Systematic School-based Disability Screening: A Comparative Analysis of Formal Approaches Across Select Country Contexts

• In Event: The equity initiative: screening & identification of disabilities and special learning needs

Proposal

BACKGROUND: There is a growing evidence base that recognizes the sustained benefits of including children with disabilities in formal school contexts. These benefits include positive shifts in cultural attitudes towards individuals with disabilities, increased self-perception, agency and independence of people with disabilities (Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, r., Borquaye, Y. and Burke, S., 2016), and increased contribution to GDP from families/caregivers and individuals with disabilities to a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (International Labour Organization, 2018). With these benefits as a backdrop, there has been a noted increase in attention to inclusive education from national Ministries of Education as well as from bilateral and multilateral aid communities.

However, despite the prevalence of many thoughtful national education policies that call for the inclusion of children with disabilities in formal education settings, many countries lack formal school-based approaches that effectively identify students who would benefit from targeted supports to maximize their opportunities to participate and learn.

To investigate how education systems are identifying students with special learning needs the Education Equity Research Initiative’s Disability Task team established a dedicated working group to undertake a case-study approach to examine formal screening and identification processes across a set of select countries. This paper presents the results of activities undertaken by this working group.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how schools and education systems are making efforts to screen and identify students with disabilities, the working group builds upon its previous inclusive education policy landscape analysis to examine and compare various approaches used in Cambodia, Ghana, India, Malawi, and South Africa. The aim of this work is to better understand (a) what forms of screening are used and what disability domains are screened for (e.g., vision, hearing, intellectual, socio-emotional, behavioral), (b) what happens once students are screened and how are teachers and caregivers informed and involved to ensure appropriate follow-up and targeted support, (c) what approaches are taken to ensure screening data is used to inform the services provided to children with disabilities?

METHODS: A cross-national comparative mixed-methods study was used to examine approaches across five country contexts. For each targeted country, members of the working group conducted a desk review of formal school-based screening or identifications programs, analysis of tools used, and, when possible, conducted key informant interviews with country experts about existing approaches.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: For each country we present information on the following areas:
(a) Forms of screening and disability domains assessed
(b) Articulation of referral process for those falling below any established screening thresholds
(c) Nature of supports provided, e.g.,
a. Accommodations/Assistive Supports
b. Curricular Modifications
c. Supplemental Instruction
(d) Systematic data aggregation to support policy and practice
(e) Challenges – as part of this work we also explore stated challenges to providing necessary supports to students with special needs
a. Availability of local resources and networks of support
b. Sufficient level of teacher training to serve a diverse range of students with special learning needs
c. Financing to support reasonable accommodations/assistive support

The paper concludes with recommendations for policy, practice and further research.

Authors

• Stephen Luke, FHI 360

• Rachel Hatch, FHI 360

• Nafisa Baboo, Light for the World

• Ola Abu Alghaib, Leonard Cheshire

• Elena Schmidt, Sightsavers

• Emma Jolley, Sightsavers

• Joshua Josa, US Agency for International Development (USAID)

• Evan Johnston, NYU