Parent Advocacy and Inclusive Education in Cambodia in the Context of International Development

• In Event: Challenging the Universality of Inclusion: Context and Culture in the Transfer of a Western Principle

Abstract

The study’s objective was to examine gaps that have occurred in the cross-cultural transfer of concepts and services in inclusive education for children with disabilities within the context of Education For All (EFA), with specific reference to Cambodia.
It uses the theoretical framework presented by Campbell (2011) who notes that international standards established by the UN have resulted in a universalized framework for disability, Urwick & Elliott (2010) who assert that an “inclusive education orthodoxy” assumes that inclusive schooling is universally the most effective strategy for children with special educational needs, and Grech (2011) who states that dominance of Western-centric disability studies has created an “epistemological silence” whereby indigenous understandings of disability in the Global South are virtually excluded.
The study involved qualitative research methods and analysis using the constant comparison method until data saturation was reached.
Data was triangulated through several data sources, which included policy documents, classroom observations, and individual semi-structured interviews with senior- and middle-level officials from the Ministries of Education, Health and Social Affairs, international donor representatives, provincial and district education officers, school directors, and focus group discussions with parents, teachers, and students through purposive sampling over a seven-month period across eight provinces. Participants totaled over 300. Reflective fieldnotes were maintained throughout the study.
Results yielded four conceptual gaps: the meaning of inclusive education, the language of disability, the meaning of parent advocacy, and perceptions of who is disabled. In the North, the meaning of inclusive education has emerged from a historical context of segregated schooling, which resulted in the creation of a cadre of specialized professionals and a robust infrastructure of curricular and instructional resources. Lacking this context of segregation and specialized resources in Cambodia, the current push for inclusion has led to haphazard efforts and an extreme reluctance among general education teachers to accept students with disabilities. Among all marginalized students, students with visible disabilities are the last and least likely to be included in school (World Bank, 2011). Conceptual and literal translation of terms, such as the technical difference between disability and impairment, creates complications when teacher training and curriculum development are conducted by international consultants relying on translators. Since parent advocacy has its origins in a more individualistic, rights-based orientation in the North, the notion is a poor fit in cultures with a collectivistic, reciprocal, and social responsibility-based orientation. Finally, the current emphasis on prevalence studies for the purposes of planning which requires a so-called objective process of labeling and identification has created a quandary with regard to who gets labeled.
The paper’s significance lies in its argument that differences between the global North and South warrant the need to (a) move away from a “one-size-fits-all” mentality, (b) consider indigenous understandings of disability, and (c) create opportunities for intersections between researchers and consultants, local practitioners and development experts towards developing services with a better cultural fit in the context of the international aid agenda. Its findings have implications for international consultants and educational researchers in the field of international special education.

Author

• Maya Kalyanpur, SUNY - College at Potsdam