Contributions from: Neerja Sharma.
Abstract
The paper presents aspects of daily lives of fifteen children studying in pre-school level to class V. They were from three schools in and around Delhi, the capital of India. The central concern of this paper is to present what disability means from the point of view of the children, considered to be 'not normal' by the schools. The identity attributed to children with disabilities among peers and children's portrayal of themselves have been presented. An important finding was that the organisational arrangements at school structured the experience of disability for children. Many of their difficulties resulted from a lack of attention to details on the part of adults. For several children, what they got from the school system depended a lot on their own ability, motivation and enthusiasm to participate. It was revealed that children were active in the process of social classification among themselves, although they did take cues from the teacher.
She played an important role in the inclusion of children in ordinary classrooms as well as in their attitude towards subjects taught at school. Identifying and categorising each other based only on adult-definitions of disability did not occur. However, some words in children's conversations revealed prejudices of the world around them. Children had a well developed set of parameters for classifying each other as 'good' / 'bad', as boys / girls and as 'big' / 'small'. To some extent, friendship patterns and inclusion/exclusion in a group were based on this. Several 'normal' children were spontaneously inclusive in their practices. Children valued good academic performance and high achievers were sought as friends, if they were 'good natured'.
Many children with disability were popular and shared close relationships with other children. The least sympathetic response was to children with intellectual disability. The study showed that children with special needs ere effective in articulating their experiences when provided with the time, space and medium to do so. However, there was not much emphases on finding out from the children what they thought, felt or needed. Their expressions pointed to the areas in which educational change could be brought about.
The paper is based on the Ph. D work of Priti Joshi, being supervised by Neerja Sharma, Reader, Dept. of Child Development, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi
The study
Schools have children with different talents and abilities. In every class there may be some children designated as those with special needs and considered different from others. By researching with children in regular schools, identified as having special needs of different kinds, an attempt was made to know and understand a commonality shared by them. There has been inadequate research on children's understanding about their experience of being considered 'abnormal' or disabled. Therefore, it was considered important to know about children's life more closely through their own expressions. Getting in touch with experiences of children and making these known has practical relevance too. Being aware of wide ranging needs of children within a common system can contribute to active participation of students, making school experience relevant and inclusive for them. The paper presents an overall perspective of what disability means from the perspective of children, highlighting their experiences at school. The objectives were to : ·
The Setting
This section provides a backdrop to describing and explaining the manner in which individual differences among children were regarded, conceptions of normality, and the consequences of being identified as 'not normal' in the school system. It sketches certain aspects of the socio-cultural context of children's lives with particular reference to the middle class Hindu population residing in and around the metropolis of Delhi, to which the participants belonged. In this setting a child is viewed as a blessing and is looked upon with affection. In general, abnormality is feared and people hope that that it would not ever be part of their life. For parents the new-born's sex is important and so is the birth of a normal child.
Socialisation of children in urban as well as in upwardly mobile rural families is now actively goal-oriented (Anandalakshmy, 1998). The changes in child-rearing practices correlate with demands made on parents by the school system. Children from middle and upper classes attend private schools equipped with libraries and computers. Securing admission for children with disabilities and illnesses in schools can be a difficult task. The educational system places immense demands on parental time, energy and resources, making parents vigilant of children's performance. Children are in the spotlight once they start school and from a very young age begin to understand the premium placed on good marks and academic achievement. Thus the situation of children considered 'not even normal' is likely to be regarded negatively in the school setting where individual achievement is valued.
Present day educators concentrate on the education of the 'meritorious' and tend to be intolerant of and indifferent to 'problem' children. They may not prepared to deal with and appreciate variability among students (Agnihotri, 1999). Although education for all has been an important goal for national development, the system is not suited to the needs of the society and the disabled population remains out of the education fold.
However, a few schools in the country are providing an inclusive ethos to children with disabilities, collaborating with the families for their education. However, children's voices rarely receive adult attention.
Method
I. Participants
A. The children
The paper presents views of fifteen children studying at pre-school level and classes I, III, and V.. Among them, 7 were those with intellectual disability, 4 with hearing disability and 4 with physical disability. The nature of disabilities was such that children were able to continue and cope with a school programme organised primarily for the education of 'normal' children. Peers of the focal children also participated in the study.
B. The schools
Anand Bharati School (pseudonyms have been used to refer to the schools as well as the children) located in Central Delhi offered education to classes one to twelve with a total of 3000 children on roll. In the special education wing there were around 100 children. The second school, New Horizons was situated in a residential-cum -industrial district, around 20 kilometres from Delhi. The school offered education up to class nine to a population of 500 children. There were two special education sections with 30 children each. The third school Chaitanya, was also located in Central Delhi. It was a laboratory nursery school, affiliated to the University of Delhi. It offered early childhood education as well as day care facilities. The school population consisted of about 300 children between 6 months and 12 years. Only three groups of children with special needs were segregated for formal work, the remaining were fully integrated. Unlike the other two schools, children with special needs at Chaitanya were in close proximity of other children in regular classes. Their classrooms were located in the midst of the regular classes, that allowed for planned as well as spontaneous meetings between the children.
II. Procedure: Being and researching with the children
I spent about three months in each school and visited the schools three to four times a week and on an average spent two to four hours there. Research method was flexible in order to allow the perspectives of children to emerge. Therefore information was gathered from observations of and conversations with the focal children and their peers at school as they went about their daily activities, to highlight issues important to them. Once I had become familiar with and gained acceptance among children, I was able to participate in their conversations, initiate dialogue with them and clarify what they were talking about . The children too, approached me and talked about their experiences.
For an in-depth understanding of their experiences, two strategies were used. The first was noting children's accounts of past experiences in the presence of others. Such narratives of personal experience can provide an understanding of images of self. The responses of others by intervening, modifying and supplementing the narrative communicate evaluations of this portrayal. These evaluations may be contested and negotiated by the focal child to establish personal identity in alternative ways. Thus when a narration is co-constructed, it reveals not only how one child portrays self but others response to this portrayal the child (Miller, Mintz, Hoogstra, Fung & Potts, 1992)
The second strategy was exploration of children's experiences and understandings through the medium of drawing. They were encouraged to draw at their own pace and style and were reassured that I was not looking for 'good' or 'pretty' drawings. The children were gathered in twos or threes or in a small group and the drawing material was handed out. Topics included were: myself (so that anyone can recognise me); me and my friend doing something; myself among friends during play or recess; me and my family, what I like and dislike; what makes me happy and what makes me sad. The dialogues accompanying the drawings were noted down.
The understanding and experience of children about disability and difference
The findings have been organised in three sections. The first section presents features of children's lives at school. The views of the children about others have been put forward in the second section while the last section presents the self-portrayal of children.
I. Life at school
A. Children's experiences of school layout, organisation and rules
At Anand Bharati & New Horizons special sections were located away from the main buildings. The children there neither participated in the morning assembly nor went out for break nor played in the grounds. Their rooms of the former were up on the third floor and that of the latter, in the basement. The children neither participated in the morning assembly nor went out for break and rarely played in the grounds. On the other hand, location of rooms allowed for planned as well as informal meetings between children at Chaitanya.
No special furniture was provided at Anand Bharati or New Horizons for children with special needs. In Chaitanya some classrooms had special chairs. The classroom arrangement was informal at Chaitanya and children were not seated in rows. Low child-teacher ratio and the physical arrangement of the classroom facilitated interactions between the teacher and the children and among children too.
Seats assigned to children without much consideration for their needs at Anand Bharati and New Horizons. Rather, 'disruptive' children were seated close to the teacher. In the classroom they were not free to choose a place for themselves but were assigned seats by the teacher. Children who disrupted classroom activities were generally seated at the front and the quiet and obedient ones at the back. The rule applied to 'normal' children too. To make a decision about the seating arrangement teachers rarely took into consideration children's needs. Those with hearing impairment got a seat from where the lip movements of the teacher were not visible. In contrast, "a seat of one's choice" an important issue for children. They negotiated for a change of place, more table space or a change of 'partner'. Children who were disliked or some because of their physical state such as lack of hygiene, lice in hair; did not have a regular partner or an unwilling one / sat alone.
At New Horizons children from special classes debarred from playing near the front of the building as they would cast a 'bad impression' on visitors and parents of admission-seekers or normal children.
In all the three schools children identified as those with intellectual, physical and hearing disabilities spent less time engaged in work. In the classrooms children waited for teacher to assign them work. They rarely completed work when the period got over. They either put away incomplete work or tried to copy form another. Through their conversations and drawing they directed my attention to their feelings about this. Figure 2 depicts this situation.
Three of them are upset. Their notebooks are with them. Can't understand counting. Disturbed. They are thinking what to do. (Namita, age 10 years)
Some of them sought the help of peers to complete work. At Chaitanya the teachers did allow extra time to children to complete their work. The older children at Anand Bharati and New Horizons feared being scolded by the teacher and did not seek help. Their drawings and conversations revealed a dislike of subjects taught at school. Thus despite limitations of the playground children enjoyed the freedom from reading, writing and answering questions.
B. A time table out of step with children's activities
I noticed that children's schedule revolved around time table, it structured their experiences. Children got involved with what was planned for them and also engaged with many activities outside the 'official time table'. What was striking was that the children who could not keep pace, did not 'fit' or could not involve themselves with it were disadvantaged or faced difficulties. If the children were quiet, undemanding or non-disruptive, no one noticed what they were doing. The children with disabilities spent a lot of time in waiting, roaming around the school and watching the activities of others. Thus seven children and several designated as 'normal' spent time in this manner. They were observed to be the ones who were generally unoccupied 60% outside as well as inside the classrooms. Figure 1 highlights this situation.
Not doing anything. No teacher. We are waiting for OT(occupational therapist)(Neha, age 11) The system of activities and subjects, fragmented into periods was not child - oriented and less so for children with disabilities. Their time-table was such that they needed to move from one place to another to fit into the schedule of professionals, leading to a disruption of an on-going activity, for sessions in occupational therapy, speech therapy or vocational training. In the first two schools adults were less involved in supervising children' movements from one part of the school to the other. Class teacher was unaware of children's schedule while class-mates provided me with many details. The class mates of partially integrated children could name when a particular child would join them and for which subjects was the child integrated.
One peculiar aspect of the time table was that the physical exercise period was a "free" period for teachers and children too. Children gave finishing touches to incomplete work. Some visited the school stationery shop or sat in the class or in the playground to chat. Those unable to participate in group activities or the ones who were not part of a group stayed on their own.
At Chaitanya outdoor play and activities outside the classroom were supervised and the whole class left for the ground or another activity area. In the other two schools when the entire class rushed out for an activity at the sound of a bell, children with physical activities were left behind. As the children's activities were more supervised at Chaitanya, no children were left behind in the classroom or were found hanging around. Despite the presence of adults in the playground, experience in a crowded ground was hostile and unpleasant for the younger and physically handicapped children. Dhwani, at Chaitanya, a popular child in class, surrounded by others was isolated in the playground as he could not move around.
At Chaitanya the use of prams and walkers facilitated movement of children requiring mobility aids. However absence of ramps made this tough. The peers of Dhwani enjoyed giving a 'ride' to him and all of them had learnt to manoeuvre the pram through a crowded playground with steps and many undulations.
To conclude at Chaitanya in contrast to Anand Bharati and New Horizons, a difference was noticeable in the school ethos. The educational philosophy of the school was child-centred. This was reflected in the physical setting, pedagogy, materials chosen for teaching, concern for children and their parents. Some of it was observable in what the teachers said to each other. The school also attended to other details such as easy accessibility of important information about the children. The notices and other lists on the display- boards in each class indicated names of children requiring special care such as food to be avoided, drug-schedule, telephone numbers to be used in case of emergency; and so on.
In such a setting the experience of an individual child, whatever may be the ability or disability, was not dependent so much on a child's condition or personality attributes and behaviour. Neither was it solely a result of being taught by a sensitive and motivated teacher. What the children experienced in the setting was shaped by the synergistic effect of several positive factors.
Children's views of each other
From the analyses of the data issues which were salient for children were identified. Children spotted many kinds of differences in each other. Interactions among children revolved around issues related to individual differences and identity.
Certain children were noticed and talked about more than others. They were either seen to have qualities and traits which were highly regarded or those that met with the disapproval of others. Thus these children, their characteristics and actions were frequently mentioned, commented upon or discussed. Almost all children participated in name-calling, 'name spoiling' and teasing including those children who were considered different, disabled or were seen to have 'negative' traits and characteristics. Teasing at times was playful and affectionate. However for some children the experience of being teased was negative, particularly if it was malicious, relentless, carried out by a group and had the unsaid 'support' of the teacher.
The ones seen to be 'not normal' by the adult-world also participated in this process of social classification. They did not stand out as a group that was at the 'receiving - end' as far as acquisition of labels was concerned. Among children the boundaries between those who were considered 'different' or 'negatively evaluated' were not defined solely by the norms familiar to adults. Children also noticed many kinds of differences in each other besides some which adults around them also recognised. The differences and similarities spotted by children formed a basis of their relationships & led to inclusion / exclusion
For children establishing my identity was important. In the first few meetings children approached me and tried to establish who I was, although their teachers had introduced me as 'Ma'am' (overriding how the I wished to be known to the children). 'I am writing a book about children,' I said to them. They asked me questions such as 'Are you going to teach us?'; ' Will this book come to our book shop?'; 'Do you have a brother?'; 'Do you wear a sari when you teach?' and many more. The questions indicated the children would be active in the process of social classification among themselves too and might not accept received categories. What would this be based on and whether certain children would be excluded, included or treated differentially on the basis of their categorisation, were some questions that I started thinking about. Differences in ability, temperament and appearance were noticed by them. They labelled each other in a variety of ways :
1. "Good kids / bad kids": categorisation by ability, traits and temperament.
Children's awareness of differences in temperament and abilities was evident in the discourse of "good kids" and "bad kids'. A conversation among children illustrate its usage and meaning.
According to children's definitions categorisation as a good kid or a bad kid led to inclusion or exclusion from the larger group and determined friendship patterns. On the basis of this system, fifteen children who were part of the in-depth study stood in four different kinds of relationship to the group. Seven children were clearly 'nice kids' and four were 'bad kids'. From the remaining four, two were ignored as they sometimes hit and threw things around and were not part of the general flow of activities. Two others had some traits of 'nice children'. Thus popularity and friendship patterns of children were based on this categorisation. In the classification by the younger age group, those who hit and snatched, stood out as 'bad kids'. Table 1 summarises the definitions.
Table 1 Definition of 'Bad children ' and Good children'
| Traits | ||
| Bad Children | Good Children | |
| hit other children | Eat up other's lunch | 'were not bad kids |
| ' do not study/work | The ones who lie | Share things |
| fail, get bad marks | Do not sit in their place | Have good habits |
| rob, murder | Steal erasers & pencils | Good in studies |
| smoke, drink & gamble | Disrespectful to the teacher | Good natured |
Children drew vivid pictures of the final fate of 'bad kids'-committing robbery and murders, smoking and drinking. Figure 3 is one of the drawings projecting the outcome of being a bad kid.
Figure 3 This is a bad boy. He also steals. A sword (the boy is holding a sword) Sumant, age 9 years
2. "These boys in our class.." : delineating by gender
For children, being a member of the 'boys' or the 'girls' population was important. Both the boys and the girls alerted me to the importance of gender in their social relations. My conversation with Rajat reveals this.
3. "Hey! You with spectacles": defining by appearance.
A common practice among children irrespective of age, was reference to an aspect of appearance to identify and name each other. Their conversations were peppered with the such referents (Table 2).
Table 2 Names for each other on the basis of appearance
(neutral) woh choti wali ladki (girl with a plait) specy(with spectacles) Missing limb/function: jiske haath nahin (one who doesn't have arms) jo chal nahin sakta (the one who can't walk (unattractive) taklu (bald, generally with crew-cut) kalu/kallo (blacky) kan wali (one with hearing aid) (repulsive) khujli (with lice in hair) space ( a fat girl who needed more space) haathi (fatso) Missing limb/function Langda(lame) * (neutral/unattractive) motu (fatty) chotu (puny) patlu / sukdu (thinny) giraffe (the tall one)
* used many times as an endearment, connotation depended on emotional tone Some of these names were neutral in their connotation and used as referents. Others were associated with unattractive/ repulsive features. These had negative connotations and were used relentlessly for teasing and taunting. Some other names served the function of either an endearment or an abuse depending on the emotional tone of the addressee
4. "They are special ed. children" : recognising and dealing with disability and special needs.
Labels in use by children, associated with disability were 'special children', 'mentally retarded', 'handicap' and 'deaf'. Although a part of children's vocabulary, these were not used by children to call out to others. Pagal (mad), bevkoof (stupid), badtameez (ill-mannered), gadha (donkey, to mean dumb, stupid), ullu (owl, to mean a fool) were common referents for each other, but not associated with disability or a particular category of children. Some children said normal nahin hain (she/he is not normal). It was noticed that children's comments reflected stereotypes about disability, not for their own class mates but for children from the special section or another class.
Anita said to me: We have children from special education in our class and we talk to them. There is nothing wrong with that. We make friends with all, whether boy or girl. Like we talk to Harita.
Children recounted how some boys in their class made Harita read and then laughed and made fun of her poor reding skills. Veena said, " She becomes sad. No one talks to her, she feels lonely. Rupa said: I have friendhsip with this girl called Rita . We treat her as a partner She eats with us, plays with us, and does everything with us. We even forget that she is from special education. She is nice and does not feel bad about anything.
Raju and Ankita had this to say about a class mate: Tanvi thinks herself to be alone and isolated. We take her in our group. But you know her hand does not work properly, she becomes nervous. So children don't play with her. If children play with her, talk with her and laugh and joke with her she will also stay happy.
Manu, Vandita and Rachna talked about why some children are poplar and others are not: These days no one talks much with those who fail or get low marks. Everyone runs after intelligent children. People think we will learn something from intelligent children.. The ones who do well think a lot of themseelves and think we are below them. One does not get spoilt if one makes friends with the ones who do not study. Some children crowd those who get good food. But they don't help the same children when they are in trouble.
5. "Big kids / small kids" : grouping by age and developmental level.
Categrisation as big kid or a small kid was linked with cognitive ability, different social sanctions and privileges. The following illustrates episode illustrates this meaning: Seema: Don't you want to play on the see-saw today? Rahul: You go ahead. I am not a chota bachha (small kid).
6. Teasing, name-calling & 'name spoiling'
At times was playful and affectionate. For some children the experience of being teased was negative. More so, when it was malicious, relentless, carried out by a group and 'supported' by the teacher. For Chandni, it was related to hearing impairment. She said to the me: Chandni : Children copy the way I speak and gesture to each other pointing at my ears---that she can't hear. They whisper so that I can't hear, turn their face and speak, ... I can't lip read.
In these situations she expressed distress or answered back. Those gathered laughed at the ones being teased and repeated the chants. A few rescued the 'victims' by complaining to the teacher or reasoning with the classmates. This worked only for a short time. It was noticed that children's comments reflected stereotypes about disability, not for their own class mates but for children from the special section or another class. Mayur commented about a group from the special class "Look all the mentals are drinking water, if you drink now, you become mental". Kavita was teased all the time by her own class mates, in fact everything that she ever said in my presence was dismissed by others. She was classed as a 'bad kid'. Following is extract from an observation in her class.
Later she said 'I would like to hit children when they tease me, only if no one would stop me.' At this point it is easy to believe that there is something about Kavita which children don't like and blame her for being a difficult child. An analyses of experiences of Kavita, in contrast with others who were never teased offered some clues. Sumant had flipper like arms. He was the leader of the class. What he said was recounted by others with obvious delight. Dhwani was unable to use his legs. He was a five year old, treated with concern and affection by his class-mates who ran errands for him. Cheema, a six year old, could not hear what others were saying nor convey her thoughts fully. However she was extremely popular. Alpa was a child with intellectual disabilities who walked with an awkward gait and had lice in her hair which were visible. She had attributes which could have made her a target for teasing but that never happened. Girls in her class were heard to say about her.
Children were not attending to physical or intellectual attributes only. The child as a person seemed to be important. Later it was also found that children were taking cues from the teacher and their frames of reference were affected by her attitude and responses. In Kavita's case, the class teacher's behaviour was marked by sarcasm. When children teased her, it was with the teacher's tacit approval. However, class teachers of Dhwani and Alpa were observed to encourage inclusion in activities casually and more formally. Cheema's teacher's remarked, 'I don't see her as a child with a problem, in fact it is because of her I became positive towards having handicapped children in my class'.
7. Identifying friends among peers
Children named friends even if they didn't have any and identifying friends among peers was thus very important to them. What Reeva said about Manavi reiterates the significance of friendship: "Manavi has many best friends so she can sit anywhere". Children discussed issues such as "who has stopped being friend with whom", formation of new groups of children and making new friends. They also mentioned 'how they selected friends" Vandita and Rahul elaborated upon this :
When we select friends we see the child's nature, sports and studies. If some is too naughty we don't make friends. To become a friend of someone one has to be good. One must also be good at studies. There is enjoyment in friendship - school has three things to offer--- discipline, studies and friends.
In the context of friendship the first day at school was remembered by many. It was an important day as children recalled vividly about who talked to them and how they were approached by this child. Roshan said "Manu was so nice he smiled, came to me and asked my name. This day was remembered particularly by the ones who joined school in higher classes and were the only new students to be around.
III. Children's portrayal of themselves : what they drew and said.
Children narrated many personal experiences, drew pictures and also talked about their drawings. Common themes in these representations were their involvement in joint activities with family and peers; their likes/dislikes, events in which the child was the protagonist, visits to and by relatives; outings; and play and educational objects. It was noteworthy that what they liked, dislikesd and events with self as the protagonist were dominant in their narration. Reference to impairment occurred in the case of six children. Three referred to rude comments of other children while the other three mentioned disability in a matter of fact manner. The first six themes were dominant in children's self- portrayal while the last three represent minor voices.
1.. "I like craft.... don't like answering questions" : What I like and dislike
Twelve children mentioned activities they disliked - answering questions, reading aloud, addition, subtraction, physical exercises and speech therapy. All of these had a drill-like quality, being repetitive in nature. Children were made to participate in these to 'overcome their disability'. Children recounted experiences depicting strict teachers, whom they disliked. They also abhorred fighting, cheating and being teased. Some of these themes were reflected in their drawings too. Children's drawings too presented what they disliked (Figure 4)
I stay away from fighting children and those who bother me (Meenu, age 7 years) Figure 5. too depicts hitting as a disliked activity while Figure 7. shows a book being thrown away by Kavita, who does not like reading. It is unfortunate that all these unpleasant activities / people were associated with school. Regular subjects taught at school did not find a place in these illustrations.
Play was an enjoyable activity around which children narrated experiences and so were outings, festivals and birthday parties. Involved with a friend as in playing a ball game, badminton, cricket, skipping, swinging or just talking were mentioned. Some of their other favourite activities were watching television, doing craft work, cooking, kite flying, yoga, working on a computer, typing and bathing in the rain . Figures 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 show children engaged in activities that they like. Regular subjects taught at school do not find a place in these illustrations.
2. "This is my sister, this one is Mummy.": At home and with family
Drawing and talking about their family was important to children. Drawings depicting parents, siblings, uncles, aunts and grandparents were made by them. Figure 14 represents the extended family of a child, where each member is involved in an activity.
3. "This is me, look at my name.." : Focus on self
Children drew themselves painstakingly. Some of them took care to match colour scheme to the clothes they were wearing and mentioned many other details in their commentary to convey 'what they were really like'. Children were particular about their names and ensured that I had got these right. To do so some pointed to their name on the list put up in the class or showed their names on their notebooks or on drawings. Almost all talked of clothes, facial features and personal characteristics, ensuring. Some mentioned that their drawing 'had not turned out to be good enough that particular day'. Figure 6 is an illustration where the child made several corrections in the self - portrayal and was very embarrassed about the pants being shorter than the shirt. He added that clothes do shrink in washing!
4. "Look! I can do this.., can you" : Self as capable
Children demonstrated their abilities through acts such as saying a new word, displaying their 'power' to blow off pieces of paper or showing what they had made. In the case of a child Alpa who could not keep pace with the rest of the class, presenting self a s capable was important. Alpa was seated at the back of the class trying to write what the teacher was reading out loud. When the teacher asked Alpa if she was writing down everything, she nodded and continued to write. Later I noticed that her notebook was covered with scribbles. In fact her friends too, expected others to behave in such a way so that Alpa could be viewed positively, without facing degradation. The following extract illustrates this.
5. "When I missed the bus, then ..." :
The self as hero. Children narrated events in which they had played an important role. Ahmad recounted enthusiastically about the day when he had located a child who was left behind by school bus after the day was over. Sanchit talked about being a "good kid, all these are bad. I am the one who eats a spoilt banana, never the one waste". Manu said that he never cried not even when he heard scary stories.
6. "I did not tell papa what Anu called me.... : Regulate information about self.
A way in which children controlled actions of others was by regulating information. Confiding in me Chandni said, "I did not tell my uncle when Seema said 'behri' (deaf) to me ... wrote in my note-book also. I rubbed it. When uncle comes to school and tells teacher ..then she will scold children and they will get angry with me". Neha talked about how she tricked her teacher. The child informed the teacher not to assign any home-work to her as her mother was too busy and couldn't help her out with it.
7. "My friends, how well they read" : Self as part of a group, a feeling of belonging and pride
Children with hearing disabilities, particularly at New Horizons presented themselves as a group. This theme was identified in their self-portrayal. They were the only ones who referred to each other as friends involved in joint activities in narrating past experiences. The children sought each other to share experiences and showed their association in other ways too. They were six, eight, ten and thirteen years of age and in classes I and III. The youngest, Cheema had some speech and interacted with hearing children. The other three never did so. They kept to themselves as others could not understand what they were communicating and did not need to do so. When the three made an attempt, they were teased because of their expressions and gesticulations. Avoiding others was an obvious solution, bringing them closer to each other.
The older ones attended to complaints of the younger ones and disciplined the 'bully'. They also mediated between the teacher and younger students with hearing disabilities to facilitate communication. Children who were part of this group also showed pride in achievements of others. One child Charu asked those childen to read who were particularly good at doing so.
8. "I fill the blanks, others do long answers": Identifying self as different Five children identified self as different. Cheema signalled use of a hearing devise to introduce self and narrated an episode about a friend who lived near her house and used the same devise. Another child Renu said " I am special. I am a special child I can't do long answers. I do only fill in the blanks".
9. 'I don't care about what others say" / "I know they call me mad" : View self from perspective of others
When Veeresh, a child who stammered began to recount a personal experience, another child said 'now you will get stuck' Veeresh addressed me with the following comment:
Veeresh : When children call me hakla, (the one who stammers) sometimes I become quiet and sometimes I talk. Generally they call me names behind my back. Then I don't come to know so I don't feel bad. I have decided to talk without bothering.
without bothering. In a similar vein Ekta said: I know others call me, ill-mannered and silly. They think I don't hear and don't understand. I do not complain to the teacher. Children name me as a culprit and complaint to the teacher and talk a lot of crap. Two girls tease me all the time, so do boys. I fight back and call them names. My mother is my best friend.
In Conclusion
Children were effective in sharing experiences when given the time, space and medium to do so. They talked about what they liked as well as what bothered them. In doing so they were concerned about how they appeared to others. A well developed set of parameters was used by children for classifying each other. But 'disability' as a parameter did not stand out. Friendship patterns and inclusion/exclusion in a group were based on whether a particular child was classified as 'good /bad'. High academic performance was valued by children and so were high achievers. But children strongly emphasised that high achievers could be classed as "good kids" only if they were "good natured". Many children with disability were popular and shared close relationships with other children. The least sympathetic response was to children with intellectual disability. The children's categorisation of each other such as 'good kids/ bad kids'; 'big children and small children' was a reflection of the binary and dualistic thinking of adults around them. The teachers themselves made many distinctions between children on the bases of these categories. Children's comments and the way different children were teased reflected stereotypes about disability as well as some intolerance for different appearance or size.
Among the older children differences among themselves were keenly observed and the ones who were negatively evaluated were bullied, teased or excluded from relationships. Evaluation of students by giving them grades or rank-positions highlighted differences between them and made some feel unworthy of respect. Further, participation in 'talent" competitions heightened children's awareness of individual differences. Those with poor abilities in comparison to others saw themselves as 'bad'. Children emphasised enjoying extra-curricular activities as these were fun, gave them a sense of freedom and they did not feel evaluated or judged.
Children were effective communication partners. It was noted that disabled children gained from the efforts of others to understand their expressions which gave them a place as participating members in an academic / social situation. Peers of the focal children in the study also took on the role of mediator/interpreter to facilitate communication with the me. The observations point to the children's willingness to take care and play with the ones who required help. Many of them were spontaneously inclusive in their practices. However, in this context, the children with disability are not be viewed as the 'beneficiaries'. The other children involved as mediators enhanced their communicative skills as well as learned to take perspective of others.
Many of children's difficulties resulted from the lack of attention to details on the part of adults e.g. from seating arrangement in the classroom to poorly planned time-tables. At times the focus of adults was on outcomes rather than what children went through to achieve these. The plans made for children sounded good on paper such as partial-integration being considered a step towards inclusion. The manner in which it was implemented alienated children from both the groups that they were part of as lack of adequate time did not give them a chance to form relationships. A variation in organisational arrangements between schools made a lot of difference to the lives of children. Children expressions of boredom as they waited to be engaged in meaningful activities makes a strong case for streamlining the time table to consider the needs of the children and make daily schedule interesting.
Teacher's participation in denigrating a child, led children to do the same, creating difficulties for a child, Kavita. Her participation in activities and involvement with others was negatively affected. In fact she disliked books and particularly the subject taught by this teacher. Her drawings highlighted these experiences of hers. On the other hand the positive acceptance of a girl with hearing impairment by her class teacher provided a different role model for the children to follow, playing up her strengths. Concerns of children were not unique to children with special needs. It was important for children to have relationships with others, a sense of belonging , feel valued and enjoyment in their lives at school.
References
Agnihotri, R. K. (1999). Ghosts of the mind. Issues in Primary Education, 1, 5, 3-10.
Anandalakshmy, S. ( 1998). The cultural context. In M. Swaminathan (Ed.), First five years: critical perspectives on early childhood care and education in India (pp. 272-284). New Delhi: Sage.
Miller, P. J., Mintz, J., Hoogstra, L., Fung, H., & Potts, R. (1992). The narrated self: Young children's construction of self in relation to others in conversational stories of personal experience. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 45-67.
Public report on basic education. (1999). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Srivastava, R. (1999, November 14). She never saw sunlight for 20 years. The Times of India, p. 1
Srivastava, R. (1999, October 22). Solitary confinement for 12 -yr-old. The Times of India, p. 1
 |
 |