According to the bioecological model, system change is a complex matter, and change in one part of the system (e.g. the Education Department or the school system) will directly influence other parts of the system. These proximal processes, described as the "engines of development" by Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000, p. 118) and summarised by Swart and Pettipher (2011, p. 12) as processes that are understood as leading to different kinds of change and thus development in an individual, seem to have certain effects on an individual. Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) referred to these developmental changes as either competence or dysfunction. In this study, however, the effects of proximal processes would not be such a dichotomy, but rather a continuum of 'readiness' for the implementation of IE. Proximal processes therefore have "the power for actualizing genetic potential for effective functioning … they are guided and fuelled by the characteristics of the person and the context" (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p. 118). Another important aspect of proximal processes as postulated by Bronfenbrenner (in Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000, p. 118) is that, for these interactions to be effective, the extent of contact (Corollary la Exposure) maintained is important; interactions must occur "on a regular basis and over extended period of time…" (Swart & Pettipher, 2011).
Here I refer to Section 2.5.2, Figure 3 in Chapter 2 for a graphic presentation of these processes and their effects.
Taking the abovementioned postulations into consideration, it is clear that the question asked, 'How ready are teachers to support and successfully include learners with AS in their classes?' is a complex matter, because it seems as though teachers' readiness (micro-level) is directly affected by the readiness of school systems (mesosystem), the Department of Education (exosystem) and the social system (macrosystem). Furthermore, the extent of the contact between the individuals within the different systems, as well as between the systems, will have a direct effect on the readiness of the teachers. Therefore, the proximal processes between all these systems and within the systems (context), as well as the teachers' attributes (characteristics), will affect the teachers' readiness. In the findings it became evident that 'barriers to inclusive education' exist on all the levels in the education context (Western Cape, South Africa) in which the participants support learners with
145
AS. These 'barriers to IE' directly affect teachers' readiness to include learners with AS in the mainstream classes.
On the macrosystem level, which forms the outer level of the nested systems, barriers to IE are evident. They permeate through all the other levels in the education context of this study. It is evident, as discussed before, that the "South African policy regarding inclusion … stopped short of a pedagogic revolution and is stuck at a political level since it ignored epistemological issues in the training of educationists" (Naicker, 2007, p. 2). Furthermore, the stormy political issues in South Africa at the time (chronosystem) when IE was introduced, and in the years thereafter, influenced the way teachers perceived any changes implemented by the government. It seems as though the participants do not trust the government, and therefore believe that IE is doomed to fail.
In addition to this, it seems as if the perceptions of IE of the participants in this study have been confused by the fact that the formulation of the Salamanca Statement (1994) and the first democratic and free elections in South Africa occurred in the same year, namely 1994. Most of the participants had not heard of the Salamanca Statement, and the preceding worldwide paradigm shift from a medical model to a social model, which informed it. They were not aware of the worldwide consensus on the direction of special needs education and the 'human rights' argument for movement towards 'Education for All' (UNESCO, 1994). In the light of this, the participants might not trust any information offered to them (voluntary) to enhance their knowledge about change that they do not 'buy into' and 'do not trust'. The participants' paradigmatic values, which include their notions about social justice and human rights, as well as their understanding of a barrier to learning, have been affected by macro-systemic perceptions, knowledge and action taken to implement IE. Indirectly, these notions also influence the proximal processes between all the nested systems and, in this study specifically, teacher readiness to support learners with AS.
Simultaneously, the exosystem has been influenced directly by macrosystemic factors regarding readiness and the implementation of IE principles. The participants (microsystem) experienced constant pressure to perform and implement IE principles in their classes. They felt that the DoE/DoBE (exosystem) did not prepare them
146
adequately for the task at hand, and did not provide the needed resources. Policies were implemented that departmental officials did not fully understand, with no practical solutions for implementation. In the light of the proximal processes, this ineffectiveness at the interface between the exo- and microsystem makes it clear that the readiness of teachers for the successful implementation of IE, in general, is compromised.
On the mesosystem level it seems evident that the lack of existing support practices in the schools, as well as the resources available to support the participants in their positions, directly influenced the proximal processes taking place between the macro-, exo- and mesosystems. The fact that principals and school management seem not to understand their important role in the IE process with regard to collaboration, professional development and the creation of a supportive, caring community might be a direct effect of the abovementioned barriers to inclusion in the macro- and mesosystems.
On the microsystem level there have been pockets of evidence of changing paradigmatic values and beliefs, a willingness (disposition) to implement inclusive practices, and ownership taken for the student with AS, as well as other students who experience barriers to learning (ecological resources). These dispositions or attitudes are being complicated by the resources available in the schools in terms of time, necessarily physical structures, funding as well as class sizes. This is complicated even further by the support practices used in the different schools, the lack of training provided by all the systems and the constant pressure to perform and implement IE practices. The barriers to IE in all the systems' macro-, exo- and mesosystem levels affect the teachers' readiness directly. As a result, the teachers' knowledge of IE, as well as of AS, and the support and intervention strategies needed in the classroom, were insufficient. The outcomes to which the proximal process have led are feelings of "dysfunction" instead of "competence" (see Figure 3 in Section 2.2.6), in the words of Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000, p. 118). The teachers do not have skills and knowledge in advance and are not able to go over
into action without effort (according to the postulation of readiness in Chapter 2). The
participants' feelings of not being 'ready for IE' led to feelings of anxiety and stress, and above all of being failures as teachers.
147
For a graphic summary of the findings on the different system levels, see Figure 6.
An example of the powerful positive effect of proximal processes can be illustrated firstly by the instance where one teacher (with a positive disposition) shared specific information received from the parents (teacher-parent relationship) of a learner with other teachers (teacher-teacher relationship) involved in his team. This had a positive effect on, and enlightened, the other teachers in a positive way, and had a mobilising influence on the proximal processes. It also seems as if the school (mesosystem) with a student support unit (teacher-professional relationship) had a positive effect on the knowledge base of the one teacher involved. Involvement with the learner (teacher-learner relationship) had taught the teachers how to engage with a learner with AS in a more efficient way.
According to the National Strategy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) document, which forms part of the implementation of the White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001), institution level support teams (ILST) are to be implemented in schools to assist teachers with learning support, but in two of the participating schools the counsellors were responsible for this role.
It therefore became clear that, among the participants in this study, there was no clarity about the specific role that counsellors have in the IE process regarding the inclusion of learners who experience barriers to learning. The importance of administration and the principal in the collaborative process has not been evident either. It seems as if the participant teachers' perceptions were that they were responsible to provide all the above-mentioned supports, and address barriers to learning, without any specialised training and support from other professionals and the school principal, who should form part of the support team/multidisciplinary team as in countries like Canada, the USA and Australia.