University of Malawi: The case of Chancellor College
Elizabeth Tikondwe Kamchedzera
In 2013, the United Nations High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda concluded that this ‘universal agenda’ must be driven by the following ‘five big transformative shifts’ (United Nations 2013):
● Leave no one behind.
● Put sustainable development at the core.
● Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth.
● Build peace and effective open and accountable institutions for all.
● Forge a new global partnership.
The Panel argued that these five shifts will help to eradicate ‘the barriers that hold people back, and end the inequality of opportunity that blights the lives of so many people’ (UN 2013: ii). Implicit in the first shift is the recognition that inclusivity is a major goal of development. If we also accept that tertiary education is a key driver of development, the inclusion of people with disabilities in tertiary institutions becomes a vital aspect of any national development agenda. Of course, as the Panel pointed out, the impact of these shifts will ‘depend on how they are translated into specific priorities and actions’ (UN 2013: ii)
This is not the first time that global organisations working for equitable development have advanced an agenda that aims to ensure that more people with disabilities have access to education. Indeed, several international standards and frameworks have stressed the importance of access and equity in education.1 For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (UN 2006) emphasises the principles of non-discrimination; full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; equality of opportunity and accessibility.
More specifically, Article 24 of the CRPD recognises the rights of people
with disabilities to inclusive education, and Article 9 provides the following guidelines for governments:
To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.
Malawi ratified the CRPD in 2009, and this too has influenced the development of policy on inclusive education.
In this chapter, I first provide some background about the prevalence of disability in Malawi and about government policy on inclusive education, before describing some research I conducted about conditions of learning at Chancellor College (CHANCO). The largest of five colleges affiliated to the University of Malawi, CHANCO is located in the southern city of Zomba, and has five faculties, namely: Humanities, Science, Law, Social Science and Education. CHANCO has a total student population of about four thousand.
Out of these, 39 are students with disabilities. The College first admitted students with disability in 1972. By 1999 a total of eight students with visual impairment had graduated from the University (Msowoya 1999). Since 2000, the University of Malawi (UNIMA) has atempted to increase access for students with disabilities at their CHANCO campus. For instance, such students are exempted from taking the University Entrance Examination and they are admitted based on their Malawi School Certificate Examination (MSCE) results (UNIMA 2007). At the time of writing, CHANCO was still the only one of the university’s five colleges that catered for such students. UNIMA has indicated willingness to accept ‘more students, taking into account special needs and gender, for a stronger and more competitive workforce’ (UNIMA 2012: 3) into any of its colleges that are ready to enrol students with disabilities. In my research, I used various means to examine the experiences of students with disabilities at CHANCO, and key concepts related to access and equity were used to investigate the effectiveness of the delivery of inclusive education by the College.
Background
The Post-2015 Development Agenda is particularly relevant for Malawi, which has a significant population of people with disabilities. The country’s 2008 population census revealed that there were 498 122 people with
disabilities in Malawi, representing a prevalence rate of 3.8 per cent (NSO 2008). The data suggests that the prevalence rate is relatively low. However, it is possible that sensitisation and intervention programmes on the causes of disability conducted by the Federation of Disability Organisations in Malawi, the Directorate of Special Needs Education and other organisations are making a positive impact. Of the 498 122 persons with disabilities, the census data indicated that 49.9 per cent were male and 51.2 per cent were female.
The literacy rate among people with disabilities stood at 56 per cent overall, with 64.7 per cent of males with disability and 47.9 per cent of females with disability being literate. The prevalence rate of disabilities in what the report defined as ‘the higher education sector’ and in the age group 15 to 24 years, was 5.6 per cent. Here too, the literacy rate for male students with disability was higher than that for female students with disability.
In terms of the categories of disability, out of the total number of persons with disabilities, 27 per cent had a visual impairment, 16 per cent had hearing impairments, 6 per cent had a communication disorder, 22 per cent had physical disabilities, and 29 per cent experienced ‘other’ unspecified disabilities (NSO 2008: 41, Table 3.3). Visual impairment is therefore the most prevalent form of disability in Malawi, and, as shown later in the chapter, this is also true of the students with disabilities who have registered at CHANCO since 2004.
The Post-2015 Agenda is also pertinent for Malawi because of policies the country has adopted in its quest to comply with international frameworks.
Thus, according to Malawi’s current education policy (see Ministry of Education 2007), inclusive education has to extend to tertiary education.
Similarly, Malawi’s National Education Sector Plan 2008–2017 stipulates that special-needs education programmes should feature prominently at all levels of the education sector (MOEST 2008). The education ministry has therefore committed itself to ensuring access and equity in relation to educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Recognising barriers such as shortage of space and other resources, and taking into account special needs and gender factors, the National Education Sector Plan nevertheless enjoined the Malawi’s education institutions to aim to double enrolments in educational institutions. More directly, in its National Special Needs Education Policy, the Ministry of Education (2007: 15) set out its general vision as follows: ‘For learners with special educational needs to achieve their potential enabling full participation in the community’.
The expressed mission is ‘to provide access to quality and relevant education to all learners with special educational needs in Malawi for their survival, growth and development’ (Ministry of Education: 2007: 15). Its
stated goal is to ‘develop the personal social and academic competences of learners with special educational needs’ (2007: 16). Furthermore, in 2012, Malawi’s Disability Act was signed into law, making provision for inclusive education at all levels.
Theoretical and conceptual frameworks
The so-called medical and social models of disability are often used as conceptual frameworks for understanding and responding to disability (Oliver 1990; Shakespeare 2006). The medical model dominated understandings of disability for the better part of the twentieth century (Hargrass 2005;
Priestly 2003 ). This model defines disability in terms of individual deficits (Shakespeare 2006), and views the causes of disability in terms of functional limitations or psychological losses (Vlachou 2004). That is, disability is viewed as a problem or a measurable defect located in an individual, and is seen as requiring cure or eradication by medical experts (Priestly 2003; Vlachou 2004). This assumes that medical and rehabilitative interventions are the only means to resolve disability, and that people with disability should strive for
‘normality’ (Hargrass 2005). Underpinning these assumptions is what Oliver (2004: 19, 2006: 8) called the ‘personal tragedy theory of disability’.
The deficiencies of this model are clear when it is juxtaposed with the social model, which shifts the location of disability from the individual and focuses instead on society’s responses to difference and people’s different abilities (Bolt 2005; Priestly 2003; Shakespeare 2006). The idea underpinning the social model is that disability, in part, derives from ‘externally imposed restrictions’ (Oliver 2004: 19). Alongside this redefinition of disability, a politics of disability has gradually emerged, which advocates that barriers to participation for people with disabilities be both recognised and removed at all levels (Oliver 2004, 2006).
In the education sector globally, the social model has influenced the notion of inclusive classrooms, and resulted in attempts to have students with disabilities learn in mainstream schools (UNESCO 2001) as has been the case in Malawi. Inclusive education is consistent with the social model because it rejects stereotypes and discrimination, lobbying instead for social awareness and acceptance of diversity in the delivery of education. As stated by the UN (2006), inclusive education recognises the fact that all children are different and that children with disabilities should be able to access and participate in the education system. At the same time, equity should be emphasised. In both high- and low-income countries, inclusive education has been widely accepted in principle by policy-makers – see, for example, the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994).
The advantage of viewing inclusion as a right is that no group of students can be left behind. It also means that although questions of feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency may be real and critical, they cannot be allowed to override students’ rights to education. However, as Lindsay (2007) argues, if inclusion is accepted as a human right, regardless of its effectiveness, differing views and understandings of social and human rights are likely to create conflict around the implementation of policy and practice. In Malawi, both models seem to have influenced the development of policies on inclusion, but no conflict is evident. Disability is now viewed as a crosscutting issue in the sense that it cuts across all sectors, including education, agriculture, health, the economy, etc. As a human rights issue, it is accepted that everyone has a right to education irrespective of their differences.
Literature review
The literature on access and equity for students with disabilities at tertiary level in Malawi is sparse. However, studies conducted elsewhere do provide some useful insights into the issues under discussion.
Access: enrolment of students with disabilities
Rickinson (2010) and Steff et al. (2010) have noted that students with disabilities are more likely to access higher education through non-traditional routes, but provided no insight into why this is the case. In terms of subject areas, Rickinson’s 2010 synthesis of current trends reveals that enrolment of students with disabilities is high in certain subjects (such as creative arts, design, agriculture and related subjects) while fields such as medicine, mathematical sciences, languages and law show very low enrolments. By way of explanation, Rickinson cites Gosling (2009) as offering a variety of reasons ranging from the under-achievement and low aspiration levels that tend to be common in students with disabilities (including at school level), to issues of social class and ethnicity, or a combination of all these factors. As Gosling pointed out, ‘we cannot rule out the possibility that prejudice against disabled students and ignorance about what they are capable of, with appropriate support, has also contributed to their under-representation’ (see Rickinson 2010: 4).
Inaccessible physical environment and infrastructure
Other studies have revealed that when students with disabilities access universities, they face challenges in their learning related to the physical environment and infrastructure. For instance, Singleton and Aisbitt (2001) observed that the inaccessibility of buildings (with stairs, narrow corridors,
and inaccessible bathrooms) often constitutes a major barrier for students with disabilities. Duguay (2010) adds that, in spite of developments in international and national legislation as well as policies that promote access and equity for students with disabilities, built environments remain a major problem.
Equity when enrolled
Several studies have noted that once enrolled, students with disabilities suffer mixed reactions, from stigmatisation to hyper-sensitivity. Studies linked to the UK-based Premia project (2004) reveals that the challenges are even greater when university personnel underestimate the effects of students’ disabilities, minimise them, or ignore their impact. Furthermore, the Premia material indicates that preconceived notions about what students with disabilities can or cannot do often presents problems for students. On the other hand, staff who are supportive, open-minded and sensitive to students’ disabilities often have a great impact on students’ confidence and success. Such staff are often able to encourage students to advance in their studies, and to excel by giving their best. When learning conditions ensure the possibility of equitable participation for all students, academic performance improves (Premia 2004).
A lack of the necessary support for students with disabilities has been widely identified as a barrier to inclusive education. To give just one example, Steff et al. (2010) revealed the multiple challenges encountered by students with disabilities once they enrol in tertiary institutions as including:
● Expectations that students will naturally adapt to university life and a lack of appropriate forms of support from institutions.
● Attitudinal discrimination by university personnel and other students.
● Lack of awareness and understanding with respect to disability issues.
● Underestimation of the impact of a disability.
Steff et al. also observe that students with disabilities face a constant struggle to prove that they are as capable as other students. They point out that funding is a major problem that leads to shortages of academic and other personnel who are qualified to support students with disabilities. Inadequate funding also means that institutions seldom provide the necessary support for students with disabilities such as: braillists and sign-language interpreters;
adaptive technologies and adapted academic resources; appropriately designed assignments and exam papers; or accessible physical environments (Steff et al.
2010). All of these factors put students with disabilities at a disadvantage and make the learning process unfair.
Similarly, Jacklin et al. (2006) have observed that students with disabilities experience a range of challenges and frustrations once they
enter tertiary education. Karangwa (2008) also observed that the absence of institutional interventions at universities in Ghana and Tanzania led peer communities to start providing support. Nevertheless, academic support has to be provided to students with disabilities if they are to succeed in the sector (Richardson and Wydell 2003). This is also stipulated in the international standards and frameworks related to inclusive education, such as the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) and the CRPD (UN 2006).
Research questions
My main research question was an open one, indicating the exploratory nature of the study, and was formulated as follows: to what extent has access and equity been inclusive of students with disabilities at CHANCO? Sub-questions included:
● How many students with disabilities (including visual impairment, hearing impairment, albinism and physical disabilities) have enrolled at the College since 2004?
● How accessible was the physical environment and infrastructure for these students at the time of the study (in 2014)?
● How fair are learning conditions for students with disabilities at the College?
Research design and methodology
Armstrong (1998) contended that if new possibilities and practices within inclusive cultures are to be opened up, research needs to involve teachers and students. Accordingly, I decided to include qualitative research methods in the study. This included interviewing both staff and students at the College, as well as organising focus groups with different groups of students during which I hoped to use ‘naturalistic enquiries’ to collect data in a natural setting (Newby 2010). This provided opportunities for me to find out how participants in my research constructed meanings in their own contexts, and allowed me to compare learning conditions at the college for students with and without disabilities.
Sampling strategy, sample size and research sites
Purposive sampling was used to select the participants and research site. The total sample size for the study was 34 people. These included 12 students (six female and six male) with disabilities (including visual impairment, physical and motor disabilities and albinism) pursuing various degree programmes.
The justification for selecting students of both genders and with different types of disabilities was to gather information from a variety of perspectives
in relation to the students’ experience. I included albinism as a category of disability, because in Malawi people with albinism have long been sidelined.
Participants without disabilities were also selected in order to get the perspectives of other students, as well as lecturers and administrators in the College. Of these, 12 students without disabilities (six female and six male) plus a female student from the students’ union called ‘a student welfare officer’
offered their perceptions. In addition, six lecturers (one female and five males) were included on the basis that they had students with disabilities in their classes. Respondents from the institution’s administration/management included the Vice-Principal and Assistant Registrar (academic) because they form part of the policy-making body, and are responsible for academic issues and the welfare of all students. A braillist was also included because he supports and assists several students with visual impairment with their academic work, and familiarises them with the campus and its surroundings.
Data collection
Three data collection methods were used because the nature of the study required an in-depth analysis from multiple perspectives. The first method involved an examination and analysis of enrolment records, to determine the number of students with disabilities who had enrolled in the College. As ‘no document is innocent’, the documents were treated not simply as a reflection but also as a construction of social reality (see Rose and Grosvenor 2001: 51).
The second data collection method involved interviewing various people on the question of whether the learning conditions for students with disabilities is fair. In this regard, a semi-structured interview questionnaire was used to collect data from the vice-principal (hereafter labelled M1), the assistant registrar (academic) (labelled M2), six lecturers (labelled L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6) and the student welfare officer.
The third data collection method involved focus group discussions with:
six female students with disabilities; six female students without disabilities;
six male students with disabilities and six male students without disabilities.
Discussion topics were linked to students’ perceptions of the accessibility of the environment and the fairness of learning conditions. The focus groups provided insights on the issues at hand from the students with disabilities, and also from those without disabilities, who all learn together. Focus groups held with students who do not have disabilities were useful because these students study with, and sometimes support, students with disabilities. These students were therefore able to provide their perceptions of the lived experiences of students with disabilities with respect to whether learning conditions were fair to all. An attempt was made to mitigate the risk that the participants
might not feel free to express their thoughts by creating separate groups as described, and by reassuring participants that everyone was free to express their thoughts and views without fear of reprisal.
Ethical issues
As pointed out by Lewis (2003), any research raises ethical considerations, and this is particularly true when vulnerable groups are researched (Rose and Grosvenor 2001). The following ethical issues were taken into consideration in conducting the study: the need for informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, as well as confirmation that there would be no betrayal or deception. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the relevant authority to secure
As pointed out by Lewis (2003), any research raises ethical considerations, and this is particularly true when vulnerable groups are researched (Rose and Grosvenor 2001). The following ethical issues were taken into consideration in conducting the study: the need for informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, as well as confirmation that there would be no betrayal or deception. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the relevant authority to secure