Research design and methodology
4.5 Findings from the pilot study
4.5.3 Support provisioning
EWP6 indicates how learners experiencing barriers to learning should be identified and supported. The policy emphasises the supporting of learners through full-service schools and
85
defines how these schools will access support. The policy further indicates strategies to assist teachers to understand and cope with the diversity of teaching and learning needs of all learners.
For the proper implementation of inclusive education the DoE initiated the establishment of support structures namely, DBST and SBST (discussed in detail in Chapter two). The DBST plays a pivotal role in capacitating SBSTs, and teachers at this school should be receiving support from these entities.
4.5.3.1 District support
In this pilot study all six teachers confirmed that they do receive support from the Department of Education. However, they were not very clear and specific on the kind of support they receive from uMngeni district. They also gave different meanings of support, as follows:
P1: We receive support on the referral procedures and learner placement to special schools P6: Workshops and checking of 001 forms but little is being done
P5: Workshops which are not consistent’
P21: District is there to support SBST and they even built support centre for us
P4: Our LSE supports our SBST. She usually comes twice a month. She turns up when asked to visit our school to discuss some referred cases’
This feedback from teachers seems to imply that the DoE official (LSE) is not conversant with EWP6 and the new developments that have paved the way for inclusion. Instead of training teachers on how to implement inclusive education they are still practising the traditional approach, where a learner is assessed and placed at a relevant school rather than creating a positive environment of acceptance among all learners irrespective of their differences. By a relevant school Participant 1 meant a special school. The DoE needs to focus on the training of teachers on how to embrace diversity in the classroom rather than focusing on the medical model. My final conclusion on the above excerpt is that the DoE needs to capacitate teachers on the effective strategies for inclusion, good inclusive practice, providing individual support plans for learners and deviating from the rigid curriculum that does not accommodate all
86
learners. It also transpired that this school has a support centre, which the participants had different views of, with P2 saying as follows:
We have a support centre which is not working as we speak. Although, the support is not much, they do support us in terms of paperwork (on how to fill in 001form). They workshop us on how to handle a child presenting with ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] and epilepsy.
Again here this participant confirms what has been said by Participant 1. This current situation does not speak to inclusive education, but rather exclusion. I think it is good that teachers are receiving some training on how to deal with learners presenting with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – however, that is not enough. What is important is how our teachers can improve their teaching methodologies to meet the needs of all learners in the classroom;
otherwise we will have learners who will float through the system. These are the aspects that the DoE should be focusing on – training teachers to understand what a full-service school is and its role in the system.
Participants 4’s response on support was as follows:
Yes we do receive support from the LSE and if she is unable to come she phones and makes a follow-up over the phone. She comes twice a month and sometimes turn up when asked to visit our school to discuss some case. She supports the SBST
The main purpose of the creation of the LSE post was to provide support to a full-service school and the neighbouring mainstream schools. Seemingly this LSE does not comply with her job description. This participant indicates that sometimes this LSE follows up on cases telephonically, which is not in line with EWP6 in terms of providing the necessary support. An LSE works as an itinerant official.
Participant 6 stated that the LSE does come to check LSEN 001 forms but little is being done.
The above responses suggested that the kind of support that teachers receive is not very well outlined to them, and some revealed that the support is more in the form of a referral system or the placement model than responding to specific learner needs.
87 4.5.3.2 In-school support
Some teachers indicated that there is an SBST but they were not exactly sure of the role that this support structure should play. According to them the availability of this structure was more than enough. The following are the responses given by teachers on their understanding of the role played by the SBST:
P5: To gain knowledge from various sources and empower the whole staff
P6: It works on the identified cases (keeping 001 form) and other relevant forms for referrals or special cases and contact with social workers and the district official
P2: To provide support to teachers as well as parents and learners. They liaise with the Department officials for support
P4: The function of the SBST is to support teachers when they have identified learners with learning difficulties. The teacher together with the SBST provide learning programme for learners learning difficulties
P1: The SBST collates list of learners with barriers to learning, referral files. Inform district support staff on the identified learners
These comments further demonstrate the persistence of the traditional approach or medical model. The focus here is more on the learner as being problematic and requiring placement at a special school. Despite this, it was encouraging to learn that Participant 4 has a very good understanding of the role of the SBST; this is because of the qualification she holds in inclusive education, as indicated in Table 1. She is conversant with EWP6 and that there should be support programmes (individual support programmes) in place. However, the question is do teachers know how to develop and implement them? If so, is there any follow-up made by the LSE to teachers and learners checking on the progress?
Participant 1’s response indicates that she is part of the SBST and is the one who liaises directly with the LSE and not the entire staff. From this it seems unlikely that the LSE does support the entire staff on inclusive education, but rather that she only speaks to the SBST. She also provides support that is not in line with an inclusive education model but rather to a medical model, which is hugely problematic. EWP6 was released in 2001 and up to now this school is
88
still facing challenges in understanding inclusive education and translating that into practice.
Teachers at this school rely heavily on the SBST in providing support to learners and they do not see it as their new role as a full-service school. The SBST relies on the LSE to take learners with learning difficulties to special schools rather than first providing the necessary support.
They do not have capacity to provide support to all learners.