Email CBRS - cbrs@mail.com.np
CBRS or Community Based Rehabilitation Service is a Non Government Organization that works with physically disabled people and their families and communities. It was registered in 1995 and works in two districts of Nepal,
In short, what CBRS does is "Helping disabled people to help themselves".
Bishnu is a typical child with whom CBRS works. He is 7 and lives with his parents and siblings in a slum area of Pokhara. He has cerebral palsy and has a mild learning disability as well. His parents have jobs from daily labour so if they do not work they have no income. Bishnu and his family have regular home visits from the CBRS field staff for moral and practical support. Equipment can be supplied as he needs, for example a walking frame. His parents are members of a self-help group for mutual support and information, and have had a loan from this group's funds for income generating work, in their case, pig keeping.
But, as yet, the main problem for Bishnu and his family is that he and they would like him to attend the local school. He would be able to reach it physically and would be able to learn, but the head teacher will not let him attend, saying that he does not want disabled pupils in his school. So far, CBRS is working with the family to negotiate to improve the situation, but this is a very typical view of many teachers.
However, the Government now has an inclusive education policy, so that many teachers and schools have to take disabled pupils, even if they would prefer not to do so. The Special Needs Education Section has been working with DANIDA and is increasing its coverage and teacher training in support of this policy.
Also, since the start of CBRS's work in 1995, an increasing number of clients have started to attend ordinary local schools. In response to this, the project now does school awareness programmes to peer pupils of the disabled child and related teachers.
In early 1999, CBRS was approached by the Government to carry out a pilot teacher training about physical disability. This was implemented in late 1999, with follow up visits as well.
In our experience, the child may even be attending a school, but really is not fully included, just as the family may be living within the community but is excluded from it due to the community attitudes towards disability. In Nepal there is still much stigma, misunderstanding, fear and social exclusion for the disabled person and their family members as well.
So, one of the main aims of the training was to try to bring together and make more "Inclusive" the child within the school and also the family within the community.
Linked to this was the aim of building up support networks for the child and teachers within the ordinary system, which is already very stretched with little resources and many demands.
To do this, we included the pupils and a family member of each, in one week of the training course. In doing this we felt as if we were rather taking a risk, as this would be a very new situation and to some extent, concept for the teachers. The education system in Nepal is very hierarchical, and this in addition to the caste system means that there is usually very little contact between teachers and family members.
Partly to work towards this "Special Week", but also to set a good atmosphere for the training anyway, we spend a lot of the time at the beginning in creating a "Listening and respectful environment" with the group. We emphasized the value of sharing skills. For example we are an organization with the disability knowledge and experience, but are not education experts as the teachers are. We encouraged them to share their own experiences and frustrations as teachers, and to learn from each other as well as the project staff and other trainers. We emphasized that we were looking forward to the pupils and family members joining us so that we would learn as well. Thus by the time the "Special Week" took place, we had already shown that we expected god cooperation between the groups of people there: teachers, pupils, families and project staff.
The timetable for the week included sessions about the disabilities of each child, and also some social events for the whole group. At the beginning of the week we wanted to help the groups to listen to each other, as well as gain information, so discussions were set up.
Another aim of the week was to together write action plans for each child/pupil, in which there would be activities for the child, teacher, family and possibly other resource people or organizations to do.
On day one the discussions (half- day) were within the three groups separately, with the same questions, that is:
- what is good and successful about the school placements so far.
-
what are the practical difficulties.
- what are the social difficulties.
Each of the groups - pupils, teachers and family members, discussed and
then presented to the whole group.
This paper does not provide space to
list all the issues, but in summary:
- overall all three groups could report some very positive benefits, to
the disabled students and to the other students in the school as well.
-
more of the practical problems reported by the students were about within the
classroom, by the teachers about getting to school, and their own classroom
management, and by the family members more general issues about activities of
daily living.
- the families reported the widest social difficulties, many
relating to their own position in the community. The students reported the
fewest number of social difficulties.
Overall the discussions went well and each of the groups mixed well, especially considering it was the first day they were together. To have the three groups separate on the first day gave some support from within each group, as they were similar in type.
It was clear to see that giving a voice to the pupils to report back to the large group was enjoyable and empowering for them and their families. The families also appreciated sharing with each other, and being able to raise their own issues. All the three groups listened well to the other's point of view and experience.
On the second day, there was again half the day for discussion groups. This time there were two groups: pupils in one, and teachers and family members in the other.
They also had different questions: for the pupils they were to discuss the things they would like to change about their education now, and how to change them.
The other group was to discuss: how to work together more in the future.
This discussion went slightly differently from the first. The pupils once more very easily came up with their ideas and possible solutions.
However, it took quite some time for the other group to really even start to discuss the issue: it was as if the whole concept was very new to them and they were unsure what was intended. Gradually with some prompts they started to look at ways of improving the contact between them in the future.
So then later the two groups came together and their discussion findings
shared. This again was very good as a process and brought out some new ideas
and priorities.
Overall, it was very effective to use discussions as a tool
for getting information from the different groups but also as a process of
bringing them together and developing confidence.
This was the first time
that the people had met each other, and their sharing and listening was good to
prepare the way for cooperation in the future. The different groups of people
learnt about the other's perspectives.
Problems could be identified and
possible solutions discussed for the action plans i.e. activities after the
training.
All enjoyed the process of sharing and listening.
We saw positive changes in attitude and confidence in all the groups involved, including the project staff.
In Summary:
CBRS is an NGO working with disabled people and their families and communities in two Districts of Nepal.
CBRS works to create opportunities for disabled children to go to
ordinary local schools and to support them and their teachers in this
situation. .
To make this successful, it is important to create support
networks for the individuals involved, and between them.
The examples of setting up discussion groups is a low cost and effective tool for bringing together the people involved and for them being able to learn and share with each other. It provides information for use in planning, and can be of the process of empowerment for all involved: when done successfully it is also rewarding and fun.
 |
 |