International Journal of Inclusive Education

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

Inclusive education: why it poses a dilemma to

some teachers

Ellen Kakhuta Materechera

To cite this article: Ellen Kakhuta Materechera (2018): Inclusive education: why it
poses a dilemma to some teachers, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2018.1492640

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492640

Published online: 05 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 297

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492640

Inclusive education: why it poses a dilemma to some teachers

*
Ellen Kakhuta Materechera
Faculty of Humanities, School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Inclusive education is a contested domain with positions ranging Received 20 November 2017
from strident opposition through cautious support to strong Accepted 20 June 2018
advocacy. Some stakeholders have taken a middle-of-the-road
KEYWORDS
position because while they endorse the human rights discourse Inclusive education; teaching;
that makes inclusion a global imperative, they are caught up in a teacher education; South
dilemma between their aspirations and the realities at school level Africa; human rights; barriers
which leave them uncertain of exactly what gains and losses to learning
might be involved in a total commitment to inclusive education.
This paper reports on the findings of a study that investigated
perceptions of selected primary school teachers on inclusive
education in order to gain an understanding of the connection
between learner support and experiences in the inclusive
classroom. In-depth interviews were conducted with 9 teachers at
two schools in a site-based study augmented by responses to
questionnaires administered to 59 teachers across four schools in
one of the district municipalities in South Africa. The study,
informed by a realist philosophical perspective, adopted a mixed
methods approach and a convergent parallel design. Teachers’
commitment to a human rights discourse was evident. The
pragmatic realities which, in teachers’ experiences, constitute the
major impediments to thorough-going and successful inclusive
classroom practice are time, class size and insufficient training.

Introduction
While using the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO 1994) as a
point of departure for my view of inclusive education, I bear in mind that the Salamanca
statement was intended as an overall guide to planning for special education needs. It
cannot logically take into account the diversity of situations encountered in the
different regions and countries of the world and must be adapted to fit local contexts
(UNESCO 1994). Against this background, realities in different countries and contexts
affect schools, teachers and learners differently. South Africa faces its own complexities
at school level when implementing inclusive education. Hence this study investigates
the realities of inclusive education as experienced by teachers at a local school level in
South Africa. It reports part of the findings of a larger study entitled ‘pragmatic realities
of inclusive education at local school level in a district of South Africa’s North West

CONTACT Ellen Kakhuta Materechera [email protected] North West University, Mafikeng Campus, Private Bag
X2046, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
*
Present address: Faculty of Humanities, North West University, Mmabatho, South Africa
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. K. MATERECHERA

province.’ It focuses on learner support and the experiences of teachers in mainstream

inclusive classes in the context of school climate as a whole. The study asks the question:
what are the perceptions and experiences of teachers in an inclusive class in the context of
a school? The paper provides the background to the study, research methods, results and
discussion, as well as the conclusion of the study.

Background
Definitions of inclusive education vary depending on context and availability of resources.
While others like Macfarlane, Macfarlane, and Gillon (2014) seek to understand inclusive
education with regard to understanding disability first, others define it broadly to include
all learners with diverse needs who should be educated in mainstream schools. For instance,
on the one hand, when disability is put in perspective, Michailakis and Reich (2009) define
inclusive education as the attempt to educate persons with intellectual disabilities by inte-
grating them as closely as possible into normal structures of the educational system. On
the other hand, when inclusive education is defined broadly, the South African Department
of Education (2001, 16) views inclusive education as ‘accepting and respecting the fact that
all learners are different in some way and have different learning needs which are equally
valued and an ordinary part of our human experience.’ Therefore, it is about ‘enabling edu-
cation structures, systems and learning methodologies to meet the needs of all learners.’
In this study, inclusive education is defined as the inclusion of learners living with
diverse barriers to learning into mainstream classes with the provision of necessary
systems of support. The variations in definitions of inclusive education may contribute
to dilemmas classroom teachers exhibit in the study.
Since the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO 1994), when the
notion of inclusive education emerged as a global imperative (Dalton, McKenzie, and
Kahonde 2012; Mariga, McConkey, and Myezwa 2014; Engelbrecht et al. 2015; Artiles
and Kozleski 2016), there has been a global movement generating policy documents for
different countries, and all advocating for inclusive education. These include, among
others, the Education for All (EFA) (Dakar, Senegal 2000), United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), and the Education White Paper 6
(Department of Education 2001), in the case of South Africa, all of which have had
global and national impact on decisions taken regarding the implementation of inclusive
education.
While the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action reaffirms the right to edu-
cation of every individual, as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UNESCO 1994, vii), participants at the World Education Forum in Dakar (EFA
2000), reaffirmed and recognised that education is a fundamental right and that the
heart of EFA activity lies at the county level. Similarly in the South African context, the
White Paper 6: Building an inclusive education and training system draws from the Con-
stitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) which states that everyone has
the right to a basic education. Together, these policy documents affirm the rights-based
education for all. However, the implementation of inclusive education that is key to
achieving the rights-based education for all, is experienced differently due to variances
in contexts of different nations, thereby posing a dilemma to some teachers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

Including learners with barriers to learning, be it race, culture, religion, learning differ-
ences and disability, could be a challenge to some teachers. Barriers to learning can be
intrinsic, i.e. located within the child, or extrinsic/environmental. i.e. located within
centres of learning, the education system, socio-economic and political context or the
society at large (Potgieter-Groot, Visser, and Lubbe-de Beer 2012). In this study,
extrinsic/environmental barriers to learning were of concern as these may result in
making inclusion of learners with differences a challenge unless the educational system
is flexible and stakeholders, including teachers, in the education system are willing to
change.
Change is crucial to the implementation of inclusive education. However, Fullan (1993)
argues that change is complex and brings along with it unplanned factors that are inevi-
table. Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) confirm the complexity of change and how schools
should adapt to the changing learning needs of their increasingly diverse student body.
In the South African experience, the education system before 1994 was influenced by a
number of officially sanctioned practices. The Bantu Education Act of 1953 for instance
created a separate Bantu Education System for Black African people, on the grounds
that they should not be over-qualified or aspire to positions not imagined for them.
Later, the National Education Policy Act of 1967 saw the further differentiation of edu-
cation into 18 different education departments (Department of Education 1999), with a
separate department for each of the ‘homelands’, as well as separate departments for
Indians and ‘coloureds’. Together, these two Acts promoted racial, cultural and ethnic seg-
regation. Special education was a way of segregation that found its place among the 18
departments, resulting in an additional layer of stratification and differentiation. Special
schools categorised by disability catered for learners who experienced barriers to learning.
Where learners who encounter barriers to learning attended normal schools, it was mainly
by default, and no change was made by the schools to accommodate and improvise new
teaching methods. Instead, the learners would have to adapt themselves to the schools
(Department of Education 2005).
Meanwhile the dawn of democracy in 1994 brought dramatic changes in South Africa’s
social, political and economic fields as well as the country’s general and special education
(Ngcaweni 2015). The overall South African framework for policy developments in inclus-
ive education, according to Lomofsky and Lazarus (2001) is guided by international guide-
lines embodied in documents including, among others, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (United Nations 1948) and the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989).

The human rights perspective – a conceptual framework

Human rights, at times called natural rights, are rights agreed upon internationally, usually
in treaties or conventions, stipulating how people should be treated (Tasioulas 2013). They
are the basic freedoms and protections that all people are entitled to: ‘whatever their
nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language,
sexual orientation, disability or any other status’, without discrimination (the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa 1996; United Nations 2006; Australian Human Rights
Commission 2011, 5). The Australian Human Rights Commission (2011) further suggests
that human rights are closely related to values including justice, equality of opportunity,
4 E. K. MATERECHERA

fairness and universal access to education for all learners. This section briefly interrogates
these elements in relation to inclusive education which is grounded on discourses of
human rights and social justice (UNESCO 1994; Department of Education 2001;
Degener cited in Gordon 2013).
Regarding universal access to education for all learners, the Centre for Studies on
Inclusion Education (CSIE) (2002) in the United Kingdom; the World Bank (2011); the
Human Rights Watch Report (2015); United Nations (2006), interpret the right to edu-
cation in an educational context, as the right to mainstream education where disabled
as well as non-disabled children and young people learn together in ordinary early learn-
ing centres, schools, colleges and universities. The clause on the right to education insists
that all children ought to acquire the same skills on an equal basis; that barriers to learning
are removed, and appropriate networks of support are put in place in order to provide
children with diverse educational needs with adequate support so that they do not fall
behind.
When speaking of justice, equality and fairness, Rawls (1971) argues for the elimination
of inequality through the distribution of resources in his theory of justice. Drawing from
the avowals of Rawls (1971 and Human Rights Watch (2015), there should be an equal
distribution of social resources, but there should be a bias in favour of those who are ‘dis-
advantaged’, in other words, to each according to their need. This is especially important
to South Africa where the past was marred by a deliberately uneven distribution of
resources. There is need, therefore to first address the discrepancies of the past and tea-
chers in this study agreed with this concept as shown (see Figure 1) in the results
section of the study.
Human rights education is inextricably linked with not just imparting knowledge about
human rights but also applying a human rights-based pedagogy to ensure that learning

Figure 1. Responses of teachers to discourses of human rights and IE.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

takes place in a rights-respecting environment where instruction must exude palpable

impact on the different groups of learners (Australian Human Rights Commission
2011; Tikly and Barrett 2013).
In order to ensure that the rights-based pedagogies are achieved, training of teachers is
required for professional development. Training will enable teachers to engage the space
for schooling as a site of possibility for realising the goals of social justice in their teaching
(Keddie 2012). Failure to do so may result in both teachers and school environments
posing a barrier to learning (Keddie 2012).
Finally, it is important to note that human rights, as argued by Van Banning (2002), are
fluid, discourses are plural and contingent and are open to contestation, re-description and
transformation. Therefore, this implies that inclusive education which is based on human
rights is also fluid and not enforceable in every situation. This again contributes to the
dilemma of teachers despite their stance, aspirations and endorsement of global human
rights that support full inclusion.

Research methodology
This study is informed by a realist philosophical perspective, specifically what Maxwell
(2012) calls ‘critical realism’ for researchers. One of the central characteristics of critical
realism as argued by Maxwell (2012) relates to the distinction between ontology and epis-
temology. On the one hand, ontology is regarded as what actually exists. So ontological
assumptions are concerned with the practice of social reality and what could be known
about that reality (Edirisingha 2012). This is so important because the nature of the reali-
ties of inclusive education in the study schools were compelling and worth the investi-
gation. The teachers in the schools studied were evidently faced with a diversity of
learners in their classrooms while some had no idea of how to support these learners.
On the other hand, epistemology relates to how we acquire knowledge of what exists –
in what manner we claim to know anything (Carter and Little 2007; Maxwell 2012),
hence the mixed methods approach used to gather data for the current study.

Research approach and design

This study adopts a mixed methods approach with a convergent parallel design. Conver-
gent parallel mixed methods design involves processes by which the researcher collects
both quantitative and qualitative data concurrently; analyses them separately; discovers
existing contradictions and similarities; and discusses them in tandem to give answers
to the research questions (Creswell 2014). This design enabled seeking information
through diverse approaches such as questionnaires and interviews to find solutions to
the phenomenon under investigation. The current research focuses on learner support
and the experiences of teachers in the context of mainstream classrooms and the school
climate as a whole.

Population and data collecting procedures

From a population of teachers at the schools in the district where the study was conducted,
80 teachers from four schools were randomly selected in the quantitative phase and 9
6 E. K. MATERECHERA

teachers from two purposively selected schools participated in the site-based qualitative
phase of the study. Ethical clearance was granted by the University of Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg. A total of 80 questionnaires were distributed to four schools out of
which 59 (about 73%) usable questionnaires were returned. Interviews were also con-
ducted at two of these schools. The study investigated the perceptions of nine (9)
primary school teachers through face-to-face interviews on inclusive education so that
an understanding was gained on the interconnectedness between learner support and
experiences of teachers in an inclusive classroom, in the context of an inclusive school.

Data analysis
In the data analysis, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to calculate
percentages from the questionnaire responses while a constant comparative method
was employed for the interview responses. The research results from both quantitative
and qualitative phases were converged to give a comprehensive understanding. This recur-
sive comparative method combines inductive category coding with simultaneous compari-
son of all units of meaning obtained in order to identify themes and patterns (Gale et al.
2013). The results of questionnaires administered to four schools and in-depth interviews
at the two schools selected for site-based research are presented below.

Results
The results were obtained from the combined quantitative and qualitative phases. While
Table 1 shows the themes that emerged during analysis of interview data, Figures 1–3
below summarise the responses of the respondents to the questionnaire.
Figure 1 presents the responses of teachers to discourses of human rights in connection
with inclusive education.
Figure 2 expresses the respondents’ views on issues related to inclusive teaching in a
large class.
Figure 3 explains the participants’ views on issues related to training of teachers on
inclusive education practice.

Discussion of results
Aspirations versus school realities: middle of the road tendency
The pragmatic realities which, in teachers’ experiences, constitute the major impediments
to thorough-going and successful inclusive classroom practice are: time, class size and lack

Table 1. Themes and categories resulting from qualitative data analysis.

Theme Category
Aspirations and realities, middle-of-the-road tendencies Middle-of-the-road tendencies, cutting across all categories
Barriers to inclusive practices . Class/physical space
. Time
. Lack of professional training and support
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

Figure 2. Teachers’ responses to the difficulty of inclusive education in large classes.

Figure 3. Responses of teachers pertaining to training for IE.

8 E. K. MATERECHERA

of professional training. Upon analysis of questionnaires and interview data from the
research conducted at the four schools, findings revealed that the hegemonic human
rights discourses that have influenced inclusive education to be globally imperative simi-
larly predisposed some teachers in the study and they believe that inclusive education pro-
motes equity in inclusive lessons. According to some teachers in the study, equal access to
a single inclusive education system is imperative but inequalities of the past should be
addressed and accessibility and responsiveness to all learners should be privileged. For
instance, Figure 1 above shows that not only did a total of 46 out of 59 (78%) teachers
agree but 12 out of the 46 (26%) teachers strongly agreed that inclusive education pro-
moted equity in inclusive lessons. Furthermore, while a total of 47 out of 58 (81%) teachers
agreed that there is the need to address past inequalities in order to create equity in inclus-
ive lessons, 12 out of the 47 (26%) teachers strongly agreed with the statement. As men-
tioned earlier, Rawls’s (1971) emphasis on elimination of inequalities through fair
distribution of resources still emerged as a burning issue in the present study. Teachers
in the study believed that resources are a fundamental support mechanism to the
success of inclusive education if all learners must enjoy their right to education. Interview
data also reinforces findings of the questionnaires as illustrated by teacher Claire.
Yes, inclusive education should be accessible and responsive to all learners. They are all South
Africans and shouldn’t be discriminated. (Claire [pseudonym], interview data)

Teacher Claire’s submission shows that some teachers in the study realise that inclusive
education is provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. In spite
of some teachers’ endorsement of human rights that makes full inclusion globally impera-
tive, nevertheless the findings also confirmed that some teachers in the study were ambiva-
lent to whether inclusive education should or should not be implemented due to pragmatic
daily school life realities such as lack of time, large classes and lack of professional training
for inclusive education strategies that led to the middle-of-the-road tendencies taken by
the teachers in this study. As argued earlier by Farrell (2000), the issue of mainstream
schools lacking time, money or resources to provide education and training needed by
learners with disabilities was identified as a reality and a concern in the present research.

Barriers to inclusive practices: middle of the road tendency

The middle-of-the-road tendencies cut across the themes and categories of this study as
participants indicated that realities at school level hampered the successful implemen-
tation of inclusive education despite the knowledge and acceptance that it was the right
of the learners not to be discriminated against in their education. These realities include
time, big classes also impacting on physical space, and lack of professional training and
support. These are elaborated hereunder.

Time
Teachers in the study expressed concern over the importance of time for lesson prep-
aration, provision of feedback and giving individual learner-support for all the learners
who experience challenges to learning (see teachers Tina and Sungi’s extracts below).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

Seeing that with big classes and with all this – that they didn’t train, so they (the teachers) feel
negative about inclusive education. They will think, ‘where will we get the time to start
including all these children?’ (Tina [pseudonym] interview data)

The expressed concern over time in this study affirms the notion that teachers consider
time as crucial to efficiency and effectiveness (Hargreaves 1994). They thus experience
time as a major constraint, differentiating what they are able to achieve and what they
are expected to achieve in their classrooms. Time therefore, is crucial to teaching in
general and more so in the application of inclusive education where support for learners
with barriers to learning and ensuring that each learner’s educational needs are met are
imperative practices.
The lack of time and the feeling of not having finished one’s work is a perpetual
problem experienced by teachers. ‘No time’, ‘not enough time’, ‘need more time’, were
common utterances that are often thrown by teachers in the path of any attempts at intro-
ducing new policies or changes (Hargreaves 1994; Fullan 2001). The expressed need for
more time by these teachers could be attributed to a commitment to care. As Hargreaves
(1994) reports, a lot of caring is ubiquitous amongst primary school teachers. Further-
more, Lortie (cited in Fullan 2001) conducted a study which is one of the most widely
respected studies of what teachers do and think. In one of his findings, when Lortie
asked teachers how they would choose to spend a gift of additional work time amounting
to 10 hours per week, it was found that 91% of almost 6000 teachers in Dade County
selected classroom-related activities. These include more preparation, more teaching
with groups of students and more counselling. This again reflects teachers’ commitment
to care and excellence.
Some teachers like Sungi are committed to care and excellence, sacrificing some of her
weekend time to achieve this as she stated, ‘sometimes I come to school to teach on Satur-
days and the learners like it.’ This situation in which the lack of adequate time already frus-
trates the teachers with their present duties contributes to the middle-of-the-road
positioning when considering inclusive education which may require even more time
for practices that embrace support for learners with barriers to learning including one-
to-one teacher-learner support. Though teachers agreed with the principle of inclusive
education and rights-based pedagogies, the existing frustration with regards to time
could cause teachers to see inclusive education as impractical and even unrealistic. The
teachers may also feel that the further demands of inclusive education on time could
cause them to compromise their dedication and commitment to care.
According to teacher Tina (see Tina’s extract above), the reality of time does not exist in
isolation: time is not the only cause for frustration amongst these teachers. The reality of
time co-exists and interacts with other realities at the school level. Teacher Tina thinks that
large classes and lack of training can so overwhelm teachers that they struggle and feel that
there is not enough time. Hence, there is a reduction in the time available to give attention
to those learners experiencing barriers to learning and requiring extra time and reassess-
ment – a condition that hampers inclusive education.

Big classes and physical space

According to the South African Education Department policy, the learner: teacher ratio
should be 40: 1 for primary school, 35:1 maximum and 30:1 minimum for post
10 E. K. MATERECHERA

primary schools. Yet according to the South African Schools Act of 1996, no learner may
be refused admission to a public school on grounds including parents not being able to pay
or not subscribing to the mission statement of the school. The Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa (1996) states that every child has the right to basic education. The reality is
that the mainstream schools end up enrolling more than the recommended learner:
teacher ratio. The study identified that big class size is a problem that impedes the success-
ful implementation of inclusive education in most of South Africa’s mainstream schools.
This was established by some teachers’ responses in the study as teachers Dyson and Tina’s
extracts below illustrate.
In the mainstream, you know, our classes here in South Africa, are quite big. So it is difficult
[you know] to attend to an individual child with such difficulties in learning. But somehow it
may work if the numbers can be reduced to a minimum number, let’s say er– forty, forty-five.
(Dyson [pseudonym] interview data)

------------------------------------------

Inclusive education can work if classes are not too big. So more educators need to be
employed because if the classes are big as it is now, where some teachers are having 52,
it’s terrible; there is not even space in the class for moving around. That’s why I say the tea-
chers are already negative about this inclusive education … .(Tina [pseudonym] interview
data)

In the preceding extracts, teacher Dyson realises that individual instruction is fundamental
to the success of inclusive education. However, faced with the realities of big class sizes, he
argues that a challenge arises for teachers to provide such individual support perhaps
without compromising academic quality and time for the other learners in the inclusive
classroom. Nevertheless, he does not rule out inclusive education completely but cau-
tiously supports it on condition that classes are minimised to manageable numbers.
Teacher Dyson is not alone in his concern about big classes being an impairment to the
success of inclusive education. For instance, the results from 59 questionnaires adminis-
tered to four schools in the district concur with teacher Dyson’s concern (See Figure 2
above). It is clear from Figure 2 that generally teachers in the study strongly believe
that inclusive education is not possible if the classes are too big. According to Figures 1
and 2, while teachers are generally positive towards inclusive education on the basis of
human rights discourses, they become pessimistic when they take into consideration
the big size of their classes. There is thus a ‘tug of war’, middle-of-the-road tendency,
among the teachers in the study in deciding whether or not to advocate inclusive edu-
cation. More so, teacher Tina ties big class size to physical space whereby it is extremely
difficult for the teacher to move in the classroom.
Just as the mainstream schools were seen not to have the time, and resources to provide
education and training needed by learners with barriers to learning in the twentieth
century, this line of thinking still exists as shown by the findings of this study. Conse-
quently, teachers in the study still hold to the segregation orthodoxy in light of prevailing
realities. Some teachers (e.g. Tina) in the study feel that human resources such as employ-
ing more teachers could be one of the means mitigating the problem of large classes.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

Lack of professional training and support

Because teaching learners who experience barriers to learning in an inclusive environment
is not easy, the necessary changes in instructional practices require support beyond the
classroom and the local school (Nel et al. 2016). Professional focus on inclusive education
training may be a means and method of providing this support. The avowals of Donohue
and Bornman (2014) indicate that teacher training is one of the means for success for
inclusive education. Similarly, teachers in this study were willing to advance their knowl-
edge and ability to teach inclusive lessons. They believed there was much to learn about
inclusive education. They felt they were currently not confident enough to handle inclusive
classes and voiced the need for professional training particularly in handling inclusive
classes.
As illustrated in Figure 3 above, a total of 52 out of 59 (88%) teachers not only disagreed
to the statement ‘I do not need training for handling an inclusive class (IC); but 29 out of
that 52 even strongly disagreed with the statement’. Furthermore, a statement that ‘I want
to improve my knowledge and ability to teach inclusive lessons’ showed that a total of 44
out of 59 (74%) teachers agreed to the statement, out of which 24 strongly agreed. More-
over, in the interviews, all teachers but one stressed the need for training in inclusivity.
One teacher’s view in the study illustrates this point:
We didn’t er-er- receive training as-as teachers who will teach learners with special needs.
Because I think that-that is another … with special needs in education. You see, if we er-
er-undergo training, then it will be better. Then- then we can – we will know how to deal
with this kind of a child’. (Faith [pseudonym], interview data)

Teacher Faith here states she was not given training to deal with learners with special
education needs. She believes that only especially trained teachers should teach learners
who experience barriers to learning. Once again, this brings teachers back to segre-
gation orthodoxy where especially trained teachers were responsible for teaching lear-
ners who were perceived as disabled, having special education needs, or as showing
disruptive behaviour in school (Lamport, Graves, and Ward 2012). The author is con-
cerned over the implications of focusing on disability as a problem where rather than
inflexible pedagogical practices might yield to the implementation of inclusive
education.
Others exhibited a more embracing attitude that IE is possible if training is provided as
teacher Faith indicated above. A more nuanced perception is evident in the call for in-
depth, extended training as teacher Claire suggested during interview: ‘I need training –
thorough training for that matter’. According to the teachers in the study, it is imperative
that they are trained appropriately and adequately to deliver in inclusive classrooms (ICs).
Many teachers in the study are optimistic about inclusive education only if the problems
such as lack of training are mitigated. They see training as a resource that would success-
fully facilitate inclusive education.
Inclusive education is, to some extent, not well applied in the North West province
where the study was conducted. Because of this on-going challenge at the level of
implementation, there is the need for training as a means of learning appropriate pedago-
gies. Without such training, teachers are forced to rely on experience alone which some
teachers themselves confessed would not suffice.
12 E. K. MATERECHERA

Summary of discussion
On the whole, teachers support the notion that inclusive education is a human rights
requirement and that learners have the right to equal access to an inclusive education
system. However, findings here reveal a strong belief among the teachers in this study
that realities at school level hamper the successful implementation of inclusive education.
Prominent among these realities are: time, large classes and lack of professional training
focused on inclusive education.

Time
Lack of adequate time already frustrates the teachers with their present duties because it
seriously impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of their profession. Consequently,
demands of inclusive education with regards to time may be an added burden causing tea-
chers to see inclusive education as impractical.

Large classes
Large classes militate against individual instruction which is, among others, fundamental
to the success of inclusive education. Faced with the realities of large class sizes, many tea-
chers in the study believed this impedes successfully putting into practice any principles of
inclusive education.

Lack of professional training focused on inclusive education

The lack of professional training focused on inclusive education was another constraint.
Since inclusive education is relatively new to many teachers in the study, they see the
need for training as a means of learning appropriate pedagogies instead of relying on
experience.
The realities at school level co-exist and interact with each other. For instance, large
classes and lack of training can so overwhelm teachers that they struggle and feel that
there is not enough time. Generally, teachers in the study do not rule out inclusive edu-
cation completely but cautiously support it on condition that adequate teaching time be
made available, classes be regulated to manageable numbers, and adequate training for
inclusive education be provided to teachers in the mainstream schools.
Apart from the realities of time, big classes, and training, the author also believes that
the negativity towards inclusive education exhibited by some teachers in the study is par-
tially attributed to a common reluctance to change. People are normally so beholden to
their values and traditions that dramatic changes are not easily accepted and may even
be seen as problems (Fullan 2001; Hargreaves and Goodson 2006). However, to suit the
ever changing contemporary society, there is a need to transcend these traditional
values. Change is not always easy. The introduction of any significant change demands
recognition that ‘ideas and mind-sets do not have effect immediately, nor are new
methods employed in the blink of an eye but undergo a sequence of changes’ (Department
of Education 2005). Changes regarding inclusive education are no exception. The South
African policy on inclusive education was only released and adopted in 2001. Therefore,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

expecting significant changes pertaining to the policy within this short time frame is an
unrealistic demand on the already overloaded teachers. Consequently, it is not surprising
that the transition from the old system of education that embraced segregation of students
with special education needs to educating all learners in inclusive classes has been received
with misgiving by other people (Rieser 2013).
According to UNESCO (2005), although teachers are impressed by seeing the progress
of students and changing their lives, there is now a prominent negative theme among tea-
chers towards their profession which researchers term ‘erosion of the profession’. This
alludes to the reduction in the value of the profession, increased external interference, edu-
cation change, and increased workload.
As the teachers in Scott, Stone, and Dinham’s (2001, 9–10) study put it:
Teaching isn’t like it used to be and the money isn’t worth the abuse we cop day in day out
(Australia classroom teacher 32). I have become less satisfied with my chosen career due to
the ever-increasing workload, never ending changes, huge responsibilities (Australia class-
room teacher 28). In order to effectively educate and care for children we must be respected,
have status and held in HIGH esteem. Raise salaries – it’s a start. (USA classroom teacher, 49)

Though teachers may complain that the teaching profession is no longer as respectful as it
used to be (Bartunek 2014), this paper acknowledges the nobility of the teaching pro-
fession. It is of concern that if teachers already hold negative views of their profession,
this may lead to loss of confidence and excellence in performance, and can further
affect decisiveness on whether or not to advocate inclusive education. Hence, the
success of inclusive education may be jeopardised as teachers hold the key to any effective
application of inclusive education.

Conclusion
In conclusion, despite their stance, whether for or against inclusive education or already
neutral, teachers in the study are caught up in a dilemma between human rights and
complex realities at the school level. These dichotomies have forced most of them to
take the-middle-of-the road position. Teachers in the study aspire to accept inclusive
education because they understand that theoretically it embraces democratic values
of equity and human rights and recognises and accommodates diversity. However,
they are concerned with the pragmatic realities at school level which they see as impe-
diments to inclusive education and suggest that favourable changes should be employed
prior to implementation. These changes would include more time, professional training
and smaller classes. Without such, the implementation of inclusive education is seen as
a far-fetched possibility. To this end, the author draws from the South African National
Department of Education (2005) and rhetorically asks: Is it practical and realistic to
wait until such a time as when every teacher has been professionally trained for inclu-
sivity and smaller sized classes with ample time to attend to all learners with diverse
needs?
The findings of this study are of particular relevance to teachers who are committed to
inclusive education and yet find themselves in a dilemma between different dichotomies of
realities at local school level as was the case of this study. The Salamanca Statement and
Framework for Action left it to the individual nations to implement inclusive education
within their own contexts. Significant impediments to successful implementation of
14 E. K. MATERECHERA

inclusive education could force teachers to take the middle-of- the-road position. This
study therefore, recommends further future research to explore impediments leading to
middle-of-the road position taken by teachers in different international contexts with
different local pragmatic realities in order to extend the conversation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Dr Ellen Kakhuta Materechera graduated with a PhD in Education at the University of the Witwa-
tersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Her research focus was in the field of inclusive education. She
is currently a Senior Academic Advisor at North West University.

ORCID
Ellen Kakhuta Materechera http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7036-8327

References
South African Schools Act. 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Artiles, A. J., and E. B. Kozleski. 2016. “Inclusive Education’s Promises and Trajectories: Critical
Notes about Future Research on a Venerable Idea.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 24
(43). doi:10.14507/epaa.24.1919.
Australian Human Rights Commission. 2011. Human Rights Education in the National School
Curriculum: Position Paper of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Bartunek, J. M. 2014. Organizational and Educational Change: The Life and Role of a Change Agent
Group. New York: Psychology Press.
Carter, S. M., and M. Little. 2007. “Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action:
Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health
Research 17 (10): 1316–1328.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 1996. Act 108 of 1996.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CSIE. 2002. “The Inclusion Charter” (revised). http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/charter.htm.
Dalton, E. M., J. A. McKenzie, and C. Kahonde. 2012. “The Implementation of Inclusive Education
in South Africa: Reflections Arising from a Workshop for Teachers and Therapists to Introduce
Universal Design for Learning.” African Journal of Disability 1 (1): Art. #13, 7 pages. doi:10.4102/
ajod.v1i1.13.
Department of Education. 1999. Consultative Paper No.1 on Special Education: Building an
Inclusive Education and Training System, First Steps. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of Education. 2001. White Paper 6: Building an Inclusive Education and Training
System. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Education Directorate. 2005. Inclusive Education. Conceptual and Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of Inclusive Education: Full-service Schools. 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.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

Edirisingha, P. 2012. “Interpretivism and Positivism: Ontological and Epistemological Perspectives.”

https://prabash78.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/interpretivism-and-postivism-ontological-and-
epistemological-perspectives/.
EFA [Education for All]. 2000. World Education Forum. Dakar: UNESCO.
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.
Farrell, P. 2000. “The Role of Learning-support Assistants in Developing Inclusive Practice in the
Classroom.” Paper presented at the National Conference on Learner Support Development, Cape
Town.
Fullan, M. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. School Development and
the Management of Change Series. London: Farmer Press.
Fullan, M. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 3rd ed.London: Routledge Falmer.
Gale, N. K., G. Heath, E. Cameron, S. Rashid, and S. Redwood. 2013. “Using the Framework
Method for the Analysis of Qualitative Data in Multi-disciplinary Health Research.” BMC
Medical Research Methodology 13 (1): 117–128.
Gordon, S. 2013. “Is Inclusive Education a Human Right?” The Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics
41: 754–767.
Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times. New York: Teachers Colleges Press.
Hargreaves, A., and I. Goodson. 2006. “Educational Change Over Time? The Sustainability and
Nonsustainability of Three Decades of Secondary School Change and Continuity.”
Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (1): 3–41.
Human Rights Watch Report. 2015. “South Africa: Education Barriers for Children with
Disabilities.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/08/18/south-africa-education-barriers-children-
disabilities.
Keddie, A. 2012. Educating for Diversity and Social Justice. London: Routledge.
Lamport, M. A., L. Graves, and A. Ward. 2012. “Special Needs Students in Inclusive Classrooms:
The Impact of Social Interaction on Educational Outcomes for Learners with Emotional and
Behavioural Disabilities.” European Journal of Business and Social Sciences 1 (5): 54–69.
Lomofsky, L., and S. Lazarus. 2001. “South Africa: First Steps in the Development of an Inclusive
Education System.” Cambridge Journal of Education 31 (3): 303–317.
Macfarlane, A., S. Macfarlane, and G. Gillon. 2014. “Inclusion, Disability and Culture: The Nexus of
Potential and Opportunity for Policy Development.” In Tales from School, edited by Rod Wills,
Missy Morton, Margaret McLean, Maxine Stephenson, and Roger Slee, 255–270. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Mariga, L., R. McConkey, and H. J. Myezwa. 2014. Inclusive Education in Low Income Countries: A
Resource Book for Teacher Educators, Parents, Trainers and Community Development Workers.
Oslo: Atlas Alliance.
Maxwell, J. A. 2012. A Realistic Approach for Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
Michailakis, D., and W. Reich. 2009. “Dilemmas of Inclusive Education.” European Journal of
Disability Research 3: 24–44.
Nel, N. M., L. D. N. Tlale, P. Engelbrecht, and M. Nel. 2016. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Education
Support Structures in the Implementation of Inclusive Education in South Africa.” Koers 81 (3):
1–14.
Ngcaweni, B. 2015. “To Understand SA’s History Curriculum Change in Democracy.” http://www.
news24.com/MyNews24/To-understand-SAs-History-Curriculum-change-in-Democracy-lets-
first-look-at-this-change-during-Tra-20150114.
Potgieter-Groot, L., M. Visser, and C. Lubbe-de Beer. 2012. “Emotional and Behavioural Barriers to
Learning and Development in the Inclusive Education Classrooms in South Africa: Developing a
Training Programme for Teachers.” Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health 24 (1): 59–71.
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rieser, R. 2013. “Teacher Education for Children with Disabilities: Literature Review.” http://www.
eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Teacher_education_for_children_disabilities_litreview.pdf.
16 E. K. MATERECHERA

Scott, C., B. Stone, and S. Dinham. 2001. “International Patterns of Teacher Discontent.” Education
Policy Analysis Archives 9 (28): 1–16. http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/1009.
Tasioulas, J. 2013. “Human Rights, Legitimacy, and International Law.” The American Journal of
Jurisprudence 58 (1): 1–25.
Tikly, L., and A. M. Barrett. 2013. Education Quality and Social Justice in the Global South:
Challenges for Policy, Practice, and Research. New York: Routledge.
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2005. Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All. http://www.unesco.
org/education/inclusive.
United Nations. 1948. United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Paris. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
United Nations. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: Office of the High
Commissioner of Human Rights.
United Nations. 2006. “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm
Van Banning, T. R. 2002. The Human Right to Property. New York, NY: Intersentia.
World Bank. 2011. World Report on Disability.