Presentation and discussion of data
5.2 Findings from the study
5.2.4 Support systems
5.2.4.2 District support
123
Kilicoglu (2013) confirm that individuals in a school organisation may prefer to focus more on their daily routine matters that they think they perform well and set up some defence mechanisms against the proposed change by resisting it. One of the principles of support provision is to reflect a commitment to an integrated approach (Dyson & Forlin, 2010); in this case, integration draws on relevant stakeholders like the community which is a central feature of the support system envisaged for the South African system of education.
124
school-based support for teachers. During focus group interviews with the SMT they highlighted the following:
Mr Sibisi, Deputy Principal: They do support us. They are supposed to come at least once a term. However, it is not always the case. They do not provide us with their schedule of workshops. They only come when they feel like there are things they need to address to us. We have to somehow wonder who exactly works as an interlink between us and the department.
When we happen to have a workshop some teachers do not attend; only those with interest do attend.
Mr Mweli, HoD: We first had an advocacy workshop. They explained Education White Paper 6.
Teachers gave their views on the district support.
P4: Teachers are not well informed on how to deal with learners experiencing barriers to learning.
P19: Departmental officials do the theory part of it, no practicality of it and only tell us to be creative when developing learners’ support programmes.
P17: Yes, the department provides some support but it is not enough. As teachers we are expected to identify learners experiencing barriers to learning but we are not adequately supported,
P24: The support is not enough because it becomes difficult to teach different groups (fast and slow learners) at the same time.
P15: We do get some support but not much. She comes once in a while. But as a school we are often asked by the department to identify learners with difficulties and we do, only to find that the support is not available from them.
When asked who supported the teachers from the district, Participant 2 said: Psychologist, social worker and therapists from the district. Psychologist and a social worker are from SNES and I assume that they are invited by the LSE to provide support to learners. Some of the teachers at this school seem to have a feeling that there is inconsistency in the level of support provided by the district, and they still believe in placement of learners in special schools rather than designing individual support programmes for them. There is also a negative attitude
125
towards inclusive education from some of the teachers. This was highlighted by Mr Sibisi, who said that some of the teachers do not attend training because of their negative attitudes. I believe that once teachers receive comprehensive training on inclusive education there will be ownership of the concept. Teachers also felt that there must be training before the implementation of EWP6, with practical examples. For the LSE to be able to provide support to Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school, she needs support too. During the individual interview with the LSE, when asked who supports her, she responded as follows:
Mrs Khumalo, LSE: I am supposed to be supported by the Senior Education Specialist, who is my immediate supervisor. However, this is not happening. I did my own research on full- service schools and the programmes that they offer and how they should be supported. The only support I received from the senior education specialist, she introduced me to the full- service school principal: that is all.
This official was appointed in 2010 as indicated in Chapter four, and the concept of a full- service school was new to her. Furthermore, she is from a school where she worked as a Deputy Principal and had no class to teach. In this position she had to familiarise herself with policy documents, including EWP6, on her own without any support from her senior colleagues. She indicated that she was invited by the provincial office for SIAS training, but she stated that there was too much information to be covered in just two days. This indicates to me that the provincial office does not develop and capacitate district officials regularly on inclusive education, especially the LSEs working in full-service schools. The DBST is the key lever for inclusion, and it is imperative that they get adequate training from the provincial office. With the limited information that the LSE has, she said she manages to support Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school. She stated in the interview that she supports the school twice a week and that she works closely with stakeholders like NGOs, SAPS, Department of Social Development and Department of Health and SBST.
This indicated that there is some working together with other stakeholders at this school, as it is important to involve multisectoral collaboration in providing the range of services.
Furthermore, when asked how she supported teachers, she said: I support them on the establishment of support structure (SBST) and to process referrals they made. The participants acknowledge that the district does support them in certain areas. What became apparent in these responses is that the support only comes from Special Needs Education Services (SNES), and
126
it seems as if it is their responsibility to implement inclusive education. However, the fundamental role of support services is to remove, reduce and prevent barriers by developing some mechanisms that make the curriculum responsive to the needs of all learners and to ensure that all are actively involved and participate equally in the education process. The proper implementation of inclusive education calls for the collaboration of all directorates in the DoE to strengthen educational support. This strengthening of support can happen through supporting teaching, learning and management in building the capacity of schools. Furthermore, the strengthening of support calls for all members to adopt a sense of ownership for all learners experiencing barriers to learning. It is good that at this school there is a range of different professionals that are involved in the teaching of learners with special needs; however, all these professionals are from one section, SNES. Each directorate in the DoE is supposed to provide support on their core functions at this full-service school; however, teachers’ responses did not indicate any support from other sub-directorates. The Ministry accepted that a broad range of learning needs exists among the learner population, and learners may fail to learn because of different learning needs that may arise because of the numerous barriers they face. Among these is an inflexible curriculum (DoE, 2001, p. 18). There is therefore a need, for curriculum support for teachers at this full- service school, so that they differentiate the curriculum for learners with special needs.
Naicker (2006) illustrates that curriculum embraces all the learning experiences available to all learners in their schools as well as communities, and further elaborate on the purposes of the curriculum:
● It embodies all the knowledge, values and skills the country offers; and
● Aims to deliver quality education to learners both in terms of levels of engagement and outcomes.
For the purposes of the curriculum to be accessed, there needs to be flexibility in the curriculum to meet all the needs of learners in the classroom. It is therefore important to bring all the sub- directorates on board with regard to policy and its implementation, as well as provision of support as per their core functions.
127 5.3 Conclusion
In this chapter I have presented and analysed data collected using three different data collection tools, namely questionnaires and individual and focus group interviews. The findings revealed that there is still a challenge in the understanding and implementation of EWP6 by teachers at this full-service school. While some of the participants in this study indicated some limited gains during the implementation of inclusive education, they further highlighted some challenges. I am of the view that formal training plays an important role in improving teachers’
actions and views on the subject and its implementation. Doyle (2002) states that re-culturing, used as a conceptual framework that underpins this study, focuses more on teachers’ thinking about learners experiencing barriers to learning who are in need of their support, and also how they need to change their mind set and have a common goal to support learners. On paper inclusive education seems to bring fundamental changes that improve schools’ responses to learners who experience barriers to learning in order to ensure quality education for all. For this goal to occur, schools will have to make some changes that will ensure participation and progress for all learners. It would appear that teachers lack knowledge on how to address practical challenges on how to implement inclusive education.
128