Summary, recommendations and conclusion
7.2 Summary of findings
As outlined above, this study sought to investigate teachers’ understandings and experiences of EWP6, how that translates into practice and what support systems are made available by the uMngeni Education district office to facilitate the implementation of inclusive education in a full-service school context. The summary of findings in this chapter is structured in relation to the themes which emerged.
7.2.1 Teachers’ understandings and experiences of inclusive education.
The first research focus in this project investigated teachers’ understandings and experiences of EWP6 at Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school located in uMngeni district, KZN. The
151
findings from this study suggest that there was a very limited and shallow understanding of inclusive education among some of the participants in this study, while others showed no understanding of the policy document. These results are an indication that there is a need for capacity building of teachers, especially when new innovations are introduced, since teachers are regarded as the agents of change in the implementation of policies.
Most of the teachers at this full-service school have been teaching for more than 10 years, which indicates that the training they received was attributed to the legacy of the education policies instituted under the old regime. Confirming this, most of the responses they gave during data collection indicated some dominance of the traditional approach (medical model) which was used in their initial training. The provision of education was formerly racially entrenched and institutionalised with unfair discriminatory practices. This led to disparities in the delivery of education (Engelbrecht, 2006, p. 254). It is for this reason that some of the teachers at Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school seemed not to understand EWP6, even though some of them were part of the national pilot study. Findings from the questionnaires suggest that many teachers had mistaken beliefs about inclusive education, with 18 equating inclusive education with teaching disabled learners in mainstream schools rather than embracing EWP6. This implies that they have not made the shift to a focus on barriers to learning and development, which involves the processes of changing attitudes, values, policies and practices within the school setting (Polat, 2011, p. 51).
Despite the fact that EWP6 was launched in 2001, and the teachers were trained on EWP6 after its release, teachers’ understanding of inclusive education is very limited. During the interviews with the SMT they indicated that they were very excited after being identified as a full-service school; however, they were not aware that this comes with a massive responsibility. This is an indication that their understanding of inclusive education is significant in the way that it can influence – either negatively or positively – the degree to which learners experiencing barriers to learning and development are accommodated and supported in this school.
Most teachers at this school seemed to lack understanding of the concept ‘full-service school’.
One teacher understood ‘full-service school’ to mean one that caters for learners with different
152
learning barriers, such as visual impairment, learning impairment and different physical disabilities. Another participant gave a similar definition of a full-service school as a school that admits learners with different barriers to learning. During interviews with the District Official (LSE), she indicated that she had received no training from the district or her supervisor on what is expected of her at a full-service school. She had only attended a once-off workshop which was organised by the Provincial Office (Head Office), where the LSEs were inducted.
This has negatively influenced the manner in which she supports this full-service school.
I also had some informal discussions with all the LSEs in this district (uMngeni) on the training they attended as well as their general feeling on the implementation of this innovation. What transpired is that they are very willing to implement this innovation, but found it very challenging because of a lack of working together with other sub-directorates in this district, as they work in silos. The LSEs are inundated with requests to provide necessary support to teachers on the implementation of curriculum differentiation; however, they are also not in position to do this because they also lack training on the curriculum. Surprisingly, curriculum differentiation workshops for teachers only started in 2015, and the district officials (inclusive education component) have only managed to train two full-service schools out of eight in the district. Teachers at Ntabakayikhonjwa have not been trained on curriculum differentiation, even though the DoE expects this school to implement the innovation.
The LSE indicated that she does workshop teachers on inclusive education, but she did not specify exactly what aspects are covered. She did state that she trains them on the establishment of the support structures, which includes the SBST, and that she personally supports learners by developing their individual support plans. During interviews she further indicated that she spends two days a week supporting teachers at this full-service school. She claimed that she workshopped the SBST, but she was not very clear on the kind of development she does with them. The philosophy of inclusion is understood differently by teachers at Ntabakayikhonjwa full-service school, and some have their own views on what needs to change in the South African education system. One indicated that there should be special programmes for slow learners and a special syllabus for learners experiencing barriers to learning. These responses are an indication of poor understanding of the EWP6 policy.
153
Teachers at Ntabakayikhonjwa seem to be aware that learners experiencing barriers to learning should receive additional support, but they do not think that learners should be supported in the context of the mainstream curriculum, or that they are required to accommodate them by differentiating the same curriculum to meet the needs of learners in the classroom. For this to happen requires good governance and leadership of schools. The teachers seem uncomfortable teaching and providing support to learners experiencing barriers to learning. This can only be achieved if they are adequately trained to execute such duties. It is very obvious that the implementation of EWP6 is still at the infancy stage in this school. The teachers’ voices indicated that the timeframe set by the DoE that all schools will be inclusive by 2021 and be centres of care; support and learning will not be met since this is now only five years away.
Based on the poor understanding of this policy by teachers at this school, achieving this goal does not seem possible.
7.2.2 Implementation and management of EWP6
The second research focus of this study was how EWP6 is implemented in the form of a full- service school. The findings indicate that teachers have different understandings of inclusive education, which impacted negatively on its implementation. They have different interpretations of EWP6 and inclusive education, particularly on how it should be implemented. On paper inclusive education seems to bring with it fundamental changes that improve schools’ responses to learners experiencing barriers to learning in order to ensure quality education for all. For this goal to actually be attained schools will have to make some changes, these changes include their attitude towards inclusion that will ensure participation and progress for all learners. The DoE needs to play a huge role in this regard, as do all partners and stakeholders in education. It seems that teachers lack knowledge on how to address practical challenges on the implementation of inclusive education.
154 7.2.3 Support systems
The third research focus of this study involved investigating what support from the district is available to teachers and learners at this school. One of the key strategies for establishing inclusive education is the establishment of support structures responsible for providing a coordinated professional support service to schools. The full-service school is one of the institutions that should be receiving that quality support from the SBST and DBST. The findings in this study reveal that there is only one structure at school level (SBST), and the support received is minimal. The other support structure is not available in this district, and only the special education component seems to be responsible for inclusive education at this stage. The South African Ministry of Education believes that the key to reducing barriers to learning lies in a strengthened education support service; however, these structures remain on paper only inclusive education in this district is driven primarily by the special education component (SNES). The district managed to establish the support structures in some of the schools, so that these will provide support to learners and teachers.
Surprisingly, teachers have little or no knowledge and skills for responding to all learners’
needs. The lack of training presents serious challenges to the implementation of inclusive education at this full-service school. During the interview with the LSE she indicated that she had not received any support from either the provincial or district DoE. The DoE has neglected to empower her yet expects her to develop the full-service school to become a centre of care, learning and support.