled Persons’ Organisation representative (DPO) and local employees from donor organisations (D). The focus groups (FG1, FG2) were only generally aware of the role of Australian Aid and, therefore, analysis of school based dependency was limited.
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 129
This produced four groupings which were classified as associated with the words; ‘directing’, ‘managing’, ‘funding’ and ‘depending’. For example, the phrase “leverage broader change” from the document analysis (Development for All, DFAT, 2015, p. 14) was classified under the word ‘directing’. From the analysis of the individual interviews, the phrase “I am doing this but it reads like the Ministry” (D) was classified under the word ‘managing’; the phrase “It is good that funding is available from KEF17” (M3) was classified under the word ‘funding’; and the phrase “AusAid adviser knows the important matters” (DPO) was classified under the word ‘depending’. These groupings formed the basis of the sub-themes; however, there is considerable overlap across these groupings. The sub-themes are:
5.1 Directing Australian Aid policy
5.2 Managing inclusive education initiatives
5.3 Funding inclusive education
5.4 Depending on Australian Aid
Figure 5.1 below illustrates the coding process for the sub-themes and how these sub-themes relate to the major theme of Dependency on Australian Aid in introducing and sustaining inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Figure 5.1 Coding process for dependency
Sub-theme 5.1 Thematic Analysis Sub-theme 5.2 MAJOR THEME DEPENDENCY Sub-theme 5.3 Process Coding Sub-theme 5.4
Note that thematic analysis was only used to examine documents relevant to sub-themes 5.1 and 5.2 whilst process coding was used across all sub-themes but particularly for sub-themes 5.3 and 5.4.
The sub-theme 5.1 ‘Directing Australian Aid policy’ provides an examination of how Australian Aid Policy determines the agenda for inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. The sub-theme 5.2 ‘Managing inclusive education initiatives’
17 Australian Aid funded Kiribati Education Facility (KEF).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 130
examines the role of the Australian Aid education project in directly controlling these initiatives rather than the Kiribati Ministry of Education. The sub-theme 5.3 ‘Funding inclusive education’ considers the reliance on Australian Aid funding to support inclusive education initiatives. The sub-theme 5.4 ‘Depending on Australian Aid’ provides a synthesis of this dependency by drawing together the findings of the first three sub-themes.
Each of the sub-themes is discussed in detail below.
5.1 DIRECTING AUSTRALIAN AID POLICY
Sub-theme ‘Directing Australian Aid policy’ is defined as policy which sets the priorities for Australian Aid projects. The findings for this sub-theme focus on the data from the document analysis of Development for All’ (DFAT 2009b, 2015) in directing Australian Aid programs related to disability-inclusion, such as inclusive education. ‘Development for All’ was selected because it is the primary source for Australian Aid policy on disability-inclusion. Analysis of Development for All is supported by interview data, particularly from the individual interviews with donor representatives.
The ‘Development for All 2015-2020 Strategy’ (DFAT, 2015) gives priority to support inclusive education; “We will encourage and support the implementation of inclusive education in Australian-supported education programs” (p. 22). The Australian Government uses the aid dollar to promote its own priorities. Australian Aid initiatives, in promoting disability-inclusion as a priority, are leading the advocacy for disadvantaged groups in recipient countries; “AusAid, therefore is in a position of needing to lead many of the stakeholders at country program level to enable them to understand the rationale and benefits of disability-inclusive development” (Kelly & Wapling, 2012, p. 27). Note the use of the term ‘lead’ rather than a more ‘hands off’ role in supporting locally based initiatives, suggesting that disability-inclusion is assumed (by Australian Aid) to be lacking. An advocacy role18, by Australian Aid, is seen as necessary to ‘lead’ developing countries towards disability-inclusion.
18 In Australia external advocacy has played a significant role in the development of rights for people with disabilities notably the International Year of Disabled Persons (United Nation, 1981) which led to the Disability Services Act (Australian Government, 1986).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 131
An examination of the Development for All Strategy (DFAT, 2015) using thematic analysis identified active phrases and sentences associated with Australian Aid Policy towards disability-inclusion. This analysis revealed an active role in directing disability-inclusion (including inclusive education) in the Asia-Pacific region. Sentences such as “Australia has a strong voice globally in this area” (p. 3) and phrases such as “encouraging partner governments” (p. 12); “leverage broader change” (p. 14); and “advocate for and support partner government led reforms” (p. 14) are active terms indicating a direct influence in determining partner government action. These terms suggest a premeditated intervention to impose disability- inclusion on to the societies of countries receiving Australian Aid. In education the strategy claims that, “We have made strong progress in enabling persons with disabilities to benefit from our education investments” (p. 20). This progress is not explained or supported by evidence and is, therefore, open to interpretation.
The Development for All Strategy promotes advocacy for persons with disabilities across the Asia-Pacific region; “Australia’s international advocacy, diplomatic efforts, and aid program investments will continue to make a major contribution to improving the quality of life for people with disabilities in developing countries with the objective that our development efforts leave no one behind” (DFAT, 2015, p. 3).
Advocacy for disability-inclusion in Kiribati came through Australian Aid policy. As noted by a donor, “The government of Kiribati didn’t see it as a priority and did not ask partners for assistance. [Australian Aid] is committed to disability” (D). Australian Aid provided an advocacy role to incorporate inclusive education within the Kiribati education system. The donor, perhaps serving their own agenda for disability-inclusion, noted the gap and included inclusive education initiatives in their program priorities; “For example with this government’s [Government of Kiribati] priorities disability which can include inclusive education, is not a priority. [Australian Aid] has supported [inclusive education] because we saw that it wasn’t something that the previous [Kiribati] government was committed to” (D). In Kiribati, the Development for All Strategy is central to Australian Aid funded projects as a prerequisite for receiving support. As a donor employee noted, “It’s guiding most of the development projects even in Kiribati” (D). This applies to education, as this strategy is “also integrated into the education strategies” (D).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 132
Development for All underpins inclusive education strategies in Kiribati. Support for the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015), which itself was developed through Australian Aid support and input (see Chapter 6), is aligned to the Development for All Strategy;
In line with Development for All 2015-2020: Strategy for strengthening disability-inclusive development in Australia’s aid program, Australia can help the GoK [Government of Kiribati] implement its Inclusive Education Policy by enabling children with disabilities to learn in mainstream classrooms through strategies adapted for the Kiribati context (Kiribati Education Improvement Program, 2015, p. 1).
Unfavourable community attitudes towards children with disabilities have meant that their inclusion was seen in Kiribati as a low priority; “From the local perspective disability in the past has always been a family [not a government] issue” (D). The donors are taking an active role to address this attitude; “For us on the disability side we are pushing to have them participate because they are marginalised ones and they are left behind” (D). Critical pedagogy poses a dilemma. The disadvantaged (oppressed) need advocates to highlight and challenge their situation. When this advocacy comes from an external source, change may be difficult to achieve until local advocacy emerges through critical dialogue.
The influence of Australian Aid policy in Kiribati has been criticised through the Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP) Evaluation in 2014; “DFAT’s policy on Disability Inclusive Development intrudes on the formulation and implementation of KEF funded inclusive education initiatives” (Emmott, 2014 p. 29). Australian Aid, through KEF, is directing inclusive education initiatives. The Ministry of Education is dependent on Australian Aid for funding and programs; “One effect of DFAT/KEF moving forward a policy [of Inclusive Education] is that it has raised expectations that KEF will finance the activities it is proposing” (Emmott, 2014, p. 29).
5.2 MANAGING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVES
The sub-theme ‘Managing inclusive education initiatives’ is defined as the Australian Aid project management model applied in Kiribati. This sub-theme
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 133
focuses on document analysis of Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) Management Plans, interview responses from the KEF local employee responsible for coordinating the inclusive education initiatives, and interview responses from other key stakeholders in considering the influence of the KEF programs in determining the direction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. KEF has been responsible for introducing and managing inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati rather than the Ministry of Education (Emmott, 2014).
The role of Australian Aid programs in introducing inclusive education initiatives is outlined in the 2013 KEF Annual Plan; “Australia and Kiribati’s goals for gender, disability and social inclusion will be supported by KEF during KEIP Phase 2” (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, p. 24). Note that Australia’s goals are cited first. The Plan states that inclusive education initiatives came from the Australian funded project; “In early 2011 the Kiribati Education Improvement (KEIP Phase 1) developed a Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Strategy to highlight how KEIP Phase 1 would support Australia and Kiribati goals for gender equality and social inclusion” (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013a, Annex 2, p. 1).
Responses from both the recipient and donor interviewees indicated the lead role played by Australian Aid; “The Ministry didn’t really know much about inclusive education. In the first place it was slow to accept this but I think it was through KEF who have been advocating this” (M2). “Actually it came from [Australian Aid]. That’s how I see the first initiation of inclusive education. It was AusAid” (D). The representative of the disability advocacy group commented that they had been “fighting for that [inclusive education] for twenty years” (DPO). Other participants interviewed saw inclusive education as coming from a wider direction; “From the conventions. Our leaders went to those conventions and there they signed the documents for international agreements and that’s where the inclusive education initiative came from” (M3). The signing of an international agreement does not guarantee that inclusive education initiatives will be introduced; “Maybe they [were] waiting for the right time, for donors” (M3). The long struggle, without success, for inclusive education suggests there was a need for stronger advocacy from external sources, such as provided by international agreements and/or Australian Aid funding and direction as the catalyst for the practical introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 134
The recipients interviewed identified a number of programs related to inclusive education initiatives that had been funded by Australian Aid through KEF. These included employing a local Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator, a Gender and Social Inclusion Mentor (Technical Adviser) from Australia for short term visits, training of college lecturers and teachers, newly built accessible schools, teaching resources development, funding the Community Consultation Team visits to the outer islands, funding the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy and its promotion and advocacy, and organising inter-Ministry showcases to highlight inclusion initiatives. These initiatives have been funded and managed through KEF. No programs related to inclusive education have been initiated and/or funded by the Ministry of Education except, perhaps, for some recent funding for the special education school in Tarawa19. KEF advisers not only oversee specific inclusive education initiatives but are imbedded in all Ministry of Education departments. This means that KEF effectively controls all aspects of educational development in Kiribati including inclusive education initiatives (see 2.1.7).
Accountability procedures such as acquittal of funds and project reports required by Australian Aid were seen as necessary and not too intrusive;
It’s a very simple one [the report]. They have a template. Everything is aligned with the indicator. It’s very good to monitor and evaluate according to the standards what are the expectations and we need to comply working with the objectives [set by Australian Aid]. We agree with the expectations most of the time (TC).
This suggests that the reports may conform to the expectations of Australian Aid rather than an in-depth analysis of the impact of the projects for Kiribati, and that the reports aim to reflect compliance with the imposed (Australian Aid) objectives. The reports are generally compiled with significant input from KEF advisers, and in some cases written by the adviser on behalf of the local authority. For example the KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (GSIC) commented; “My report is the Ministry’s. But of course I am doing this but it reads like the Ministry and Senior Education Officer with the assistance of KEF” (D). Although the MoE has to sign off
19 It could be argued that special school programs are contrary to the philosophy of inclusive education (United Nations, 2016).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 135
the reports, writing the reports directly by the MoE could enable a greater reflection of how the MoE views implementation of inclusive education initiatives rather than the view of the donor. If the MoE sees the aid activities as extra work then they need additional support from the aid provider to do the reports.
There is strong evidence to suggest that the KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (GSIC) is responsible for the day-to-day operation of inclusive education activities within the Ministry of Education; “The GSIC is an ambiguous role being a staff position of KEF but acting in a line role in the SIU [Ministry of Education School Improvement Unit]” (Emmott, 2014, p. 23). The Coordinator commented, “What can I say? I did the work but for somebody. I’m just the person doing the work behind the scenes” (D). This suggests that the direct management of inclusive education initiatives is the responsibility of the KEF employee who is directly responsible to KEF management.
The Ministry of Education, although nominally overseeing the introduction of inclusive education initiatives across Kiribati, has seemingly deferred this responsibility to KEF which sets the agenda and directly oversees the day to day operations (and reporting) through the GSIC. It is as if the Ministry of Education is supporting Australian Aid initiatives rather than the other way round.
5.3 FUNDING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
The sub-theme ‘Funding inclusive education’ is defined as understanding the source of funding for inclusive education initiatives. This sub-theme investigates the reliance on Australian Aid funding for financing inclusive education initiatives. Australian Aid provides a significant proportion of the Kiribati Government Budget (see 2.3.7). Responses from the individual interviews were the primary source of data for this sub-theme. As noted by a donor employee;
The Government of Kiribati lacks funds to support inclusive education. Local people have the capacity but they still need finance for a time now. My Ministry has very, very need of operational funds. All the government is catering for the salaries. The salaries of the people within the Ministry of Education and now the donors, the foreign aid are supporting the activities” (D).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 136
There is no specific provision for inclusive education in the government’s budget allocation; “The funding you can see in their budget; there’s not yet a recognised portion for this IE policy” (D).
Financial concerns are the major barrier for the government; “When we started to talk about inclusive education and the implications, especially financial, that was a challenge for the Ministry. It was a worry” (M2). Funding from Australian Aid has largely been the only source for inclusive education initiatives; “Very little comes from the Ministry. We rely too much on assistance. It is good that fund is available from KEF. It has contributed a lot” (M3). Inclusive education initiatives would be an additional expense for an already under-resourced education system without funding through Australian Aid.
Without Australian Aid funding it is unlikely that the Government of Kiribati would have considered introducing inclusive education initiatives because of fears concerning costs; “With the help from KEF we managed to develop our Inclusive Education Policy. We are funded through that” (M3). Budgetary commitment by the Government of Kiribati is seen as essential for future sustainability; “We have to make sure that Kiribati Government put in the budget the funds to support the provision for children with disabilities to go to school” (DPO). Government budget allocations would demonstrate a monetary commitment towards inclusive education. Resourcing is seen as a critical area requiring funding support;
It is also related to the resources of the country because we could not afford what else was needed to provide the resources, wheelchairs, braille, hearing aids, so they can access everything in education. It costs money so that’s why they have been neglected. The government fears to buy those things (SE2).
“There are many challenges. One is financial. If we want our schools to be more inclusive we have to do many things to support the idea and that needs a lot of money. Like the pathways and materials, like toilets to be suitable for the disabilities, infrastructure and also our teachers they need more knowledge on that - training” (M3).
The lack of resources may be seen at the school level as justification for excluding a particular child.
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 137
Continuing funding through Australian Aid is seen as necessary for the development and sustainability of inclusive education; “It can be achieved but through funding if we have the right schools and appropriate resources to make it worthwhile. If it’s all there everything will be realistic. If not then nothing will happen” (M3). This view is a ‘limit situation20’ in its own right. Until a way forward is seen without reliance on Australian Aid funding to achieve implementation, then funding will be the ‘limit situation’ which prevents full local commitment to the concept of inclusive education. Lack of locally based funding (Government of Kiribati budget allocation) for inclusive education becomes the rationale for slow and perhaps half-hearted implementation.
5.4 DEPENDING ON AUSTRALIAN AID
The findings from the data for this sub-theme draw together the three previous sub-themes to summarise the degree of dependency on Australian Aid funding and programs for introducing and sustaining inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
The Government of Kiribati has needed outside direction through Australian Aid to focus on disability issues, as highlighted by the influence of the Australian Government’s Development for All policy strategy; “Because it’s [inclusive education] new to Kiribati I think that in the past the government did not see the importance of those people [with disabilities] because they have less knowledge and understanding of human rights” (SE2). This attitude derived from a wider cultural view of disability; “In my culture people with disabilities are regarded as useless, not important, not really accepted to come to the public. They just stay home hidden away but with these new ideas being introduced we just realised we have not done something good for these people” (D). For critical pedagogy, culture is how social groups make sense of their lives (McLaren, 2009). Critical dialogue needs to address cultural aspects of issues such as inclusion in order to confront these issues.
The strategy supported by Australian Aid has been to increase understanding and acceptance of inclusive education initiatives at community (through community consultations) and at government levels (through policy development);
20 Limit situations are barriers to freedom; “it is not the limit situation in and of themselves which create a climate of hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived” (Freire, 1970, p. 80).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 138
It built our awareness and opened our mind and hearts. We are very grateful that new ideas are introduced to Kiribati because Kiribati is not staying as it is but changed. So how can we cope with changes if we do not have support from others? I think foreign aid ideas are needed for us to go in the right direction (D).
Dependency on external influence to the extent of providing the ‘right direction’ may be accompanied by a discounting of local ideas as inferior. As Freire (1970) puts it, “those who are invaded come to see their reality with the outlook of the invader. [They] become convinced of their own intrinsic inferiority” (p. 134). A culture of dependency (Moyo, 2009) develops, in which the solution to issues can only come from the provision of Aid.
The expertise and direction provided through Australian Aid is acknowledged, as seen in the comment, “AusAid advisor knows the important matters” (DPO). The Kiribati Education Facility Management plans outline the strategies employed in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives which direct implementation of these initiatives. The donors have a proactive role in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives. The donor’s aim is to “expose the Ministry to this inclusive thinking” (D) and that “we can advocate for the schools or the government to do it themselves” (D).
Because inclusive education is a new concept in Kiribati, its development is going to take time, particularly in the area of community acceptance. This means that inclusive education initiatives will need continued Australian Aid financial and technical support for a significant period of time; “Perhaps it will be like 5 to 10 years we can stand on our own feet with the rolling out of the [inclusive education policy] implementation. I think we’ll be able to survive but if we lose foreign aid at this point in time [inclusive education will be] gone” (M2). Dependency on Australian Aid has resulted in an unequal power relationship between the donor and the recipient of this aid which is not conducive for future sustainability (Paris Declaration, OECD, 2005).
There is no question that the Kiribati education system is highly dependent, at this stage, on Australian Aid for education reforms including inclusive education initiatives (see 2.3.8). The consequences of imposed interventions are that they either fail or are totally dependent on aid support (see 2.1.4).
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 139
5.5 CONTINUING DEPENDENCY
This section draws together the discussion of the sub-themes to consider the major research question ‘how does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati?’ The evidence suggests that inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati have been influenced by directions provided by Australian policy (Development for All), management through KEF, and reliance on Australian Aid for funding. This has resulted in dependency on Australian Aid for the implementation of inclusive education which limits local ownership and action. This dependency is not seen by the key stakeholders interviewed as an imposition on Kiribati to conform to Australian imported concepts, but as a positive contribution (see 7.4 below). The catalyst may come from outside but the locals are recognising the problems that needs to be addressed.
Initiatives through Australian Aid have started the conversations (critical dialogue) needed to address attitudes and commitment to inclusive education principles. Action is now needed; “the two dimensions, reflection and action to transform the world” (Freire, 1970, p. 68). The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) provides the basis for this action.
The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy states:
Aim: To ensure that all school aged I-Kiribati children (especially ages 6-15) have full access to relevant quality education (where possible in their local community school), participate in all school activities and have their educational, social, cultural, physical, emotional and spiritual needs met (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 2).
Dependency on Australian Aid for inclusive education initiatives raises the question ‘Is this aim achievable without Australian Aid support?’
Australian Aid programs have introduced and continue to support the development of inclusive education in Kiribati. The limitations of the Ministry of Education in terms of lacking funds or expertise to support inclusive education means that dependency on Australian Aid will need to continue well into the future for inclusive education to be sustained. Without the support of Australian Aid, the
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 140
aim of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy may become unachievable and/or implemented in a diluted form.
The Government of Kiribati, through endorsement of policy documents, particularly the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, is demonstrating support for the concept of inclusive education, at least in principle. This is the focus of the next chapter.
Chapter 5: “Without Australian Aid where can we be?” 141
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 142
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy
This chapter considers the rhetoric of Kiribati policy documents as central to developing commitment to inclusive education in Kiribati. Examination of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) is central to this study and relates particularly to Research Question 2 in considering local ownership of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. The development and projected implementation of the policy is the major inclusive education initiative carried out during the time period of this study. The policy is also the basis of many of the responses made by the participants in this study.
In order to provide an analysis of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy a framework was required. This framework was taken from a list presented in the Enabling Education Network (EENET) policy evaluation review (Lewis, 2008), cross-referenced to the UNESCO Policy Guidelines for Inclusion in Education (UNESCO, 2009) which identified issues in evaluating national inclusive education policies and plans (see 2.2.10 and Appendix B). This framework provided the deductive ‘a priori’ sub-themes which are examined in terms of relevance to inclusive education in Kiribati and adherence to western concepts of inclusive education. The implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy is then discussed in terms of the key lessons learned, as identified by UNESCO (2017b). The overall significance of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy is considered in terms of process coding concerning stakeholders’ role in implementing the Policy. The endorsement of the policy by the Government of Kiribati was seen by the participants as demonstrating the government’s commitment towards inclusive education; “With the policy being approved by cabinet we will expect full support from the government” (M1).
Following the analysis of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, other Kiribati Government documents are examined which demonstrate the government’s commitment (rhetoric) to inclusive education. These documents, which relate to the major research theme of ownership, are listed in Table 4.4 (see above).
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 143
6.1 RELEVANCE AND ADHERENCE OF THE KIRIBATI INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY
This section examines ‘a priori’ sub-themes derived from the EENET policy evaluation review (Lewis, 2008, p. 8) cross-referenced to the UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education (UNESCO, 2009) (see Appendix B). A further sub-theme identified cultural sensitivity in the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy The sub-themes are reported below in terms of relevance to inclusive education in Kiribati (and therefore local ownership) and adherence to western (developed countries) concepts of inclusive education rather than incorporating local Kiribati concepts and applications. The sub-themes are:
6.1.1 Definitions of inclusive education
6.1.2 Quality education
6.1.3 Resource allocation
6.1.4 Participatory data collection
6.1.5 Teacher education
6.1.6 Flexible curriculum development
6.1.7 Inclusive education as a rights issue
6.1.8 Cultural Sensitivity
Where it illustrates differing influences in the development of the Inclusive Education Policy (for example the focus on rights in 6.1.7), differences between the draft version of the policy submitted by the Inclusive Education Working Group in November 2013, and the final policy endorsed by the Government of Kiribati in May 2015, are considered to identify differing interpretations during the development of the policy (Appendix A highlights variations between the draft and final versions of the policy).
6.1.1 Definitions of inclusive education The lack of clarity of what is inclusive education (Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010; Liasidou, 2012, 2015; Mitchell, 2005) has meant that generally inclusive education “policies have rather confused definitions” (Lewis, 2008, p. 8). The draft policy included a definition of inclusive education in which “school systems, strategic plans, policies and practices adapt to include education strategies
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 144
and teaching materials, methods and environments for a wide and diverse range of children” (IEWG, 2013, p. 1). The final policy deleted this definition. A criticism was raised regarding the draft policy that definitions had become confused; “It is not clear whether the [Kiribati Inclusive Education] Policy is about access for all children or access for children with disability” (Emmott, 2014, p.28). This criticism is also valid for the final policy.
Generally, recipient interviewees defined inclusive education in terms of the international catch call of ‘education for all’ (see 2.2.7); “Everyone on board, every child no matter what” (DPO); “Education for all, inclusive, regardless of gender, ability and any other differences” (M3). This indicates a reflection of developed countries’ emphases as promulgated through the United Nations programs (‘global evangelization,’ Le Fanu, 2013 see 2.2.7). Seven of the recipients interviewed saw inclusive education as concerning the inclusion of children with disabilities; “Give everyone a chance to education especially those who have problems like different disabilities” (SE2). This view conforms to the concept which dominates inclusive education policy in the Pacific that the inclusion of children with disabilities is the primary focus of inclusive education (see 2.3.6).
A clear definition is essential for informed ownership of the concept of inclusive education. The current Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy provides a general view of inclusive education which is open to varied interpretation. This could create confusion in schools about what is being expected in regard to the implementation of inclusion.
6.1.2 Quality education The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy states that “all school aged I-Kiribati children have full access to relevant, quality education” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 2). Debate has historically indicated that just physically placing excluded children in schools is not sufficient (e.g. Stainback & Stainback, 1992, Charema, 2007), and that quality programs that cater for individual learning are necessary for inclusion to be effective. Quality teaching has been identified as a key component of positive outcomes for diverse students (Alton-Lee, 2003). The statement of access to quality education in the policy implies that more needs to be done than just placing children in schools. However, little is said about how the Kiribati education system will cater for the learning needs of all students.
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 145
Quality education is a widely used term in inclusive education discourse in developed countries (Liasidou, 2012; United Nations Millennium Goals; Warnock, 2010) with concerns that education in developing counties is of poor quality (UNESCO, 2014; World Bank, 2011). What constitutes quality education is ill- defined. Outcomes which can be measured, such as school enrolment rates for children with disabilities as specified in the Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2019 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 28), have become the criteria of effectiveness rather than the quality (impact) of policy implementation.
Adherence to the concept of quality education as a universal (western) concept is evident in the policy and in the responses from the participants interviewed, particularly in the rhetoric of the three Ministry of Education administrators; “Everyone must be receiving equal and quality education” (M1); “I know that for the Ministry to achieve that goal of providing quality education for all children in Kiribati we have to include those children [with disabilities]” (M2); “ Ensure that quality education is there in schools all the time” (M3).
6.1.3 Resource allocation The policy states that the Ministry of Education is responsible to “Develop relevant curriculum and resources to meet student needs” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 5). However, these resources are not identified. A criticism of the policy by the KEIP evaluation is that the “draft policy is not costed and is not implementable in its current form” (Emmott, 2014, p. 28). As the EENET review notes, “there is no easy way to put a price on improved inclusion” (Lewis, 2008, p. 8).
Funding for inclusive education provisions remains a major issue. Government concerns regarding funding for inclusive education were reflected in the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. For example the statement in the draft policy, “The Ministry of Education will aim to allocate funding and specific school grants for equipment, resources and personnel to support inclusive education” (IEWG, 2013, p. 3), was omitted in the final version of the policy indicating reluctance by the Ministry of Education to commit to providing funding for inclusive education. As commented by the expatriate Senior Management Education Specialist, “The Ministry cannot allocate what they don’t have” (personal communication, 15 October, 2013).
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 146
Resource support to implement the policy was also a major concern for the participants; “We don’t have those resources we need to have them [resources] so the Inclusive Education Policy can be well implemented” (M1). Genuine ownership may only be demonstrated by direct government funding support rather than reliance on Australian Aid to provide the resources. Without a direct financial commitment by the government, statements in the policy such as “develop relevant curriculum and resources” (p. 5), may, therefore, have the implied rider ‘subject to aid funding support.’ The policy reflects the international view that resourcing is needed to support inclusive education, however, it gives little consideration to local capacity to provide this support; “Plans that look good on paper may have been drafted with strong support by donor agencies but bear little relationship to countries’ political processes and education system realities” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 33). This is a particular issue when there is little data available regarding what is needed.
6.1.4 Participatory data collection The policy notes that the Ministry of Education is responsible to “Develop tools for collection and management of data on the enrolment of students with disabilities and other diverse groups” (p. 5). At this stage, information, particularly concerning children with disabilities from the outer islands who are not attending school, is piecemeal and largely anecdotal. Enrolment rates of students with disabilities (Government of Kiribati, 2014b) are reported as an overall prevalence of 0.4% (28 students) for Years 1-3 (p. 38) and 0.3% (14 students) for years 4-7 (p. 39). The level of enrolment of students with disabilities appears low when compared to international prevalence data although international data varies considerably; “Reported disability prevalence rates for the countries included in the [international] review ranged from below one percent to close to 50 percent” (Cappa, Petrowski & Njelesani, 2015). The KEF-funded initiative of national mapping of children with disabilities was not implemented due to administrative issues (Coffey International, 2013, p. 8). The participants interviewed saw data collection as necessary if only to meet the requirements of the Australian Aid providers; “we need to comply with the objectives” (TC).
The final version of the policy did add the objective, “To distinguish eligibility of students to either attend a school for children with special needs or a mainstream school (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 3). This objective implies that data is
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 147
available on criteria for placement, incidence of children requiring special school placement, and availability of special education provisions. Availability of such data is questionable to date.
6.1.5 Teacher education The policy states that teachers will be “well trained to prepare programs to cater for individual learning needs” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 5). An extensive teacher training program (TPD) funded by Australian Aid introduced the new National Curriculum (see 6.1.6 below). The teacher training program was designed and overseen by Australian advisers and included modules related to inclusive education.
Teacher training was seen by the participants as essential to support the introduction of inclusive education; “Our teachers they need more knowledge on that, - training” (M3). Teachers in the focus groups saw training to teach children with disabilities as a particular need; “I think that we teachers are not trained to teach the disabilities. They must train primary teachers because now it is inclusive” (FG1.2).
Teacher education is essential for teacher support and ownership of inclusive education initiatives. If teachers are confident that they can cater for the learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities, then inclusive education can be ‘owned’ at the school level. The provision of teacher training to support the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy mainly comes from Australian Aid.
Linked to teacher education is the how and what that teachers will be providing. This comes from having a curriculum that supports inclusive education.
6.1.6 Flexible curriculum development Included in the policy is the Ministry of Education responsibility to “Develop relevant curriculum and resources to meet student needs” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 5). A new curriculum, the National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (NCAF), was introduced in Kiribati in 2012 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2012a). Inclusive curriculum is the basis for underlying teaching and learning programs at the system and school level. A flexible curriculum which caters for the individual learning needs of all students was not identified as an issue related to inclusive education during the individual interviews or focus group discussions. The donors
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 148
interviewed may direct a greater emphasis on inclusive curriculum for future projects; “it’s basically to mainstream this concept of inclusive across the development of curriculum, teacher training” (D).
6.1.7 Inclusive education as a rights issue The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy contains some reference to rights, particularly the rights of children; “This policy provides clarity on the rights of all children in accessing quality education” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 2). Human rights are the issue where there is the most variance between the draft and the final versions of the policy. Deleted from the final version of the policy were the entire sections for the rights of parents and for the rights of teachers. For example, statements that “Parents have the right to be involved in decisions about their child’s education, be respected and listened to and feel welcomed in the school”, and “Teachers have the right to be supported by the education system” (IEWG, 2013, pp. 3-4, see Appendix A) were deleted. The draft policy was developed with input by teachers and parents. The comparison of the draft policy with the final policy indicated that the draft policy, through the process of review, was amended by administrators. These amendments deleted a number of points on the rights of children as well, such as the child’s right “to be well informed and to learn in a fun and non-threatening environment”21, and “to be involved and participate in all school activities and social functions” (IEWG, 2013, p. 3, see Appendix A). The final version of the policy did retain a brief statement on the rights of children:
“All Children in Kiribati have the right to be:
Educated
Valued, supported, nurtured and safe” (Government of Kiribati, 2015, p. 3).
The final version of the policy minimised a rights approach to inclusive education. Human rights are not seen as an issue in Kiribati communities. People are generally accepting of their position in life; “In the past the government [did] not see the importance of those people [with disabilities] because they have less knowledge and understanding of human rights” (SE2). The interviewees who mentioned rights
21 This point in the draft was suggested by the Minister of Education but subsequently deleted in the final policy.
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 149
were disability advocates (Special School Executive and Disabled Persons’ Organisation Representative) who represented particular agendas. Entitlement to the right of inclusion in education is central to the philosophy of inclusive education in overcoming exclusion from school, which may only be accepted through a change in community attitudes from an obligation to a rights orientation; “People need to exercise their rights” (DPO).
The rights of children (or rights generally) is not a generally accepted principle in Kiribati. This can lead to parents not seeing education as important for their child, and community resistance to inclusion. Given the economic circumstance of the country and the need to prioritise the limited resources, statements on children’s rights in the policy may be seen as meaningless rhetoric based on adherence to the concept of western democratic ideals. Policy statements need to align with local values if they are to be relevant to that culture.
6.1.8 Cultural aspects Two significant additions to the final policy incorporated an I-Kiribati cultural focus. These additions were that students should, “Observe and learn about appropriate I-Kiribati cultural values, skills and knowledge” and that teachers should be, “Demonstrating and encouraging the practice of appropriate aspects of I-Kiribati culture” (Government of Kiribati, 2015 pp. 4/6). Cultural aspects are an important, if not a crucial element, within the policy; “It is clear that at the heart of successful educational development is recognition of the importance of [local] culture” (Stephens, 2007, p. 1). Cultural aspects provide the policy with some local context and ownership (Sharma, Loreman & Macanawi, 2015). Further incorporation of cultural aspects would move the policy from a generic document which reflects adherence to western cultural principles of inclusive education towards a policy which reflects Kiribati society and its cultural aspirations.
Ultimately, acceptance and implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy will depend on the policy reflecting Kiribati community cultural values. Inclusion and social justice are central to inclusive education; “different cultures may know and define inclusion and social justice in different ways” (Ballard, 2012, p. 78). The policy does not currently reflect this, suggesting a need to revise the policy through engagement with the community and direction by local stakeholders.
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 150
6.1.9 Evaluating the sub-themes in terms of relevance to Kiribati and adherence to imported ideals The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy contains statements which reflect the sub-themes investigated. These statements tend to be generic global statements which may have little practical relevance in Kiribati. Whilst it is necessary to have ‘resources’, ‘data collection’, ‘teacher education’ and ‘a flexible curriculum’ in an ideal situation to support meaningful inclusion of all students in schools, Kiribati is limited in its capacity to support even the most basic educational needs (resources, desks, classrooms, trained teachers). This leads to the proviso contained in the policy that the Ministry of Education is responsible for “Assessing funding implications in rolling out the policy” (p. 5), rather than any firm funding commitments. Without a funding commitment by the Government of Kiribati, the policy may be seen as empty rhetoric to conform to international ideals.
Having a policy on inclusive education does provide an impetus for support in that “statements of principles at the government level can generate debate around inclusion and equity in education and begin the process of consensus building” (UNESCO, 2017b, p. 23). Whether this debate is around genuine critical dialogue about inclusive education based on local needs and cultural values, or passive adherence to imported (western) ideals of inclusion will determine the process of genuine consensus building (see also Chapter 8).
The discussion above highlights conformity in the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy to international (western) views on what constitutes inclusive education and what are identified as the key issues to be addressed in policy implementation. Significant input by advisers into the policy’s development supports the view that the policy reflects adherence to an international view of inclusive education rather than a locally developed viewpoint. The advisers, through their influence, determine the policy’s content which is passively accepted as universal ‘truth’. There is also a need to conform to international standards in order to continue to receive aid support for inclusive education initiatives. Freire (1970) would see this as an example of cultural invasion. The ‘invaders,’ so to speak, are the authors of the policy, if indirectly, appropriated from international ideals; “the invaders choose; those they invade follow that choice or are expected to follow it” (p. 133).
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 151
The policy is significant to the stakeholders interviewed as central to implementing inclusive education; “The government has approved and endorsed the policy so we are now obliged to make sure it is fully adopted and enforced” (M1). Although this obligation is reliant on western concepts of inclusion and inclusive education, the policy provides the means to address social justice issues which had generally been ignored in the past by both the Government of Kiribati and Kiribati society; “Education policy can influence and support inclusive thinking and practices by establishing the equal right of every individual to education, and by outlining the forms of teaching, support and leadership that lay the foundation for quality education for all” (UNESCO, 2017b, p. 12). Inclusive education could be seen as an issue which required adherence to western concepts in order to achieve social justice for children excluded from school programs.
6.2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
The Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy is the guiding document for the implementation of inclusive education in Kiribati. UNESCO (2017b) has identified key lessons in building consensus for equity and inclusion in education. These lessons include clarity of purpose, understanding of the added value of the proposed changes, evidence to enable informed judgements, champions and strategic communication.
Clarity of purpose and shared understanding of the rationale and the purpose of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy are implied as an assumption associated with the policy’s aim “to ensure that all school aged I-Kiribati children have full access to relevant quality education” (p. 2). This is a vague general statement which is lacking in detail and may not be held as an important aim across the wider community. Understanding of the added value of inclusive education, emphasising the benefits for parents, children, the community at large, and the education system is being promulgated through community awareness raising, which in itself is a slow process in Kiribati. Evidence to enable informed judgements about the current situation and the impact expected from inclusive education initiatives is lacking (see 6.1.4). Champions who are committed to inclusive and equitable education, and who can mobilise networks of support are emerging, as evidenced by the strong support of inclusive education by the participants (stakeholders) in this study. Strategic communication, which may require the development of strategies that draw on
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 152
different channels to reach different stakeholders, is also emerging through awareness raising community meetings and critical dialogue by stakeholders. The degree to which the policy fosters these key lessons is outlined in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Policy implementation: key lessons
______
Key Lesson Relevance to Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy
______
Clarity of purpose/ As discussed above, there is a lack of clarity as to a shared understanding definition of inclusive education in the Policy in of the rationale terms of the rationale for relevance to local Kiribati circumstances.
Added value There are no statements in the policy to indicate the value of inclusive education for parents, children, the community or the education system.
Evidence There is little data regarding out-of-school children in Kiribati. There are broad statements in the policy of expected changes (e.g. “increase the percentage students with disabilities”, p. 3).
Champions The strong support for the policy by the stakeholders interviewed indicate that there is a potential pool of local champions for implementation of the policy. Championing of inclusive education is, however, primarily provided through the Australian Aid project.
Strategic Communication The policy contains the objective “To raise awareness” (p. 3). Limited community consultations is a strategy employed by the Australian Aid project to promote the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy.
______
There are gaps in the policy which need to be addressed in order to foster implementation. In particular, the lack of clarity, shared understanding and the value of the policy for the stakeholders can only be addressed by a greater incorporation of an I-Kiribati interpretation, rather than a reliance on an imported view of inclusive education. This can be achieved over time through critical dialogue regarding the
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 153
relevance of the concept of inclusive education to Kiribati society, leading to developing a local, truly Kiribati, policy statement.
6.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KIRIBATI INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY
Process coding of the interview participants’ responses indicated a commitment by the key stakeholders, particularly Ministry of Education administrators, in actively implementing the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. A Ministry of Education representative stated that, “It is very important that we enforce the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy” (M1). There were also reservations regarding the Ministry’s ability to implement the policy; “So many areas that we are facing challenges in order to implement the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy” (M1). There may, therefore, be a significant gap between the rhetoric of the policy and the capacity of the stakeholders to implement the policy. The policy was not mentioned by any of the participants in the focus groups, who were all classroom teachers. This may indicate a further gap between the rhetoric of the policy and the awareness of the policy at the school level.
The Government of Kiribati’s commitment to the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy was seen by the participants as the cornerstone of acceptance of inclusive education ideals and practices in Kiribati. This was endorsed by the representative from the disability people’s organisation who stated, “That policy is helping those [by providing] information in the community [to] know their rights” (DPO); Similar views were noted by a Ministry of Education representative; “We’ve been going out to the schools and we are helping the teachers in ensuring that they understand what the policy is all about and also awareness to all the community” (M1). Government endorsement has given impetus to inclusive education initiatives and critical dialogue regarding local ownership and implementation;
Because they signed the policy this is another proof of their commitment and also the whole Ministry, they are committed to that. It is no longer coming from outside from Australia but seeing that it is a very important thing for Kiribati. If the government signs any policy, that is a binding promise (TC).
“With the policy being approved by cabinet we will expect full support from the government. I know it is going to involve a lot of planning but it’s for the children of Kiribati and all children benefit” (M1). “I think the new government will be
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 154
committed to inclusive education as it is their responsibility to continue what has been there before” (M1).
Dependency on Australian Aid for implementation remains significant. One Ministry of Education representative noted that, “Donors provide the funds but we do the work. We are committed to see that we are working bit by bit to get everything there in the policy” (M3). While there is good intention, the government‘s capacity (both financial and technical) to meet their policy commitment was questioned by the representative form disabled people’s organisation who acknowledged that, “We do not have much. The problem is money. When you are dealing with government it always comes to money. It will depend on their wealth, knowledge, priorities and commitment. Most of the time they gave us a very positive response” (DPO).
There was also a view that the Inclusive Education Policy obligated schools to conform to the principles of inclusion; “It is very important that we enforce the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy, which is very pleasing to us because the government has approved and endorsed the policy so we are now obliged to make sure it is fully adopted and enforced” (M2); “[The Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy also spells out the responsibility of the community, of the parents to support sending kids to school also providing that welcoming environment” (D). The policy is seen as a safeguard against excluding students; “Before it was not really taken into consideration. Before [schools] do whatever they want, if they want to exclude them. Now they know it is their duty” (M3).
Input into the development of the policy involved a wide range of local stakeholders, including parents and teachers in the initial writing team and a range of representatives from key Government Ministries and the Disabled Persons’ Organisation in the Inclusive Education Working Group; “What I think that was unique and very strategic and productive was the setting up of smaller writing teams of key stakeholders to draft key sections” (Ellickson22, personal communication, January, 15, 2016). Approval of the policy also needed to go through extensive local processes at the Ministry of Education and Government of Kiribati level. Although government endorsement of the policy may suggest a significant degree of local ownership, the influences of the donors, particularly through the approval process,
22 KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Mentor
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 155
suggests that there was significant dependency on donor sources. For example, the final policy was edited by the expatriate Senior Education Management Specialist to reflect a greater administrative focus before submission to Cabinet for endorsement.
The rhetoric of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy has been seen by the stakeholders as government support for implementation and justification for inclusive education initiatives. This rhetoric of inclusive education is also reflected by broad statements in a range of policy documents outlined below.
6.4 THEMES FROM OTHER KIRIBATI DOCUMENTS
Inclusion of all children in the Kiribati education system has been noted in a range of policy documents which preceded the endorsement of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. These documents also prohibit the exclusion of children, particularly children with disabilities (Kiribati Education Act, 2013) and broad implementation strategies such as curriculum provisions (National Curriculum and Assessment Framework) and identification of special needs (School Improvement Standards, 2013-2015). Whilst indicating an official commitment to inclusion, all the documents have had significant input from Australian advisers and the practical realities of implementation have lagged behind.
The Kiribati Education Act 2013 clearly states that “Every child of compulsory school age is entitled to free enrolment and free education at a primary or junior secondary school (Republic of Kiribati, 2013, 11.1), and that “A child can not be refused enrolment at a school on the basis of his or her sex, religion, race or disability” (12:2). Specifically in regard to provision for students with special educational needs, the Act states that;
A child of compulsory school age with a disability or is above the school compulsory age, must, where practicable, be enrolled in and attend a school, and be given the opportunity to participate together with the other students of the school in the education and extra- curricular activities offered by the school (19:1).
This statement reflects a focus on the inclusion of children with disabilities. The Education Act directs all educational activities in Kiribati.
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 156
The Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2012-2015 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2012) states, “Quality curriculum is inclusive of all students. It means recognizing and accommodating the different starting points, abilities, gender, interests, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds of an individual student or groups of students” (p. 6), and “The ministry will develop a policy on inclusive education that could enhance the inclusiveness of the education system in Kiribati” (p. 11).
The National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (NCAF) (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2012) is the most significant practical document at the school level. The NCAF states, “The Kiribati Curriculum applies to all schools in the Kiribati, all students regardless of gender, ethnic group, religion, location, background, ability or disability” (p. 4). The NCAF requires teaching which is inclusive; “The school will provide a positive learning and teaching environment that is supportive, safe, stimulating, stable, having regard for the different learning needs of the students according to age, readiness to learn, ability or disability” (p. 43). The curriculum incorporates the philosophy of inclusion and, therefore, the expectation that schools will include all students and cater for their learning needs.
In the School Improvement Plan Standards 2013-2015 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2013) the Pillar: Inclusive and Gender Sensitive, is one of the four major sections. The Plan advocated that;
All teachers identify students with special needs (e.g., visual and audio impairment, physically and mentally challenged) with the support of their parents and ensure their full participation in class and other school activities such as sports, gardening, maintaining the school grounds and toilet facilities (p. 1).
The Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2016-2019 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016) added, ‘Effective implementation of the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy’ as one of its nine main goals (additional to the seven goals for the ESSP 2012-2015); “This policy will see improved access to and participation in education for many children and young people who cannot access or participate yet in mainstream schools” (p. 10). The Education Sector Strategic Plan focuses on the inclusion of children with disabilities. The Goal of ‘Effective Implementation of the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy’ identifies the expected
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 157
outcome as “Community acceptance of the policy of mainstreaming children demonstrated through improved enrolment of children with disability in mainstream schools” (p. 28). The focus on disability-inclusion, although strengthening local commitment to the inclusion of children with disabilities, may do so at the expense of a more holistic view of inclusion.
The rhetoric of commitment to inclusive education principles is found consistently across these Kiribati education documents. It should be noted that the documents had significant input from Australian advisers. For example, the Kiribati Education Act (Republic of Kiribati, 2013) was overseen by the expatriate Senior Education Management Specialist and, the School Improvement Plan Standards 2013-2015 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2013) was coordinated by the KEF School-Based Management Adviser. Given the significant external input and influence on the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, the extent of local ownership of the policy can be questioned.
6.5 FROM RHETORIC TO OWNERSHIP
This chapter examined the rhetoric of the Kiribati Inclusive Education policy and other Government of Kiribati policy documents which espoused the principles of inclusion. Adherence to international (western) principles of inclusive education predominated across these documents. The stakeholders interviewed saw the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, in particular, as positive support for the introduction of inclusive education initiatives. Moving beyond the rhetoric is a challenge, as seen in the comment by the ministry of education representative, “Everyone must be receiving equal and quality education. How are we going to achieve that?” (M1).
The endorsement of government and international policies related to inclusive education may be seen as a national commitment to and, therefore, ownership of inclusive education initiatives. Although the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy and other Kiribati documents established the legitimacy of inclusive education concepts in principle, policy alone does not necessarily entail local ownership. Ownership of concepts depends on community and individual support and commitment. The degree of local commitment and ownership is explored in the next chapter.
Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Policy 158
Chapter 7: “It’s Ownership Issues”
This chapter further explores Research Question 2: What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati? Local values may support or be a barrier to local ownership of inclusive education (see 2.2.2). Therefore, as noted in the methodology chapter values coding was used to generate sub-themes.
Values coding involved identifying phrases which were grouped to form generative sub-themes using key words for values ‘important’ and attitudes ‘think’, ‘feel’. Details regarding this process are outlined in section 4.13. Five generative sub-themes were identified by the researcher using this process. These sub-themes were:
7.1 Attitudes towards people and children with disability
7.2 Support for inclusive education principles
7.3 Local responses to inclusive education initiatives
7.4 Local attitudes regarding the contribution of Australian Aid
7.5 Sustainability with or without aid support.
These sub-themes are described in the respective individual discussion sections below.
As values and attitudes underlie personal views, analysis for this section drew from individual interviews and focus group responses. These responses were from Ministry of Education representatives (M1, M2, M3), a Teachers College representative (TC), school executives (SE1, SE2), Disabled Persons’ Organisation representative (DPO), local employees from donor organisations (D), and two school-based focus groups (FG1, FG2). See section 4.6 for participants’ details.
Table 7.1 provides examples of phrases identified through values coding taken verbatim from the transcripts. These phrases are listed under the relevant sub-theme and matched to the participants.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 159
Table 7.1 Values and attitudes coding
Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5
M1 We enforce Would be the same if IE Policy foreign aid stops
M2 It’s a really We are able to It was through We’ll be important provide KEF OK. It’s initiative enabling challenging environment for the Ministry
M3 New While we IE is not to government have the stop but is committed donors work continue on facilities and teacher training TC Think about [inclusive] activities
SE1 Very Government important to enforces the be inclusive law
SE2 People think Past Teach No longer disabled government whatever you coming from have no did not see can outside from future importance Australia
Feel regret No Australian about what has all the we did answers
DPO Not look at Project now Make sure That’s part of the disability very that outer Australian important for island Aid Children Kiribati children with with disabilities AusAid disabilities access adviser knows held back education important matters
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 160
Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme Sub-theme
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5
D People with Very Child not feel Foreign ideas Without aid disabilities effective welcomed are needed to not much not seen as strategy, go in the right achieved important in ownership Roll out of IE direction my culture built in helps teachers IE would know what IE freeze Teachers is feel that IE is for special students only
D It’s about Provide equal Think about Provide We will be where we opportunity their further able to find place all responsibility understanding a way to those Think about of looking at support it children responsibility Make sure this IE with every child Don’t think disabilities Now teachers should be in Expose it will stop want to the Ministry to mainstream this inclusive thinking
FG1 Teachers not It’s a good Sometimes we Change will trained to idea to give feel take a slow teach opportunity uncomfortable pace disabilities for those who have been left Our job is to Education Even though out or think about will be they have ignored what we are ready at that handicapped going to do time children they must make sure it’s very important for their learning
FG2 (no phrases identified)
Further phrases and sentences were also identified within the transcripts as reflecting the essence of the sub-themes. For example, the phrase “some people in Kiribati see people with disabilities need to be protected” (DPO) was coded under sub-theme 7.1 ‘Attitudes towards disability’.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 161
The sub-themes were analysed in terms of their relationship to the major theme Ownership. Figure 7.1 illustrates this process.
Figure 7.1 Coding process for values
Values Values Sub-theme7.1 MAJOR THEME: Coding (Importance given by participants) OWNERSHIP Sub-theme 7.2 Attitudes (Thoughts and feelings) Sub-theme 7.3
Sub-theme 7.4
Sub-theme 7.5
Discussion of each of the sub-themes is outlined below.
7.1 ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISABILITY
For sub-theme 7.1, ‘Attitudes towards disability’, both negative and positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities are considered. To be fully inclusive, education needs to include all children including children with disabilities. Positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities are basic to this acceptance. The inclusion of children with disabilities was seen as central to the concept of inclusive education; “Give everyone a chance to education especially those who have problems like different disabilities” (SE2). Inclusive education, as the inclusion of children with disabilities, has become a specific focus in the Education Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2019 (see 6.3). Participants identified negative attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities as a mixture of community exclusion, parental overprotection, and teacher opposition.
Community attitudes towards disability are to exclude people with disabilities from community participation;
In my culture people with disabilities are regarded as useless, not important, not really accepted to come to the public. They just stay home hidden away but with these new ideas being introduced we just realised we have not done something good for these people (D).
Negative community attitudes towards people with disability reflect the concept of the ‘Other’ (see 2.2.3). People with disabilities are excluded from the community
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 162
because they don’t conform to the society’s perceptions of itself. Similarly, children with disabilities are excluded from school communities because they are seen as different and not able to learn.
Parent attitudes were seen as not letting their children go to school because of fears that the child will not be looked after; “Some people in Kiribati see people with disabilities need to be protected. Parents being overprotective of their children” (DPO); “Some parents are fearful to send their child to school. Maybe they’ve being teased by the kids or being bullied. Maybe it’s an extra effort to take that child to and from school” (D). Attitudes underlie ownership or rejection of the concept of the inclusion of children with disabilities. Negative attitudes such as cultural rejection are a barrier to inclusion. Parental attitudes need to be addressed so that they will allow their child to go to school; “Some parents when you visit them they say it’s a waste of time to send this child” (SE1). “There’s still a need to empower and educate parents because still they are holding on there. [Only] some are letting go their children” (DPO). Addressing parent attitudes need to be handled with respect and sensitivity. This may involve one-to-one counselling and encouragement rather than enforcement. As noted by Freire (1970), the oppressed “become resigned to it [their child’s exclusion], they feel incapable of running the risks it requires” (p. 29).
Teacher attitudes were seen as a barrier to the inclusion of children with disabilities; “The attitude of the teacher is a barrier because the teacher is not trying to accommodate this child. So the child next time he quits. The child can feel that the teacher is not welcoming” (D); “Sometimes the teachers will be frustrated. These attitudes of the teachers have to be changed” (DPO). Teachers in the focus groups expressed some concerns; “Inclusive is a challenge. It’s challenging us teachers” (FG1.6); “It’s hard for the teacher. We don’t have much knowledge, especially the disabled” (FG2.4). Although concerned, the teachers in the focus groups were supportive of the concept of inclusion; “I think it’s a good idea to give more opportunity for those who have been ignored” (FG1.1).
The teacher is a role model. A positive attitude by teachers towards accepting children with disabilities as belonging in the classroom is a major influence for inclusion; “If the children see the teacher being welcoming and caring for this child, the other children will do the same. Here the key person is the teacher” (D). The focus group teachers were positive about the concept of inclusion; “They [children
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 163
with disabilities] need to be included in these programs in this school so we can teach them or we can encourage them to be involved in the school. They can be part of the school” (FG1.5). This statement reflects positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities although there are acknowledged challenges in catering for their learning needs (see previous paragraph). Teachers can play a role in addressing parental attitudes; “We encourage them that school is a very important thing. Even though they have handicapped children they must be sure it’s very important for their learning. They mustn’t ignore them to let them stay there [at home]” (FG1.1). Ultimately it will be positive attitudes from the teachers which will determine if children with disabilities will be accepted as fully included members of the class and the school community.
The role of the Kiribati School for Children with Special Needs in the capital Tarawa is seen as a positive example of changing attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities; “The [special] school is a living positive example of why children with disabilities should go to school” (DPO). On the flip side, the education of students with disabilities may be seen solely as the responsibility of the special school, presenting a barrier to accessing community schools; “Maybe in 10 years’ time all those people would need to be mainstreamed in the classrooms instead of sending to the special school” (TC).
There are no special education provisions in outer islands so the only education options are moving to Tarawa, which may not be feasible, or accessing the local community school which may be blocked by the school; “Those living on the outer islands it’s really hard to access education. Kiribati is islands scattered in the ocean. Education has to think of ways to make sure children with disabilities living in the outer islands access education” (DPO). Attitudes in the outer islands may be more entrenched as compared with the greater diversity found in the capital, Tarawa. For example, Jolly and Rokete (2012) were confronted with negative attitudes when conducting their research on disability and inclusive education on an outer island. Changing attitudes towards inclusive education on the outer islands may need to be done on an island-by-island basis, as each island has its own unique characteristics and attitudes.
Negative community, parental and teacher attitudes underlie the exclusion of many children with disabilities from accessing schools, particularly in the outer
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 164
islands. Positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities are developing in the Kiribati education system, particularly by Ministry of Education administrators and to some extent at the school level. The Ministry of Education administrators have a vested interest in supporting the inclusion of children with disabilities in order to maintain Australian Aid funding, which places a priority on disability-inclusion in Aid funded programs (Development for All, DFAT, 2016).
7.2 SUPPORT FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Sub-theme 7.2, ‘Support for inclusive education values’, is defined as participants’ positive expressions towards inclusive education. Participants’ responses indicated strong support for inclusive education ideals and practices23. An independent participant commented that, “the project now is very important for Kiribati” (DPO). The change in the level of support appears to have come from dialogue, particularly by the local professional educators as discussed in Chapter 8. This dialogue was generated through inclusive education initiatives such as the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. The dialogue, however, has been generated through the Australian Aid program, suggesting compliance rather than a locally generated consideration of the issues.
A representative of the Ministry of Education summed up this strong support; “We believe that inclusive education is a very important initiative” (M2). Senior administrators interviewed from the Ministry of Education were very supportive of the concept of inclusive education; “I would like to do as much as I can while I’m in the Ministry to ensure its smooth implementation” (M1). At the school level support for the concept of inclusive education was evident. School administrators expressed support for the concept; “[It’s] very important to be inclusive" (SE2). Teachers also were supportive; “It [inclusive education] is a very good idea and no one is going to be locked away from the teacher” (FG1.3).
There was minimal reference made by the participants regarding why the inclusive education initiatives are important. Whether these statements of support are rhetoric reflecting adherence to the Australian (international) imposed position is difficult to assess (cultural invasion). Genuine valuing of inclusive education
23 From the researcher’s observations the participants responses in 2016 represented a significant shift from 2013 when inclusive education was a very new and little understood concept.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 165
principles, as distinctively applicable to Kiribati, will be seen in developing local interpretations and implementation of inclusive education (praxis). Comprehension and commitment by central administrators, school executive and classroom teachers is a prerequisite for successful program implementation. This is particularly important when it involves values such as inclusion. Gaps in expectations regarding implementation between the central administration and the school level, or between the school principal and the classroom practitioners, can mean perceived imposition of programs from above. Innovative programs in schools often fail when there is a gap between administrators’ requirements and implementation by teachers (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014).
Generally there was a broad understanding of the (international) concept of inclusive education; “With inclusive education we are trying to include every student to attend school. All students should be catered for in the school system” (M1); “Everyone on board, every child no matter what” (DPO); “Education for all, inclusive, regardless of gender, ability and any other differences” (M3). Again this raises the question of adherence to an imposed concept. Achieving education for all children, whilst laudable aims, is far from a reality, both internationally and in Kiribati.
Participants supported the achievability of inclusive education in Kiribati with some reservations; “Yes! Positively yes! [It] can be achieved if inclusive education is always rolled out, not only once but always, maybe once a month” (SE1); “I know that they are very realistic but there are quite significant challenges but [we] still have to find ways to overcome these. I think we’ll be OK” (M1); “It can be achieved but through funding, if we have the right schools and appropriate resources to make it worthwhile. If it’s all there everything will be realistic. If not then nothing will happen” (M3). There was an implied expectation that inclusive education would be achieved only by continued funding support from Australian Aid. The priority given to inclusive education by the Ministry of Education must be questioned if there is little direct government funding to support the initiatives (see 6.1.3). Long-term institutionalisation of inclusive education within the Kiribati education system will only come from commitment by the Government of Kiribati (including a budget commitment) to ongoing support for inclusive education.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 166
Inclusive education is seen as relevant to Kiribati in catering for a wider range of students; “Teachers in the classroom deal mostly with the good ones. Inclusive education is really important for teachers to realise that they should also consider other children who are being overlooked because of their ability” (D). Catering for a wide range of learning needs is a challenge for teachers who often are struggling to teach the basic skills in under-resourced schools.
7.3 LOCAL RESPONSES TO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVES
Sub-theme 7.3 ‘Local responses to inclusive education initiatives’, outlines engagement in inclusive education activities noting the enablers as well as barriers to inclusion identified by local stakeholders in Kiribati. Engagement demonstrates ownership/commitment at the practical level, whilst barriers need addressing before ownership/commitment can be fully established. Although there is a positive commitment to inclusive education, little is being done directly by the Ministry of Education. Australian Aid provides the funding and, the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) project manages the direction for inclusive education initiatives at this stage. The donors’ aim is to “expose the Ministry to this inclusive thinking” (D).
Nominal ownership by the Ministry of Education is being encouraged through the donors; “I always make sure that the person from the Ministry is the chair and started the meeting [Inclusive Education Working Group]. They have ownership and leadership” (D). Responsibility for implementing the initiatives falls almost entirely on the donors; “What I have really found, I did most of the work because they are very busy with their own load. I’m just the person behind but I’m doing it all” (D). While the implementation of inclusive education is directed by the donors through the education project, ownership by the Ministry of Education is a matter of seemingly supporting the concept without a practical commitment.
Teachers in Focus Group 1 were examining their practices in order to cater for individual differences; “It’s our job to think about what we are going to do the next day to try to cater for that student. We change the strategy” (FG1.2); “[We] try to cater for them according to their ability. We have types of ways, different activities. We try to let them work with the easy activities, encourage them” (FG1.3). Focus Group 1 consisted of teachers from the pilot school for inclusive education, and had developed practical knowledge of strategies to support diverse learning needs
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 167
through extensive input from the KEF education project. This experience is not widely demonstrated in schools across Kiribati. Teacher capacity is seen as a major challenge to inclusive education; “At the moment our teachers only have the capacity to teach normal children” (M1); “Teachers I would say need more training in how to cater for children with disabilities” (M2); “Teachers say we don’t know how to look after these children” (D). Donors were optimistic that inclusive education initiatives could develop teacher capacity; “I think that in the roll-out of inclusive education we are going to help teachers apply what really is inclusive education” (D). Without supporting teachers with training, including in-class support, inclusive education may falter through teacher frustration with their capacity to provide for their students’ educational needs (Le Fanu, 2013).
Resourcing was seen as a major barrier to inclusion; “We need classrooms that have access, disability accessible and we haven’t got that in most of our classrooms” (M1); “It is also related to the resources of the country because we could not afford wheelchairs and what else was needed” (SE2); “I wish we had the Teacher’s Aide, a person to help along with the teacher. That also happens in some schools in other countries. In our country we can’t afford it.” (FG1.5). Without adequate resources schools may be resistant to enrolling students that they see as requiring additional support. Schools are dependent on Australian Aid provisions for additional resources as the government is only able to provide basics such as exercise books.
Although there is a degree of acceptance of inclusive education principles, there are challenges such as teacher capacity and resourcing to support diverse learning needs. These challenges require funding support. The Government of Kiribati can only fund basic services for education. For example, teachers’ salaries and associated expenses are the major expenditure in the education budget ($18.5M out of a recurrent budget of $22M, Government of Kiribati, 2016, p. 57). Funding to introduce inclusive induction initiatives, particularly the implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, is sourced from Australian Aid. This means that dependency on Australian Aid will continue with local ownership a token representation only found in statements of intent.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 168
7.4 LOCAL ATTITUDES REGARDING THE CONTRIBUTION OF AUSTRALIAN AID
The sub-theme ‘Local attitudes regarding the contribution of Australian Aid’ is defined as local stakeholders (interviewees) and teachers (focus groups) views on how Australian Aid is assisting the education system and schools. The findings from the data for this sub-theme indicated an appreciation of the contribution that Australian Aid is providing to support inclusive education initiatives.
The consensus of the recipients interviewed was that Australian Aid has contributed significantly to the introduction of inclusive education and in providing ongoing support; “I can say [Australian Aid] has contributed to a large extent. The Ministry of Education itself lacks the expertise in this area given that it’s a very new thing” (M2); “Without foreign aid I don’t think much would be achieved. Foreign aid is bringing things together and initiate all of these and keep them mobilised. The Ministry would not be able to do all this” (DPO); “It’s contributed a lot. Without Australian Aid where can we be?” (M1). An appreciation of Australian Aid’s contribution was expressed in the comment, “We must thank Australia because it’s the only country which has a program that is dealing with this kind of issue in Kiribati” (SE2). A local donor employee added;
I would like to compliment the foreign aid’s support of my country. I know when I first started with this project we have achieved quite a lot. I’ve seen changes of attitudes by the people in this area. Like buildings are now being built more accessible. To say thank you and wish that foreign aid continues to support Kiribati. I can see changes because of our policy promotion. It’s getting there (D).
At the school level, the focus group participants were less aware of direct Australian Aid contribution to inclusive education. For Focus Group 1 the contribution had been significant in the form of rebuilding of the whole school, funded through KEF, which incorporated the ‘Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia’s aid program’ (Australian Government, 2013). The new classrooms were seen as an incentive for children to come to school; “The changing classrooms have got children to come. They admire the classrooms. They are comfortable. We thank Australia. It’s a good help.” (FG1.4). There was some concern if Australian Aid was to cease; “I think it is obvious the change will take a
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 169
slow pace” (FG1.1); however, for the future, “I think education will be ready at that time enough to maintain the buildings” (FG1.3). There was strong support for the inclusion of children with disabilities; “They need to be included in these programs in this school so we can teach them. They can be part of the school” (FG1.2). This group were able to identify strategies to cater for learning diversity in the classroom; “Try to cater for them according to their ability. We have types of ways different activities” (FG1.3).
Focus Group 2 participants found it difficult to identify Australian Aid contributions. These tended to be minor donations such as six drinking containers for the classrooms and curriculum materials through the Ministry. They were supportive of the concept of inclusive education; “It’s a good idea because those who are disabled must be included with those who are not” (FG2.1). Section 8.2 discusses the contradiction between the responses of Focus Group 1 and Focus Group 2 in terms of understanding and implementing inclusive education at the school level.
7.5 SUSTAINABILITY WITH OR WITHOUT AID SUPPORT
Sub-theme 7.5, ‘Sustainability with or without aid support’, looks at participants’ views towards the future. Commitment can only be maintained if the stakeholders are confident that they can support the concepts themselves into the future. Genuine ownership will only occur if the stakeholders ‘do it themselves’.
Stakeholders interviewed were concerned that inclusive education initiatives would be significantly affected if Australian Aid was reduced. Inclusive education initiatives could collapse without foreign aid support; “Looking at this point in time it will all be collapsing. Perhaps it will be like 5 to 10 years before we can stand on our own two feet” (M1). Financial commitment by the Government of Kiribati was seen as the long-term solution to sustainability; “So it has to be put in the government budget” (DPO); “It’s up to the government but I trust that the government has sustainability plans to go ahead with inclusive but it will be very sad” (TC).
The dependency on Australian Aid was reflected by the recipient responses to the question ‘What would happen if foreign aid was stopped or reduced?’; “It would be a very big burden for the Ministry in terms of sustaining those supported with inclusive education” (TC). Recipients interviewed saw that inclusive education
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 170
initiatives would collapse without foreign aid support; “I think everything will stop, that we are very limited. We have just started” (M3); “It might stop as our government is not very big. More funding, more years to go when they can deal with that” (SE1). The Ministry of Education representatives identified priorities for utilising Australian Aid; “While we have the donors [we] will work on facilities and teacher training” (M3). This focus was seen as providing sustainability for the future because education may then have the facilities and trained teachers to maintain these initiatives.
From the local donor employees’ point of view, there was also concern that the inclusive education initiatives would not progress without Australian Aid; “I think inclusive education will freeze. Not really going backwards but not progressing. Currently people at the Ministry cannot do much to really support inclusive education [given competing priorities and a lack of resources], that will be a big problem if they stop so very little activity will happen” (D). The donor representatives expressed a hope that the Kiribati Government would be able to support inclusive education in the future; “They’ve got their own policies so they don’t have to depend on foreign aid all the time as people should participate in their own development” (D). There was cautious optimism that a solution could be found if Australian Aid was curtailed; “I think we will be able to find a way to support it. We can advocate [for] the government to do it themselves but that’s like the best model” (D).
There was some guarded optimism that inclusive education initiatives could be sustained without the support of Australian Aid; “I’ve been thinking that perhaps while we have the donors, let’s try to work on the facilities and training of teachers for inclusive education so when the donor departs we’ll still have the facilities and trained teachers already” (M2); “I hope the Ministry will have to come up with fund raising. I think the government can do that because they have a lot of income from the fishing industry” (SE2); “I can see changes because of our policy promotion. It’s getting there” (D). Without aid support a different local model may develop to support inclusive education based on a traditional approach but with some new insights. The challenge is now implementation.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 171
7.6 THE CHALLENGE OF OWNERSHIP
Local ownership for the implementation of inclusive education initiatives is slowly developing. Key stakeholders have expressed support for the principles of inclusive education and the need to include all children. These stakeholders include senior Ministry of Education administrators, school executive and teachers. These are the leadership groups to move inclusive education forward in becoming an embedded principle across schooling in Kiribati.
The challenge is local ownership of inclusive education rather than relying on Australian Aid programs. Participants raised the following concerns, “Everyone should be accessing quality education regardless of their location, background, gender. Everyone must be receiving equal and quality education. How are we going to achieve that?” (M1); “We’ve been talking about that. That’s sustainability. It’s a bit difficult. How long have we been working on this disability issue, especially inclusive education. It has to be continuing. But how to continue it?” (DPO). The capacity for local ownership was questioned; “It’s ownership issues because the thing is we don’t have the capacity” (SE2). The answer to these issues can only be found through local solutions and not from imposed programs from external sources.
Despite the challenges there is a positive view towards implementing inclusive education initiatives; “I know they are very realistic but I didn’t want to stop there even though there are still challenges that are quite significant but still [we] have to find a way to address to overcome these. I think we’ll be OK” (M1). This positive attitude demonstrates a commitment towards implementing inclusive education practices, but implementation requires significant Australian Aid support and direction.
7.7 OWNERSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY SUMMARY
This chapter examined sub-themes related to ownership/sustainability of inclusive education in Kiribati. Negative attitudes towards disability by the community, parents and to some extent teachers, need to be overcome through awareness raising and changing community values. Positive attitudes towards difference are the basis for local ownership of inclusive education. Support for inclusive education was evident but tended to be at an in-principle level rather than the practical level of implementation. Local responses to inclusive education
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 172
initiatives indicated nominal ownership by the Ministry of Education, but in reality direction is provided almost entirely through the external Kiribati Education Facility (KEF) project with the KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator providing management of the initiatives within the Ministry of Education. Although participants commented that inclusive education is achievable in Kiribati, major barriers of teacher training and resourcing were seen as central to achieving this objective. At this stage, Australian Aid is the only source to fund these provisions. Participants were concerned that without Australian Aid support inclusive education initiatives would if not ‘collapse’, then ‘freeze’. There was some guarded optimism that inclusive education initiatives could be sustained without the support of Australian Aid.
Australian Aid is funding and directing inclusive education initiatives and, therefore, can be seen as ‘owning’ programs such as implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. Developing local ownership will be the cornerstone in acceptance of the policy across school communities, and ultimately the impact and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the long term. Critical dialogue at the local level is essential to address local issues and develop local solutions. The role of critical dialogue in the introduction of inclusive education is discussed in the following chapter.
Chapter 7: It’s ownership issues 173 Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati Chapter 8: Critical Pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati
This chapter provides an argument that elements of critical pedagogy have been employed through Australian Aid programs to introduce inclusive education principles and programs in Kiribati, provide advocacy for disadvantaged groups, particularly children with disabilities, and to promote local acceptance and, therefore, a developing commitment to inclusive education initiatives. Contradictions between participants’ responses are examined to consider if a critical pedagogy approach is producing commitment to inclusive education at all levels, particularly at the school level. The implementation of inclusive education in Kiribati is examined in terms of factors which contribute to implementation and the process of implementation. This research is presented as a part (albeit a small part) of the process of critical dialogue in developing inclusive education in Kiribati.
8.1 AUSTRALIAN AID AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN KIRIBATI
Inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati, funded through Australian Aid, can be seen as introducing the generative theme of inclusion in education at the local level. For example, the data presented in Chapter 7 provides evidence that local commitment towards the concept of inclusive education, at least in principle, was widely supported by the participants, including Ministry of Education senior administrators and to some extent by teachers. Input from external advisors, consultants and teacher trainers introduced awareness of inclusive education to the country. The development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, supported by some local community consultation, has promoted discussion at the policy level. Promotion of the policy at the community and school level has continued this process, creating conversations around inclusive education.
In Kiribati, the reality was that many students were not attending school, not just children with disabilities. Attitudes of parents towards inclusion in schools were ambivalent, with education generally not seen as important. Parents often did not send their children to school because school was seen as irrelevant for their child.
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati
High endemic absenteeism reflected this attitude and children with disabilities generally were not attending school at all, particularly in the outer islands (Kiribati Education Facility, 2013b). Conversations around inclusive education by professionals and local communities are generating a re-examination of values and attitudes; “It built our awareness and opened our mind and hearts” (D).
Australian Aid brings a set of values to the programs it is funding and an expectation for recipient countries to accept these values. These values may or may not necessarily align with the values of the recipient country. Central to values held by Australia are the rights of all children to access education, and the rights of persons with disabilities as espoused in the Development for All Strategy to “improve the quality of life of people with disabilities in developing countries” (DFAT, 2015, p. 8). These rights are seen as part of commonly held universal international values. Australia as a signatory to international conventions such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) has articulated a commitment to “upholding Australia’s international obligations” (DFAT, 2015, p7). Australia’s commitment to these values and its international obligations, in what is seen as Australia’s geographic area of influence, may be the motivation for Australian Aid contributions in promoting disability-inclusion and inclusive education in developing countries in the Pacific region. By imposing Australian values that support inclusion through the provision of aid programs, Australia has taken an advocacy role to change attitudes towards disability-inclusion (see 7.1).
Australian Aid initiatives, such as the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati, reflect a social justice approach to aid in which the donor country brings to the attention of the recipient country a social injustice issue which the recipient country may not be conscious of or even be deliberately ignoring. The donor country can then work with the recipient country to raise awareness of the social injustice and then they work together to address the issue. Programs supported by Australian Aid can be seen as providing advocacy for disadvantaged groups whose voice may not have been otherwise heard. For example, community consultations across Kiribati have provided forums for discussion on the inclusion of children with disabilities in schools. Disadvantaged groups such as persons with disabilities have traditionally been without power and, therefore, largely reliant on
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 176
the social conscience of advocates to argue their place in society; “Liberating education requires political power and the oppressed have none” (Freire, 1970, p. 36). Australian Aid programs have provided this advocacy for children excluded from the Kiribati education system.
In order to generate a greater acceptance and commitment to achieving social justice, such as the inclusion of children with disabilities in Kiribati schools, Australian Aid funded initiatives have employed the twin strategies of pressure and support (Fullan, 2010). The pressure is indirect with much needed funding for education programs contingent on an implied conformity to Australian Aid values (disability-inclusion). This pressure is reinforced by expatriate advisers control and formal reporting processes. Support, in the form of funding and consultancy is then forthcoming.
In critical pedagogy, participants learn to address social justice issues through situations from their daily life that provide useful learning experiences. The participants acknowledged that children had been excluded from education in the past, and through initiatives such as implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, they were moving towards addressing this situation; “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other” (Freire, 1970, p. 53). Critical dialogue with and between stakeholders is central to the processes of critical pedagogy. Only through genuine dialogue can issues be explored; “To exist humanly is to name the world, to change it. Once named the word in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires them a new naming. Human beings are not built in silence but in word, in work, [and] in action-reflection” (Freire, 1970, p. 69). Through dialogue, initiated by Australian Aid, local stakeholders can then become involved in the conversations regarding social justice issues and ultimately the means to address them. Then, “people whose thematics are being investigated will come to share a critical perception of the world. Critical perception cannot be imposed. Thus from the very beginning, thematic investigation is expressed as an educational pursuit, as cultural action” (Freire, 1970, p. 92). Genuine dialogue requires mutual trust and respect. The responses from the donor and the recipient groups suggest a common view of support towards the concept of inclusive education (see 7.2), its relevance to Kiribati, and the
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 177
challenges of implementation (see 7.3). This view has been developed through dialogue between and within these groups.
Figure 8.1 illustrates the role of Australian Aid in initiating the process of critical dialogue. The cog of Australian Aid values and programs (promulgated through expatriate advisers and the locally employed KEF coordinator) starts the process through generating the turning of the critical dialogue cog which (slowly) is turning the cog of changing values and programs in Kiribati. Personnel engaged in critical dialogue regarding inclusive education include Ministry of Education administrators, and to some extent teachers and the wider community At this stage, the Australian Aid ‘cog’ needs to keep turning in order to maintain the process.
Figure 8.1 Process of changing local values and programs
Australian Aid
Critical Dialogue
Changing Kiribati Values and Programs
The larger cog for ‘changing Kiribati values and programs implies that Australian Aid can only do so much and that the impetus for changing local values should ultimately be generated from the turning of the local community cog (supported by the turning of the Australian Aid cog).
The role of Australian Aid initially represented a top-down approach with Australian Aid programs, through the expatriate advisers and the locally employed KEF coordinator, introducing the concept of inclusive education but with the aim of evolving into an ownership model featuring increasing local commitment to inclusive education. In reference to the dependency model (Figure 1.2) and ownership model (Figure 1.3) presented in the introduction, a hybrid model is represented in Figure 8.2 below in which Australian Aid has contributed to
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 178
increasing local Kiribati awareness, values, attitudes and commitment towards inclusive education. Note that because of dependency on Australian Aid for sustaining the inclusive education initiatives, there is a continued interaction between Australian Aid objectives directing local Kiribati commitment/ownership of these initiatives.
Figure 8.2 Developing local ownership through Australian Aid advocacy
International Inclusive Education Aust. Values Aid Funded Australian Aid Values and Objectives Project
Increasing Local Kiribati Awareness, Values, Attitudes and Committment
It could be argued that Australian Aid uses its financial power and as a developed country uses its ‘so called’ expertise to impose universal values recognised through United Nations charters and programs which reflect Australia’s own values and objectives on to Kiribati. In Freire’s (1970) terms, “One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding” (p. 76). For Freire, cultural invasion leads to “the inauthenticity of those who are invaded; they begin to respond to the values, the standards and the goals of the invaders” (p. 134). There appears to be a genuine acceptance of inclusive education principles from the participants as a value for Kiribati society that may have been historically overlooked; “We feel regret about what we have done” (SE1). Participants were committed to the concept of inclusive education with or without the ongoing support from Australian Aid (although this was a concern).
Freire (1970) proposes a problem solving approach to education in which “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves” (p. 64). A problem solving
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 179
(educative) approach is the antithesis of a ‘banking approach’ to education in which the expert teacher (expatriate adviser) tells the students (local stakeholders) the facts of what they should be doing; “Banking education treats students [local stakeholders] as objects of assistance; problem solving education makes them critical thinkers” (p. 64). Initially a ‘banking approach’ was employed by external advisers in the initial stages of introducing inclusive education initiatives; however, an increasingly educative approach has developed. The employment of a full-time local Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator (GSIC) since 2013 was central in generating a local educative problem solving approach both in the community and within the Ministry of Education. As the Coordinator commented, “This role has to be I-Kiribati because first of all I know the culture. I can talk with the people in our own way and I have a good understanding of my people, the need of my people and the way my people will react” (D).
The local GSIC position was not originally in the KEF design; however, it was later initiated through the KEF Inclusive Education Mentor from Australia who supported the program through short-term visits. The decision to employ a local full time coordinator was a significant step towards cultural ownership of inclusive education initiatives at the local level. The expatriate Inclusive Education Mentor saw their own role as “short-term to fill gaps and mentor but make sure that mentoring is two-way and working with [the GSIC] not working for or working over, and then a full-time local advisor” (Ellickson, personal communication, December, 21, 2016). This view reflected a partnership rather than an unequal relationship in which the expert controls the program.
In Kiribati, community consultation is a feature of the educative process. This process draws on the local culture in which everyone from the village can have their say at the Mwaneaba meeting. This is a two-way process in which the facilitator listens to and learns from the discussion. For example, a local facilitator from Tarawa commented;
We went to outer islands to consult with parents and how they see inclusive education, children with disabilities to be included in the schools. We were confronted with some negative things. The question was should a child with a disability go to school. The man just shouted ‘no way it’s a waste of time’ (DPO).
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 180
This led to further discussions on ways that children with disabilities can be included in school programs without being another distraction or a load. The rights of the child were also discussed; “Opportunities to go to school and to prove their capabilities” (DPO). Community consultation has been led by the Australian Aid funded project to “fund the community consultation team and the message given from the team is inclusive, inclusive education” (D). It is through local critical dialogue across the community that existing values can be examined and reassessed to fit the local context. Whether or not community consultations are genuine critical dialogue, or rather information sessions to promote community acceptance of pre- determined concepts (adherence to western ideals) can be debated. Engagement with the community is an essential step in promoting the ideals underlying inclusive education.
Schools are also initiating consultative processes; “We go to the community. It’s awareness for the community. We encourage them that school is a very important thing” (FG1). Low-key consultation, initiated from the school, may be a more effective way to engage the community rather than an external community consultation team, as there are already established relationships between the school and its community.
Cooperation is a key element in the relationship between the donor and the aid recipient; “Subjects meet in cooperation in order to transform the world” (Freire, 1970, p. 148). Whilst the donor may provide the initial leadership, the aim is to work together to understand and respond to the issues. Cooperation is based on genuine dialogue; “Dialogue, as essential communication, must underlie any cooperation” (p. 149). The employment by the donor of local people such as the GSIC and locally employed Australian Consular staff together with the Disabled Persons’ Organisation (Te Toa Matoa) expedite the dialogue. Local cooperative ownership can be seen as part of the Kiribati culture, thereby representing local cultural views, not as part of the foreign culture.
Freire (1970) maintains that through genuine two-way dialogical action, cultural synthesis can be achieved in which “the actors who come from ‘another world’ to the world of the people do so not as invaders. The actors become integrated with the people who are co-authors of the action that both perform upon the world” (p. 161). In Kiribati, the collaboration between the external adviser and the locally
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 181
employed coordinator illustrates this relationship. Outside interventions can, therefore, be a part of the process for social change, provided “they do not come to teach or to transmit but rather to learn with the people about the people’s world” (p.161).
For Kiribati, the aim of inclusive education initiatives has been a cultural synthesis in which the values of inclusion are assimilated into the social structures and cultural values of the Ministry of Education, the Government of Kiribati and the wider Kiribati community. Whilst elements of critical dialogue have promoted consideration of issues around inclusive education, cultural synthesis will take time to move beyond a paradigm based solely on western ideals. Figure 8.3 illustrates a paradigm which incorporates Kiribati values to produce a cultural synthesis for inclusive values.
Figure 8.3 Synthesis of cultural values
International Values
Kiribati Critical Australian Values Dialogue Values
Inclusive Values
Concerns regarding funding, resourcing, teacher training etc. means that solutions to problems raised are based on receiving Australian Aid support rather than finding local solutions. For example, there is an identified need by participants to develop teacher skills and knowledge, particularly in teaching students with disabilities (see 7.3). The employment of an expatriate Disability Inclusion Technical Adviser in 2016 within the KEF program may mean a greater top-down approach directing teachers in what they should be doing and how to do it. This will depend
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 182
on the approach taken by the adviser. In 2016 there was no counterpart position in the Ministry of Education.
Freire sees ‘limit situations’ such as lack of resources as challenges to be responded to by actions; “ It is not the limit situations in and of themselves which create a climate of hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived” (p. 80). Participants were able to identify the challenges facing the introduction of inclusive education and, although concerned, were generally optimistic that these challenges could be overcome; “There are still challenges that are quite significant but still [we] have to find a way to address to overcome these. I think we’ll be OK” (M1).
Dependency on Australian Aid is the barrier to Kiribati fully confronting and responding to the local issues concerning inclusive education; “[Stakeholders], as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge. Their response to the challenge evokes new challenges followed by new understandings” (Freire, 1970, p. 62). In Kiribati, there is an expectation that solutions to challenges can only be found through Australian Aid funding; “One effect of DFAT/KEF moving forward a policy [of Inclusive Education] is that it has raised expectations that KEF will finance the activities it is proposing” (Emmott, 2014, p. 29). Whilst the challenges wait for support through Australian Aid to be addressed, inclusive education initiatives will remain piecemeal and local ownership of inclusive education will be conditional on this support.
Inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati represent a radical challenge. By adopting aspects of a critical pedagogical approach, initiated through Australian Aid programs, local commitment is now increasingly being generated towards supporting inclusive education initiatives; “Only in the encounter of the people with the revolutionary leaders – in their communion, in their praxis – can this theory be built” (Freire, 1970, p. 164).
8.2 CONTRADICTIONS
For Freire (1970) contradictions “constitute limit-situations, involve themes, and indicate tasks” (p. 94). Contradictions can be used to identify issues and develop strategies to address underlying themes; “By locating these nuclei of contradictions,
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 183
the investigators might be able to organize the program content of their educational action” (p. 93).
For the research theme of ownership/sustainability (RQ2), the implementation of inclusive education creates a major contradiction for which the Ministry of Education is technically responsible, however, the introduction and management of inclusive education initiatives is being carried out by KEF; “What can I say? I did the work, but for somebody” (D). This raises the question of ownership (RQ2) of these initiatives. The Ministry of Education is staffed by a very small group of administrators who are dealing with a number of priorities. Inclusive education is, perhaps, a lesser priority for an education system faced with many challenges.
For the research theme of dependency on Australian Aid (RQ1), both recipients and donor participants acknowledged the role of Australian Aid in introducing and supporting inclusive education. There were concerns that inclusive education “would freeze” (D.1) if aid support stopped, particularly by the recipient stakeholders interviewed. However, both recipient and donor participants expressed guarded optimism that inclusive education initiatives would continue without aid support although at a ‘slow pace’. The initiatives were “no longer coming outside from Australia” (TC). There was a contradiction between the dependency on Australian Aid to support inclusive education initiatives and the guarded optimism that Kiribati could support these initiatives at some time in the future.
The commitment by the Government of Kiribati to inclusive education, although recognised by the participants, is contradicted by their concerns about the government’s lack of funds to support inclusive education. There are also mixed messages about the long-term sustainability of inclusive education initiatives particularly if Australian Aid funding for these initiatives was reduced; “It would be a very big burden for the Ministry in terms of sustaining those supported with inclusive education” (TC). There is a contradiction between the government’s endorsement of policies such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) and the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) and implementation. The 2014 evaluation of the Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP) commented that the Draft Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy “is not costed and is not implementable in its current
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 184
form” (Emmott, 2014, p. 28). As discussed in Chapter 6, endorsement of policies may be more a case of empty rhetoric rather than a commitment to action.
The developing commitment towards inclusive education appears to be mainly at the professional level, such as by Ministry of Education administrators and to some extent by teachers. Evidence of wider community acceptance of inclusive education is lacking. Parents are often reluctant to send their child to school. Community attitudes toward disability can be negative; “The community or people are not supporting them. They are neglected” (SE2). A contradiction between the professional aim of inclusion and the reality that these barriers present is not easily resolved, and requires extensive dialogue, support and awareness raising with parents individually and across the wider community.
There is a contradiction between educational services generally in the capital Tarawa in comparison to educational services in the outer islands; “Living in the outer islands it’s really hard to access education. Education has to think of ways to make sure children with disabilities living in the outer islands access education” (DPO). This means that support for inclusive education initiatives will be fragmentary, often depending on limited consultancy and occasional community meetings organised by KEF and the Ministry of Education through visits from the capital. These visits are costly and time limited given the geographic spread of Kiribati (for example Kirimati island is a two day journey by air via Fiji, a distance of over 3,000 kilometres; other islands can be even more isolated). Local consultative processes, such as initiated by the local community school, may be a more effective way to engage the community.
The most significant contradiction noted in this research was between the responses from the two focus groups. Focus Group 1 was very positive towards inclusive education and the teachers were implementing strategies in order to cater for individual learning differences, particularly for students who had missed significant periods of school. In Focus Group 2, whilst supportive of inclusive education in principle, the teachers were unsure of how they would implement strategies in their classrooms and anxious about catering for children with disabilities. Focus Group 1 consisted of teachers from a designated pilot school for inclusive education and has received extensive support from the KEF coordinator and the Ministry of Education. For Focus Group 2 there had been little input. This
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 185
has ramifications across Kiribati as schools may need extensive support to successfully implement inclusive education. Give the geographic diversity across Kiribati, this will be a difficult task requiring significant funding well beyond what is being provided by Australian Aid at present. Inclusive practices may proceed on a school by school, island by island basis, depending on the support available and local factors (for example, a strong local advocate).
A theoretical contradiction concerns the objective of Australian Aid programs to address the social justice issue of exclusion from school, and the imposition of inclusive education initiatives to address this social justice issue onto the Kiribati education system through Australian Aid control of the initiatives. The rights of the excluded, who are generally powerless, may not be acknowledged without some form of advocacy. For example, access to school programs for children with disabilities has been restricted in Kiribati. The powerless need the powerful to act on their behalf. A rights approach to education is very much a western concept. As such, Australian Aid is imposing this philosophy onto the Kiribati education system in the guise of advocating for the rights of children excluded from school. Whilst seemingly a noble altruistic motive this advocacy is being imposed by exerting financial power and influence in the form of Aid to achieve this goal. The contradiction is that the western ideal of the right to education cannot be achieved without discounting local conditions and attitudes which may be in conflict with this ideal. As a limit situation, this contradiction needs to be resolved through developing local commitment and ownership by locals at the local level, otherwise implementation of inclusive education initiatives will be piecemeal and resisted.
Surprisingly, there were few contradictions between the representatives of the donors interviewed and the representatives of the recipients. The donor representatives were all locally employed I-Kiribati nationals. The recipients were also all I-Kiribati. The donor representatives, as employees, would be required to promote Australian Aid policy and programs. The recipients’ support would suggest an acceptance of the western (Australian Aid imposed) concept of inclusive education through which “[they] come to see their reality with the outlook [attitudes] of the invaders rather than their own” (Freire, 1970, p. 134).
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 186
8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Inclusive education is a complex concept internationally, and for Kiribati the concept is equally complex, with local factors influencing the acceptance of inclusive education and, therefore, the implementation of inclusive education initiatives. Multiple factors will influence the implementation of inclusive education initiatives.
Although there are similarities between Pacific cultures, each country will develop in its own unique way. In Kiribati, a bottom-up process was not emerging from the culture and community due to factors such as negative attitudes towards inclusion. Through Australian Aid, an initial top-down approach started the process which is now evolving into increasing local professional commitment and ownership. Wider community acceptance is only slowly developing. A strong base of support is needed to maintain this priority.
The factors proposed by Sharma, Loreman and Macanawi (2015) (see 2.3.5) provide a guide to areas that need to be addressed during the implementation of inclusive education in Kiribati. These factors as applied to Kiribati are:
Community support through traditional structures such as the village chief and churches needs to be raised;
Families need to be supported in how they perceive their child’s needs;
Schools need to address teacher attitudes, community focus, curriculum differentiation, policy implementation, use of resources and communication/ partnerships (although from the focus group data, all these factors are being addressed in at least one school, the pilot school for inclusive education- Focus Group1); and
Policy needs to be modified to better reflect the ‘grass roots’ as these factors are addressed.
A Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and University of the South Pacific (USP) research project funded by Australian Aid demonstrated a process using local researchers to develop “local capacity to mobilise communities to assist implementing disability-inclusive education” (Pillay et al., 2015, p. 68). The research noted that, “Across the schools, there were many examples of initiatives to raise the profile and capacity of disability-inclusive education, which were achieved with
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 187
limited resources by schools and communities committed to improving outcomes for children with disabilities” (p. 68). This approach was based on a partnership between the external researchers and the local researchers. A partnership between external support from Australian Aid, the locally employed Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator and, to some extent the Ministry of Education, is an emerging feature of the implementation of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Inclusive education initiatives are a part of a system-wide school improvement project in Kiribati (KEIP). There is a danger of the Kiribati education system becoming overwhelmed by the number of new policies, curriculum and programs; “MoE is too small and there is too much reform going on to manage more than one new policy at a time” (Emmott, 2014, p. 29). Inclusive education may be, at best, implemented half-heartedly (depending on the amount of Australian Aid provided) or lost in the confusion of change. At this stage, inclusive education has been given an increased priority within the Ministry of Education. For example, the goal “Effective implementation of the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy,” has been added as a major goal in the Kiribati 2016-2020 Education Sector Strategic Plan (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 10). This may change for the future.
Successful innovations in education result in a cycle of transformations (Huberman & Miles, 1984). These adjustments include:
Changes in user perceptions and practices;
Changes in organisational rules, norms, practices and relationships; and
Changes in values, beliefs and attitudes.
This can only occur over time, making ongoing critical dialogue and analysis by local stakeholders essential to the process of introducing change.
8.4 THE RESEARCH AS CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
Critical dialogue requires a trusting relationship. Only then can the participants be genuine and open. In Kiribati, relationships are particularly important. The methodology employed in this study using individual interviews and focus group discussion was an opportunity to engage in critical dialogue, not only to pursue the research goals, but to further the participants’ understandings and future action. Critical pedagogy in which the participants engage in critical dialogue with the
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 188
researcher regarding inclusive education is an additional outcome for the research; “I appreciate the opportunity to sit with you today and just listening to your questions. I think [they] provide a further understanding especially the importance of looking at this inclusive education” (D).
The researcher then becomes a part of the process (albeit a small part) of critical dialogue concerning inclusive education initiatives. For this study, the researcher could be seen as part of ‘team inclusive education’ rather than an outsider, given the background of involvement with previous inclusive education initiatives and established relationships which preceded this study. As part of the ‘team’, the researcher is established as acting in solidarity with the participants; “Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with whom one is solidary” (Freire, 1970, p. 31). The research, therefore, can be seen as contributing towards a critical pedagogical approach to the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
8.5 CRITICAL DIALOGUE: A WAY FORWARD
This chapter has argued that by engaging stakeholders in critical dialogue, a greater understanding of and commitment to inclusive education principles and programs is developing in Kiribati, although a cynical view would argue that perhaps this is merely adherence to western ideals imposed through Australian Aid programs. In providing programs and advocacy of inclusive education, Australian Aid has provided the impetus for dialogue concerning inclusive education. As stated by Freire (1970), “to surmount oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity” (p. 29). Contradictions, such as the gap between the rhetoric of support and the practicalities of implementation, highlight the limitations in coming to terms with the relevance of inclusive education for Kiribati. Continued critical dialogue is a way forward in generating local commitment to inclusive education and to find local solutions to the contradictions.
Critical pedagogy in action: A case for Australian Aid directed inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati 189
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 190
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions
In conclusion, this chapter reflects on the title of this thesis ‘Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence’ in relation to the two major research questions:
1. How does dependency on foreign aid from Australia determine the course and impact of the inclusive education policy and practices in the developing nation of Kiribati? (Research Question 1 (RQ1) dependency)
2. What are the implications of politics, power relationships and local ownership on the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati? (Research Question 2 (RQ2) ownership/sustainability)
Aid: Dependency on Australian Aid has been the primary determinant of the course and impact of the introduction of inclusive policy and practices in Kiribati to date. The influence exerted by Australian Aid through its experts and consultants can be seen as advocating for powerless disadvantaged groups such as children with disabilities. Control by the external education project (KEF) raises questions of imposed values and agendas by the aid provider. As long as the solutions to the challenges of inclusive education are viewed as coming solely from Australian Aid, local participation and ownership will be limited. In the case of Kiribati, ownership of inclusive education initiatives seems to belong to the Australian Aid funded KEF education project and not the Ministry of Education.
Attitudes: Ownership and sustainability of inclusive education depends on positive attitudes towards inclusion (including inclusion of children with disabilities) at the Government of Kiribati, Ministry of Education, school and community levels. There seems to be a developing commitment to inclusive education at the MoE administrative and to some extent at the school level. However, there is a gap between this commitment and implementation. Community attitudes towards inclusion are a societal issue confronting the challenge of implementation in schools. Each school community will need to address these issues in its own way.
Ambivalence: Ownership of inclusive education policy and practices depends on resolving conflicts associated with inclusive education. Conflicts will only be
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 191
addressed through local ownership of finding solutions for the issues through open critical dialogue. These conflicts are explored in 9.3.
Each of the terms Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence are further discussed below. Following this discussion, the research contribution and limitations of this study are discussed and recommendations made for the continuing development of inclusive education and for further research in Kiribati.
9.1 AID
In Kiribati there is a contradiction between nominal local commitment to inclusive education principles and the reliance on Australian Aid funding and direction by the Kiribati Education Facility (KEF), reflecting particularly the power gap between the managing contractor and the Ministry of Education. Small island nations with few resources, such as Kiribati, may always be dependent on foreign aid. There is little alternative. Hence, the donor will want more control over how the money is spent as it becomes an ongoing commitment. The participants questioned the sustainability of inclusive education initiatives if Australian Aid was reduced or ceased; “Looking at this point in time it will all be collapsing. Perhaps it will be like 5 to 10 years before we can stand on our own two feet” (M1). This may be a somewhat over optimistic view and needs to be seen in the context of Kiribati’s economic position as a least developed country with few resources. Aid support for the Kiribati economy and for programs such as inclusive education will be necessary well into the future.
The view of aid provisions and conditions as representing neo-colonialism is a simplistic and out-dated concept. Australia’s aid program is directed by motivations concerning; “national security; self-interest; being a good international citizen; and acting as a regional partner” (Corbett, 2017, p. 144). Funding inclusive education initiatives fall under the category of being a good international citizen in promoting international human rights agendas. A human rights rationale underlying the provision of foreign aid is particularly vulnerable to the fluctuations of local political agendas. For example, in Australian budget estimates, foreign aid is generally the first budget item to be reduced (see 2.3.2).
The ‘Development for All’ (DFAT, 2015) strategy suggests that Australian Aid policy is deliberately exercising its influence (power) to advocate for human rights
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 192
and social justice for people (and children) with disabilities, who are seen as “the region’s most disadvantaged [powerless] group” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009, p. 2). In exercising its power, Australian Aid is “in a position of needing to lead many of the stakeholders at country program level to enable them to understand the rationale and benefits of disability-inclusive development” (Kelly & Wapling, 2012, p. 27). There is a potential conflict with Australian imposed values of disability-inclusion and negative attitudes towards disability within the Kiribati community (see 7.1). It may be argued that it helps broaden the view of the Kiribati community to universal human rights and practices – this is about humanity and not specific cultures. Cultures that have different views on humanity can be shown alternatives which may be then internalised into their own cultural perspectives.
Australian Aid has provided the impetus for the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati and thereby has provided advocacy for disadvantaged children, particularly children with disabilities who have been historically excluded from school. It is unlikely that the Government of Kiribati would have independently supported inclusive education because of factors such as not seeing inclusive education as a priority and concerns about costs. Critical theory would argue that intervention through Australian Aid programs is justified, not because inclusion is a universally held value, but on “the basis of whether [exclusion from school] is oppressive” (McLaren, 2009, p. 74).
Kiribati is highly dependent on Australian Aid for the continued development and sustainability of initiatives such as the implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015). This creates a mindset which makes genuine local ownership of inclusive education difficult to achieve. Implementation of inclusive education is seen as coming from Australian Aid provisions rather than local initiatives. The catalyst for inclusive education initiatives has come from outside but how it is supported and assimilated into Kiribati school communities is the key to sustainability. Australian Aid, through funding inclusive education initiatives, has highlighted a social justice issue, the exclusion of children from school programs, which may have been overlooked. By raising awareness and generating dialogue, local support and commitment can develop to address attitudes and ambivalence which present as barriers to full inclusion in schools. It is unlikely that dialogue and programs regarding inclusive education would have emerged, at
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 193
least in the short-term, without Australian Aid interventions. The long-term sustainability of inclusive education initiatives must be questioned if Australian Aid priorities change and funding is withdrawn.
From the interview data, there was a strong consensus regarding the contribution of Australian Aid has made to the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati; “We must thank Australia because it is the only program which is dealing with this kind of issue in Kiribati” (SE2). The dependency on Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education is summarised by the comment; “It’s contributed a lot. Without Australian Aid where can we be?” (M1).
9.2 ATTITUDES
Values and attitudes are central to inclusive education (Booth, 2005). Negative attitudes towards inclusion by parents, the community and teachers can be major barriers whilst positive attitudes can support inclusive practices. In developed countries, values of human rights, social justice, valuing diversity and positive attitudes towards difference underlie the philosophy of inclusion (Carrington & MacArthur, 2012). In Kiribati, these philosophical concepts are not necessarily embraced. For example the rights of children (and democratic rights generally) are not a major focus, with I-Kiribati people generally accepting their situations (see 6.1.8). Negative attitudes, particularly towards disability, are a predominant viewpoint across the community (see 7.1). The participants in this study tended to see inclusive education as the correct thing to do to address omissions from the past rather than a philosophical stance; “With these new ideas being introduced we just realised we have not done something good for these people” (D).
The individual interviews and focus group discussions indicated unanimous positive attitudes and support for inclusive education. Whilst positive attitudes and support are encouraging, there is a gap between supporting in principle and implementation. These attitudes may be a case of intellectual adherence to international (western) principles which have been imposed through (subtle) indoctrination by the Australian Aid funded education project. To paraphrase Freire (1970), the recipients “begin to respond to the values, the standards, and the goals of the invaders [donors] and come to see their reality with the outlook [values and attitudes] of the invaders [donors] rather than their own” (p. 134). The attitude of the
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 194
donors, as reflected in the Development for All strategy, is to promote the concept of disability-inclusion; “I think our push is to make them [support] inclusive education, to educate a lot more” (D). It can be argued that Australian Aid, through the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati, has enabled educators to see the alternatives of what others are doing internationally. It has given the educators knowledge to better address social justice issues aligned to local needs.
Local ownership of inclusive education needs to build from positive attitudes, particularly by teachers. Without attitudes which embrace diversity, teachers may be resentful that inclusion is being imposed ‘from above’ thus producing negative attitudes towards the concept, and perhaps an attitude of not accepting the student who presents particular challenges. Teachers are powerful role models; “If the children see the teacher being welcoming and caring for this child the other children will do the same” (D). As teachers develop positive attitudes towards student diversity, these attitudes will form the basis of acceptance for future inclusion and sustainability of inclusive values in their schools.
The Australian Aid funded education project has introduced the concept of inclusive education to educators in Kiribati. Conversations around inclusive education by professionals have generated a re-examination of values and attitudes; “It built our awareness and opened our mind and hearts” (D). The dynamic between issues raised through the Australian Aid project and local responses is critical in the continued development of positive attitudes towards inclusive education in Kiribati. Although not specifically examined in this research, there was little evidence from the participants in this study of widespread community attitudes supporting the concept of inclusive education. Ultimately, inclusive education initiatives may contribute towards changing societal values and attitudes towards a more inclusive society.
9.3 AMBIVALENCE
Ambivalence towards inclusive education may create tensions within and between stakeholders. These tensions include:
Imposition of Australian Aid values and agendas versus local ownership. Whilst acceptance of international values may develop locally through exposure to Australian Aid funded inclusive education initiatives, genuine
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 195
local ownership will not emerge until inclusive education is seen as relevant to local needs and values;
Government policy rhetoric versus practical implementation. The Government of Kiribati does not have the capacity to implement the rhetoric of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy without Australian Aid funding at this stage. The policy may be empty rhetoric to conform to international values and expectations;
Professional support for the concept of inclusive education versus the challenges of implementation, particularly lack of government funding. Developing professional support for the concept of inclusive education will be frustrated by lack of funding for implementation. Inclusive education is just one of many challenges confronting the education system in Kiribati and, as such, may remain a low priority;
Teacher support for the concept versus the reality of under-resourced classrooms, with teachers struggling to provide the basics of education. Overworked and under-resourced teachers may be resistant to including some students, such as children with disabilities, because of fears that they will not be able to cater for their needs and that the extra challenge will add to their workload (Le Fanu, 2013, epistemological criteria);
Parent attitudes that school is not important versus strategies to increase enrolments and attendance (particularly for children with disabilities). Parent attitudes can only be addressed through support and advocacy regarding the importance and relevance of education for their children;
Community attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities versus government and professional support. Community attitudes need to be supportive of inclusion of all children in schools. This requires a change in values to embrace inclusion. Synthesis of the values of inclusion with I- Kiribati community values will be a slow process before genuine local ownership develops;
The right of all children to access education versus the parent’s right to keep their child at home. Rights are generally not being seen as an entitlement in Kiribati. Unlike the west, in traditional societies the parent is responsible for
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 196
their children. Increasing the western ethos is being promoted globally and hence the State needs to do more to demonstrate that responsibility.
These issues cannot be left to be addressed through Australian Aid funded and directed programs alone. Local dialogue needs to address these issues in order to generate local solutions to overcome barriers to inclusion in schools.
Avoidance of conflict is endemic in Kiribati. Issues concerning inclusive education may be passively ignored; “The people have a ‘hard ear’. If they don’t want to hear then they just ignore it” (SE1); “If an outsider says something 3 or 4 times but I know they need 100 times before change because this is our culture” (D). The role of government is not seen as an important factor in people’s lives. Critical dialogue has been an effective strategy employed by the Australian Aid project in raising awareness and changing attitudes towards inclusive education (see 8.1). This dialogue has been restricted to a small circle of local professionals and some community consultation. Education reform and cultural change is a slow process.
9.4 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
This study provides an exploratory case study of the dynamics of Australian Aid funded programs in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. A case study provides a rich picture of the dynamics of the people, processes and impact rather than a focus on specific elements such as outputs and outcomes (Law, Valiente-Riedl & Celermajer, 2012). As such, the findings can be used to compare strategies used by Aid funded projects in other developing countries to assess broad impact, particularly in Pacific Island Nations where Australian Aid funding for inclusive education has been a particular catalyst. Features such as the local employment of the Gender and Social Inclusion Coordinator and the critical dialogue generated through the development of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy, and (to some extent) community consultation, can be assessed in terms of strategies for generating local commitment towards inclusive education. This comparative assessment can inform Australian Aid policy and programs as well as programs which promote inclusive education in developing countries across the world. This study also provides Australian Aid options to review its approach to the delivery of programs, including the employment and function of expatriate advisers, management by contractors instead of direct management by the recipient country
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 197
and engaging local stakeholders in the design and implementation of aid funded projects. As an exploratory in-depth case study, the research informs inclusive education research worldwide, particularly the dynamics of inclusive education in the early stages of development.
The voice of local stakeholders is the crucial factor in determining the impact of inclusive education initiatives. Through engaging local stakeholders in critical dialogue, the challenges of inclusive education can be examined and local solutions generated to address these challenges rather than a reliance on external support to identify and resolve these issues. This study illustrates the process of engagement in critical dialogue which can be incorporated in future studies.
9.5 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Qualitative research is difficult to generalise to other settings given the focus on unpacking the particular issues that apply to that particular setting and that are significant to the actors in that setting. Given the qualitative methodology used in this study, the data were constructed from a “few cases and small samples” (Mayring, 2007, p. 1) which makes generalisation difficult. In this study the research also depended, to some extent, on the researcher’s previous contribution to inclusive education in Kiribati, and the researcher’s established relationship with the participants, which also limits generalisability.
There was a potential difficulty with the interviewees providing what they think the researcher wants to hear as the ‘right’ answer, rather than what they really think. This was addressed through the researcher’s rapport with the participants and acceptance of the responses of the interviewees’ responses ‘on face value’ by the researcher. Internal consistency between interview responses validated the responses to a certain extent.
The researcher needed to be particularly sensitive to the limitations of focus group research data. For this study the data may not reflect a true picture of attitudes towards aid and inclusive education, given the history of dependency of the Kiribati education system on Australian Aid and education philosophy. The focus groups may have restricted discussion to what they think the researcher or fellow participants expected to hear, as a consensus approach is very much a feature of Kiribati society. This was addressed, to a certain extent, by stimulating and
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 198
encouraging open discussion, taking into account local factors and challenging thinking concerning inclusive education. For example the fact that Focus Group 1 was from a pilot school for inclusive education influenced the participants’ enthusiasm and knowledge in the discussion. This factor was taken into account in the analysis (see 8.2).
As the focus of this study is only on one country, generalisations as to the role of foreign aid in introducing inclusive education policy and practices in Pacific Island nations or developing countries across the world cannot be made without comparing data across developing countries. As discussed in 9.4 this study provides an exploratory case study which can be used as the basis for future comparisons. The dependability of this study, as it applies to Kiribati, was achieved through multiple methods of data collection: document analysis, individual interviews and focus group responses.
This study cannot be seen as classic Freirian research as there was limited local input into the design, development, implementation or analysis of the research. Some aspects of Freire’s approach were incorporated into the research (see 4.5). Local indigenous scholars should lead future research (see below).
9.6 CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT
This section discusses future directions for inclusive education in Kiribati. Based on the findings of this research, recommendations are provided towards this future. These recommendations include support for schools, government budget allocation for inclusive education and identification of needs of children with disabilities. Suggestions for future research by local indigenous researchers are also provided.
Inclusive education in Kiribati has come a long way in a few short years since this researcher first encountered the dilemma of what I saw as the lack of pre- requisite conditions for the introduction of inclusive education initiatives. In 2013 there was little understanding or support for the concept of inclusive education. As a recently retired teacher asked; “Before I retired we didn’t hear about this inclusive education and now it’s been put in. Who initiated this?” (FG1.2). Since 2013, the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy (Government of Kiribati, 2015) has been developed and endorsed by the Government of Kiribati and commitment to inclusive
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 199
education principles acknowledged, particularly at the administrative level and by teachers.
Implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy is the immediate priority as noted in the Education Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2019 (Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2016) which includes the priority ‘Effective implementation of the [Kiribati] Inclusive Education Policy’ as one of its nine goals. This goal commits the Ministry of Education particularly to the inclusion of children with disabilities.
Future revision of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy should be based on a local view of inclusion to better reflect local community values and aspirations, rather than adherence to Australian imposed concepts of inclusive education. At this stage this would be difficult to achieve, as community awareness raising in support of the principles of inclusion is only slowly developing and is based on conformity to international concepts. Policy revision could be developed from scratch by local stakeholders and written in Te Kiribati (the official language Kiribati) and not as an English language translation.
The participants placed a priority on teacher training and facilities, particularly while Australian Aid funding is available to support these activities; “I’ve been thinking that perhaps while we have the donors let’s try to work on the facilities and training of teachers for inclusive education so when the donor departs we’ll still have the facilities and trained teachers already” (M2). This is forward looking thinking for sustainability of inclusive education. For example, inclusive education workshops continue to be delivered to all current teachers through the Australian Aid funded Teacher Development Program (TPD). In 2016 Kiribati Teachers College introduced an inclusive education course into the pre-service teacher training program24.
The major issue is that, at this stage, continued development of inclusive education is tied to Australian Aid funding and direction. With the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy and Education Sector Strategic Plan (2016-2019), direction has been set at least in the short-term (although both these documents are significantly influenced by Australian adviser input). Dependency on funding from Australian Aid to support inclusive education initiatives will remain well into the future. Inclusive
24 The researcher assisted with the development of this course
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 200
education as a line item in future government budgets will provide a financial commitment for the future.
Support for schools and their teachers and communities is essential. As a pilot school, the responses by Focus Group 1 regarding strategies to cater for student learning diversity indicate good practical applications. This practical application needs to be duplicated across all Kiribati schools including the outer islands. Participants indicated that inclusive education would continue to develop and be sustained for the future; “It can be achieved but through funding if we have the right schools and appropriate resources to make it worthwhile. If it’s all there everything will be realistic” (M3).
Recommendations
1. Continued roll out of implementation of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy.
2. Support for schools including teacher training and direct classroom support for teachers (e.g. resource teachers).
3. Ongoing parent support programs to be provided on each island.
4. Community awareness programs to be expanded and include local school initiated consultations.
5. Increased funding to support inclusive education, including Australian Aid funding and Government of Kiribati budget allocation.
6. Increased Ministry of Education direct management of inclusive education initiatives.
7. Future rewriting of the Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy by local stakeholders to reflect local values and aspirations. Te-Kiribati language be used in developing and writing the policy.
8. Identification of needs including identification and programs for children currently not attending school (including children with disabilities).
9. Australian Aid funded projects develop and primarily employ local consultants to utilise local expertise.
10. Australian Aid re-examine the project approach to aid delivery.
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 201
Future Research
Local researchers should be encouraged to investigate issues regarding the implementation of inclusive education. Local researchers are needed to provide the local perspective. These issues could include:
Impact of inclusive education initiatives;
Identification of children not attending school and students requiring individual support;
Teacher needs to implement inclusive education;
Community attitudes and evaluation of awareness raising;
Government funding for inclusive education;
Evaluation of the pilot school project;
Features of effective inclusive education in Kiribati;
Quality education and inclusive education.
Training of local researchers in research methods (but not necessarily methods based on western research methodology) may be required to generate meaningful data to address local need.
9.7 A FINAL WORD
It has been a privilege and exciting to be involved with inclusive education in Kiribati. The participants in this research, as stakeholders, represent a local leadership group in directing inclusive education towards the future. Their responses during this research indicate that the continuing development of inclusive education in Kiribati is in good, knowledgeable hands.
"Kam rabwa ao kam na tekeraoi"25
25 "Kam na Tekeraoi" means all the best, good luck, well wishes, best of luck etc. All together it means thank you very much and all the best. (L.Kumon, personal communication, January 2, 2015)
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 202
9.8 STOP PRESS
The Kiribati Ministry of Education has recently approved to fund an Inclusive Education position from their own budget (C. Ellickson, personal communication, 24 October, 2017).
Chapter 9: Aid, Attitudes and Ambivalence: Conclusions 203
References
ACFID (2011). Myths busted: The facts about Australian Aid. August, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.alws.org.au/media/wysiwyg/about-us/why-trust- alws/myths-busted-the-facts-about-australian-aid.pdf Adebayo, A.S., & Ngwenya, K. (2015). Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education at Elulakeni cluster primary schools in Shiselweni District of Swaziland. European Scientific Journal, 11(13), 246-261. Retrieved from http://paperity.org/p/72940164/challenges-in-the-implementation-of-inclusive- education-at-elulakeni-cluster-primary Afisi, O.T. (2017). Neocolonialism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/neocolo Akinci, M. (2017). Inequality and economic growth: Trickle-down effect revisited. Development Policy Review, 00, 1-17, Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12214 Aid Watch (2010). Technical Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.aidwatch.org.au/stories/technical-assistance/ Aid Watch (2011). Does Foreign Aid do more harm than good. Retrieved from http://www.aidwatch.org.au/stories/does-foreign-aid-do-more-harm-than-good/ Aid Watch (2012). Rich Companies Bag $1.8bn in Foreign Aid. Retrieved from http://www.aidwatch.org.au/stories/rich-companies-bag-1-8bn-in-foreign-aid/ Aid Watch (2013). Contractors: Value for Money or a Drain on Aid Resources. Retrieved from http://www.aidwatch.org.au/stories/contractors-good-value-for- money-or-drain-on-aid-resources/ Ainscow, M. & Miles, S. (2008). Making Education for All inclusive: Where to next? Prospects, 38(1), 15-34. doi:10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0 Altamirino, A. (2016). Where is Paulo Freire? The International Communication Gazette, 78 (7), 677-683. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1748048516655722?journalCod e=gazb Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Ministry of Education, New Zealand Government. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959 Armstrong, A.C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive Education: International Policy and Practice. London: Sage. Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A.C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: by choice or by chance. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29–39.
References 204
Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive Education in the Globalization Age: The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In Mitchell, D. (Ed.) Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Evaluating Old and New International Perspectives (pp. 37-62). London: Routledge. AusAid (2009). Improving the Provision of Basic Education Services to the Poor in Papua New Guinea. Canberra: AusAid. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/aid/how-we-measure-performance/ode/Documents/improving- provision-basic-education-services-poor-png-case-study-may-2009.PDF Australian Government (1986). Disability Services Act. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00103 Australian Government (2013). Accessibility Design Guide: Universal Design Principles for Australia’s Aid Program: AusAid. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/accessibility-design- guide.pdf Baliamoune-Lutz, M. (2017). Foreign aid effectiveness. In K.A. Reinert (Ed.) Handbook of Glogalisation and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Company. Ballard, K. (2012). Inclusion and Social Justice: teachers as agents of change. In Carrington, S. and MacArthur, J. (Eds.) Teaching in Inclusive school communities (pp.65-87). Milton, Qld Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press. Retrieved from http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carlos/607/readings/bauman.pdf Barton, L., & Armstrong, F. (2007). Policy, Experience and Change: Cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education. Dordrecht: Springer. Bauer, P. (1972). Dissent on Development: Studies and debates in development economics. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Berg, B.L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Bishop, J. (2012, March 3). Julie Bishop now and then on bidding for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-then-and- now-on-bidding-for-a-seat-on-the-united-nations-security-council-20150929- gjxqax.html Bishop, J. (2014). Opening address, 2014 Australasian Aid and International Development Policy workshop. Retrieved from http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2014/jb_sp_140213.aspx?ministeri d=4 Bohman, J., (2016). Critical Theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/critical-theory/
References 205
Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (2014). Jürgen Habermas. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/habermas/ Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T. (2005). Keeping the Future Alive: Putting Inclusive Values into Education and Society? Paper presented at North-South Dialogue Conference, Delhi, March 2005. Retrieved from www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/future_alive.doc Booth, T. (2011). The Name of the Rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education. Prospects, 4, 303-331. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9200-z Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027. Bray, M. (1993). Education and the Vestiges of Colonialism: self-determination, neocolonialism and dependency in the South Pacific. Comparative Education, 29(3), 333-348. Brisenden, S, (1986). Independent Living and the Medical Model of Disability. Disability, Handicap and Society, 1(2), 173-178. Retrieved from http://www.cilt.ca/documents%20of%20the%20cilt%20website/ind_living_med ical_model.pdf Brown, R.C. (2005). Inclusive Education in Middle Eastern Countries. In Mitchell, D. (Ed.), Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Evaluating Old and New International Perspective (pp. 253-278). London: Routledge. Brundrett, M., de Cuevas, & Anderson, R. (2008). Setting an Agenda for the Development of the Next Generation of School Leaders: A Commitment to Social Justice or Simply Making up the Numbers? School Leadership & Management, 28(3), 247-260. Bryant, G. (2013). Budget Games as Foreign Aid Scrimped, Misused and Diverted. Retrieved from http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/16/budget-games-aid-being- scrimped-misused-and-diverted/?wpmp_switcher=mobile Byrne, D., & Ragin, C.C. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Method. London: Sage. Cappa, C., Petrowski,N., & Njelesani, J. (2015). Navigating the landscape of child disability measurement: A review of available data collection instruments. European Journal of Disability Research, 9, 317-330. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Navigating-the-landscape- of-child-disability-measurement_247-1.pdf Carrington, S., & MacArthur, J. (2012). Teaching in Inclusive school communities. Milton, Qld Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Carrington, S., & Duke, J. (2014). Learning about inclusion from developing countries using the Index for Inclusion. In C. Forlin, & T. Loreman (Eds.) Measuring Inclusive Education (pp.189-204). UK:Emerald Group Publishing.
References 206
Carrington, S., Pilay, H., Tone, M., Nickerson,J., Duke, J., Eisbaea, B., Malefoasi, A. and Fa’asala, C.J. (2016). A case study of culturally informed disability- inclusive education policy development in the Solomon Islands. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(5), 495-506. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1218952 Chabbott, C. (2014). Salamanca as a World Conference: The role of international development organizations. In Kiuppis, F. & Hausstatter, S. (Eds) Inclusive Education Twenty Years after Salamanca, pp.9-21. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Charema, J. (2007). From special schools to inclusion: The way forward for developing countries south of the Sahara. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 8(1) 88-97. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ804729 Coffey International (2013). KEIP Phase 2 2014 KEF Annual Work Plan. Unpublished. Corbett, J. (2017). Australia’s Foreign Aid Dilemma: Humanitarian aspirations confront democratic legitimacy. Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon: Routledge Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cranston, B. (2015). An island destroyed: From a tropical paradise to a ghostly mining town, SBS News. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/an- island-destroyed-from-tropical-paradise-to-ghostly-mining-town Crossman, A. (2018). Dependency Theory. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from http://sociology.about.com/od/D_Index/g/Dependency-theory.htm Dabla-Norris, E., Kochhar, K., Suphaphiphat, N., Ricka, F., & Tsounta, E. (2015). Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf Darder, A. (1991). Culture and Power in the Classroom: A Critical Foundation for Bicultural Education. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A Pedagogy of Love. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Davies, R. (2017). Factcheck: What are the facts on Australia’s foreign aid spending. The Conversation, 31 January, 2017. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-australias-foreign- aid-spending- 71146?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conv ersation%20for%20January%2031%202017%20 Democracy and Governance Network (2003). Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire -An Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.comminit.com/democracy- governance/content/pedagogy-oppressed-paulo-freire-analysis
References 207
Denzin, N.K., & Giardina, M.D. (2010). Qualitative inquiry and human rights. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N.K., & S. Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. de Renzio, P. (2016). Accountability dilemmas in foreign aid. Working paper Overseas Development Organisation, August 2016. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10805.pdf DFAT (2008). Port Moresby Declaration Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) website. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/development-assistance/partnerships/Pages/port- moresby-declaration.aspx DFAT (2009a). Kiribati-Australia Partnership for Development. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/development-assistance/ partnerships/Pages/kiribati.aspx DFAT (2009b). Development for all: Towards a Disability Inclusive Australian Aid Program 2009-2014. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about- us/publications/Pages/development-for-all-towards-a-disability-inclusive- australian-aid-program-2009-2014.aspx DFAT (2015). Development for All 2015 -2020: Strategy for Strengthening Disability-Inclusive Development in Australia’s Aid Program. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/development-for-all-2015- 2020.aspx DFAT (2016). Aid program performance report: Samoa. September, 2016. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/samoa-appr-2015- 16.pdf DFAT (2017a). Development Assistance in the Pacific. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/development-assistance/Pages/development- assistance-in-the-pacific.aspx DFAT (2017b). Overview of Australia’s aid program to Kiribati. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/geo/kiribati/development-assistance/Pages/development- assistance-in-kiribati.aspx DFAT (2017c). Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/pacer/pages/pacific- agreement-on-closer-economic-relations-pacer-plus.aspx
References 208
DFAT (2017d). Management response to recommendations from the Samoa Inclusive Education Demonstration Program Evaluation. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/samoa-inclusive-education- demonstration-program-evaluation-mgt-resp.pdf Ditcher, T. (2003). Despite good intentions: Why development assistance in the third world has failed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Duke, J., Pillay, H., Tones, M., Nickerson, J., Carrington, S., & Ieolu, A. (2016). A case for rethinking inclusive education policy creation in developing countries. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1204226 Easterly, W. (2002). The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid. Journal of Policy Reform 5, 223-250. Easterly, W. (2006). The white man’s burden: Why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin Press. Ebersold, S. & Meijer, C. (2016). Financing inclusive education: Policy challenges, issues and trends. In Watkins. A, & Meijer, C. (Eds) Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in bridging the policy-practice gap (pp. 37-62). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Eleweke, C.J., & Rodda M. (2002) The challenge of enhancing inclusive in developing countries. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(2), 113- 126. doi:10.1080/13603110110067190 Ellerman, D. (2005). Helping people help themselves: From the World Bank to an alternative philosophy of development assistance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ellickson, C. (2015) Lessons Learnt: Kiribati. KEF Gender and Social Inclusion Mentor Report. Unpublished. Emmott, S. (2014). Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP) Evaluation Report. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about- us/publications/Documents/kiribati-education-improvement-program- evaluation-report-sept-2014.pdf Esteva, G. (2010). Development. In Sachs, W. (Ed.), The Development Dictionary (pp. 1-23). London: Zed Books. Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92 Financial Times Lexicon (2017). Definition of Globilisation. Retrieved from http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=globalisation Fletcher,T. (2005). Future Directions. In Mitchell, D. (Ed.), Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Evaluating Old and New International Perspectives (pp. 279-284). London: Routledge.
References 209
Flitton, D. (2014). Immoral aid cuts see Australia hit a record low for generosity to world's poor. Sydney Morning Herald, December 17, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/immoral-aid-cuts-see- australia-hit-a-record-low-for-generosity-to-worlds-poor-20141216-128q2k.html Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2014) International Pespectives: What can be known about effective schools? In McLeskey, J., Waldron, L., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, B. (Eds). Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice. Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1984). The order of discourse. In Shapiro, M. (Ed.) Language and Politics. London: Blackwell, 108-138. Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppeler, D., & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive Education for students with disabilities. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY). Retrieved from https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command /download_file/ id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_students_with_disability_- _A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf Forlin, C. (2015). Forward in Pillay,H., Carrington,S., Duke,J., Suhbas, S., Heeraman, J., Tones,M., & Mani,R., Mobilising School and Community Engagement to Implement Disability-Inclusive Education through Action Research: Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. QUT Monograph. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books. Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum. Fullan, M. (2010). ‘Positive pressure’. In Hargraves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds). Second International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Springer, 119-130. Geddes, W.H. (1989). Vernacular frames of thought and report writing. In Perry, J. (Ed.) Doing Fieldwork: Eight personal accounts of social research. (pp. 109- 134) Sydney: UNSW Press. Giroux, H.A. (2012). Can democratic education survive in a neoliberal society? Truthout. ‘Op Ed’, October 16, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.truth- out.org/opinion/item/12126-can-democratic-education-survive-in-a-neoliberal- society Government of Kiribati (2013). Our Children, Our Schools, Our Future. Concept Paper: Inclusive Education and Community Engagement: Establishing ‘homes in MoE for these key areas of the ESSP. Ministry of Education. Unpublished. Government of Kiribati (2014a). Education for All 2015: National Review Report: Kiribati. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002314/231490e.pdf Government of Kiribati (2014b). Digest of Education Statistics 2014. Ministry of Education. Government of Kiribati (2015). Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy. Ministry of Education. Unpublished.
References 210
Government of Kiribati (2016). Kiribati Government Budget 2017. Retrieved from http://www.mfed.gov.ki/sites/default/files/Government%20of%20Kiribati%202 017%20Budget.pdf Gibson, S., & Hayes, J. (2009). Perspectives on Participation and Inclusion. London: Continuum. Grech, S. (2012). Disability, Communities of Poverty and the Global South. In Azzopardi, A. and Grech, S. (Eds.), Inclusive Communities: A Critical Reader (pp. 69-84). Rotterdam: Sense. Greenstein, A. (2016). Radical Inclusive Education, London and New York: Routledge. Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hanson, J. (2013) Educational developers as researchers: the contribution of insider research to enhancing understanding of role, identity and practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(4), 388-398, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2013.806220 Hardy, I., & Woodcock, S. (2015). Inclusive education policies: discourses of difference, diversity and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 141-164. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2014.908965 Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition. London: Sage. Hill, S.B. (1996). Reader: Qualitative Research Design SE828A. University of Western Sydney, College of Arts School of Education. Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical Theory. New York: Seabury Press. Howes, S. (2013). A Framework for Understanding Aid Effectiveness Determinants, Strategies and Tradeoffs. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(1), 58-72. doi:10.1002/app5.15 Howes, S. & Pryke, J. (2013). Benchmarking Australian Aid: Results from the 2013 Australian Aid stakeholder survey. Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/publications/reports/Benchmarking-Australian- aid/Benchmarking-Australian-aid-results-from-the-2013-Australian-aid- stakeholder-survey-full-report.pdf Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1984). Innovation close up: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum. Hulme, D. (2016) Should Rich Nations Help the Poor? Cambridge: Polity Press Hursh, D. (2000). Neoliberalism and the control of teachers, students and learning: The rise of standards, standardization and accountability. Cultural Logic, 4 (1) Fall 2000. Retrieved from https://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/hursh
References 211
IEWG (2013). Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy 2014 - 2018 (Draft). Unpublished. James, E. (2016). The professional humanitarian and the downsides of professionalization. Disasters, 40(2) 185-206.. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1111/disa.12140/ epdf Jolly, T., & Rokete, R. (2012). Draft Operational Research on Disability and Inclusive Education in Kiribati. Kiribati Education Improvement Program. Unpublished. Jones, P., & Lea, J.P. (2007). What has happened to urban reform in the Island Pacific? Some Lessons from Kiribati and Samoa. Pacific Affairs, 80(3), 473- 491. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40023394 Kahn, M., Kiste. R.C., & Fischer, J.L. (2017). Micronesian Culture. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved https://www.britannica.com/place/Micronesia-cultural- region-Pacific-Ocean Kalyanpur, M. (2011). Paradigm or paradox: Education for All and the inclusion of children with disabilities in Cambodia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1053-1071. Kelly, L., & Wapling, L. (2012). AusAid Development for all strategy mid-term review. Retrieved from http://aid.dfat.gov.au/aidissues/did/Documents/dfa- mtr.pdf Kidd, R., & Byram, M. (1982). Demystifying Pseudo-Freirian Development: A case description and analysis of Laedza Batanani. Canadian Journal of Developmental Studies, 3(2), 271-289. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02255189.1982.9670035 Kincheloe, J.L., and Berry, K. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. London: Open University Press. Kiribati Education Facility (2013a). KEIP Phase 2 2013 Annual Plan. Unpublished. Kiribati Education Facility (2013b). Causes of Absenteeism. Unpublished paper tabled at IEWG Meeting April 22, 2013. Kiribati Education Improvement Program (2015). Phase 3: Concept Note. Unpublished. Kiribati Education Improvement Program (2016). Phase 3: Investment design document. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications /Documents/kiribati-education-improvement-program-phase3-design-doc.pdf Kiribati Ministry of Education (2012a). National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (NCAF). Unpublished. Kiribati Ministry of Education (2012b). Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2012-2015. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Kiribati/Kiribati-ESSP_Education- Sector-Strategic-Plan_2012-15.pdf
References 212
Kiribati Ministry of Education (2013). School Improvement Plan Standards (SIP). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3FyQc2VXhGTOGlZQ2piU3N4RUk/view Kiribati Ministry of Education (2016) Education Sector Strategic Pan 2016 – 2019 Final Draft. Unpublished. Kiribati National Statistics Office (2015) 2015 Population and Housing Census Volume 1: Management Report and Basic Tables. Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from http://www.mfed.gov.ki/sites/default/files/2015%20Population%20Census%20 Report%20Volume%201%28final%20211016%29.pdf Kiribati Tourism (2013). Kiribati for travellers: Language and culture. Retrieved from http://www.kiribatitourism.gov.ki/practicalinformation/languageculture Klees, S.J. (2010). Aid, Development and Education. Current Issues in Comparative Education Special Symposium Issue, 13(1), 7-28. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ934760.pdf Kozleski, E. and Siuty, M. (2016) The complexities of inclusive education: How cultural histories shape the ways teachers respond to multiple forms of diversity. In Petty, S, and Shaffer, S, (Eds). Equity-Centered Capacity Building: Essential approaches for excellence & sustainable school system transformation. Retrieved from https://capacitybuildingnetwork.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/eccbn_volume_fe b2016_final.pdf Kothari, U. (2005). Authority and Expertise: The professionalisation of international development and the ordering of dissent. Antipode, 37(3), 425-446. Kress, T.M. (2011). Inside the ‘thick wrapper’ of critical pedagogy and research, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 261-266. doi:10.1080/09518398.2011.569768 Law, A., Valiente-Riedl, E., & Celermajer, D. (2012). Measuring Social Change: Principles to Guide the Assessment of Human-Rights Approaches to Development. ACFID Research in Development Series Report 5. Retrieved from https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/Measuring-Social- Change.pdf Le Fanu, G. (2013). Reconceptualising inclusive education in international development. In Tikly, L. and Barrett, A.M. (Eds.), Education Quality and Social Justice in the Global South: Challenges for policy, practice and research. (pp. 40-56). London: Routledge. Le Fanu, G. (2014). International development, disability, and education: Towards a capabilities-focused discourse and praxis. International Journal of Educational Development 38, 69–79. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059314000303 Lei, P. & Meyers, J. (2011). Making the grade? A review of donor commitment and action on inclusive education for disabled children, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1169-1185, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2011.555064
References 213
Lewis, I. (2008). How inclusive are national education policies and plans. EENET Enabling Education, 12, 8. Retrieved from http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Enabling%20Education%2012%202008 .pdf Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive Education Politics and Policymaking. London: Continuum Liasidou, A. (2015). Inclusive Education and the issue of change: Theory, policy and pedagogy. Basingsow. UK: Palgrave Macmillan Lin, J. & Wang, Y. (2017) Going beyond aid: Development for structural transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Luke, A. (2007). Teacher Education and Globilisation: blending Pacific pasts and futures. In Puamau, P. (ed.) Pacific Voices: Teacher Education on the Move The PRIDE Project Pacific Education Series No.3 2007, Suva, University of the South Pacific (pp. 13-36). Retrieved from http://www.paddle.usp.ac.fj/collect/paddle/index/assoc/pride042.dir/doc.pdf MacQueen, N. (2014). Colonialism. [Routledge electronic books]. doi:10.4324/9781315834412 Mandela, N. (2007). Launch of the Nelson Mandela Institute 2007. Retrieved from http://www.mandelainstitute.org.za/mandela-and-education.php Mandela, N. (2000). Speech on receiving the Freedom Award from the National Civil Rights Museum. Retrieved from http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS91 9&txtstr=22&percnt Martin, L. (2017). Aid groups slam reports of budget cuts. The Australian, May 8, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/no- more-cuts-to-foreign-aid-labor/news-story/fb77fd28ce4fe2ea30095000bddfbc04 Mathunu, J. (2011). A critique of modernisation and dependency theories in Africa: Critical assessment. African Journal of History and Culture, 3(5), 65-72. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1381858116_Matunhu.pdf McConkey, R. & Bradley, A. (2010). Promoting inclusive education in low-income countries. In Timmons, V. & Walsh, P. (Eds) A long walk to school. Global perspectives on inclusive education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. McCormick, A. (2011). Some partners are more equal than others: EFA and civil society in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 10(2), 54-70. McDonald, L. & Tufue-Dolgoy, R. (2013). Moving forwards, sideways or backwards? Inclusive education in Samoa. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(3), 270-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2013.812187
References 214
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical Pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M.P. Baltodano., & R.D. Torres (Eds.) The Critical Pedagogy Reader (pp. 185- 210). New York: Routledge. Mannay, D. (2010). Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10, 91–111. Mayo, P. (2013). Echoes from Freire for a Critically Engaged Pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury. Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitative orientated research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/291/641 Miles, M. (2007). International strategies for disability-related work in developing countries: Historical, modern and critical reflection. Independent Living Institute. Retrieved from http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles200701.html Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Source Book (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Miles, S., Lene, D., & Merumeru, L. (2014). Making sense of inclusive education in the Pacific Region. Childhood 21(3), 339-353. doi:10.1177/0907568214524458 Miles, S. & Singal, N. (2009). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education. 14(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1080/13603110802265125 Minow, M. (1985). Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special education. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(2), 157-211. Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference: inclusion, exclusion and American Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mitchell, D. (2005). Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.action? docID=198466 Mitchell, D. (2015). Inclusive education is a multi-faceted concept. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(1) 9-30. Retrieved from https://eric-ed- gov.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?id=EJ1128952 Mountz, A. (2009). The Other. In Gallaher, C., Dahlman, T.C., Gilmartin, M., Mountz, A. & Shirlow, P. (Eds). Key Concepts in Political Geography. London: Sage. Moyn, S. (2014). A Powerless Companion: Human rights in the age of neoliberalism. Law and Contemporary Problems, 77(147), 147-169.
References 215
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Narayanasamy, T. (2013). Disentangling Aid, Trade, Diplomacy and Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/comment- disentangling-aid-trade-diplomacy-and-poverty Narayanasamy, T. (2014). There are Problems with Foreign Aid but Bishop has solved none of them. Retrieved from http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/25/there-are-problems-with-foreign-aid-but- bishop-has-solved-none-of-them Nastios, A. (2010). The Clash of the Counter-Bureaucracy and Development. Center for Global Development Essay, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/publication/clash-counter-bureaucracy-and-development Nees, F.V., Abma, T., Jonsson, H., & Deeg, D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative research: meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 313–316. Published online Nov 19, 2010. doi:10.1007/s10433-010-0168-y Nguyen, P.M., Elliot, J.G., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2009). Neocolonialism in education: Cooperative learning in an Asian context. Comparative Education, 45(1), 109-130. Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability. London: Routledge. Norwich, B. (2014). Recognising value tensions that underlie problems in inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 495-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.963027 Odagu, D. (2016). Historiographic Reconsideration of Colonial Education in Africa: Domestic Forces in the Early Expansion of English Schooling in Northern Igboland, 1890-1930. History of Education Quarterly ; Urbana, 56(2), 241-272 Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1784668405?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid: summon&accountid=13380. OECD (2005). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: OECD. OECD (2011) Busan Partnerships for Effective Development Partnerships. Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf Opertti, R., & Belalcázar, C. (2008). Trends in Inclusive Education at Regional and Interregional Levels: Issues and Challenges. Geneva: IBE. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2009). Forum Disability Ministers’ Meeting Rarotonga, Cook Islands 21-23 October 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Pacific%20 Regional%20Strategy%20on%20Disability.pdf
References 216
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2018). Position of Persons with Disabilities in the Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/strategic- partnerships-coordination/disability/disability-in-pacific.html Phillips, D.A. (2013). Development without Aid. The decline of Development Aid and the Rise of the Diaspora. London: Anthem Press Phillips, D. (2015). Policy Borrowing in Education: Frameworks for analysis. In Zaida, J. (Ed). Second International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9493-0_9 Pillay, H., Carrington, S., Duke, J., Tones, M., Chandra, S., & Heeraman, J. (2015). Mobilising School and Community Engagement to Implement Disability- Inclusive Education through Action Research: Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. QUT Monograph. Puamau, P. and Pene,F. (2009). Inclusive Education in the Pacific. PRIDE Project Pacific Education Series No.6. Rabukawaqa, E. (2007) Opening Address, Regional Workshop on Advancing Inclusive Education in the Pacific, Nadi, Fiji 1-5 October 2007 in Puamau, P. and Pene,F. (2009) F. Inclusive Education in the Pacific. PRIDE Project Pacific Education Series No.6 , 1-8. Rahnema, M. (2010). Participation. In Sachs, W. (Ed.) The Development Dictionary pp. 127-143. London: Zed Books. Rambla, X. (2014). Inclusive Education, Education for All, and the policy cycle. In Kiuppis, F. & Hausstatter, S. (Eds) Inclusive Education Twenty Years after Salamanca, pp.87-101. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Ratner, C. (2002). Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), Art. 16, http://nbn- resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203160 Republic of Kiribati (2013). An Act to Provide for and Regulate Primary and Secondary Education in Kiribati. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/98634/117447/F- 2062926296/KIR98634.pdf Republic of Kiribati (2015). Statement by His Excellency Te Beretitenti (President) Anote Tong, 2015 Sustainable Development Summit 25 September 2015. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20313kiribati.pdf Republic of Korea, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2017). 2017 Busan global partnership forum: Supplement. Retrieved from http://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017-Busan- Global-Partnership-Forum_Supplement.pdf Riddell, A., & Nino-Zarazua, M. (2016) The effectiveness of foreign aid to education. What can be learned? International Journal of Educational Development 48, 23–36. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073805931530016X
References 217
Riddell, R.C. (2007). Does foreign aid really work? New York: Oxford University Press. Riddell, R.C. (2014). Does foreign aid really work? Background paper to the keynote address to the Australasian Aid and International Development Workshop, Canberra February 2014. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/reports/DP-33-Does-foreign-aid%20really-work-an- updated-assessment.pdf Riddell, S. (2015). Developing a critical sociology. In Jones, P. & Danforth, S. (Eds) Foundations of Inclusive Education Research.Bingley UK: Emerald Press Roman, M.T. (2013). Migration, transnationality and climate change in the Republic of Kiribati. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2013. 3585502. Retrieved from proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1512424304?pq- origsite=summon Roth, S. (2015). The Paradoxes of Aid work. Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon: Routledge. Rooney, P. (2005). Researching from the inside - does it compromise validity? A discussion. Level 3, Issue 3, May 2005. Retrieved from http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue3/rooney/rooney4.htm Rose, R. (2010). Understanding inclusion: Interpretations, perspectives and cultures. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion: International responses to developing inclusive education pp. 1-6. Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon: Routledge. Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sachs, J. (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. New York: Columbia University Press. Sailor, W. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. Australasian Journal of Special Education 41(1) pp. 1-17. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1017/jse.2016.12 Saldana, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salifu, I. & Agbenyega, J.S. (2013). Viewing teacher motivation in the Ghana Education Service through a postcolonial lens. Current issues in Education, 16(3). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1218 Sartre, J.P. (1969). Being and Nothingness. London: Methuen Sarvi, J., and Pillay, H. (2015). Innovations in Knowledge and Learning for Competitive Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific. Manila: Asian Development Bank
References 218
Sayed, Y., Soudien, C., & Carrim, N. (2003). Discourses of Inclusion and Exclusion in the South: Limits and Possibilities. Journal of Educational Change, 4, 231– 248. Schein, E.H. (1972). Professional education: Some new directions. New York: McGraw-Hill. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2012). Pacific Island States and the Universal Periodic Review. Retrieved from https://www.upr- info.org/sites/default/files/general- document/pdf/spc_pacific_island_states_and_the_upr_2012.pdf Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shah, A. (2010). A Primer on Neoliberalism. Global Issues. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism Sharma, U. & Desai, I. (2002) Measuring Concerns about Inclusive Education. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5(1), 2-14. Retrieved from http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/asia/resource/z00ap/vol5no1/measure.html Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Shunt, B., & Merumeru, L. (2015). Identifying disability- inclusive indicators currently employed to monitor and evaluate education in the Pacific island countries. Cogent Education 3. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1170754 Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Macanawai, S. (2015). Factors contributing to the implementation of inclusive education in Pacific Island countries. International Journal of Inclusive Education 20(4), 397-412. Published online: 11 Sep 2015. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1081636 Sheehy, K., Nind, M., Rix, J., & Simons, K. (2005). Ethics and research in inclusive education. New York: Routledge Farmer. Sirotnik, K.A., & Oakes, J. (1986). Critical Inquiry for School Renewal: Liberating Theory and Practice. In K.A. Sirotnik, and , J. Oakes (eds.). Critical Perspectives on the Organisation and Improvement of Schooling (pp. 3-83) Boston: Klumer-Nijhoff Publishing. Skrtic, T.M. (1991). Behind Special Education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organisation. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing. Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895-907. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.602534 Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous people. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Sprunt, B. (2014). Efforts to improve disability disaggregation of the Fiji Management Information System. Technical notes prepared for the UN DESA/UNESCO expert group meeting “Disability data and statistics, monitoring and evaluation: the way forward, a disability inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond”, 8 to 10 July 2014, Paris. Retrieved from www.un.org/disabilities/documents/egm2014/Ms.Sprunt.docx
References 219 Srivastava, M., de Boer, J., & Pijl, S.J. (2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: a closer look at its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review, 67(2), 179-195. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.847061 Stainback, S.B., & Stainback, W.C. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: facilitating learning for all student. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Stephens, D. (2007). Culture in Education and Development Principles, Practice and Policies. Bristol Papers in Education, Oxford: Symposium Books. Tacchi, J.A. (2008). Voice and Poverty. QUT Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ Tavola, H., & Whippy, N. (2010), Pacific Children with Disabilities. UNICEF. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/Children_with_disabilities_final_report(2). pdf Tavola, H. (2012). Addressing Inequalities: Disability in Pacific Countries. Retrieved from http://www.addc.org.au/documents/resources/addressing- inequality-disability-in-the-pacific-island-countries_931.pdf Taylor, P. (1993). The Texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham: Open University Press. Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing inclusive education: educational equality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 479-493. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.960911 UNESCAP (2003). Biwako Millennium Framework for Action Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/resources/biwako- millennium-framework-action-towards-inclusive-barrier-free-and-rights-based- society UNESCAP (2012). Incheon Strategy: To make the right real for persons with disability in Asia and the Pacific. United Nations Publication. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/resources/incheon-strategy-%E2%80%9Cmake-right- real%E2%80%9D-persons-disabilities-asia-and-pacific UNESCO (1990). World Declaration on Education for All. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international- agenda/education-for-all/the-efa-movement/jomtien-1990/ UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF . UNESCO (2000). Dakar framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf UNESCO (2004). Embracing Diversity: Toolkit for creating Inclusive, Learning Friendly Environments. Bangkok: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001375/137522e.pdf
References 220
UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: ensuring access to education for all. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf UNESCO (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris, UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf UNESCO (2010). Reaching the Marginalised. EFA Global Monitoring Report: Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNESCO (2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/14. Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNESCO (2015a). Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO publishing. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf UNESCO (2015b). Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon- framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf UNESCO (2017a). Inclusive Education. Retrieved from http://en.unesco.org/themes/inclusion-in-education UNESCO (2017b) A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf UNESCO & UNICEF. (2013). Asia-Pacific End of Decade Notes on Education for All: EFA Goal 2 Universal Primary Education. Bangkok: UNESCO & UNICEF. United Nations (1945). Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf United Nations (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. United Nations (1995). Treaty Collection: Chapter IV Human Rights, 11. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Declarations and Reservations Kiribati. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV- 11&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec United Nations (2002). Millennium Project. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/ United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations. United Nations (2014). List of Least Developed Countries. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/ldc/ldc_list.pdf
References 221
United Nations (2015a). Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Our World - the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html United Nations (2015b). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. Neww York. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%2 0rev%20(July%201).pdf United Nations (2016). Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. General Comment No.4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Vargas-Baron, E. (2014). Foreword: The Salamanca Statement. In Kiuppis, F. & Hausstatter, S. (Eds) Inclusive Education Twenty Years after Salamanca. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Veck, W. (2014). Inclusive pedagogy: ideas from the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 451-464. Wagoner, B. (2008). Making the familiar unfamiliar. Culture & Psychology, 14(4), 467–474 .doi: 10.1177/1354067X08096511 Warnock, M. (2010) Special Education Needs: A new look. In Terzi, I. (ed.) Special Education Needs: A new look. (pp. 32-43). London: Continuum. Watkins. A, & Meijer, C. (2016) Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in bridging the policy-practice gap. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. World Bank (1999). What is Social Capital? Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm World Bank (2002). Participation, Monitoring and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/RHRG0AAGX0 World Bank (2011). Global Monitoring Report: Improving the odds of achieving the MDGs. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2293 World Bank (2014). World Bank Data: Kiribati. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/country/kiribati World Education Forum (2000). EFA 2000 Assessment Country Reports: Kiribati. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002194/219441e.pdf World Fact Book (2015). Kiribati Economy. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html World Health Organisation and World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva: WHO Press. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
References 222
Zevallos, Z. (2011). What is otherness? The Other Sociologist, 14 Oct. Retrieved from https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/ Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B.Wildemuth (Ed.). Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (pp. 308-319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
References 223
Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Comparison of Draft (November, 2013) and Final (March, 2015) Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy
Appendix B: Cross reference EENET and UNESCO Policy Guidelines
Appendix C: Transcripts
C1: Process Coding of Recipient Interview Responses
C2: Values Coding of Donor Interview Responses
C3: Donor Interview Responses
C4: Focus Group1 Discussion
C5: Focus Group 2 Discussion
Appendix D: Values groupings of phrases and sentences containing the words ‘important’, ‘feel’, ‘think’.
Appendix E: Teacher and administrator attitudes towards inclusive education
Appendix F: Teacher Professional Learning Module
Appendix G: Ministry of Education Approval
Appendix H: DFAT Research Approval Email
Appendix I: QUT Ethics Approval Email
Appendix J: Cover Letter for Participants and Consent Forms
Appendices 224
Appendix A: Comparison of Draft (November, 2013) and Final (March, 2015) Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy
KEY
O Deleted from Draft Version
O Addition to Final Version
Kiribati Inclusive Education Policy 2014 - 2018 (Draft)
Background ‘The Ministry of Education has advocated that the education system is for all I- Kiribati children regardless of abilities, gender, interests, geographical location, religious or socio- economic backgrounds of an individual student or groups of students’. Kiribati Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2012-2015 ‘The Kiribati Curriculum applies to all schools in Kiribati, both government and private schools, all students regardless of gender, ethnic group, religion, location, background, ability or disability, all years of formal schooling, from early primary to the completion of secondary school’. National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (NCAF) p4 ‘The school will provide a positive learning and teaching environment that is supportive, safe, stimulating, stable, having regard for the different learning needs of the students according to age, readiness to learn, ability or disability’. (NCAF p43) Purpose The purpose of this policy is: To provide a policy statement, guidelines and strategy to ensure that all schools in Kiribati are accessible to all students To prescribe the implementation strategy across the education system in Kiribati
Definition The process of inclusive education is one in which school systems, strategic plans, policies and practices adapt to include education strategies and teaching materials, methods and environments for a wide and diverse range of children from Years 1 to 13 and their families. Inclusive education seeks to identify a child’s learning needs and then adapt the classroom and teaching to ensure high quality learning outcomes for all members of the class. An inclusive education system sees every child as important and unique.
Date: 17 March 2015 POLICY NAME: “Inclusive Education”
Our Vision AIM Our vision is that To ensure that all school aged I-Kiribati children (especially ages 6-15) have full access to relevant, quality education (where possible in their local
Appendices 225
community school), participate in all school activities and have their educational, social, cultural, physical, emotional and spiritual needs met. RESPONSIBILITY: Director for Education and Director Policy, Planning and Development
APPLICATION / SCOPE: The Policy applies to Ministry of Education management, divisions, schools, students, parents and the community.
This policy is based on and consistent with the Kiribati Government’s commitment to international conventions such as: UN Convention on Human Rights UN Convention on the Rights of the Child UN Millennium Goals - Goal 2 Achieve Universal Primary Education UN Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination against Women UN Convention Rights of Persons with Disabilities
POLICY: This policy is based on a commitment by Kiribati to international conventions and agreements (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Education for All – Millennium Goal, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women). The Ministry of Education is committed to apply these principles to the Strategic Plan, Ministry Operational Plans, policies and operations. Currently it is reflected in the Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2012-15 and the National Curriculum and Assessment Framework (NCAF). (Both documents have been endorsed by Cabinet.) This policy provides clarity on the rights of all children in accessing quality education and the role of those responsible for delivering education. In addition it describes strategies which will assist to deliver inclusive education.
Principles on which the policy is based 1. Access to education is a universal right 2. All children can learn 3. The education system Schools will be welcoming and supportive of all students 4. The education system Schools will cater for individual learning differences and needs 5. There will be zero tolerance of any form of discrimination in all schools.
Children’s Rights All Children have the right to: Be Educated Valued, supported, nurtured and safe
Appendices 226
Their learning needs must be met in a welcoming, non–threatening environment and be active participants in their learning and all school activities. Goals of the policy To ensure that every school aged child in Kiribati (including children with special needs) are enrolled in and attend regularly a school program which caters for their individual learning needs To have well trained and effective teachers in providing educational programs and strategies for inclusive education in every class across Kiribati. To provide and implement a flexible curriculum which caters for student’s varied and changing needs in all schools To effectively engage parents and/or caregivers in all stages of their child’s education
Objectives To identify all compulsory school age children who are not attending school and assess their learning needs and the reasons for non-school attendance To have schools assess children’s learning needs on enrolment To provide a free, appropriate and flexible educational service that supports every child in Kiribati to reach their full learning potential To increase regular attendance by all students through partnership between the home and the school To increase the percentage of students with disabilities in schools by providing appropriate support services including accessibility, mobility equipment, Braille books, signing, support staff and transport To increase knowledge and skills in gender, disability and social inclusive teaching and learning for all teachers To raise awareness of the barriers to education and the need for access to education for all children To increase parental involvement and understanding of special needs programs and support for their children To establish strong inter-ministry coordination and collaboration to ensure the global needs of children with disabilities are met (for example nutrition, health, child protection etc.)
To distinguish the eligibility of students to either attend a school for children with special needs or a mainstream school.
(Chilren’s Rights) (Be Educated( o Have their learning needs met o Be well informed
Appendices 227
o Learn in a fun and non-threatening environment o Be involved and participate in all school activities and social functions
Be Valued o Be Accepted o Be Supported o Be Nurtured o Be Safe o Be encouraged to express their opinions, needs and wants
Parents have the right to: Be involved in decisions about their child’s education Be respected and listened to and feel welcomed in the school Advocate for what is in their child’s best interest Be provided with regular feedback about their child’s progress and learning needs Have their family values and beliefs respected Choose the most appropriate school/educational program for their child’s needs Report any of their concerns to the teacher, Head Teacher/Principal or school committee
Teachers have the right to: Be supported by the education system Receive training in using a range of teaching strategies and techniques to promote learning for all students Have a safe, healthy and stimulating working environment that is conducive to learning Be provided with adequate learning materials and resources Work with an effective teacher-pupil ratio (School Improvement Plan Standard 14) Report any of their concerns to the parent/caregiver, Head Teacher/Principal or school committee
The Ministry requires that: Officers undertaking the ministry work and directives are respected and supported to carry out their work Policies and directives of the Ministry are observed and implemented
Roles and Responsibilities Ministry of Education will aim to is responsible for: Promoting awareness on the implications of this policy with head teachers, teachers, parents and communities
Appendices 228
Allocate funding and specific school grants for equipment, resources and personnel to support inclusive education Provide in-service and pre-service teacher training in using a range of teaching strategies, resources and techniques to promote learning for all students Develop Provide relevant CURRICULUM, and resources and assessment to meet student needs Expedite enrolment of children (including boys and girls children with disabilities) into appropriate school programs (where possible in the local neighborhood school)
Develop tools for collection and management of data on the enrolment of students with disabilities and other diverse groups Continue the plan to build, and rehabilitate schools to include accessible classrooms and toilets Include the commitments and obligations to this policy in teacher pre- service training and ongoing professional development of the Kiribati teacher cohort. Assessing funding implications in rolling out the policy.
Provide accessible classrooms, toilets and facilities for all schools Monitor and collect data on enrolment of students with disabilities and other relevant groups Promote Awareness Raising and Inclusive Education with head teachers, teachers, parents and communities
Schools through the Head Teacher/Principal are responsible for will: Provide a positive, supportive, safe, stimulating and stable learning and teaching environment (NCAF) Provide for different learning needs of students according to age, readiness to learn, ability or disability (NCAF) Be welcoming of parents and students Assess student needs and expedite enrolment Provide support to teachers in programming, resourcing and catering for individual needs Develop school rules and behavioural standards which engenders respect for all students
Teachers with support from Head Teachers and Principals will: Teachers are expected to understand the implications of the Inclusive Education Policy and what it means for their practice in the classroom and their role as a member of the school community. Awareness raising, training and resources to
Appendices 229
fulfill their responsibility will develop and occur through an emerging partnership with the Ministry of Education, the community and colleagues. It includes:
Being well trained to Prepare programs to cater for individual learning needs Being well prepared and competent to teach Use a variety of teaching strategies Provide for student success in learning in every setting Monitor progress and vary programs if progress is not being achieved Be accepting and inclusive of all students
Demonstrating and encouraging the practice of appropriate aspects of I- Kiribati culture Students (with support where necessary) will: should be encouraged and supported by the community, schools, teachers and the Ministry of Education to: Attend school regularly Participate in all school activities Engage in learning Try their best Cooperate with their peers and their teachers Comply with school and classroom rules
Observe and learn about appropriate I-Kiribati cultural values, skills and knowledge Parents will: Enroll their children in school Ensure and monitor that their child attends school regularly Participate in partnership with the school regarding their child’s education Encourage and support their child’s learning needs and health Respect school rules
Parents/guardians are expected to take an active interest in their child’s education, supporting the schools policies and programs. They can expect to be welcomed in the school, included in school planning, and provided with the opportunity to discuss concerns with teachers, the head teacher and the School Committee. They are responsible for their child’s general well-being and health, and for ensuring their child attends school regularly. They are expected to teach and role model behaviours and information to teachers and students about inclusive cultural values, skills and knowledge which are appropriate for the successful development of Kiribati.
The Community will: Provide support for parents and teachers Respect, protect and promote the rights and cultures of all children Be accepting of difference and promote inclusion
Appendices 230
Provide support for the school
Provide role models and information to teachers and students about inclusive cultural values, skills and knowledge which are appropriate for the successful development of Kiribati
Appendices 231
Appendix B: Cross reference EENET and UNESCO Policy Guidelines
EENET Policy Documents UNESCO ‘Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education’ Review (Lewis, 2008) (2009 , p23-26)
Definitions of inclusive Policies have rather unclear definitions. Inclusive education is seen education primarily in terms of special needs
Quality education Improving quality in education is not given as much attention as increasing enrolment rates and access
Holistic approach An holistic education system requires an information flow among professional at different level at different levels as well as between school and families - Inclusive education is mainly presented as a set of separate interventions for different groups of learners
Resource allocation Allocating funding to inclusive education is a challenge - Access to school buildings and curriculum
Participatory data collection Needs analysis and diagnosis of needs must proceed the formulation of polices and plans Systems and methods of collecting education-related data are necessary to inform policy and practice Monitoring and evaluation are necessary to improve planning and implementation
Teacher education Teacher education is often discussed in detail but not addressed in the context of promoting diversity
Flexible curriculum Curriculum reform needs to be more prominent and involve relevant development stakeholders in development of new and revised curriculum
Inclusive education as a rights Policies and plans must be pro-poor and stress the rights basis for issue inclusion
Appendices 232
Appendix C: Transcripts
(Process and values coding was applied to all transcripts but are only illustrated in Appendix C1 (process coding) and C2 (values coding)
Appendix C1 Process coding of recipient interview responses
Key [coded gerund]
What is your role?
Looking after schools and teachers across Kiribati, parents, community, key stakeholders, Ministries. Education is everyone’s business. In our schools at the moment we are having those normal students. They are in our mainstream but with inclusive education we are trying to include every student to attend school. (M1)
Policy, planning and development. Coordinate development projects and funds as well as coordinating donor partners. Also responsible for developing a strategic plan and operational plans, coordinating divisional plans, ensure that this plans are implemented, monitor the implementation. Look at policies like the Inclusive Education Policy. Work closely with the Divisions who are implementing those policies. Where are they? (M2)
My role in the school is to look after the school. To make sure it runs well from morning until the children go home. Make sure that the teachers are ,doing their work well, children are well looked after, children’s needs (met). (If) teachers are not providing I push them also in their different learning needs they will be catered for. (SE1)
Ensure that quality education is there in schools all the time. I am chair of the inclusive education working committee. I also look after the funds for inclusive education. I’m the team manager for that. (M3)
Advising on the rights, empowering people with disabilities. Some people in Kiribati see people with disabilities need to be protected. Parents being overprotective of their children. People with disabilities have the right to do things for themselves. [empowering] (They should be) encouraged to go out there to be empowered. Children with disabilities shouldn’t be over protected. Parents should let them play with other kids. On the education side children with disabilities miss schools. They stay home not allowed to go to school. Parents fear that other children will hurt them, mock them. (They) have to fight for their children if they are being hurt. They hold them back. For example dwarf children with disabilities should go to school, to the mainstream. Parents need to be educated (about) capabilities [needing educating]. (DPO)
What is your understanding of inclusive education?
Education for all. Inclusive regardless of gender, ability and any other differences. Education is for everyone. (M3)
Appendices 233
Make all children have to come to school including disability students. All school aged. All school aged even though they can’t walk or can’t see have to go to school. Those with disabilities bodies, minds. All boys, girls. (SE1)
With inclusive education we are trying to include every student to attend school [including]. All students should be catered for in the school system. Those in official school age must be able to attend class regardless of where they are they have to be in school. In terms of their location, their physical abilities as well as their learning abilities. There shouldn’t be any differences. Everyone must be attending school. (M1)
Having all the children to go to school. Everyone on board. Every children no matter what. Inclusive not a simple word has lots of attachments. First of all the child has to go into the school. Every child no matter what. Children with disabilities, different churches. Everyone has to go to school. It’s more complicated when they go to school because when they go to school the services have to be inclusive as well. Services like if they are giving a subject in the classroom then all those children have to be inclusive as well and with children with disabilities it’s a bit more complicated like those with visual impairment. They need special services like they have to use in the classroom. The teacher has to know different needs of children [ knowing]. They need large print in the classroom. Those who are blind they need Braille machines and those who can access computers they need dual programs in the computers. Also if you look at the infrastructure in the classroom. Every child has to go into the classroom. There’s a need for wide doors for wheelchairs to access. Infrastructure should be accessible for everyone. The health of the child is very important. Access to toilets in Kiribati that’s our main problem. If you look at at each family maybe in the outer islands need access to toilets. It’s complicated and expensive. We don’t have to see the expensive side of things. We have to see the money that is put in as our investment of the Kiribati country. These kids when they grow up and have a very strong education foundation from the beginning they can work and improve investment in the country as well. They will contribute a lot. One of the barriers getting children to school is attitude. If they are being included early in the mainstream children’s attitudes will change and those children without disabilities when they walk along with a child with disability they will see them as equal partner in the future in Kiribati. Those children who are being emerged with children with disabilities they will be understanding. They will have good knowledge of how to work with those people with disabilities. They will see them as their equal partners and they will work together with them.(DPO)
Includes everything gender, learning disabilities. Extreme we should include but don’t have the capacity. Mild difficulties only at XXX. (TC)
Trying to include everyone. All children access to education regardless of their differences[ including]. (M2)
As a teacher my role is to encourage everyone [encouraging] and help them understand that every human being has the right. They should attend everything and enjoy life. Being excluded is not being included. If you are excluded from functions in the community it means you will be on your own and that is not good. Inclusive is
Appendices 234
very good because everyone enjoys it. Give everyone a chance to education. Especially those who have problems like different disabilities. We have seen all the mental people were also included to take part in the community. Apart from school they can enjoy other functions besides school. (SE2)
How does inclusive education apply to education in Kiribati?
When they come to school some will be in Class 5 but at Class 1 level. That means a lot of problems for us teachers but we tried to cater for that in that way. We teach according to their level [teaching]. The teachers would place them in a group and try to teach them what they need like learning how to read and how to write something. Some bring a lot of problems from home with their parents. We don’t have books, we don’t have a uniform, my mother told me to stay with my little brothers and sisters while she went out. The people there began to realize it’s a sin, it’s very wrong. When they come to school they always bring lots of problems. It’s hard for the teacher. That also happened here. It’s like in Kiribati not only our school. All schools when they come we have to cater for them and the problem is that you teach the program and those children who always go to school they are going around with you and those who only come sometimes they are the ones that hold you back. Now all the classes in this school even though they are all in one class they are multi- grade. (SE1)
Inclusion of disability is quite new. In the past we held back our children with disabilities [holding back]. Nowadays it’s very new. We have been fighting for that for 20 years back. We have been organizing a committee for inclusive education. We invited different ministries. We experienced that during our first meeting they all come Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and then on the agenda when we are talking about children with disabilities they sort of give their ideas but very few ideas. Then at the next meeting we invite them again a different person comes. We tried to explain things again and then at another meeting no one came at all so it fades away again another plan put up until now. But now we are very fortunate we have you when you came along. I remember that when we talked the first time you told me I’m very frustrated in this one. I expected this one and there’s no inclusive policy. I remember I gave you the report, the survey I did with XXX from CBM Australia should be acknowledged as well because it was the first time we did the survey, Also we went to outer islands to consult with parents and how they see inclusive education, children with disabilities to be included in the schools[consulting]. We were confronted with some negative things. The first question I remember XXX telling me ask this man what he thinks about a child with a disability. The question was should a child with a disability go to school. The man just shouted “no way it’s a waste of time”. That’s the mentality of some people that it’s a waste of time to include children. They will be slacking, they will be another load for the teacher, they will distract other children but I’m very happy to mention this XXX told me to explain to him what are the positive points of why a child with a disability should go to school. The points I told him I just said OK if children with disabilities go into the school at a very early age there won’t be any problem because the teachers are very good . Because you are from the village you just assume that the teachers will not accept but the education has to do something good. They have to train the teachers how to work with those children with disabilities [training].
Appendices 235 They can be not another distraction or a load but children with disabilities can be able to assist teachers in their trainings as well because they are living examples of what’s going on. We also explain to the man that sometimes you don’t have to look at their disability but you look at their abilities. If you see a child with a problem with a leg or a problem with an arm but their brains will be very active and they can do much better if they are being given a chance. I’m talking here about opportunities to go to school and to prove their capabilities. Also we reminded the man that it’s very important not to look at the disability first the person and the ability and last one the disability but you wouldn’t notice the disability if they are given the opportunity to apply their abilities. (DPO)
In Kiribati it is not really reflected in our system because what we have in the classroom, the normal classroom at the moment is only students who do not have any physical disabilities even as well those students they have low capacities, low ability in learning some of them are not attending schools as well and we want to include all these students. Those with physical disabilities as well as those with learning disabilities they must be in school. That’s what we want in inclusive education because it’s not reflected at all in our system. It is very important that we enforce the Inclusive Education Policy [enforcing] which is very pleasing to us because the government has approved and endorsed the policy so we are now obliged to make sure it is fully adopted and enforced. Implementation of the policy will be difficult [implementing] . It will take time.(M1)
That’s the application part of it. Inclusive education for me personally is anything related to education for example when we do our workshop we should include inclusive education as well [including]. They need to consider the participants. They need to consider everything, gender, equity and all those things. In the workplace it’s not rely specifically inclusive education but in the workplace need to be inclusive for your people the staff. You need to be inclusive. You need to listen to others [listening]. (TC)
As we have experienced because we have worked for that. I have been through that program the inclusive education. This is my 2nd year at this school but in the past 3 years I worked on this program. I’m the person who conducted it on the outer island. Some from the Ministry came to the outer island and gave information and us teachers worked with that to make those who didn’t attend school come. It’s very successful on the island. We teachers go out and see the parents, tell the committees to collect names of these who did not attend school and visit their homes to make them come and in the end we realized that when they come they bring a lot of problems. They missed so much. (SE1)
What are the challenges and barriers?
There are many challenges. One is financial. If we want our schools to be more inclusive we have to do many things to support the idea and that needs a lot of money [supporting]. Like the path ways and materials, like toilets to be suitable for the disabilities- infrastructure and also our teachers they need more knowledge on that- training. Parents who do not wish to send their child to school. It will be another load for them and also they do not want other children to tease or make fun of their disability children. For those who can’t walk they have to get to school. (M3)
Appendices 236
It’s the rights of parents. They are very strong. Some parents when you visit them they say it’s a waste of time to send this child. He’s very naughty. If they said they don’t want to send their child they say no. I think the government could help with this to make a law to enforce the law to parents who do not send their children. Fined or put in court and fined maybe $100. It’s not worth for us teachers to go and get them and the parents “hey you stay home and look after. I’m going to the feast or I’m going fishing or you come with me.” Us teachers we always want the kid to come. It hurts our feelings for the child. Not for the hard work but for that child. He’s bright but always he stayed home. Get the government to do something for the kids .(SE1)
So many areas that we are facing challenges in order to implement the Inclusive Education Policy [challenging]. Firstly looking at the classroom. We need the classrooms to have access- disability accessible and we haven’t got that in most of our classrooms. I could say all of our classrooms. Only a few have been specially built to cater for those disability people. Also the capacity of our teachers as well. At the moment our teachers only have the capacity to teach the normal students and those who are not capable they don’t have the capacity. Another challenge with limited resources we have in Kiribati whatever we may need for the delivery of inclusive education. We don’t have those resources we need to have them so the Inclusive Education Policy can be well implemented.(M1)
The teachers I would say need more training in how they cater for children with disabilities. The facilities we still need to work more on the facilities and then we need to try and break those social barriers [breaking barriers] even if we are trying to provide or to encourage those children to come to school. First of all we’re trying to get these students to come by providing the facilities, starting to train our teachers. It needs more. Then if we think we are able to provide teaching, provide an enabling environment but what will be the use if those children will still be reluctant to come to school because of other social barriers. There’s quite a lot of barriers and attitudes. It’s a new concept and we are aware here they’re still learning about inclusive education. I know here has been some things done.(M2)
There are a lot of challenges especially our capacity. Our lecturers don’t have any specialized knowledge of how to incorporate that in teaching and learning specific in dealing with the severe ones[ incorporating]. In our institution plan that is mentioned that would need to be inclusive. Maybe in 10 years time all those people would need to be mainstreamed in the classrooms instead of sending to the special school. We will have to provide them with the opportunity to come over to the classroom but as you know slowly. The capacity related to the infrastructure as well. Ours is not really welcoming those with the severe needs. We don’t have special toilets for them. We need to build a lot more ramps. Have you seen USP? (TC)
The barriers are so common. First of all money talks. If there are plans to change things we need money, infrastructure [needing]. Also the barrier we used to face is the attitude of the people. Sometimes teachers I don’t think it’s the fault of the teachers but because we have to leave this subject now. They will see they do not understand disability [understanding]. Those teachers who are very keen in having a plan for their children in the classroom they want to reach this. If they are following the curriculum we have to leave this subject now. They will see children with disabilities will come in different places. Some who are very good, some needs you
Appendices 237 to explain. Sometimes teachers will be frustrated and those attitudes by the teachers has to be changed [changing attitudes]. Also the barriers of the parents, their attitude. Also the barrier is our environment structure in Kiribati. Some children with disabilities who live in Tarawa are very fortunate to go to the special school but those who are on the outer islands, our environmental features of Kiribati is islands scattered in the ocean. So some children with disabilities while living in the outer islands it’s really hard to access education [accessing]. Education has to think of ways to make sure children with disabilities living in the outer islands access through education as well maybe through the primary schools. In Kiribati there is a program for pre-school. Starts from 2 to 5 or 6. Children with disabilities have a very big problem in this one. They wouldn’t be going out to the pre-school until someone comes and tells them. Parents hold them back. One example is Kirimati Island and I wrote a book about it “Power on my knees”. CDRC Te Toa Motoa- 10 year old. “I want to go to school. My mother wouldn’t let me go. I went to the mother. “Other children will mock him. My husband will get mad and bash up these other kids. My child can fix radio. He is really old now. He went into Grade 1 then next term Grade 2. Now he is the same as other boys. KELP saw the bot in the classroom. This is an example of giving children with disabilities opportunities. (DPO)
Their ability as part of the community, also the accessibility. One also is attitude. Those who are not familiar with disability. Just leave them. Don’t choose them, just one leg or maybe is blind. The community or people are not supporting them. They are neglected. Challenges- infrastructure, the design for toilets, accessibility. Also to provide resources- wheelchairs, braille, hearing aids so that they will part of the community. They can access everything in education. It costs money [costing] so that’s why they have been neglected. Governments fear to buy those things. Sometimes people think that people with disabilities have no future because they are not capable in doing or moving. For example they don’t want to give us grants for these kids. Maybe when they get together if we spend how much thousands to them. What are they going to give back to Kiribati? They cannot get money for Kiribati. They just stay in their homes so why do we have to spend our time supporting them. (SE2)
How realistic are inclusive education initiatives?
It’s a difficult one because you can’t tell what will happen but so far now it’s being positive. I see positive changes. Also I have to acknowledge the work of Y & Z because they have been so supportive to that special school. Children with disabilities are having opportunities. Inclusive education has been part of that school as well. The school is a living positive example of why children with disabilities should go to school because as you see disability come in different phases. Some children with disabilities can go into the mainstream but others who are very severe they need special services, inclusive services like I mentioned before. They need to go to that school so that they can be empowered [empowering] and educated for the future. How realistic is this? It’s a bit difficult in the outer islands. They have pilot schools that are being organized in some islands but there’s still a need to empower and educate parents because still they are holding on there. Some are letting go their children with disabilities but they go and they check. During the process that’s the first part of the story but what if their child can go to the high schools? If they go they are being awarded places in schools in Tarawa. That is a different story. Their
Appendices 238
disabilities have to be accommodated as well. If they go to KG1 or XXX those are boarding schools so there has to be a change in the boarding schools as well. It’s a bit complicated because the high schools has to be encouraged to put the space for children with disabilities in their boarding houses because they have to have space for children with special needs. Even the text books. They have to provide braille books for the blind, sign language interpreters are also one of the … because those children with disabilities, those with speech impairment and hearing impairment they are more vulnerable. Teachers have to do something on the technology skills so they can use it with children with disabilities. (DPO) Because it’s new to Kiribati I think that in the past the government do not see the importance of those people because they have less knowledge and understanding of human rights. It is also related to the resources of the country because we could not afford wheelchairs and what else was needed [affording].(SE2)
I know they are very realistic but I didn’t want to stop there even though there are still challenges that are quite significant but still have to find a way to address to overcome these. Like thinking about increasing the capacity of our teachers college to cater the training the teachers. When they graduated they will have the skills and knowledge in teaching these kind of people. I think we’ll be … with these challenges. And with the resource in our strategic education plan for this coming 4 year period 2016-2019. It is also one of the goals that we include in our plan to be working on and with the assistance of the Australian Government. They have already given some kind of commitment to assist us [committing]. We also have some TAs working with us in the area of inclusive education. I think we’ll be OK. (M1)
Inclusion is not really at the community level. The awareness of those people is not really (there). They don’t really have the knowledge or understanding about what is inclusive. They have gender awareness but still hide everything. They conceal everything. The ladies that are beaten by their husbands, who keep their children (at home). In fact the Imatangs mostly come with those things. If you beat a lady now they’ll go straight to the police. That policy is helping those- information in the community. Know their rights. (TC)
Yes, positively yes. Can be achieved if this inclusive education is rolled out in the community. Not only once but always. Maybe once a month. So when they are aware of that then once a year and followed by the government’s push. The problem with our people they don’t feel anything if you just tell them. OK! OK! I’ll send. Then you tell them again. OK I’ll send them tomorrow and they didn’t. But if something happen to them. The police take them to court, You go to school or otherwise you’ll be in prison. The people have a ‘hard ear’. If they don’t want to hear then they just ignore it. (SE1)
It can be achieved but through funding if we have the right schools and appropriate resources to make it worthwhile. If it’s all there everything will be realistic. If not nothing will happen. (M3)
How has Australian Aid contributed to the introduction of inclusive education?
Within KEF we have a person who is focusing on inclusive education. I know there is a constant TA coming over to us. The ongoing work on the area is going well with
Appendices 239
our people from the school improvement team. There have been quite a number of programs like workshops to support our staff here in the Ministry of Education in that area. We have been receiving program from KEF through DFAT. No other organizations. I have known support from UNICEF. The main is DFAT but UNICEF is also helping with multi-grade teaching. I believe multi-grade classrooms have kids with disabilities. KEF has helped with inclusive education. It’s very significant. It’s just like they are always on top of what should be done for inclusive education. Knowing what should be done they are always with us because it should be us to do the work but without our capacity or knowledge on how to be moving on with this program KEF has been there all the time to advise. With the advice we can come up with the decisions for our own people in Kiribati. (M3)
We must thank Australia because it’s the only country which has a program that is dealing with this kind of issue in Kiribati with these kids for the school because there is no other country besides Australia who is funding this. Providing volunteers to the country. We do not pay those volunteers. They are paid from Australia. When the volunteers are here they always do their work assisting and try to develop the school in many ways. In the classroom, outside, many things. So we are grateful to Australia for their support to us. (SE2)
There are a lot in terms of training and infrastructure. Those newly built schools supported by KEF/DFAT and also the resources. If you look at the resources I guess it also support those people with resource development [resourcing]. It is not really a big training because it’s very expensive but we appreciate the support in terms of funding the small workshop. You share your knowledge rather than expecting training abroad. The enrolment of those people from the disability school. I guess their involvement with us is very good. I remember one time at a function for our old Minister’s farewell and they also share the knowledge with our current trainees, with their friends, the sign language. They do not have any formal training. I was impressed with the other lecturers that they stood in front of other people and they did a song, a very inclusive song. I hope our teachers learnt a lot from them for the information especially what they specialized [learning from].(TC)
We have the Kiribati Education Facility and that’s the major partner in this supporting inclusive education. But the Ministry itself is also supporting that. I’m pleased to say that the Ministry of Education is providing financial assistance paying subsidy to teachers the special school. . It has contributed to recruit 2 teachers from the special school to come to KTC in 2014. At Friday’s farewell for the outgoing Minister KTC student performed an item using sign language. I was quite surprised because I didn’t know they were learning that here but it was great to know. I can say (Australian Aid) has contributed tom a large extent. The Ministry of Education lacks the expertise in this area given it’s a very new thing [lacking expertise]. By providing financial as well as technical assistance the donor or DFAT or KEF has really contributed first of all the development of the Inclusive Education Policy and it’s launching. I forgot to mention that inclusive education adds to the Ministry of Education 7 goals. Now we have 9 goals the additional are early education and inclusive education in the Education Sector Plan 2016-2019. (M2)
What! I think it’s the buildings that’s the most precious thing that Australia has given. It encourages those who have stayed away from school [encouraging]. When
Appendices 240
they looked at the building “Let’s go to school it’s very comfortable now”. That always help. Now the children come. Some for years they stayed away. The buildings are very comfortable and they contribute a lot to the learning development of the children of this village and also it gives the whole community interest to give support to the school . They look after the school. It used to be run down. (SE1)
It helps on the Inclusive Education Policy [helping]. With help from KEIP/KEF we managed to develop our Inclusive Education Policy. We are funded through that. Very little comes from the Ministry. Not enough for me. We rely too much on assistance. It is good that fund is available from KEF. It has contributed a lot. Before we never had that Inclusive Education Policy and now with all those help the policy is in place now for our islands to work more. (M3)
Heaps. I know heaps. One that has been very tremendous has been supporting the school. They’ve been supporting the teachers over there. They’ve been given more opportunities to learn more on their jobs how to work with children with disabilities. At the school some of them have been able to go overseas to freshen up their skills. I’m not sure but I heard some teachers from the school have been accepted to KTC and I think that’s part of Australian Aid. The Australian Government Aid has also been supporting Te Toa Matoa as well., the disabled people’s organization and within that fund the office is there. They pay the salary of our office manager and lot’s of things. We’ve been working with X from AusAid and DFAT and she’s been very helpful. If there is any important matter she knows that and now there’s a plan to build up Te Toa Matoa. It’s ongoing. We have a CRPD resource team. There are 13 people from Te Toa Matoa. We’ve been empowered them and doing workshops with them on the CRPD. Education and other stakeholders. . They went to the outer islands. Te Toa Matoa explained about rights of people with disabilities. The rights we have been talking about is the right to education, to good health, to have access, to justice. Every right that everyone has. We have been doing awareness on those [raising awareness]. With the ratification 27 September 2013. With those 13 resource people we’ve been given 2 people to concentrate on education, 2 for infrastructure, 2 for health. When there’s an issue on disability on inclusive education we send those 2 people and they share the rights of people with disabilities to education [sharing] and we also work with our stakeholders. (DPO)
It’s contributed a lot [contributing]. Without Australian Aid where can we be? Australian Aid first initiate inclusive education. First of all we work with the Pacific Disability Forum and we talk about every right of people with disabilities. Every board member after the meeting we go to our respective islands. Those meetings we learn from each other. “There’s an inclusive policy over there PNG and Solomons have done that. They show me their policies. I came back here I went to the Ministry of Internal and Social Affair sand I talk about inclusive education. “Oh how can we do that? If we have a meeting it means a lot of money.” I said those consultants from SPC Australia. They can fund themselves. The fund from Australia they fund those people. They come for the first meeting on the disability policy. Then it’s rolling, rolling to touch the education policy. The education policy was first initiated by CBM Australia. When she came we did the first consultation to the outer island on education policy. Then the school explained how they need the inclusive education policy so the school is well supported. So a lot of people together. There are other stakeholders from Australia as well. One is APIDS when we developed that
Appendices 241
education of women with disabilities. We send the acquittals. We’re not forgetting aid from New Zealand. It’s a work of collaboration [collaborating]. (DPO)
What guidelines and accountability requirements does Australian Aid assign these programs?
The acquittal is very important that we show the remittance regarding the reports. That is also reflected in our KEF reports. We report when they request every quarter. It’s a very simple report. They have the template everything is aligned with the indicator. It’s very good to monitor and evaluate according to the standards. What are the expectations and we need to comply with the objectives [complying]. I agree with the objectives most of the time. Sometimes without reminding us about that. I that is a priority that the lecturers themselves when they are developing the course outlines they need to consider those things. It’s not really a stand-alone course but they need to incorporate these things in the course materials [incorporating]. They need to think about the activities, they need to comply with the inclusive tone all across the courses and the other things as well, gender, multi-grade, cross cutting issues. (TC)
When we’ve been given funds they ask for acquittal reports but at the same time they give templates. They assist us on our reporting [assisting] and they also provide training to Te Toa Matoa through the Pacific Disability Forum. Officers over there they come to Te Toa Matoa and put lots of workshops on how to work with the money, how to report also monitoring and evaluation skills as well. That’s how we sustain our partnership with them when we are doing our report. Some projects I know they’re good but we started not that good but as we go along we got better. They were so understanding. As soon as they saw a fault they come in and OK that’s how it goes. So far so good. (DPO)
We have a system of reporting to the KEF leader especially those divisions working on inclusive education. Whatever activities which is part of their plan for a certain period or quarter. They report through their divisional operational plan progress. They report to the Ministry particularly the Policy and Planning Office as well as to KEF. KEF then reports back to DFAT. The development partner will receive that report through KEF. We also have another mechanism of reporting which we do twice a year in April/May and November through EPIK Education Partners in Kiribati. EPIK involves MoE stakeholders as well as the development partners. DFAT is also there, UNICEF, UNESCO. We try to involve all development partners who support the Ministry as well as other Ministries. It’s a meeting. (M2)
There are reports. We always write reports on the activities we do for the inclusive education. From there they see whether to carry on the work, to make improvements every quarter. Reports are very long and takes a lot of time. I have a colleague that is their own responsibility. (M3)
KEF hasn’t asked for any reports or feedback about inclusion and the buildings at the school level. (SE1)
Actually not really guidelines. After the approval and endorsement of the Inclusive Education Policy they (KEF) would like to see how we are going to implement the
Appendices 242
policy [implementing]. So we sit together and having a meeting together with them in the formulation of the implementation plan. (M1)
What is the government’s commitment to Inclusive Education? What is the government doing to show this commitment?
With the policy being approved by cabinet we will expect full support from the government [expecting]. I know it’s going to involve a lot of planning but it’s for the children of Kiribati and all children will benefit. In doing that we are happy because we are doing not only the normal teaching but going further beyond those normal students. What is the government doing? It is starting to provide capacities to our teachers through the programs from KEF. We’ve been going out to the schools and we are helping the teachers in ensuring that they understand what the policy is all about and also awareness to all the community for the population of Kiribati. That’s what we have been doing from the MoE side and there is a lot more we are going to do in our strategic plan. (M1)
Don’t know. Is it different with the Ministry of Education it’s fully supportive. They will still support. Inclusive education is very important. It’s for everybody all benefits so it must be pushed and continue. (SE1)
Because they signed the policy this is another proof of their commitment and also the whole Ministry they are committed to that. It is no longer coming outside from Australia but seeing that it is a very important thing for Kiribati. It talks about the children. It talks about everybody so it’s a must. So for me if the government signs any policies that is a binding promise. They need to comply with that. I understand that the Ministry have other plans. They are working together. They are very supportive with KEF and those people fast track the building of those classrooms, infrastructure, those ramps. That’s the evidence. It’s a new government but it’s not going to change because that’s a must.(TC)
The government’s contribution is through the Ministry [contributing]. When we get our Education Sector Strategic Plan approved by cabinet we are looking forward to that. I’m sure the government will also support that. It’s already supporting it through the Ministry by allowing training of teachers from the special school, providing salaries for teachers at the special school. That’s part of it and I hope there’ll be more training at KTC and I’m sure there’ll be more. (M2)
They are committed to carry out all what is expected in the convention. I think the new government will be committed to inclusive education [committing] as their responsibility to continue what has been there before. I think it is not to stop but to continue. We are working on it. We are developing the policies. Work on some of the policy content to make sure everything is there. So donors provide funds but we work on it. We do the work. We are happy to do the work. We are committed to see that we are working bit by bit to get everything there in the policy. (M3)
The Inclusive Education Policy was launched in 2015 and many were invited to witness that launching different people from other Ministries who are in high rank just to witness that. They do not really understand what it means by inclusive [understanding] that is because it is a beginning step in that time. Now it’s getting
Appendices 243
more and more clearer. The government is providing the program not (only) for the kids but it’s also encouraging older people collecting them to form a community. Inclusion depends on one’s understanding. If you are a business or trader then you are not much thinking on the disability ones because they do not support business. It depends on your focus. The government have done that with older people but have in our school. We also have funds from last year to support us. The government provided some funds but not to our satisfaction or to our needs [funding]. We need more money to support the school but it’s only giving us bits. Maybe sharing funding to every school and that is our share. (SE2) If we talk about the past government they’ve been very supportive [supporting]. We do not have much but they support it as much as they can. The problem is money. When you are dealing with government it always comes to money. It will depend on their wealth, knowledge, priorities and commitment. The commitment is there but there’s also a need for knowledge on disabilities. When we talk about inclusive education it’s very expensive. They see the expenses side of things. We have to change the classroom, renovation. We have to do this. Most of the time they gave us a very positive response. OK we start small then start growing. Growing and then we demand for more. I do not have a comment with this new government. My vision with this government is it’s going to be good just like the other government because in Kiribati we are very kind. Everyone is very kind so children with disabilities need to be nurtured so they grow up being strong men, strong women and they can do something for themselves and their country [nurturing]. We have a lot of champions in Kiribati about disability. Lots of people now know disability. First time they look at people with disabilities as people who need help but we are trying to change the perspective. People need to exercise their rights [exercising rights]. If youfeed them they will keep asking for more but if you give them the opportunity to do things for themselves then they can do things for themselves. If you do action as well action speaks louder than words. That’s what Te Toa Matoa is doing awareness through drama. They see what’s really on the ground. (DPO)
How was a focus on inclusive education initiated?
Since last year. I just arrived here because they select this as a pilot school by the Ministry and I was sent from the outer island here. Maybe mostly because of our community are the ones in the past there’s a lot of students who did not come to school this school is targeted. That’s why they were given a new building and the model school. Maybe they wanted the school to change [wanting change]. When I arrived here they came to my office. “Do you know your school is a model school”. I said no. (SE1) There is a policy. In the first place there is a lot of argument and conflict with those people in the course approval/ Those people from USP they mentioned that if it’s not in the policy why should you spend time on it? But I know in a couple of months after that kind of debate and we have the policy. So they were convinced it was a government obligation so we need to comply with that. It’s ownership issues because the thing is because we don’t have the capacity [having capacity] - why are you delivering that course, They’re worried about the severe ones. Have that capacity with some of the lecturers can they teach that for teachers so when they go out in the classroom it’s not really a burden for them. When it’s a policy from the government then we need to comply with it but if it’s from somewhere else I guess there’s no point in doing it. The approval committee consists of USP, former director of
Appendices 244
education, teachers, heads of divisions and lecturers. Objections were across the board. What initiated that some talk about that. “Do you have a policy on that? That is in the early stages. One year after we have the policy. (TC)
From the conventions. Our leaders went to those conventions and there they signed the documents for international agreements and that’s where the inclusive education initiative came from just 3 years back. Why did it take a long time? [taking time] They had to think hard on how to. Maybe there is too much to do especially the finance side. Maybe they are waiting for the right time, for donors. It’s good we are moving. (M3)
In the past we held back our children with disabilities [holding back]. We have been fighting for 20 years. We have been organizing a committee for inclusive education. We invited different Ministries- MoE, Health, Social Affairs. (DPO)
We got you at one stage and we were pleased we managed to get some understanding of what inclusive education is all about. That was through you. My own personal thinking was that because the Ministry didn’t really know much about inclusive education in the first place it was slow to accept this but I think it was through KEF itself and then people like you who have been advocating this and explaining why there’s a need for inclusive education. We believe it’s really an important initiative and concept because we’re not just talking about just those children with disabilities- physical disabilities because there are so many other children who are also covered under inclusive education. The more we understand what inclusive education is about then the more new are encouraged to try and do more about inclusive education. (M2)
That is one thing that I might not have much information because I wasn’t around in Kiribati when the initiative had been started on that. The discussion had been started on that. I came here in 2014. I was in the middle of trying to get the policy approved and endorsed by cabinet. It was already written. Actually I’ll tell you my experience. When I was first confronted with the discussion on the inclusive education policy I was called over to KEF board room and myself and other people from the Ministry. There was a discussion on this inclusive education policy. I was listening to all there was involved in the policy. There was something I wasn’t hearing during the discussion. I had a question. Are you talking about inclusive education only to cater for physical disabilities because my understanding of inclusive education it also has to do with people with learning disabilities. Then there was a pause in the discussion because they were not really focusing on that. I had this new idea when I was raising the question. I said I wouldn’t consider inclusiveness to all our students if we are only focusing on those with physical disability. Everyone has a disability in other means like those who are slow learners and there are learning disabilities. That’s what I really want to make it clear. Then later on when the policy was being sent forward again and comes back I realize that in the paper it also including. Then when more discussion were made on the inclusive education we get to understand more what is to be done [discussing] for those with physical disability as well as learning disability. I’m really positive towards it. Had some good ideas about it through the discussions and also coming up with the implementation plan. I’m really excited and I’m really looking forward to the full implementation of the policy. I know it’s something we really need in Kiribati to ensure all children access education, quality
Appendices 245 education. We also learnt about the rights of students. Everyone should be accessing quality education regardless of their location, background, gender. Everyone must be receiving equal and quality education. Yes. How are we going to achieve that? (M1) I was a primary teacher to start with we are the first one to be involved in that. We are dealing with children and with the community, parents- have those in their areas so we can identify who are the ones because they are from our community [identifying]. At first I was not really interested. I’m from the old age. When the parent came to my school, I’m sorry to have them here. Why? We cannot explain and we cannot teach him or her so you better find somewhere or they should be at home. It’s not our responsibility to look after him. Teach him or do whatever you can for him because that’s what we feel. After getting involved in the program we just know what our part is and we feel regret about what we have done. (SE2)
What would happen if there was reduced or no foreign aid support for inclusive education?
We’ve been talking about that. That’s sustainability. It’s a bit difficult. How long have we been working on this disability issues especially inclusive education. It has to be continuing. But how to continue it? We have to make sure that Kiribati government put in the budget the support, the provision for children with disabilities to go to school. Villages or islands have to. The school committees need to be empowered to answer that question [empowering]. It has to be given to the school committees on the outer islands. They have to act quick. They have to be proactive [being proactive] and they have to set a strategy plan how to sustain the children to go to school. So it has to be put in the government budget because they have signed the CRPWD. Education had to be in the budget. We have to see our government, our wealth can tell us people have to be educated on how to. Start with the families. Make sure the families are to be encouraged to make sure their children come to school. Kiribati people are always satisfied in everything. Even if they’re not it’s OK with them. Kiribati people are very calm, accepting, very kind and they consider others as well. For example if I know I should have that one but I know someone needs it we say they needs it I’m OK now. I’m already OK without that because they think they’ve got all the time in the world. You see when you go to Australia, Australian people when they walk on the road they walk very fast as if they are going to run but here in Kiribati you can see one step at a time. (DPO)
I think everything will stop that we are very limited. We have just started. Now without aid we will plan to do more on inclusive education. That means we still require assistance on aid [requiring assistance]. We’ve just started and we want to continue until there. If it stopped right now that would be the end. (M3)
It would be a very big burden for the Ministry in terms of sustaining those supported with inclusive education. That is also identifying the risks when the project ends who is going to carry on those supports. It’s up to the government but I trust that the government has sustainability plans to go ahead with inclusive but it will be very sad. Say for example DFAT goes away and then the maintenance of those class rooms will disappear because of no funding. They have a plan. (TC)
Looking at this point in time it will be collapsing. It is at a very critical time at the moment right now. We are going to need foreign aid at this point in time. Perhaps it
Appendices 246
will be like 5 to 10 years we can stand on our own feet with the rolling out of the implementation. I think we’ll be able to survive but if we lose foreign aid at this point in time- gone. (M1)
When we first started talking about inclusive education and the implication especially financial that was a challenge for the Ministry. It was a worry. We managed to start addressing some areas which have been implemented now. Our worry will still be if we really have to try and get those children into mainstream schools because the most difficulty will be access to schools and then what kind of facilities will be there [accessing]. Right now we are getting support from the donors. It needs more to keep going. I’ve been thinking that perhaps while we have the donors let’s try to work on the facilities and training of teachers for inclusive education so when the donor departs we’ll still have the facilities and trained teachers already. Maybe there will still be a need for more training. Those already trained teachers they can become the experts and we won’t need to. (M3)
It might stop because our government is not very big. Who knows? More funding more years to go when they can deal with that it’s OK. Maybe 10 more years. Now they are beginning to be aware of that. Now you are beginning to hear from the parents. Hey you must go to school. You are not allowed to stay home at this hour. You must go to school. Sometimes in the past even if it’s not your child is walking around in the road or playing near you and they are not your kid and they are very angry. “Who’s your father or where is your father and mother”. “They are at home”. “You go and tell them that you must prepare yourself. You must go to school at this time.” Sometimes they will say what are these students doing here at this hour they must be in school. They are beginning to have the idea on inclusive education making their children all go to school. Not to miss school for 1 day. Now they are doing that. They came when they are 6 even when they are 5. Please can my child come to school. She really wants to come to school. (SE1)
I’ll give you 2 answers. If we are not funded from foreign aid from there because we have started if they are not funding us we will try to make use of their funding for what else they have given us. We will try and make use of their funding for what else they have given us to try and maintain ourselves [maintaining] because of the kids those disabled. We thank them because they have been funding us for many years and now you are old enough you can stand on your own feet if funded by the government. If they stop funding us who knows? We are all human beings they can see us. “You need more OK we’ll give you more. (SE2)
Any other comments?
I’m so thankful that we are able to be moving ahead with this policy. I would like to do as much as I can while I’m in the Ministry of Education to ensure its smooth implementation as well as to ensure getting support from the government and donors because the benefits won’t be for me or for those of us in the Ministry of Education but for the children of Kiribati [benefitting] who are going to be the future leaders of Kiribati. So pleased we are going as much as we can. (M1)
I’d like to request more visiting from our big bodies or people from other like you to come and visit the communities and rule out all the attitudes on inclusive education.
Appendices 247
So the people here they will remember and say “oh that’s what the teachers are saying. It’s a very important matter to be inclusive. Here in our school as you can see all the ramps built like this. We are ready now. We are able to welcome anybody now. All schools are welcoming. (SE1)
My comment is on the issues you are on now, the project you are doing now is very important to Kiribati. Also inclusive education, some people look at it as a bit complicated. It’s going to be complicated. It’s going to be costly. It’s going to be a waste of time to some people. This is changing now but to me inclusive education is a wonderful opportunity for everyone, for the government of Kiribati because inclusive programs minimize costly things, minimize expenditure to the country. Every inclusive programs minimize expenses to our country and my last comment is a very big thank you to you Rodney for taking this up. You are very strong. Thank you very much. The first time I met you looked so frustrated in this. Kiribati has no this. I saw you now you’re looking very confident. Maybe because of the program you did at KTC helps a lot as well. And also X. I would like to acknowledge X’s work because she has moved things super –fast [moving fast]. She kept on holding on those committees even though some of them had problems. She did a wonderful job. Sometimes I come late. She says OK, it’s just a motivation. I want to complete my sentence about you. Now I see you you are confident looking forward to work on this one. Thank you so much because you have done a lot for inclusive education in Kiribati. Inclusive schools give a bright future of everyone especially those who need special attention from the start. They’re given the opportunity. They’ll be helping Kiribati. (DPO)
That’s a good question. I really fear about the sustainability of things. We also talked about this at our meetings. I also know that it is the practice of the government. They build a house and they don’t have a maintenance plan or things in place but I hope we need to strengthen that before the end of those when they keep on coming or otherwise inclusive education is for the sake of aid in terms of different aids and then when DFAT goes away we are going to have the opposite of that a disclusive or exclusive, dis inclusive. It’s a challenge. Know it’s a challenge. I know we have a lot of projects but in terms of sustainability it’s going to be a million dollars in terms of assisting those. I hope the Ministry will have to come up with fund raising. I think the government can do that because they have a lot of income from the fishing industry. (TC)
We’re willing the move further. I still think it’s quite challenging for the Ministry. I know that for the Ministry to achieve that goal of providing quality education for all children in Kiribati we have to include those children. (M2)
From my point of view if we form our centre for disabled schools we need proper training with the staff in order to meet the needs. Otherwise if we apply to this place we should know that this place is different from other schools and also be more care taking for the kids. Also have the patience to look after the kids. I mean love is to be placed right in the school. If you haven’t that kind of shared love inside you [sharing] so you will walk out in the yard, no. It’s a challenging place to work. If there are proper people. We are just starting from now. I know that programs need to be developed in the school [developing programs]. I’ve been here for just 2 years and I don’t know what they have been doing from the beginning when they start this
Appendices 248
school. I just started from the curriculum. We should think about this school to go on because no one has 100%. No Australian has all the answers. We have all the problems in the world. Challenges. Can you see this school helping other schools with inclusive education? (C). I think we work together with other schools [working together]. In the sense that if we have kids who are capable in doing what we expect them to do at their levels then send them to the other primary schools and help support them. We went with them and provide whatever they need [providing] and also informed the teacher about what is happening with that kid so they will look after him well. For example if they are blind this kid needs to be at the front. This kid cannot sit properly. This is his desk and chair so he can sit comfortably. I was in Y school and X came up with a student. She cannot sit properly so she asked permission from me. I said “come on, what’s going on. We will enter this kid. We are kind of dead because we never had that kind of kid and what should we do if there is something wrong?” X came and said “don’t worry there’s this chair.” So there is a way. They went to another school and get permission to register and get together with the parents and work together with the parents to register that child in the school. Then we tried to get together with the principal to see if there are any problems regarding disability or what else. We can talk together a partnership [talking together]. It’s a free education in Kiribati. There’s no way to. Before they could but now it’s inclusive there is no way to send us away. Even those blind he has the right to sit here. It is his place. Let him sit here and listen. This is his right in the classroom. Every child has the right to choose which school do you like? So the boss has no way to say no. If he says no it’ll be in the reports. The child will gain money from him. (SE2)
Appendix C2 Values Coding Donor Interview Responses
Key Important Think/feel
Q1. What is you role? [response deleted as participant is identified]
Q2. What is your understanding of inclusive education? An education whereby the system tries to adapt in order to cater for the different learning needs of all students including students with disabilities. Some teachers feel that inclusive education is for special students only. Inclusive education is for all. All different needs including learning difficulties and physical disabilities, special needs, hearing impairment, Learning may be affected by such things as natural disaster (e,g. flooded island), those who have various family problems, children come from different homes, homes which are not very supportive parents do not understand, being bullied by others. Education for all. Key point- special needs that’s good but what about other children, learning needs not capable.
Q3. How does inclusive education apply to Kiribati? Teachers in the classroom deal mostly with just the good ones so that’s the practice. Inclusive education is really important for teachers to realize that they also should consider other children who are being overlooked because of their ability. But
Appendices 249
currently our practice in the classroom is teaching for the smart those who are good. But now with inclusive education we are trying to make more individual emphasis on this. It’s not really new because teachers when they were trained you have different abilities but the practice is not reflected. I think that in the roll out of inclusive education we are going to help teachers apply what really is inclusive education.
Q4. What are the challenges and barriers? Quite a few. The barriers to inclusive education is the attitude of people. Different people like parents. When we consulted the Inclusive Education Policy in one of the outer islands talking with a parent whose child has a disability and not sending that child to school, she said I have tried once to send my kid but when my kid arrived at school he was not welcomed by the teacher. Parents know that they have to send that child even though he has a disability. The attitude of the teacher is a barrier because the teacher is not trying to accommodate this child. So the child next time he quits. The child can feel that the teacher is not welcoming. The barrier is teacher attitudes. Some parents are fearful to send their child to school. Maybe they’ve being teased by the kids or being bullied. Maybe it’s an extra effort to take that child to and from school. That is a challenge with some parents. from the kids it’s not really a problem because the kids with disabilities they’re cute and talking with a few they loved to go to school. This is a good picture once the child is at school the other children are accepting provided the teacher provides guidance. If the children see the teacher being welcoming and caring for this child the other children will do the same. Here the key person is the teacher. Talking with one grandmother with a girl with disabilities she expressed her gratitude to the kids because the girl could not walk so they go and get her to school and take her back. One day the transport was taken by another family member so they were late. The other kids took her on their back. The grandmother was shocked and happy. Children can be very supportive if guided by the teacher. At workshops teachers who had 2 deaf boys said I could not do the sign language. I just worked on them and allowed them to join the class. These 2 boys can write. We did not teach them just listening and watching and now they can write. Negotiate with the parents just be around. We are trying to convey those messages to our teachers to address the barriers. The teachers say we do not know how to look after these children. What are we going to do? We cannot do sign language. I say to them do whatever you can to accommodate these kids and doing that you are giving the child his or her rights to education. Kiribati has signed the convention so you people have to accept these children. No challenges from the Ministry. No objections from them they are very supportive. It is in their ESSP now clearly highlighted. In the new ESSP inclusive education stands as a goal. The extent which they can provide assistance is just for the learning leaving the special needs for the private school. Currently there is not in the plan to establish schools like this special school in outer islands. They have recognized this school and encouraged parents if they can go to school for those in the outer islands. All Principals are being encouraged, I mean required to accept or enroll all children with disabilities. That’s why I’m saying the Ministry of Education is very supportive of inclusive education.
Q5. How realistic are inclusive education initiatives? Now at this point in time I can say they are achievable to the specific ability. They are successful or achievable to the extent of just welcoming and giving the child the feeling. Achievable in terms of attitude but for knowledge and skills needs to be given more thoughts because now what we are telling our principals just try whatever
Appendices 250
you can to work on this kid. Encourage them to be … Teachers are asking how are we going to deal with the blind or deal with the deaf. What the Ministry can do is not much. We cannot train all teachers to do those but if you can encourage parents to send their kids to the private school. At Kirimati Island when I launched the Inclusive Education Policy there one parent asked “I heard there is a special school in Tarawa. Why doesn’t the Minister of Education set up another one for Kirimati Island? I responded by saying for your information the special school is a private school. It wasn’t set up by the Ministry of Education but it has been recognized. It’s just like an NGO and like other church schools. So they are given funds so it’s up to the school to cater for kids capacity. So maybe you can liaise with the special school if they can set up another branch on your island but the Minister of Education cannot do much because that is not a government school. So maybe it’s up to the council to think about that.
Q6. How has Australian Aid contributed to the introduction of inclusive education? KEF funded by DFAT. We have UNICEF too. UNICEF is doing the multi-grade teaching. The KEF initiatives fund the local inclusive education coordinator and the expat advisor. The expat advisor comes twice a year. Also fund the special school for the training. Also fund the community consultation team and the message given from the team is inclusive, inclusive education. I just liaise with the leader to include Te Toa Matoa to be part of the community consultation team. X walking with a walking stick joined the team. They went to a mwanabe. The man couldn’t stand but just sit to deliver the message. The capacity of our trainers to roll out multi-grade teaching. KEF has done a great achievements with the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. To start off is the development of the Inclusive Education Policy. They fund that providing financial support and technical support. Also contributed to the promotion and advocacy of inclusive education to the country, to the community, to teachers. Also negotiated successfully with other ministries organized or fund an inclusive education showcase 2014, 2015. During the showcase other stakeholders got together and shared what they have done to support inclusion. The statistics from finance shared that we have included 5 questions in the census for inclusion of people with disabilities to collect data for people with disabilities. Divisions of the Ministry of Education – Curriculum, KTC, Exams also presented. Without foreign aid I don’t think much would be achieved. Foreign aid is bringing things together and initiate all of these and keep them mobilized. The Ministry would not be able to do all this. My role is to work closely with the SEO. What I have really found I did most of the work because they are very busy with their own load. I make sure the decision is made from them. during the meetings which I organize for them I always make sure the person from the Ministry is the chair and started the meeting. They have ownership and leadership. I’m just the person behind but I’m doing it all. Our strategies - what do you think, further input or comments. That’s good so you sign it. As a local I’m from the project but I’m from Kiribati. I’m grateful and happy for foreign aid. They have done a tremendous job progressing inclusive education.
Q7. What guidelines and accountability requirements does Australian Aid assign these programs? KEF wants me to write quarterly, four reports. Also require me to ensure the project’s relationship with the Ministry and other Ministries is well in place. Not to drive but to share with them. My boss always tells me this to sure that whatever you do the Ministry agrees. That is the guideline. Also my other colleagues in KEF are
Appendices 251
following whenever we want to do anything that decision has been decided or agreed by the Ministry. My report is the Ministry’s. But of course I am doing this but it reads like the Ministry and Senior Education Officer with the assistance of KEF. I think it’s a very effective strategy because the ownership is really built there and now they know their role. They can ask for my assistance. “Can you draught it and then I’ll have a look at it. I have to do things”. I say OK I’ll do it so I draft something. All my jobs are not for me. What can I say I did the work but for somebody. I’m just the person doing the work behind the scenes. I’m busy but please come. Just show your face and you start the meeting and then invite me to take over. That is the strategy or the way we did things. I never start the meeting or workshop but the Ministry person always and then invite me to do the rest.
Q: Are there advantages of being I-Kiribati? I think there’s an advantage. This role has to be I-Kiribati because first of all I know the culture. I can talk with the people in our own way and I have a good understanding of my people, the need of my people and the way my people will react. If an Imatang or someone else do this their thinking is from their own but me I know the standard of my people. I know the way of their thinking, their behaviour, their performance. I can be more patient because I know. If an outsider says something 3 or 4 times but I know they need 100 times before change because this is our culture. I know they are trying but they need time. It is difficult for them because they have grown uo in this situation. I have to weave it into my culture. Like a TA or someone is very needed also. What I’m doing with X in Australia at a distance we do email. When I’m going to do something I ask X “This is my idea”. I cannot proceed without seeking my TA’s approval like advice. I want to do things in my culture as well as using the new ideas.
Q8. What is the government’s commitment to Inclusive Education? What is the government doing to show this commitment? The commitment to inclusive education is supportive. I can say that definitely because I know my government has signed the Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities my government is supportive. That is why the Ministry, Minister of Education is really considering inclusive education and maybe that is why inclusive education is a highlight as one of the Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) key areas. That is because my government supported the convention agreements and doesn’t want Kiribati not to work towards that. The government recognised the TTM (Te Toa Matoa) organization. Now Te Toa Matoa has been registered as one of the non-government organisations. They registered the school here. Now they are providing funds. Before this school was not recognized and now the government has made a step.
Q9. How was a focus on inclusive education initiated? It started from the donors. So these new ideas like inclusive gender, inclusive education, disability. They are new ideas. This is good because being an I-Kiribati I have grown up with this small world without realizing that things can be improved. For example people with disabilities can be treated more better. In my culture people with disabilities are regarded as useless, not important, not really accepted to come to the public. They just stay home hidden away but with these new ideas being introduced we just realized we have not done something good for these people. We realized these people are human beings just like the others but without these leading people coming people with disabilities would just stay the same. It built our
Appendices 252
awareness and opened our mind and hearts. We are very grateful that new ideas are introduced to Kiribati because Kiribati is not staying as it is but changed. So how can we cope with changes if we do not have support from others. Of course we can do for some extent. I think foreign aid ideas are needed for us to go in the right direction.
Q10. What would happen if there was reduced or no foreign aid support for inclusive education? It’s a good question. I work with the foreign aid and I realize that without foreign aid all these achievements wouldn’t of happened. I think that would be the same if the foreign aid stops. I think inclusive education would freeze. Now it’s progressing well. Not really going backwards but not progressing. Currently people at the Ministry cannot do much to really support inclusive education. Having this role from the project I can now progress the Ministry of Education goal towards inclusive education in all areas learning and those areas inclusive education. It would be sad if the foreign aid stopped because my government also needs finance, technical advice. Local people have the capacity but they still need finance for a time now. My Ministry has very, very need of operational funds. All the government is catering for the salaries. The salaries of the people within the Ministry of Education and now the donors, the foreign aid are supporting the activities. That will be a big problem if they stop so very little activity will happen. They won’t develop their capacity.
Q11. Any other comments? I would like to compliment the foreign aid’s in support of my country. I know when I first started with this project we have achieved quite a lot. I’ve seen changes of attitudes by the people in this area. Like buildings are now being built more accessible. To say thank you and wish that foreign aid continues to support Kiribati. I can see changes because of our policy promotion. It’s getting there.
Appendix C3: Donor Interview Responses
What is Australia’s role in supporting Inclusive Education? You can see the importance of inclusive education in the Development for All Strategy. That is the new strategy that DFAT developed. It’s guiding most of the development programs even in Kiribati. It’s guiding our design. It’s also integrated or mainstreamed into the education strategies. It’s basically guiding our interventions as well linking to all those international conventions submitted to the Government of Kiribati. You can see the commitment to those international interventions. There is a big proportion of the population that have special needs to be developed and think about economic roles. You have to think about all the people in society making sure that they are provided with equal opportunities which is important. There is also one of the findings from the WHO. It’s around 10-15% of the overall population that have sort of disabilities. Part of development you always need to consider these disability people just to make sure you are helping them economic growth. From the local perspective disability in the past has always been seen as a family issue. The Government of Kiribati didn’t see it as a priority and did not ask partners for assistance on that. DFAT is committed to disability. For us from a disability side we are pushing to have them participate and be leaders and decision makers in development decisions because they are marginalized ones and they are always left
Appendices 253
far behind. It’s not just the government. It’s families and the community as well. They see them as people who shouldn’t be participating in the society. I think our push is to make them in the inclusive education, to educate a lot more, to provide them with better opportunities to participate in society and in development. We always ask our partners to include people with disabilities in their committees or in their activities, in their awareness raising. With health we ask them with their mobile clinics to also visit people with disabilities especially those Te Toa Matoa. It’s become part in what we do now in our programs. We ask them if they’re talking about basic awareness of certain things, health or gender or education. We ask them also make sure people with disabilities are included. That was one of the questions we put up to Ministry of Education when they were developing the Inclusive Education Policy. I think they included ability of girls who are married or pregnant to go back to school before excluded. Including people who are older, out of school age. I think it’s when my experience with the KEIP program after implementing KEIP phase 1. That’s when they got their master review of the old Education Act. At that time inclusion was part of the requirement. Before that the Ministry responsible for people with disabilities were very committed to the international conventions but different sectors they’re not sure. They have a part in mainstreaming disability into their policies, their acts. We can see when they developed their new education act they actually provide that clause in that pregnant girls can go back to school and even spelt out the parents’ responsibility, the Ministry of Education and community to make sure they send their kids to school. All the school age children have to be in school. In the act you can see how the Ministry starts to think about their responsibility. How they can accommodate the needs of all children with special needs. Then it’s reflected down to the Inclusive Education Policy and now they are trying to develop the implementation strategy.
What is your understanding of inclusive education? If you look at the word inclusive it’s simply saying you are including everyone in the system. In that system it’s more meant to be at the mainstream or regular classroom because that’s where the quality education or relevant education is at. To me that’s the main idea behind this concept. For all the boys and girls including children with special needs not in the mainstream or main classrooms but regular classrooms. Including them in the domains of accessing the same education as everyone, equal opportunity, participate in everything. Same environment, learning, sharing with all the children their age. That kind of atmosphere. It’s about including everyone. That does not mean it’s just for children or those with disability. It’s everyone so that includes children, girls, women, old people no matter how old you are. It’s about providing these people with access to opportunity. The inclusive education that I’m aware of doesn’t really touch on adults. From my understanding it should include everyone no matter what their differences. It’s about providing them with all those opportunities, the support and the environment to learn what they want to learn in order to participate in society. Inclusive Education Policy also spells out the responsibility of the community, of the parents to support sending kids to school also providing that welcoming environment. In Kiribati if you are trying to put kids with special needs in the mainstream classroom the parents of the other kids will say “how will the teacher cater for those kids and cater for our children?” To me it’s more inclusive thinking is just including everyone. Now I’m seeing the other side of the concept.
Appendices 254
How does inclusive education apply to education in Kiribati? To me it’s still a new concept and while have this IE Policy in place and the government is starting to think about integrating or trying to make sure every children should be in the mainstream. To me it will take time. It’s not just new to the Ministry and the teachers but it’s also new to the community, the parents, the students as well inside the classroom. They will see kids with special needs. It might take time but with the policy, the Education Act , policy implementation strategy things will change, move into a very more inclusive system. It’s good we also have the special school for children in the system to cater for their needs. It’s now a concept. The policy has just been endorsed. People haven’t really grasped the concept that children, the blind ones especially those on the outer islands. They rarely know about the government. They don’t really grasp the concept that their disabled children can go to school. We are still in that new period of disability inclusiveness, inclusive education. We still do not have the capacity and the environment yet to allow our children to access these educational opportunities thanks to KEIP.
What are the challenges and barriers to having inclusive education? Look at the outer islands first because they are the more disadvantaged children there. On the outer island you can see if we are trying to be very inclusive in our education system. The location of all the schools. The distance it’s quite a challenge if you want to make sure that you are providing access to every children. Of course there’s no special school on the outer island and the teachers are not very well trained to cater for all the needs. Looking at the JSS there is just one JSS on every outer island except Tarawa. We still don’t know where are these kids. There might be a lot of them. That’s another thing that at the moment has very limited understanding and experience. Just the right intervention that’s being provided in the schools. Also the sizes of the classes. In Kiribati the ratio is 1:30. Sometimes it’s over 30 students per teacher which will be very challenging to the teacher. Another thing when you visit the classrooms the good teachers are always placed in the top classes. There are streams like A. B. C. I remember when we designed phase 3 and then we went to North Tarawa to look at one JSS there and you can see the very smart ones teachers they are placed in the top stream and sometimes the contracted or monitors, untrained teachers took the bottom classes. That is something that they also need to think about where to place them all those children with disabilities just to think about where to place them in the streams so they can cater for their needs. At the moment the data collection is not something that they are looking at the moment. There’s no assessing, no data collection process, no tracking of the performance monitoring and providing a tracking method and then providing mentoring or strategy. The policy is supposed to provide a guideline how to support children with disability or special needs when they are in the system. That is something that needs to be clear there and integrated as part of the process and procedures. To me it’s basically to mainstream this concept of inclusive across the development of curriculum, teacher training. The funding you can see in their budget there’s not yet a recognized portion for this IE policy. It’s just the institution inside the Ministry. Just the resources at schools it’s not very a, like you said enabling environment. The Ministry at the school level is not yet able to cater for children’s needs. Apart from the lack of capacity and access we can add equipment for disabled people to access education. One of the things that comes to mind as challenges is the lack of
Appendices 255
government seeing disability as a priority. For example with this government’s priorities disability which can include inclusive education is not a priority. DFAT has supported because we saw that it wasn’t something that the previous government was committed to. They did not have a disability allocation in within any of the Ministries. DFAT has kindly supported the disability unit and supported the Senior Disability Inclusive Development Officer for the next 2 years whose job is to mainstream disability into all the sectors. A very big job! Basically it’s lack of coordination and understanding of disability impacts on development. That’s one of the challenges that our people need to be aware of, to welcome disability inclusiveness in all.
What Australian Aid programs help to support inclusive education? Inclusive education is one component under KEIP. That’s the main initiative. Some assistance that we are providing is getting all these technical experts to help train the school and the teachers to better accommodate children with special needs. What we like about these buildings that KEIP is building is that they incorporated local comments about where the toilets should be because most of the time they have a plan that toilets be built at the back. That is where most of the mischief whatever you call it. Now they put it where it can be monitored. That is inclusive. With the KEIP inclusion is quite well integrated. I don’t think it’s just an aid component of KEIP. When you look at the program outcomes it’s mostly for all children with a disability so it’s pretty well integrated into all outcomes. We had a design team that spent a bit of time out here last year and went around and talked to lots of people and made sure they integrated the Development for All stuff into the KEIP program. They were quite successful in not just tapping well that’s the disability bit of KEIP but having it quite well throughout the program. Cross cutting issues. The other thing we are trying to help is to inform policy. We have provided support to the national statistics office to incorporate the Washington questions in the last census. The report will come out later in the year which everybody can use to inform their policies.
How have these programs contributed to the introduction of inclusive education? Under KEIP phase 1 we saw providing support for policy development. They developed the Education Act and looking at the standard the NIS National Infrastructure Standard. It is now accessible for all disabled or special needs children. Under phase 2 it’s more around implementing research as part of working with teachers around participation and what sort of barriers that are sending children out of school. In KEF the National Curriculum Framework incorporating the idea of design commission and of course that’s when they start to look at teacher training. Also support the special school needs and teachers trained at KTC and quite a number of support to the school. Under KEIP phase 3 more plan on research and also providing further technical advisers looking at curriculum development from primary into JSS making sure that inclusion is part of that. TA’s on teacher training looking at the aspects of inclusion. There is also plans of organizing a tour to AQEP program in Fiji just to expose the Ministry relevant officers to this inclusion thinking. I think that this is the main program which is providing them with knowledge to think about this inclusive education.
Appendices 256
We are helping build the road provide accessible walking. We are also providing . help to the Ministry of Health. They have got a rehabilitation centre. They are proving mobility and prothestic devices for those with disabilities to enable them to walk and get to wherever they want including schools. They’ve got wheelchairs for people now. Initially the road was only supposed to have a side pathway for villages which are not that populated. I think I’ve seen it now on both sides. People pushing themselves. Before people were just pushed. They can now support themselves. They are pretty much independent to go wherever they want. Can I just add about the TVET sector strengthening program at KIT also has disability inclusion as a part of that. I don’t think it’s as prominent as KEIP. It is a small part of the program. I think they are trying to do a bit more in that area. It was in particular IT type programs offered by KIT were trying to have a bit of a focus on disability inclusion. B was saying that he has had requests from them to help out a bit in that area. He is trying to get a few things happening in the skills development area.
What guidelines and accountability requirements are requested for programs related to inclusive education? For designing programs we have our technical experts back in Canberra. Most of the time we use CBM-Nossal to review programs or be part of the program design. Every once in a while for long term projects we have mid-term reviews, evaluation reports to determine how or whether we are meeting the objectives that the program was initially designed for. We use independent ones that we go for. We have quality checks that we do every year. There’s self-reporting against the set of criteria for disability. It comes under the effectiveness. Canberra does look quite closely at all our scores. We have to provide evidence of how we are rating ourselves and progress on different programs. For higher ranking programs they are moderated for these annual checks and we have to invite people from areas such as gender and disability to the moderations. That’s a useful way to get their input as well as into designs that we have technical experts involved but we also often have peer reviews of moderations that we make sure that we invite people from gender and disability areas to give that perspective on programs. But pretty much all of our programs have M&E frameworks. We usually have at least a question on disability but something like KEIP has quite a lot of the questions in Phase 3 and in some degree Phase 2 have questions which are asking for data about inclusion. We have some problems with simply not having the data up until fairly recently to be able to actually answer some of the questions but the situation is improving. We have these frameworks for most of our programs. It depends on the value as to how complicated they are but certainly for our larger projects we have a question at least on how we are doing regarding disability.
How was a focus on inclusive education initiated? Who initiated it? Actually it came from DFAT. That’s how I see the first initiation of inclusive education. It was AusAid. But then we had to work with the Ministry to get some research. Involve them in looking at their Education Act. To me it came from AusAid but when you discuss with them and you mention these they say ‘Oh yeah the government is committed to sign the national convention. To me inclusive education came from AusAid. Some of the articles in the convention are not applicable to Kiribati. We attended a workshop the human rights officer was telling us you don’t have to answer all the articles. You don’t have to report on all articles.
Appendices 257
What would happen if there was reduced or no foreign aid for inclusive education initiatives? I can’t really answer for the government but if there was no foreign aid especially the school which is quite established now we would have to find other partners to help but with inclusive education within the government system I think we will be able to find a way to support it. They’ve got there own ??? so they don’t have to depend on foreign aid all the time as people should participate in their own development. I think we can advocate for the school and we can advocate to the government to do it themselves but that’s like the best model. I’m not sure how we go about it. You can see in the government delivered yesterday they are committed to implement the Education Act and to fund it making sure that children with disabilities they should be included in mainstream classrooms. They spell out that parents who are not sending their kids to school are entitled to a punishment. It’s in the Education Act so you can see that there’s a commitment there. Not just sure how they will (enforce it). In their policy now recognizes that there is a role for the government just to make sure that before it’s actually implemented in the school just to start with raising awareness and working with the community because they are the main sectors, Main stakeholders in this approach. Even the teachers now they are really want to. They are getting into learn how to change inclusively. It’s picking up so I don’t think it will stop in school.
Any further comments? I just appreciate the opportunity to sit with you today and just listening to your questions. I think provide a further understanding especially the importance of looking at this inclusive education. If there is any information you can share with us in guiding work in KEIP Phase 3. Some of the articles in the convention are not applicable to Kiribati. We attended a workshop the human rights officer was telling us you don’t have to answer all the articles. You don’t have to report on all articles.
Appendix C4: Focus Group1 Discussion
1. What do you think about inclusive education? Is it a good idea? (C)
I think it’s a good idea to give more opportunity for those who have been left or ignored in the system. Now everyone has a place. More individuals who have been left out have been included and see themselves fortunate being involved in this.
It’s a very good idea for letting all kids come to school and no one is going to be locked away from the teacher. It’s a truthful way to try to learn.
There shouldn’t be discrimination of children. We should encourage those to come to school, the poor ones. It helps develop learning for children.
For those who are disabled they have a chance. They have a challenge. When they come to school we don’t know. Some people look at them because they are not the same. The other children can learn from them. They may not be good at reading. It
Appendices 258
can encourage other children to do better. Why those can do that and why they cannot.
There are some students who have grown up with the kids but some are handicapped. They need to be included in these programs in this school so that we can teach them or we can encourage them to be involved in the school. They can be part of the school.
It’s good for them because it makes the teachers work hard to make the student’s needs. It’s for the kids not the teachers.
2. What is being done in this school to make the school inclusive?
We start from their absenteeism. We deal with the absentees. We try and contact the parents of all their children. We encourage them to attend school. Also we work with the school committee to coordinate and speak to the parents, talk to the parents in order for them to send their children to attend school. Sometimes we teachers go in groups to visit them. We go to the community. It’s awareness for the community. We encourage them that school is a very important thing. Even though they have handicapped children they must be sure it’s very important for their learning. They mustn’t ignore them to let them stay there. We always go with our Head Teacher and members of the teachers. Mostly during the holidays we go out together and visit the community.
Teachers write down, record the names of those who won’t attend. We write letters to their parents but before they send there must be a sign from the Principal. The Principal signs that letter to the parents to let them know that the students here are absent. If a child hasn’t been to school before we welcome them. That’s our role, our responsibility.
I don’t think that mention has been given to the convention that everyone of school age whether they started early or late let them in. Tell children to encourage their peers their ages who are not coming to school.
Q Do the children feel welcomed? Sometimes they feel good and sometimes they feel bad because it’s the first time they’ve come. We get other students to take them to feel comfortable in our room. Try to cater for them according to their ability. We have types of ways, different activities. We try to let them work with the easy activities, encourage them. We sometimes let them work with the smart ones. They can help them. It’s as if they are teachers. I sometimes do that with the children and sometimes they like it.
Inclusive is a challenge. It is challenging teachers. To us teachers we prepare different activities to suit all different abilities in our class. Sometimes we also have ones who are hearing or vision. We let them sit in the front.
Appendices 259
3. How successful is what you are doing in this school? (C)
Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we feel uncomfortable. We don’t feel very right sometimes if we are not successful.
It’s our job to think about what we are going to do the next day to try and cater for that student.
We change the strategy. We also plan to have a remedial class next term so to cater for those students. We also did this last year. I think it worked for some of the students Year 6. It will be 4 this time. The earlier you can work with them the better they can learn at the end of the year.
4. What do you see are the challenges for this school?
We have to make sure we reach our goals, our benchmarks so that our school is going to be a successful one. I wish for the school especially the kids their behaviours. That’s the problem. They can’t concentrate. It’s hard to keep them to learn. When I’m trying to explain something new they keep on playing around. They are trying their disruption. That’s what I found out. This is my first year in this school and that is the hardest part. But they are still learning.
When the kids don’t they know what to do in connection with others. When one is talking they laugh at. When one is concentrating they disturb. These kinds of interactions are really annoying. It can cause chaos sometimes. More fun is needed. I wish more facilities are brought in. When they are not in the mood let us go and play there. When they are tired come in.
I wish students come on time so they can start the day.
I would change the attitudes, the attitude that they don’t want to come to school.
I wish that all the teaching aids are well on time before school starts. All the aids are there so we also prepare through our preparation beforehand. I wish we had the Teacher’s Aide a person to help along with the teacher. As you do the teaching someone prepares something inside the classroom. That also happens in some other schools in other countries. In our country we can’t afford it. I’ve seen it in other countries and I wish in Kiribati they employ the Teacher’s Aide.
I wish we had a lot of equipment for the school for the sports.
5. What’s stopping children coming to school? (C)
They’re tired. The village always rings the bell at 10 o’clock in the night. The village people ring the bell and that’s the time for every child to go to bed. The problem I found out here the parents, the transport especially the girls when they walk alone.
It’s hard for them to walk that for more than 10 minutes walking in the bushes. It’s half an hour. That means they come late. Parents support of education that’s the main problem I think. Some parents don’t support education. I think most. We send letters and meet them.
Appendices 260
The problem is we haven’t taken action that we put them in court. Maybe if we put them they’ll stop. We have to work with policemen. But it’s our traditional culture that we don’t interfere.
Sometimes when I ask a child ‘why didn’t you come yesterday?’ ‘Well I’ve got a lot of things to do. My mother told me to do that.’ What’s it! I write a letter to her mother stop.
6. Do you think attendance is improving? (C)
Yes but still there are parents- some. We are complaining at this stage but if you get kids who can’t be in class it’s nothing in the past. It’s slow change and more children are coming.
In the past you can teach about 10 something and now we are with 30 something or 40 something. We love them to come and when they come we have no problems with abilities. But the problem is not in the first place. You try to get to know them. Who has started school in time, who are just coming, who are absentees. Let them play just to let them keep coming. When they feel like coming to school start putting in more work.
Telling stories, they like that story telling. At the emd of the lesson when we finish we gather then Ok the story is about children who are being told by their parents to always come to school.
Plan to encourage them. If you flood them with difficulties they will stop coming.
7. What outside help does the school get?
The Community !! MoE (p) – materials, TPD teacher training (p) starting at the end of the year
8. What do you think about Australia giving money to Kiribati to help education, inclusive education?
We will make use of the facility to try our best to operate the standard of learning.
Maybe we won’t be able to see the school if it stopped today. Later on in years to come this is changing because of aid being sent in.
Who knows in 10 years later it will be a very unnecessary thing. We can see the improvements. For sure this change will be accomplished.
The changing of the classroom also has got children to come. They are comfortable. We thank Australia. It’s a good help
9. What would happen if Australia stopped giving money?
[nervous laugh] I think that is obvious the change will take a slow pace.
Appendices 261
If it stops it will collapse.
I think education will be ready at that time enough to maintain the buildings. There will be a downgrade.
We are training our children that the classrooms are very important. They have to look after them. ‘Don’t run on the stairs you must come and play down.’ Help them to take part in looking after the classroom to maintain the buildings. We are training them but it’s very difficult because they always want to play.
10. What do you think is the Kiribati Government commitment to inclusive education?
They want it. Sometimes it has problems with funding. It’s a good idea. They train the new students at KTC.
I think that we teachers are not trained to teach the disabilities. I think they must also have that in KTC to train the new output so that they can teach the disabilities. They must also train other primary teachers because now it is inclusive. Like the bigger ones they can attend school and we teachers can cater for their needs and teach them rather than only teaching the writing.
Because it’s a pilot school they said that they want to build the pathways for the wheelchairs so that other disabilities will come. Maybe they’re on their way to build them. We are looking forward to having them stay long.
We like the idea of inclusive education but we are not qualified. We don’t have the knowledge of teaching disabilities.
I thought that. When I was teaching on an outer island and we have this special teacher. She came on holiday and she was helping me. During the lesson I had a deaf child. He is the first to go outside because during the lesson she did the sign and he understands it. The others said how come he goes first before us. He can’t say anything. That’s what I mean we don’t have the skills, the knowledge, qualified. I’d like to be like that. I wish to have that kind of training
Do you have any comments or anything else you’d like to say?
Inclusive education is for every child to accommodate their needs.
I’d like to thank Australia for providing us with the classrooms. Besides I would like to thank Australia again for teaching new ways of inclusive education. We are very proud of the achievements. We don’t have much to cater for that. We are so pleased to have Australia be with us to cater for our needs especially for our children’s needs. About inclusive education it’s now the government to think about it. The students now and the citizens of Kiribati they know that inclusive education there are more opportunities for them especially the students.
Appendices 262
There will be change in that and maybe the way of life in education including in the homes. There will be more in Kiribati. Later on you can do a lot of hope compared to now. Also that the teachers there will be a fund from Australia to let them do more training also in Kiribati but maybe in Australia letting us teachers go to Australia and do training there and observe.
I have one question. Before I was in school before I retired we didn’t hear this inclusive education and now it’s been put in. Who initiated this? My comment is that we are very fortunate to see this thing and Kiribati schools will benefit. Every citizen young and old later on they will grow up to treat people equally. No more discrimination and this will be a great change in Kiribati. It is good because we can see our people, I mean our kids. In the past some of the people they can’t read or when they see the sign and the date. I think it’s good for them.
I collect all the ideas and try a summary. The awareness of inclusive helped the future of those who are handicapped. Maybe one day in the future one will become President. Maybe the disabled children have a special knowledge that we don’t know. And maybe with the teacher she will become a famous Kiribati or writer person. The awareness of parents that they must take care of their disability children. They must not ignore them. Some of the Kiribati people always ignore their disabilities. Let them stay in the house. But now today I see some of them always stand near the wall with their child to put them on the bus. One time I was waiting for the passenger on that bus. I’m very happy because all of those children we parents thought that they are not useful, they have no future. Now we know they are taking care of them and we know in the future they can have their future. Not only the ones that are fully developed the disabled too we know that they have a future. So thank you to that inclusive learning in Kiribati. Who are those our cousins who are now old? They are old but they cannot read compared with [others]. And thank you. We hope that in the future Kiribati everyone will be equal. Even though you are disabled you can do what the able ones. Together they are now equal. On their way. Everyone has a place in Kiribati and they have a right also rather than being left behind. It is good to have inclusive education.
Appendix C5: Focus Group 2 Discussion
1. What do you think inclusive education is?
It means everyone will be included even the disabled or all like that/ Including all the children/ Everyone has to be taught as one/ The teaching has to be fair for everyone.
2. What you think about inclusive education? Is it a good idea?
It’s a good idea because those who are disabled must be included with those who are not/ It’s good in the way that everyone has to be included. No one has to be excluded/ So that every children has the feeling that they are treated the same/ A very good idea because everyone is included whoever is, I mean those who are disabled. They have a part that they are included among those who are well/ But sometimes it’s very hard. It’s beautiful but it’s very hard for the teacher. We don’t have much knowledge especially the disabled.
Appendices 263
3. What are you doing in this school for inclusive education?
As I have explained I don’t have or maybe one disabled but in their ability I try to split them into 3 groups. I put them this last term, this week and last week. I split them. One group is for those who were very smart. Is that inclusive?/ You can still give them activities according to their abilities [big pause] [repeat question] [example given student missed school]. Our policy is providing them with books/ There’s one from education, the Ministry of Education the books and the resources are free for them/ I know there’s no fee for the small ones [laugh]/ and the school rules are not so strict for them. The school rules just to remind to be on time, to wear uniform but the penalty is not so hard for some.
4. Is this a friendly school? (C)
Yes you notice the smiling faces. The parents coming in and out, the food stalls like a big family. Very welcome. There’s a room for parents.
5. How successful do you think the school is in including everybody?
Maybe yes maybe no. But it’s good we know some of the parents. We know them better.
6. What are the challenges with including children?
Some want to be included and some don’t. They are undisciplined. They have different behaviours. [To address the challenge] maybe to go and visit the parents. We also had a program this term a visiting to the parents. It helped. It was very helpful. The school decided/ We should include the community so we have to visit them.
7. What stops you from being able to do all you want to include children?
The number of children. The class size.
8. What would you do to change things?
A conducive classroom to make the classroom a home/ Environmental studies to improve the environment/ I would listen to the teachers of the classrooms and make them better.
9. What outside help does the school get?
The community helps the school in maintaining the classrooms. If you turn around you can see the offices. That’s the community contribution to the school. The Red Cross came only yesterday and gave kits for the children. UNICEF provided computers for the teachers.
10. Do you know of anything that has come from Australian Aid?
Appendices 264
The large straw container for the drinking water. It’s very big. It’s inside the classrooms. We have six. When you drink no longer go to buy them. It’s for those who have no money. They can use the water drinking for their health. The blue boxes for resources- Big Books and counters for the small kids. The TPD program professional development (p). Year 5 and 6 just started the new curriculum. It started in 2013. We did it in the outer island.
11. What do you think the government’s commitment is to inclusive education to having all children included in schools?
Yes it is. 12. What do you think would happen if there was no Australian Aid helping to include all children?
We’d look to other countries. It’s a big help. Maybe the program will stop. It can be if there’s no other countries.
[Fair and Friendly]
Appendices 265 Appendix D: Values groupings of phrases and sentences containing the words ‘important’, ‘feel’, ‘think’.
Key: Derived sub-themes
Key: Derived sub-themes Disability priorities Support for inclusive Local responses to education principles inclusive education initiatives
Aid Contribution Future Sustainability
Important Inclusive education is really important for teachers to realize that they also should consider other children It’s important that teachers to consider other children being overlooked because of their ability It’s important to not look at the disability It’s important to enforce IE Policy Australian advisor knows important matters Inclusive education is very important No longer coming from Australia is very important for Kiribati People with disabilities not seen as important in my culture Inclusive education we believe it’s a really important initiative It’s very important to be inclusive Project now very important Provide equal opportunity which is important Even though they have handicapped children they must make sure it’s very important for their learning Think/feel Some teachers feel that inclusive education is for special students only Roll out of inclusive education helps teachers apply what really is inclusive education Hurt our feelings for the child Child can feel that the teacher is not welcoming Able to provide an enabling environment Don’t think it’s the fault of the teachers Make sure outer islands access education Sometimes people think people with disabilities have no future In the past the government did not see the importance I think we’ll be OK Without foreign aid not much would be achieved Welcoming the child MoE strategies, what you think, further inputs or comments Think that’s part of Australian Aid Need to think about activities It’s a very effective strategy because ownership is built in New government is committed Inclusive education is not to stop but continue
Appendices 266
Foreign ideas are needed to go in the right direction Think hard on how to continue Think it was through KEF Feel regret about what we have done Teach how or do whatever you can because that’s what we feel Everything would stop Would be a shame if foreign aid stops Inclusive education would freeze While we have the donors work on the facilities and teacher training It’s quite challenging for the Ministry No Australian has all the answers Think about all people Our push is to them in inclusive education Not just an aid component of KEIP Think about their responsibility More it’s inclusive just including everyone About integrating, trying to make sure every child should be in the mainstream About where to place all those children with disabilities We will be able to find a war to support it Don’t think it will stop in schools Even now teachers really want it Provide further understanding of the importance in looking at this inclusive education Expose the Ministry to this inclusive thinking Provide them with the knowledge to think about inclusive education We can advocate for the schools and government to do it themselves It’s a good idea to give more opportunity for those who have been left out or ignored Everyone of school age whether they started early or late let them in Sometimes we feel uncomfortable we don’t feel very right Our job is to think about what we are going to do The change will take a slow pace Must have that at the Teacher’s College Teachers trained to teach children with disabilities Now the government has to think about it
Appendices 267
Appendix E: Teacher and administrators attitudes towards inclusive education (Rodney Yates, 2013) A survey of teachers on concerns about inclusive education (modified from Sharma & Desai,2002) was conducted across Year 1 & 2 Teachers and Head Teachers in North and South Tarawa as part of the Inclusive Education Awareness Raising module for the cycle 2 Teacher Professional Training program. There were 99 responses. Statement Very A Little Not Concerned Concerned Concerned I will not have enough time to plan 43 34 21 educational programs for students with disabilities. (TIME) It will be difficult to maintain discipline in 44 43 11 class. (DISCIPLINE)
I do not have knowledge and skills 54 30 14 required to teach students with disabilities. (SKILLS) I will have to do additional paper work. 36 42 20 (PAPER WORK) Students with disabilities will not be 39 33 26 accepted by non-disabled students. (ACCEPTANCE) Parents of children without disabilities 43 37 18 may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom with students with disabilities (PARENTS) My school will not have enough funds for 47 35 16 implementing inclusion successfully. (FUNDS) There will be inadequate staff available to 52 32 14 support students, examples- teacher assistants, therapists (ADEQUATE STAFFING) I will not receive enough incentives 29 32 37 (additional allowance) to integrate students with disabilities. (INCENTIVES) My workload will increase. (WORKLOAD) 48 24 26
Appendices 268
Statement Very A Little Not Concerned Concerned Concerned Other staff members of the school will be 47 35 17 stressed. (COLLEAGUES) My school will have difficulty in 50 34 15 accommodating students with various types of disabilities because of access/buildings (ACCOMODATION) There will be inadequate resources or 44 44 11 special teachers available to support inclusion. (RESOURCES) My school will not have adequate special 56 35 8 education instructional materials and teaching aids, e.g. Braille. (MATERIALS) The overall academic standards of the 37 41 21 school will suffer. (STANDARDS) My performance as a classroom teacher or 32 45 22 school principal will decline. (PERFORMANCE) The academic achievement of students 43 36 20 without disabilities will be affected. (ACHIEVEMENT) It will be difficult to give equal attention to 49 36 14 all students in an inclusive classroom. (ATTENTION) I will not be able to cope with disabled 58 32 9 students who do not have adequate self- care skills e.g. students who are not toilet trained. (SELF-CARE) There will be inadequate administrative 57 30 12 support to implement the inclusive education program. (ADMIN SUPPORT) The inclusion of a student with disability 42 41 16 in my class or school will lead to higher degree of anxiety and stress in me. (STRESS)
An analysis of the survey identified the items causing the most concerns and the items causing the least concern is outlined below.
Appendices 269
Items causing the most concern (more than Items causing the least concern (less than 50% of respondents were very concerned) 40% of respondents were very concerned)
Student self-care 58% Incentives 29%
Admin support 57% Teacher performance 32%
Specialist materials 56% Additional paper work 36%
Lack of teaching skills 54% Standards 37%
Adequate staffing levels 52% Acceptance by students 39%
Accommodation 50%
FACTORS Very Concerned A Little Concerned Not Concerned
I Resources 51% 36% 13%
II Acceptance 45% 36% 39%
III Academic 44% 39% 17%
Standards
IV Workloads 40% 35% 25%
Reference Umesh Sharma & Ishwar Desai (2002) Measuring Concerns about Inclusive Education, Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability
Note: This survey was taken at the end of the teacher development training session on inclusive education awareness raising (TPD Cycle 2, Session 9) which may have produced a ‘halo effect’ distorting teachers’ independent view of inclusive education when back in their schools.
Appendices 270
Appendix F: Teacher Professional Learning Module
Session Title Inclusive Education is Good Teaching
Key Inclusive Education is Good Teaching Understandings The new curriculum is inclusive Teachers can cater for individual needs using the curriculum Learning By the end of the session participants can- outcomes: Identify student individual needs Decide how to teach using SMART goals Apply teaching/ learning strategies to support individual needs Provide feedback and monitoring Apply structured cooperative learning Evaluate their own teaching practice in catering for individual needs Activity Procedure and Duration Introduction Introduce the topic Teaching’ Slide 1 (5 mins) Share learning outcomes with participants Slide 2 Explain that this session is an overview of good teaching practice and that good teachers are adapting the curriculum to cater for the range of ability in their classroom. Stress no two students in their class are the same Slide 3
Review that the new curriculum is inclusive as it- Slide 4 • Is Child-centred • Uses a Variety of Teaching Strategies • Uses Teacher Modelling • Uses Concrete Materials • Provides Creative Learning Activities • Provides Interactive Co-operative Group Work • Is Flexible (Participants will check if they are implementing these strategies in the school based task set at the end of the session)
Activity 1 Child Centred (15 Minutes) Review profile of a student in their class. Slide 5 What can they already do in literacy or numeracy? What can’t they do in literacy or numeracy? What interests them? What are their background experiences? How do they learn the best? reading, listening, talking, watching, doing…by themselves/with someone… where -inside/outside In pairs discuss their selected student. (Participants completed the student profile as a School Based Task). Discuss in pairs how this information can be used to help the student’s learning in literacy or numeracy. Slide 6
Appendices 271
Facilitators get feedback from the pairs. (Responses may include –can build on what the student can do, can identify what the student needs help with, can identify background factors which limit learning, can use the best method in teaching the student). Activity 2 Decide How to Teach (10 Minutes) Ask participants what are SMART goals? Review (Slide 7) Show examples of SMART goals. Discuss how these goals are specific, measureable (95% accuracy), achievable, realistic, timely (end of term1 or end of the topic). • By the end of term 1 Aberaam can independently print his name with 95% accuracy or • By the end of term 1 Tatita can identify 12 words with beginning vowel sounds (a, o, u) 11 out of 12 times Facilitator’s Note Point out that the 3rd and 4th examples – (Aberaam will learn to write, Tatita will learn to read) are not specific, are difficult to measure, may not be achievable or realistic and has no time line. Slide 8
Participants write their own SMART Goal for the student used in the previous activity related to teaching literacy or numeracy. Share examples with the group. Facilitator’s Note The syllabus provides SMART objectives for most students. This activity focusses on a student who is not able to achieve these objectives. Activity 3 Teaching/ Learning Strategies (45 Minutes) Facilitator’s Note Varying teaching and learning strategies provides support for different student learning styles. Stress that the teacher needs to make sure that the students understood what is to be done. Slide 9
Give the participants the following instructions (all instructions to be given before starting the task) ‘on the piece of paper start in the bottom left hand corner, then draw a line to the middle of the top of the paper, then draw a line down to the bottom right hand corner, then draw a line to the middle of the left hand side, then draw a straight line across to the middle of the right hand side, finally draw a line to the bottom left hand corner.’ Select participants to show their drawing to the group. Repeat the exercise by modeling the drawing
Participants discuss in pairs why modeling is important Slide 10 Get feedback from participants. Demonstrate answers Slide 11 • Students learn in different ways. • Modelling allows the student to see and hear what needs to be done • Talk about what has to be done as you demonstrate the task. • There is a greater chance that all students will understand what needs to be done and can do it.
Appendices 272
• Confucius said “I hear I forget, I see I remember, I do I understand”
Form small groups. Groups brainstorm ‘How can using concrete materials and creative activities assist a student with learning difficulties’. Slide 12 Groups record answers on chart paper and report back to the whole group. (responses may include ‘concrete materials provide examples to support student learning’, ‘creative learning is non-threatening and enjoyable’).
Facilitator’s Note State that the daily plan teacher notes can be used to remind the teacher of any additional information, resources or tasks they need to do. The teacher notes can also be used to note support for individual students. Show example using the teacher’s notes to support an individual student ‘Toaki places cut out squares on partners drawing- model response’ Slide 13 Participants write notes for an individual student on the Daily Plan worksheet for one lesson (participants choose one lesson from Te Kiribati, Creative Activities or Community & Culture). Share examples from the group. Slide 14
Demonstrate individual teaching strategies Slide 15 • Give additional time to complete tasks • Reduce the level of task complexity and difficulty • Break the task into smaller steps • Use concrete materials for the individual student • Provide peer support
Brainstorm as a whole group why feedback and monitoring are important. Record responses on chart paper. Slide 16 Discuss the importance of feedback and monitoring to ensure that the student is learning (feedback provides correction of student errors at early stages, monitoring provides information about if the student is learning and if teaching needs to change). Slides 17 & 18
Show the Failure Cycle Slide 19 Facilitator’s Note- The failure cycle develops negative attitudes to learning and results in failure to learn.
Conclude this activity with what you can do if the student isn’t learning. Slide 20 • Use your records to check if learning is happening • Change the activity if progress is not being made- sooner rather than later • Break the task into smaller steps • Get a peer to help the student • Try another way- talk to colleagues for ideas
Appendices 273 BE CREATIVE Facilitator’s Note: These are ways of overcoming the failure cycle.
Conclusion Hand out Teacher Check List. Slide 30 (5 Minutes) Check with a tick for yes or a cross X for no or an S for sometimes Do I- • Vary My Teaching Strategies? • Model Learning Tasks? • Use Concrete Materials? • Have Frequent Interaction with Students? • Provide Hints and Clues to assist learning? • Provide Additional Time for Students To Complete Tasks? • Reduce Task Difficulty for individual students? • Give immediate, frequent, explicit feedback? • Use positive reinforcement? • Check and confirm Student Understanding of the task? After individually completing the checklist the whole group responds with thumbs up for yes or thumbs down for no or in the middle for sometimes as the facilitator reads each statement.
School Based Task- Apply any of the strategies from this session in your class tomorrow. Be prepared to discuss next session. Slide 31
Appendices 274 Appendix G: Ministry of Education Research Approval
GOVERNMENT OF KIRIBATI MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
P.O BOX 374, BIKENIBEU TARAWA, Kiribati: Ph: (686) 298275, 29276
23 October 2015
Dear Rodney, Thank you for your request letter to come and conduct your research on role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. I am indeed very grateful that you still find interest in the Education system in Kiribati, in particular the Inclusive Education. Please be informed that the Ministry of Education is supportive of your research and has approved for the research to be conducted in Kiribati. The ministry also approves participation and involvement of its staff and divisions in the research. I wish you all the best in your preparation for this important research. Best regards, Verified signature
Lucy Kum-On Officer in Charge – for Secretary Ministry of Education
Appendices 275 Appendix H: DFAT Research Approval Email
From: Vallance, Sam
Hi Rodney
I’m pleased to advise that your research interview request has been approved by Canberra. The conditions are that I sit in on any interviews with DFAT staff members, and that the comments made are not for attribution to DFAT or the individuals, as you have advised. (We have some strict rules that only the Minister and approved senior officers can make public statements representing the department.)
I’d suggest you may wish to interview Florence (education program manager) and/or Kakiateiti (disability program manager). They have both been involved in managing the program for several years. Would it be appropriate to interview them both together at our office, with me sitting in? I would be very happy to let them lead the discussion and stay in the background as they are much more across the particulars of the program.
Canberra has advised that they have no issue with you approaching Coffey, the managing contractor, about interviewing their IE adviser(s). I don’t need to sit in on that and you can approach Kaye Cox directly (Team Leader, but currently on leave for Easter until 31 March).
Kind regards Sam
Appendices 276
Appendix I: QUT Ethics Approval Email
From: QUT Research Ethics Unit Sent: Monday, 28 September 2015 3:09 PM To: Suzanne Carrington; Hitendra Pillay; Rodney Yates Cc: Janette Lamb Subject: Ethics application - approved - 1500000645
Dear Prof Suzanne Carrington and Mr Rodney Yates
Project Title: Aid, attitudes and ambivalence: The impact of Australian aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in the Republic of Kiribati
Ethics Category: Human - Low Risk Approval Number: 1500000645 Approved Until: 28/09/2017 (subject to receipt of satisfactory progress reports)
We are pleased to advise that your application has been reviewed and confirmed as meeting the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.
I can therefore confirm that your application is APPROVED. If you require a formal approval certificate please advise via reply email.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific: None apply
Decisions related to low risk ethical review are subject to ratification at the available UHREC meeting. You will only be contacted again in relation to this matter if UHREC raises any additional questions or concerns.
Whilst the data collection of your project has received QUT ethical clearance, the decision to commence and authority to commence may be dependent on factors beyond the remit of the QUT ethics review process. For example, your research may need ethics clearance from other organisations or permissions from other organisations to access staff. Therefore the proposed data collection should not commence until you have satisfied these requirements.
Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any queries. We wish you all the best with your research.
Kind regards Janette Lamb / Debbie Smith on behalf of Chair UHREC
Appendices 277
Appendix I: Cover Letter for Participants and Consent Forms
COVER LETTER FOR QUT
RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview
The role of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
Dear colleague
My name is Rodney Yates and I’m currently undertaking a PhD through Queensland University of Technology (QUT) under the supervision of Professor Suzanne Carrington and Professor Hitendra Pillay.
My research is looking at the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati. In 2013 I was fortunate to spend a year in Kiribati as an Australian volunteer. My role was as teacher trainer in inclusive education at Kiribati Teachers College. This sparked my interest in how Australian Aid was supporting the introduction of this new initiative for Kiribati schools.
I would like to interview you for my research as you have been directly involved in this initiative. This would be a face to face interview in Kiribati which will take approximately 40 minutes of your time. The interview will be at your office or other agreed location. The interview will be audio recorded If you are agreeable to be interviewed I will be contacting you to arrange an interview time and provide further details.
It is expected that this project will benefit the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati through identifying and exploring issues related to this initiative. This project may also benefit your understanding of inclusive education through the sharing of ideas and therefore benefit the students in Kiribati.
The Ministry of Education has agreed to me conducting this research in Kiribati.
Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to be interviewed I will be contacting you to arrange an interview time and provide further details. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me via email.
Please note that this study has been approved by the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 1500000645).
Many thanks for your consideration of this request.
Rodney Yates PhD Student [email protected]
Professor Suzanne Carrington Head of School and Principal Supervisor +61 7 3138 3725 [email protected] Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology
Appendices 278 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview The role of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000645
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Rodney Yates Researcher:
DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD for Rodney Yates The purpose of this project is to investigate the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. I would like to interview you for my research as you have been involved in the introduction of inclusive education policy and initiatives in Kiribati.
PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve an audio recorded interview at your office or other agreed location that will take approximately 40 minutes of your time. Questions will include What is your understanding of inclusive education? How realistic are inclusive education initiatives for your schools? What foreign aid programs help to support inclusive education? How have these programs contributed to the introduction of inclusive education? What is the government’s commitment to inclusive education? What would happen if there was reduced or no foreign aid support? What further external assistance is needed?
Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment at any stage.
EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will benefit the introduction of inclusive education in Kiribati through identifying and exploring issues related to this initiative.
RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The audio recording will be destroyed following transcription of the interview (within 1 month).
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Appendices 279 I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.
QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below.
Name –Professor Suzanne Carrington, Head of School Faculty of Education, Queensland Name – Rodney Yates, PhD student University of Technology Phone Phone +61 7 3138 3725 Email [email protected] Email: [email protected]
CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner. Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.
Appendices 280 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Focus group – The role of Australian Aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000645
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Rodney Yates Researcher:
DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD for Rodney Yates The purpose of this project is to investigate the role of Australian Aid in the introduction of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati.
You are invited to participate in this project because the introduction of inclusive education initiatives is based on student needs in school. As a member of the school community you are in the best position to comment how realistic and effective these initiatives are at the school level and what support is needed.
PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve an audio recorded focus group at your school or other agreed location that will take approximately 1 hour of your time. The discussion will be in English or Te Kiribati according to the group’s decision. Questions will include: How realistic are inclusive education initiatives for your school? What are the challenges and barriers? What is needed to address these challenges and barriers? What is the government’s commitment to inclusive education? What assistance can Australian Aid programs provide?
Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment Please note that if you arrive late it may not be possible for you to participate.
EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will benefit your understanding of inclusive education through sharing ideas. Students in your school will benefit from your increased knowledge.
RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The audio recording of the group discussion will be destroyed following transcription of the interview (within 1 month).
Appendices 281 CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.
QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below.
Name – Professor Suzanne Carrington, Head of School Faculty of Education, Queensland Name – Rodney Yates, PhD student University of Technology Phone Phone +61 7 3138 3725 Email [email protected] Email: [email protected]
CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner. Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.
Appendices 282 CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
The role of Australian aid in the introduction and sustainability of inclusive education initiatives in Kiribati. QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000645
RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Name – Professor Suzanne Carrington, Head of School Faculty of Education, Name – Rodney Yates, PhD student Queensland University of Technology Phone Phone +61 7 3138 3725 Email [email protected] Email: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONSENT By signing below, you are indicating that you: Have read and understood the information document regarding this project. Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction. Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team. Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time without comment or penalty. Understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project. Understand that the group discussion will be audio recorded Agree to participate in the project.
Name
Signature
Date
Please return this sheet to the investigator
Appendices 283
Appendices 285