Chapter Six Discussion
6.1 Introduction
6.2.1 Inefficient and ineffective diffusion of innovation
Although some teachers admitted to attending some training some time ago, most of the participants’ responses to what they understand by inclusive education and their experiences of this indicated very limited understanding of inclusive education. This limited knowledge and understanding, undoubtedly resulted in poor implementation of EWP6 at this school. The main cause of the poor understanding was the method in which this innovation was communicated to them as well as the kind of training they received from different institutions of higher learning. It was also evident that the kind of support available to this school was inadequate. Lastly, their experience and understanding was influenced and determined by the different kinds of support they received. On the basis of what I have seen and heard, after the national pilot programme from 2002 - 2003 conducted by the national DoE there was little done by uMngeni district DoE in providing the necessary support. Teachers did not indicate the kind of support received from the national department, except that they were excited when the DoE improved the school infrastructure by building a lift. The only support that the school received was from uMngeni district therapists, which exhibited the philosophies of the
130
traditional (medical) discourse. If therapists are not well equipped with the teaching methodologies and strategies in supporting a child experiencing barriers to learning and development in the class, they cannot actively promote inclusion. This also influences the teachers’ understanding of inclusive education at this school. Further findings indicated that teachers at this school are promoting this medical approach and they view a child as having problem which must be fixed through assistance outside mainstream education. In the current study teachers feel that such children need outside placement, and do not implement this strategy in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning and development. This lack of support prevented teachers from trying out new ways of working with learners and with each other. Change, is difficult to accept but it is worse in instances where it is not accomplished by support.
In terms of EWP6, teachers are regarded as the main change agents who are to be developed.
In the uMngeni district, this development did not happen or, if it did, it was not consistent in giving teachers confidence to adopt the new innovation. One cannot be a change agent when they themselves do not understand the proposed changes. In the case of Ntabakayikhonjwa school, they are expected to provide moderate levels of support and even support other teachers. This is not possible when they still need support to understand the philosophy of inclusion, to understand inclusive education and barriers to learning, how to identify and address them, and to be confident enough to understand and accept the role their school is expected to play. Secondly, the teachers’ reports suggest that the level of training received was too generic, hence the lack or limited understanding displayed. Unfortunately, this limited understanding of inclusive education affected the implementation of the policy at this school.
Research shows that once teachers acquire knowledge and skills related to inclusive practices, they are more likely to demonstrate accepting and positive attitudes to promote inclusive education (Makoelle, 2012). Furthermore, the success of inclusive education depends on the involvement of stakeholders, as teachers cannot implement this policy alone, they need support.
As such, the process of dissemination of information to all stakeholders needs to be accurate and adequate so that they are all in accord with inclusive education policies and can support each other. One of the causes of the negative attitudes towards inclusive education is the lack of understanding of the policy. Teachers complain of too much paperwork and additional
131
meeting time to provide effective education for all learners. Rogers (2003) cautions that creating new knowledge and practice should provide a “know why” experience not only a
“know how to” experience. While this technique means that an individual may have all the necessary knowledge on how to implement this strategy, without understanding why this is being done it is unlikely that they will adopt the innovation because their attitudes determine the rejection or adoption of an innovation.
It is important that teachers should first have an understanding of the innovation so that they will be able to foster inclusive education in classrooms. This school was in the national pilot programme from 2002 - 2003, but was only identified as a designated full-service school in 2008, and in 2010 the DoE appointed the LSE. The dissemination of the EWP6 from 2003 to 2010 was somehow compromised. To illustrate this, after the national pilot programme in 2003 the district (uMngeni) therapists came and trained teachers on the medical model – since they were trained on the medical approach – which reversed the training that teachers received in 2002–2003.EWP6 was released in 2001, and then in 2005 the DoE released another document called Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for Full-service Schools (2005), followed by the Guidelines for Full-service Schools in 2010, and in 2011 the KZN DoE released Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for Full-service Schools. Surprisingly, none of the participants in this study were aware of all of these documents. The LSE also did not refer to them, which made me suspect that she only knows EWP6.
This could partly explain why the teachers’ understanding of inclusive education is limited.
The documents that followed EWP6 contain vital information which should have been disseminated to them, but their access to critical information was compromised, hence the predicament they are in. Unfortunately, this situation did not only impact teachers’ knowledge but also their practice. If teachers do not understand the policies of the day, they cannot implement them with understanding. In the case of Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school, the teachers talk the talk but are not walking the talk. Their “steps” are uncertain and shaky because they lack the foundation and confidence in the policy they are supposed to implement. The adoption of inclusive education is important in bringing about positive change in how learners who are thought as being different are viewed and treated (negative attitudes to difference), thus removing barriers to learning and development. This was discussed in Chapter two.
132
However, when there is no or limited understanding of this policy, negative attitudes prevail, as evident in the participants’ responses and lamentations about having to deal with learners experiencing barriers to learning and development. The fact that some teachers still separate and teach learners alone or even refer them to special schools suggests that the medical model still dominates the teachers’ perspective about learner diversity. The structures may have been established at this school but there has been no re-culturing in as far as the beliefs and daily practices of teachers are concerned. It is very true that the establishment of the support structures (SBST and DBST) does not bring change, but to accommodate and celebrate diversity in class and school-wide requires a changed culture of teaching and learning.