Autism and Social Justice Education:

Toward an Inclusive Education System in Uganda

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the

Graduate Program of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

(OISE)

The University of Toronto

MA Thesis

Lwanga G. Musisi

Supervisor: Professor George Dei

OISE, Social Justice Education Program

University of Toronto

***

Copyright 2017
 Autism and Social Justice Education: Toward an Inclusive Education System in Uganda

Master of Arts Social Justice Education

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)

The University of Toronto

2017

Lwanga G. Musisi

Abstract

This thesis draws from a critical disability studies framework to examine the extent to which
students with autism are excluded from the educational system. Using secondary sources and in-
depth review of the literature, it investigates three related questions. a) How does the Ugandan
education system perceive social justice education? b) What is the status of autistic children
within this system? c) What are the gaps and challenges faced by learners and educationists in as
far as autism is concerned in Uganda? I argue that while Uganda has some progressive
legislation regarding the provision of education to persons with disabilities, and subscribes to the
international idioms of human rights, human capital and social justice; Uganda continues to
privilege the medical model of disability over the social model of disability. Consequently,
Uganda has been slow to provide a truly inclusive learning environment that promotes social
justice education for all students.

ii

 Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my supervisor Professor George S. Dei for his guidance throughout the

course of this study. I thank you Professor for your pertinent questions and constructive

comments right from the development of my proposal, annotated bibliography and in the writing

of this research paper. I also wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Professors Njoki Wane and

Terezia Jadranka Zoric. During my time at OISE, I have greatly benefitted your insights and

encouragement. I also wish to thank my friends in Toronto particularly Gerald Bareebe and

Ismail Kibirige for all the support you have given me over the course of these two years. I am

most grateful to my friend Mulumba who first brought to my attention to the plight of autistic

children in Uganda. Mulumba, thank you very much for all the tips you have given me.

My MA scholarship has been possible thanks to the monetary support I have received

from OISE as well as from my parents. The administrative team at OISE has always been helpful

and I thank you for not tiring answering my numerous questions.

To my mother, I will always be grateful for your love and support in everything. To my

father, I am very appreciative of all those lectures you gave me and for challenging me to always

be analytical. Mother, I thank you for being a tough-mother.

iii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Images ............................................................................................................................................. vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Location of self in the study ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Historical overview of the education system in Uganda and literature review ..................... 4
1.2 Problem statement and research questions ............................................................................ 10
1.3 Definition of terms .................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Methodology and theoretical approach .................................................................................. 15
1.5 Summary and layout of the thesis ........................................................................................... 18
Chapter 2: Theoretical Approaches to Education ................................................................................ 20
2.1 The human capital approach ................................................................................................... 21
2.2 The human rights approach .................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Capability approach ................................................................................................................. 28
2.4 The social justice approach ...................................................................................................... 31
2.5 Uganda in the context of these approaches ............................................................................ 35
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 37
Chapter 3: Autism and Social Justice Education .................................................................................. 40
3.1 Prevalence ................................................................................................................................. 40
3.2 “Othered” and stigmatized ...................................................................................................... 42
3.3 Barriers to education for children with autism and other disabilities ................................. 44
3.4. Paradigms and Approaches ..................................................................................................... 48
3.5. A case for inclusive education ................................................................................................. 54
3.6 International context ................................................................................................................ 57
3.7 Critiques of inclusive education .............................................................................................. 59
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 61
Chapter 4: Autism, Social Justice Education and the Uganda Education System: A Focus on Legal
Frameworks .............................................................................................................................................. 63
4.1 The Ugandan policy context with regard to disability and education .................................. 65
4.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 72
4.3 A Twin Track Approach .......................................................................................................... 81

iv

 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 92
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................... 95
Chapter 6: Recommendations. .............................................................................................................. 102
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 109

v

 List of Tables

Table 1. Number of Children with Disabilities

Attending Primary School by Class, 2007……………………………… 64

Table 2. Distribution of Children with Disabilities

with Ability to Attend School………………………………………….. 73

Table 3. Enrollment of Primary School Pupils with

Special Needs, 2008-2010……………………………………………… 83

List of Images

Location of Uganda on the Continent ………………………………………………… vii

Autism Rising Trends and Reasons for

Increased Diagnosis in the USA ……………………………………………………… 42

Assumptions Associated with Seeing the

Child as a Problem …………………………………………………………………… 50

vi

https://www.google.ca/search?q=location+of+uganda+on+map+of+africa&rlz

vii

 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.0 Location of self in the study

On one bright sunny day in Toronto in May 2016, I received a call from a very close

friend of mine, Martin Mulumba from Uganda. Mulumba informed me of how he had completed

his private training in dealing with children with special needs and autism. He passionately

talked to me on the necessity of inclusion programs in government schools that help cater for

children with special needs. Mulumba observed that the very few private schools that cater for

children with special needs are very expensive and out of reach for most families in Uganda. He

noted that the high cost in terms of school fees for children with special needs denies them the

opportunity to gain a decent education as many parents lose hope in giving their children an

equal chance at education and simply pull them out of school at any small provocation. Children

with autism stay at home, which violates their right to have an education. Our conversation

touched on different issues before Mulumba suggested we start up either an awareness campaign

or educational facility for educating autistic children. I applauded his concern and pointed out

that while the second option was excellent it will still not address the countrywide neglect of

educating children with autism and special needs in affordable schools. A more resilient solution

will have to be informed by research – and good research for that matter. We need to talk about

inclusion of autistic children in Uganda’s education system, but with concrete facts.

During my school years in Uganda, right from primary school level I shared classes with

various children with special needs. In a colonially constructed educational system that thrives

on competition to produce the "best" student, there were no accommodations for students with

learning disabilities. Children who were not able to excel like the rest were often ridiculed not

1

only by fellow students, but by also sometimes ignorant school teaching staff and scolded by

their parents and guardians as well. Such attitudes were most common during a time when

national exams were about to take place. The National exams were standard exams set at three

levels countrywide. The first set of examination was the Primary Leaving Examinations, which

one had to pass in order to proceed to the next level -- Ordinary Level, Secondary School. The

second set of national exams is taken after four years of Ordinary level education. Successful

students can then proceed to complete two years of Advanced level education that end with

another National examination before being admitted to University or any other post-secondary

institution.

Neither the competitive education system nor the Uganda National Examinations Board

(UNEB) takes into consideration the plight of autistic students. All students who sit national

examinations that determine their future life experiences and opportunities are assumed to be

“normal” or “fully able bodied” (Davis, 2006). There are no accommodations in terms of extra

time or special rooms for students with disabilities. All students write their exams in the same

rooms and within the allocated time, which disadvantages students with disabilities. With over

130,000 autistic students countrywide (Pike, 2009), the government of Uganda should put into

place a strategy that caters for all. Proponents of the social model of disability call for changes in

society’s values and practices to remove barriers that hinder disabled students through social

action. For example, the Government of Uganda through the Ministry of education and Sports

(MOES) working together with Uganda national examinations Board (UNEB) could improve the

learning environment for students with disabilities in public schools to ensure they become

disability inclusive. Schools could build accessible classrooms (including ramps, where

necessary) to ensure that disabled students people can enter the classrooms (Titchkosky, 2008a;

2

2008b). Similarly, to accommodate the visually impaired or those with hearing disability so they

can fully participate in learning activities, schools, mainstream or special needs could install

audio tape and have materials in larger print to help disabled students. Additionally, to ensure

that deaf persons participate, special schools should have sign language interpreters. Such

collective responsibility from the government would make the disabled full and active

participants in learning activities. For instance during national examinations, students with

disabilities need to be accommodated to take their exams in special rooms with extra time to

complete their exams. Such accommodations are necessary if students with learning disabilities

are to have a meaningful place in schools because schools are designed to meet the needs of non-

disabled students. This study believes that the implementation of such policies will promote

accessibility and create a conducive learning environment for students with disabilities.

I am a strong believer in change and that change starts with an individual and does not

start until the individuals does. By carrying out this study, I hope to further the campaign of

inclusion within the Ugandan education system by unpacking “inclusivity” to include autistic

children. I have a number of friends I went to school with who were autistic; some made it

through the system because of their social privilege, however, the non-privileged hundreds of

thousands Ugandan children never made. How long must children with autism and other

disabilities fall through the cracks of the colonial non-inclusive educational system? If my friend

Mulumba awakened and interested me to think and write about the plight of autistic children, my

summer courses with Professors Terezia Jadranka Zoric and Njoki Wane, as well as Professor

George S. Dei’s weekly Seminar have equipped me with the tools to investigate the topic further.

3

1.1 Historical overview of the education system in Uganda and literature review

Uganda’s modern education system dates back to the colonial era when Uganda became a

British colony in 1886. Initially formal education was the preserve of Christian missionaries. It

had a narrow geographical and social reach. The Education in Africa Report (1922) by the

Phelps-Stokes Fund led to significant changes in the provision of education in British Africa.

Critical of the British colonial authorities’ neglect of education, the report flagged the way for

greater involvement of the public sector in the provision of education. In 1952, the colonial

authorities appointed the first education commission in Uganda, the De Bunsen Committee,

which recommended among others, the expansion of school facilities at the primary and

secondary levels especially for girls, and the creation of new primary schools. On the eve of

Uganda’s independence in 1962, the Castle Commission was set up to examine the educational

system in the country and make recommendations on the future of education in post-colonial

Uganda (Ssekamwa, 1997; Ssekamwa & Lugumba 2001).

Driven by post-colonial realities, particularly the urgency and determination to develop

the required national cadre of work force to advance its agenda, Uganda like many post-

independence governments in Africa expanded educational opportunities as a central focus of

national development (Senteza- Kajubi, 1989; Uganda Government, 1992; Oketch & Rolleston,

2007). The education review commission appointed soon after the country's independence in

1962 recommended that the expansion of primary education was an essential precondition for a

highly educated human resources necessary to build the country’s post-colonial goals and

programs. However, the Castle Commission’s report, made public in 1964, led to an over-

emphasis on post-primary education during the first two decades after independence.

4

Nevertheless, during this period, the government implemented several promising policy

directives to institute a system of free primary education during the third five-year development

plan (1972-1976) and the Education Policy Review of 1977. However, these efforts failed

mainly due to the deteriorated political situation under the increasing dictatorships of Obote 1

(1966-1971) and Idi Amin (1971-1978) and Obote II who governed Uganda from 1962 to the

1970s and early 1980s (de Kemp et al., 2008; Nishimura et al., 2009; Duclos et al., 2013).

During this period of civil and political strife, Uganda’s education system suffered. The physical

school infrastructure fell into a state of disrepair and with an acute shortage of instructional

materials let alone a concern for equity and social justice (de Kemp et al., 2008; Nishimura et al.,

2009). This turmoil persisted for almost two decades.

After an almost five-year guerrilla warfare, the National Resistance Army (NRA) under

Yoweri Kaguta Museveni captured power in January 1986 from the military junta that had

overthrown the Obote II regime in July 1985. The NRA government introduced initiatives to

reform the education sector and improve the quality of basic education in Uganda. For instance,

in 1987, the government appointed an Education Review Commission under the leadership of a

veteran educationist and former Vice chancellor of Makerere University, Professor Senteza-

Kajubi to review entire the Ugandan education system and recommend strategies and measures

to improve the education sector (Senteza- Kajubi, 1989; Uganda Government, 1992; National

Curriculum Development Centre, 1999). The commission published its report in 1989. Based on

this report, the government appointed a White Paper Committee, which produced the

Government Education White Paper of 1992 (Essama-Nssah, 2011; Higgins & Rwanyange,

2005; Government of Uganda, 1993). In 1995, Uganda adopted a new constitution with

provisions that established education as a fundamental human right and specified that each child

5

is entitled to basic education. In 1996, Uganda enacted the children’s statute in accordance with

the new Constitution. In the same year, during the presidential campaigns, Yoweri Kaguta

Museveni pledged to offer Universal Primary Education (Nishimura et al., 2009, p.146).

Following his victory in the 1996 elections, President Museveni announced that four children of

school going age per family would benefit from free primary education starting in January 1997.

This policy ushered in Universal Primary Education (UPE) (Duclos et al., 2013; de Kemp et al.,

2008).

At its commencement, UPE’s overall goal was to increase access, equity and quality of

primary education in Uganda with a view to eradicating illiteracy and subsequently transforming

society. Its specific objectives were:

a) Making basic education accessible to the learners and relevant to their needs as

well as meeting national goals; b) Making education equitable in order to

eliminate disparities and inequalities; c) Establishing, providing and maintaining

quality education as the basis for promoting the necessary human resource

development; d) Ensuring that education is affordable to the majority of

Ugandans by providing facilities and resources to enable every child to enter and

remain in school until they complete the primary school education cycle (MoES,

1999, p.10).

From an equity perspective, UPE’s objectives are admirable because they are pro-poor. Indeed,

the government implemented UPE to mitigate poverty and improve human development. UPE

also demonstrated NRM’s commitment to national development as set out in the Poverty

Eradication Action Plan, the 2010-2015 National Development Plan as well as the 2040 National

Development Plan (Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, 2010).

6

 UPE in Uganda was a result of broader reforms recommended by the 1987 Education

Review Commission Report and the 1993 White Paper on Education. Nevertheless, it was

galvanized by the Education For All (EFA) movement launched in 1990 under the auspices of

UNESCO, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UNFPA, UNICEF and World Bank.

(Nishimura et al, 2009:146; de Kemp et al, 2008; Essama-Nssah, 2011; Higgins & Rwanyange,

2005; Government of Uganda, 1993). EFA recognized that educational inequities are a global

justice issue (Fraser, 2006; Tikly & Dachi, 2009). In an unprecedented move, in 1990, at the

Jomtein conference, delegates from 155 countries agreed to make primary education accessible

to all children, and made commitments to reduce illiteracy before the end of the decade. The

World Declaration on Education for All, adopted at this conference, encouraged and pressed

countries to intensify their efforts to meet the basic learning needs of all and to provide universal

access to primary education by 2000. The six EFA goals are expansion of early childhood

education, achieving Universal Primary Education (UPE), promoting learning for youth and

adults, halving illiteracy levels, achieving gender parity and improving the quality of education.

The international community met again in Dakar, Senegal in 2000 to reflect on the

progress and generate strategies towards achieving the aims of the EFA. Aligning EFA goals to

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on education, the international community

reiterated their commitment to achieving EFA by 2015. Unfortunately, by 2012, the EFA

Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2012) projected that the overall targets of the EFA were off by a

large margin.

Nonetheless, for Uganda, following the introduction of UPE, gross enrolment in primary

school increased from 3.1 million in 1996 to 7.6 million in 2003 and 8.4 million by 2010 (Duclos

et al., 2013; MoES, 2010). The same period witnessed a large increase in the number of primary

7

schools, from 8,531 in 1996 to 13,353 in 2003, an increase of just under 5,000 schools in a

period of only seven years. It also recorded a narrowing gap between the number of girls and

boys enrolled in primary schools. In 2003, enrolment of girls in primary schools was slightly

over 49% of the total, compared to 45% in 1993 (Bategeka & Okurut, 2006; Ministry of

Education and Sports, 2003). On this measure, the UPE education policy succeeded in reaching

the poorest regions and children as it reduced the burden of basic education costs from parental

shoulders, which negatively hinder poor girls’ education (Nishimura et al., 2009).

Even after abolition of fees, numerous disparities in educational access and quality

persist. Uganda’s UPE program has been associated with very high dropout and low completion

rates (Duclos et al., 2013, p.4). For instance, in 2009, the completion rate to grade seven stood at

only 52 percent respectively (MoES, 2010). Several factors account for this pathetic situation

(Nishimura et al., 2008; Duclos et al., 2013). While access improved, the number of teachers did

not keep pace with the expansion across the country. This is the case because as Phasha, Mahlo

and Dei (2017) point out “the conceptualization of inclusive schooling in an African context

would have to begin with an acknowledgement of social difference, power, identity and culture”

(p.2). In Uganda’s context, there were (and still are) such differences which have undermined

the success of UPE. Some of the differences could have been mitigated ith government policy.

For example, the government of Uganda refused to make UPE mandatory and compulsory, a gap

that has allowed some parents to withdraw their children from school without facing any

penalties. Another error was the president’s direction that four children per family join UPE free.

That was unrealistic because many families are polygamous so limited the family to four means

many children miss school. A better direction would have focused on four children per mother to

benefit from UPE. Moreover, fertility in parts of Uganda is about seven children per mother

8

therefore limiting UPE to four children per mother would have created challenges for such

families. The most glaring policy mistake was the government failure to declare UPE mandatory

and compulsory. This study argues that failure by the Ugandan education system to implement

the social model of disability and improve the learning environment of students with autism and

other disabilities to stay and complete school contributes to some of the high UPE dropout rate.

A central principle and goal of social justice pedagogy is the removal of encumbrances

within the education system so that all students may experience learning unencumbered by their

ability based on social class, disability, race, ethnicity, colour or creed. To this end, the

government of Uganda introduced the Universal Primary Education (UPE) program in 1997 with

the aim of promoting equal access for children from marginalized families and “promote social

justice” (Government of Uganda, 1993). Granted, Uganda government’s efforts are

commendable in promoting access through Universal primary education (UPE) and Universal

secondary education (USE), but not all children receive social justice within the education

system. This study is about social justice and autistic children in the Ugandan education system.

This thesis draws on critical theoretical frameworks to examine the extent to which students with

disabilities continue to be subject to injustices, and inequities in Uganda. In addition, what

measures can be implemented to promote an equitable learning environment and enhance overall

student experience?

Autistic children in Uganda are subject to intolerable deprivations because society sees

them as being at the margin or else beyond the scope of equality. Critical disability scholars and

disabled advocates argue that disability is a space of cultural practices done by, and to people.

As Shakespeare (2006) observes, “It is the interaction of individual bodies and social

environments which produces disability” (p. 210). According to Oliver (1996), the individual

9

model interprets disability as loss, human tragedy, misfortune and as a condition inside

individual. This fuels the discourse of ‘normalcy’ (Davis, 2006). Oliver (1996) argues that is

problematic since the medical model of disability locates disability in disabled bodies, rather

than society’s failure to take the necessary action such as providing suitable accommodations to

disabled students. Critical disability studies posits that with the proper accommodation in place,

barriers that exclude and marginalize students with learning disabilities could be mitigated to

allow students accomplish their academic tasks (Titchkosky, 2008a; 2008b).

Michalko (2009) points out that disability is “conceived of not as a collective matter, but

as an individual one” (p.101). In addition that disability “is a disturbance to be avoided and as

such, it is usually not thought of as a category of societal membership with human rights”

(Michalko, 2009, p.101). McGuire and Michalko (2011) argue “autism is a puzzle that is solve-

able” and that it is possible to “minimize the effect of autism” in children (p.163). McGuire and

Michalko (2011) observe that the harmful effects of autism can be minimized with the right

resources and support if school authorities stopped privileging the biomedical model and instead

focused on the social model because “autism belongs in the realm of the social and not

individual”(p.164). This observation captures the experience of my former schoolmates from

higher socioeconomic backgrounds who went to private schools and accessed programs denied

to most autistic children from poor backgrounds in Uganda. That is why autism is an equity

issue within the educational system.

1.2 Problem statement and research questions

Individuals with disabilities face various barriers that may exclude them from participating

fully and effectively as equal members of society. While the Uganda government considers

10

 social justice a key objective of basic education, there is limited research that examines the

effect on children suffering from autism. Autistic children face discrimination due to their

“difference”. As a result, they are not able to participate fully in Uganda’s education system

compared to nondisabled individuals. This undermines social justice for all. Undertaking this

study exposed me to the challenges autistic children and their parents encounter within the

Ugandan education system. This thesis, based on secondary sources investigates three related

questions. My future research will buttress the outcomes of this thesis with empirical data.

This thesis addresses the following three questions:

1) Based on a review of key government policy documents, how is the Ugandan educational

system addressing issues of social justice education?

2) What is the status of autistic children, and what does their treatment reveal about social

justice education?

3) Assessing from available sources, what are the gaps and challenges faced by learners and

educationists in as far as autism is concerned in Uganda. How can Uganda address these

barriers? Relatedly, what can Uganda learn from best practices elsewhere?

1.3 Definition of terms

Three key terms in this study are social justice, inclusion and autism.

Social justice

For this thesis, I lean towards Rawls’ (1971) definition of Justice. Rawls (1971) argues

that “each person possess an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a

whole cannot override” (pp.3-4). I define social justice as a moral and ethical standpoint that

emphasizes recognizing and changing inequitable societal structures that unjustly propagate and

11

maintain the subjugation of some groups while privileging others, and seeks to bring about

societal change through social action (Bennett, 2011). In this case, my definition of social justice

is from a standpoint that some groups of people/school children continue to face systemic and/or

attitudinal barriers because of their ability, race, sex, sexual orientation, class and so on. This has

certainly affected a realization of their full potential, let alone equitable participation in schooling

and work force after their schooling is over.

Inclusion

Inclusive education is defined in a variety of ways. The British Psychological Society’s

(2002) definition is centered on the following notions: i) rejecting segregation or exclusion of

learners for whatever reason, whether it be ability, gender, language, care status, family income,

disability, sexuality, color, religion or ethnic origin; ii) Maximizing the participation of all

learners in the community schools of their choice; iii) Making learning more meaningful and

relevant for all, particularly those learners most vulnerable to exclusionary pressure; iv)

Rethinking and restructuring policies, curricula, culture and practices in schools and learning

environments so that diverse learning needs can be met, whatever the origin or nature of those

needs (p.2). On the other hand, UNESCO (2005) defines “inclusion” as a process of addressing

and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in

learning, cultures, and communities, and reducing exclusion within and from education (p.13).

In addition, UNESCO notes that inclusion “involves a range of changes and modifications in

content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children of

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

educate all children” (p.13). According to Staub and Peck (1994) inclusion is “the fulltime

12

placement of children with mild, moderate, or severe disabilities in regular classroom settings”

(p.36).

Throughout this study, inclusive education refers to the extent to which children with

special educational needs (autistic) are included as full members of the school community with

full access to and participation in all aspects of education. In this thesis, inclusion conveys the

right to belong to the mainstream, a struggle to end discrimination and a commitment to work

towards equal opportunities for all (CSIE, 2002).

Autism

There is a wide range of overlapping presentations/diagnosis of autism disorder. The

Centre for Developmental Disability Health Victoria (CDDH-Victoria, 2010) identifies three

presentations: a) Autistic disorder (classical or childhood autism); b) Asperger’s Disorder and; c)

Atypical Autism. These disorders are life-long neuro-developmental disabilities typified by

deficiencies in reciprocal social interactions, verbal and non-verbal communication skills as well

as fixed behavior, interests and activities (CDDH-Victoria, 2010). To get a comprehensive

understanding of autism, this thesis adopts the Centre for Developmental Disability Health

Victoria (CDDH-Victoria, 2010) definitions of the three conditions:

a) Autistic disorder (classical or childhood autism) involves the following:

i) impairments of Social Interaction Aloofness and failure to develop friendships; ii) Seeking

people’s company but lacking ability to engage in two-way social interactions; iii) Stilted, one-

sided or repetitive social interactions; iv) Being socially passive while tolerating social

approaches; v) Awkward, avoidant or indifferent eye contact; vi) Inability to understand social

rules, for example, make socially embarrassing comments unintentionally; vii) Impaired

understanding of other people’s motivations, perspectives or feelings; viii) markedly impaired

13

use of non-verbal behaviors to regulate social interaction such as gestures; ix) Lack of

spontaneously seeking to share enjoyment with others; x) Impairments of Communication and

Play; xi) A delay in or lack of development of speech without any compensatory forms of

communication; xii) Significant difficulty in initiating and sustaining a conversation (in those

with speech).xiii) Stereotyped or idiosyncratic use of language (CDDH-Victoria, 2010).

This condition also involves some relational problems such as: i) Lack of imitation of

others; ii) In children, play lacks the varied or make-believe qualities appropriate to the

developmental level; iii) restricted or repetitive interests and activities interests that are

excessively narrow, intense or unusual; iv) Adherence to rigid routines; v) Intolerance of change;

vii) Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms e.g. hand flapping; viii) Persistent

preoccupation with parts of objects (CDDH-Victoria, 2010). Autistic disorder is more common

in males than females (3:1). Epilepsy is common and can develop at any age. Unusual sensory

responses e.g. sensitivity/aversion to particular sounds or tactile sensations, intolerance to foods,

or fascination with spinning objects or lights. Can form affectionate attachments to those they

know well. May develop behavior disorders such as angry outbursts, self-injurious behavior,

feeding difficulties/fads, sleep problems and over-activity (particularly as children). Anxiety due

to poor communication skills, over-stimulation etc. (CDDH-Victoria, 2010).

b) The diagnosis of Asperger’s disorders is linked to the presence of social interaction

impairments and repetitive and restricted interests described above. Usually, there is no

significant language delay. However, subtle impairments in the social use of language are

present and often disabling, for example, leading to teasing and social isolation. This disorder is

more common in males (13:1) but may be under-diagnosed in females. Typical characteristics of

Asperger’s disorder are: i) Normal or borderline intellectual ability; ii) Clumsiness; iii) Concrete,

14

pedantic speech; iv) Lack of common sense; v) Normal or even precocious speech development;

vi) Better verbal than non-verbal skills on psychological assessments; vii) Intolerance of change

an, viii) Anxiety (CDDH-Victoria, 2010).

c) Atypical Autism is the diagnostic grouping used when core autistic behaviors are

present, but when the criteria for autistic disorder are not fully met. Some of the common

difficulties encountered by parents and teachers include the management of: i) Difficult behavior

e.g. obsessions, tantrums and aggression. ii) Communication problems, for example, repetitive

speech. iii) Disturbed sleep and fussy eating. iv) Socially inappropriate behavior and social

isolation or teasing and bullying (CDDH-Victoria, 2010). Ferraros (2008) provides a generalized

and formal definition of autism as a developmental disorder characterized by marked difficulty

in communication and social relations. Ferraros observes that autism and Asperger syndrome

are a 'hidden' disability, not easily recognized and as such do not attract the same attention from

society as more obvious physical disabilities.

1.4 Methodology and theoretical approach

This study is based on secondary literature. It draws on articles in journals, books, reports

and government publications. The literature selected includes both theoretical and empirical

studies on autism in and disability in general. Priority for review was given to international

studies, because there are very few studies that explore the learning experiences of children with

autism in Uganda. The studies were included for their insights in to help us understand issues of

inclusive schooling for students with autism. This is important because the issue of inclusive

schooling extends beyond a particular country in light of globalization and neoliberalism. The

review was guided by questions intended to illuminate the study’s goal of understanding the

15

educational experiences of children with autism. Selected articles for review contain themes on

class, demographics, race and ethnicity, gender and disability. These sources enrich our

understanding of the numerous challenges students with autism and their parents or guardians

endure within the school system.

A critical theory theoretical framework guides this thesis. This approach recognizes that

injustices are rooted in societal relations and are mediated by capitalist assumptions of

production and consumption, which privilege some and oppress others. It coerces subordinates to

accept their marginalized status as deserving, natural or necessary (Kinchlooe & McLaren, 1989;

1994; Bickmore, 1999; Erevelles, 2000; Sharma & Portelli, 2014; Zoric, 2014; Dei, 2015;

Portelli & Konecny, 2013). A critical disability studies perspective challenges the labeling,

sorting and segregation of students based on normative conceptions of ability and problematizes

how disability is constructed, addressed or not addressed in classrooms and schools (Oliver,

1996; Davis, 2006; Titchkosky, 2008a; 2008b; McGuire & Michalko, 2011). Critical disability

studies scholars observe that looking at disability differently has the potential to “expand our

understanding of the cultural construction of bodies and identity by reframing disability as

another culture body physically justified difference to consider along race, gender”(Garland-

Thompson, 1997, p.5). The key insight from critical disabilities studies is that disabled bodies

should be treated with respect and accepted as they are. As McGuire and Michalko (2009) point

out, “rather than treat autism as a puzzle that must be solved, we treat autism as teacher” (p.162).

Using Uganda as a case study, this thesis offers insights into social justice education or lack

thereof in Uganda.

The study is approached from a personal standpoint that has the following four

assumptions:

16

 First, access to quality pre- and primary education by autistic children is a social justice

issue. Framing it this way captures its significance within the global and local/country contexts

of Education For All (EFA); while at the same time opens up the education system for concerted

constructive action (Tikly & Barrett, 2011). Second, more often than not, special education

processes result in the marginalization of racialized students, students living in poverty or with

disabilities (Reid & Knight, 2006; Danforth, Taff & Ferguson, 2006; Erevelles, 2000). Third,

social justice in the provision of EFA should go beyond access to interrogate other pipeline

issues such as what is being taught, how is it taught and under what conditions (Lewin & Little,

2011). Fourth, although there are benefits in learning from best practice imported from Western

countries, programs on the ground have tended to undervalue Indigenous knowledge and

practices to the detriment of concerned children (Wane, 2008; Dei, 2009; Tikly & Dach, 2009;

Phasha, Mahlo, & Dei, 2017). We stand to gain by utilizing African indigenous knowledge in the

provision of social justice education to autistic children.

This study makes three practical contributions. First, it synthesizes the literature of social

justice education in as far as it relates autism in a third world country. Second, it interrogates the

extent to which educational policies transferred from the global north as ready-made solutions to

correct social injustices in developing countries achieve their intended goals. Studies show

policy implementation is often more complex and laden with multiple difficulties (Samoff &

UNICEF, 1994). Accordingly, by revealing pipeline concerns, difficulties and successes, this

study contributes to an understanding into how these policies are negotiated, adapted and

appropriated as the government tries to provide justice education (Vavrus &Bartlett, 2012).

Third, for future research with accompanying fieldwork data, this study has the potential to

influence policy formulation towards inclusive practices within the Ugandan education system.

17

 A major limitation of this study’s method is that it is an extensive review of the literature

on autism as a social justice issue and as such misses the nuances, insights and lived experiences

from field research including individuals with autism, parents, disability advocates and public

officials. This is important in context of Phasha, Mahlo and Dei’s (2017) observation that

“history, culture, experience and location offer different standpoints to learners linked by

knowledge production through the production of the multiple identities that shape learners in the

school system” (p.2). This study is aware that most of the literature reviewed is produced in

Western society and may not necessarily capture the prevailing reality in Uganda’s educational

system. More studies from, and on African educational system would have enriched my

literature. This is important because there are considerable differences in the lived experiences

of autistic children based on their race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, language and so on. In

other words, issues of power relations embedded in social structures, institutions and systems

come into play. These are issues for future research in my doctoral dissertation on this topic.

Undertaking this research has also been a learning experience about issues of social

justice education in Uganda and the weaknesses of the social model of disability when

examining the experiences of children with autism and other disabilities since it does not account

for impairments (Shakespeare, 2006).

1.5 Summary and layout of the thesis

The thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 highlighted the urgent need to study

autism as a social justice issue in Uganda. This discussion contends that while social justice

seems to be a significant policy goal of basic education in Uganda (Government of Uganda,

1993) and a sizeable number of children are suffering from autism, there are gaps in policy

18

implementation that continue to marginalize and exclude students with autism and other

learning disabilities. Specifically, in practice Ugandan educational officials have failed to see

autism as a social justice issue. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the literature related to social

justice education. The emphasis is on theoretical and practical approaches to quality education in

Africa in general. Chapter 3 investigates autism as a social justice issue in the provision of

education from a critical disability studies perspective. This chapter covers a number of issues

and concerns as well as approaches in the provision of education to autistic children. Some of the

issues that undermine inclusion include legal/rights; social barriers; attitudinal barriers, teacher

training, parental involvement and failure to create an accommodating environment in class and

during exams. Other issues include social integration in regular classes; segregation; partial

inclusion and curriculum. The chapter debates the pros and cons of each of these approaches.

Chapter 4 specifically looks at autism and social justice education in Uganda with special

attention to the country’s legal various frameworks. It interrogates the extent to which teaching

and learning are a social justice reality in Uganda and what are the key constraints for a smooth

implementation of social justice education. It asks the question: what is the status and what are

the major issues and concerns? Chapter 5 is the discussion and conclusion of the major findings

of the study conclusion. Chapter 6 suggests recommendations to be considered at the national,

societal/community, school and scholarly and other levels. It also includes ideas for a future

research agenda.

19

 Chapter 2: Theoretical Approaches to Education1

This chapter reviews the literature related to inclusive education and autism. My starting

point is the insighful observation by Shakespeare (2006) that “it is the interaction of individual

bodies and social environments, which produces disability” (p.210). Critical disability studies

identify two approaches to the study of disability, the individual or medical model and the social

model of disability (Oliver, 1996). The social model defines disability as the limit or loss of

opportunities to take part in the community life because of physical and social barriers (Oliver,

1996, p.56). According to Oliver (1996), the individual model interprets disability as loss,

human tragedy, misfortune and as a condition inside individual. This fuels the discourse of

‘normalcy’ (Davis, 2006). Critical disability scholars problematize the individual/medical model

for focusing on the individual rather than society for the necessary social action (Oliver, 1996;

Shakespeare, 2006; Titchkosky, 2008). The individual/medical model locates disability in the

disabled bodies and treats it as a problem to be solved (Titchkosky & Michalko, 2009; McGuire &

Michalko, 2011). Under this model, the only way individuals can participate in certain activities

including learning is if they are ‘normalized’ (Davis, 2006). Under an individual model of

disability, lack of inclusive classrooms, accommodations, ramps, elevators, audio tape or large

print material are not taken as problems requiring collective social action. Hence, Shakespeare‘s

(2006) argument that the social environment produces disability (p. 201). Accordingly,

proponents of the social model of disability call for changes in society’s values and practices in

1
The images presented in this Chapter are drawn from:
http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_Human_Rights_Based_Approach_to_Education_for_All.pdf;https://ww
w.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Images+for+Human+Capital;
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-
8#q=Images+for+Capability+Approach and https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-
instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=image+of+George+Dei respectively.

20

order to remove barriers that hinder the disabled through social action. This observation

highlights some of the challenges facing students with autism in Uganda in search of inclusive

education. Some of the approaches discussed here include i) the human capital approach; ii) the

human rights approach; iii) the social capability approach and; iv) the social justice approach.

The chapter concludes by contextualizing Uganda in relation to these approaches.

2.1 The human capital approach

The human capital approach treats education as an individual investment, a form of

capital. Since education becomes a part of the person receiving it, I shall refer to as human

capital … it is a form of capital if it renders productive service value to the economy…

(Schultz, 1960, p.571). This quotation seems to sum up the rationale behind introducing the

concept of human capital. From this quotation one also gets a clear definition of what it means to

its proponents. According to this approach, human capital is an outcome of learning embodied in

an individual and manifests in the form of expansion of productivity of the individual. The

human capital theory suggests that individuals and society gain substantial economic benefits

from investments in people. Proponents argue that an educated population is a productive,

creative, and innovative resource for not only growth but also for achieving broad based growth

(Schultz, 1960). More importantly as per the human capital theory, education is an input to the

production of goods and services through the agency of labor. In the context of the production

function, both capital and labour undergo transformation through education and training and the

consequent skill development. Further, education can bring about both economic and social

transformation. It is in fact a pre-requisite for not only narrowly defined economic growth, but

also, for a broad based notion of development. Some of the benefits that may accrue to

21

beneficiaries include better health and nutrition, control on population growth, improvement in

the overall quality of life, enlightened citizenry to participate in democratic and legal processes.

Other include rational decision-making at the level of the community as a concerned member of

the society, pursuing values such as equality, fraternity, and liberty at both private and social

levels, and lower levels of corruption. The strength of the human capital approach lies in linking

human capital development and economic growth. The basic argument relating to human capital

and growth in earnings is simple and straightforward. The formula goes something like

education and training àincrease individuals’ cognitive capacity, which in turn,à increases

their productivity; productivity tends to àincrease the earnings of educated and skilled

individuals this, àbecomes a measure of human capital (Schultz 1960).

Majumdar (1983) groups the major arguments of the human capital approach to

education under three propositions. Those; i) who see human capital as a counterpart to the

notion of physical capital formation; ii) who take spending resources on education as an act of

investment where investment decision-makers in education are analogous to investors in the

capital market and; iii) education or the learning process is similar to production carried out by a

firm: input–output analysis. Studies claim the human capital approach to educational quality is

the most pervasive in developing countries (Apple, 2004; Tikly, 2011; Thapliyal, Vally &

Spreen, 2012). Grounded in positivist thinking, this approach focuses on expanding access to

reduce inequality within the education system, such as imbalances brought about by gender,

socio-economic class, residence, conflict and race. Advocates of the human capital approach use

empirical data to demonstrate the impact of education on marginalized communities such as

family health and nutrition, the declining levels of achievement gaps between difference sexes,

races and communities (Maajgard & Mingat, 2012; UNESCO, 2010).

22

 However, despite such promises, critical disability scholars and other critics fault this

approach to education for ignoring non-economic elements that enhance social injustice (Young,

1990; Fraser, 2006). Essentially, human capital theory is similar to the individual/medical model

and does little to improve the learning environment for students with disabilities. Moreover, the

human capital approach tends to conflate educational access and equity; and overemphasizes the

economic benefits of education for achieving national economic goals (Nussbaum, 2000; Rizvi

& Engel, 2009; Scrase, 1997; Balcchus, 1997; Tikly & Barrett, 2011). Critics also point out that

at best, it assumes a trickledown effect on sociopolitical factors and at worst, it ignores the

importance of these factors to national development (Fraser, 1998; Young, 1990). Furthermore,

critics object to its neoliberal standpoint, which perceives education as primarily an economic

affair (Rizvi & Engel, 2009). To critics, this approach, fails to address equity and social justice

issues pertinent in education.

Furthermore, the human capital approach to education is faulted for silencing the voices

of the students, stifling critical thinking and negating critical democratic citizenship (Apple,

2004; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2002). Thapliyal, Vally and Spreen (2013) suggest that the

dominance of the human capital approach, particularly in the developing world speaks more

about the power the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have in driving

educational policy in aid dependent nations (World Bank, 2011).

2.2 The human rights approach

The human rights approach has its origins in the decades following the formation of the

United Nations in 1945. However, a direct link between human rights and education was not

directly made until 1974 with the “Recommendation Concerning Education and International

23

Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms” (UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 3 (XXXIII), and UN

General Assembly resolution 32/123 (OHCHR, 2007, p.161). Efforts to support students with

disabilities goes back to the International Year of Disabled Person in 1981 (Russell & Demko,

2005). Thereafter, institutionalization and integration of human rights education into the UN

human rights framework took shape leading to the proclamation of the Decade for Human Rights

Education (1995 –2004) (UN General Assembly 1993; 1994). The latter was the result of plans

and pressure instigated at the International Congress on Education for Human Rights and

Democracy in Montreal in March 1993, which adopted the World Plan of Action on Education

for Human Rights and Democracy (UNESCO, 1993). The World Conference on Human Rights

in Vienna followed in June 1993 (World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, Austria, 25 June

1993). The UN General Assembly Resolution (1995) proclaimed and reaffirmed the

recommendations of the Vienna Declaration adopted at the World Conference and suggested

that:

... human rights education should involve more than the provision of information and

should constitute a comprehensive life-long process by which people at all levels in

development and in all strata of society learn respect for the dignity of others and the

means and methods of ensuring that respect in all societies …(Vienna Declaration and

Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, 25 June

1993, A/Conf.157/23, endorsed by UN General Assembly resolution 48/121, 20

December 1993).

Compared to the human capital approach, the human rights approach is closer to the social model

of disability because it considers human rights “fundamental, indivisible and integral” to national

24

development and seeks to secure the rights of children through education (Tikly & Barrett, 2007,

p.5). The Programme of Action for the UN Decade for Human Rights Education outlined this

goal (OHCHR 1996). It stated that human rights education involved “training, dissemination and

information efforts aimed at building a universal culture of human rights through the imparting

of knowledge and skills and the molding of attitudes’ (OHCHR 1996, appendix).

The rights based approach consists of a number of interrelated dimensions. a) The right

of access to education, which includes free access to basic education; b) The right to quality

education; c) The right to respect within education; d) Accessible higher education and; e)

Available education for those who have not completed schooling, amongst others (Grey, 2012;

Jonsson, 2003; Manion & Menashy, 2013; Robeyns, 2006; UNICEF, 2008; UNESCO and

UNICEF, 2007). Katarina Tomasevski the former UN Rapporteur on the Right to Education has

regrouped these five rights to education into what she calls the “4 As”: available, accessible,

acceptable and adaptable (2001; 2006). The former UN Rapporteur highlighted two dimensions

to the human rights framework: a) That education is a human right and all governments have a

responsibility to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and protect that right; and

b) That the rights-based approach to education encompasses both the rights in and through

education. Rights in education revolve around the use of curricular and pedagogical practices

that are culturally responsive to the needs of learners with the goal of making school a child-

friendly space. These ideas are in line with Phasha, Mahlo and Dei’s (2017) recognition that

“education cannot be provided uniformly and the urgency for inclusion necessitates that

educators deal with the challenges, possibilities and opportunities entailed in having different

bodies in their schools and classrooms” (p.2). These suggestions are closer to the social model of

25

disability, which calls for change in society values and attitudes to do more to create an enabling

environment for al learners.

The rights in education framework includes introduction of learner-centered teaching

approaches that enhance the active participation of students, teachers, parents and communities

with the goal of fostering a rights-based society grounded in critical citizenship and

accountability (Thapliyal, Vally, & Spreen, 2013). Its proponents argue that the state is the “duty

bearer” of education over and above parents, guardians and teachers (Tomasevski, 2003; 2006;

UNICEF, 2008). Governments are considered not only the optimal provider, but equally so the

financier of education (Tomasevski, 2003, p.69). This is the collective action the social model of

disability demands to ensure that all students receive the necessary accommodation to learn at

their pace. Accordingly, education as a right has been enshrined, centralized and institutionalized

into global United Nations (UN) and international human rights instruments/treaties such as the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child

(CRC),or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

(CEDAW) to name only a few. It has been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 217A(III), 10 December 1948; Convention

on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989 (entered into force 2 September 1990);

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December

1979 (entered into force 3 September 1981).

Today the human rights or broadly speaking social justice education approach to

education has largely become a popular and common policy choice for many states in the

developing world. This is a result of local processes as well as best practices transplanted from

the global north largely popularized by UNICEF (Vavrus, 2009; Barrett, 2007; Tikly & Barrett,

26

2007; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2012; Thapliyal, Vally, & Spreen, 2013). Notwithstanding, its strengths

and global appeal, it has been critiqued on different fronts (Brown, 1999). For example, while

acknowledging that it is well intentioned by attempting to situate the meaning of human rights in

the wider social context, it fails to move beyond the relativity of knowledge (Giroux 2001, p.

186). More specifically, it is inadequate since it ignores the history or construction of power

imbalances or the ideology embedded, and thus fails to question the ways in which such

meanings are maintained or how they might actually distort reality rather than understanding it.

In addition, the dominant discourse of human rights education assumes the validity and

legitimacy of the institutional processes, which decide and produce human rights principles, and

ignores the way hidden power operates both within the process as well as in society.

Consequently, certain points of view have no place in negotiations (Coysh, 2014, p.108). Tikly

and Barrett (2007) and Brown (1999) criticize it for lack of contextualization of human rights

within cultural settings. As Moyn (2010) points out, human rights are neither politically neutral

nor universal and therefore advance a particular political point of view, which its champions try

to universalize.

Furthermore, Coysh (2014) argues that the idea depicting human rights as universal facts

as defined in the Universal Declaration, fails to capture the diversity of knowledge and reinforces

an approach in practice preoccupied with making these norms and standards both resonant and

relevant in local contexts. Coysh is critical that this takes away space for local reflection and

reinforces a manufactured and dominant discourse of human rights education rather than one that

unearths existing community knowledge and resources (p.91). According to scholars such as

Dei and Coysh, the construction of a global human rights education discourse relies upon the

subjugation of particular types of knowledge. This occurs in two ways, through

27

institutionalization and formalization of human rights education, where historical knowledges are

buried, marginalized or masked. It also wipes out any pre-existing knowledge, and approaches to

human rights education (Dei, 2000; 2013; Coysh, 2014). Moreover, studies show that it

dismisses as meaningless other preexisting forms of knowledge and cultural resources as it

promotes a global model for human rights education that is ahistorical, apolitical and

decontextual (Keet, 2010). Therefore, critics contend that instead of broadening the scope for

social transformation, the dominant discourse of human rights education narrows opportunities

for change. Critics fault the human rights approach for its over-emphasis on rights while ignoring

the historical, social and political events and structures, which enhance/perpetuate social

injustices. For many African countries, these include the role of colonialism, structural

adjustment policies of multilateral organizations and unfair trade policies. The capability

approach, which draws from both the human capital and human rights approaches, came into

effect to mitigate some of these shortcomings.

2.3 Capability approach

Renowned Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, its most avid proponent concedes that the

capability approach embraces much of the aspirational tone of human rights. Sen (2005) writes,

“the concepts of human rights and human capabilities have something of a common motivation”,

but they differ because capability theory does not suffer from the same ambiguities and potential

inconsistencies (p.152). At its most basic level, the capability approach concentrates on

providing access to opportunities for all citizens to live the kind of life they want to live on their

own terms, to flourish and achieve their potential (Sen 1992; 1999; 2009). As Sen argues, a

28

person’s resources do not indicate whether or not he or she is able to capitalize on these

resources and translate them into functionings, due to differences in conversion factors (Sen,

1997; 1999). A capability framework allows for greater contextualization and avoids major

ambiguities that characterize the rights-based approach. For Amartya Sen (2005), a capability

approach offers a framework to for analyze educational policies and allows contextualization

before ahistorical and overarching prescriptions and values are presented.

Amartya Sen’s argument has both intrinsic and instrumental value to the expansion of

other capabilities such as education, jobs, income and dignity. These capabilities allow

individuals to be and to do and to live a life that one has reason to value such as the freedom to

be nourished, to be educated, to be healthy and so on. In that regard, the capability approach is

very close to the teachings of the social model of disability since it calls for expanding

opportunities for all. Scholars in education and educational policy, gender studies, equity,

curriculum, disabilities and higher education have applied the capability framework (Walker,

2006; Unterhalter, 2007; Terzi, 2008; Manion, 2010). It provides a framework for analyzing

policies based on implications for individuals’ capabilities, what a person is able to do, who a

person is able to be (Robeyns, 2011; Sen, 1992; 1999; 2005). The framework evaluates whether

or not an individual can achieve certain “functionings” that are enabled through capabilities

(Menashy, 2013; 2014). Capabilities are therefore opportunities, and functioning are what such

opportunities allow a human being to concretely do. This is precisely what the social model of

disability advocates for, to give all students the opportunity to learn.

In order to achieve sustainable development as a foundation for the attainment of social

justice, proponents of the capability framework argue that it is imperative to provide equal access

to quality education and health (Nussbaum, 2010). At a more general level, a capability

29

approach to development concentrates on removing obstacles to achieving those functionings an

individual believes to be valuable. Thus, the concepts of capability, opportunity, freedom and

agency are closely related. Resources, therefore, are not as important as an individual’s

capability to convert these resources into functionings (Drèze & Sen, 1995; Sen, 1993; Walker,

2004). Amartya Sen (1999), who spearheaded the notion of human capability, has briefly

examined educational provision and discusses the characteristics of “basic educational

opportunities,” arguing schooling to have a “public-good component” (pp.128-129).

Critical disabilities scholars argue that historically society has tended to isolate and

segregate individuals with disabilities. That is the case because normalcy, “cannot…and cannot

imagine disability as an integral part of itself, and when disability shows up, not only is it

unexpected, but also disturbs the world of the normal” at all levels of its consciousness”

(Michalko, 2009, p.100). This observation applies to the treatment of autism in Uganda where

discrimination continues to be a serious and pervasive social problem within the education

system where certain categories of students face restrictions and limitations. Because of their

powerlessness, autistic children from poor socioeconomic backgrounds face unequal treatment in

society. Therefore , historical analysis of the education system needs to take marginalized

voices/stories seriously because they challenge both the homogeneity of experiences and the

social relationship that have constructed marginalized groups’ experience negatively, as

demonstrated by the exclusion of students with autism in Uganda whose disability is constructed

“as burdensome to society” (Michalko, 2009, p.106).

Furthermore as Garland Thompson (1997) asserts, “disability is a reading of bodily

particularities in the context of social power relations” (p.6). Additionally, it recognizes

eembodied difference and challenges taken for granted lives as embodied beings. For instance,

30

critical disability studies refute the seemingly natural-normalcy- interpretation which see

disability as a vulnerability and not a virtue. This perspective meets what Garland Thompson

(1997) refers to as an “accommodation model of interpreting disability as opposed to the earlier

compensation model” (p.18), framed in normalcy. Garland Thompson (1997) observes that

looking at disability differently (for example not as a problem) has the potential to “expand our

understanding of the cultural construction of bodies and identity by reframing disability as

another culture body physically justified difference to consider along race, gender”(p.5). Critical

disability studies challenge normalcy allows us to grapple with the everyday meanings of

disability.

Some of the strengths of the capability framework include: a) its bottom up approach to

social equality issues. Second, the centrality of basic education and health as constituent

components of human capacity development and social justice, Third, its critique of the notion

that an improvement in economic growth correlates with, and trickles down to political liberty,

educational opportunities and gender relations. From a social justice perspective, its holistic

approach and focus on constraints and capabilities as a lens to examine social justice education

opens doors to connecting societal dynamics to classroom pedagogy. However, major weakness

is its assumption of education as an “unqualified good” (Walker & Unterhalter, 2007). The

fourth approach, the social justice education framework discussed below shares some key tenants

with the capability framework.

2.4 The social justice approach

Concern for social justice raises several questions at almost every level of our lived

existence— particularly in a post-colonial setting. Questions such as how we define justice,

31

power, knowledge, identity, undertake and write our research in ways that do not harm those

who are the subject of our research researched, and the empowering methods we can deploy to

overturn injustice are important. In addition, it raises critical questions about schooling and

education in general for those who fall outside the “normative curve” of being white, rich,

able-bodied and so on (Dei, 2012; 2013; 2014; Bickmore, 1999; Erevelles, 2000; Sharma &

Portelli, 2014; Zoric, 2014). For this study, the social justice approach raises questions about

how theory and praxis intersect and how individuals (bodies) that are “othered” are treated

within systems that pride themselves as democratic and “advanced.” Furthermore, it interrogates

the role of history in the subjugation of the powerless and how neoliberal conditions exacerbate

inequality and injustice (Portelli & Konecny 2013; Sharma & Portelli, 2014).

Embedded in the concept of social justice is a constant reminder that some groups of

people in our society (ethnic or racial groups, women, the poor, immigrants, people of colour,

sexual orientation, disabled etc.) have been and continue to face systemic injustices and/or

attitudinal barriers because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, class, ability etc. These barriers

have affected a realization of their full potential, let alone equitable participation in schooling

and the work force (Boyles, Carusi & Attick, 2008).

A focus on the contemporary and historical context exposes multiple inequalities, such as

access to education, how individuals are treated within the education system and outcomes of

their schooling (Zoric, 2014; Sharma & Portelli, 2014; Dei, 2015). Social justice education

highlights groups that are shortchanged within the school system. Granted, epistemological

camps exist on the meaning of social justice, and how to achieve it (Cochran-Smith, Lahann,

Shakman, & Terrell, 2009; Cochran-Smith, Jong, Barnatt, & McQuillan, 2009). However,

advocates of social justice education agree that the moment is ripe for concerned educators,

32

scholars and citizens to reject the status quo, use our knowledge to actively raise banners against

the injustices and inequalities perpetuated by neocolonialism, neoliberalism, imperialism, racism,

sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexualism and a multitude of other ‘isms’. Tyson and Park

(2006) define social justice pedagogy as a process, a style and a pedagogical stance that aims for

using classroom practices and content to think critically about issues of injustice that students

face in their everyday lived experiences and empowers students to use their agency to challenge

and transform their lives and communities. More importantly, scholars concerned about social

justice education unite to argue that education inequalities would not go away unless a radical

stance is taken along with institutional and structural change. They contend that social justice

pedagogy is a political act, which should give emphasis to both content acquisition and critical

consciousness. Dei (2015) demonstrates this radicalism with reference to inclusive education

that:

I am taking inclusion as “radical inclusion,” i.e. beginning or creating a new realizing the

limits of integrating into what already exists when ‘that which already exists’ (i.e. the

current school/education system) is the source of the problem in the first place…What we

need is a fundamental structural change for a deeply flawed system not withstanding

educators and administrators’ “good intentions”…Resistance on the part of young

learners is important to me (p.28).

These ideas demonstrate that the social justice discursive framework promotes the resistance

struggles of marginalized communities. The social justice framework posits that marginalized

communities such as students with disabilities for example, are not simply docile bodies to be

acted on, because individually or collectively, they have agency and can resist and challenge

dominant power ideologies (Dei, 1996; 2015; Michalko, 2009). Portelli and Konecny (2013) call

33

for a subversion of neoliberal systems of schooling by which they mean: “To change from

below, to turn around or redirect from underneath” (p. 94). Social justice pedagogy is a

transformative pedagogy because it interrogate knowledge systems, appreciate multiple

perspectives and differences and is premised on the philosophy that all humans should have

equitable access to opportunities irrespective of difference or group membership (Tyson & Park,

2006; Cochran-Smith et al., 2009).

It is important to note that in a much as contemporary understandings of social justice are

rooted in European enlightenment and the civil rights movement (Behr, 2003; Boyles, Carusi &

Attick, 2008), the have also been central in the African struggles against slavery and colonialism

(Mandela, 1994; Tutu, 1999; Tikly & Dachi, 2009). Besides, as Wane (2008) states, social

justice has always been at the heart of African cosmology, wellbeing, cultural life and central to

African humanism. Thus indigenous understandings of justice existed in the continent of Africa

before contact with European colonialism (Tikly & Dachi, 2009).

For this discussion, the social justice pedagogy is the most radical of all approaches

covered in this chapter. However, its critics have pointed to a lack of unified ideology and

applicability as well as its lack of rigor (Tyson & Park, 2006). I would nonetheless argue that in

spite of lack of a unified ideology, what unites them is a set of assumptions. Kincheloe and

McLaren (1994) summarize these assumptions thus:

…all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations that are social and

historically constituted; that facts can never be isolated from the domain of values

removed from some form of ideological inscription; … that certain groups in any society

are privileged over others, and that although the reasons for this privileging may vary

widely, the oppression that characterizes contemporary societies is most forcefully

34

 reproduced when subordinates accept their social status as natural, necessary or

inevitable….(pp.139-140).

2.5 Uganda in the context of these approaches

When missionaries started western education in Uganda over one hundred years ago, it

was not conceptualized with any of these approaches in mind. It is doubtful education was

meant to build human capital. Neither was it envisaged to promote human rights nor social

justice (Furley &Watson, 1978; Ssekamwa, 1997; Ssekamwa & Lugumba, 2001). Nonetheless,

in recent years, these approaches have found their way into the policy arena in Uganda, in public

and non –governmental sectors (NGOs). As pointed out in chapter one, the 1987 White Paper

placed education at the center of national development (Essama-Nssah, 2011; Government of

Uganda, 1993; MOFPED, 2010; Ssekamwa & Lugumba, 2001). Other plans include the Poverty

Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), the 2010-2015 National Development Plan as well as the 2040

National Development Plan. In 1997 in accordance with the 1987 White Paper and the 1960

Addis Ababa agreement, the Jomtien Accord and the Education for All (EFA) commitments,

Uganda introduced universal primary education (UPE). Surprisingly, under neo-liberal policies,

Uganda has prioritized education by increasing budgetary allocation, abolishing school fees and

expanding opportunities (Bategeka et al., 2004; Oketch & Rolleston, 2007; Ekaju, 2011; Ohba,

& Access, Equity and Transitions in Education in Low Income Countries, 2011; Lewin &

Sabates, 2012; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MOFPED) 2013).

Although the White Paper of 1987 did not define or elaborate on the conception of social

justice, it specifically stated that basic education should “enhance spiritual and moral values and

social justice” (1987, p.38). One would argue that like subsequent government documents

35

particularly, Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), the 2010-2015 National Development

Plan as well as the 2040 National Development Plan), the goal of the Ugandan government

through the White Paper was to use education to transform its economy. The Ministry of

Finance, Planning and Economic Development reinforced the message that the government

intended to use education, science and technology as the foundation to turn Uganda into a

middle-income country (Eilor, 2004) reemphasized the goal. Because of these concerted efforts,

educational enrolment and participation rates by children of school going age in Uganda

increased significantly after the declaration of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) in 1997

(UNESCO, 2010). However, this rapid expansion of access has come with mixed results (Lewin

& Sabates, 2012; MOFPED, 2010). For instance, although access has increased, and gender

disparities have reduced, issues of attrition and poor performance persist (Tikly & Dachi, 2009;

UNESCO, 2010).

Four major themes can be discerned from these developments in Uganda with respect to

the four educational approaches discussed in this chapter. First, the goals of educational

expansion in Uganda were consistent with the notion of education for all (EFA), and conformed

to the human capital approach and neoliberal initiatives (Mamdani, 2007). Second, irrespective

of its imprecision in articulating “social justice”, the White Paper’s endorsement of social justice

was a recognition of inequitable access to educational opportunity and a call to action. This is

obviously no knockdown argument against UPE since it expanded access, which is necessary for

social justice education. However, this study argues that access per se is not sufficient to usher

in inclusive education and schooling as illustrated by the continuing exclusion of students with

disabilities. The problem is that in certain circumstances access can actually lead to inequitable

educational outcomes, as is the case in Uganda with disabled and poor students. This criticism

36

leads to the third observation, which is that while UPE policy goals are similar to those in the

EFA charter, UPE’s implementation is laden with serious contextual challenges that are inimical

to the ideals of social justice. For example, the drop out is high within UPE schools. Similarly,

the failure rate in national examinations has gone up leading many to lament that reforms that are

generally strong and well intentioned to expand access, have actually undermined or even

destroyed Uganda’s education system. Granted, some of these criticism are exaggerated and

driven by elitist sentiments, but there is some truth with respect to the experiences of disabled

and poor students who are stuck in public schools (UPE does not cover private schools). Fourth,

in recent decades, the education sector in Uganda has been dominated by the human capital

approach, and the human rights approach. However, these approaches have failed to promote

education that is more inclusive. For example, students with disability continue to be mostly

subject to the medical/individual model of disability, rather than the supportive social model of

disability. As a result, the learning environment remains hostile and daunting to students with

autism and other disabilities since they are no mandated accommodations within the classrooms

or during examinations.

Conclusion

The literature review reveals that the advent of globalization and neo-liberal policies have

led donors and NGOs to have more power in influencing educational policies and practices in

developing countries such as Uganda (Samoff & UNESCO, 1994). Donor involvement and tied

funding has undermined the implementation and delivery of social justice education. However,

to be fair, the donor community has funded the expansion of educational facilities in Uganda

through pro poor reforms such as UPE, as a development strategy. This study points out that

37

access is not synonymous with equitable or inclusive education. To achieve social justice,

requires not only access but also inclusion and equitable schooling. This is currently not the case

in Uganda partly because of colonialism and other entrenched differences. Uganda’s case reveals

that implementing a social justice approach that is sensitive to the contextual historical, social

and material conditions requires more than good will. As noted, while access may have

improved, retention as well as provision of quality teaching within the education system continue

to be a challenge for many children, but especially those with autism, other disabilities, the poor

and the girl child in parts of the country.

Although there are several empirical studies on factors that influence retention and access

to quality education (Lewin, 2011; Majgaard & Mingat, 2012; Moyi, 2010; Ohba & Access,

Equity and Transitions in Low Income Countries, 2011; UNICEF, 2010), few studies have

employed a social justice education approach to examine how particular groups of children have

fared within this education system. Even fewer have embraced a critical disability studies

perspective in developing countries such as Uganda. This study is disposed to the social justice

framework for several reasons. One, it permits an interrogation of the historical and political

contexts in which educational injustices occur. Two, unlike the human capacity framework it is

not oblivious to the fact that education has the capacity to empower some while disempowering

others. Third, it is more holistic than the human capacity and human rights approaches since it

combines theory and praxis in one (Tikly & Barrett, 2011). That said, the ideal theoretical

framework to study the experiences of children with autism in Uganda is the critical disabilities

perspective, specifically the social model of disability, which recognizes that it is the social

environment that disables people (Oliver, 1996; Titchkosky, 2008a. 2008b; McGuire &

Michalko, 2011).

38

 Throughout this study, I argue that education in Uganda is a social justice issue, and the

government must put into place measures to ensure that the voices and aspirations of

marginalized groups are not only recognized, but also represented in educational discourse and

praxis (De Silva, 2013). Teachers and researchers who are committed to inclusive practices in

different contexts particularly in education have developed social justice and equity frameworks

to interrogate sites of discrimination and inequalities (Dei, 1996, 2015). Their research shares a

broad focus on both theory and praxis and can provide innovative and radical ways forward—

providing conceptual frameworks that can inspire further creative research and practice. The

findings in this chapter illustrate the importance of critical disabilities studies when examining

issues of access and equity for students with disabilities. Schools and the education sector in

general are laden with power, as teachers and education officials, socially construct certain

students as unable to learn within the mainstream environment (Foucault, 1977; Erevelles, 2002;

Titchkoksky, 2008a; 2008b). This applies to children inflicted with autism – the quiet and

sometimes not so visible disability. The following chapter examines how autism is a social

justice issue in the provision of education.

39

 Chapter 3: Autism and Social Justice Education

“(I)nclusion is not about disability, nor is it only about schools. Inclusion is about social
justice” (Sapon-Shevin, 2003, p.26)

Studies show that students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are most likely to miss

school (Barnard, Prior, & Potter 2000). This chapter argues that ASD or autism for short (in this

study ASD and autism are used interchangeably), a life-long neuro-developmental condition

interfering with the person’s ability to communicate and relate to others is a social justice issue.

When children with autism are segregated or excluded within an education system, they are

stigmatized and marked as “lesser” or “inferior” persons (Biklen & Burke, 2006). Autism is a

neuro-behaviuoural syndrome caused by a dysfunction of the central nervous system that impairs

social interactions, hinders communications and results in repetitive, stereotyped behaviour.

Since the onset of ASD symptoms among children is below five years, children in countries such

as Uganda face physical illness and infectious diseases associated with neurological development

(Mankoski et al., 2006). This makes autism an even more acute and urgent social justice issue.

This is a stage in children’s life when they should be in school. Ensuring that children with

autism are enrolled in school, stay and receive good quality education like other children in an

inclusive environment should be a priority of all educators, communities and countries.

3.1 Prevalence

Based on the joint report of World Health Organization and the World Bank (2011)

estimates, at a global level the number of children (0–14 years) living with disabilities range

40

from 93 million to 150 million (2011, p.205). According to Elsabbagh et al. (2012), these figures

are on the rise. However, notwithstanding increased incidences of ASD, there are no

comprehensible epidemiological statistics on ASD prevalence in Africa. Nevertheless, a proxy,

medical study by Gillberg et al. (1995) found that prevalence rates of ASD among children of

African immigrants living in Sweden were consistently higher when compared with prevalence

of ASD among indigenous Swedish population. On the African continent itself, because of

several factors, there seems to be late identification and diagnosis of ASD among African

children in spite of early parental concerns about development (Bakare & Munir, 2011). Studies

also report low levels of knowledge and awareness about ASD among African parents, health

care workers and teachers (Bakare et al., 2008; Bakare et al., 2009; Igwe et al., 2010; Igwe et al.,

2011). Moreover, studies shows that lack of knowledge and awareness about ASD interacts with

many other factors such as harmful cultural beliefs and practices (Bakare et al, 2009a);

insufficient number of trained personnel and; poor healthcare and intervention facilities (Bakare

et al, 2009) . Crucially and importantly for this study, medical studies suggest that intellectual

disability is the commonest co-occurring diagnosed condition among African children with ASD

(Lotter, 1980; Mankoski, 2006; Belhadj et al., 2006; Bakare & Munir, 2011a, Bakare & Munir,

2011b). Other documented infirmities among African children with ASD include epilepsy

(Belhadj et al., 2006; Bello-Mojeed et al., 2011) and oculocutaneous albinism (Bakare &

Ikegwuonu, 2008).

41

 In the USA, cases of autism are linked to several factors

From: https://www.google.ca/search?q=global+graph+of+autism+rates+over+time&rlz

In Uganda, no such studies have been undertaken.

3.2 “Othered” and stigmatized

While some children with autism can function with speech and intelligence intact, others

can function with very limited speech and significant intelligence delay. Children with severe or

mild ASD children and their families are often faced with rejection, negative and derogatory

comments, further promoting stigma from the society. This is mostly the case because most

nondisabled people learn what it means to be disabled through a host of negatively charged

disability labels such as “mentally retarded” or “retard” for short. Deplorably, such hurtful,

negative and dehumanizing associations tend to be dominant and are used unremorsefully

42

(Broderick, 2005: 195). To evade stigma, families tend to hide away the affected children. This

avoidance often leads to late presentation and diagnosis of the disorder among African children.

“Othered” and stigmatized, in general, children with disabilities such as autism are less likely to:

a) start school in time (or ever) and have lower rates of staying and being promoted in school

than their peers without (Filmer, 2008; World Bank, 2009); b) be meaningfully incorporated in

the general education systems and; c) to receive the individual support they require for

intellectual and self-development. These negative experiences are higher in poorer countries

(UNESCO, 2009). For instance, household data in Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

shows that between 9% and 18% of children of age 5 years or older without a disability had

never attended school, but between 24% and 39% of children with a disability had never

attended (Loeb & Eide, 2004; Eide et al., 2003; Eide & Loeb, 2006; Eide et al., 2003b) .

Studies show that enrolment rates differ according to impairment type, with children with

physical impairment generally faring better than those with intellectual or sensory impairments

do. Consequently, children and youth with disabilities are less likely to start school or attend

school than other children. They also have lower transition rates to higher levels of education

(World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). These findings illustrate that children with

disabilities such as autism, face barriers that exclude them from the education system. Micro and

macro barriers that hinder autistic children from receiving quality education are grouped under

three broad categories: school-based; systemic and cultural and attitudinal problems, which are

discussed below.

43

3.3 Barriers to education for children with autism and other disabilities

a) System-wide barriers

Several countries are committed to inclusive education and have signed on to the

international protocols, however, lack of targets and plans continue to be major obstacles in

global effort to provide education for all (World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). At

the country level, there are gaps in policy to facilitate inclusive education. For instance, whereas

The Dakar Framework for Action recognizes that achieving Education for All requires increased

financial support by countries and increased development assistance from bilateral and

multilateral donors (UNESCO, 2000) policy gaps commonly encountered include a lack of

financial and other targeted incentives for children with disabilities to attend school (KwaZulu-

Natal, Mobile Task Team, 2005). Financial support has not always been forthcoming, restricting

progress (UNESCO, 2000). The reality in many developing countries, budgets are very

constrained and families are frequently unable to afford the costs of education (UNESCO, 2009;

UNESCO, 2010; UNESCO, 2000). Briefly, limited or inappropriate resources are significant

barriers to ensuring inclusive education for children with disabilities (Stubbs, 2008). These

countries also face shortages in infrastructure especially few schools, inadequate facilities,

insufficient qualified teachers and a lack of learning materials (UNESCO, 2000). A combination

of these factors make it difficult for governments to provide inclusive education.

b) School related barriers

Primarily, rigid curricula and teaching methods do not encourage or permit full

participation of children with disabilities, especially those with autism. The problem often

emerges from the teachers’ refusal or reluctance to make accommodations to curriculum

44

activities. This refusal to make accommodations within the environment restricts children’s

participation and denies them their right to good education. (UNESCO, 2009). Besides,

assessment and evaluation systems also form another barrier for autistic children. Assessment

often focusses on academic performance rather than individual progress and can be restrictive for

children with special education needs (UNESCO, 2009). In such conditions, parents and

guardians face anxieties about the quality of education their children are receiving from the

mainstream schools and have suggested segregated solutions where students with disabilities are

streamlined into special education classes (Ndeezi, 2004; Lang & Murangira, 2009; NUDIPU,

2013; Guzu, 2014). However, this study problematizes the streaming of students with autism and

other disabilities because it undermines equity and pluralism within the classroom and leads to

the construction of students with disabilities as unfit for the normal curriculum (McBrien, 2005).

Streaming demonstrates that those who wield power, such as teachers and government

officials are privileged to judge who is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’(Titchkosky, 2008a, 2008b). Such

policies exclude students from accessing ‘normal’ activities within the mainstream school, if not

to exclude them entirely from the education system on claims of their perceived learning troubles

that would disadvantage them within the education system. Streaming of students with

disabilities illustrates Ferri and Connor’s (2006) observation that schools are about normalcy,

therefore those who are seen as “normal and regular maintain the classroom as normalized

space” , while those labeled as disabled or having behavioural problems are ‘segregated’ into

special education classes (p.128).

Furthermore, due to lack of curriculum reforms, teachers are constrained by time and

resources to support autistic learners (Wright & Sigafoos, 1997). The World Health Organization

and World Bank (2011) found that in resource poor settings, classrooms are frequently

45

overcrowded and there is a severe shortage of well-trained teachers capable of routinely handling

the individual needs of children with disabilities. Moreover, advances in teacher education and

training have not necessarily kept pace with the growing needs to cater for diverse learners

within the mainstream classroom (Bines & Lei, 2007). In addition, there may be specific

structural problems at the school that may interfere with autistic and other disabled students’ full

participation in education. These may include lack of accommodation in the form of accessible

ramps, inaccessible facilities and inappropriate seating (Enabling Education Network, 2003).

Children with autism are more likely to be excluded from excursions, school camps and sports

activities based on physical barriers.

Where there have been responsive considerations for children with disabilities, students

have often been classified according to their health condition to establish their eligibility for

special education and other types of support services (Florian et. al., 2006). While this may be

done with good and admirable goals, assigning labels to children in education systems can have

negative effects including stigmatization, peer rejection, lower self-esteem, lower expectations,

and limited opportunities (Florian et. al., 2006). In such an environment, learners with mild

forms of autism may be reluctant to reveal their disability and thus miss much needed support

services (World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011).

c) Attitudinal, cultural and social barriers

Negative attitudes seem to be the most unsurpassable obstacle to the education of

disabled children (World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). The problem begins with

the categorization/labeling of some children as “normal” and others as “not normal” (Desilva,

2013). Horn (2009) refers to this type labeling as “handicapism”, a form of discrimination

46

imbued with the assumption and practices that promote the unequal treatment of people because

of apparent and assumed physical, mental or behavioural differences. Like “race” autistic

children have to live with this burden (obstacle) on a daily basis (Erevelles & Minear, 2010). In

some cultures, individuals with disabilities are seen as a form of divine punishment or as carriers

of bad fortune (Ingstad & Whyte, 2005; O’Sullivan & MacLachlan, 2009). Consequently,

children with disabilities who could be in school are discreetly or sometimes not given a chance

to attend. The attitudes of teachers, school administrators, other children, and even family

members affect the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools (Enabling

Education Network, 2003; World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). Some

schoolteachers, including head teachers, believe they are not obliged to teach children with

disabilities (World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). Even where school authorities

are supportive of students with disabilities, expectations might be low, with the result that little

attention given to their academic achievement. Teachers, parents, and other students may well be

caring, but at the same time not believe in the capacity of the children to learn (Boersma &

Chapman, 1982; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Titchkosky, 2008a, 2008b). Some families with disabled

students may believe that special schools are the best places for their children’s education (World

Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). This is problematic even though many parents of

students with disabilities who are streamed into special education classrooms, may see it as a

‘solution’ albeit a controversial one (Watts & Erevelles, 2004).

Because children with ASD have trouble in communication, interaction and imagination;

socializing with other children is often a challenge and marred with many difficulties (Symes &

Humphrey, 2012). As such, these children are excluded socially, and often become they are

targets and at risk of increased bullying, verbal abuse, and social isolation. It is often argued that

47

mainstreaming these children to interact with ‘typically developing peers’ helps them to develop

their social skills. On the other hand, their peer group can learn to become more accepting of

children who are ‘different’ is often cited by advocates as one of the key benefits of including

pupils with ASD in mainstream schools (Boutot & Bryant, 2005; Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller,

2007; McGuire & Michalko, 2011; Symes & Humphrey, 2012). However, studies show that

learners with ASD attending mainstream schools have fewer friends and experience more

rejection by their peers than other children (Symes & Humphrey, 2010). In addition, these

learners receive significantly less social support from their classmates and friends, and are likely

to be bullied more than students with and without disabilities (Humphrey & Symes, 2010).

Further that given these constraints, children with disabilities may prefer to attend special

schools, because of the fear of stigma or bullying in mainstream schools (Watson et al., 1998).

Because of such mixed results, there are different approaches around the world to provide

education for children challenged by disabilities such as autism.

3.4. Paradigms and Approaches

A question that has engaged educators and critical disability scholars for some time is

how best to deliver good and quality education to disabled children (Watts & Erevelles, 2004;

Ferri & Connor, 2006; Titchkosky, 2008a, 2008b; McGuire & Michalko, 2011). In most

countries, early and concerted efforts to provide education to children with disabilities was

generally undertaken through separate special schools, usually targeting specific impairments,

such as schools for the blind. However, only a small proportion of those in need benefited from

these institutions since they were costly. Moreover, they were mostly located in urban areas,

affordable by a few and tended to isolate individuals from their families and communities (World

48

Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). Nevertheless, from the available literature, we can

discern three dominant models: special schools and institutions; integrated schools and; inclusive

schools. These models are informed by how proponents of each postulate the relationships

between learners with disabilities and their environment. Mitchell (2010) identifies three

dominant paradigms: the psycho-medical paradigm, the socio-political paradigm and the

organizational paradigm. These are discussed below:

Psycho-medical paradigm

According to Mitchell (2010), the Psycho-medical paradigm has been the most

widespread and dominant model used in both the diagnosis and educational treatment of children

with disabilities. Ackerman et al. (2002) note that under this model students receive a medical

diagnosis based on their psychological and/or physical impairments across selected domains and

both strengths and weakness are then singled out for purposes of determining their education and

training needs. However, critics of the medical model of disability fault it for putting emphasis

on the individual learner and that deficits are located within the learner. (Oliver, 1990; McGuire

& Michalko, 2011). Under the medical model, those with similar affinities and functional levels

are grouped together for instructional purposes in special schools/institutions or integrated

schools.

49

 Assumptions associated with seeing the child as a problem

From: https://www.google.ca/search?q=global+graph+of+autism+rates+over+time&rlz

While historically this model has been the most preferred, it is wanting and problematic for

several reasons. The first objection is that it attributes student failure to a defect or inadequacy

within the individual (Titchkosky, 2008a; 2008b). In addition such an attribution disguises the

role played by constraining educational systems in creating learners’ failure (Foucault, 1977;

Christensen 1996; Watts & Erevelles, 2004; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Mitchell, 2010; McGuire &

Michalko, 2011). As a result, the medical model treats autism to be primarily a health issue and

not an education issue. However, for parents, disability activists and disability scholars, failure

to accommodate autistic children, is discriminatory in the sense that it the medical model treats

autistic children as second class citizens and denies them their fundamental human dignity. For

example, Michalko (2009) argues, “rather disability is often conceived of as a strictly biological

matter that results in negative consequences for an individual requiring the consequential act of

humane treatment, rather than “human rights” (p. 101). Furthermore, the medical model

wrongly suggests homogeneity within various diagnostic categories. Critics point out that many

50

students enrolled in special education do not manifest demonstrable pathologies—being put there

for other social, cultural, class, race and other reasons (Skidmore, 2002).

Socio-political paradigm

Those opposed to the psycho-medical paradigm, regard disability as a socio-political

construct. Within critical disability studies, this is referred to as the social model of disability

(Oliver, 1990; Shakespeare, 2006). Proponents of this model focus on how structural

inequalities and dynamics at the macro-social level are reproduced at the institutional level

(Christensen, 1996; Clark et al., 1995; Skidmore, 2002; Skrtic et al., 1996; McGuire &

Michalko, 2011). Consequently, McGuire and Michalko (2011) observe that under the social

model, the harmful effects of autism can be minimized with the right resources and support if

school authorities stopped privileging the biomedical model because “autism belongs in the

realm of the social and not individual” (p.164).

Studies found that some cultural groups hold belief rooted in reincarnation, where a

disability is perceived as a condition affecting a present life but not necessarily the preceding or

following lives (Danesco, 1997). Proponents of the social model see disability as politically and

socially constructed, and believe that societal structural inequalities can be addressed to include

children with disabilities in mainstream classes (Ferri & Connor, 2006; Titchkosky, 2008a;

2008b). Therefore, they have tended to advocate for inclusive education instead of special

schools/institutions or integrated schools. Ontario provides Intensive Early intervention

Program (IEIP) (applied behavioural therapy) to children from the ages of 2 to 5 years, but

excludes children 6 years and older from IEIP. This gave rise to the Wnyberg case before the

Ontario courts as parents sued the province for the exclusion of autistic children 6 years and over

(Wynbeg V. Ontario, 2006). The lawsuit alleged that failure to provide IEIP to those 6 and
51

above as a special education program within the school discriminates against autistic children on

the basis of age and disability and therefore violated the equality guarantees under s15 in the

Charter. The parents in Ontario won and the province chose not to appeal the ruling to the

Supreme Court. Thus, one assumes that IEIP is now available to autistic children 6 years and

older. If that is the case, disability activists and parents feel that equality was restored within the

school system.

The success of parents in Ontario to force the government to provide resources to help

their autistic children illustrates the need for society to appreciate that equal dignity is a universal

human potential, capacity that all humans share. That all individuals have the potential equally,

which through oppressive circumstances remain unrealized. Thus, to assume as the medical

model does that physical or mental impairment which are contingent individual states entail

essentially more deficit, namely, the incapacity to be equal, neglects the social arrangements to

which we continue to imagine individuals to be. Having autism is not inability to learn.

Importantly the Wnyberg case in Ontario illustrates how stories open up a new way of thinking

about the policies of exclusion and inclusion. Moreover, stories are also social and cultural, can

provide agency, raise consciousness, develop social relationships, create responsibility, promote

collective effort and encourage resistance narratives for the good of the community. Hence,

historical analysis needs to take marginalized voices/stories seriously because they challenge

both the homogeneity of experiences and the social relationship that have constructed

marginalized groups’ experience negatively (King, 2003; Michalko, 2009).

Organizational paradigm

The Organizational paradigm is a relatively newer paradigm (Ainscow, 1995; Lipsky &

Gartner, 1999). Rather than exclusively looking at learner or the social cultural environment
52

facing students, proponents of this paradigm put more emphasis on the inadequacies in

mainstream schools that give rise to “special education”. These scholars are keen on finding

ways to make mainstream schools more able and practical in responding to students’ diversity.

From their perspective, learning disabilities are a function of the interaction between individual

students and their physical, social and psychological environments. They believe that it is

possible to devise more inclusive instructional techniques to compensate for environmental

deficiencies experienced by learners to ensure they learn and achieve the necessary skills. This

model is a lot closer to the social model of disability. In light of the three models discussed

above, it is important for educators to remain vigilant when thinking about the myriad ways in

which children with disabilities continue to be excluded from mainstream education

opportunities at both the micro and macro levels. Macro-exclusion occurs when a child is

excluded from mainstream education and segregated into a ‘special’ school or a ‘special’

class/unit for all or part of the day, week or year (or denied education at all). When exclusion

occurs within mainstream settings that claim to be inclusive, it results into what D’Alessio

(2011) characterizes as ‘micro-exclusion’. The best example of this co-existence of micro-

exclusion is when a regular teacher begins the class by assigning tasks to students and then a

special education teacher moves in to work on a different task separately in a corner or back of

the classroom with students with disabilities (McLesky & Waldron, 2007, p. 162). However,

this approach has the potential to advance equity within the classroom because there ae times

when equal treatment requires or permits differential allocations as a remedial, compensatory

measure or equalizing treatment in terms of resources.

53

3.5. A case for inclusive education

This discussion finds merit in Cologon’s (2013) assertion that inclusive education is a

rather a difficult concept to define and a lack of understanding about what ‘inclusive education’

means, is a barrier to inclusion in and of itself (p.13). For Cologon (2013), disconcerting

ambiguity is that the term inclusive education is often used to describe only placement in a

mainstream classroom, rather than a child’s full participation in all aspects of the educational

setting (Berlach & Chambers, 2011; Curcic, 2009; Fisher, 2012; Lalvani, 2013). This study

makes a case for inclusive education based on the following findings. First, Lipsky and

Gartner’s (1996; 1999) work found that there was no clear demarcation between the

characteristics of students with and without disabilities, and no basis to support the contention

that specific categories of students learn differently. Second, based on UNESCO’s Salamanca

Statement (1994), it is clear that exclusion or segregation of students with special needs is a

violation of their human rights. Third, according to Christensen (1996) exclusion and segregation

could tantamount to an unfair distribution of educational resources. Fourth from Slee’s work

(2001), I understand inclusive education as the cultural politics of protecting the rights of

citizenship for all students. Fifth, deriving from the principle of equity, inclusive education, if

fully recognized, has a potential to contribute significantly to a democratic society (Lipsky &

Gartner (1996, 1999). Lastly, I make a case for inclusive education based on the ideals of the

social model of disability because autism is an equity and social justice issue. This discussion

concurs with Humphrey and Lewis’ (2008) contention that inclusion of students with ASD is one

of the most complex and poorly understood areas of education. Therefore, what is inclusive

education and how should autistic learners experience it?

54

 Studies shows that being physically present in a mainstream setting does not

automatically result in inclusion (de Boer et al., 2011; McLesky & Waldron, 2007). However, as

Komesaroff and Mclean assert: “Being there is not enough; it is no guarantee of respect for

difference or access to the material, social, cultural and educational capital that people [who do

not experience disability] expect” (p. 97). Several scholars argue that placement within a

mainstream setting, while a necessary starting point, should really be only a starting point for

bringing about inclusive education (Armstrong & Barton, 2008; Beckett, 2009; Berlach &

Chambers, 2011; Cologon, 2010, Curcic, 2009; D’Alessio, 2011; de Boer et al., 2011; Ferguson,

2008; Komesaroff & McLean, 2006; McLesky & Waldron, 2007). A common misperception is

that inclusive education requires a child (who is being ‘included’) to change or adjust to fit

within a setting—as in a notion of assimilation rather than inclusion (Armstrong et al., 2011;

Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Curcic, 2009; McGuire & Michalko, 2011; Lalvani, 2013). Often

this misapprehension and confusion arises whether the child in question should be included in

the first place (Cologon, 2013b). Studies found that definitions of inclusion are too broad and

thus pave the way for the problematic ambiguity discussed here (Berlach & Chambers, 2011).

However, others argue that definitions are frequently too narrow (Armstrong et al., 2011; Curcic,

2009).

Accordingly, inclusive education can be understood as an ongoing critical engagement

with flexible and child-centred pedagogy that caters for and values diversity, and holds high

expectations for all children (Armstrong et al., 2011; Grenier, 2010). Inclusive education

requires recognizing that we are all equally human and putting this recognition into action in

everyday practical ways. As McGuire and Michalko (2011) suggest, there is need for a dialogue

between autism and normalcy to help teachers make sense of verbal or non-verbal actions in

55

autistic children -- that way teachers do not punish children for exhibiting behavior deemed not

acceptable in public. More important to ensure equity for all students, school policies should

help children to be more independent, ensure teachers with training in special education, open

communication and respect for both children and their parents. The effects of autism can be

mitigated through inclusive policies where autistic children are included in integrated

classrooms. More important, students should be in small class settings with more staff where

they can receive speech therapy and other accommodations linked to the special classroom

setting. However, equity can only be achieved if autistic children have access to one on-one

teaching settings to consistently help children and keep them from falling behind. Moreover, as

McGuire and Michalko (2011) point out, “rather than treat autism as a puzzle that must be

solved, we treat autism as teacher” (p.162). Stories of students with autism in Uganda should be

problematized regarding the existence of enduring cultural practices and their relation to power

in that context.

Critical engagement with inclusive education requires education providers (teachers and

institutions) to be cognizant of the fact that institutions exist in historical contexts in which

residues of older beliefs co-exist with newer beliefs through the local community, the family, the

school and to the classroom. Because of this very fact, there can never be a universal and

homogeneous mammoth applicable cross-culturally or to be more specific, --exportable from the

West (Northern hemisphere) to the South. As cultural values and beliefs, levels of economic

wealth, and histories mediate the concept of inclusive education, it takes on different meanings in

different countries, and even within countries. A number of variables influences the form taken

by inclusive education in any particular country. These include often discarded traditional values

such as social cohesion and group identity, collectivism, images of wholeness and on the other

56

hand positive modernization values such as equity and equality, democracy, human rights and

social justice (Wane, 2008, Phasha, Mahlo, & Dei, 2017).

3.6 International context

Arguably, the United Nations and its agency, UNESCO, have played a leading role in

promoting inclusive education globally. A historic moment occurred in June 1994 when

representatives of 92 governments and 25 international organizations met in Salamanca, Spain

(UNESCO, 1994). An unparalleled agreement of this meeting, known as the Salamanca

Statement, established and confirmed an international commitment to inclusive education.

Among others, the Salamanca Statement included these pledges:

Those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should

accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs, and;

Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of

combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive

society and achieving an education for all; they provide an effective education to the majority of

children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education

system.

The Salamanca Statement called upon all governments to ‘adopt as a matter of law or

policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there

are compelling reasons for doing otherwise’. Twelve years later, in December 2006, the United

Nations General Assembly during its 61st session, confirmed a Convention on the Rights of

Disabled Persons, which included a significant commitment to inclusive education. Article 24 of

this convention is the most relevant to inclusive education. It states:

57

 1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view

to realizing this right without discrimination and based on equal opportunity, States

Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels, and life-long learning,

directed to:

(a) The full development of the human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and

the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human

diversity;

(b) The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and

creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;

(c) Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.

Furthermore, in realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system based on

disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory

primary education, or from secondary education, because of disability;

(b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality, free primary education and

secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;

(c) Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;

(d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education

system, to facilitate their effective education;

(e) Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that

maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

One hundred and forty five (145) countries signed the Convention and, by June 2010. 87 had

ratified it including Uganda, which ratified it on September 25, 2008.

58

3.7 Critiques of inclusive education

Despite the attractiveness of the philosophy of inclusive education, there are nonetheless

criticisms. By the late 1980s, Vergason and Anderegg (1989) argued that inclusion research

methodology is flawed as proponents attempt to reshape the meaning of special education

according to their particular beliefs than what pertained on the ground. Accordingly, Vergason

and Anderegg contend that special [autistic] students are in regular education classrooms for part

of the day, which makes special education an adaptive support system, not a separate system of

education as stated by inclusion proponents (1989). Oliver (1996) claimed that the success of

integration at the ideological level has made it almost impossible for it to be examined critically.

Several writers have criticized the employment of what they perceive to be rhetoric on behalf of

inclusive education, at the expense of empirical evidence. For instance, Fuchs and Fuchs (1994)

assert that radical proponents of full inclusion are bent on having less than the elimination of

special education and its continuum of placements. Likewise, Kavale and Mostert (2003), argue

that the ideology of full inclusion has influenced policy and practice disproportionately to its

claims of efficacy, with its proponents often rejecting empirical evidence in favor of the

postmodern. Sasso (2001) faults postmodern and cultural relativist doctrines in special education

in general and inclusive education in particular. Kauffman (1999), queries the validity of some

assumptions made by ‘full inclusionists’, suggesting they have ‘lost their heads about place,

about the spaces occupied by people with disabilities’ and that physical access does not

necessarily imply instructional access (p.246).

Other critics have directed their criticism at the international conventions themselves.

For instance, Lindsay (2003) points out, that UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement (1994) contains

59

many contestable features, such as an overemphasis on the uniqueness of individual learners, a

lack of clarity as to what is a regular school, and an imbalance of emphasis on the social model

compared to medical model of disability. In as much as Lindsay is favour of moving away from

a medical model to a social (environmental) model, Lindsay believes that a narrow adherence to

the social model has promoted the notion that inclusion is solely a question of rights and that the

question of its efficacy in practice is irrelevant. Lindsay counters that it is not a matter of one or

the other model, but rather finding the right balance between the two and of understanding how

each interacts with the other. Hegarty (2001) points out that for some children, being included in

a regular school environment is neither possible nor desirable. Some scholars wonder how

mainstream schooling can adequately incorporate students with disabilities when it has so many

difficulties in accommodating existing student diversity (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Furthermore

critical disability scholars such Mitchell (2010) point out that proponents of inclusion overlook

the value of the ‘disability culture’ in fostering opportunities for students with disabilities to

associate with and learn alongside others who share similar identities and life experiences.

Accordingly, they advocate for changes to the existing special education system, rather than a

movement to full inclusion on grounds that it would be more effective in supporting the

disability culture (Mitchell, 2010, p.138). In short, the key criticism against inclusive education

is that it emphasizes ideology at the expense of empirical evidence or what works. Critics

contest claims that the mainstream has the capability to adequately incorporate students with

disabilities. At the very least, they support rigorous, substantial empirical research studies to

help decided here students with special needs would be more effectively served and call for

caution in the implementation of full inclusion.

60

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that although many countries seem committed to inclusive

education as exhibited by progressive legislation, to improve the learning experience of students

with autism and other disabilities the reality for most children with students with disabilities such

as autism falls short of social justice ideals. Moreover, the field of inclusive education is still

beset with a host of problems, ranging from societal values and beliefs towards disability;

economic factors; lack of measures to ensure compliance with policies. Others include refusal

and resistance by conservative oriented teachers; lack of skills among teachers or professional

support for those with skills; rigid curricula and examination systems; inadequate educational

infrastructures and resources, particularly in developing countries. There is also resistance from

advocates of special education. Above all and to the frustration of disability activists and

scholars, the medical model continues to dominate the social model of disability in the diagnosis

as the ‘solution’ to the problem of disability. Thus, the question remains as how best to manage

the wide spectrum of autistic disorders within the inclusive classroom.

Several suggestions are offered to address these problems. They include separate,

integrated and inclusive schools. Advocates for mainstream inclusive schools and their critics all

agree that systemic and school-level change to remove physical and attitudinal barriers, provide

reasonable accommodation, and support services is required to ensure that children with

disabilities are served with social justice. More specifically, advocates of inclusive education

argue that while children with disabilities have historically been educated in separate special

schools, inclusive mainstream schools in both urban and rural areas provide a better alternative

as it avoids isolating children with disabilities from their families and communities and could be

a more cost-effective way forward (Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006, p. 4). They see inclusive

61

education as dynamic involving an ongoing process of “putting inclusive values into action”

(Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006). Others argue that the negative effects of autism can

reduced with the right resources and support from school authorities and government agencies

(McGuire & Michalko, 2011). In the words of McGuire and Michalko (2011), “autism is a

puzzle that is solve-able” and that it is possible to “minimize the effect of autism” in children

(p.163). This is possible if as Michalko (2009) points out authorities refrain from treating

disability “as a disturbance to be avoided and as such, it is usually not thought of as a category of

societal membership with human rights” (p.101). Furthermore since autism prevalence rates are

on the rise globally, continuous education to increase knowledge and awareness about ASD is

required. This will involve a broad range of stakeholders – policymakers, school administrators,

teachers, teacher training colleges, families, and learners- to contribute to improving educational

opportunities and outcomes for children with disabilities including autism. As Mogharreban and

Bruns (2009), point out, “inclusion is not simply an intellectual ideal; it is a physical and very

real experience” (p.407). A lot of work is required to achieve meaningful inclusion for all

students. The next chapter looks at some ongoing efforts in Uganda.

62

 Chapter 4: Autism, Social Justice Education and the Uganda Education System: A Focus
on Legal Frameworks

To date, there are no conclusive figures on the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder

(ASD) in Uganda. Based on one Blogger’s estimates, calculated at a prevalence rate of 70 per

10,000 over the estimated Uganda 2014 population of 34,900,000; there are approximately

244,300 persons inflicted by the ASD (BlogSpot, Autism Spectrum Disorder in Uganda 2016).

According to this Blogger, 197,319 are male and 46,981 are female (BlogSpot, Autism Spectrum

Disorder in Uganda 2016). At the micro level, many of these autistic children face a barrage of

social injustices on a daily basis. Often perceived as an unwelcome embarrassment to their

nuclear families, autistic children continue to be treated as social outcasts, often sent off to live

with distant relatives in villages or worse still disowned (Autism in Uganda, Voxweekly, 2015).

At the macro level, in spite of the growing visibility of autistic children, the education of these

children still poses a societal and national challenge. A scoping study by Lang and Murangira

(2009) revealed three pertinent findings regarding children with disabilities in Uganda in general.

First, the number of these children attending school is very small, approximately 183,000

throughout the whole country (p.23). Second, children with disabilities drop out of school as

they move from one year to the next. Third, there were large variations between those attending

primary education and those who have the ability to do so (p.23).

Uganda’s National Development Plan (NDP), 2010/11-2014/15 indicates that 10% of

school-going age children in Uganda have special needs, thus requiring Special Needs

Education. In addition, the UBOS statistical abstract (2010) showed that disability was one of the

major factors why children do not attend school. It found that 30% of children aged 7 mentioned

63

disability as one of the reasons for not going to school (UBOS Statistical Abstract, 2010, p.20).

Additionally, the UNICEF (2012) Annual Report indicated that only 5% of the children with

disabilities are able to access education within an inclusive setting of the regular schools whereas

10% access education through special schools and annexes (Guzu, 2014, p.12).

Table. 1 Number of Children with Disabilities Attending Primary School by Class, 2007

Disability Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Total

one two three four five six seven

Autism 1,574 1,176 1,215 918 870 716 440 6,909

Hearing 11,567 8,702 9,859 8,645 6,711 4,993 2,902 53,379
Impaired

Mentally 12,280 7,511 6,681 5,886 4,797 3,512 2,152 42,819

impaired

Multiple 1,297 884 783 672 607 456 280 4,979

handicaps

Physically 6,105 4,648 5,209 5,089 4,615 3,615 2,266 31,547

impaired

Visually 7,017 6,045 7,105 7,312 6,757 5,607 3,602 43,445

impaired

Total 39,840 28,966 30,852 28,522 24,357 18,899 11,642 183,078

disabled
children

Percent 21.8% 15.8% 16.9% 15.6% 13.3% 10.3% 6.4% 100.0%

Source: Educational Statistical Abstract (2007).

Autistic children are often categorized under the general rubric of “disabled children”,

this chapter looks at Uganda government’s legal framework concerning education of students

with disabilities. The chapter surveys some of the key challenges hindering the promotion of

social injustices and provision of inclusive education to children with special needs such as

autism. The chapter interrogates the question: to what extent are teaching and learning a social

64

justice reality in Uganda and what are the key constraints for a smooth implementation of social

justice education? This study argues that while Uganda has some of the most progressive

legislation regarding the provision of education to persons with disabilities, and the country

subscribes to the international idioms of human rights, human capital and social justice; the

country is short on comprehensive road-maps and workable means for implementing substantial

and far reaching social justice education reform. Subsequently, the ideal of an inclusive

education – where autistic children and other “disabled children” are educated alongside their

non-disabled peers is still beset by a number of challenges. That is the case because

mainstreaming of disabled and autistic children is carried out in an environment with bare

minimum preparation --leaving little alternative for activists within the disability movement, but

to take a pragmatic approach of opting out of the mainstream. Disability advocates are vocal in

advocating for the construction of more specialized schools rather integration and inclusion of

disabled learners in mainstream schools (Lang & Murangira, 2009).

4.1 The Ugandan policy context with regard to disability and education

As highlighted in chapter 2 of this study, Uganda is a party to several international

instruments that proclaim a right to education. Besides, the government has conveyed its

commitment to inclusive education in an array of national documents and policies. These

include: the 1995 Constitution of Uganda; the Children Statute (1996); The Universal Primary

Education Act (1997); National Council for Disability Act (2004); Persons with Disabilities Act

(2006) and the Equal Opportunities Act (2008). Independently and collectively, these policies

underscore the importance and necessity of acknowledging student diversity and guaranteeing

the participation of all students as learners in an equitable environment.

65

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda

Indeed, the 1995 Uganda Constitution can be said to be based on human rights principles. The

following features stand out: Objective XVI, under the national objectives and directive

principles of state policy, states that society and the State shall recognize the right of Persons

with Disabilities to respect and human dignity. Under objective V, the State pledges to

guarantee and respect Institutions which are charged by the State with the responsibility for

protecting and promoting human rights by providing them with adequate resources to function

effectively. Objective XVIII (ii) emphasizes the commitment by the state to afford every citizen

equal opportunity to attain the highest educational standard possible. It states that “(t)he State

shall promote free and compulsory basic education” (Constitution of the Republic of Uganda,

1995). Individuals, religious bodies and other non-governmental organizations are accorded the

freedom to found and operate educational institutions if they comply with the general

educational policy of the country and maintain national standards.

More specifically, Article 30 provides for right to education for all and states that ‘All

persons have a right to education’. Article 32 further provides for affirmative action in favor of

marginalized groups, including those with disabilities and clause (1) states ‘… the State shall

take affirmative action in favor of groups marginalized on the basis of gender, age, disability or

any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances

which exist against them.” Article 34 recognises the right of all children to benefit from universal

primary education. It states: that “(a) child is entitled to basic education which shall be the

responsibility of the State and the parents of the child.” Finally article 35 provides for the rights

of persons with disabilities and states in clause (1) that “(p)ersons with disabilities have a right to

respect and human dignity, and the State and society shall take appropriate measures to ensure
66

that they realise their full mental and physical potential,” and that “Parliament shall enact laws

appropriate for the protection of persons with disabilities” (Constitution of the Republic of

Uganda, 1995).

The Children Statute 1996

In 1996, the government took another step to pronounce The Children Statute. This

statute underscored the state’s duty to implement measures and policies in order to: a) assess a

child’s disability at an early age; b) provide appropriate facilities for treatment and rehabilitation

of children with disabilities; and to c) “afford children with disabilities equal opportunity in

education, subject to progressive realization” (The Children’s Act, 1996).

Universal Primary Education Policy 1997

In the following year, the Ugandan Parliament took a dramatic step towards

operationalizing children’s educational rights when it passed the Universal Primary Education

(UPE) Act in 1997. UPE objectives were to: 1) “provide the facilities and resources to enable

every child to enter and remain in school until the primary cycle of education is complete; 2)

make education equitable in order to eliminate disparities and inequalities; 3) ensure that

education is affordable by the majority of Ugandans; and 4) reduce poverty by equipping every

individual with basic skills.” (Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), 1999). This required

that all primary-level children should attend a school without having to pay fees and parents and

teachers association charges (Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), 1999). To support the

implementation of UPE, the government committed to increase public expenditure for education

from 2.1% of GDP in 1995 to 4.8% of GDP in 2000 (Dennison, 2015, p.20). The education

expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased from 1.6% to 4.0% and the share of primary

67

education in the total education expenditure rose from 40% to 65-70% (Nishimura et al., 2009,

p.147).

The changes were to be achieved through the launching of the Education Sector

Investment Plan (ESIP, 1998-2003) in 1998. ESIP seeks to achieve equitable access to education

at all levels, improve quality of education, particularly at the primary level, enhance the

management of education service delivery at all levels developing the capacity of government to

plan, program and manage the education investment portfolio. The ESIP was later followed by

the current Education Sector Strategy Plan (ESSP), spanning from 2004/05 to 2014/15. The

ESSP built on, and escalated the successes of the 1998 ESIP, particularly in the implementation

of UPE, while addressing its weaknesses and gaps, such as providing adequate treatment of the

post-primary and other education sub-sectors. ESSP’s broad objectives were to build an

education system relevant to Uganda’s national development goals, to ensure that all children

participating in the education system achieve the country’s education goals and to maintain an

effective and efficient education sector. Actual implementation of the plan was envisaged

through shared contributions by the public and private sector, as well as by households and

communities (Duclos et al., 2013, p.6). Additionally, the government initiated administrative

and financial decentralization (Nishimura et al., 2009, p.148). The government of Uganda

disbursed the UPE capitation grant from the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic

Development (MFPED) to schools via district (Nishimura et al., 2009, p.148). This very

conducive environment led to a phenomenal increase in primary school enrollment, from 3.1

million in 1996 to 7.6 million in 2003 (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2003). The net

enrollment rate jumped from 60% before UPE to 92% in 2007. In tandem with this increase, the

period 1996 to 2003 witnessed a jump in the number of primary schools, from 8,531 in 1996 to

68

13,353 in 2003, an increase of just under 5,000 schools in a period of only seven years

(Nishimura et al., 2009).

National Council for Disability Act 2004

Additionally, in 2004, the parliament passed the National Council for Disability Act.

This act provided for the establishment of a National Council for Disability, its composition,

functions and administration for the promotion of rights of persons with disabilities set out in

international conventions and legal instruments, the Constitution and other laws. Key among its

objectives were to: a) promote the implementation and equalization of opportunities for persons

with disabilities; b) monitor and evaluate the impact of policies and programmes designed for

equality and full participation of persons with disabilities; c) advocate for and promote effective

service delivery and collaboration between service providers and persons with disability.

Basically, it functions were spelt out among others as to: a) act as a body at a national level

through which needs, problems, concerns, potentials and abilities of persons with disabilities can

be communicated to government and its agencies for action; b) monitor and evaluate the extent

to which government, NGOs and private sector include and meet the needs of persons with

disabilities in their planning and service delivery and; c) carry out commission surveys and

investigations in matters and incidents relating violation of rights and persons with disabilities as

well as non-compliance with programmes, policies, laws relating to disabilities and then take

appropriate action or refer the matter to relevant authority (Uganda Government. National

Council for Disability Act, 2004).

69

Persons with Disabilities Act 2006

Two years later, parliament enacted the Persons with Disability Act (2006) to ensure

legal protection and equal opportunities of persons with disabilities. The Persons with

Disabilities Act strategic objective is “promoting equal opportunities and enhanced

empowerment, participation and protection of rights of persons with disabilities irrespective of

gender, age and type of disability” (Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, 2006,

pp.1, 13-14). The Act identifies education as one of the major concerns faced by people with

disabilities, and hence requires the government to develop policies that provide children with

disabilities with access to education as well as a duty to minimize disabilities among children

(Persons with Disabilities Act, Sec. 5(a) and Sec. 36(3) (2006).

The Equal Opportunities Act 2008

In 2008, the government enacted the Equal Opportunities Act in pursuant of articles 32

(3) and 32 (4) and other relevant provisions of the Constitution. The Act provides for the

composition and functions of a Commission to effect the State's constitutional mandate of

eliminating discrimination and inequalities against any individual or group of persons on the

ground of sex, age, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, health status, social

or economic standing, political opinion or disability. The Act mandates the Commission to take

affirmative action in favour of groups marginalized on the basis of gender, age, disability or any

other reason created by history, tradition or custom for the purpose of redressing imbalances

which exist against them; and to provide for other related matters (Uganda Government, The

Equal Opportunities Act, 2008).

70

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Significant for education and crucially for this thesis, in 2008 Uganda ratified yet another

heavily rights-based international convention, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (CRPD) (http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf).

This convention makes provisions to ensure that children with disabilities are not be excluded

from education, and ensure that they shall have “access an inclusive, quality and free primary

education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities where they

live.” Specifically, Article 24 of the CRPD states: “States Parties recognize the right of persons

with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on

the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all

levels and lifelong learning directed to: (a) The full development of human potential and sense of

dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms

and human diversity; (b) The development by persons with disabilities of their personality,

talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential; (c)

Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.”

The convention further states that: “ In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure

that: (a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis

of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory

primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability; (b) Persons with

disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education

on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live; (c) Reasonable

accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided; (d) Persons with disabilities receive

the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;

71

and (e) Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize

academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion” (CRPD)

4.2 Discussion

Notwithstanding the attractiveness of such progressive laws, a realization of social justice

education in Uganda has been beset by a number of challenges, discussed below under two broad

categories namely, conceptual level and implementation level.

1) At the conceptual level

Although no attempts were made to define “disability” in the Constitution of Uganda

(1995), the Persons with Disabilities Act (2006) defined disability as “a substantial functional

limitation of daily life activities caused by physical, mental or sensory impairment and

environmental barriers resulting in limited participation.” (Persons with Disabilities Act, Article

2 “Interpretation”). Although taken from a rights based perspective, this definition is not

completely in accordance with the United Nation’s CRPD definition to which Uganda is a

signatory. On the one hand, the CRPD adopts a social model of disability and defines disability

as “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in

interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an

equal basis with others”. The Ugandan legislation puts the emphasis on the person with a

disability rather than the social and environmental barriers, which may hinder their full and

effective participation in everyday life. Besides, there is no measure or definition of what

constitutes a substantial functional limitation. This lack of a clear and consistent definition of

disability has hindered access to government services and programs for some categories of

persons such as children suffering from autism or other psychosocial and intellectual disabilities.
72

Moreover as the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU)’s Alternative Report

to the UN Committee of Experts on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities contends, most Head Teachers are unaware of the different types of

disabilities tending to only consider physical disability (2013, p.36).

Table 2 Distribution of Children with Disabilities with the Ability to Attend School

Disability type Affected all Affected Not Not Total

the time sometimes Affected Available

Visual 59.8 22.0 3.1 15.2 100.0

impairment
Mobility 47.2 36.3 6.4 10.1 100.0
problem
Hearing impaired 34.6 40.9 14.8 9.8 100.0
Difficulty in 12.0 62.0 21.2 4.8 100.0
taking
part in social
activities

Psychological 22.1 44.5 17.8 15.6 100.0

emotional

Communication 36.3 18.0 32.5 13.3 100.0

difficulties

Difficulty in 22.6 39.1 31.1 7.2 100.0

personal care

Other difficulties 28.6 40.3 21.6 9.5 100.0

Learning 20.1 55.7 18.4 5.8 100.0
difficulties
Total 41.2 34.4 12.9 11.5 100.0

Source: Uganda National Household Survey (2005/06).

At another level, gaps in the current legal framework is that the Children Act (2003) fails

to provide clear provisions on anti-discrimination to protect children with disabilities. In

73

addition, the law does not expressly recognise that children with disabilities enjoy all the rights

guaranteed by this particular law. Section 9 is the only specific provision in The Children Act

that deals with children with disabilities. However, it is also unclear regarding the responsibility

of duty bearers to guarantee these rights. It places the obligation of early assessment, appropriate

treatment, rehabilitation and equal opportunities upon both parents of children with disabilities

and the state without clarifying who is actually responsible (Uganda Government. The

Children’s Act, 2003).

2) At the implantation level:

Challenges that have surfaced at the implementation level of Uganda’s progressive laws

are discussed under four categories: i) gaps in resources; ii) at the educational environment level;

iii) due to a hodgepodge approach and; iv) at the administrative and management level.I take the

position that the maximization of autistic children’s participation in community schools is at risk

under such conditions (British Psychological Society, 2002, p. 2).

a) Gaps in resources

The most daunting challenge has been financial resources. A grant was calculated based

on a variable cost of about 4,000 Ugandan shillings per pupil per year for all government

primary schools and a threshold cost for each school capped at 100,000 Ugandan shillings per

month for nine months a year (Nishimura et al., 2009, p.148). At the current exchange rate of

3,330 Ugandan Shillings for one USA $, this would amount to about US $ 1.2 per pupil. This is

infinitesimal low funding to educate any student adequately. To complicate matters, expenditures

for children with special needs are normally higher than the cost associated with educating the

74

general student population (Dennison, 2015).2 Furthermore, the majority of children with

disabilities come from very poor families and under UPE, the government does not provide for

boarding fees and these children are therefore directly discriminated against and have reduced

opportunities to access education (NUDIPU, 2013, p.37). In a nutshell, public schools in Uganda

are seriously underfunded, yet at the same time are expected to accommodate all children and

under the UPE legislation they are forbidden to ask parents for any additional fees. Moreover, a

common attitude by parents and communities is that since the government is responsible for

everything, they resist any financial contribution towards educating their children. Under such

an environment, the schools’ ability to provide quality let alone social justice education is

compromised (Bategeka & Okurut, 2005, p.148). Because of funding gaps, many schools are

unable to adequately pay their teachers a good living wage, or provide learning materials and

fund extra-curricular activities. As a result, the quality of education public schools offer to their

students is compromised (Kaburu, 2014). Teachers in Uganda have often seen low remuneration

they receive as a social injustices issue, which negatively impacts on their productivity. For

example, it impacts on their ability to concentrate on improving their craft, and their motivation

to teach and learn. Teachers argue that the low remuneration is a challenge for teachers to fulfill

their primary functions as teachers as they often cannot meet the basic necessities of life, such as

putting food at table or even educating their children (Kaburu, 2014). In addition to financial

challenges, studies show there are also human resource challenges. A large proportion of

primary school teachers, particularly in rural areas, lack appropriate training. For instance, in

2003, there were 145,703 primary schoolteachers, of whom 54,069 (37%) had no formal teacher

training education (Bategeka & Okurut, 2005).

2
This is precisely because of the need for more intensive monitoring, smaller class sizes, assistive
technology and other cost-intensive services to successfully educate children with special needs.

75

 b) At the educational environment level

These teething financial problems have led to a host of other problems particularly at the

school level. The most notable challenges include overcrowded classrooms with the concomitant

challenge of high pupil-teacher ratio resulting in low teacher motivation (Bategeka & Okurut

2005, p.148). There are basically too many children in one classroom with some students in

some schools having to sit on the floor for lack of adequate desks and chairs and lacking access

to basic learning material (IOB, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands, 2008; Duclos et

al., 2013). Although resources have been allocated to building infrastructure and to reduce the

student-teacher ratios, the high enrolments under the UPE have exceeded the supply of learning

materials such as textbooks (Kaburu, 2014). For instance, Kaburu (2014) reports that “you find

that a class that is supposed to have 55 pupils per teacher sometimes a teacher might have 80 or

even 150 students, which as a teacher, class control alone will not be easy (pp.65, 113). Thus,

although the government had rightly made improvement in pedagogy and learning assessment, a

priority under education reform for quality education, with some success (Ward, Penny & Read,

2006), the inadequacy of learning materials as well as overcrowded classrooms and high pupil

teacher ratios continue to hamper the dispensation of quality and justice education.

The current school curriculum is oppressive towards students with disabilities.

Consequently, opportunities for these children are consequently limited and restricted (NUDIPU,

2013). This is in contradiction with the “rights in education” approach which requires use of

curricular and pedagogical practices that are culturally responsive to the needs of learners. Other

studies have observed that rights in education include introduction of learner-centered teaching

approaches that enhance the active participation of students, teachers, parents and communities

76

(Thapliyal, Vally, & Spreen, 2013). However, as the IOB Impact Evaluation Report Ministry of

Foreign Affairs o Uganda revealed, “(t)eaching methods are old-fashioned and books are not

always used effectively. There is also high teacher and pupil absenteeism as well as high dropout

rates which undermine the effectiveness of investments in the education sector (IOB, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands, Report No. 311, 2008, p.17).

Uganda’s teacher centred pedagogical practice dominated by lecture, cramming and

regurgitation of knowledge clothed as ‘facts’ perpetuates injustices. Students are given minimal

opportunities to think independently or share their knowledge with other students – their

participation in the learning process is sacrificed (Kaburu, 2014). Rather, teaching and learning

is centred on top-down communication and dominated by drilling and chorusing of answers

(Kaburu, 2014). Even if some teachers have been exposed to problem-based approaches and

seek to empower students for community change, there are minimal opportunities for problem

posing (Freire, 1970), problem solving (Manouchehri & Zhang, 2013), or for students to bring

their own funds of knowledge based on their experiential knowledge (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002).

Neither were there ample opportunities for students to connect their knowledge to make inter-

textual connections and interrogate social inequities in society (Tyson & Park, 2006). At the

very worst, students were empty receptacles of knowledge, a form of education Freire (1973)

characterizes as “the banking education” approach.

In addition to such challenges for learners, the Ugandan educational system suffers from

another calamity that inhibits the attainment of social justice education. The system suffers from

what many people in Uganda see as “over-teaching” because it is an -exam driven system.

Students are hardly given time to be or do anything else other than being drilled to pass exams.

They are subjected to long hours of study in a day and are required to attend many additional

77

classes even during the holidays. Emphasis on passing the examination as the only evidence of

student learning has turned many students to regurgitate knowledge rather than into critical and

independent thinkers. The exam-based setup puts a lot of pressure on schools and teachers to

demonstrate evidence of high grades in national exams at the expense of putting in practice some

of empowering pedagogical approaches they might have acquired as part of their training. In

such a pressure driven system, autistic children`s education needs are ignored in favour of those

other non-autistic learners. This undermines their social justice. Thus, a key question remains: If

autistic disorder (classical or childhood autism) involves among others, inability to understand

social (and other) rules, impairments of communication, impairments of social interaction,

aloofness and failure to develop friendships (CDDH-Victoria, 2010) how can such children be

accommodated in a system described above without committing a social injustice?

c) A haphazard approach

In as much as Uganda is a signatory to several conventions that promote human rights;

the country’s implementation of these conventions is haphazard. For instance, ESIP’s

prioritization of human capital approach and the predominance of the human capital approach to

education have exacerbated “over-teaching” and the teaching to test. Scholars within education

have pointed to the negative effects this has on the students` ability to learn (Alexander, 2006;

Apple, 2004; Tikly & Barrett, 2012; Thapliyal, Vally, & Spreen, 2012). In Uganda, the strategic

and key aim of ESIP and its human capital approach to education is to advance education for

national development. This fits within the World Bank cost efficiency objectives and to justify

the unfair and inequitable loans the bank advances to the Ugandan government. In the event of

memorization fostered by the examination dominated pedagogy, one wonders if the tenets of

78

social justice education are served to learners particularly those with learning disabilities such as

autism.

d) At the administrative and management level

There are multiple challenges at the administrative and management levels. In the first

place, and particularly with regard to the Persons with Disabilities Act, although it was passed in

2006, to date there have been no supplementary regulations passed to actualize its

implementation. Furthermore, there is a lack of coordination between the different Government

Ministries on cross-cutting issues related to education and disability. Importantly, the

implementation of UPE policy coincided with the decentralization policy of public service

delivery. The main objective of this later policy was to bring services closer to the people, to

empower and enable district authorities to formulate, approve, and execute their own

development plans, including issues relating to education. Accordingly, under the Local

Government Act of 1997, nursery, primary schools, special schools and technical schools all fall

under the administration and management of District Councils (Duclos et al., 2013, p.4). The

result has been a reduction in the central government’s effective control on how national

legislation is enacted at the local level. Under such shared responsibility, external supervision of

schools and teachers is compromised by lack of funds from the central government (Kiburu,

2013).

Common themes that cut across administrative issues of the UPE policy are mainly

rooted in its top-down policy implementation and unpreparedness of the system for the changes.

Since the inception of the UPE policy, no clear policy on roles and responsibilities has been

shared by stakeholders. This has been exacerbated by ad hoc training opportunities given to head

79

teachers on accounting and school management under UPE which are not enough for head

teachers and SMCs to obtain confidence in daily school management (Bategeka & Okurut, 2005,

p.153). Kiburu (2013), highlighted teachers’ resentment of policies imposed at regional or

governmental level from donors, NGOs or the international community without proper or

adequate consultation as challenges that make it difficult for them to function as professionals.

Teachers felt unprepared at times to meet curriculum requirements demanded from ‘above’.

These views are supported by research studies in international education development that

examine how globalization has impacted policy making in developing countries (De Renzio &

Hanlon, 2007; Dryden-Peterson & Young-Suk, 2006; Samoff & UNICEF, 2004; Vavrus. 2009).

Vavrus and Bartlett (2012) note that the proliferation of ‘best practices’ on learner-centered

approaches of teaching has become a key feature of “traveling policies” from the global north.

However, quality has been reduced to the World Bank’s efficiency model with its input-output

approach to learning, focus on large scale data sets and emphasis of reducing wastage and

increasing efficiency in order to maximize the returns on investment. The challenge is that these

policy prescriptions are assumed to apply universally and are not always aligned to meet the

unique conditions in different contexts (Tikly & Barrett, 2011). However, policy formulation is

reduced to short term conformity to donor demands in order to get funding, rather than the long

term needs of the recipients countries (Samoff & UNICEF). Vavrus and Bartlett situate learner-

centered approaches within the transferred policies. In Uganda, policies aligned to the human

rights approach have been touted by international NGOs, and incorporated in government policy

manuals. For instance, policies for child-friendly schools including the banning of corporal

punishment, the introduction of vernacular languages or mother tongue and emphasis on child

centered teaching approaches. While these policies may conform to those required by

80

international actors, their implementation is always varied, complex and ubiquitous (Kiburu,

2013).

4.3 A Twin Track Approach

Notwithstanding that the education of children with disabilities has been integrated into

the country’s regular basic education system, the challenges outlined above have created groups

of disadvantaged children (Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands, 2008). As a result,

Uganda had to institute and prioritize Special Needs Education with a separate MoES department

created to promote the interests of children suffering from hearing impairment, visual

impairment, and mental disabilities and so on. In 2008, leaders of the disabled NGOs

community aggressively lobbied President Museveni for the extension and building of more

special schools, in the belief that children with disabilities receive a far better education in such

environments than in mainstream schools. In response, the president issued a decree requiring

the Ministry of Education and Sports to build more special schools. In theory and perception,

Uganda’s education policy and practice seem to be promoting a twin track approach to provision

of education for people with disabilities --both inclusive education and special needs education

where it is needed. Furthermore, the Special Needs and Inclusive Education Policy (2011)

provides for a number of approaches for delivering special needs education. These include:

home based care programs, special schools where children with severe and often multiple

impairments receive specialized support in pedagogy, instructional materials and assistive

devices. Other approaches have involved establishment of Units/Annexes where special needs

children are integrated in a regular school and promotion of inclusive schools where children

81

with special needs including but not limited to children with disabilities study with other

children.

Nonetheless, for the most part, inclusive education seems be the most favoured by the

government of Uganda (Guzu, 2014). The Ministry of Education and Sports claims that schools

in Uganda practice inclusive education by admitting learners with special education needs.

Granted, there are 138 special education units in the country, 49 for those with Hearing

Impairments, 38 for those with Mental/intellectual impairments, 8 for those with physical

impairments and 43 for learners with visual impairments (Guzu, 2014, p.14). Additionally the

government has constructed four regional special needs education schools; one in Gulu for

children with physical disabilities, Mukono for children with visual impairments and two

secondary schools for the Deaf in Wakiso and Mbale Districts respectively. While these

measures might have been implemented with best intentions, “inclusionists” argue that when

children with disabilities are segregated or excluded within an education system, they are

stigmatized and marked as “lesser” or “inferior” persons (Biklen & Burke, 2006).

The Special needs arrangement in Uganda seems to merge from what Mitchell (2010)

refers to as the Psycho-medical paradigm, the most widespread and dominant model used in both

the diagnosis and educational treatment of children with disabilities. Critical disability scholars

point out that this model inadvertently puts emphasis on the individual learner as lacking (Oliver,

1990; Titchkoksky & Michalko, 2009; Titchkoksky, 2008a; 2008b; McGuire & Michalko, 2011).

Thus, the tendency by school boards and teachers has been to group together those with similar

affinities and functional levels for instructional purposes in special schools/institutions (Guzu,

2014, p.14).The table below gives enrolment figures of children with disabilities in Primary

School for the period between 2008 and 2010 in Uganda. Although the Uganda government

82

disaggregates data of special schools/units in the country, these mainly target visually and

hearing impaired.

Table 3 Enrolment of Primary Schools Pupils with Special Needs (2008-2010)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Class

P1 38,169 40,023 40,895

P2 28,502 30,430 31,263

P3 30,828 36,528 34,847

P4 29,572 33,796 35,128

P5 24,881 28,287 27,781

P6 19,585 21,986 22,233

P7 12,000 13,302 12,871

TOTAL 83,537 204,352 205,018 - -

Source: UBOS Statistical abstract (2013).

The Special Needs Education Departments at the Ministry of Education and Sports and at

the district levels are not fully autonomous and lack the adequate resources to finance special

needs education programmes. Moreover, the Special Needs Education learning centres are

concentrated in towns and cities thereby neglecting the rural areas, which have a negative effect

on the educational achievements and especially the literacy and numeracy rates of children with

disabilities in those areas. Although the government has continued to train special needs

education teachers, there is a great shortage of special needs trained teachers in the country. Part

of the problem is that special needs teachers are not included in the Public Service Code and

83

when they complete their training, they are often not recruited as special needs teachers. This

further restricts access to education for children with disabilities. Despite the specific challenges

faced by special needs teachers in teaching children with disabilities, there are no incentives in

terms of additional remuneration to motivate them to pursue careers in special education. There

is evidence showing that Special Needs Education Teachers are indiscriminately transferred from

schools where they are needed to schools where there are no children with special needs. In

addition, many take up other career opportunities such as school administrators.

At another level, the Uganda Debt Network, one of the leading civil society watchdog

groups reports that “implementation of Special Needs Education policy has remained too slow

and almost neglected, especially at the Local Governments levels” (2008). It notes that “[t]he

vehicles provided under the initiative, for instance, have all been grounded on the pretext of no

or minimal funding” (Uganda Debt Network, 2008). The report went on that “the policy suffers

from least attention within the education sector, pushing further to the fringes of socio-economic

and political development of those already disadvantaged” (Uganda Debt Network, 2008). The

government is committed to the principle of inclusive education as illustrated by the ratification

of the UN Convention and the adoption of a Universal Primary Education Policy in 1996, it has

authorised the construction of 24 special schools. However, the educational legal framework is

confusing and ambiguous as it mentions both inclusive education and special needs education.

For example under Section 5 of the Persons with Disability Act, inclusive education is

encouraged although at the same time the establishment of special schools and units is included

where inclusive education is not possible. The greatest omission within the Persons with

Disabilities Act is the failure to provide clear provisions on reasonable accommodations for the

individual requirements of persons with disabilities as required under article 24 (2) c of the

84

UNCRPD. This stands in contradiction to the UNCRPD and the promotion of an inclusive

education policy. International evidence demonstrates that special schools reinforce segregation

and exclusion and that if children are educated alongside their non-disabled peers, then many of

the negative stereotypes and social attitudes surrounding disability are broken down (Barnard,

Prior & Potter, 2000; Sparkenbaugh, 2006; Frederickson, Jones & Lang, 2010; De Silva, 2010;

Symes & Humphrey, 2012). While challenges remain in Uganda, there are resistance initiatives

underway by disability activists to show that disability can be represented in many ways that

challenge normalcy (Linton, 2003; Davis, 2013). Three of such initiatives are discussed next.

Resistance initiatives and autism advocacy to correct some of the representation and

mischaracterization of autism in Uganda are currently limited to a few non-state players. There

are ; a) the Komo Centre; b) Teens and Tots Neuro Development Centre and; c) Empowerment

Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU). These initiatives offer hope for parents and caregivers of

children with autism spectrum disorders.

a) Komo Center

The Komo Center appears to be the first of its kind to be set up in Uganda to cater

specifically for children burdened by autism. Founded in 2004, to address a personal challenge of

a child affected by autism, the center has grown from addressing the needs of one child

Christopher Komo (to whom it is named after) to catering for over 50 children with special

needs. In 2015, 12 were autistic children, ranging in age from 3 to 17 (voxweekly, 2015). Komo

center grew out of the frustration faced by Komo`s parents with their son Christopher, who was

diagnosed with autism at the age of 4. At eight years, Christopher did not speak any

recognizable language, had obsessive behavior and was prone to wandering off and getting lost.

85

He had managed quite well at the kindergarten school, which was small and carefully controlled,

but he had outgrown it and the other children. There are no primary schools in Uganda which

would offer him the learning environment he needed, especially given his tendency to wander

off.

In trying to understand Christopher’s needs, his mother Elizabeth Najjemba Kaleeba

sought out other families with similar problems and they came to the realization that there a

growing number of mainly young families with autistic children, but very few people had

information on the condition. Unlike the case in countries such as Canada where autism activism

and advocacy and awareness are highly developed (McGuire &Michalko, 2011; McQuire, 2016),

autism was hardly understood in Uganda. Facilities and services for children with special needs

are inadequate and generalized, mixing children with diverse disorders, which hinders

development for autistic children. Komo Centre is different as it offers Christopher and other

autistic children a conducive environment to develop their potential. The Centre also serves as a

resource for families of autistic children to gain further understanding of the condition, share

ideas, and offer each other mutual support and encouragement.

The Center is run as alternative facility, but is committed to providing services to

children with special needs into an inclusive mainstream school environment where they can

learn from their pre-school peers, by interacting and copying how they play and learn. It also

gives mainstream students an opportunity to learn about the nature of children with autism; the

difficulties they face; and to positively interact and value people with autism and severe learning

difficulties.

The center focuses on building children’s communication and social skills. It runs an

academic program aimed at teaching students basic mathematics and literacy skills, and supports

86

their motor skill development as well as using sensory techniques to help children modulate

themselves and reduce challenging behavior. Students are taught activities of daily living in

order to improve their independence, which is essential in Uganda if students are to be able to

function in society. The center has helped many families in surrounding areas by supporting their

children at home, offering advice and counseling, home visits and holiday programs including

cultural visits away from school. The Centre also offers an outreach program aimed at giving

advice and information to local schools in order to help promote disability awareness in Uganda.

The centre`s staff offer educators advice on teaching and working with children with Autistic

Spectrum Disorders and severe learning difficulties (http://www.komocenter.org/our-ethos.html).

The center has an expansive curriculum with emphasis on increased social interactions with

other children as a form of therapy for autistic children and scheduled home visits to keep

parents or caregivers apprised of progress. It also offers strategies for use at home or in school to

help your child with their communication and listening skills. These include among others,

strategies to support spoken language; strategies to support the understanding of language;

strategies for teaching vocabulary; individual strategies for listening and attention; whole class

strategies for listening and attention. Komo Centre appears to be doing what some critical

disability scholars and advocates suggest, which is that resources matter because they can

mitigate existing oppressive social relations about normalcy and its “taken for

grantedness…where “impaired bodies are given negative interpretation by contemporary

society” (Michalko, 2009, p.91).

b) Teens and Tots Neuro Development Center

Another initiative by disability activists is the Teens and Tots Neuro Development Center

founded in 2012 by Fredrick Sembatya, who acts as its director. The center promotes the
87

education and development of children with Neuro Developmental Disorders such as those

associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder, cerebral palsy and many others. According to its

webpage, they “provide evidence-based special education services, within a school-wide culture

of optimism and understanding, to students 3 to 14 years of age with social, emotional,

neurological, behavioral, and other learning needs” (Teens and Tots Neuro Development Centre,

n.d). The centre has a dynamic staff with different professional backgrounds and skills who work

tirelessly in collaboration with parents to unlock the potential of the children (Autism daily

newscast, n.d). The centre recognizes that each child is unique, so every child's program is

different. Working as a team, professionals augment the input and efforts of the other team

members. At the centre, there is no one, right way to teach, and we learn more about each child

every day. This perspective is in line with suggestions that “the conceptualization of inclusive

schooling in an African context would have to begin with an acknowledgment of social

difference, power, identity and culture. Difference must be acknowledged as a site of strength”

(Phasha, Mahlo, & Dei, 201, p.2). For example, staff at the centre reassesses each student's skills

on a daily basis to monitor progress and modify teaching strategies as required. When problems

occur, they do not merely identify them, but look for ways to solve them. The centre tracks

progress nd is measurable. The webpage adds:

At Teens and Tots Neuro Developmental Center, we believe that every student can reach

his or her potential given the right instruction and in the right environment. We utilize the

Children Developmental Model in line with intensive interactions with the students. This

approach emphasizes the idea of entering into the child's world, understand who this

child is and then later get him/her out of his/her world to ours with the core principal of

this approach being the belief that relationships are the foundation of learning…We give

88

 our students the tools they need to live more independently, and become more involved

in their communities…We are driven by the determination to assist families and children

whose learning needs are having far- reaching effects on the communities in which they

live but are very often misunderstood and not catered for by the facilities and

environment in these communities. We hope that through our efforts, more families of

children with different learning and developmental needs due to Neuro disorders such as

those ones with autism and other related learning needs will feel less isolated and more

hopeful for the future of their children (Teens and Tots Neuro Development Centre, n.d).

These ideas illustrate that the centre privileges the social model of disability and its teachings

that the exclusion and marginalization of students with learning disabilities are because of

systematic inequities resulting from social discrimination (Oliver, 2006). The Teens and Tots

Neuro Development Centre recognizes that social problems created by mainstream educational

institutions generate a negative impact on students with disabilities, to the extent that students

with learning disabilities experience difficulties and frustrations, and barriers to accomplish their

academic tasks. For instance, its webpage reports that:

The centre has now helped several children and young adults from the age of 3 to 21, in

areas such as special needs education, behavioural management, social skills training and

self-help skills, as well as speech, language and communication. Many of them are now

communicating well, with some attending mainstream school settings (Teens and Tots

Neuro Development Centre, n.d).

89

The centre’s success seems to be grounded in five key areas. First, respect of the unique

qualities of each child. Second, commitment to provide a safe, caring and positive environment

for learning and living. Third, working in partnership with parents/care givers and respecting

their children. Fourth, nurturing talent and expertise in dealing with the children. Five, ensuring

that services are centered on the children. These promising goals if escalated across Uganda

could have a positive impact on the hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities.

c) Empower Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU)

Empower Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU) was founded on 16th April 2013 as a

youth led organization that works with children on the autism spectrum. According to their

Facebook page, the founders were driven to form this organization because there was need for a

body to create awareness on autism, offered affordable therapy to autistic children and a support

system for families living with autism (https://www.facebook.com/EmpoweredAutisticChildrenUganda).

However, its objectives have since widened to address various challenges that affect the different

facets of autistic lives.

EACU’s mission is to improve the quality of life of Ugandan children on the autism spectrum.

Its vision is to build a Uganda where autistic children can be fully integrated into the society.

More specifically, the centre sees itself-fulfilling the following roles:

1) Expanding awareness campaigns so that all Ugandans become aware of autism

as a neurophysical disorder and not as a consequence of witchcraft. 2) Providing

free diagnostic services for child psychiatric disorders on the autistic spectrum. 3)

Providing different forms of therapy, for example, speech and language therapy,

cognitive behavioral therapy and social therapy. 4) Building the talents of autistic

children and equipping them with skills. 5) Providing support and information to
90

 families living with autistic children. 6) Providing a support system for autistic

children as they transition into youth and early adulthood. 7). Conducting

awareness campaigns on social media and by word of mouth

(https://www.facebook.com/EmpoweredAutisticChildrenUganda).

Its mandate seems broad precisely because in Uganda, facilities and services for children with

special needs are inadequate and are generalized. The EACU recognizes that those who are

informed about autism cannot afford the therapy. For example, each hour of therapy costs $16

yet 33.7% of Ugandans earn less than $1.25 a day. Therefore opening an autism center that

provides affordable services would improve the level of self-care, social and communications

skills of autistic children. This is a step towards integrating children with autism into society.

Currently, EACU is running an aggressive fund-raising campaign to expand its operation in their

bid to empower autistic children. For instance, their website pleads that:

Every $2 will buy 1 modeling tool; every $4 will provide free diagnostic services

for a child on the autism spectrum; every $6 will provide food and transport

facilitation to a volunteer for 1 day. Volunteers will mainly be in charge of

building the talents of autistic children; every $8 will pay a therapist for 1 hour;

every $14will per rent for the autism center for 1 day; every $20 will buy 1

conditioning tool; every $50 will buy 1 phonology tool; every $100 will keep

autism awareness campaigns in the newspapers for 1 day; every $200 will keep

autism awareness campaigns on a radio station for 10 day; every $240 will buy

the autism center 1 computer and; every $400 will keep autism awareness

campaigns on a TV station for 1 week

(https://www.facebook.com/EmpoweredAutisticChildrenUganda).

91

Granted, these are private initiatives, but they have the potential to create awareness, imagine

resistance narratives and help parents from marginalized groups to counter discourses by

contradicting, critiquing and challenging dominant cultural representation, which characterizes

children with autism negatively. The three private actors discussed are actively shaping the

experiences of autistic children and their families in Uganda in positive ways.

Conclusion
This chapter has shown that even with progressive laws in Uganda, there are significant

implementation gaps that continue to hinder the equitable education of children with disabilities.

Current government policy on Universal Primary Education (UPE) has many shortcomings

which impact negatively on the needs of children with disabilities. For example, UPE’s goal is to

reduce inequality and access in education, a major barrier for Uganda to achieve the social

justice ideal is its whole hearted embrace of education as the most vital basis for economic

development (Schultz, 1960). This absorption is informed by a positivist thinking, grounded in

the human capital theory and approach to education (Apple, 2004; Tikly, 2011; Thapliyal, Vally,

& Spreen, 2012). The dangers of such an approach is that it ignores and marginalizes non-

economic elements such as equity that enhance social injustice (Young, 1990; Fraser, 2006).

Because of such bias, the Uganda education system while commendable in proving

access through UPE is far from achieving equity for all students, but especially students with

disabilities such as autism. These barriers are rooted in the country’s neoliberal standpoint,

which perceives education as a primarily economic affair (Rizvi & Engel, 2009). By taking this

perspective, Uganda fails to address equity and social justice issues pertinent in education.

Analysis of the figures in the tables given in this chapter reveal a very depressing situation

92

particularly in light of the fact that medical studies suggest that intellectual disability is the

commonest co-occurring diagnosed condition among African children with ASD (Lotter, 1980;

Mankoski, 2006; Belhadj et al., 2006; Bakare & Munir, 2011 a &b). Table 1 in particular points

to an overboard decrease in enrollment at higher levels of primary education, suggesting a

serious problem/challenge of massive dropout rates. These figures are in concert with the World

Health Organization & World Bank study (2011) that found that such children have lower

transition rates to higher levels of education. Studies show that “othered” and stigmatized, in

general, children with disabilities such as autism are less likely to: a) start school in time (or

ever) and have lower rates of staying and being promoted in school than their peers without

(Filmer, 2008; World Bank, 2009). As articulated by Broderick (20005), the high drop-out rate

could be due to hurtful, negative and dehumanizing treatment the children often experience from

their fellow students or teachers at school or even at home (Ingstad & Whyte, 2005; O’Sullivan

& MacLachlan, 2009). In such an environment, autistic children face daily challenges. As a

result, the rights of children with disabilities who could be in school are violated. In cases, where

they attend school, they do not receive the critical resources to support their learning. Yet

resources can go a long way in mitigating the effects of autism by creating a supportive

environment to their children and minimize what McGuire and Michalko (2011) refer to as

“mindblindness” (p.165). Therefore, school authorities in Uganda should stop labeling students

with Autism since such attitudes affect the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream

schools (Enabling Education Network, 2003; World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011;

Humphrey & Symes, 2010).

Overall, this chapter has demonstrated that children who experience disability in Uganda

will continue to face barriers and injustices that undermine their quest for equal access to

93

inclusive education from early childhood into adulthood unless conceptual and implementation

loopholes pertaining to Uganda’s legal frameworks are addressed. As Lang and Murangira

(2009) observe the mainstream schooling for most children with disabilities in Uganda is just

tokenistic. This perceived “tokenism” has led many people with disabilities in the Ugandan

disability movement to advocate for a parallel system of Special Schools (Ndeezi, 2004; Lang &

Murangira, 2009; NUDIPU, 2013; Guzu, 2014). This study cautions that while this may sound

pragmatic, it has to be acknowledged that, in Uganda, historically, special schools only provide

education to a very small number of children with disabilities, are extremely expensive to run,

and seriously militate against the social inclusion of people with disabilities. Moreover, special

education processes may result in the marginalization of the “othered” learners (Reid & Knight,

2006; Danforth, Taff & Ferguson, 2006; Erevelles, 2000; Erevelles, & Minear, 2010). However,

three private actors, Komo Centre, Teens and Tots Neuro Development Center, and Empower

Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU) are engaged in positive advocacy measures and services

aimed at changing the negative narratives about autism in Uganda. In a nutshell, a combination

of various factors hinder children with disabilities from receiving social justice in the Ugandan

education system even when the system has done more to promote access. However, as noted in

this study, access alone is not adequate to promote equity ideals that are central to the enjoyment

of social justice education.

94

 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

Inclusion is not simply an intellectual ideal; it is a physical and very real experience”
(Mogharreban & Bruns, 2009, p. 407).

The core inquiry of this study was to highlight the challenges facing children with autism

and other disabilities in Uganda. The key finding of this study is that children with autism in

Uganda face injustices and barriers that negate their aspirations for social justice and equitable

education. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that while the Ugandan government enacted

several pieces of legislations that appear to support social justice education, measures that rank

highly on increased access especially in primary education, they fall way short in promoting

social justice as illustrated by the continued exclusion and marginalization of autistic children

within the system. In addition, the findings show that autistic children continue to be oppressed

by the Ugandan education system due to both errors of commission and omission especially at

the policy implementation level where substantial gaps remain in providing adequate financial

and human resources to support and operationalize the progressive laws that in theory are pro

social justice, but in practice continue to create barriers and inequities. In other words, well-

meaning and well intentioned legislation alone is not sufficient to ensure an equitable education

for all learners. To be equitable, policies must be backed up by concrete and sustained collective

action. While some of the challenges and findings identified in this study confirm research

findings in the literature on social justice education from a critical disability studies perspective,

some do not. For example, some of the discussion support the ideals of the medical of model of

disability, while others illuminate the major tenets of the social model of disability and other

paradigms.

95

 This thesis also makes a significant contribution to the debate on inclusive education and

how best to provide education to students with autism and other leaning disabilities. It finds that

the one size fits all policy may be counterproductive and inimical to equitable education for

students with disabilities. This study also contributes to the debate on social justice education in

general and Uganda in particular by demonstrating that there are circumstances when improved

access such as in the form of universal primary education (UPE) may actually exacerbate

injustices and barriers for particular groups of students. In short, the Uganda experience reveals

a paradoxical outcome, which is that a highly accessible education system in terms of improved

attendance can at the same time be highly inequitable! The insight here is that any policy reform

should not focus narrowly on access alone, but recognize the systematic nature of the issues.

Reorienting policy makers, families and disability advocates to focus on broader reforms is

critical for ensuring that improved access does indeed lead to social justice improvements in the

learning experiences of all students, but especially students with disabilities.

Indeed, the Ugandan experience raises several interesting questions that challenge and

repudiate the convectional standards in Western society with respect to the education of children

with disabilities. For example, the Uganda experiences seems to reveal that the solution to

advancing social justice for students with autism is not either mainstreaming schooling or special

education school. But rather a combination of both approaches depending on circumstances and

available resources. This view contradicts the suggestions made by some disability advocates in

countries such as Canada that the best way to educate students with disabilities is through

mainstream schools. Borrowing from mainstreaming and special education may be possible if

critical disability studies researchers incorporate into their methodology and research paradigm

issues beyond the core tenets of the social model, which is that only the environment disables

96

people. As Shakespeare (2006) has cautioned, it is time critical disability scholars reconsidered

their crude distinction between impairment (medical) and disability (social).

This study has shown that although the current education system in Uganda started over

one hundred years ago, it was not conceptualized within social justice, human capital or human

rights perspectives. Almost a hundred years later, the National Resistance Movement

government under Yoweri Museveni, after a long and protracted guerrilla warfare came into

office in 1986. President Yoweri Museveni ushered in changes wide-ranging reforms in the

educational sector to initiate an education reform and reconstruction process and to improve the

quality of basic education in Uganda. This thesis embraced Rawls’ (1971) definition of Justice.

As seen in chapter one of the thesis, Rawls contends that “each person possess an inviolability

founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override” (1971, pp. 3-4).

This study also reveals the difficulties and challenges Ugandans have encountered in realizing

these rights as many, especially parents of children with autism and the poor feel they continue

to be excluded and stigmatized within the educational system. Thus, another finding of this study

is that some groups continue to be subject to both systemic and or attitudinal barriers because of

their ability. This has certainly affected a realization of their full potential, let alone equitable

participation in schooling. This is illustrated by the insights gleaned from the perspectives of the

three private actors namely, the Komo Center, Teens and Tots Neuro Development Center and

Empower Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU), who provide education and advocacy to students

and families with disabilities. They argue that inclusive education is far-fetched since the

struggle to end discrimination and a commitment to strive towards equal opportunities for all

(CSIE, 2002), has faltered. That is the case because autism is a “hidden” disability, which is not

easily recognized. Therefore, it has not attracted the high level of attention from society, as is

97

the case with more forms of visible physical disabilities (Ferraros, 2008). This finding was

supported by arguments in chapter three that children and youth with disabilities are less likely to

start school or attend school. They also have lower transition rates to higher levels of education

(World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). Hence, not being fully welcome in the

educational setting (either refusal to enroll or through indirect attempts to make the child and

family feel unwelcome), autistic and other disabled children continue to be oppressed by the

education system mainly due to three broad categories: school-based; systemic and cultural and

attitudinal problems. These biases translate into micro and macro barriers that hinder autistic

children from receiving quality education.

This thesis examined a key question that has engaged educators globally for some time:

how best to deliver good and quality education to disabled children; what is the model to be

adopted? In most countries, early and concerted efforts at providing education were generally

through separate special schools, usually targeting specific impairments, such as schools for the

blind. These institutions reached only a small proportion of those in need and were they deemed

not to be cost-effective. They tended to be in urban areas, affordable by a few and tended to

isolate individuals from their families and communities (World Health Organization & World

Bank, 2011).Nevertheless, from the available literature, we can discern three dominant models:

special schools and institutions; integrated schools and; inclusive schools. These models are

informed by how proponents of each camp postulate the relationships between learners with

disabilities and their environments. The pros and cons of the three dominant paradigms: the

psycho-medical paradigm, the socio-political paradigm and the organizational paradigm

(Mitchell 2010) were discussed. This study argues that if by “inclusion” we mean a process of

addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing

98

participation in learning and reducing exclusion within and from education, children in Uganda

with autism are denied not only an inclusive education, but also equally social justice. The

Ugandan experience reveals that addressing their exclusion would mean significant changes and

modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies of the Ugandan education system

(UNESCO, 2005).

This study noted that advocates for mainstream inclusive schools and their critics all

agree that systemic and school-level change to remove physical and attitudinal barriers, provide

reasonable accommodation, and support services is required to ensure that children with

disabilities are served with social justice. More specifically, advocates for inclusive education

argue that while children with disabilities have historically been educated in separate special

schools, inclusive mainstream schools in both urban and rural areas provide a better alternative

as it avoids isolating children with disabilities from their families and communities and could be

a more cost-effective way forward. They see inclusive education as dynamic involving an

ongoing process of “putting inclusive values into action” (Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006, p.

4). However, as the Ugandan experience reveals, lack of human and financial resources, targets

and plans tend to be major obstacles in the global effort to provide Education for All (World

Health Organization & World Bank, 2011). This study has argued that although Uganda has

some of the most progressive legislation regarding the provision of education to persons with

disabilities, ratified the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and

subscribes to the international idioms of human rights, human capital and social justice; many of

the country’s constitutionally declared rights remain unfunded. Besides, Uganda is short on

comprehensive road maps and workable means for implementing substantial and far-reaching

social justice education reform. Given the current environment, the need to meet the CRPD’s

99

mandate for mainstreaming students with disabilities may mean lead to unintended negative and

harmful educational results. This the case if legal compliance takes priority by simply placing

special needs children in the same classrooms as other students.

Consequently, another finding of this study is that the ideal of an inclusive education in

Uganda, where autistic children and other “disabled children” are educated alongside their non-

disabled peers remains beset by a number of challenges. Mainstreaming of disabled and autistic

children is undertaken with bare minimum preparation and lack of physical infrastructure,

adequately trained staff and any deliberate collaboration of parents, teachers and pupils in

addressing the educational needs of children with disabilities. These shortages have left little

alternative for activists within the disability movement, but to take a pragmatic approach of

opting out of the mainstream. These activists for pragmatic reasons continue to advocate for the

construction of more specialized schools rather than integration and inclusion of disabled

learners in mainstream schools (Lang & Murangira, 2009). No wonder, to date, rather than

government organs to spearhead autistic children’s education, the burden falls largely to

concerned parents and disability activists. Yet as seen in chapter three of this thesis, proponents

of inclusive education argue that an inclusive education approach, in the ideal situation is the

best strategy for autistic children. They contend that if autistic children are educated alongside

their non-disabled peers, then many of the negative stereotypes and social attitudes are broken

down.

Nonetheless, this study found that while this approach in an ideal situation would appear

to be beneficial, Uganda does not fit the designation “ideal situation,” separatist and highly

structured programs featuring individual instruction seem to produce the greatest educational

gains. Until the Ugandan mainstream education system could be improved, the disability

100

movement and parents of autistic children now and in the near future will opt for autistic children

to be educated outside mainstream schools. Besides, there seem to exist a systemic entrenched

social exclusion, marginalization and discrimination encountered by people with disabilities.

There are also connections between social injustice experienced by teachers who are underpaid,

overworked and denied classroom and the majority of parents, who are poor to the wider issues

of poverty and governance. This study cited Ontario, who sued the province for failing to

provide adequate and current therapy programs to students with autism (Wynbeg V. Ontario,

2006). The parents won. Such legal supported advocacy is lacking in Uganda. Uganda is

resource needy and lacks the financial resources to offer such services let alone basic services to

students with autism as highlighted throughout this study. The Ugandan tragedy is rooted in

neo-liberal policies imposed by donors and NGOs and enjoy more power in influencing

educational policies and practices, leading to results and educational outcomes that undermine

the core of delivering social justice education (Samoff & UNESCO, 1994)

101



Chapter 6: Recommendations.

The literature review reveals that disability theory alone cannot adequately address issues

dealing with intersectionality of oppression such as, disability with class or gender (Garland -

Thompson, 2006). From the literature reviewed in this study, there is a need to embrace an

integrative approach to questions investigated in this study. This study’s recommendations are

discussed at four levels: i) the national level –a move from rhetoric to realistic plans and tangible

commitment; ii) the school level; iii) societal/community level and; iv) scholarly level.

1) At the national level –a move from rhetoric to realistic plans and tangible commitment

If the Ugandan mainstream education system is to truly deliver inclusive education to

autistic learners, the country should go beyond the rhetoric of human rights embedded in its legal

frameworks and institute structural public sector reform, which addresses the “implementation

gap” that has been identified in this study. The country needs to provide concrete and realistic

action plans supported by both adequate human and financial resources. Without greater than

current commitment and political will to implement a social justice education, it is unlikely that

sufficient human and natural resources will be budgeted for to guarantee that children with

autism and other disabilities enjoy their constitutional rights. As discussed in this, inclusive

education involves far more than just placing children within a “normal or mainstream

classroom,” It requires fundamental changes on a number of fronts including improving class

sizes and training teachers how to work with children afflicted by autism in order to bring the

best out of them. This is a tough order since the educational system in general faces substantial

system wide problems including overly overcrowded classrooms.

102

 On the legal front, the parliament of Uganda should review the definition of disability in

all its Acts with a goal of bringing it in accordance with Article 1 of the UNCRPD which is

inclusive (encompassing all persons with disabilities, including those with psychosocial and

disabilities, autism etc.) and is firmly rooted in the human rights based approach to disability.

Likewise, the government should be called upon to harmonize all existing legal frameworks in

line with the UNCRPD. Ugandans experience begs the question what is the purpose of

progressive laws if they are not enforced. The government should take responsibility to ensure

enforcement and implementation of its laws. Above all, the government should renew its

commitment to implement fully inclusive education based on wide consultations with key

stakeholders, develop an inclusive educational policy, and provide clear resources to support its

implementation. As some of the major findings of this study reveal, the Ugandan government

should not be content with just placement of autistic children in a mainstream classroom, but do

more to ensure a child’s full participation in all aspects of the educational setting (Berlach &

Chambers, 2011; Curcic, 2009; Fisher, 2012; McGuire & Michalko, 2011; Lalvani, 2013).

However, studies show that being physically present in a mainstream setting does not

automatically result in inclusion (de Boer et al., 2011, McLesky & Waldron, 2007; Komesaroff

& Mclean, 2006).

Based on my lived experience, a rigid national curriculum and examination-driven

system contributes to the challenges autistic children encounter in mainstream schools. A

significant restructuring in in these two areas is required to accommodate autistic learners and to

provide for inclusive pedagogy. Under the UPE dispensation, there is a lack of adequate training

and preparation of teachers to manage very large classes and/or recognize the special needs

103

students. As a result, this study has shown that autistic children have the highest rates of dropout

in comparison to all other disabilities.

Further, the provision of refresher courses to teachers sensitive to inclusive pedagogy

should be seen as a top priority for the policy-makers. This is necessary to help equip teachers

with the skills required to implement innovations such as “inclusion”. In addition, teacher’s

attitudes may become more positive as they gain the necessary expertise to implement the policy

and experience the success of their efforts. Until such a time when inclusive education can be

fully implemented in Uganda, the government might consider increasing funding to the Special

Education Units that are currently established in different parts of the country and open them up

to regular students with a goal of developing them as models of excellence to promote inclusive

education.

2) At the school level

In Uganda, large class sizes and limited resources seem to be the biggest challenges in the

country’s bid to offer inclusive education, particularly real effective inclusive of autistic children.

Uganda’s educational system must recognize that autistic learners may require different

approaches in order make progress and achieve success in the classroom. The needs of autistic

learners may go beyond the obvious special needs of students such as those with disabilities

pertaining to vision or hearing. Attention must be paid to autistic children’s visible and invisible

frailties and accordingly care be taken to provide the mainstreamed autistic children with special

needs, the tools and guidance they need. More resources and support (material, human and

professional) should be provided to teachers. This may positively affect their attitudes towards

autistic learners.

104

 3) At the societal/community level

The severity and extent of social exclusion and marginalization calls for vigilant

sensitization. As discussed in this thesis, proponents of inclusive education who see disability as

politically and socially constructed believe that societal structural inequalities could be addressed

to include children with disabilities in mainstream classes (Danesco, 1997; Ainscow, 1995;

Lipsky & Gartner, 1999, McGuire & Michalko, 2011). Awareness raising to parents of children

with autism to appreciate education of their children and take them to school might yield high

dividends. Community outreaches conducted by professionals (such physiotherapists, speech

etc.) in homes to support and train parents who have children with autism to handle and care for

their children to maximize their health and wellbeing will also be beneficial. At the village level,

the government should enforce the provision in the Children Act to keep registers at every

village in order to identify, assess, care for and support children with disabilities such as autism.

The Family Protection Unit of police should enforce the provisions of the Children Act by

arresting those parents/guardians who lock up their children in houses or refuse them to go to

school. More efforts are required to support organizations or groups of persons with disabilities,

children with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities at both the local and national

levels. Such mobilization is necessary if Uganda is to achieve a more meaningful inclusive

education.

4) At the scholarly level

Individuals with disabilities face various barriers that may exclude them from full and

effective participation as equal members of society. While the Uganda government considers

social justice a key objective of basic education, little research examines what this has meant for

105

children suffering from autism. Autistic children have been discriminated against due to their

“difference” resulting in a lack of ability on their part to fully participate in Uganda’s education

system compared to nondisabled individuals. In such a system, these children are denied social

justice. To investigate how social justice is or is not accorded to autistic children within the

Ugandan education system, this thesis found shortage of secondary sources and minimal

literature on issues autistic children face within the Ugandan educational system. Without such

studies, any systematic and effective redress of injustices suffered by autistic children within the

Ugandan education system may not be feasible.

Although epistemological camps do exist on what social justice means, and how to

achieve it (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009), advocates of social justice education unite to argue that

education inequalities would not go away unless a radical stance accompanied by institutional

and structural change is implemented. As the Uganda case reveals, to achieve equity for autistic

children, social justice pedagogy must be seriously seen and taken as a political act (Dei, 2015).

Dei and other advocates concur that time is ripe for concerned educators, scholars and citizens

to reject the status quo, use our knowledge to actively raise banners against the injustices and

inequalities perpetuated by neocolonialism, neoliberalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, classism,

ableism, heterosexualism and a multitude of other ‘isms’. Concern for social justice forces us to

be vigilant and to ask critical questions at almost every level of any education system especially

for those who fall outside the “normative curve” of being white, rich, able-bodied and so on

(Dei, 2012; 2013; 2014; Bickmore 1999; Erevelles 2000; Sharma & Portelli 2014; Zoric 2014).

The Ugandan case study calls for critical inquiry as how theory and praxis intersect. This is

necessary because as argued in this study, the Ugandan education system through UPE appears

to be strong on access but weak on equity. This study suggests that achieving social justice for

106

autistic children with the Ugandan education system can only be achieved with targeted and

focused intervention by the ministry of education and sports and other agencies. To get there,

requires what Portelli and Konecny (2013) characterize as a subversion of neoliberal systems of

schooling by which they mean: “To change from below, to turn around or redirect from

underneath” (p.94). After all, social justice is a moral and ethical matter. At its core is a

recognition and a call to change inequitable societal structures that unjustly propagate and

maintain the subjugation of some groups while privileging others, and seeks to bring about

societal change through social action (Bennett, 2011). Moreover as Amartya Sen has articulated,

education is a public good and should therefore be equitably distributed (1999, pp.128-129). It is

the responsibility of the regular system to ‘educate all children’ (UNESCO, 2005, p.13).

At a broader level, this thesis has made practical contributions to the debate and

literature. First, it synthesized the literature on social justice education in as far as it relates to

autism in a third world country. Second, it has interrogated to what extent educational policies

transferred from the global north as ready-made solutions to correct social injustices in

developing countries have been successful in achieving their intended goals in developing

countries such as Uganda. The study reveals that implementation of Western based approaches

is often more complex and laden with multiple difficulties. In that regard, this study contributes

to the knowledge of the challenges such policies face in the global south.

The study has raised several issues for future research. For example: Under what

circumstances is mainstreaming schooling appropriate for students with disabilities? On the other

hand, under what conditions may mainstreaming and inclusive schooling undermine and hurt the

learning experiences of children with disabilities such as autism? Relatedly, under what

circumstances is special education, which involves the streaming of students with disabilities

107

more appropriate? Under what circumstances does special education undermine the learning

experiences of students with disabilities? There has been substantial theoretical models and

approaches which allow for theorizing the experiences of students with autism in particular and

disability in general. However, as the Ugandan case illustrates, the empirical predications of such

models are typically less clear. Future research through field work results, may be able to

identify clearer implications of the social and medical medicals of disability and how they may

differ in developing countries such as Uganda. Finally, we know more based on the literature

review the views of some private actors, disability activists and policy makers in Uganda.

However, we know relatively very little from parents and students with autism and other

disabilities. We need to explore from their perspectives their experiences with special education

and mainstream schooling within Uganda’s education system. Overall, the study has

demonstrated that the issue of inclusive education of children with autism is complex. Disability

as a serious social problem requires collective action and policies to support accessibility in

creating a successful learning environment for all students. An accessible and equitable

education system has implications for Uganda’s efforts to decolonize the education sector. As

demonstrated in this thesis, Uganda’s educational system systematically oppresses students with

disabilities. To change that it must faithfully implement the progressive legislation on inclusive

education in order to promote social justice for all its learners.

108

 Bibliography

Ackerman, P., Jaeger, R. & Smith, A. (2002). Special education: current trends. In Encyclopedia
of education. Gale Group. Retrieved from: http://www.answers.com/topic/special-
educationcurrent-Trends.
African Education Commission 1923-1924 (1925). Education in East Africa: A study of East,
Central and South Africa. New York: Jones, T. J., Shantz, H. L., International Education Board&
Phelps-Stokes Fund.
Ainscow, M. (1995). Special needs through school improvement: school improvement through
special needs. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools (pp.63-
77). London: David Fulton.
Alexander, R. (2006). Education for all. The quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy.
Create Access to Research Monogram 20. Brighton, UK: CREATE
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162 (1),
67-92.
Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Archer, D. (2006). The impact of the World Bank and IMF on education rights. Convergence, 39
(2/3), 7-18.
Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: by choice or by chance?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15 (1), 29–39.
Armstrong, F., & Barton, L. (2008). Policy, experience and change and the challenge of
inclusive education: The case of England. In L. Barton & F. Armstrong (Eds.), Policy, experience
and change: cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education (pp.5–18). London, UK: Springer.
Autism daily newscast. (n.d).Retrieved from
http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/masters-student-in-autism-spectrum-disorders-opens-
school-in-home-country-of-uganda/13930/adn/
Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re] claiming
‘inclusive education’ toward cohesion in educational reform. Disability studies unravels the myth
of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113 (10), 2122-2154.
Bakare, M.O., Ebigbo, P.O, Agomoh, A.O., Eaton, J, Onwukwe, J.U., Onyeama,
G.M.Aguocha, C.M. (2009). Knowledge about childhood autism and opinion among healthcare
workers on availability of facilities and law caring for needs and rights of children with childhood
autism and other developmental disorders in Nigeria. BMC Pediatrics, (9), 12.
Bakare, M.O., & Ikegwuonu, N.N. (2008). Childhood autism in a 13 year old boy with
oculocutaneousalbinism: A case report. Journal of Medical Case Reports, (2), 56.
Bakare, M.O., & Munir, K.M. (2011a). Excess of non-verbal cases of autism spectrum disorders
presenting to orthodox practice in Africa –a trend possibly resulting from late diagnosis and
intervention. South African Journal of Psychiatry, 17(4), 118 –120.
Bakare, M.O., & Munir, K.M. (2011b). Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in Africa: A
perspective. African Journal of Psychiatry (Johannesburg), 14, 208–210.
Balcchus, M.K. (1997). Education for development and social justice in the third world. In, T.J.
Scrase (Ed.), Social justice and third world Education (pp.3-32). Garland Publications: New
York.
Barnard, J., D. Prior, and A. Potter. 2000. Autism and inclusion: Is it working? London: National
Autistic Society.
Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond Methods of fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard
Educational Review, 64 (2), 173-194.
Bategeka, L. et al. (2004). Financing primary education for all. Kampala: Uganda, Institute of
Development Studies and University of Sussex.
Bategeka, L., & Okurut, N. (2006, February). Universal primary education. Uganda Policy Brief
10. Inter-Regional Inequality Facility. Retrieved from: www.odi.org.uk/inter-regional_inequality

109

Belhadj, A., Mrad, R., & Halayem, M.B. (2006). A clinic and para-clinic study of Tunisian
population of children with autism. About 63 cases. Tunis Med, 84 (12), 763 –767.
Bello-Mojeed, M.A., Ogun, O.C., Omigbodun, O.O., Adewuya, O.A. (2011). Late identification
of autistic disorder in Nigeria: An illustration with 2 case reports. Nigerian Journal of Psychiatry;
9 (2), 31-35.
Bennett, C. I. (2011). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bickmore, K. (1999). Why discuss sexuality in elementary school. Queering Elementary
Education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling, 15-25.
Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming competence. Equity & excellence in education, 39 (2),
166-175.
Bines, H., & Lei, P. (Eds.). (2007). Education’s missing millions: Including disabled children in
education through EFA FTI processes and national sector plans. Milton Keynes, World Vision
UK.
Boersma, F.J., & Chapman, J.W. (1982). Teachers’ and mothers’ academic achievement
expectations for learning disabled children. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 216-221.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston, D. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing play, learning
and participation in early years and childcare. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive
Education.
Boutot, A., & Bryant, D.P. (2005). Social integration of students with autism in inclusive
settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 14-23.
Boyles, D., Carusi, T., & Attick, D. (2008). Historical and critical interpretations of social
justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education
(pp. 30-42). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Publishers.
British Psychological Society. (2002). Inclusive education: Position paper UK: BPS. Retrieved
from: www. bps.org.uk
Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled
students in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 194-202.
Centre for Developmental Disability Health Victoria (CDDH-Victoria). (2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.cddh.monash.org/assets/fs-autism.pdf
Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). The Human Capital Approach to Education.
http: //DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082255.003.0002
Chimedza, R., & Peters, S. (2001). Disability and special educational needs in an African
context. Harare: College Press.
Christensen, C. (1996). Disabled, handicapped or disordered: What’s in a name? In C.
Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp.63-78).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Skidmore, D. (1995). Dialectical analysis, special needs
and schools as organizations. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive
schools? (pp.78-95). London: David Fulton.
Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Terrell, D. (2009). Teacher
education for social Justice: Critiquing the critiques. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.),
Handbook of social justice in education, (pp. 625-639). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis
Publishers.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009).
Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of
Education, 115 (3), 347-377.
Cologon, K. (2013a). Inclusion in education: towards equality for students with disability. Issues.
Paper. Children and Families Research Centre, Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie
University, Australia.
Cologon, K. (2013b). Recognising our shared humanity: Human rights and inclusive education

110

 in Italy and Australia. Italian Journal of Disability Studies, 1(1). 151-169.
COMMITT Communications. (2015). Retrieved from:
https://app2voxweekly.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/autism-in-Uganda)
CSIE. (2002). Defining Inclusion. Retrieved from: http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/
studnts02.htm
Coysh, J. (2014). The dominant discourse of human rights education: A critique. Journal of
Human Rights Practice, 6 (1) 89– 114. http://DOI:10.1093/jhuman/hut033
Curcic, S. (2009). Inclusion in PK-12: An international perspective. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 13 (5), 517–538.
D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy: A critical analysis of the policy of
integrazione scolastica. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Danesco, E.R. (1997). Parental belief on childhood disability: Insights on culture, child
development and intervention. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
44 (1), 41-52.
Danforth, S., Taff, S., & Ferguson, P. (2006). Place, profession, and program in the history of
special education curriculum. In E. Brantlinger (Ed.), Who benefits from special education?
Remediating (fixing) other people’s children (pp.1-25). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates
Darling-Hammond, L., French, J., & Garcia-Lopez, S. P. (2002). Learning to teach for social
justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davis, J., L. (1995). Constructing normalcy. In L., J. Davis, Enforcing normalcy: Disability,
deafness, and the body (pp. 23-49). London: Verso.
Davis, L. (2013). Introduction: Normality, power and culture. In L. Davis (Ed.), Disability
studies Reade ( 4th ed). London: Verso.

Dawson, E., Hollins, S., Mukongolwa, M., & Witchalls, A. (2003). Including disabled children
in Africa. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47 (3), 153-154.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15
(3), 331–353.
De Cock, K.M., Mbori-Ngacha, D., & Marum, E. (2002). The economics of HIV in Africa. The
Lancet, 360, 9326, 1.
Dei, G. J. S. (1996). Theory and practice: anti-racism education. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing
Dei, G. J.S. (2000). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledges in the academy. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 2 (2), 111-132.
Dei, G. J. S., & Alireza. A. (2001). The power of social theory: Towards an anti-colonial
discursive framework. Journal of Educational Thought, 35 (3), 297-323.
Dei, G.J.S. (2012). Teaching Africa: Towards a transgressive pedagogy. London and New York:
Springer.
Dei, G. J. S. (2013). Indigenous philosophies and counter epistemologies as anti-colonial
Education. [video, approx. 35 minutes]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEjXOtFxi-0
Dei, G. J. S. (2014). The African scholar in the Western academy. Journal of Black Studies, 45
(3), 167-179.
Dei, G. J. S. (2015). Decolonizing the university curriculum. Socialist Studies//Etudes
Socialistes, 10 (2), online, open access at:www.socialiststudies.com .
de Kemp, A., Eilor, J., & Ochieng, E.O (2008, April). Impact evaluation, primary education,
Uganda. The Netherlands, Policy and Operations Evaluation (IOB) No 311, Retrieved from:
www.minbuza.nl/iob-en (Report by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IOB) and the Education Planning Department of the
Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES/EPD

111

Dennison, B. (2104). The education of special needs children in Uganda: Legal policy lessons
from the United States. Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability, 3, (2), 15-44.
De Silva, N. L. (2013). Inclusive pedagogy in light of social justice. Special educational rights
and inclusive classrooms: On whose terms? A field study in Stockholm suburbs. European
Journal of Education, 48 (3), 419-435.
DiSU, Disability Support Uganda. (2016). Retrieved from
https://disu256.blogspot.ca/2016/08/autism-spectrum-disorder-in-uganda.html.
Division TEACCH (2004). Inclusion for children with autism: The TEACCH position. Chapel
Hill,NC. Retrieved from: http://www.teach.com/inclus.htm, 2004.
Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dryden-Peterson, S., & Young-Suk, K. (2006). International education for the millennium:
Toward access, equity, and quality. Cambridge, Massachusetts
Duclos, J.Y., Kiconco, A., Levine, S., Enyimu, J., Rodriguez, A.W., & Musisi, A. (2013,
December).Poverty and social impact analysis universal primary education in Uganda: Equity in
opportunities and human capital investment. Working paper 2013-17.
Eide A. H, et al. (2003a). Living conditions among people with disabilities in Namibia: A
national, representative study. Oslo, SINTEF.
Eide A. H et al. (2003b). Living conditions among people with disabilities in Zimbabwe: A
representative, regional study. Oslo, SINTEF.
Eide A. H & Loeb M.E. (Eds.). (2006). Living conditions among people with activity limitations
in Zambia. Oslo, SINTEF.
Eilor, J. (2004). Education and sector-wide approach in Uganda. Paris: UNESCO–International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Elsabbagh, M., Gauri, D., Koh, Y.J., Kim, Y.S., Shuaib, K, S., Marcín, C.,,…Fombonne,
E. (2012). Global prevalence of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Autism
Research, 5, 160–179.
Ekaju, J. (2011). An Investigation into the relationship between the 1997 Universal Primary
Education (UPE) policy and regional poverty and educational inequalities in Uganda (1997-
2007). Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Retrieved from Glasgow Theses Service (729829042).
Ekanga, B. (2005). Social justice and democracy: The relevance of Rawl’s conception of justice
in Africa. New York. Peter Lang.
Empower Ugandan Autistic Children (EACU). (n.d). Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/EmpoweredAutisticChildrenUganda
Enabling Education Network. (2003). Researching our experience: A collection of writings by
Zambian teachers. Mpika and Manchester.
Essama-Nssah, B. (2011). Achieving universal primary education through school fee abolition:
some policy lessons from Uganda. In P. Chuhan-Pole, & M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes Africa can:
Success stories from a dynamic continent (pp. 465-477). Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Erevelles, N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the
politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50 (1), 25-47.
Erevelles, N. (2002). (Im) material citizens: Critical race theory, disability studies, and the
politics of education. Disability, Culture, and Education, 1 (1), 5-26.
Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable offenses: Untangling race and disability in
discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Cultural and Literary Disability Studies, 4 (2), 127-
146.
Ferraro, C. A. (2008). A study of factors contributing toward parental efficacy of the cognitive,
behavioral, and social development of autistic children. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations (Order No. 3323679).
Ferri, B.A., & Connor, D. J. (2006). Challenging normalcy: Dis/ability, race and the

112

 normalized classroom. In Reading, resistance: Discourses of exclusion in desegregation and
inclusion debates (pp.127-143). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Filmer, D. (2008) Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries: results from 14
household surveys. The World Bank Economic Review, 22, 141-163. Retrieved from
http://doi:10.1093/wber/lhm021
Fisher, H. (2012). Progressing towards a model of intrinsic inclusion in a mainstream primary
school: A SENCo’s experience. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16 (12), 1273–
1293.
Florian, L et al. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with
disabilities: Part 1, issues in the classification of children with disabilities The Journal of Special
Education, 40, 36-45.
Fraser, N. (2006). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review, 36, 69-88.
Fraser, N. (1998). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and
participation. In G. B. Peterson (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values, 19 (pp.1-68). Salt Lake
City, Utah: University of Utah Press.
Frederickson, N., Jones, A. P., & Lang, J. (2010). Inclusive provision options for pupils on the
autistic spectrum. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(2), 63-73.
Retrieved from http://doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01145.x
Frederickson, N., & Turner, J. (2003). Approach, utilizing the classroom peer group to address
children’s social needs. An evaluation of the ‘circle of friends’ intervention. Journal of Special
Education, 36 (4), 234–45.
Freire, P. (1970/1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special
education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
Furley, O. W., & Watson, T. (1978). A history of education in East Africa. New York:
NOK Publishers.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
Garland-Thompson, R. (1997). Disability, identity and representation. In Extraordinary
bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature (pp. 5-18). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Gibson, R. (1986). Critical theory and education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gillberg, C., Schaumann, H., & Gillberg, I. C. (1995). Autism in immigrants: Children born in
Sweden to mothers born in Uganda. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39, 141–144.
Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition.
Amherst, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies, theorising disablism and ableism. New York:
Routledge.
Government of Uganda. (1993). Government whitepaper on implementation of the
recommendations of the report of the education policy review commission. Kampala, Uganda:
Author.
Government of the Republic of Rwanda. (2005). Proposal for a national plan for special needs
education and related services in Rwanda. Kigali. Retrieved from
http://payson.tulane.edu/gsdl-2.73//collect/mohnonve/index/assoc/HASH2410. dir/doc.pdf.
Grenier, M. (2010). Moving to inclusion: A socio-cultural analysis of practice. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 14 (4), 387–400.
Grey, B. (2012). Using human rights standards to assess privatization of education in Africa.
London: Right to Education Project.
Guzu, B. (2014, July 09). The state of access to education by women and girls with disabilities:
The case of Uganda. A paper submitted to the 58th Session of the UN Committee of CEDOW.
Geneva: Switzerland.
Hegarty, S. (2001). Inclusive education: A case to answer. Journal of Moral Education, 30 (3),

113

 243-249.
Higgins, L., & Rwanyange, R. (2005). Ownership in the education reform process in Uganda.
Compare, a Journal of Comparative Education, 35 (1), 7-26.
Horn, P. (2009). Challenging views toward inclusive education of disabled students. Our
schools/Our Selves, 18 (4), 97-106.
Humphrey, N., & Lewis, S. (2008). Make me normal: The views and experiences of pupils on
the autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools. Autism: An International Journal of
Research and Practice, 12, 139–62.
Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2010). Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying
among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream secondary schools. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 77-91.
Igwe, M.N., Bakare, M.O., Agomoh, A.O., Onyeama, G.M., & Okonkwo, K.O. (2010). Factors
influencing knowledge about childhood autism among final year undergraduate medical, nursing
and psychology students of University of Nigeria, Enugu State, Nigeria. Italian Journal of
Pediatrics, 36, 44.
Igwe, M.N., Ahanotu, A.C., Bakare, M.O., Achor, J.U., & Igwe, C. (2011). Assessment of
knowledge about childhood autism among peadiatric and psychiatric nurses in Ebonyi State,
Nigeria. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 5(1), 1.
Ingstad, B., & Whyte, S. R (Eds.). . (2005). Disability and culture. Berkley, University of
California Press.
IOB (Policy and Operations Evaluation Department) (2008, April). Primary education in
Uganda IOB Impact Evaluation, No. 311. The Hague, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Policy
Operations Department. No.311. April 2008. The Hague. Retrieved from: www.minbuza.nl/iob-
en.
Jonsson, U. (2003). Human rights approach to development programming. New York: UNICEF.
Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Peer relationships of children with autism: Challenges
and interventions. In E. Hollande & Anagnostou, E. (Eds.), Clinical Manual for the Treatment of
Autism (pp. 235-58). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing,
Kauffman, J.M. (1999). Commentary: today’s special education and its message for tomorrow.
The Journal of Special Education, 32 (4), 244-254.
Kavale, K.A., & Mostert, M.P. (2003). River of ideology, islands of evidence. Exceptionality,
11 (4), 191-208.
Keet, A. (2010). Human rights education: A conceptual analysis. Saarbru¨ cken: Lambert.
Kaburu, G. (2014). Teaching for social justice in Northern Uganda: The case of mission girls’
school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University: Columbus.
Kincheloe, J. L. & McLaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138–157). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
King T. (2003). The truth about stories: A native narrative. Toronto: Anansi.
Komesaroff, L., & McLean, M. (2006). Being there is not enough: Inclusion is both deaf and
hearing. Deafness and Education International, 8 (2), 88–100.
Komo Centre. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.komocenter.org/our-ethos.html.
Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice (2nd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
KwaZulu-Natal, Mobile Task Team. (2005). Education access and retention for educationally
marginalised children: Innovations in social protection., Health Economics & HIV and AIDS
Research Division, University of KwaZulu-Natal. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolsandhealth.org/sites/ffe/Key%20Information/Education%20Access%20and%2
0Retention%20for%20 Educationally%20Marginalised%20Children.pdf.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465-491.

114

Lang, R.., Murangira, A. (2009, February). Disability scoping study for DFID Uganda. Final
Report. Commissioned by DFID Uganda.
Lewin, K. M. (2009). Access to education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and
possibilities. Comparative Education, 45 (2), 151-174.
Lewin, K. M., & Little, A. W. (2011). Access to education revisited: Equity, drop out and
transitions to secondary school in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of
Educational Development, 31 (4), 333-337.
Lewin, K. M., & Sabates, R. (2012). Who gets what? Is improved access to basic education pro-
poor in Sub-Saharan Africa? International Journal of Educational Development, 32 (4), 517-528.
Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special
Education, 30 (1), 3-12.
Linton, S. (2006). Reassigning meaning. In Davis, L. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader
(pp.161-172). reader (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Equity requires inclusion: the future for all students with
disabilities. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and
justice (pp.145-155). Buckingham: Open University Press
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56
(2), 78.
Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1999). Inclusive education: a requirement of a democratic society.
In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), World yearbook of education 1999: Inclusive education (pp.12-
23).London: Kogan Page.
Loeb, M. E. & Eide A.H. (Eds.) (2004). Living conditions among people with activity limitations
in Malawi: A national representative study. Oslo, SINTEF.
Lotter, V. (1980). Cross cultural perspectives on childhood autism. Journal of Tropical
Pediatrics; 26 (4), 131 -133.
Majgaard, K., & Mingat, A. (2012). Education in Sub-saharan Africa: A comparative analysis.
Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Mamdani, M. (2007). Scholars in the marketplace: The dilemmas of neo-liberal reform at
Makerere University, 1989-2005. Dakar, Senegal: CODESRIA.
Manion, C. (2010). Girls' education as a means or end of development? A case study of gender
and education policy knowledge and action in The Gambia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. University of Toronto. Toronto.
Manion, C., & Menashy, F. (2013). The prospects and challenges of reforming the World Bank's
approach to gender and education: Exploring the value of the capability policy model in
The Gambia. The Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. 14 (2), 214-240.
Mankoski, R.E., Collins, M., Ndosi, N.K., Mgalla, E.H., Sarwatt, V.V., & Folstein, S.E. (2006).
Etiologies of autism in a case-series from Tanzania. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders,
36 (8), 1039 –1051.
McBrien, J.L. (2005). Educational needs and barriers for refugee students in the United
States: A review of the Literature. Review of educational research, 75, 329-364.
Toronto District School Board Guidelines.
McGuire, A.E. (2016). War on autism. On the cultural logic on normative violence. Ann
Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.
McGuire, A.E. & Michalko, R. (2011). Minds between us: Autism, mindblindness
and the uncertainty of communications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (2), 162-177.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 (3), 162–168.
Menashy, F. (2013). Interrogating an omission: The absence of a rights-based approach to
education in World Bank policy discourse. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 34 (5). 749-764.
Menashy, F. (2014). Theorizing privatization in education: Comparing conceptual frameworks

115

 and the value of the capability approach. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16 (1), 13-25.
Michalko, R. (2002). The difference that disability makes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Michalko, R. (2009). Coming face to face with suffering. In T. Titchkosky & R. Michalko
(Eds.), Rethinking normalcy. A disability studies reader (pp.91-114). Toronto: Canadian
Scholars' Press.
Ministry of Education and Sports (1998), Guidelines on Policy, Roles, and Stakeholders in the
Implementation of Universal Primary Education. Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda. (1999). The Ugandan experience of universal
primary education (UPE). Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2003), Uganda Education Statistics Abstract 2003. Kampala,
Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2003). National assessment of progress in education. Kampala,
Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2010). Primary six curriculum. Kampala, Uganda: National
Curriculum Development Center.
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2010). National development
Plan 2010/11-2014/15. Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2011). Uganda Education Statistical Abstract. Kampala,
Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development. (2004). Expenditure release tracking
study. Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development. (2004). Poverty eradication action
plan (PEAP). Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. (2010). National development Plan
2010/11-2014/15. Kampala, Uganda: Author.
Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends. Final Report. University
of Canterbury, New Zealand. Retrieved from
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/.../special_education/education-that-fits-review
Mogharreban, C., & Bruns, D. (2009). Moving to inclusive pre-kindergarten classrooms: lessons
from the field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36 (5), 407–414.
Moyn, S. (2010). The last utopia: Human rights in history. Cambridge, MA : Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Musisi, N. B. M., Kasente, D., Balihuta, A. M. (2003). Attendance patterns and causes of drop-
out in primary schools in Uganda: A case study of 16 schools. Makerere University: Institute of
Social Research.
Mutibwa, P. M. (1992). Uganda since independence: A story of unfulfilled hopes. Trenton, NJ:
Africa World Press.
National Curriculum Development Centre (1999), Report of the curriculum review commission,
Kampala: Author.
National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU). (2013, December). Alternative
report to the UN Committee of experts on the implementation of the convention on the rights of persons
with disabilities. Kampala: Author.
Ndeezi, A. (2004). The disability movement in Uganda: Progress and challenges with
constitutional and legal provisions on disability. Kampala.
Nishimura, M., Ogawa, K., Sifuna, D.N., Chimombo, J., Kunje, D., Ghartey, J.Yamada, S.

116

 (2009). A Comparative Analysis of Universal Primary Education Policy in Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, and Uganda. CICE Hiroshima University, Journal of International Cooperation in
Education, 12 (1), 143-158.
North, C. E. (2008). What is all this talk about social justice? Mapping the terrain of education's
latest catchphrase. Teachers College Record, 110 (6), 1182-1206.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ohba, A., & Access, equity and transitions in education in low income countries (2011). The
abolition of secondary school fees in Kenya: Responses by the poor. International Journal of
Educational Development, 31 (4), 402-408.
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (1996, December 12).
Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Oketch, M., & Rolleston, C. (2007). Policies on free primary and secondary education in East
Africa: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Research in Education, 31 (1), 131-158.
Oliver, M. (1990). The individual and social models of disability. Paper presented at Joint
Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of
Physicians. Retrieved from.http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies/archiveuk/Oliver/in%20soc%20dis.pdf
Oliver, M. (1996). Education for all? A perspective on an inclusive society. In Understanding
disability: From theory to practice (pp.78-94). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
O’Sullivan C. & MacLachlan, M. (2009). Childhood disability in Burkina Faso and Sierra
Leone: An exploratory analysis. In M. MacLachlan & L. Swartz (Eds.), Disability and
international development: towards inclusive global health (pp.161-179). Dordrecht, Springer.
Peck, C.A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of outcomes
for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide
survey. Journal of Early Intervention, 16 (1), 53-63.
Phasha, N., Mahlo, D., & Dei, G.J.S. (2017). Inclusive schooling in African contexts.
In N. Phasha, D., Mahlo & G.J.S, Dei (Eds.), Inclusive education in African
Contexts (pp.1-18). Rotterdam /Boston: Sense Publishers.
Pike, I. (2007, July 21). Centre give mothers hope in the face of despair. New Vision Newspaper.
Retrieved from http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/9/35/688570
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education."
Exceptional Children, 69 (1), 97-107.
Portelli, J., & Konecny, C. (2013). Neoliberalism, Subversion, and democracy in education,
Encounters (Fall), 87-97.
Rafferty, Y., & Griffin, K. W. (2005). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers
with and without disabilities: Perspectives of parents and providers. Journal of Early
Intervention, 27 (3), 173-192.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2014). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/492350/John-Rawls.
Rizvi, F., & Engel, L.C. (2009). Neo-liberal globalization, educational policy, and the struggle
for social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in
education (pp.529-541). New York, NY: Routledge.
Reid, K., & Knight, M. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students. Educational
Researcher, 35 (6), 18-23.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human
Development, 6 (1), 93-114.
Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory
and Research in Education, 4 (1), 69-84.

117

Ryndak, D.L., Downing, J.E., Jacqueline, L.R., & Morrison, A.P. (1995). Parent’s perceptions
after inclusion of their child with moderate or severe disabilities in general education
settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157.
Samoff, J., & UNESCO. (1994). Coping with crisis: Austerity, adjustment and human resources.
London: Cassell [with] UNESCO.
Sasso, G.M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education. The Journal of
Special Education, 34 (4), 178-193.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003) Inclusion: A matter of social justice—How can we create schools that
will help students thrive in a diverse society? Education Leadership, 61 (2), 25–28.
Scrase, T. J. (1997). Social justice and third world education. New York: Garland Pub.
Senteza- Kajubi, W. (1989). Report of the education review commission. Kampala:
Uganda.
Sharma, M., & Portelli, J. (2014). Uprooting and settling in: The invisible strength of deficit
thinking. Learning Landscapes, 8, (1), 251-267.
Shealey, M., & Callins, T. (2007). Creating culturally responsive literacy programs inclusive
classrooms. Intervention in School & Clinic, 42 (4), 195-197.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life
(pp. 30-53). Oxford: Clarendon Press,
Sen, A. (1997). Human capital and human capability. World Development. 25 (12), 1959-1961.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6 (2), 151-166.
Schultz, T.W. (1960). Capital formation by education. The Journal of Political Economy, 68 (6),
571–83.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. In L.J. Davis (Ed.), Disability
studies reader (pp. 197-204). London: Verso.
Simpson, L. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous
Knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28 (3/4), 373 – 384.
Skidmore, D. (2002). A theoretical model of pedagogical discourse. Disability, Culture and
Education, 1 (2), 119-131.
Skrtic, T.M., Sailor, W. & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: democratic
themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17 (3), 142-
157.
Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5 (2/3), 167-177.
Ssekamwa, J. C. (1997). History and development of education in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda:
Fountain Publishers.
Ssekamwa, J. C., & Lugumba, S. M. E. (2001). A history of education in East Africa. Kampala:
Fountain Publishers.
Stubbs S. (2008). Inclusive education: where there are few resources. Oslo, Atlas Alliance.
Retrieved from http://www.eenet.org.uk/theory_practice/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf.
Staub, D., & Peck, C. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational
Leadership, 52 (4), 36.
Sparkenbaugh, E. (2006). The inclusion of autistic students in the general curriculum.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburg.
Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2012). Including pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in the
classroom: The role of teaching assistants. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27 (4),
517-532.
Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2010). Peer-group indicators of Social Inclusion among pupils
with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: A comparative study.
School Psychology International, 31, 478-494.

118

Teens and Tots Neuro Development Centre (n.d). Retrieved from
http://www.teensandtotscenter.co.ug/who-we-are
Terzi, L. (2007). The capability to be educated. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya
Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp.25–43). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Thapliyal, N., Vally, S., & Spreen, C. A. (2013). Until we get up again to fight. Education rights
and participation in South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 57 (2), 212–31.
Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low
income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 (1), 3-14.
Tikly, L.P., & Dachi, H.A. (2009). Social justice in African education in the age of globalization.
In W. Ayers, T. Quinn & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice and education, (pp.120-
137). New York: Routledge.
Titchkoksky, T. (2008a). Reading and writing disability differently: The textured life of
embodiment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Titchkosky, T. (2008b). I got trouble with my reading: An emerging Literacy. In S.L.,
Gabel, & S. Danforth, (Eds.), Disability and the politics of education: An international reader
(pp. 337-352). New York: Peter Lang.
Titchkoksky, T., & Michalko, R. (Eds.) (2009). Rethinking normalcy: A disability studies
reader. Toronto: Canadian Scholar Press Inc.
Tomasevski, K. (2001). Human rights obligations: Making education available, accessible,
acceptable and adaptable. Right to Education Primers 3.
Tomasevski, K. (2003). Education denied: Costs and remedies. New York: Zed Books.
Tomasevski, K. (2006). Human rights obligations in education: The 4-A scheme. The
Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
Tyson, C. A., & Park, S. C. (2006). From theory to practice: Teaching for social justice. Social
Justice and the Young Learner, 19 (2), 23-25.
Tyson, L. (1999). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. New York: Garland Pub.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), & ICF International Inc. (2012). Uganda demographic and
health survey 2011. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (UBOS). (2011). Uganda National Household Survey; Socio-
Economic Report. Kampala: Author
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (UBOS). (2007). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey
2005/06. Kampala: Author
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). (2006). Uganda National Household Survey; Socio-
Economic Report. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, UBOS). (2004). Population and health census 2003. Kampala:
Author.
Uganda Debt Network. (2008, December 8). Civil society statement on the call for improved
service delivery of universal primary education and primary health care in Uganda. Presented to
the Parliamentary Committee on Social Services. Retrieved from
www.und.or.ug/pub/StatementSD.pdf
Uganda Government. (1992) Government white paper on Education. Kampala: Author
Uganda Government. (1995, September 22). Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Retrieved
from http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5ba0.html [accessed 20 January 2017]
Uganda Government. (1996). The Children’s Act. Retrieved from
http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/Pages_EN/Uganda.html,
https://www.unicef.org/uganda/collection_of_children_laws_finale_110711.pdf.
Uganda Government. (2004). National Council for Disability Act. Retrieved from
http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/Pages_EN/Uganda.html).
Uganda Government. (2008). The Equal Opportunities Act. Retrieved from

119

 http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/Pages_EN/Uganda.html).
Uganda Government. (2006). Persons with Disabilities Act. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Government. (2002). National council of disability Act 2002. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Government, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD). (2006).
National policy on disability in Uganda. MGLSD, Kampala: Author.
Uganda Government, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, (MFPED).
(2008). Disability and poverty in Uganda: Progress and challenges in PEAP implementation
1997-2007. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Government, Ministry of Education and Sports, (MoES). (2002). Education statistical
abstract. Kampala: Author.
Uganda Government, Ministry of Education and Sports, (MoES). (2004). Education Sector
Investment Plan (ESIP) 2004 – 2015. Kampala: Author
Uganda Government, Ministry of Education and Sports, (MoES). (1999). The Ugandan
experience of universal primary education. Kampala: Author.
United Nations (UN). (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
UN. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un-documents.net/icescr.htm
UN. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-
11&chapter=4&lang=en
UNESCO & UNICEF (2007). A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. New
York: UNICEF.
UNICEF (2008). Notes on a human rights based approach to programming in education.
Retrieved from
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/244491/day1HRBAP%20in%20Educati
on%2080708.pdf
UNICEF & ADB. (2011). Non-state providers and public-private partnerships in education for
the poor. Bangkok: UNICEF.
UNESCO. (1988). The Present Situation of Special Education. Paris.
UNESCO. (1993). The World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and Democracy.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (2000). World education forum. Dakar, Senegal April 26-28, 2009: Final report
Paris: Author
UNESCO. (2002). Education for all: Is the world on track? Paris: Author
UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education, Paris.
UNESCO. (2010). Reaching the marginalized EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. Paris:
Author.
UNESCO. (2010).EFA global monitoring report 2010: Reaching the marginalized. Paris:
UNESCO/Oxford University Press.
UNESCO. (2012). EFA global monitoring report 2011: The hidden crisis; armed conflict and
education. Paris: Author.
Unterhalter, E. (2007). Global values and gender equality in education: Needs, rights and
capabilities. In S. Fennell & M. Arnot (Eds.), Gender education and equality in a global context:
Conceptual frameworks and policy perspectives (pp.19-33). New York: Routledge.
Uwezo. (2010). Are our children learning? Annual assessment reports Uganda 2010. Kampala,
Uganda: Uganda NGO Forum.
Vally, S., & Spreen, C. A. (2012). Human rights in the World Bank’s 2020 strategy:

120

 Dichotomizing development and rights. In S. Klees, N. Stromquist, & J. Samoff (Eds.), World
Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (pp.173-188). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform
in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29 (3),
303-311.
Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2012). Comparative pedagogies and epistemological diversity: Social
and materials contexts of teaching in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review, 56 (4), 634-658.
Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1989). Save the baby! A response to integrating the
children of the second system. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 61-63.
Walker, M. (2004). Human capabilities, education and 'doing the public good': Towards a
capability based theory of social justice in education. Journal of Education Policy, 21 (2), 163-
185.
Walker, M. (2006). Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education
policymaking. Journal of Education Policy, 21 (2), 163-185.
Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). The capability approach: Its potential for work in
education. In M. Walker, & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social
justice in education (pp.1-18). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wane, N.N. (2008). Mapping the field of indigenous knowledges in anti-colonial discourse: A
transformative journey in education. Race, Ethnicity and Resistance, 11 (2), 183-197.
Ward, M., Penny, A., & Read, T. (2006). Education reform in Uganda- 1997-2004. Reflections
on policy, partnership, strategy and implementation. London: DFID.
Watson, N., Shakespeare, T., Cunningham, B. S., Barnes, C., Corker, M., Davis, J.,…
Priestley, M. (1999). Life as a disabled child: A qualitative study of young people's experiences
and perspectives. Edinburgh and Leeds: Universities of Edinburgh and Leeds
Watson N et al. (1998). Life as a disabled child: Research report. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh. 1998.
Watts, I.V., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualising school
violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research
Journal, 41 (2), 271-299.
World Bank. (2009). People with disabilities in India: from commitments to outcomes.
Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank Human Development Unit, South Asia Region.
World Bank. (2011). Education sector strategy 2020. Washington DC: Author.
World Health Organization & World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Washington,
D.C: Author
Wright, S.L, & Sigafoos, J. (1997). Teachers and students without disabilities comment on the
placement of students with special needs in regular classrooms at an Australian primary school.
Australasian Journal of Special Education, 21, 67-80.
Wynbeg V. Ontario. (2006). O.J. No. 2732(C.A) Leave to Appeal refused [2006] S.C.C.A.
no. 441
Zoric, T. (2014). Poverty and class bias in schools: An anti-classist agenda for educators
appearing. In E.L. Brown, P.C. Gorski. & G. Lazaridis (Eds.), Poverty, social class, and
schooling: Global perspectives on economic justice and educational equality (pp.349-365).
Charlotte.

121