Access to schools for disabled children: Departments of Basic Education and of Women, Children & People with Disabilities reports

Public Service and Administration

19 February 2014
Chairperson: Ms J Moloi-Moropa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities (DWCPD) made presentations to the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee on the access of children with disabilities to schools. The DBE focused on the inclusion of disabled children into the schooling system in the efforts of bolstering diversity, and said that 553 ordinary public schools had now been converted into inclusive full service schools to grant access to education to children with disabilities, and more children with disabilities were now attending education institutions, although there were variances in providing access across the provinces. In order to mitigate the impact of disability, it was stressed that early identification was crucial, that curriculum development should be more inclusive of children with disabilities (which had led to the positive moves of developing a sign language curriculum and a curriculum for schools of skills). A teacher training manual was drawn and 43 National Training Team members appointed. Procurement of assistive devices and equipment was vital. Workbooks had been adapted to suit those with disabilities. Challenges included ineffective stakeholder and inter-departmental coordination, and a shortage of specialised skills among teachers, which the DBE, in conjunction with the Department of Higher Education and Training, was trying to address.

The presentation by the Department of Women, Children, and People with Disabilities highlighted the external factors which hindered children with disabilities from accessing schools, including lack of inclusive early childhood development opportunities, inaccessible public or scholar transport systems, and a lack of national Braille printing and sign language development capacity. This Department hosted various interventions to coordinate the development of cross-cutting legislation, policies and programmes, and it also championed and advocated for effective mainstreaming of child rights, trying to strengthen sector legislation, policies and programmes by facilitating mainstreaming, and urging the development of coordinated plans and best practise. The DWCPD called for finalisation of cross-cutting policy and legislation which would create enforceable minimum norms and standards, the roll out of a rights-based monitoring and evaluation strategy, strengthening of disability-responsive budgeting and publication of research.  

Members offered assistance in trying to speed up the process of implementing legislation and policy, but the DWCPD said it had already embarked on some of the processes. Members wanted clarity from the two departments on the methods being used in their campaigns, and were told of the DBE’s participation in the Education Collaborative Forum that was used for advocacy in the neediest districts. Members wanted more information on the training that teachers would receive, how they were made more effective in dealing with disabled children, and the necessity to train all teachers. They asked what both departments were doing to address infrastructure that was still not fit for disabled use, pointing out that even when ramps had been installed they were not user-friendly. They were pleased to hear of the positive developments, but said that despite the admitted progress, there was far more that needed to be done, with better collaboration and the issues would be included in this Committee’s legacy report for the information of the incoming Committee.
 

Meeting report

Access to schools by children with disabilities
Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson noted that this Portfolio Committee had invited the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities (DWCPD) to a very crucial meeting to discuss the access to schools by children with disabilities, particularly now that schools had re-opened for the year. The Committee had embarked on a lot of work on disabilities. However the targets set by government were never reached and although the meetings called revealed progress in some areas, there was still cause for alarm in others. Parliament was challenged to reinforce and tighten oversight around disabilities. The Chairperson emphasised that more work was needed.

Department of Basic Education briefing
Mr Moses Simelane, Director: Inclusive Education, Department of Basic Education, noted that the DBE, as a general policy, recognised the importance of including all children into the education system. The topic of inclusion needed to be re-conceptualised to respond to issues of diversity by increasing learner participation, and to reduce learner exclusion from the education system.

The DBE had sought the progressive conversion of ordinary schools to full service schools to grant access to education to children with disabilities. The DBE had marked some growth in the percentage of children with disabilities, in different age groups, attending an educational institution. This could be attributed to the conversion of 553 ordinary public schools into inclusive full service schools. However, variations in the provision of access to education across the provinces might be attributed to availability of facilities and resources, although there was, overall, a progressive increase in the enrolment of children with disabilities into the educational institutions.

The presentation identified certain factors which mitigated the impact of disabilities and improved levels of inclusivity. Firstly, there was a need to establish mechanisms for early identification of learning difficulties.  Secondly, curriculum development activities should be more inclusive of children with disabilities. This led to the development of a South African sign language curriculum, and a curriculum for schools of skills. To cater for curriculum differentiation, the DBE had achieved the development of a teacher training manual, developing a facilitator’s guide for training, and the training of 43 National Training Team (NTT) members across disciplines. Thirdly, the procurement of assistive devices and equipment enhance learner participation in learning was vital, and this included Braille typewriters, crutches, hearing devices and wheelchairs. Fourthly the DBE had adapted language workbooks to be suitable for children with disabilities, and teacher guides in the utilisation of these workbooks.

Mr Simelane noted the challenges faced in fostering an inclusive education system. These included the ineffective stakeholder and inter-departmental coordination, and a shortage of specialised skills among teachers in dealing with disabilities. DBE noted that it was taking remedial action. Ultimately, it was the position of the DBE to create more inclusivity in schools, protect vulnerable populations and overcome inequality.

Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities briefing
Ms Lidia Pretorius, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, Persons with Disabilities, DWCPD, began by reiterating South Africa’s obligations on disability in terms of both international conventions and agreements, and in terms of South African law. Ms Pretorius highlighted the many external environmental challenges that hindered children with disabilities from accessing schools. These included a lack of inclusive early childhood development opportunities, inaccessible public or scholar transport systems, and a lack of national Braille printing and sign language development capacity.

The DWCPD had hosted interventions to coordinate the development of cross-cutting legislation, policies and programmes in line with its mandate of inclusivity. The Department’s National Plan of Action for Children 2012-2017, and the National Disability Rights Policy were examples of such cross-cutting policy. Another positive intervention by the DWCPD was the strides it had taken to champion and advocate for the effective mainstreaming of children’s rights and responsibilities, including the rights of children with disabilities. In this effort, the DWCPD sought to strengthen sector legislation, policies and programmes by facilitating and participating in the mainstreaming of disability considerations on various platforms. This included the mobilisation of relevant stakeholders in a coordinated plan of action to develop examples of good practice and strengthen delivery capacity.

The DWCPD made various recommendations. It called for the finalisation of cross-cutting policy and legislation which would create enforceable minimum norms and standards for those with disabilities. This would mainstream and strengthen the representative voice of persons with disabilities. It further called for the roll-out of a rights-based monitoring and evaluation strategy, and strengthening of disability responsive budgeting. Furthermore, it called for the publication of thematic research so as to lead to better policies by the DWCPD. All these recommendations were geared towards the creation of an inclusive and accessible society.

Discussion
Mr D du Toit (DA) referred to the time lost in identifying children with disabilities and wanted to know how quickly legislation could be put in place to assist children with disabilities, and their parents. He also inquired whether it would be possible to prioritise and start now the drafting of such legislation and policy, for the purpose of saving time, and he offered to help in this process, because disability issues were close to his heart. Information should also be provided on a cost assessment.  

Ms Pretorius responded by noting that the DWCPD would work on the regulatory impact assessment issues for the legislation, so as to fast track the implementation of new legislation. This would include both the presentation of new legislation and the amending and strengthening of existing legislation.

Mr Suren Govender, Chief Director, Department of Basic Education, responded by emphasising that the core business of the DBE was teaching and learning. It was challenging to link with other departments on matters of disabilities. However, he noted that the DBE had been constructive in its attempts at taking the lead on the issue by identifying partnership sister-and-brother departments with which it could have meaningful interactions on issues of disability.

Rev D Ximbi (ANC) welcomed the presentations and praised the coordination of the two departments.  He requested clarity on the tools being used in the campaigns to mobilise public support, and he expressed concern particularly about the efforts used in rural areas. 

Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) stated that the presentations were an indication of “a good story to tell”, a phrase echoing the recent State of the Nation Address. He attributed the progress of the two departments to South Africa’s 20 years of democracy. Mr Nyekemba added that Quality Learning and Teaching Campaigns (QLTC) were to be used as a forum by both departments in assessing how the shortfalls regarding children with disabilities could be addressed. This could be a tool used to reach every community across all the provinces. Mr Nyekemba added that the sign language curriculum should not just cater for the deaf, but all people, to allow South Africans to be able to communicate with deaf children. If everyone was on board in this initiative, there would indeed be good stories.

Mr Govender responded by noting that the government’s mandate for education had to be a societal matter.  The Minister for Basic Education had formalised this through the establishment of an Education Collaborative Forum. This Forum included a trust, for which funding was being sourced. This trust would be used in the work of the collaborative Forum, and the focus of the Forum was on reaching the schools within the neediest districts, including those within rural areas. He concluded by highlighting the intention to extend this Collaborative Forum to other provinces as well. 

Mr Simelane also responded that local radio stations across provinces, broadcasting in the language of their communities, were being used to advocate for inclusivity. This advocacy had also called for the mobilisation of parent communities to bring their children with disabilities to access education.

Ms Pretorius noted that advocacy work had also been done by the DWCPD to get this message out. The DWCPD had looked into putting specific tools into its campaigns, and supporting disabled people’s organisations to drive that message. It was noted that these campaigns needed to lead to behavioural changes in the population. Work was being done to streamline these tools into community and ward committee levels. The challenge was how to support civil society without compromising its independent voice.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) noted the work done by the two departments as being a work in progress. She referred to the training of teachers, and wanted to know whether only teachers at special schools were trained, or also ordinary volunteer teachers as well. It was suggested that teachers in special and ordinary schools should be trained so as to be more inclusive. The DBE was requested to enquire, from the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), how the curriculum for prospective teachers should include subjects which dealt with inclusivity. Referring to infrastructural difficulties, she pointed out that not even all of the schools built since 1994 had ramps for children with physical disabilities. Some of the schools supposedly with facilities for the disabled did not have ramps that were user friendly.

Mr Govender highlighted the importance of inclusive education, and reminded Members that the Minister for Basic Education had declared 2013 as the year for inclusive education. This Department reported that it did a tremendous amount of work in advocacy in ensuring that the people gained a proper understanding of what inclusivity meant, and in ensuring that various stakeholders had a greater appreciation of the challenges that needed to be addressed in terms of disabilities. The DBE had seen an opportunity with the change in the schooling curriculum from Outcomes Based Education (OBE) to Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS), which would have full-scale implementation from 2014. A part of the teacher training orientation programme into this curriculum included training on issues of inclusivity and disability. This was not limited to teachers from special schools, but was given to all teachers from all schools.

In response to recommendations that pre-service training of teachers should have inclusion as part of the programme, he said that the DBE would take such that suggestion seriously, and had already held such engagements with the DHET. Universities should have already adjusted their curricula to be in line with the CAPS system, although he conceded that this might not be the case throughout. Mr Govender added that there was a need to engage with the DHET on why certain subjects offered by the DBE received no points for university admission. 

Mr Simelane agreed that the pre-service training of teachers was critically important and welcomed this input from the Portfolio Committee. He said that the roll-out of the CAPS system, which started in 2011, included an orientation programme for all teachers, which included training on inclusivity. A teacher who had not attended such training would be ineffective in a mainstream school. Mr Simelane emphasised that the CAPS system was a curriculum designed for all schools within the system. He added that the DBE had also been engaging with the DHET through the Deans Forum of Universities, on building an inclusivity-training principle into pre-service training programmes.

Mr Govender responded to the issue of infrastructure by conceding that while newer schools were user friendly to persons with disabilities, there was still a challenge in older schools and also in education departmental offices which were not always user friendly. 

Ms Pretorius added that audits were to be done to check compliance with the existing legislation for buildings, and assess their compliance also with universal design best practice standards. DWCPD noted that in spite of having guidelines, legislation, and checks and balances around the building of ramps, this alone would not ensure effective implementation so the DWCPD was looking again into these checks and balances and was seeking to incorporate an accessibility advisor into infrastructure construction sites. She also noted that standards were to be set in place on these ramps, and work must be done to build these standards into the Services Sector Education and Training Authority (SSETA) and National Qualifications Framework (NQF) systems.

Mr Simelane agreed that some schools did not meet the required standard for user friendly ramps. The DBE had contracted the services of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to develop specifications for the installation of ramps, and these had now been provided to all infrastructure planners across all provinces, and were to be used in the building of future ramps. The finalisation of infrastructure norms and standards, which the DBE had developed and was implementing, included universal design principles to ensure that all future construction work would take those design principles into account. He added that there was a set period for the roll-out of these norms of standards to deal with the backlogs since the majority of schools were not accessible to all simply because they did not conform with the universal design principles. 

Mr Simelane then spoke to the roll-out of the South African Sign Language curriculum for 2015. DBE had been using university lecturers to manage the deaf education department or faculty at universities such as Wits University and the University of the Free State.

Ms Mohale recommended that the DBE and DWCPD put much emphasis on Early Childhood Development of children with disabilities, to develop the children, and urged that all those charged with Early Childhood Development should be properly trained for the task as well.

Ms Pretorius noted that Early Childhood Development was an intervention priority of the DCWPD. The emphasis would have to be on screening by the Department of Health, but also making use of the South African Social Security Agency systems. Any intervention from ages 0 to 5 should be in preparation for a child’s school career, to ensure that by the time the child entered school, s/he would have had some lessons on Sign language, and acquired dexterity skills before reaching Grade 1.

Mr Simelane agreed that the emphasis on Early Childhood Development was correct. The DBE would have to do more in its partnership with the Department of Health. The Department of Health was to provide the DBE with access to the screening data of every child born, and that, in turn, would help DBE in planning to accommodate children with disabilities into the education system in future. On the topic of screening, he reported that there was a screening instrument being developed by UNICEF and the Department of Social Development, which would track data from the birth of a child, to age four. The DBE would also be participating in this development.

The Chairperson commented that district committees for disabilities were to be activated. She was pleased to hear of the activities of both departments in Early Childhood Development. She was concerned about the recognition of some education programmes at university level, in relation to inclusivity. In line with the CAPS system, she asked that clarity be sought from the DHET as to what extent this Department was conscious of integrating aspects of inclusivity. The Committee would need to be told why universities were dropping certain courses, and whether this was linked to a drop in levels, or to mainstreaming.

The Chairperson reiterated that teachers had to be adequately trained to be effective in dealing with disabled children. They needed to know how to interact with, and have a fair understanding of, disabled children. The Chairperson highlighted that in past meetings it had been said that it was very expensive for a family to cater for the needs of a disabled child. She was not sure that the full implications were understood by the South African Revenue Service (SARS). SARS had to understand the issues and should inform the Committee how it planned to address the issue, and this was a matter for this Committee’s oversight. The Chairperson appreciated the progress made in the Sign Language curriculum, reiterating that it was indeed a “good story”.

The Chairperson referred to the comments of Mr du Toit in regard to access, and said that prevention of certain disabilities was easier than later cures, citing, as an example, the possibility of addressing hearing impediments which, if monitored and managed, could be cured at an early age. However, such preventative measures would require a collaborative effort from certain governmental departments.

The Chairperson raised concerns on the funding to be sourced from the National Treasury for the inclusive education policy, which might be problematic. She said that there were not enough psychologists and social workers who were needed to grant access to education. This could lead to the parents becoming frustrated with the situation. Issues of health in a child’s access to education were important and needed proper consideration and collaboration in specific areas.

The Chairperson also responded to the issue of mobilisation, raised by Mr Ximbi, by requesting a programme of the campaigns. The programme would have to be discussed, critiqued, and assessed to determine its value. If so, then it would have to be moved further by getting relevant parties on board.

She concluded that the presentations by the two departments had indicated that further interaction was needed between them and the Committee, and that, whilst the achievements had been noted, more remained to be done and with more collaborative efforts. This was something that this Committee would raised in its legacy report to the new Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: