Conceptualising disability in Ghana: implications for EFA and inclusive education

Abstract

The Ghanaian government has recently ratified its commitment to Education for All (EFA) and to reaching marginalised students through inclusive education. This article critically examines the often conflicting demands of internationally driven initiatives and their subsequent interpretation and implementation in a disparate culture. A controversial debate juxtaposes conceptualisations of disability as rooted in social injustice with positions which see disability as an impairment located within the individual. Critically, divergent conceptualisations of disability carry political implications for educational policies and provision. It is argued that meaningful educational opportunities for students with autism in Ghana are limited by this dichotomy of thinking and must be re-conceptualised to account for both the interaction between individual and societal barriers as well as local understandings of disability. Conceptualisations of disability, as entrenched in Ghanaian cultural beliefs, norms and history are explored alongside the implications of these beliefs in designing and implementing national educational policies for students with intellectual disabilities as well as the socio-political pressures to adhere to large-scale international movements such as EFA and inclusive education (IE).

Keywords:

• Ghana
• autism
• inclusion
• disability
• culture
• internationalisation
• Education for All

Notes

This research afforded the opportunity to speak with many high-level government officials and while it has been tempting at times to reveal their position, it would be unethical to do so. For consistency sake, the following labels are used throughout to cite interview responses: ‘family member’, ‘community member’, ‘teacher’, ‘professional’ and ‘senior professional’. ‘Senior professionals’ are national-level professionals holding top positions within the MoESS or various divisions of the GES, ‘teachers’ are those working at a classroom level and ‘professionals’ are those not better included in the previous two categories.

Recently, staff at the Special Education Division of GES have begun using the term ‘intellectually disabled’ or ‘intellectually handicapped’ in place of ‘mental disability/handicap’ but this change in terminology has not been officially recognised and its use remains sporadic and inconsistent.