Julia Biermann:Approaches to Inclusive Education in Nigeria: The pivotal role of poverty and disability

Abstract: What rules, norms and ideas of schooling influence approaches to inclusive education in Nigeria? This paper applies the model of institutional pillars (regulative, normative, cultural-cognitive, see Scott 2008, Powell 2011) to discuss dimensions of schooling that contextualise approaches to inclusive education. The analysis underscores the vital role poverty and disability that restrict access to regular schools for a vast number of children and youth. Approaches to inclusive education take up this interrelation and accordingly try to achieve ‘Education for All’ by expanding special education for children with disabilities.

Deutschsprachige Zusammenfassung
Ausgehend von Artikel 24 der UN Behindertenrechtskonvention (UN BRK) diskutiert dieser Beitrag, welche Regeln, Normen und Ideen des Schulsystems das Verständnis von inklusiver Bildung in Nigeria beeinflussen und prägen. Die Analyse basiert auf einem institutionellen Säulenmodell, welches folgende drei Dimensionen schulischer Bildung unterscheidet: 1.) Regularien, welche in bildungspolitischen Dokumenten enthalten sind, 2.) Normen, welche den Zugang zu schulischer Bildung beeinflussen und 3.) Ideen, welche „besondere Gruppen“ im Kontext von Schule hervorbringen (Scott 2008, Powell 2007, 2011).

Die vorgestellten Ergebnisse basieren auf der Analyse von auf Bundesebene erlassener bildungspolitischer Regularien und statistischer Daten in Nigeria. Bildungspolitische Dokumente thematisieren vorranging die Bereitstellung chancengleicher Bildung, welche durch die Expansion universaler Grundbildung erreicht werden soll (Universal Basic Education). Der Zugang zu formaler Bildung in Schulen bleibt jedoch einem Großteil der Kinder und Jugendlichen verwehrt. Die Analyse statistischer Daten verdeutlicht den Einfluss des sozioökonomischen Status und von Beeinträchtigungen auf den Zugang zu Schulen. Dieses Muster findet sich in der Definition „besonderer Gruppen“ (special groups) im Bereich Bildung wider, welche all die Kinder und Jugendlichen umfasst, welche in besonderem Maße von schulischer Exklusion und Marginalisierung betroffen sind. Sonderpädagogische Förderung (special education) ist für Kinder mit besonderen Bedürfnissen (special needs) vorgesehen, welche sich aufgrund von Behinderungen, Benachteiligungen oder besonderer Begabungen ergeben. Dieser institutionelle Kontext rahmt die Zugänge zu inklusiver Bildung, welche thematisch Bezug auf Schulabstinenz und die Qualität schulischer Bildung nehmen. Somit wird der Zugang zu Schulen vor dem Hintergrund von „Bildung für alle“ (Education for All) priorisiert und die Implementierung spezieller Bildungsangebote für Kinder mit Beeinträchtigungen gefordert.

Zusammenfassend zeigt sich, dass Armut und Behinderung die Hauptrisiken für Exklusion vom Schulsystem in Nigeria sind. Diese Exklusionsrisiken unterstützen die Herausbildung von „besonderen Gruppen“, welche sich statistisch in den Zahlen zu übermäßig von Schulen ausgeschlossen Gruppen wiederfinden. Die Debatte um inklusive Bildung bezieht daher die behindernden Strukturen des Schulsystems mit ein und reagiert darauf mit einer wachsenden Nachfrage nach sonderpädagogischen Settings. In diesem Sinne wird inklusive Bildung nicht zum Reforminstrument, sondern zum Instrument des Aufbaus eines stratifizierten öffentlichen Schulsystems.

Keywords: Inclusive Education; Special Needs Education; UN CRPD; EFA; Nigeria

Table of content

1. Introduction
2. The Three Pillars of the Institution of Schooling: Rules, Norms and Ideas
3. Inclusive Education and ‘Education for All’
4. References

1. Introduction

Under the umbrella of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), the development of inclusive school systems has become a legal obligation for ratifying states. Currently, 160 states are challenged by the educational obligations deriving from Article 24 UN CRPD (United Nations 2015). In particular, Article 24 UN aims to decrease educational discrimination through advancing equal participation and decreasing exclusion, segregation or separation in education (see also CRPD 2015).
These obligations put pressure on education systems worldwide. It is in this context that I have conducted a comparative study of Nigeria and Germany that examined attempts of policy actors to make school systems more inclusive (cf. Biermann 2016). Here, I refer to the Nigerian case study and provide an answer to the following question: What rules, norms and ideas of schooling influence the debate about inclusive education in the Nigerian context?
The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, I introduce a model of institutional pillars that serves as an analytical heuristic to elaborate the specifics of the institution of schooling and its institutional change. Second, I discuss ideas, norms and rules of schooling based on the analysis of federal educational policies, laws and statistics that provide the context for inclusive education to become meaningful. Third, I show how this institutional framework finds itself in approaches to inclusive education deduced from interviews with inclusive education advocates. This analysis underscores the complex relationship between inclusive education and ‘Education for All’. Both try to confront the reality of exclusion and marginalisation in Nigeria’s public school to which in total almost 11 million children have no access (UNICEF West and Central Africa Regional Office 2014); the number of excluded children has even increased recently as the conflicts in north-eastern Nigeria have forced an additional million children out of school (UNICEF 2015).

2. The Three Pillars of the Institution of Schooling: Rules, Norms and Ideas

In order to analyse the institutional framework of schooling I deploy a neo-institutional theoretical framework (Scott 2008, Powell 2007, 2011) that understands educational change under the auspices of inclusive education as a process simultaneously influenced by international pressures and national path-dependent forces (cf. Blanck et al. 2013).

Here, the three pillar model of institutions, as an analytical heuristic, helps to distinguish different dimensions of the institution of schooling. These institutional dimensions provide a framework against which various actors debate inclusive education.

According to Scott (2008, 48) institutions “are comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life”. With this definition, Scott proposes an integrated model of institutional pillars that in sum constitute an institution. The regulative pillar refers to rules in form of policies, legislation and litigation (Scott 2008, 51f.). The normative pillar denotes social obligations that define objectives and designate ways to achieve these objectives (Scott 2008, 54f., 61). The cultural-cognitive pillar embraces ideas that entail “shared conceptions […] that constitute the nature of social reality” (Scott 2008, 57).

Powell (2007, 2011) has transferred this model to the comparative analysis of special education systems, distinguishing between education policies and laws (regulative pillar), the organisation of special education systems (normative pillar) and paradigms of disability (cultural-cognitive pillar).

Tailoring this model for this paper leads me to frame the three institutional pillars of schooling more broadly as follows:

• rules of schooling entailed in educational legislation and policies (regulative pillar),
• norms that influence access to schooling (normative pillar),
• ideas about special groups in schooling (cultural-cognitive pillar).

This approach allows to capture different dimensions of schooling that provide the context in which inclusive education is debated among policy actors. The following three sections discuss each dimension based on the analysis of key official documents and statistics.

2.1. Rules: Educational Legislation and Policies

Educational laws and policies explicate institutional rules of schooling. Prominently, these rules are found in the following documents: Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), Universal Basic Education Act (2004), National Policy on Education (2004) and the so-called Disability Bill (not yet passed). This selection reflects the new phase the development of Nigeria’s education sector entered with return to civilian rule in 1999 and the again increased involvement of international agencies and donors (Ayeni & Dada 2011, Fabunmi 2005).

The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (Chapter II [18]) obligates that the “Government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels” by providing “free, compulsory and universal primary education; free secondary and university education as well as adult literacy programmes”. In the same vein, the 2004 National Policy on Education (NPE) (Section 1, 5[c]) is based on the belief that “every Nigerian child shall have a right to equal educational opportunities irrespective of any real or imagined disabilities each according to his or her ability”. Accordingly, the policy envisages “equal access to educational opportunities for all citizens of the country” (Section 1, 4[c]).
This vision is backed by the 2004 Universal Basic Education Act (Part I, 2. [1]) which requires that “every Government in Nigeria shall provide free, compulsory and Universal basic education for every child of primary and junior secondary, school age”. To achieve Universal Basic Education (UBE), the National Policy on Education (Section 10, 96 [c] [i]) requires that “[a]ll necessary facilities that would ensure easy access to education shall be provided, e.g: (i) inclusive education or integration of special classes and units into ordinary/public schools under UBE scheme”.
In addition, the so-called Disability Bill[1] deals with educational provisions for persons with disabilities. Though not yet passed, this bill is an attempt to put in place anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of disability. In its 2013 version the bill envisages that “[a]ll (public) schools [...] shall be run to be inclusive of and accessible to persons (with disabilities, accordingly every school shall have) – [...] special facilities for the effective education of persons with disabilities”.
Overall, these provisions respond to the international ‘Education for All’-movement and the very high number of out-of-school children in Nigeria, which has not significantly decreased during the last decade (UNESCO 2015a, b; UNICEF West and Central Africa Regional Office 2014)[2].

2.2. Norms: Access to Schooling 

Currently, the main challenge within Nigeria’s school system is to provide access to education for all children. Because Nigeria is one of the most unequal countries with regard to access to learning programmes by wealth, the intersection between poverty and ability must be analysed (UNESCO 2015a, 59; UNESCO 2014).

Attendance rates were seven times higher for children form the richest households than for children from the poorest households (UNESCO 2012, 40).[3] In 2010, one-third of all children aged 6 to 16 had never attended a school; they were mainly from rural areas (90 per cent), from the lowest socio-economic quintile (51 per cent), from Northern regions (84 per cent) or girls (54 per cent) (National Population Commission [Nigeria] & RTI International 2011, 91). The three prevailing reasons for school abstention for almost half of primary-school-age children were: distance to school (32 per cent), child labour (31 per cent), and monetary costs (25 per cent) while disability plays in this statistic only a minor role (1 per cent) (National Population Commission [Nigeria] & RTI International 2011, 93).

Disabled children from poor households face the highest risks of exclusion, while disabled children brought up in richer households often can attend private (special) schools. [4] This is because only very few public special schools and some private special schools have been founded and maintained by churches, philanthropic organisations or by parents themselves (Nkechi 2013).

Thus, statistically, a certain pattern is observable for groups excluded from schooling as access to education is foremost tied to gender, residence, region and economic status intersecting with dis/ability (see also Hoechner 2013, Obiakor & Offor 2011, Tuwor & Sossou 2008). Whereas the most disadvantaged groups are largely excluded from schooling, financial resources ensure socio-economically privileged groups access to education by circumventing the public school system. For that reason, economic patterns of disadvantage exacerbate educational barriers for disabled children, while economic patterns of advantage can to some extent compensate educational restrictions. Poverty intersects with disability and increases disadvantages.

2.3. Ideas: Special Groups in Schooling 

Educational inequalities along the dimensions of poverty and ability are reflected in the approaches taken to special groups in schooling.

According to the 2004 Universal Basic Education Act, special groups are “nomads and migrants, girl-child and women, almajiri, street children and disabled groups”. Noteworthy, disability is not the sole factor for “becoming special” in education. Instead, special groups in education are made of children and youths vulnerable to exclusion from and marginalisation within the formal school system. Conversely, only one group appears as “not special”: able-bodied boys. And if not poor, it is this group for which the highest rates of attendance are reported.[5]

However, not all special groups qualify for special education. The 2004 National Policy on Education (Section 10, 94) states that “special education is a special educational training given to people with special needs” who fall into three categories: the disabled, the disadvantaged, and the gifted and talented. “The Disabled” are persons with visual, hearing, speech or physical and health impairments, learning disabilities, multiple handicaps or persons who face mental or emotional challenges and thus “can not cope with regular school/class organization”.[6] “The Disadvantaged” are children “who due to their lifestyles and means of livelihood, are unable to have access to the conventional educational provision”; i.e. children who live in families that migrate or have a nomadic lifestyle. “The Gifted and Talented” are “insufficiently challenged by the regular school”. Thus, all three groups face challenges to access or contribute from education provided in the regular school.[7] The aims of special education are accordingly to “equalise education opportunities”, “provide adequate education for all people with special needs” and “opportunities for exceptionally gifted children” and to eventually “design a diversified and appropriate curriculum” (National Policy on Education 2004, Section 10, 95).

In sum, special groups in schooling reflect socio-economic disadvantages and as such embrace several dimensions of inequality. Special Education is meant for disabled, disadvantaged and gifted children as they are considered to not profit sufficiently in their learning from the formal educational provisions as offered in regular schools.

3. Inclusive Education and ‘Education for All’

These rules, norms and ideas set the background against which inclusive education is debated among policy actors that are required to align the national education system with this international norm. Therefore, this section joins the analysis above with extracts from interviews conducted in 2012/2013 with representatives of organisations that actively advocate inclusive education in Nigeria, i.e. state and development agencies as well as civil society organisations. This analysis provides insights into their understanding of inclusive education and identifies their commonalities. For that reason, I do not disclose detailed information about the organisations or their specific mandates.

Representing an internationally funded development programme, this interviewee focuses on marginalised groups when it comes to inclusive education. “[…] we are thinking more of a bigger scope of inclusive education. […] So, what about these girls, children in fishing communities, children in nomadic communities, housemaids? So, that is the scope, that is the framework that we are using. Disability is just one.”

Representing a civil society organisation working in the policy field of education, this interviewee relates the exclusion of children, particularly with disabilities, to the low quality of the public school system: “Because even for the people without disability in most of our public schools they still have challenges. There is a problem of a lack of infrastructure, there is a problem of a poor learning environment […]. And when you ask somebody with a disability into this environment, you know, the challenges become enormous. […]one problem when we talk about inclusion is not all about, you know, bringing them together […]. But the problem there is the capacity of the teachers […].”

In terms of actual implementation, the representative of a state agency says: “we don’t really have pure inclusive schools in Nigeria […]. […] to be inclusive that means every school should be able to accommodate every child … and every child should be free to go to every school. […] I know that it will take time. But right now, what we have, encourage […] instead of having special schools, you should now start create, even if it is classes for special children in normal schools”.

All three passages address marginalisation within the formal school system, especially of children with disabilities. Marginalisation relates to the absence of an accommodating school system that could cater for the needs of all children. Therefore, inclusive education in particular directs attention to the needs of children with disabilities and calls for feasible and practicable special educational provisions in order to achieve ‘Education for All’. This mirrors the fact that currently ‘Education for All’ means ‘Schooling for Some’, evidencing the reality of exclusion in education in particular on the grounds of poverty and disability (UNESCO 2015a, 2015b).

This analysis leads to two concluding observations. First, the debate surrounding inclusive education is embedded in the larger discourse of ‘Education for All’ and equally prioritises access to education. Second, framing inclusive education against the background of ‘Education for All’ attends to wider educational and social processes of exclusion that reflect in the notion of disabled and disadvantaged special groups.

To sum up, poverty and disability are the main risks for educational exclusion in Nigeria. These exclusion risks support the notion of special groups in education and reflect in data about out-of-school children; in short, special groups are also overly excluded from schooling, or vice versa. In this context, approaches to inclusive education debate the disabling conditions of schooling. It is the lack of facilities, teachers and resources that prevents ‘Universal Basic Education’ from becoming a reality for all children. And it is exactly this context which leads to a growing demand for special education settings. For that reason, inclusive education becomes not an instrument to reform but a means to institutionalise a stratified public school system.

4. References

Agunloye, O.O., Pollingue, A.B., Davou, P. & Osagie, R. (2011): Policy and Practice of Special Education: Lessons and Implications for Education Administration from Two Countries. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 90-95. 
Andzayi, C. A. (2003): Introduction to Programmes and Services for Children with Special Needs in Nigeria. Jos: Department of Special Education, University of Jos.
Ajuwon, P. (2012): A Study of Nigerian Families Who Have a Family Member with Down Syndrome. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 18 (2), 36-49.
Ajuwon, P. (2008): Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities in Nigeria: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications. International Journal of Special Education, 23 (3), 12-16.
Ayeni, M.A. & Dada, M.A. (2011): An Exploration into the Education Innovations in Nigeria in the Last Two Decades. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(4), 199-205.
Biermann, J. (2016): Zuerst ins Unbekannte! Planung und Umsetzung einer vergleichenden Studie zur Institutionalisierung inklusiver Schulsysteme in Nigeria und Deutschland. In: Dunker, N., Finnern, N. & Koppel, I. (Eds.), Wege durch den Forschungsdschungel – Ausgewählte Fallbeispiele aus der Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer, 39-60.
Blanck, J.M., Edelstein, B. & Powell, J.J.W. (2013): Persistente schulische Segregation oder Wandel zur inklusiven Bildung? Die Bedeutung der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention für Reformprozesse in den deutschen Bundesländern. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 39(2), 267-292. 
CRPD (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) (2015): General Comment on the right to inclusive education. URL (16.12.2015): http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GCRightEducation.aspx.
Edho, O.G. (2009): The Challenges Affecting the Implementation of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) in Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 183-187.
Fabunmi, M. (2005): Historical Analysis Of Educational Policy Formulation In Nigeria: Implications For Educational Planning And Policy. International Journal of African & African American Studies, 4 (2), 1-7.
Härmä, J. (2013): Access or quality? Why do families living in slums choose low-cost private schools in Lagos, Nigeria? Oxford Review of Education, 39 (4), 548-566.
Hoechner, H. (2013): Searching for knowledge and recognition. Traditional Qur’anic students in Kano, Nigeria. French Institute For Research in Africa (IFRA-Nigeria): University of Ibadan.
Ige, A.M. (2014): Poverty of primary education in Nigeria: the way forward. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 42 (6), 637-647.
Nkechi, C.M. (2013): Education of the Disabled in Nigeria: Access and Perception. Journal Plus Education, 10 (1), 133-142.
Nomishan, D. A. (2014): Education in Nigeria. Reflections and Global Perspectives. Bloomington: Xlibris.
National Population Commission (Nigeria) & RTI International (2011): Nigeria Demographic and Health survey (DHS) EdData profile 1990, 2003, and 2008: Education data for Decision-Making. 2011. Washington DC: National Population Commission and RTI International.
Obiakor, F. & Offor, M. (2011): Special Education Provision in Nigeria: Analyzing Contexts, Problems, and Prospects. International Journal of Special Education, 26 (1), 12-19.
Powell, J.J.W. (2011): Barriers to inclusion: Special education in the United States and Germany. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Powell, J.J. W. (2007): Behinderung in der Schule, behindert durch Schule? Die Institutionalisierung der “schulischen Behinderung”. In: Waldschmidt, A. & Schneider, W. (Eds.), Disability Studies und Soziologie der Behinderung. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 321-343.
Sahara Reporters (2015): Plan For Change: Buhari Announces ‘Covenant With Nigerians’. URL (22.01.2016): http://saharareporters.com/2015/03/16/plan-change-buhari-announces-‘covenant-nigerians’.
Scott, W.R. (2008); Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tsafe, A.K. (2013): A critical analysis of universal basic education on its implementation so far. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 23-34
Tuwor, T. & Sossou, M. (2008): Gender discrimination and education in West Africa: strategies for maintaining girls in school, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (4), 363-379.
UNESCO (2015a): Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2015b): Regional overview: Sub-Saharan Africa. World Wide Web (14.01.2016): http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232577E.pdf.
UNESCO (2014): How long it will take to complete basic education depends on which African child you are. Day of the African Child 2014. URL (14.01.2016): http://en.unesco.org/gem-report/how-long-it-will-take-complete-basic-education-depends-which-african-child-you-are.
UNESCO (2012): EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012. Paris: UNESCO.
UNICEF (2015): Nigeria conflict forces more than 1 million children from school. Press Release. URL (22.12.2015): http://www.unicef.org/media/media_86621.html.
UNICEF West and Central Africa Regional Office (2014): All Children in School by 2015, Global Initiative on out-of-school-children. Regional Report West and Central Africa. URL (14.01.2016): http://www.unicef.org/education/files/RR_OutOfSchoolVA_BAT.pdf.
United Nations (2015): Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications. World Wide Web (15.12.2015): http://www.un.org/disabilities/