23

CHAPTER – II
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION-PHILOSOPHY, PRINCIPLES,
POLICY AND PROGRAMMES

“Inclusion is a process. Inclusive education is not merely about providing

access into mainstream school for pupils who have previously been
excluded. It is not about closing down an unacceptable system of
segregated provision and dumping those pupils in an unchanged
mainstream system. Existing school systems - in terms of physical factors,
curriculum aspects, teaching expectations and styles, leadership roles-
will have to change. This is because inclusive education is about the
participation of all children and young people and the removal of all
forms of exclusionary practice” (Barton, 1998).

The murky past in the lives of disabled children has revealed that primitive

societies considered them to be wrath of God, symbols of sin or punishment and

burden to live in the society. History tells us that they were killed because they were

imperfect. During middle ages, these less individuals were brought under the shelter

and care of religious establishments, whence actually the threat to their survival

decreased. In the late 1700s, it was proved that education and training was possible

and during the 19th century, there were schools established for the first time for

people with disabilities. These trends towards segregated education soar to peak in

size and numbers during the 20th century. Remedial education, special education and

integration have had their time in the field and current era is propelled by the term

‘Inclusion’.

The definitions of inclusive education are abound. There is no universally

accepted definition for ‘Inclusion’. It is shaped by the heterogeneity of inclusive

ideas subsumed by history and local cultural perspectives. These ideas and practices

across countries sometimes converge and at other times remain isolated.

 24

2.1 PHILOSOPHY OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

For almost quarter century, services to people with disabilities were

seemingly endless state of flux. In this process, the central themes that emerged and

changed the future direction of services were deinstitutionalization, normalization,

equal rights, access, least restrictive environment and community based services.

2.1.1 Models of Services

The various initiatives for disabled always reflected two primary approaches

to rehabilitation i.e., individual pathology and social pathology. In the former

approach, the individual is seen as problem while in latter the environment is seen as

problem. Within these two approaches, four models of disability emerged, which are

- the charity model, the bio-centric model, the functional model and the human

rights model (NCERT, 2006).

a. The Charity Model

The charity model brought out various welfare measures like providing care,

shelter and basic needs. This resulted in establishment of more number of residential

units that provided custodial care. These institutions functioned like detention

centres and there was no public accountability or comprehensive provisions of

services that would enhance the quality of life for individuals with disabilities.

Eventually, this model resulted in marginalization and disconnect with the larger

society.

b. The Bio-centric Model

Evolving from the previous model, bio-centric model regards disability as a

medical or genetic condition and prompted to seek medical treatments as only means
 25

of management. The role of family, society and government was flippant according

to this model. However, medical diagnoses and biological treatments have to be

necessarily part of the rehabilitation of the disabled along with the family and social

support to participate in the activities of social life.

c. The Functional Model

In the functional model, entitlement to rights is differentiated according to

judgments of individual incapacity and the extent to which a person is perceived as

being independent to exercise his/her rights. For example, a child’s right to

education is dependent on whether or not the child can access the school and

participate in the classroom, rather than the obligation being on the school system

becoming accessible to children with disabilities. Thus, it may not pose obligation to

schools for facilitating barrier free education.

d. The Human Rights Model

The human rights model positions disability as an important dimension of

human culture and it affirms that all human beings are born with certain inalienable

rights. According to this model, the principle of respect for difference and

acceptance of disability as part of human diversity and humanity is important, as

disability is a universal feature of the human condition. It purports to identify those

barriers for participation in society and removes them. Advocating for non

discrimination, it also calls for reasonable differentiation only to create specialized

support services for effective participation in the society. The human rights model to

disability on the one hand requires that the States play an active role in enhancing

the level of access to public freedoms and on the other requires that the enjoyment of

rights by persons with disabilities is not hampered by third-party actors in the

 26

private sphere. Educational institutions and industry, both in the public and private

sectors, should ensure equitable treatment to persons with disabilities.

Stubbs (2008) accounted on the various influences that promulgated

inclusive education such as communities that refer to pre-colonial and indigenous

approaches to education; disabled activists; parents advocating for their children;

child rights advocates and those advocating for women/girls and minority ethnic

groups; School Quality improvement and evolving practices in special education;

international agencies like UN on the development of millennium development in

education and NGOs and civil societies to promote awareness on the needs of the

PWDs.

2.1.2 Phases of Services

Three phases are evident when looking at the services provided

for individuals with disabilities - 1) era of institutionalization, 2) era of

deinstitutionalization and 3) era of community membership (Lipsky & Gartner,

1997).

a. Era of institutionalization

In the first period, era of institutionalization, dependence and segregation

were impetus and services were underpinned by medical model. This roughly ended

in mid 1970s paving way to era of deinstitutionalization. The locus of services for

people with disabilities during this period was out of home. As a result, institutional

population and nursing home population soared. The services were limited to

medical concerns and primary care. Observed by inadequacies and abuse in

institutional care, litigation increased and development for standards of services was

articulated. The standards were an effort to assure physical, social and psychological
 27

well-being of the persons with disabilities in institutional care. Care standards on

staffing ratios, daily schedules, professional qualifications, nutritional content of the

meals, physical and personal space of the residents, number of residents etc. were

spelled out.

b. Era of deinstitutionalization

This period prevailed during 1976 to 1986 and was marked by creation of

community services and emphasis on provision of specialized services for

individuals with disabilities to learn, grow and participate in the activities of society.

During this period, day care programs, individualized programming, outpatient

centers and accessible housing were part of the reform. The person with disabilities

became an object to be trained, habilitated, socialized, screened, assessed and

assisted through a continuum of educational, vocational and residential settings.

Small intermediate care facilities, half way housing, group homes etc were

alternatives to institutionalization. The guiding force was the assumption that all

people regardless of the levels of their abilities or severity of their disabilities could

grow and develop. This approach was actively applied to interventions for these

individuals to acquire skills. Elaborate teaching regimes, pre-articulated learning

objectives and careful monitoring of the progress on individual basis became

contingent. The new therapeutic and rehabilitation efforts were developed by a

growing cadre of mental health professionals.

c. Era of community membership

The third and current period, era of community membership, is steered by

functional supports to enhance community integration, independence, quality of life,

and individualization. The concept of functional supports focused on adapting the

environment and supports to the individual instead of adapting the individual to the
 28

environment. The emerging emphasis is removing the stigma of “clienthood” from

people with disabilities and moving the support to where people lived, i.e., instead of

surrounded by professionals and therapists, let them be surrounded by friends,

family and community. Providers of disability services are increasingly pressed to

consider the degree to which true social integration is taking place and how they can

be facilitators. The main thrust is to improve the quality of life, maximization of

independence and to promote community integration through the services provided

to persons with disabilities.

2.1.3 Perspectives of Inclusive Education

Clough and Corbett (2000) discussed five perspectives in line with historical

development of inclusive ideas and practices. The authors in their work have stated

that these perspectives are never wholly exclusive of each other nor do they have

linear development of ideas. In the course of time, ideas and practices became either

overriding to each other or remained exclusive.

a. The Psycho-medical legacy

This is understood as the system of broadly medicalized ideas which

essentially saw the individual as being somehow ‘in deficit’ and in turn assumed a

need for a ‘special’ education for those individuals.

Clinic based assessments were provided by doctors, or psychiatrists mainly

to determine if the child needs to be placed in “special education” in a segregated

setting. Underlying this model, special education needs were seen as a need arising

from children’s own characteristics.

 29

b. The sociological response

This position broadly represents the critique of the “psycho-medical

legacy”, and draws attention to a social construction of special educational needs.

It clearly focused on social disadvantage rather than individual deficit.

Barton (in interview, 1988) said it is about removal of all forms of oppression.

Tomlinson (1982) in her study surmised that special education needs to be seen as

an issue of inequality and pointed out that how institutions played a major role in

reproducing differences. She further opined that special schools existed to favour the

medical and psychological professions to maintain their own status and power.

c. Curricular approaches

Such approaches emphasize the role of the curriculum in both meeting and

for some writers, effectively creating - learning difficulties.

The above two perspectives however powerful they might be, offered no

practical solutions to the teachers in the classrooms. At the same time, a related

development of curriculum and teaching approaches, which helped to foster a more

inclusive school sprang. It articulated on broad range of interventions delivered

through the curriculum. This approach included from a individual task analysis

programme to complete change to the whole school day as part of the curriculum

planning. Schonell (1942) introduced the notion of “improvable scholastic

deficiency” and was rendered through individual or small group coaching sessions

arranged at frequent intervals rather than special education. Thus in late 1940s,

remedial centres were set up as part of the curricular instruction and school

provisions, which was viewed as positive trends in education.

 30

d. School Improvement Strategies

This movement emphasizes the importance of systemic organization in

pursuit of truly comprehensive schooling.

Hopkins, West and Ainscow (1996) in their work on “Improving the quality

of education for all” developed a notion of ‘school effectiveness’ as a movement.

This approach focused on the role of pedagogy in creating inclusion. Stenhouse

(1975) stated that curriculum development involves bringing practice in classrooms

and teaching plans closer together through an evaluation by teachers using their own

curricula. Through this came the concept of “curriculum entitlement” and the hands

of creative teachers forced the differentiation of curriculum materials.

e. Disability studies critique

These perspectives often from ‘outside’ education elaborate an overtly

political response to the exclusionary effects of the psycho-medical model.

Disability studies is as much an discipline as educational studies and made

unique contributions to debates on inclusive education. It concerns specific issues

like social inclusion, inclusion in employment and housing, and educational

inclusion in larger contexts. Oliver (1990) has brought out interrelationships

between educational and social policy. He has expounded the social policy into four

ideologies and they are -1) humanitarian response, 2) social investment, 3) outcome

of conflict between competing groups and 4) social control. He outlined that

disability was perceived as an individual problem; then it came to be seen as a social

construction and finally then perceived as a social creation. Further, he commented

that at the end of the day that is only at the margins and the power structures that
 31

remain unchallenged and pointed out on the political, economic and professional

barriers.

2.2 PRINCIPLES OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

The education of students with disabilities is based on a number of beliefs

and principles. These beliefs and principles guide the policies and services provided

for persons with disabilities.

The four key elements of inclusion presented by UNESCO (2005) provide a

useful summary of the principles that support inclusive practice.

1. Inclusion is a process. It has to be seen as a never-ending search to find better

ways of responding to diversity. It is about learning how to live with

difference and learning how to learn from difference. Differences come to be

seen more positively as a stimulus for fostering learning amongst children and

adults.

2. Inclusion is concerned with the identification and removal of barriers. It

involves collecting, collating and evaluating information from a wide variety

of sources in order to plan for improvements in policy and practice. It is about

using evidence of various kinds to stimulate creativity and problem - solving.

3. Inclusion is about the presence, participation and achievement of all students.

‘Presence’ is concerned with where children are educated and how reliably

and punctually they attend; ‘participation’ relates to the quality of their

experiences and must incorporate the views of learners and ‘achievement’ is

about the outcomes of learning across the curriculum, not just test and exam

results.
 32

4. Inclusion invokes a particular emphasis on those groups of learners who may

be at risk of marginalization, exclusion or underachievement. This indicates

the moral responsibility to ensure that those ‘at risk’ are carefully monitored,

and that steps are taken to ensure their presence, participation and

achievement.

Seven inter - connected areas of key principles are put forward by European

Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009).

1. Widening participation to increase educational opportunity for all learners. The

goal for inclusive education is to widen access to education and to promote full

participation and opportunities for all learners vulnerable to exclusion to realise

their potential.

2. Education and training in inclusive education for all teachers. For teachers to

work effectively in inclusive settings, they need to have the appropriate values

and attitudes, skills and competences, knowledge and understanding.

3. Organisational culture and ethos that promotes inclusion. At the level of the

school or other educational organisation, a shared culture and ethos based upon

positive attitudes towards welcoming a diversity of learners in classrooms and

meeting diverse needs in education is crucial.

4. Support structures organised so as to promote inclusion. Support structures that

impact upon inclusive education are diverse and often involve a range of

different service professionals, approaches and working methods. Established

support structures can act as a support or as a barrier to inclusion.

5. Flexible resourcing systems that promote inclusion. Funding policies and

structures remain one of the most significant factors determining inclusion.

 33

Limited or no access to certain facilities and provision may actually hinder

inclusion and equality of opportunity for learners with Special Education Needs

(SEN).

6. Policies that promote inclusion. The promotion of quality in inclusive education

requires a clearly stated policy. The goal of the school for all should be promoted

in educational policies as well as supported via school ethos and leadership as

well as teachers’ practice.

7. Legislation that promotes inclusion. All legislation that potentially impacts upon

inclusive education within a country should clearly state inclusion as a goal.

Consequently, legislation across all public sectors should lead to the provision of

services that enhance developments and processes working towards inclusion in

education.

The fundamental principle of the inclusive school is that all children should learn together,
wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Inclusive
schools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs of their students, accommodating
both different styles and rates of learning and ensuring quality education to all through
appropriate curricula, organizational arrangements, teaching strategies, resource use and
partnerships with their communities. There should be a continuum of support and services to
match the continuum of special needs encountered in every school.

Box 2.1. The Inclusive School

Source: Salamanca Framework for Action, World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality,
1994.

In 1994, a working forum on inclusive schools convened by ten US

organizations at the national level, identified the following best practice

characteristics for Inclusive Education -

 34

1. A Sense of Community: philosophy and vision that all children belong and

can learn

2. Leadership: school administrators play a critical role in implementation

3. High Standards: high expectations for all children appropriate to their needs

4. Collaboration and Cooperation: support and co-operative learning

5. Changing Roles and Responsibilities of all staff

6. Array of Services: e.g., health, mental health and social services

7. Partnership with Parents: equal partners in educating children

8. Flexible Learning Environments: pacing, timing and location

9. Strategies Based on Research: best practice strategies for teaching and

learning

10. New Forms of Accountability: standardized tests and multiple sources

11. Access: physical environment and technology

12. Continuing Professional Development: on-going

These practices are considered to be effective for making connections

between schools, parents and communities and for solving educational problems

both at individual and system levels.

2.3 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION-POLICY

Prior to 1944, the educational provisions were made based on the type of

disabilities and were predominantly welfare measures. It focused more on livelihood

training rather than education. However “inclusive education” gained momentum in

developed countries like USA, UK and Canada with policy initiatives and researches

to promote education. Increased awareness and advocacy among parents on the

educational needs of their children also exerted pressure to improve educational

provisions (Dash, 2006).

 35

In India, the trends were offset to segregation until 1970s and during 1980s,

both non governmental organizations and government initiatives led to various

initiatives for education of the disabled population of the country. However, the

changing approaches to disability from the charity model to the human rights model

have resulted in upsurge of policy and practice.

Internationally, until the end of 1980s, integration remained the main issue

whenever discussions were held regarding the rights of disabled persons to an

appropriate education. Whereas in India, integration was a major reform of the

1970s, the need for inclusive education became evident from the fact that despite

complete financial support under the IEDC scheme, for integrating learners with

special needs into the educational system, only 2 - 3% of the total population of

these learners was actually integrated into the regular schools (NCERT, 2006).

Dissatisfaction with the progress towards integration, consideration of costs

involved and the advantages of an inclusive environment in bringing about increased

acceptance of learners with SEN, led to demands for more radical change. The

constant use of the medical model of assessment, wherein educational difficulties

are explained solely in terms of defects in the child, led to a re-conceptualization of

the special needs (SN) task as requiring school reforms and improved pedagogy.

This re-conceptualization at the both the international and national level helped in

the emergence of an orientation towards inclusive education. In the 1990s, inclusion

captured the field after the World Conference on Special Needs Education in

Salamanca in 1994, with the adoption of the Salamanca Statement and Framework

for Action on Special Needs Education. This statement which was adopted by the

representatives of 92 governments and 25 international organisations in June 1994,

has definitely set the policy agenda for inclusive education on a global basis.
 36

An overview of the legal frameworks related to inclusive education from

1948 to 2007 appears in Box 2.2.

2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity in Cultural
Expressions
1999 Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour
1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child
1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries
1979 Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women
1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial
Discrimination
1960 Convention against Discrimination in Education
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Box 2.2. International Legislation on Inclusive Education
Source: UNESCO, 2009. Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education.

Though in India, there is no formal or official definition of inclusion, it does

not only mean the placement of students with SEN in regular classrooms. The Draft

Scheme on Inclusive Education prepared by the Department of Education (2003)

uses the following definition:

Inclusive education means all learners, young people—with or without

disabilities being able to learn together in ordinary preschool provisions, schools,

and community educational settings with appropriate network of support services.

Inclusion is seen as a process of addressing and responding to the diversity

of needs of all children, youth and adults through increasing participation in

learning, cultures and communities and reducing and eliminating exclusion within

and from education. It involves changes and modifications in content, approaches,

structures and strategies with a common vision that covers all children of the
 37

appropriate age range and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular

system to educate all children (UNESCO, 2009).

Recommendations to send children with disabilities to mainstream schools

were first made in the Sargent Report7 in 1944 and again in 1964 by the Kothari
Commission (NCERT, 2005). Despite this, change has been slow with segregation
in special schools dominating the scene until recently. Several education Acts and
promises have been passed or mooted by Central Government in India in the past
twenty years, although they do not seem to tackle the roots of attitudinal barriers to
inclusion. For example, in 1993, the Delhi Declaration on Education for All
promised to “...ensure a place for every child in a school or appropriate education
programme according to his or her capabilities” (Mukhopadhyay & Mani,
2002).This issue of ‘capabilities’ is key to the varied interpretations of ‘inclusivity’
of children, the focus on the child’s abilities diverting attention away from
inadequate teaching methods (Singal, 2005a).This is perhaps true for some teachers,
but the continued development of government and NGO teacher training
programmes would also appear to show awareness of the need for pedagogical
change. The Persons with Disability Act (PDA), 1995, states that disabled children
should be educated in integrated settings where possible, although it seems that the
lack of implementation may be due to there being no enforcement agency for this
legislation. In fact, section 71 of the PDA protects the government and local
authorities from prosecution (Alur, 2002). As Peters (2004) succinctly points out,
“...legislation and policy concerning inclusive education must be evaluated in the
context of progress toward implementation as well as the effectiveness of
monitoring and evaluation.” However, as inclusive education outcomes in
developing contexts are such an undeveloped research area, it is almost impossible
7
John Sargent was the Educational Advisor to the Government of India. John Sargent was deputed
to draw up a memorandum for the development of Indian education in the post-war reconstruction
period. He submitted his memorandum before the Central Advisory Board of Education in 1944. The
board accepted it in to and recommended its enforcement ...
 38

to discover to what extent and how these legislative acts are implemented or not and
what kind of impact they may have at the grassroots.

Despite the promotion of inclusive education, government documents focus

on inclusive education as being about including children with disabilities in the
education system, but not specifically the mainstream (Singal, 2005b). This focus is
seen by some as needed and fair because of the previous government focus on other
disadvantaged groups, demonstrating how policy is focused on the majority as there
are more girls or SC / ST children for example, than children with disabilities. While
different types of schooling are deemed appropriate for different strata of society,
which can be perceived as fundamentally exclusionary, some parents may prefer
their child to attend an alternative education institution, perhaps to gain a vocational
skill, to gain the benefits of medical rehabilitation or simply to avoid bullying.
Itinerant teachers, community based rehabilitation, special schools, non-formal
education and vocational centres all have something to offer children marginalised
by the mainstream in educational terms such as acquiring literacy, living skills and
financial independence. In addition, an alternative education institution may not
necessarily be sub-standard, perhaps even offering higher quality teaching and
learning processes than a local government school.

2.4 PROGRAMMES IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Over the years, although government programmes such as Operation

Blackboard8 and Lok Jumbish9 focused mainly on infrastructure, girls, scheduled

8
Operation Blackboard was launched in 1987 to improve the school environment. It aimed to
enhance the retention and learning achievement of children by providing essential facilities in all
primary schools.
9
Lok Jumbish is to promote community mobilization and participation thereby ensuring that village
community takes responsibility for providing quality education for every child in their efforts to
universalize primary education and improve quality.
 39

caste and scheduled tribe children, others had or have inclusive education
components which ensure the visibility of children with disabilities.

a. Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC)

The Ministry of Welfare, now Social Justice and Empowerment,

implemented the Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) scheme from

1974 to 1982, when it transferred to the Department of Education (Dasgupta, 2002).

The scheme was apparently intended to encourage co-operation between mainstream

and special schools in order to support integration, although Julka (2005) believes

this cooperation did not happen. Singal and Rouse (2003) too, argues that the

programme is seen as an overall failure by those outside the government. IEDC has

been replaced by the Integrated Education for the Disabled (IED) component of the

national District Primary Education Project (DPEP) and supports community

mobilization and early detection, in-service teacher training, architectural design in

schools, the establishment of resource centres, teacher training, identification and

assessment of children with disabilities and the supply of specialist aids and

appliances (Mukhopadhyay, 2003).

b. Project on Integrated Education for Disabled (PIED)

In 1987, UNICEF and the government-funded, National Council of

Educational Research and Training (NCERT) launched the Project on Integrated

Education for Disabled (PIED) in 10 blocks. It focused on teacher training in order

to encourage integration. PIED was later amalgamated with the DPEP and SSA and

by 2002 extended to 27 States. While enrolment of children with disabilities in the

mainstream increased and retention was high (Jangira & Ahuja, 1994), only 2-3% of

children with disabilities were integrated in mainstream institutions. Criticisms made

in the project evaluation pointed to implementation issues, such as children getting

 40

financial assistance who were not classified as disabled or teacher training courses

being un-regulated.

c. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP)

The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) initiated in 1995

through 85% of funding from Central government via. a World Bank loan and

support from the European Community, UNICEF, UK and Netherlands

governments; and 15% by the State governments, focused on the universalization of

primary education particularly for girls. The intention was for district - specific

planning to make the programme contextual and for participatory processes to

empower and build capacity at all levels (GOI, 2002a). However, Kobayashi (2006)

found that the programme focused on quantitative targets and educational

administration capacity - building more than participation, hence failing to empower

local communities unlike Lok Jumbish. Children with disabilities were included

with the aim of achieving EFA. Extensive construction led to the creation of 200,000

new schools and a teacher - training component led to the in service training of all

teachers. Alur (2002) argues that there were failures not so willingly reported such

as corruption in the form of budgets for non - existent, non - formal education

centres, tribal dropout, the difficulty of multigrade teaching in one-teacher schools,

low learning achievement and no integration for children with disabilities due to

continued reliance on special school systems. However, it is arguable that the

existence of special school systems does not necessarily obstruct locational

integration in the mainstream. Due to a lack of data, it is not possible to confirm how

many children with disabilities were or were not integrated under the auspices of

DPEP.
 41

d. Janshala

This community schools programme started in 1998 and now replaced by

SSA, was a collaboration between the Government of India and the UNDP,

UNICEF, UNESCO, the ILO, UNFPA and supported the government drive towards

universal primary education. It covered 120, mainly rural blocks in 9 States where

there is evidence of low female literacy, child labour and SC / ST children not

catered for under DPEP (Mukhopadhyay, 2005).Unfortunately, due to limited

availability of data, it is not possible to elaborate on any issues arising on the

Janshala programme, which has a component designed to improve the attendance of

difficult to reach groups of children including children with disabilities.

e. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is the government’s millennial “Education for

All” umbrella programme for all education schemes, which aims to universalise

elementary education.

The goals are that all children aged 6 - 14 - i) will be in some form of

education by 2003, ii) will complete 5 years’ primary education by 2007 and iii) will

complete 8 years’ education by 2010 (GOI, 2002b).

f. Non Governmental Organizations

There are many international, national, and local NGOs involved with

disability issues in India. Many local NGOs, while diverse and widespread tend to

be based on a charity / welfare approach (Thomas, 2004) and informed by the

medical model. Although the exact number is unknown, there are at least 1,000

NGOs and voluntary organisations actively engaged in education (GOI, 2000), of

which the government funded 701 with grants in aid in 2004-2005 (GOI, 2005).
 42

NGOs are perceived by the government as widening the implementation network

and bringing flexibility and innovation into education programmes.

In fact, they are currently implementing much of the IEDC scheme, as the

job of including children with disabilities in education nationwide is too vast for the

government to be able to undertake alone (Mukhopadhyay, 2003b). Many national

and local NGOs support special institutions, perhaps because it is easier to raise

public support for residential centres than the promotion of inclusive education

(ESCAP, 2001). Some NGOs have metamorphosed their specialist institutions into

resource centres in order to support inclusive education. International NGOs too

have a role to play in the promotion of inclusive education. Some, such as Voluntary

Service Overseas (VSO10) and Action on Disability and Development 11 (ADD), both

DFID - funded, focus on advocacy through civil society movements. Save the

Children UK12 (SCUK) operates in several states in northern India through local

NGOs with a focus on child rights (SCUK, 2004).

10
Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) is an international development charity with a vision for a
"world without poverty" and a mission to "bring people together to fight poverty". VSO recruits
professionals to work as volunteers, living and working alongside local populations in developing
countries. Founded in 1958, VSO has sent over 50,000 volunteers to over 140 developing countries.
As of 2014 VSO currently works in 35 countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Cited from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Service_Overseas.
11
ADD International (Action on Disability and Development), is a UK-based agency fighting for
independence, equality and opportunity for disabled people living in poverty in Africa and Asia.
ADD has programmes in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. ADD
also directly supports partners in India through ADD India. Cited from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_on_Disability_and_Development.
12
The Save the Children Fund, commonly known as Save the Children, is an international non-
governmental organizationthat promotes children's rights, provides relief and helps support children
in developing countries.[3] It was established in the United Kingdom in 1919 in order to improve the
lives of children through better education, health care, and economic opportunities, as well as
providing emergency aid in natural disasters, war, and other conflicts. Cited from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_Children.
 43

g. Private schools

The explosive growth of private schools in recent years in India, in both

urban and rural areas is seen by many to be a result of dissatisfaction with the poor

quality education provision in government schools (Nambissan, 2003; Singal &

Rouse, 2003). However, the private schools which have been voluntarily

implementing inclusive education are mostly found in urban areas demonstrating the

geographical inequalities so prevalent in the Indian context. In addition, as these

private schools require the payment of fees, this inclusive education is not accessible

to all and so somewhat exclusive, although some admit ‘bright’ children from

deprived backgrounds as a charitable gesture (Giffard-Lindsay, 2007).

Those practicing inclusion must remember that inclusion comes with full

responsibility of all those who are involved in it, both service providers and

beneficiaries. Policy and community must provide the legal, moral and monetary

support; school administrators must establish a positive climate in their schools that

respects individual differences and supportive environment; teachers must learn to

individualize instruction and create group dynamics; parents must be stronger than

before in terms of advocacy and involvement in the education of their children and

finally children themselves, both of disabilities and typical development maximize

their efforts to learn together; make friends with each other regardless of their

differences and create a supportive climate in the schools (Lombardi, 1994).

Philosophy of Inclusive Education allowed central themes that emerged and

changed the future direction of services were deinstitutionalization, normalization,

equal rights, access, least restrictive environment and community based services.

Services were provided based on the models and phases of the disability. Although

all the service providers of disability focused to provide the quality of life,
 44

maximization of independence and to promote community integration. Perspectives

of inclusive education by various authors emphasized on Psycho-medical legacy,

Sociological response, Curricular approaches, School improvement strategies and

Disability studies critique. Key principles of Inclusive Education were given by

UNESCO and European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. In

addition, ten US organizations at the national level identifies the following best

practice. Characteristics for Inclusive Education which were considered to be

effective for making connections between schools, parents and communities and for

solving educational problems both at individual and system levels.

Different countries initiated policies on Inclusive Education. The main focus

was more on livelihood training rather than education. However “Inclusive

Education” gained momentum in developed countries like USA, UK and Canada

with policy initiatives and researches. In India, the trends were offset to segregation

until 1970s. Internationally, until the end of 1980s, integration remained main issue.

Though in India, there is no formal or official definition of Inclusion it is seen as a

process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all children, youth

and adults through increasing participation in learning, cultures & communities and

reducing and eliminating exclusion within and from education.

Several education acts and promises have been passed by Central

Government of India in the past 20 years. However, the PWD act in 1995 stated the

disabled children should be educated in integrated settings were possible although it

seem that the lack of implementation may be due to there being no enforcement

agency for this legislation. A lot of initiatives were made to introduce different

programmes in Inclusive Education. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is the Government’s

millennial “Education for All” umbrella programme for all education schemes is one

of the programme aims to universalise elementary education.