Abstract
"What pupils who have learning difficulties need is Education, not integration. Placing them in an ordinary School is not an end in itself but a means toward the end of securing them an appropriate Education".
The above statement raised by Hegarty (1993) dispels the commonly misconstrued belief that by integrating children with Special Education Needs,,, they stand to benefit Educationally. If Integration has to live up to its intended purpose, then more than just relocating children with Special Needs to ordinary Schools, must be done.
One of the Issues that has stood the test of time is the fact that all teachers at one time or another get in touch with children requiring Special Educational attention. This therefore supports the notion by Fish (1987) that the future development of a rationale for Special Education need to recognise more clearly that the traditional Institution as a nucleus for Special Education is currently being replaced by a more flexible range of arrangements which in turn would require a changed approach towards the training of professionals.
Mittler (1979) describes integration as being a reconciliation of children's educational and learning needs with the need to maintain contact with the ordinary children in the community. In extension, this ought to apply to the teachers as well.
In the Kenyan situation, not much has changed. Although the country was a signatory to the resolutions to the United Nations convention on the rights of children in 1990, we, through our Educational system, segregate children with Special Educational Needs just the same way in which criminals are, through prison sentences.
Pressure is required from all quarters so that our system may change right from the teacher training level, so that all teachers who graduate are armed with some reasonable elements of Special Education. Their roles and those of the present Special Schools, will have to be redefined. Unless this is done rather urgently, the talk on inclusive Education will remain a myth.
 |
 |