5.3.1 Findings as relating to the local context
The DoE (2005) stipulates that educators need to be trained to work not only with other professionals such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, social workers, and other specialists, but also with parents for the benefit of learners with learning barriers in mainstream schools. The current study utilised interviews with principals and educators of three secondary schools in Mthatha district of the Eastern Cape to obtain a perspective on the success achieved in the implementation of inclusive education. The investigation revealed that these schools were not ready to implement inclusive education because of the following reasons:
• The principals had not been trained in inclusive education and could consequently not monitor its implementation. As two of them remarked, they lacked clarity on what was expected of them.
85
• There was no clear support from district personnel in connection with imple- mentation of inclusive education.
• The schools had not established ILSTs, which are committees that are expected to work with DBSTs and educators in giving support to learners experiencing barriers to learning.
• Even in the case of the school that claimed to have an ILST, it became apparent that it existed only in theory since it was not functioning in practice.
• The educators openly admitted that the only help they could provide to learners with barriers was based on their own experience as they had never attended any workshop on inclusive education. The only exception was a workshop that they referred to as introductory since it was the first one of its nature and only one educator per school was allowed to attend it.
• High workload was identified as an obstacle by one principal. Although there was an educator with a background in inclusive education on his staff, the high workload at the school prevented her from being able to guide her colleagues.
• Regarding a lack of resources and even material on inclusive education, the principals noted frankly that they did not know what White Paper 6 was about or entailed. One of them surmised that the White Paper involved inclusive education, whereas another one stated that he had never heard of it, perhaps because he had been in his position for only five years. The educators corroborated the principals’ comments about the absence of resources in general. In one school, for example, only some charts were available for assisting learners with visual barriers. Only a question mark can be placed over the availability of resources for learners with other barriers.
• The principals and educators in these schools lacked conceptual knowledge of inclusive education terminology and ideas. For example, even those individuals who knew about ILSTs were unaware of their purpose and functions.
86
In reply to the research question about the extent to which inclusive education had been implemented in these three schools, it appeared that significant or even serious deficiencies existed not only in theoretical understanding, but consequently also in practical imple- mentation. Little appreciation existed for the important principle that learners with barriers are expected not to be sidelined but to be supported, to be part of the class not in body only but also in the acquisition of learning. The fundamental weakness, as noted in this study, was that the implementation of inclusive education in these three schools could not be considered to be even in its initial stages, although learners with barriers to learning were already present in their classrooms. The existence or presence of learners with barriers in mainstream schools does not necessarily make these schools inclusive in nature. It may be considered ironical that prior to 1994, learners with barriers to learning did indeed attend mainstream schools, but it was in these schools that they were identified to have barriers, labelled, and sent to special schools after diagnosis. The consequence was that of being sidelined or overlooked until the system would leave them by the wayside as drop-outs. The characteristics of an inclusive school as discussed in section 2.9 of this study pointed to the crucial difference between the former apartheid and the current inclusive systems. In the latter system, learners with barriers to learning have unfettered access to mainstream schools, but the difference is that every effort is made to retain them there. However, a subtle hazard still exists for such learners and educators. As implied in the previous paragraph and noted earlier in this study, to have these learners in mainstream classrooms does not necessarily mean that a school is inclusive. A school that professes to practise inclusive education can only truly lay claim to this distinction if it fully adheres to the principles of inclusive education as set out in White Paper 6 and actually carries those principles into effect. The danger that all in the field of inclusive education should guard against is that of lip-service.
5.3.2 Current findings in relation to other research
In an evaluation report of two pilot projects for inclusive education, SCOPE and DANIDA (see 2.6.5), Da Costa (2003) noted that while an inclusive education policy was considered to be an appropriate strategy for addressing the diverse needs of all learners in South Africa, its implementation was complex. Even though it has been nine years since the publication of
87
Da Costa’s study, this conclusion can only be confirmed by the findings of the current study. For example, the complexity of the implementation of inclusive education was reflected in the difficulties experienced by the principals who were dependent on the district, which in turn was dependent on the province. Wilderman and Nomdo (2007) also confirmed that there was an absence of a common understanding when it came to inclusive education. The findings of their study across the provinces of South Africa indicated that different perceptions existed about what inclusive education meant and how it should be implemented. Furthermore, the study conducted by Da Costa in the Mpumalanga and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa revealed a gap at all levels of the education system between the conceptualization of inclusive education and its implementation. Such a gap was one of the major phenomena evident from the findings of the current study.