TPN3704 Assignment 2 Link 2 Article 2022

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283788561
The idealism of education policies and the realities in schools: the

implementation of inclusive education in South Africa
Article in International Journal of Inclusive Education · October 2015

DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1095250
CITATIONS READS
67 32,552
4 authors, including:
Petra Engelbrecht Mirna Nel

North-West University North-West University
37 PUBLICATIONS 1,758 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 1,017 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teacher Education for Inclusion View project
Teachers’ roles in inclusive education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mirna Nel on 15 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Inclusive Education
ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
The idealism of education policies and the realities

in schools: the implementation of inclusive
education in South Africa
Petra Engelbrecht, Mirna Nel, Suegnet Smit & Marichelle van Deventer
To cite this article: Petra Engelbrecht, Mirna Nel, Suegnet Smit & Marichelle van Deventer
(2015): The idealism of education policies and the realities in schools: the implementation
of inclusive education in South Africa, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2015.1095250
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095250
Published online: 16 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
Download by: [North West University] Date: 20 October 2015, At: 05:53
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095250
The idealism of education policies and the realities in schools: the

implementation of inclusive education in South Africa
∗
Petra Engelbrechta , Mirna Nelb, Suegnet Smita and Marichelle van Deventera
a
COMPRES, Faculty of Education Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South
Africa; bOptentia Research Focus Area, School of Education Sciences, North-West
University, South Africa
(Received 11 March 2015; accepted 31 August 2015)
Downloaded by [North West University] at 05:53 20 October 2015
Inclusive education as a global movement emerged over the past 30 years to ensure
quality mainstream education for all learners. Since 1994 the newly democratic
South Africa also had expectations as well as the political will to change
education by adjusting legislation and policies. However, the vision of a truly
inclusive education system in South Africa has been difficult to achieve and
results regarding the implementation of inclusive education remain questionable.
There has been a growing realisation that the advent of democracy was not in
itself a sufficient condition for the elimination of historical and structural
inequalities in education with as recurring theme the dissonance between the
government’s socio-political imperative for change and economic realities. This
article focuses on the development of policy and guidelines on inclusive
education in dynamic interaction with the complexity of realities in South
African schools with a special focus on the policy recommendations regarding
the development of full-service schools. The constant comparative analysis of
the two phased case study of a full-service school in a rural town revealed
interesting results illustrating the complexities regarding the implementation of
inclusive education and the challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap
between the idealism of policies and the realities in schools.
Keywords: education policy; policy implementation; inclusive education; South
African context; inclusive practice
Introduction
Inclusive education as a global movement emerged in the past 30 years as a response to
the exclusion of learners who were viewed as different by education systems. Implicit
and explicit in the development of international legislation is the overall goal of full
access to mainstream education not only for learners with disabilities but also for lear-
ners from lower socio-economic backgrounds and learners from diverse cultural back-
grounds (Smyth et al. 2014). The publication of, for example, the Salamanca Statement
(UNESCO 1994) imbued inclusion as a guiding principle in the development of edu-
cation for all, arguing that all learners should be accommodated in mainstream
schools regardless of their physical, intellectual, linguistic, social or emotional needs
and differences. Inclusive education is now regarded as the right of every child to be
part of mainstream education and focuses on access to, acceptance of and participation
∗
Corresponding author. Email: petra.engelbrecht50@gmail.com
# 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 P. Engelbrecht et al.
in mainstream education (Srivastava, De Boer, and Pijl 2013; Waitoller and Artiles
2013).
A non-racial, democratic South Africa came into being in 1994 on a tide of expec-
tations and political will to change education to address and respond to the needs of all
citizens (Badat and Sayed 2014). South Africa’s new education legislation and policies
therefore tend to be inherently political and entrench the principles enshrined in the
Constitution of South Africa which itself is grounded in the values of human
dignity, the advancement of human rights and freedom and the achievement of equality
(Department of Education [DoE] 1995; Republic of South Africa [RSA] 1996a,
1996b). It is understandable that inclusive education with its broad equity agenda
focus has been included in South African education policies and that guidelines for
the implementation of inclusive education have consequently been developed.
However, the vision of a truly inclusive education system in South Africa has been
difficult to achieve and results regarding the implementation of inclusive education

remain questionable (Engelbrecht and Van Deventer. 2013; Schafer and Wilmot
2012; Wildeman and Nomdo 2007). Consequently there has been a growing realisation
that the advent of democracy and the development of idealistic policies were not in
itself a sufficient condition for the elimination of historical and structural inequalities
in education with as recurring theme the dissonance between the government’s
socio-political imperative for change and existing economic realities (Badat and
Sayed 2014; Schafer and Wilmot 2012).
This article focuses first of all on a discussion of the development of policy and
guidelines on the implementation of inclusive education in dynamic interaction with
the complexity of realities in South African schools and secondly on one of the rec-
ommendations in policy documents regarding the development of full-service schools.
Policy developments in South Africa

Post 1994 education policy documents specifically drew on what was judged to be best
international practices at the time and set out a vision of what an ideal education system
might look like based on the following sets of principles: equality and human rights and
human resource development (Christie 2008). School communities were therefore
obliged by law to promote equity and redress in their education programmes (RSA
1996a, 1996b). The White Paper of 1995 (also known as White Paper 1) and the
South African Schools Act (1996) created the basis to facilitate a paradigm shift in
views of difference regarding learning needs in classrooms from a medical deficit
model of difference to a social model of difference (Muthukrishna and Schoeman
2000; Swart and Pettipher 2011; Terzi 2010). Supporting this paradigm shift was the
White Paper on an Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS) (RSA 1997).
In 1996, the National Commission on Special Needs Education and Training
(NCSNET) and the National Committee for Education Support Services (NCESS)
were appointed. In its report (DoE 1997) the Commission and Committee pointed
out that the strong emphasis on a medical model approach to special needs education
and learners with disabilities in the past had failed to describe the nature of learning
needs which are regarded as special. Within the medical model, disability was seen
as a departure from human normality with a resultant restriction in abilities to
perform tasks. This approach promoted an understanding of disability primarily as
an individual condition – and hence the labelling of ‘individual special needs’ (Terzi
2010). The term learners with special educational needs for learners with disabilities
International Journal of Inclusive Education 3
therefore became a catch-all phrase to categorise all those learners who somehow did
not fit into mainstream education and to describe the complex array of needs which
they might have. The strong dependence on a medical model for identification and
support furthermore did not provide insight into the various factors that could have
caused diverse learning needs or why many students had been excluded during the pre-
vious apartheid education system (Engelbrecht and Van Deventer 2013; Muthukrishna
and Schoeman 2000). A move away from the medical model with its deficits approach
to educational needs to a social model of diverse educational needs including disabil-
ities was proposed in the report and the removal of all barriers to learning and partici-
pation in society for people with diverse learning needs including people with
disabilities advocated (Terzi 2010). These barriers were deemed to be largely of a sys-
temic nature and therefore the Commission proposed the term ‘barriers to learning and
development’ be used rather than the term ‘special needs’ that in the past focused on
disabilities (DoE 1997).

As a response to the Commission’s report the Government introduced Education
White Paper 6: Special Needs Education, Building an Inclusive Education and Training
System in 2001. White Paper 6 highlighted relevant principles that are integral to an
inclusive education system; including principles of social justice, human rights, a
healthy environment, participation, social integration and redress, equal and equitable
access to education, community responsive and cost effectiveness (DoE 2001). It
asserted that the education system must transform itself to accommodate the full
range of learning needs including needs caused by organic/medical causes as well as
needs caused by systemic barriers including poverty and poorly trained teachers
within mainstream schools. However, despite this strongly stated position on the
socially constructed nature of difference, White Paper 6 still depended on a deficit
approach when support for diverse educational needs was proposed. It distinguished
between learners with low-intensive support who will receive support in mainstream
schools, learners with moderate support requirements who will be accommodated in
full-service schools, and learners who require high-intensive educational support
who will continue to be accommodated in special schools as resource centres (DoE
2001, 2005c; Engelbrecht and Van Deventer 2013).
The recommended framework for implementation outlined in the policy document
provided for a gradual process of implementation and suggested a 20-year plan to trans-
form the education system into an inclusive education system. In that timeframe, short-
term, medium-term and long-term strategies were to be implemented with the intention
of ensuring sufficient human resource development to equip teachers with the necessary
competencies to accommodate learner diversity in meaningful ways. Schools were to
be made accessible for all learners through the development of physical and material
resources, as well as inter-sectorial collaboration between governmental departments
at all levels (Lomofsky and Green 2004; Oswald 2007).
Some of the key strategies suggested in the White Paper for the gradual develop-
ment of inclusive schools included the development of so called full-service schools
in the nine provinces of the country that will function in close collaboration with
special schools as resource centres as well as district-based support teams. Supporting
full-service schools to become examples of good practice was seen as an important
strategy to chart the way for all schools to ultimately become inclusive full-service
schools (DoE 2001, 2005c). According to White Paper 6, a full-service school
should be an ordinary primary school which is provided with the necessary physical,
material, human resources and professional development of staff so that they can
accommodate a diverse range of learning needs. In the short-term White Paper 6 under-
lined the important role of the 30 mainstream schools selected during a field test in 30
selected districts (Department of Basic Education [DBE] 2010) for developing inclus-
ive systems and strategically planning the conversion of 500 (in the long term) main-
stream primary schools to become full-service schools (now also known as inclusive
schools) (DBE 2010) over a period of 20 years.
The effect of educational change efforts in South African schools

Quantitatively South African education has made great progress during the past two
decades by increasing pre-primary, primary and secondary school enrolments. These
enrolment ratios are comparable to those of other middle income countries (Wolhuter
2014). However, a qualitative analysis of mainstream education in general indicates
that inequities of class, gender and geography do not translate into full participation
and quality with specific reference to physical facilities and the availability of appropri-
ately educated teachers and effective and adequate teaching and learning resources in
mainstream schools (Christie 2008). Badat and Sayed (2014) state that although the
desegregation of schools has been addressed, differentiated access to schooling still
exists. Learners from middle to higher income socio-economic backgrounds are con-
centrated at what pre-1994 used to be well-resourced institutions for white learners,
while learners from the lower working class and rural poor are still concentrated at
pre-1994 poorly resourced institutions for learners that come from diverse cultural
backgrounds. Poor quality of learning and teaching still characterises these poorly
resourced schools especially in the rural areas. Despite the fact that equal funding of
education remains a key priority for the government, permitting the charging of
school fees and the control of schools by school governing bodies have enabled the his-
torically privileged schools to further develop teaching and learning resources and
pursue excellence. In this way equity of opportunity and outcomes are now conditioned
by social class and geography in contrast to racial discrimination in the past (Badat and
Sayed 2014).
With specific reference to the implementation of inclusive education the analysis by
Wildeman and Nomdo of developments in this regard in 2007 points out that the
assumption of the implementation of new policies was that sufficient funding has
been secured and the implementing agencies have the capacity to deliver it.
However, recent research studies on the implementation of inclusive education in
South Africa found that despite the development of implementation guidelines since
2007, complex contextual issues such as funding constraints that affect the availability
of resources, resultant overcrowded classrooms and negative school cultures that influ-
ence attitudes towards difference and disability, still complicate the implementation of
the recommendations of White Paper 6 (Walton 2010; Walton and Lloyd 2011).
Donohue and Bornman (2014) also point out that the lack of clarity regarding the
specific means through which schools should meet the stated goals of inclusive edu-
cation and how education policy should be enforced has also led to inaction by stake-
holders involved.
Although South African teachers seem to favour inclusion in principle they believe
that the South African educational system does not have the resources needed to enable
them to implement inclusive education. Teachers’ ambivalence regarding the implemen-
tation of inclusive education increases as they become more concerned with teaching
subject matter and completing curriculum requirements rather than diversifying
instruction and developing support strategies to meet a range of learner needs (e.g.
Jordan, Glenn, and McGhie-Richmond 2010; Meltz, Herman, and Pillay 2014; Savolai-
nen et al. 2012). Regarding the development of full-service schools, progress with iden-
tifying and establishing full-service schools was initially slow and by 2010 only eight
schools country-wide had completed their transition to full-service schools. However,
to date at least 510 full-service schools have been established throughout the country car-
rying with them a weight of expectation as front runners for the implementation of inclus-
ive education and the eventual establishment of all mainstream schools to become
inclusive schools (Walton et al. 2014). A guideline document regarding the development
of full-service schools was published in 2005 and revised in 2010 (DBE 2010). As men-
tioned earlier, the purpose of full-service schools is to strengthen the implementation of
inclusive education, by ensuring greater access for all learners, especially the poor, and to
provide educational support to other local neighbourhood schools. A fundamental focus
of these schools is to encourage a mind shift in the way the schooling system regards bar-
riers to learning and development including disability. These guidelines for the
implementation of full-service schools (DoE 2005b) provide details regarding defi-
nitions and developmental issues. Accordingly key roles of full-service schools are as
follows (DBE 2010, 17–23, 43):
. Site-based support that could be formed by the School Management Team

(SMT), principal and teachers and also by non-teachers, like the School Govern-
ing Body (SGB), caregivers, families and peers. This team is called the Insti-
tutional Level Site Support Team (ILST).
. Supporting neighbouring schools on different levels like sharing and exchanging
resources, skills or technology; be of advisory assistance to teachers; share
examples of good practice; and promote sustainability and development.
. The relationship between full-service schools and resource centres (traditional
special schools) must focus on collaboration to exchange knowledge, information
and technological skills, professional development and support for sustainability.
Where there are no resource centres, full-service schools might have to take on
some of their responsibilities.
. Collaboration with district-based support teams (DBST). District support teams’
primary focus is to develop and assist site-based support teams providing indirect
support to learners through supporting teachers and school management with cur-
riculum and institutional development. A secondary focus is to provide direct
support to learners when site-based teams are unable to respond to particular
learning needs.
Against the background of the literature review of inclusive education policy develop-
ment and realities in South African schools, a two phased case study of a full-service
school in one of the provinces will endeavour to illustrate the complexities regarding
the implementation of inclusive education and the challenges and opportunities in brid-
ging the gap between the idealism of policies and the realities in schools.
Case study
School X is an ordinary public primary school which was identified by the Department of
Basic Education as a full-service school in a rural town in South Africa and the school
was informed about this decision in 2008. The majority of the learners’ socio-economic
status is on an average or below average level. In 2008–2009 (Phase 1 of the research

project) the school had 570 learners including 25 identified learners with barriers to learn-
ing (defined as learners with special educational needs by the school). In 2012 –2013
(phase 2 of the research project) the number of learners increased to 800 with 65 ident-
ified learners with barriers to learning. There are 23 classes from Grade one to Grade
seven in the school. According to the school principal and teachers as well as our obser-
vations in the classrooms and playground learners with mild disabilities as defined in
White Paper 6 are present in the school including for example one learner in a wheelchair,
two learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders, a learner with scoliosis and a number of
other learners with mild to severe learning disabilities, especially in mathematics and
reading in 2012. The researchers were denied access to the school’s register of learners
identified with barriers to learning as it is regarded as confidential by the school principal.
The school had since 2008 opted for separate classrooms for the learners they had
identified as being in need of learning support (learners with neurological, physical and
sensory disabilities as well as learners with learning disabilities), calling it ‘classrooms
for learners with special educational needs’ (ELSEN classes) instead of including these
learners within their mainstream classrooms. There are three ELSEN classrooms for the
Foundation phase, one for Grade One work, one for Grade Two work and one for Grade
Three work. Learners who experience barriers to learning are identified by their main-
stream classroom teachers and then referred to the school’s ILST, where after a
decision, in consultation with the parents, is made regarding the retention of the
learner for another year in the same grade. If the barrier to learning persists after this
additional year in a grade the issue is discussed with the parents and a referral form
is sent to the local Departmental psychologist at the District office, together with a port-
folio of the learner’s school work. If the District office approves placement in the
ELSEN class, an ELSEN number is awarded where after placement is permanent.
The school is visited from time to time by members of the District Office but according
to the school principal there is no clear monitoring and mentoring process in place
regarding the further development of the school as a full-service school.
All mainstream and ELSEN classrooms are characterised by a number of diverse
cultures and ethnic groups with mainly Setswana, Afrikaans and English as home
languages. The Language of Learning and Teaching of the school used to be Afrikaans
but changed in 2010 to dual medium (English and Afrikaans) in order to become more
inclusive regarding their languages of instruction. However, the Setswana speaking
learners, for example, are not learning in their home language but in their second
language. Limited funding was initially made available by the provincial government
for a ramp for learners in wheel chairs to access classrooms but there are at present
no rails for wheel chair users in the toilets and teachers need to assist learners in the
toilets where necessary.
Overall classrooms in the school are overcrowded and there are no plans to build
new and larger classrooms. Learning support material for learners with disabilities
and especially equipment for learners with physical disabilities are not provided by
the department and due to limited financial resources the school is also not able to
acquire this. However, the school is still pressurised by the Department of Education
and neighbouring schools to accommodate more learners with disabilities and
diverse learning needs. Parts of the playgrounds are also uneven. The school initially
operated an organised feeding scheme for learners from below average socio-economic
backgrounds, but currently sandwiches are provided by a charity organisation for those
learners who request it.
School personnel consists of the principal, a deputy principal, and two heads of
departments, 24 well-qualified teachers (general primary education) and two secretaries
who are all Afrikaans speaking. Although the number of learners in the school
increased between 2008 and 2013, the number of teachers stayed the same. According
to teachers and parents the school is well managed by the school principal and the
school management committee and teachers as well as parents point out that the
school culture is characterised by a strong Christian ethos. The overall management
of the implementation of the guidelines for the development of a full-service school
is under the leadership of the school principal.
Research design and methodology

The overarching purpose of this study by the researchers was to explore how over a
period of time the recommendations regarding the development of full-service

schools were translated by teachers into action. During Phase one the research question
focused on teachers’, parents’ as well as the school principal’s views in general about
the development of this school as a full-service school. During phase two the research
question focused on how the recommendations regarding the development of a full-
service school with specific reference to learners who are experiencing barriers to learn-
ing are being implemented in a specific classroom.
The research was placed in a constructivist research paradigm with as basic assump-
tion that knowledge is socially constructed by people active in the research process and
that we, as researchers should attempt to develop an understanding of the complex
world of lived experience of the participants (Merriam 2009; Mertens 2005). A quali-
tative case study approach with two phases (phase one: 2008–2009 and phase two:
2012–2013) was undertaken at the outset to ensure insight, discovery, holistic descrip-
tions, and an increased understanding of the phenomena at hand over a period of five
years (Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2007; Merriam 2009). The two phases were decided
upon by the researchers in order to develop an understanding of how the implemen-
tation of the policy guidelines has progressed over a period of several years.
Data collection methods

Phase one
Observations, semi-structured individual interviews with specific teachers who
attended the initial workshops on inclusive education presented by the Department
of Education, the school principal and two semi-structured focus group interviews
with six teachers and a group of six parents as well as a document analysis (artefacts,
such as the school history and an inclusive education terminology booklet available to
teachers) were used as data collection methods during Phase one of the research project.
The interview schedule for all groups as well as individuals focused on their under-
standing of inclusive education and full-service schools and what their perceptions
of the transformation of their school into a full-service school are.
Phase two
During this follow-up phase a variety of activities that spanned the school day were
observed including general classroom activities, teaching and learning support
strategies as well as peer interaction between learners in a specific classroom and on the
playground by a member of the research team over a period of 12 months. The series of
observations were detailed in field notes and unstructured interviews with the teacher
and a semi-structured interview with the school principal also formed part of the
data collection strategies.
Participants
Phase one
The participants for the semi-structured focus group interview with teachers consisted
of five mainstream classroom teachers as well as one teacher who were responsible for
one of the separate classrooms for what the school called students with special edu-
cational needs. Focus group teachers (D1–D6) were selected randomly by the school
principal. Participants for the individual interviews were two male (T2; T4) and
three female (T1; T3; T5) mainstream classroom teachers. At the request of the research
team these teachers were purposefully chosen because they participated in some of the
initial professional development workshops on inclusive education that were presented
by the Department of Education in 2008/2009. These workshops focused on the con-
tents of White Paper 6 and the general guidelines for the development of full-service
schools. The group of parents (six mothers) with children without LSEN participated
at the request of the school principal and all had children in mainstream classrooms.
Participation was of a voluntary nature and completion of informed consent forms
explained the nature of the research process (ethics clearance for the case study was
also provided by the local university as well as the Department of Education).
Phase two
In this follow-up phase a teacher of one of the Learners with Special Educational Needs
classes (the Grade three ELSEN class in the Foundation Phase) volunteered to take part.
This white Afrikaans speaking teacher has 33 years of teaching experience of which
four are in the ELSEN class. She was initially trained for the Foundation Phase
(Grades one to three) and attended a short course in ‘Special Needs Education’ that
was presented by the Provincial Department of Education. She has 16 learners in her
classroom between the ages of 11 and 13. The socio-economic background of the
majority of the learners in the classroom can be described as challenging and a
number of parents find it financially difficult to provide their children with the necess-
ary stationary (e.g. books and pencils) and school uniforms as required by the school.
The home languages of the learners are Afrikaans and Setswana and the language of
instruction is both English and Afrikaans. As a result the Setswana learners are learning
in a second language. The barriers to learning that learners in this specific ELSEN class
experience include learning disabilities and one learner with a speech impairment. Sec-
ondary emotional and behaviour problems as a result of the barriers experienced also
impact severely on these learners’ progress.
Data analysis
In both phases data sources were organised and constantly compared to generate a set of
themes based on the identified roles of full-service schools as formulated by guidelines
in this regard as originally compiled in 2005 and then revised in 2010 by the Depart-
ment of Basic Education. Systematically working through the stages of the constant
comparative analysis method (Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2007) assisted the researchers
in understanding the multiple meanings of the data and provided us with the opportu-
nity to integrate all the findings at the end of the project).
Strategies for promoting the trustworthiness of the findings included multiple data
collection strategies to provide sufficient enough descriptions to substantiate the
research with rich and thick descriptions, peer review to solicit the opinions of col-
leagues and co-researchers and observation over a sustained period of time (Maree
and Van der Westhuizen 2007; Merriam 2009).
Findings
The ambivalent views of teachers on the implementation of inclusive education, the

dependence of teachers on a medical deficit approach to barriers to learning as well
as their expressed need for the Department of Education to provide adequate support
in the development of full-service schools were clearly identified in both phases of
the research. Parents, although they supported the transformation of the school into a
full-service school (‘ . . . it is to the children’s advantage . . . ’) clearly had not been
informed about relevant policies and its implications for the school. They did,
however, point out that they are now more involved in school activities including
parents’ evenings at the school.
In both phases all participants were in general quick to define inclusive education
according to the central principles of the Constitution as entrenched in the education
legislation and White Paper 6 (DoE 2001; RSA 1996a). They referred, for example,
to education as a human right; the accommodation of diversity and no discrimination:
‘ . . . Everyone must be included in one class, in one school . . . ’. However, both main-
stream and ELSEN classroom teachers’ continue to express a lack of knowledge
regarding the roles and responsibilities of full-service schools. A dependence on the
medical deficit model approach to barriers to learning and how this shapes the way
in which they work in this school were clearly identified in the data analysis.
During Phase one teachers stated that they view the transformation of their school
since 2008 into a full-service school as being in its ‘baby shoes’ and that they were not
implementing the guidelines as described in the document published in 2005: ‘ . . .
because they (the government) have not given us a specific time when we absolutely
have to accommodate those children in the mainstream . . . we wait for them to tell
us’. As a result learners with disabilities were placed in separate classrooms and
described in medical deficit terms: ‘ . . . I feel that those children are expected to
cope under normal circumstances but they are not normal . . . ’. Teachers from the main-
stream classrooms also described themselves as not qualified due to the fact that they
were initially trained to work in general classrooms and not trained to include learners
with disabilities or learning disabilities in their classrooms. They therefore preferred to
rather refer learners with disabilities to what they regarded as well-qualified health pro-
fessionals for support and placement in separate ELSEN classes. No evidence regarding
the development of site-based support strategies (although an ILST was in the process
of being developed) as well as strategies to support neighbouring schools and partner-
ships with special schools as resource centres was found during Phase one in 2008–
2009. The school has, however, developed stronger partnerships with parents and
parents confirmed that parents who are willing to be involved were now more involved
in school activities than in the past. Teachers also pointed out that they have not yet
received the promised support with regard to training in the implementation of inclusive
education, learning support material and adaptive equipment from the Provincial
Department of Education as well as from the Local Departmental District Office as for-
mulated in the guidelines published in 2005 of DBST (DoE 2005b).
During Phase two of the research, four years after Phase one, our findings indicate that
little has changed regarding the implementation of policy guidelines to become a full-
service school and the further development of the school towards inclusion. The
ELSEN classes still exist and are regarded according to the school principal as ‘ . . . . to
the advantage of the children in the end’. The ELSEN classroom teacher pointed out
that they still do not implement the full guidelines as described in the document for full-
service schools (DoE 2005a). The learners who have been identified within the school
context as experiencing barriers to learning are still placed in separate classrooms and
described in medical deficit terms. The reason posed for this by the teacher is that main-
stream classroom teachers struggle to accommodate the learners who, for example, experi-
ence reading and mathematical problems. They attribute this amongst others, to not being
trained to provide the specialised support they think these learners need, too little time to
attend to all the individual learners who experience barriers to leaning, too many learners in
a class and a lack of learning support resources, including adapted reading material. The
school now, however, has a functioning ILST that provides support in assessing learners
experiencing barriers to learning but the teacher was not aware of the fact that this school,
as a full-service school, could also insist on more professional support from DBST’s. It
appears that the District Office is only seen as the structure from where ELSEN
numbers needed to be acquired to place learners in the ELSEN class. The teacher was,
for example, unaware that a full-service school should be a resource centre to teachers,
parents and learners from neighbouring schools as part of the DBST.
According to the teacher the ELSEN classes are making a difference. She believes
that ‘the learners’ progress academically because there are less learners in the classroom
and they therefore get more individual attention’. She also deemed herself as well as the
other ELSEN teachers as qualified to teach and support the learners who are placed in
their classrooms despite the fact that none of them have in-depth specialised training in
inclusive education and diverse educational needs. Although she asserts that most lear-
ners should be placed back into mainstream she could only name two learners who were
re-integrated into mainstream classrooms in 2013.
Because of limited financial support from the Department of Education and the
school the teacher improved the physical infrastructure of her classroom by herself,
with the help of private sponsorships and some of the parents, to create more storage
space for teaching and learning resources. As most of the learners in her class have dif-
ficulties with mathematics and reading her learning support strategies focus specifically
on mathematics and reading. Strategies used include working as one group as well as
dividing the class into three smaller groups based on ability, i.e. homogeneous ability
groups. During the observation it was obvious that she actively encouraged the engage-
ment of every learner in the classroom. She also clearly demonstrated sensitivity to each
learner’s cultural, social and economic background as well as their individual learning
needs by providing individual support when and where needed. Although she was pro-
vided with general teaching and learning support materials including general work-
books for the Foundation Phase provided by the Provincial Department of Education
she developed additional work and assessment sheets based on what she perceived
as different homogeneous ability groups in her classroom.
Observation over a period of time indicated that the group of learners in this class-
room formed a close and cohesive group. The teacher regularly shifted seating arrange-
ments for the group and encouraged learners to participate in all classroom activities.
These strategies by the teachers facilitated and structured the positive interaction
both with the teacher and among the learners. Although learners squabbled at times
amongst themselves in the classroom they seemed to be protective of each other
during break times in the sense that they will come and tell the teacher when one of
them was treated (according to their understanding of unfairness) unfairly. Although
the learners participated in most of the general activities in the school, evidence of dis-
crimination and prejudice were observed that included bullying by other learners on the
playgrounds as well as discriminatory remarks made by some of the mainstream class-
room teachers.
Discussion
Our findings clearly indicate the complexities, dilemmas, constraints and possibilities
that variously impact on the implementation of inclusive education (Sikes, Lawson,
and Parker 2007). In both phases of the research it clearly points to a tension
between the contents of policies, systemic realities including funding constraints and
the personal interpretations of the people who work in this full-service school.
White Paper 6 (DoE 2001) and the guideline document (DBE 2010) affirm that full-
service schools need to be developed into beacons of the evolving inclusive education
system in South Africa by becoming models of good inclusive practice. A key principle
that formed the foundation of these schools was that the medical deficit model was not
to be applied anymore, since it promotes a discriminatory practice of stigmatisation and
labelling (DBE 2010; DoE 2001; Swart and Pettipher 2011). These schools should
therefore be inclusive in the broadest sense of the word by providing quality education
to the full range of learning needs. This includes that learners with disabilities may not
be excluded from the mainstream education classrooms and should be provided with
the opportunities to fully participate in the everyday activities in mainstream class-
rooms (DBE 2010). Yet, in this case study learners with disabilities as well as learning
difficulties are referred, provided with an ELSEN number and then placed in a separate
classroom. The reason for the continuation of this variation of a medical deficit model
practice can be found in that the school and its teachers have not yet been supported to
change their perceptions of barriers to learning and development and to change their
traditional classroom practices to implement inclusive practices that reflect acceptance,
participation and social change. They, therefore attempt to provide what they believe is
the best possible learning environment for learners who experience barriers to learning
by placing them in a separate classroom with teachers who have some training and
experience in teaching these learners. Key strategies described in White Paper 6
(DoE 2001) as well as the guideline document (DBE 2010) for full-service schools
state that the Department of Education will make provision for relevant education
support services, the modification of physical facilities and infrastructure to ensure
access for learners with disabilities including learning disabilities as well as effective
and sufficient adapted learning material resources and the further professional develop-
ment of teachers to implement inclusive practices.
Education support services refer to a well-trained ILST at the school and the support
of the DBST. The key responsibilities of the ILST are to identify, assess and support
learners who experience barriers to learning, to coordinate individual support planning
as well as guide teachers (as teachers are referred to in official documents) to develop
and implement Individual Support Plans (ISP) and effective curriculum differentiation.
The DBST must support, train and mentor the ILST and teachers at the schools, as well
as supply adapted learning support material and assistive devices where necessary
(DBE 2010; DoE 2005b; Landsberg 2011). Although the school has an ILST (consist-
ing of teachers) their role seems to be only to deal with the assessment, referral (to
health professionals and the DBST) and placement of learners into the ELSEN class.
As mentioned earlier the participants indicated that they are not aware of the full sup-
portive role the DBST should play and they therefore only use it to acquire an ELSEN
number for a learner who has been identified (by the school) with ‘special needs’ to be
placed into the ELSEN class. In order for all learners to achieve their full potential they
must be guaranteed the right to get the support they need (Booth 2011), which in this
case the school believes is placing learners in a separate classroom with a teacher who
they deem is more qualified. Collaboration to enhance support practices within the
school as well as with neighbouring mainstream schools and special schools as resource
centres is also not evident. It is therefore apparent that support service delivery to facili-
tate efficient inclusive practices remains inadequate. This could be due to insufficient
budgetary allocations, limited human and learning material resources (such as suppor-
tive devices), inadequate training of support staff and teachers, poor implementation
and procedural obstacles (Philpott and McLaren 2011; Schoeman 2012; Wildeman
and Nomdo 2007).
Systemic barriers, such as physical facilities and infrastructure as well as inade-
quately trained teachers, were identified as a critical aspect to be addressed by govern-
ment in ensuring an effectively implemented inclusive education system (DoE 2001;
Muthukrishna and Schoeman 2000; Wildeman and Nomdo 2007). Even though the
school has already been identified in 2008 as a full-service school, the physical facilities
and infrastructure have not been adequately modified yet for learners with, for example,
physical disabilities. Adequate training for the teachers and associate role players (such
as parents, neighbouring schools, support personnel) on how a school should transform
and ultimately operate as a successful inclusive school should be a continuous practice
(Ajuwon et al. 2012; DBE 2010; Florian and Linklater 2010; Kozleski et al. 2013).
Thus far, most of the teachers at this school have had no or insufficient professional
training opportunities as promised in the policy and implementation documents on
how to accommodate learners who experience barriers to learning that are not narrowed
down to learners with disabilities, but encompass all groups of learners with diverse
learning needs in mainstream classrooms. The result is that they then exclude these lear-
ners from the mainstream classroom by placing them in an ELSEN classroom, because
they believe that they are not able to teach them. This practice enforces labelling and
stereotyping of learners (Engelbrecht et al. 2015; Swart and Pettipher 2011).
With specific reference to learners with disabilities a full-service school should also
be enabled to make provision for individualised support measures such as the learning
of Braille, using alternative script, communicating through augmentative and alterna-
tive modes, means and formats of communication, mobility skills, the learning of
sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the Deaf community
(DBE 2010). However, due to a lack in sufficient training and learning support material
with regard to the afore-mentioned, it appears that the ELSEN class teachers focus on
what they think they are skilled in, namely, general mathematical and reading barriers.
Thus in order for this school to become a fully inclusive school, it is essential that all
staff members should be capacitated with regard to inclusive principles, flexible
teaching and learning skills and the provision of education support to learners with
diverse learning needs and their teachers (DBE 2010; Oswald 2007; Swart and Petti-
pher 2011).
Conclusion
South Africa’s education policies have been characterised by its idealism in trying
to promote a just and equal society by addressing groups who were traditionally dis-
advantaged. However, a critical analysis of inclusive education policies indicates
that policy tends to have broader, ambiguous goal statements with little resource
commitment and clear implementation strategies (Hardy and Woodcock 2014). In
the South African context it has been clearly illustrated that the statements of
rights in education policies do not, in themselves deliver rights in practice (Christie
2008).
Our case study findings indicate that the ideals of inclusive education in policy
documents with specific reference to increased access to mainstream classrooms, the
enhancement of the acceptance of learners with diverse educational needs and maximis-
ing the participation of every learner in all activities in this full-service school have not
been achieved yet. There is therefore a clear and substantial gap between the idealistic
conceptualisation of inclusive education in South African policy documents and its
implementation. Learners who are experiencing diverse barriers to learning still experi-
ence substantial educational inequalities even though individual teachers (e.g. the
ELSEN classroom teacher in this case study) as well as policy guidelines increasingly
aim to bridge acceptance and participation gaps and produce more equitable school
environments.
We fully acknowledge that no educational practice is easy to change and that
developing inclusive school environments is a complex process with wide ranging
financial and human resource implications and constraints. This process challenges
the National and as well as Provincial Departments of Education to support
schools in general and full-service schools in particular in South Africa in establish-
ing inclusive approaches for learners with diverse educational needs. However, we
also would like to emphasise that we agree with, for example, Christie (2008) and
Donohue and Bornman (2014) that the National Department of Education now
needs to hold itself accountable for the idealistic policy that it created in 2001 if
the policy is not to remain purely symbolic. Going beyond the statement of rights
involves further support for implementation including clear directives for appropriate
responsibility and control of implementation.
Notes on contributors
Petra Engelbrecht is a senior research fellow in the Faculty of Education Sciences, North-West
University, Potchefstroom campus, South Africa and an emeritus professor, Canterbury Christ
Church University England.
Mirna Nel is an associate professor in the School of Education Sciences, North-West University,
Vaal Triangle campus, South Africa.
Suegnet Smit is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education Sciences, North-West University, Potch-
efstroom campus, South Africa.
Marichelle van Deventer is a researcher in the Faculty of Education Sciences, North-West Uni-
versity, Potchefstroom campus, South Africa.
References
Ajuwon, P. M., D. Lechtenberger, N. Griffin-Shirley, S. Sokolosky, L. Zhou, and F. E. Mullins.
2012. “General Education Pre-service Teachers’Perceptions of Including Students with
Disabilities in their Classrooms.” International Journal of Special Education 27 (3):
100– 107.
Badat, S., and Y. Sayed. 2014. “Post-1994 South African education: The Challenge of Social
Justice.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 652 (1):
127– 148. doi:10.1177/0002716213511188.
Booth, T. 2011. “The Name of the Rose: Inclusive Values into Action in Teacher Education.”
Prospects 41: 303 –318.
Christie, P. 2008. Opening the Doors of Learning: Changing Schools in South Africa. Cape
Town: Heinemann.
Department of Basic Education. 2010. Guidelines for Full-service/Inclusive Schools. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Department of Education. 1995. White Paper on Education and Training in a democratic South
Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of Education. 1997. Quality Education for All: Overcoming Barriers to Learning
and Development. Report of the National Commission on Special Needs Education and
Training and the National Committee for Education Support Services. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Department of Education. 2001. Education White Paper 6 (Special Needs Education): Building
an Inclusive Education and Training System. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Education. 2005a. Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of Inclusive Education: Full-service Schools. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Education. 2005b. Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of Inclusive Education: District Based Support Teams. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Department of Education. 2005c. Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of Inclusive Education: Special Schools as Resource Centres. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Donohue, D., and J. Bornman. 2014. “The Challenges of Realising Inclusive Education in South
Africa.” South African Journal of Education 34 (2): 1 – 14.
Engelbrecht, P., M. Nel, N. Nel, and D. Tlale. 2015. Enacting Understanding of Inclusion in
Complex Contexts: Classroom Practices of South African Teachers. South African
Journal of Education 35 (3): 1– 10.
Engelbrecht, P., and M. Van Deventer. 2013. “Impact on Teaching and Learning of Educational
Policy on Special needs Education and Inclusion in South Africa.” In Research on the
Influences of Education Policy on Teaching and Learning, edited by C. V. Sunal and K.
Mutua, 9 – 22. New York: Information Age Publishing.
Florian, L., and H. Linklater. 2010. “Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education: Using
Inclusive Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching and Learning for all.” Cambridge Journal of
Education 40 (4): 369 – 386.
Hardy, I., and S. Woodcock. 2014. “Inclusive Education Policies: Discourses of Difference,
Diversity and Deficits.” International Journal of Inclusive education 19 (2): 141– 164.
Jordan, A., C. Glenn, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2010. “The Supporting Effective Teaching
(SET) Project: The Relationship of Inclusive Teaching Practices to Teachers’ Beliefs
about Disability and Ability and about their Roles as Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 26: 259– 266.
Kozleski, E. B., T. Gonzalez, L. Atkinson, C. Mruczek, and L. Lacy.2013. “Teacher Education
in Practice: Reconciling Practices and Theories in the United States context.” European
Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (2): 156– 172.
Landsberg, E. 2011. “Learning Support.” In Addressing Barriers to Learning, edited by E.
Landsberg, D. Kruger, and E. Swart, 69– 85. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Leech, N. L., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2007. “Qualitative Data Analysis: A Compendium of
Techniques and a Framework for Selection for School Psychology Research and
Beyond.” School Psychology Quarterly 23: 587 –604.
Lomofsky, L., and L. Green. 2004. “The Impact of Inclusion Policy on School Psychology
Practices in South Africa.” Educational and Child Psychology 21: 31 –42.
Maree, K., and C. Van der Westhuizen. 2007. “Planning a Research Proposal.” In First steps in
Research, edited by K. Maree, 3 –21. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Meltz, A., C. Herman, and V. Pillay. 2014. “Inclusive Education: A Case of Beliefs Competing
for Implementation.” South African Journal of Education 34 (3): 1 – 8.
Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 2nd ed.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. 2005. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating
Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. 2nd ed. London: SAGE
Publications.
Muthukrishna, N., and M. Schoeman. 2000. “From ‘Special Needs’ to ‘Quality Education for
All’: A Participatory, Problem-Centered Approach to Policy Development in South
Africa.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 4: 315 –335.
Oswald, M. M. 2007. “Training Teachers to Become Inclusive Professionals.” In Responding to
Challenges of Inclusive Education in Southern Africa, edited by P. Engelbrecht and L.
Green, 140– 58. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Philpott, S., and P. McLaren.2011. Hearing the Voices of Children and Caregivers: Situation
Analysis of Children with Disabilities in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Social

Development/UNICEF.
Republic of South Africa. 1996a. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, No.
108 of 1996, National Gazette, No 17678, 18 December, Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa. 1996b. South African School Act 1996, No. 84 of 1996, Government
Gazette, No 1867, 15 November, Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa. 1997. White Paper on an Integrated National Disability Strategy.
Pretoria: Government Printers.
Savolainen, H., P. Engelbrecht, M. Nel, and O. Malinen. 2012. “Understanding
Teachers’Attitudes and Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Education: Implications for Pre-service
and In-service Teacher Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 27:
51– 68.
Schafer, M., and D. Wilmot. 2012. “Teacher Education in Post-Apartheid South Africa:
Navigating a way Through Competing State and Global Imperatives for Change.”
Prospects 42: 41 –54.
Schoeman, M. 2012. Developing an Inclusive Education System: Changing Teachers’
Attitudes and Practices through Critical Professional Development. Paper presented at
the National Teacher Development Conference, 17– 19 September, in Pretoria, South
Africa.
Sikes, P., H. Lawson, and M. Parker. 2007. “Voices on: Teachers and Teaching Assistants Talk
about Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 11 (3): 355 –370.
Smyth, F., M. Shevlin, T. Buchner, G. Biewer, P. Flynn, C. Latimer, J. Siska, M. Toboso-
Martin, S.R. Diaz, and M.A.V. Ferreria. 2014. “Inclusive Education in Progress: Policy
Evolution on Four European Countries.” European Journal of Special Needs Education
29 (4): 433– 445.
Srivastava, M., A. De Boer, and S.J. Pijl. 2013. “Inclusive Education in Developing Countries:
A Closer Look at this Implementation in the Last 10 Years.” Educational Review 67 (2):
179– 195. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.847061.
Swart, E., and R. Pettipher. 2011. “A Framework for Understanding Inclusion.” In Addressing
Barriers to Learning: A South African Perspective, edited by E. Landsberg, D. Kruger, and
E. Swart, 3 –26. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Terzi, L. 2010. Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and
Special Educational Needs. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1994. The Salamanca
Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Waitoller, F.R., and A.J. Artiles. 2013. “A Decade of Professional Development Research for
Inclusive Education: A Critical Review and Notes for a Research Program.” Review of
Educational Research 83 (3): 319– 356.
Walton, E. 2010. “Getting Inclusion Right in South Africa.” Intervention in School and Clinic
46 (4): 240– 245.
Walton, E., and G. Lloyd. 2011. “An Analysis of Metaphors used for Inclusive Education in
South Africa.” Acta Academica 43 (3): 1 –31.
Walton, E., N. M. Nel, H. Muller, and O. Lebeloane. 2014. “You can Train us until we are Blue
in our Faces, We are Still Going to Struggle’: Teacher Professional Learning in a Full-
Service School.” Education as Change 18 (2): 319 –333.
Wildeman, R. A., and C. Nomdo. 2007. “Implementation of Inclusive Education: How Far are
We?” (IDASA Inclusive Education Occasional Papers 2007). Accessed 9 March 2015.
http://www.idasa.org.za.
Wolhuter, C. C. 2014. “Weaknesses of South African Education in the Mirror Image of
International Educational Development.” South African Journal of Education 34 (2):
1 – 25.
View publication stats

TPN3704 Assignment 2 Link 2 Article 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TPN3704 Assignment 2 Link 2 Article 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The idealism of education policies and the realities in schools: the

Article in International Journal of Inclusive Education · October 2015

Petra Engelbrecht Mirna Nel

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Teacher Education for Inclusion View project

Teachers’ roles in inclusive education View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

The idealism of education policies and the realities

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095250

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The idealism of education policies and the realities in schools: the

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

difficult to achieve and results regarding the implementation of inclusive education

Policy developments in South Africa

disabilities (DoE 1997).

The effect of educational change efforts in South African schools

. Site-based support that could be formed by the School Management Team

status is on an average or below average level. In 2008–2009 (Phase 1 of the research

Research design and methodology

period of time the recommendations regarding the development of full-service

Data collection methods

The ambivalent views of teachers on the implementation of inclusive education, the

Analysis of Children with Disabilities in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Social

View publication stats

You might also like