Any questions?

“When I die, what will happen to my disabled grand-child, who will support him?” This was the first comment from a Cambodian grand-parent when asked what she would like to say to the educational Ministries from Cambodia and Laos.

Grass-roots organisations from Cambodia posed a different question for teachers from the region: “What support do teachers provide for deaf children in the community?”

And a group of International donors wanted to find out from parents: “What are the barriers that stop your children participating in mainstream schools?”

These were some of the exchanges between different stakeholder groups in a three-day roundtable meeting organised as part of the Disability Knowledge and Research programme, in Cambodia, May 2005, which explored the theme of Inclusive Education.

Stakeholder questions
At the start of the event the 65 participants were asked to form eight stakeholder groups. The groups were:

• Teachers and teacher trainers
• Parents
• Disabled people and disabled people’s organisations (DPOs)
• Grassroots implementers
• National level coordinators and advisors
• Regional coordinators
• Government policy makers
• Donors

Within their groups the participants were asked to consider what they wanted to know from other stakeholder groups, which resulted in a lively session. Its dynamic nature was encouraged by the participants who placed their statements and questions on the wall and connected the stakeholder groups they wanted to talk to with brightly-coloured string.

Click on the image to see a larger version of the matrix (704 KB).

The diagram showed the huge amount and variety of connections between everyone taking part in the discussions. For instance, much was made of the opportunity to talk to donors, but although funding was clearly on the agenda, participants wanted to talk about much more. The teachers and grassroots groups wanted to learn about different kinds of training and materials, while the parent’s group were keen to find new ways to collaborate with donors.

There was also recognition of the need for more communication within stakeholder groups. For example, the regional coordinators talked about the opportunity to learn from each others experiences and challenges, and share where programmes had been successful.

Parents were keen to find ways to engage with the different stakeholder groups and new ways to be involved in their children’s education. Most importantly they were keen to secure their children’s futures.

Grassroots implementers questioned the sustainability of some donor programmes and were keen to discuss ways to support services in the long term. They shared the view with the regional coordinator group that it was only by listening, having dialogue and learning about the challenges faced by DPOs and disabled people that the situation could be changed. They also highlighted the need to share information in order to empower disabled people.

The exercise gave the different groups the chance to talk about what they wanted from the roundtable and each other.

Climb every mountain!
On the second day of the roundtable the stakeholder groups came together to think about the implementation of inclusive education in the South East Asia region. A creative exercise called the “Mountain building activity” encouraged an imaginative response from participants. Firstly the stakeholder groups were asked to develop a standard SWOT matrix (the SWOT matrix analyses Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in any given situation or project). Once the groups had completed this task they were asked to illustrate their findings as a mountain. At the top of the mountain stood the goal of Inclusive Education; below this lay boulders and rocks, which represented challenges and obstacles to inclusion. Strengths and opportunities were illustrated as rivers, bridges, flowers, insects and other mountain landscapes.

The groups demonstrated their different perspectives on the issue and created the following mountains:

• The teachers and teacher trainers' group included a river which allowed for reflection on progress and gave a chance to learn from mistakes; while boulders represented the Cambodian government whose policies exclude people with disabilities from employment in the civil service. Opportunities such as changes in perception were shown as flowers on the path.
• The parents' group drew a pathway that included the parents’ warmth and commitment to their children as a strength. Threats, represented as boulders, included the difficulties parents faced in making decisions for their children and a lack of encouragement from governments and communities to send their children to mainstream schools.
• The grassroots implementers, and disabled people’s organisations took the approach of sharing problems and experiences to find ways to get around rocks and boulders such as a lack of policies to support Inclusive Education or a lack of awareness of the benefits of Inclusive Education. By working together with different stakeholder groups the journey to the top of the mountain would become easier and more rewarding.
• National level coordinators drew a mountain bathed in sunlight which represented children who were the main link between all parts of the mountain. In their illustration the rocks which represented threats to Inclusive Education, such as limited support from communities and families, could be turned into strengths and thus used as stepping-stones to achieve the goal. NGOs were shown as both a strength and a weakness; they can provide a vital source of funding and knowledge but can lead to donor dependence.
• The regional inclusive education programme coordinators and donors' group drew flowers which represented the opportunities to be ‘picked’, for example the support and commitment of NGOs and governments, or the forward thinking by some schools.
• The policy makers' group drew ladders for strengths such as tax incentives, or the formulation of new policy. Threats to achieving Inclusive Education included government apathy and lack of coordinated legislation.

Click on the names of each group, in the table below, to see their illustrations:

One of the main themes shared among the groups was the importance of recognising how the different stakeholder groups needed to improve their communication and understanding of each other. The grassroots implementers’s group commented: “We need to join hands and work together…Working with others helps find new pathways up the mountain and different ways to get around the boulders.”

It was agreed that learning from other IE programmes was crucial for the region since some countries were just embarking on the journey towards inclusion, while others were able to learn from their successes and challenges. In the coming years, these countries could play a significant role in supporting initiatives in the region.

And when it was all over?
The three day event was recognised by participants as being an effective way to improve communication for NGOs and DPOs in the region and it was felt that it provided excellent opportunities for the main inclusive education stakeholders in SE Asia to find out more about the situation in the region.

Using the stakeholder group approach alongside the creative exercises ensured that the event remained dynamic and provided a chance for participants to do more than just listen to presentations. It also encouraged an informal atmosphere for discussion and collaboration between national and international participants, as one participant said: “The roundtable was great for making new contacts, sharing ideas and exchanging experiences among friends.”

The participatory approach enabled participants to gain understanding of individual perspectives on inclusive education, moving away from a ‘policy down attitude’. A number of outputs developed by the groups advocated for a ‘multi-sector’ approach to working on future IE projects. These included a framework for working in IE and ideas for areas for further research.

For the different stakeholders, the event has led to a number of new initiatives, including:

• Plans to include parents in the governing board at a centre for child mental health.
• Workshops for teachers to help them to identify children with intellectual and specific learning disorders to prevent school drop-out and, ultimately, exclusion.
• Projects on Inclusive Education in collaboration with the International Labour Organisation and the Asia Pacific Partner Project.

At the closing of the roundtable, Mr Kol Pheng, the Senior Minister and Minister of Education, Youth and Sports, offered to organisise a ‘suggestions box for any issues on disability’. This invitation for more contact between the government and those working in the inclusive eduation field is a positive step in planning and implementing inclusive education programmes in the region.