Abstract
Background: Support for learners experiencing barriers to learning is critical for their successful inclusion in mainstream classrooms. This article presents the findings of a study that examined school-based support teams’ self-reported efficacies in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning.
Aim: The study investigates how members of school-based support teams’ perform their roles in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning in four South African mainstream primary schools.
Setting: This study was done in Johannesburg South District of Gauteng province of South Africa. It was executed in public mainstream schools serving learners mainly from low to middle income communities.
Methods: The study used a multiple case study research design immersed in a qualitative research approach. The study was viewed through Sen’s capability theoretical framework. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews and analysed thematically. Eight members of school-based support teams from four Johannesburg South mainstream primary schools were purposefully selected for this study.
Results: Findings of the study revealed that members of the school-based support teams see their role as screening, identification of learners facing barriers to learning, advocacy, as well as collaboration with parents of children facing barriers to learning. Furthermore, the findings showed that the school-based support teams (SBSTs) members also refer learners to the district-based support teams and collaborate with other stakeholders. Strategies to strengthen SBSTs’ efficacies, which were identified in this study, are that there is a need for continuous in-service training for school-based support teams members and the reduction of workload for them. However, the study established that there is a dearth of literature on how SBSTs perceive their roles in Johannesburg South District. This study addresses the gap in existing literature by contributing new insights into the perspectives of SBSTs within a specific district of South Africa.
Conclusion: The study concludes that members of the school-based support teams, who were the participants in this study, reported that they performed most of their mandated roles in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning. However, they also identified a need to strengthen their work in supporting learners.
Contribution: This research has highlighted the views of school-based support teams, which may add to the knowledge base of the portfolio of SBSTs in promoting inclusion within mainstream schools. Moreover, this study could assist in alleviating the challenges encountered by SBSTs in executing their roles.
Keywords: school-based support teams; roles; supporting; barriers to learning; mainstream classrooms; South Africa.
Introduction
Inclusive education practices emphasise the provision of support to all categories of learners in the same environments despite the differences they might have (UNESCO 1994). Support for learners can come from different stakeholders, including teachers and other learners within the classroom or school setup (Majoko 2019). Since the adoption of inclusive education in 1994, global trends have shown an increase in the number of learners experiencing barriers to learning attending the same schools and classrooms as their typical peers (Mpanza & Govender 2022).
Consistent with other countries globally, South Africa recognises the provision of support to both learners and teachers as pivotal to the implementation of inclusive education. Specifically, the South African Education White Paper 6 of 2001 emphasises the provision of support to learners experiencing barriers to learning (Hove 2022). To realise the successful implementation of inclusive education in schools, the Department of Education has put in place support structures across the education system. These support structures include district-based support teams (DBSTs), school-based support teams (SBSTs), Full-Service Schools (FSS) and Special Schools as Resource Centres (SSRC), among others (Nel et al. 2016). This study focussed on SBST members’ views about their roles in the schools.
School-based support teams are support teams that are mandated to coordinate support to learners experiencing barriers to learning and to teachers at the school level (Department of Education 2001). They (SBSTs) are regarded as the most essential structure within the schooling system, considering the current shift towards inclusive education (Fourie 2011). Essentially, SBSTs serve as sources of immediate support to teachers and learners experiencing barriers to learning in the schools (Nel et al. 2016). The composition of SBSTs includes general educators, specialist educators and members of the school management teams (SMT), among others (Makoelle 2014). One can be a member of the SBST if they have a qualification in special needs education, inclusive education or experience working with children with special needs. The argument is that they are deemed to possess in-depth knowledge about barriers to learning and how they can be alleviated. Fundamentally, the SBSTs are integral in the application of inclusive education as they facilitate the provision of needs-response programmes and services to learners experiencing barriers to learning (Nel et al. 2016).
The South African Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment, and Support (SIAS) document of 2014 clarifies the roles that SBSTs must perform in the schools (DBE 2014). One of the key roles of the SBSTs is the identification of learners experiencing barriers to learning (DBE 2014). In this regard, SBSTs are expected to identify any learner within the school who is experiencing or is at risk of experiencing barriers to learning across the whole school system.
In addition to the identification of learners experiencing barriers to learning, SBSTs are required to give support to both teachers and learners (DBE 2014). For example, teachers may be assisted with the techniques to support learners with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or learners with reading disabilities (dyslexia) in the classroom (Garcia-Melga et al. 2022). Support to teachers entails helping them mitigate the challenges they face in dealing with learners experiencing barriers to learning. Other roles expected of the SBSTs include screening, advocacy and referrals of learners experiencing barriers to learning for further support (Department of Basic Education 2014). This is in addition to their other responsibilities, such as organising schools, learners and educators in the drive to promote inclusive education support services within schools (Majoko 2019).
A significant amount of research has been carried out on how SBSTs perform their roles in supporting both teachers and learners experiencing barriers to learning. For example, Geldenhuys and Wevers’ (2013) study focused on SBSTs’ professional readiness to support learners experiencing barriers to learning in the classrooms. Additionally, Du Toit, Eloff and Moen (2014) researched how SBSTs collaborate with fellow educators and parents in supporting the implementation of inclusive education. However, there is a paucity of literature on how SBSTs view their roles within schools in the Johannesburg South District of South Africa. This study explores how SBSTs, as support structures within schools, perceive their roles in providing support to learners experiencing barriers to learning. The study sought to answer the question: How do SBSTs view their roles in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning in mainstream schools? Understanding the SBST members’ views about their roles, particularly through their voices, is essential as it helps in enhancing support provision for learners experiencing barriers to learning. Additionally, this will help in mitigating the challenges they face in performing their roles.
Literature review
Several international studies have examined how the SBSTs view their roles in providing support to learners experiencing barriers to learning within schools. For instance, a national survey conducted by the US Department of Education (2017) on SBSTs’ performances found that the SBSTs identify learners experiencing barriers to learning based on their academic performances and monitor their progress in the classrooms. Wang et al.’s (2015) study in the United States (US) established that members of SBSTs expressed confidence that they have adequate training in both theory and practice in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning in mainstream schools. Similarly, Hove and Phasha (2024) established that SBST members in the Sedibeng East District of South Africa felt confident in implementing their roles, such as the identification and referrals of learners experiencing barriers to learning. In addition, Samayang et al. (2022) state that SBSTs in the Philippines express enthusiasm in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning (Samayang et al. 2022). The above is in line with the study findings by Gaffney (2016) in the Johannesburg East District of South Africa, which established that some members of the SBSTs are positive about supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning in the schools. Arguably, the positive perceptions that SBSTs possess towards their roles may be attributed to various aspects, such as their qualifications and working conditions within schools.
Besides the positive views some SBSTs have, Gaffney (2016) asserts that few SBST members feel they cannot support learners experiencing barriers to learning because they have limited knowledge about their roles (Gaffney 2016). This suggests that, besides adequate training, SBSTs’ roles must be clearly defined to the members. Arguably, with clearly defined roles, the SBSTs are enabled to screen, identify, assess and support both teachers and learners experiencing barriers to learning. As expressed in the capability theory embraced in this study (Sen 1998), individuals need to be capacitated to reach their full potential.
Additionally, Hauwadhanasuk et al. (2019) posit that SBSTs in China, Thailand and Turkey revealed that they feel they lack knowledge of special needs education or barriers to learning. This is supported by Fourie (2011), who asserts that SBSTs in the Gauteng province of South Africa feel they are not well trained to provide support to teachers and learners within schools. In addition, Mpanza and Govender (2022) posit that some SBST members feel that some learners require higher levels of support, and the SBST members do not know how to assist. Arguably, the concerns noted above point to a need for SBST members to be adequately trained in their roles so that they can function effectively. This will help them to be positive about their roles as they will be able to give the necessary support to learners experiencing barriers to learning.
Other SBST members view continuous training and capacitation as essential in equipping them with more knowledge for them to be more effective in their roles. Kivirand et al. (2021) assert that SBST members who continuously receive training feel more enriched in their application of inclusive practices in schools, especially in identifying learners experiencing barriers to learning as well as designing relevant intervention plans. In the same vein, Gachago (2015) asserts that inclusion teams in Kenya, equivalent structures to SBSTs, complain that identification and screening of learners experiencing barriers to learning was frustrating and difficult as they were not properly trained in that regard. The above is consistent with a study by Hodgson and Khumalo (2016), who established that SBSTs in KwaZulu-Natal report that the process of identifying learners is too complicated and demanding, especially as they feel they have limited knowledge of how to execute the task.
Collaboration between various stakeholders is crucial in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning. School-based support teams need to collaborate with the whole school community, including school governing bodies (SGBs), parents and teachers. The study by Gaffney (2016) reveals that SBSTs view this as critical, as it enables them to undertake their roles effectively in the schools. In line with the above, Rulwa-Mnatwana (2014) revealed that SBSTs in the Western Cape are collaborating with social workers, parents and psychologists in performing their roles. The SBSTs are confident in carrying out their roles because of the involvement and participation of other stakeholders. Primarily, they believe that’s what is needed to improve access and participation by learners experiencing barriers to learning in their learning experiences.
On the other hand, other structures within schools need to support SBSTs in carrying out their roles. Makhalemele and Payne-van Staden (2020) posit that SBSTs comprehend their duty of supporting educators during adaptations as one of their core duties. However, Samayang et al. (2022) assert that the SBST members feel that they are not getting enough support from structures such as the SMTs in managing their roles to promote inclusivity in the classrooms for learners experiencing barriers to learning. This is because the SMTs possess limited knowledge about SBST functions and issues of disabilities (Tsotetsi & Omodan 2020). As stated by Fourie (2011), some SBST members feel they do not get full support from (SMTs). Such lack of support can make their task difficult as they will feel like ‘sacrificial lambs at the altar of support provision’.
Communication is important in carrying out SBST roles. A study by Garcia-Melga et al. (2022) revealed that SBSTs felt their roles were impacted negatively by poor communication among members. The SBST members feel they need to have regular communication on how to identify, screen and support learners experiencing barriers to learning. The above is supported by Tsotetsi and Omodan (2020) who assert that at times SBST members complain that their roles are difficult because of a lack of communication among members. Ideally, the SBSTs feel that they would be better able to perform their roles if communication among themselves could be improved, for example, by having weekly communications and termly meetings (Garcia-Melga et al. 2022).
In other instances, SBSTs view their roles as an overwhelming extra load on the members as they have to perform their other primary role of teaching in their classes. Inadvertently, this affects their chances to maximise their functionalities. In a study by Tsotetsi and Omodan (2020) in the Free State province of South Africa, SBST members revealed that their roles are made difficult because they also have the same amount of load in terms of teaching. Arguably, piling too much work on SBST members can compromise their effectiveness in performing their roles. As articulated in the capability theory, individuals can perform at their best if the conditions are favourable to them (Sen 1998). In that light, it can be argued that SBSTs must have reduced amounts of work in terms of teaching and focus more on their roles of screening, identifying, assessing and supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning.
Theoretical framework
This study was explored using Sen’s capability theory lenses (Sen 1998), which stresses that people can achieve their set goals if they are provided with the right support (Hove & Phasha 2024). The fundamental trait of the capabilities approach is its emphasis on what individuals are efficiently capable of doing and becoming (Robey 2017).
This theory is grounded in people’s dignity and their diversity, which makes it fundamental in ensuring that learners with disabilities are catered for regarding their freedoms and access to well-resourced and effective inclusive education in all schools (Lim 2020). The capabilities approach advocates for full and effective inclusion of children with disabilities in all schools, not just mere placement in public schools (Lim 2020). Therefore, it is essential to explore the role of SBSTs in supporting the placement of learners who experience barriers to learning into mainstream schools to ensure that learners with disabilities are fully included. SBST members were examined against the fundamentals of the capability approach to figure out their views about their roles in supporting learners with barriers to learning. These fundamentals included their readiness to recognise diversity, sourcing inclusive education resources, being an advocating agency for inclusion and cultivating inclusive environments in mainstream schools.
The capabilities approach influenced the use of a multiple case study design in this article as each SBST operates within unique contexts. It further influenced the use of semi-structured interviews for data collection to allow for detailed comprehension of how capabilities are ensured or hindered by SBSTs through their role implemeation. The thematic data analysis used in this article aligns with the capacity approach as it allows data to be analysed through the capability-focused lenses by recognising themes that promote or bars learner capabilities when SBSTs are executing their roles in their schools.
Aim of the study
School-based support teams are mandated to play a fundamental role in giving support to both learners and teachers in mainstream schools. This role includes screening, identification, advocacy and referrals of learners experiencing barriers to learning for further support (DBE 2014). This study sought to investigate SBSTs’ views about their role in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning by answering the question: How do SBSTs view their role in supporting learners with barriers to learning in mainstream schools?
Research methods and design
A multiple case study research design untangles complicated issues through in-depth exploration and the use of several cases (Creswell 2014). The study used a multiple case study research design embedded in qualitative research to explore and comprehend a complicated subject matter in its natural setting. The topic under exploration was complex as it is not known what constitutes the capability of service providers such as SBSTs in inclusive education because of conceptual complexities in illustrating what constitutes the model practice thereof (Majoko 2019). A multiple case study was used because it is highly descriptive and is rooted in the use of a variety of sources of data. Interviews (Harrison et al. 2017) were used in this study because they are frequently used to collect data in a multiple-case study research design. The multiple case study research design aids in acquiring an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in its natural environment by responding to ‘how’, ‘why’ and partially ‘what’ research questions (Steward 2014). Thus, the use of this research design permitted for a rigorous inspection of the research question.
Participants and setting
Eight participants from four Johannesburg South district mainstream primary schools were purposefully selected to participate in this study as highlighted in Table 1. Homogenous purposive sampling was used to select participants with uniform traits, which indicated that they would be information-rich sources for the study. The traits included being a member of an SBST, having at least 2 years of experience in the team, being qualified in inclusive education and working in a primary school setting. The researcher liaised and utilised the Johannesburg South DBST to identify and locate members of SBST in different mainstream primary schools who were qualified in inclusive education and had the required experience in the teams. Then the researcher followed up with the selected schools to ascertain whether the selected members were still SBST members. Each of the four selected schools provided two participants, one female and one male, to make a total of eight participants with uniform traits. All the schools were public schools in the high-density residential areas of the South of Johannesburg.
Data collection
Data were collected using individual semi-structured interviews with the selected participants. The individual semi-structured interviews were performed at the four purposively selected schools in Johannesburg South. Each of the participants had two interviews. A semi-structured interview guide was used to provide direction for the interview process. The individual interviews were conducted in the participants’ classrooms outside school hours to avoid disruption of teaching and learning in the selected schools. Interviews were recorded with the consent of the participants. Each interview lasted between 30 min and 45 min. The performance of members of SBSTs was benchmarked against components expected in successful and effective support of learners in inclusive teaching and learning including process, content, environment and product of pedagogy.
Data analysis
Thematic data analysis was used to analyse the data that were collected through face-to-face individual interviews using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase framework. Firstly, data analysis entailed reading and rereading all the interview scripts thoroughly to acquaint myself with the whole body of data. Secondly, the coding of each piece of data from the data body, which was of interest or related to the research questions, was initiated. Thirdly, it entailed studying and examining the codes, and most of them matched into the initial themes. Fourthly, the modification of the preliminary themes was engaged as there was relevant data in the dataset to support the current themes over the preliminary themes. Fifthly, the themes were refined for the final presentations. Sixthly, the final report was produced supported by excerpts from the participants’ responses. The study refrained from using the main interview questions as themes to avoid summarising and organising data, rather than analysing it.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of South Africa College of Education Ethics Review Committee. The ethical approval number is 2018/07/18/56430949/33/MC. Ethical standards were adhered to during the execution of this study by observing permission, confidentiality, informed consent and honesty. The permission to access participants was sought and granted by the Gauteng Department of Education, School Governing Boards and principals of selected schools. Informed written consent and assent were obtained from members of SBSTs, parents and learners who participated in the study. The consent and assent were obtained from the members of SBSTs, parents and learners who participated in the study. The consent and assent forms contained assurances of confidentiality for the data provided by the participants. Participants’ identities were anonymised using pseudonyms. To avoid falsification and fabrication of data and findings, peers and colleagues peer-reviewed this study.
Results and discussions
The findings were presented and analysed in two themes that emerged from the data that were: (1) support roles as viewed by members of SBSTs and (2) strategies to enhance the implementation of SBSTs roles in mainstream schools. The themes and sub-themes are summarised in Table 2.
Theme 1: Support roles as viewed by members of school-based support teams
Various support roles seen by SBSTs as aimed at promoting inclusivity emerged from the study. They see their roles as screening, identification of learners, advocacy, collaboration with parents, referral of learners, monitoring and evaluation and strategic learner support of learners experiencing barriers to learning. This aligns with the (SIAS) policy (DBE 2014), which stipulates that SBSTs are mandated to identify learners at risk of barriers to learning and come up with strategies to support them to overcome their challenges. It further emphasises that SBSTs should collaborate with parents when screening and referring learners through seeking their consent.
Sub-theme 1.1: Screening
Two participants reported that they screen learners at risk of barriers to learning to identify the specific difficulties they experience. Such screening was conceptualised to involve the Quality Improvement Process (QUIP) system and assessment of the linguistic competency of learners individually as stated by participant A1 who was captured saying:
‘We screen learners … particularly those who have been identified to be having learning barriers, that is learners at risk, and we support them through the QUIP system since our school is a full-service school.’ (Participant A1, 41, Male, 6)
The above was supported by Participant D1 who stated that:
‘… what we do is we screen the learners to see where exactly the problem is.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
Although members of the SBST screen learners to ascertain the extent of the barriers they face, the screening process was considered strenuous by some participants. Three participants indicated that they felt the process is too long and interferes with teaching as well as the other roles and responsibilities of members of SBSTs as expressed by participant D1 who said:
‘When it comes to your attention you need to do the screening and it’s a process, a long one because there is reading, there is comprehension and there is one-on-one, … You don’t do it with learners as a group. You have to do with them one learner by one learner. It’s a concern because if you say now, you are going to do it in your free period, it means you need to stop your marking. It means you stop your preparation for the next day.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
Additionally, Participant A2 indicated that:
‘We have a lot of work to do besides being in the SBST, having to fill in screening forms is tedious and it takes away our teaching time. However, we must do it for submission and sometimes we submit them [screening forms] roughly fill in due to the lack of time.’ (Participant A2, 53, Female, 27)
Participant B2 emphasised that:
‘The screening process is too demanding in terms of the information required to be filled in and activities we need to do to screen learners. The process takes long to complete and it is frustrating when you have some other deadlines to meet.’ (Participant B2, 49, Male, 25)
The findings above indicate that members of the SBST self-reported that they perform one of their expected tasks, namely screening learners to ascertain the barriers they experience. However, the findings indicate that they view the process of screening learners as overloading them with work as they are also expected to perform other tasks in the school. The findings indicate that the participants felt that the screening process was lengthy and interfered with their other responsibilities. The finding implies that as much as they are aware of this role, the screening process is overwhelming and burdensome to SBST members and a discussion around reviewing the process and tools might help. The above findings are consistent with Gachago’s (2015) study in Kenya, which established that members of inclusion teams found the process of screening learners tedious and at times complicated. Similarly, Hodgson and Khumalo’s (2016) study in KwaZulu-Natal found that most members of SBSTs found the screening of learners to be tedious and complicated because they lacked the know-how to screen learners in regular classes. Arguably, the self-reported inefficacies by members of the SBSTs negatively impact support for learners experiencing barriers to learning. This militates against Sen’s (1998) capability theory, which stresses that individuals should be provided with all the necessary supports for them to thrive. School-based support team members, as fostering agencies in schools responsible for allowing all learners to thrive, must efficiently conduct the necessary screening processes for learners experiencing barriers to learning (Lim 2020).
Sub-theme 1.2: Identification of learners
Besides the screening of learners for barriers to learning, five participants reported that they also identify learners with barriers to learning in mainstream schools. The learner identification process involves the administration of diagnostic tests as well as the provision of responsive support and mounting meetings for peer teachers to indicate learners with barriers to learning. The identification of learners with barriers to learning by members of the SBSTs was perceived as important because it facilitates the provision of interventions to these learners.
Participant D2, for instance, stated:
‘Firstly, learners that I teach, I identify them as early as possible. When we open in January, I usually give them spelling tests randomly so that, I can diagnose or identify which learners are having challenges academically.’ (Participant D2, 49, Male, 21)
The above was supported by Participant C2 who said, ‘We identify learners with barriers to learning and help them to overcome them’.
Besides the identification of learners experiencing barriers to learning in mainstream schools, members of the SBST also reported that they convene meetings with other teachers so that they are able to identify learners with barriers to learning in their subject areas, as stated by Participant B1 who said: ‘I do meetings at the beginning of the year with teachers… and the staff will identify the learners that are struggling that must be referred’.
These findings show that members of SBSTs identify learners experiencing barriers to learning and subsequently support them based on their needs in line with the SIAS requirements (DBE 2014). Arguably, the identification of members at risk of barriers to learning by members of SBSTs and their subsequent support of learners with barriers to learning based on their individual needs reveals their self-reported proficiencies in the identification of learners with barriers to learning. This finding aligns with the capability approach, which recognises diversity and advocates for the implementation of strategies that help learners to achieve their optimum best, particularly considering the learning challenges these learners face (Lim 2020). This is embedded within the confinement of the EWP 6 (DoE 2001) and the South African inclusive education policy, the SIAS (DBE 2014), which stipulate that it is the mandate of SBSTs to coordinate and support the identification of learners at risk of barriers at the school level. However, there is a policy-practice gap as the policy expectations and the practical realities faced by SBSTs when executing their roles misalign. What is required by policy and what is happening on the ground sometimes conflict. The good example is the use of the SNA forms for learner identification and screening, which clearly states the steps to be followed; however, in reality, SBST members feel that it is a tedious, complex and burdersome process.
Sub-theme 1.3: Referral of learners
In addition to the screening and identification of learners experiencing barriers to learning in the schools, the findings of the study reveal that members of the SBSTs reported that they refer learners for further support. Six participants disclosed that they refer learners experiencing barriers to learning to the DBSTs for further assistance and guidance on how to teach them within mainstream schools. Learners who are referred to the DBST are those that the SBSTs would not be able to support. Furthermore, the referrals are meant to facilitate the placement of learners who experience barriers to learning into respective programmes or specialised schools. For instance,
Participant D1 stated:
‘We refer cases (learners) that we cannot help to the DBST. If we cannot help the child, we take it further to the DBST and they will also advise on how to deal with the child.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
Participant D2 elaborated on the above when he stated:
‘We fill in the SNA 1 and 2 forms to refer the child to the district [DBST] and the district will give the child a placement number and the child will be placed.’ (Participant D2, 49, Male, 21)
Participant A2 emphasised that she submitted ‘enough documents of support when … going to submit documents for referrals at the district [DBST]’. Participant C1 further elaborated that they:
‘work with the class teachers who forward their SNA 1 forms to us [them] and we [they] fill in the SNA 2 forms as members of the SBSTs and we [they] ask parents to sign for consent before we [they] forward the forms to the district to conclude the referral process.’ (Participant C1, 55, Female, 29)
Referring learners to DBSTs for further support and determination of the kind of support they would need is one of the key roles of the SBST (DoE 2001). The SBST members are required to work closely with their DBST counterparts to give optimum support to all learners experiencing barriers to learning in schools (DBE 2014). Considering the above findings, it can be argued that SBST members view themselves as performing their role if they are referring learners who require support that they cannot provide at the school level. Equally, SBSTs play a central role coordinating support to all stakeholders including teachers and learners experiencing barriers to learning. In this light, the SBSTs reported that they performed their roles by referring learners experiencing barriers to learning for further support. However, the use of the SNA 1 and SNA 2 as referral tools remains a contentious issues as SBST members feel that completing them is a lot of clerical work, and there is need for further refinement of these forms to make them simple and easy to complete and use.
Sub-theme 1.4: Advocacy
The findings of this study further reveal that SBST members highlighted their involvement in advocacy programmes that promote inclusivity. These advocacy programmes include community visitations by members of the SBSTs to educate the community and parents on inclusive education implementation. Advocacy also entails coaching other educators to use inclusive teaching and learning strategies grounded in South African policies and legislation on inclusive education. Five participants expressed that they advocated for the implementation of inclusive education in mainstream schools as stated by Participant B2 who indicated:
‘We have this interaction either visiting or even calling in parents but most of the time we have to go there in the communities because if we invite them there is a 5%–10% rate of them coming. So, in most of the cases we go to communities speak to the parents, so that, we assist our learners with barriers to learning.’ (Participant B2, 49, Male, 25)
In addition to the above, participant A1 stated that:
‘Yes, … we educate and workshop educators on inclusive education, what it is and what does it mean and why is it important. So, we advocate for the implementation of inclusive strategies as per policy.’ (Participant A1, 41, Male, 6)
Additionally, Participant C1 reported that:
‘In the classroom we emphasise and encourage curriculum differentiation, multiple level teaching.’ (Participant C1, 55, Female, 29)
Participant D2 also asserted that:
‘We educate parents on how best to support their children with barriers to learning at home and informing them that there is nothing wrong with their children besides that they learn differently and they should accept it.’ (Participant D2, 49, Male, 21)
The above findings indicate that members of the SBSTs engage in advocacy programmes to promote inclusivity in schools. This aligns with Sen’s (1998) capability theory that asserts everyone needs to be supported to achieve their best. Advocacy for the implementation of inclusive education in schools can help eliminate the exclusion of learners with learning difficulties. Arguably, this helps in bringing about collaborative efforts from parents, teachers and SBST members in the teaching of learners experiencing barriers to learning as everyone will be more knowledgeable about how to support these learners. Contrarily, Whitby et al. (2013) study found that members of SBSTs could not run inclusive education awareness programmes in their mainstream schools. Likewise, Hodgson and Khumalo (2016) revealed that members of SBSTs were incapacitated to advocate and mobilise inclusive education programmes because of a lack of resources and knowledge on how to run the programmes. The current study showed that members of SBSTs perceived that they were able to advocate for inclusive education as they could mobilise and coach parents, educators and communities to be involved in inclusive education implementation. However, this finding contradicts with some studies already done in South Africa regarding SBSTs’ execution of their roles in schools. Therefore, this inconsistency warrants further research on the similar topic.
Sub-theme 1.5: Collaboration with parents
In addition to the advocacy programmes, four participants reported that they collaborate with parents and the community to come up with strategies to overcome barriers to learning experienced by some learners. The nature of the collaboration entailed meeting with parents three times per annum to discuss the progress of learners who experienced barriers to learning and making collaborative decisions on the way forward. Furthermore, the collaboration with parents focussed on modifying behaviours of learners as expressed by participant B1 who stated that:
‘We call the parents thrice per year. But the problem is that they don’t come, but if we call the parents, we explain that we made a follow-up and then we take a decision. The decisions are not taken by us only but me and the parents. I see my child is not doing well, what must we do with the child?’ (Participant B1, 40, Female, 18)
Participant D1 expressed that:
‘And now coming to the part of the parents, we call in parents. We try by all means to modify the behaviour and if it needs parents, we will also try to include them by calling them in. We sit down together and see how we can modify the behaviour of the child together.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
Additionally, Participant C2 reported that:
‘We work with parents and the community to help the learners to overcome their barriers.’ (Participant C2, 45, Male, 12)
Furthermore, Participant B2 stressed that:
‘We also have this interaction either visiting or even calling in parents … so most of the cases we go to the communities speak to the parents so that, we assist our learners.’ (Participant B2, 49, Male, 25)
Collaboration with parents fosters inclusivity in the schools as both parents and the schools can augment each other in the education of learners experiencing barriers to learning. Findings indicate that SBST members make efforts to facilitate collaboration in decision-making and general support for the learners. This can be seen as a positive approach to inclusivity, which fits well with the expected roles of members of the SBSTs to promote support and inclusive education in the schools (DoE 2001). By notifying parents about their children’s behavioural and academic performance through communication and homework slips, these members revealed that they were professionally prepared for this role even though parents were less willing to collaborate with them. The finding aligns with the capability approach, which advocates for the creation of inclusive environments in societies (Sen 1998).
Sub-theme 1.6: Monitoring and evaluation
The findings establish that SBST members also viewed monitoring and evaluating fellow educators as one of their mandatory roles. Three participants reported that they monitored and evaluated peer educators’ performance in supporting the implementation of inclusive education. This included members of SBSTs requesting feedback and reports from educators on how they implement inclusive practices in their classrooms. In addition, members of the SBSTs check learners’ work and intervention books for proof that they are receiving enough appropriate support and intervention from the educators. Participant C1 expressed that:
‘… because we are working together with them, they are the ones that are in class. So, they are the ones who identify and then as SBST members they report to us on how learners are doing in classes, then we follow it up as the SBST.’ (Participant C1, 55, Female, 29)
In addition, Participant D2 elaborated: ‘I ask for the learners’ books to check if they support those learners’. Participant B2 also stated that they monitor teachers if:
‘[T]hey cater for the individual differences because in most cases teachers just teach according to the lesson plans and during planning, they don’t even cater for slow learners [learners with barriers to learning].’(Participant B2, 49, Male, 25)
Monitoring and evaluation of fellow educators’ efficacies in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning are pivotal in ensuring that the learners are supported in the classrooms. Members of the SBST are expected to monitor, evaluate and guide fellow educators because they are more knowledgeable about inclusivity. As such, their availability to ensure that adequate support is given to learners in need, such as those experiencing barriers to learning, is a positive call. Members of SBSTs reported monitoring and evaluating educators on inclusive education theory and practice by checking and supervising their planning, instructional and intervention strategies in mainstream classes. The finding concurs with Zwane and Malale’s (2018) study, which found that members of SBSTs monitor and evaluate their colleagues with regard to the implementation of inclusive education in mainstream Swaziland schools. However, Ireri et al. (2020) established that there was limited monitoring and evaluation of environmental adaptation resulting in endangering the lives of learners with disabilities in mainstream Kenyan schools. Monitoring and evaluating other teachers are a critical role in the facilitation of inclusive practices by members of the SBST. It is clear that the monitoring and evaluating stated by the participants are not comprehensive, and it is simplistic as it replicated the general monitoring done by regulator teachers and head of departments of just checking books. School-based support team monitoring and evaluation should be structured and systematic. There should be checklists and tools to monitor and evaluate the implemention of inclusive education in schools.
Sub-theme 1.7: Strategic learner support
Further findings found through self-reporting established that SBST members within schools also give direct support to learners experiencing barriers to learning. Four participants expressed that they provide strategic learner support to learners who experience barriers to learning. This entailed strategising on comprehensive interventions for learners. Other strategic learner support interventions included deceleration of taught concepts, concrete teaching and learning and ability grouping of learners, as illustrated in the following selected statements:
‘At school, as I said, after identification, we come up with strategies to support these learners when it comes to strategies now, we draw up some learning programmes where now we come up with methodologies on assisting these learners because especially most of them are “slow learners,” so we draw up some programmes.’ (Participant B2, 49, Male, 25)
Participant D1 stated that:
‘We have one-on-one with the learners, I feel satisfied because I get to know them, and they get to know me better and get attached to me not as just a teacher but as a mother as someone who supports them.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
In the same vein, participant D2 emphasised that he uses crossword puzzles and pictures to aid learning for learners experiencing barriers to learning when he stated:
‘Usually, I use the crossword puzzles to assist the learners and use pictures to write sentences about the pictures as a way of supporting them in written activities. I will just want them to identify what they see on the picture. They are doing the same concept but at a lower level.’ (Participant D2, 49, Male, 21)
It is essential to give optimum support to learners experiencing barriers to learning within schools. Fundamentally, the establishment of SBSTs was primarily to ensure that all learners access appropriate support that addresses their unique needs within the mainstream schools where they are learning. The findings of this study established that members of the SBST give learning support to learners identified as having barriers to learning. Arguably, this can be viewed as a positive practice by the SBSTs as this lies within their support mandates and expectations. Adversely, Mahlangu, Maile and Mashaba (2023) established that even though SBSTs are willing to support learners, they are frustrated by the amount of workload they are allocated in schools; therefore, they cannot support learners with barriers to learning effectively. However, studies reveal that Learning Support Teams (LSTs) in Australia are implementing learner support in schools effectively using diverse inclusive education strategies that cater to learners experiencing barriers to learning (Stephenson et al. 2022). These inconsistencies create a gap for further research on SBSTs’ views about their role regarding the application of strategic learner support in schools.
Theme 2: Strategies to enhance the implementation of school-based support teams’ roles in mainstream schools
Besides what members of the SBSTs do to support learners experiencing barriers to learning in the schools, important strategies were identified in this study that can be implemented to improve the efficacies of the SBSTs. These included continuous in-service training of the SBST members and the reduction of workload for SBST members.
Sub-theme 2.1: Continuous in-service training of the school-based support team members
Four participants expressed that continuous in-service training of SBSTs members in inclusive education theory and practice should be enhanced to improve their capacity to carry out their role in mainstream schools. Continuous in-service training can facilitate the provision of inclusive education knowledge to members of SBSTs who do not have the necessary knowledge and skills to function effectively in those roles. In that light, the participants indicated that the provision of continuous in-service training could equip them to overcome the difficulties they encounter during the execution of their duties such as filling in referral forms known as SNA 1 and 2 forms. Participant D2 expressed, ‘The SNA forms, the previous forms we understood them, but the SNA forms they are difficult. We need more training about filling of SNA forms’. In the same vein, Participant D1 explained, ‘We have teachers who have not been trained on inclusive education but still they are teaching, they must be in-serviced’.
Participant D1 stressed that:
‘The professional developments we really need to be professionally developed because when we are selected as SBST members, it is not like everyone in SBST is knowledgeable.’ (Participant D1, 40, Female, 17)
Additionally, Participant A1 mentioned that SBST members should be trained ‘on inclusion [and] teach them on SBST functionalities and train them about the SIAS policy’. Participant C1 further emphasised that ‘we sometimes we have the in-service training…’.
Members of SBSTs felt that their continuous in-service training in the theory and practice of inclusive education could enhance their capacity to apply their duties by bridging their lack of training on the subject during their initial training, equipping them with competence to process relevant documents and positive dispositions to work with and deliver services to learners. The foregoing finding concurs with Wang et al.’s (2015) study, which found that members of School Support Teams in the US applied inclusive education effectively in their mainstream schools because they are continuously trained in inclusive education theory and practice. In the same vein, Nel et al. (2016) established that educators should be provided with continuous training in inclusive education so that they are equipped to include all learners in their classrooms. This study reported that continuous in-service training could improve the inclusive education knowledge base of mainstream members of SBSTs who had little or no inclusive education background resulting in their ability to play roles that facilitate the inclusion of diverse learners in mainstream schools. Therefore, it is critical that SBSTs should come up with structured and systematic training programmes done at school level and complemented and strictly monitored and evaluated by the DBSTs. These training programmes should inform the SBST members of their roles and how to implement them effectively.
On the other hand, seven participants reported that staff development programmes can enhance the members of SBSTs’ attitude towards executing their role in mainstream schools. Participants expressed that staff development programmes provide platforms to persuade members of SBSTs and educators in general to change their negative attitudes towards anyone who advocates and supports the implementation of inclusive education in their mainstream schools as stated by participant A1 who stated that:
‘There must be more trainings for teachers so that they can change their attitudes toward inclusive education as they see it as a lot of administrative work. We should workshop them thoroughly, so they can buy in the concept of inclusive education.’ (Participant A1, 41, Male, 6)
Participant D1 also reported that they occasionally ‘organise professional development here and there’ to enhance their capabilities to execute their roles as SBST members. In addition, Participant C1 elaborated that they developed each other on the ‘challenges they are having in their classrooms’. Participant A2 also reported that they developed their colleagues on how to do the ‘intervention for those learners who are at risk…’. Participant B2 reiterated what Participant A2 reported that the staff develop their members on how to ‘include these learners, we have to teach them, we need to mediate the methodologies they need to apply so that they cater for the individual differences…’.
Members of SBSTs felt that their staff development including workshopping them on inclusive education could improve their role application by fostering in them positive dispositions and competencies for the delivery of services. This aligns with the capability approach that advocates for empowerment through education, leading to professional growth (Sen 1998). The finding is in accord with Gast, Schildkamp and Van der Veen (2017) study, which established that members of SBSTs who took part in team-based professional development intervention learnt to deeply reflect on their inclusive education supporting roles and practice. Likewise, Engelbrecht et al.’s (2015) study found that the lack of appropriate professional development of members of SBSTs in mainstream schools resulted in them being agents of learner exclusion. Thus, the current study revealed that staff development could be a platform for bringing in new and trending inclusive education information, which could intensify members of SBSTs’ capacity to apply their role in their mainstream schools.
Sub-theme 2.2: Reduction of workload for school-based support team members
Two participants revealed that reducing the workload of members of SBSTs could enhance their ability to perform their role in mainstream schools. Participants indicated that their workloads were unfair, unrealistic and defeated the purpose of having SBSTs as it interfered with the execution of their other duties. They revealed that before they were members of SBSTs, they were full-time educators with a full workload like any other teacher. Participants requested a reduction of their workload. The participants felt that the reduction of their workload could enhance their capability to execute their roles in their mainstream schools. For instance,
Participant A1 stated:
‘We need to have less administrative work. When we support learners there is a lot of paperwork, we feel that it is unfair, and more time must be spent on the actual support.’(Participant A1, 41, Male, 6)
Participant B1 reiterated that:
‘As I have said the SNA form is a lot of work. The DBST must bring a specialist to access the learners and fill in the form themselves not SBST members.’ (Participant B1, 40, Female, 18)
Members of SBSTs believed that the reduction of their workload, such as reducing paperwork, could enhance the execution of their duties by affording them space and time to execute their roles and duties. The capability approach aligns with this finding as it assumes that excellence is achieved through the removal of systematic barriers (Sen 1998) like staff shortages in public schools resulting in overcrowded classes and overworked educators. Hodgson and Khumalo’s (2016) study established that members of SBSTs were frustrated because of the unbearable amount of work on their shoulders. She revealed that for the same members of SBSTs to change their negative attitude towards inclusive education, there should be a reduction of their workload. This study revealed that these members felt that the reduction of other duties piled on them could enhance their performance in inclusive education implementation resulting in their professional readiness for the role.
Recommendations
The study recommended several strategies to enhance members of SBSTs’ role in supporting learners experiencing barriers to learning in their mainstream classrooms. These strategies included in-service training to address the barrier of limited understanding of their roles. Furthermore, the recommendations addressed the issues of lack of support provision for SBSTs, work reduction and parental involvement. This is comprehensively presented in the sections below.
Limited understanding of roles
The present study findings established that some members of SBSTs had a limited understanding of their roles such as filling in SNA forms. It is, therefore, recommended that, for participants to enhance their understanding of their roles, they should be further trained especially through in-service training as they are already fully employed in schools. The DBE should be advised to run inclusive education courses in collaboration with universities, preferably during school holidays. They should offer in-service training initially to members of SBSTs, and at a later stage, they should also enrol regular teachers for in-service training. As a quick fix, the DBE should hold workshops to educate members of SBSTs on what inclusive education is and their functions, duties and roles in general.
Lack of support
The study established that without proper and structured support by parents, SMTs and DBSTs, members of SBSTs’ ability to perform their roles effectively would stay heavily compromised. It is recommended that SMTs should be acclimatised with the SIAS policy (DBE 2014), which stipulates that SMTs are part of the SBSTs and are mandated to support them to enhance their capability in executing their roles. They should assign a decent budget to the SBSTs to enable them to run their committees without financial barriers. It is recommended that DBSTs frequently visit and monitor SBSTs when they are executing their roles and give them immediate feedback on their performance.
Workload reduction
The study revealed that members of SBSTs are overloaded with duties to the extent that they do not have time to do their SBST duties and responsibilities. The current study established that they teach in class and support learners after school and they are still expected to do other SBST duties like screening learners, monitoring and evaluating colleagues as well as having SBST meetings. It was, therefore, recommended that SBST duties must be time-tabled so that members of SBSTs can be excused from other duties and focus on SBST business as indicated by the timetable. Substitution teachers should be arranged for members of SBSTs when they are pulled out of class for SBST duties.
Parental involvement
The study revealed that members of SBSTs engaged with parents of learners with barriers to learning. However, some parents did not participate in the education of their children. They are deeper issues being experienced by parents who cause their non-participation and need to be addressed. Such issues include lack of time by a lot of parents as they are full-time workers, poor communication by SBSTs, lack of interest in their kids’ education and poor relationships with schools. Thus, it was recommended that SBSTs strengthen their advocacy and outreach programmes by visiting parents and educating them on the importance of their involvement in the educational journey of their children with barriers to learning.
Conclusion
This study concluded that there were some duties the SBST members were executing in their mainstream schools to facilitate the inclusion of diverse learners. These roles included identifying learners with barriers to learning, advocating for inclusive education to educators, parents and the community, collaborating with parents, strategic learner support, monitoring and evaluating their colleagues and referring learners for further specialised support.
However, the study established that some members of SBSTs were not fully equipped to execute the role of screening learners at risk of barriers to learning because of their negative attitude that the process was tedious and lengthy. Some members indicated that they lacked the know-how to fill in the screening forms. More training on the execution of this role was requested by the participants.
Members of SBSTs felt that the following strategies could improve the way they implement their role of supporting the inclusion of diverse learners in their schools. These strategies included continuous in-service training in inclusive education, reducing their workload so they can focus on inclusive education in their mainstream schools and involving parents in the education of their children with disabilities.
Acknowledgements
This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Discent Moyo’s dissertation titled ‘Professional readiness of members of SBST for inclusive education: A case of Johannesburg South’, submitted to the Department of Inclusive Education, University of South Africa in 2021. The dissertation was supervised by Tawanda Mojoko. The supervisor was not involved in the preparation of this article and was not listed as a co-author. Portions of the thesis have been revised, updated, and adapted for publication as a journal article.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Discent Moyo: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – original draft. Nilford Hove: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to the participants’ confidentiality and are available from the corresponding author, Discent Moyo, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2021, ‘One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Creswell, W.J., 2014, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches, 4th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Department of Basic Education, 2014, Policy on screening, identification, assessment and support, Government Printers, Pretoria.
Department of Education, 2001, Education white paper 6 on special needs education: Building an inclusive education and training system, Government Printers, Pretoria.
Du Toit, N., Eloff, I. & Moen, M., 2014, ‘Effectiveness of school-based support team within an inclusive South African educational system’, Tydskr Geesteswet 54(2), 341–364.
Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., Nel, N. & Tlale, D., 2015, ‘Enacting understanding of inclusion in complex contexts: Classroom practices of South African teachers’, South African Journal of Education 35(3), 10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n3a1074
Fourie, F.J., 2011, ‘Case studies on school-based support teams in selected South African inclusive schools’, paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology, University of Johannesburg, 19–22 October 2011.
Gachago, V.W., 2015, ‘An exploration of inclusive education for children with special educational needs in Kenya twenty years after the Salamanca Statement’, PhD thesis, Nottingham Trent University.
Gaffney, T., 2016, ‘School-based support teams’ experiences of the support that they provide within their schools’, Master’s thesis, University of the Witwatersrand.
Garcia-Melga, A., Hyett, N., Bagley, K., McKinstry, J.S. & Iacono, T., 2022, ‘Collaborative team approaches to supporting inclusion of children with disability in mainstream schools: A co-design study’, Research in Developmental Disabilities 126, 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104233
Gast, I., Schildkamp, K. & Van der Veen, J.T., 2017, ‘Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: A systematic review’, Review of Educational Research 87(4), 736–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704306
Geldenhuys, J.L. & Wevers, N.E.J., 2013, ‘Ecological aspects influencing the implementation of inclusive education in mainstream primary schools in the Eastern Cape, South Africa’, South African Journal of Education 33(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.15700/201503070804
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R. & Mills, J., 2017, ‘Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations’, Qualitative Social Research 18(1), 1438–1456.
Hauwadhanasuk, T., Zhuang, M., Everson, S.T., Yu, S. & Karnas, M., 2019, ‘School leadership to increase inclusive education practices in China, Thailand, and Turkey’, in P.R. Litchka (ed.), Leading schools with unique populations: An international perspective on school leadership, p. 17, Bloomsbury Publishing, Lanham, MD.
Hodgson, T.F. & Khumalo, S., 2016, Too many children left behind: Exclusion in the South African inclusive education system, with focus on the Umkhanyakude District KwaZulu-Natal, +Section 27, Durban.
Hove, N., 2022, ‘The inclusiveness of mixed ability grouping in Johannesburg primary schools’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 12(1), a1047. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.1047
Hove, N. & Phasha, N.T., 2024, ‘Support services for learners with learning disabilities in mainstream classrooms using capability theory’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v14i1.1418
Ireri, B.R., King’endo, M., Wangila, E. & Thuranira, S., 2020, ‘Policy strategies for effective implementation of inclusive education in Kenya’, International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies 12(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJEAPS2019.0622
Kivirand, T., Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L. & Tammemäe, T., 2021, ‘Designing and implementing an in-service training course for school teams on inclusive education: Reflections from participants’, Education Sciences 11(4), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040166
Lim, S., 2020, ‘The capabilities approach to inclusive education: Re-envisioning the individuals with disabilities education act’s least restrictive environment’, Disability & Society 35(4), 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1649119
Mahlangu, T., Maile, S. & Mashaba, E.K., 2023, ‘Teachers’ perceptions on school-based support team in facilitating inclusive education at Tshwane North schools’, International Journal of Social Science Research and Review 6(4), 739–750.
Majoko, T., 2019, ‘Teacher key competencies for inclusive education: Tapping pragmatic realities of Zimbabwean special needs education teachers’, Sage Open 9(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018823455
Makhalemele, T. & Payne-van Staden, I., 2020, Enhancing teachers’ self-efficacy within full-service schools: A disregarded aspect by the District-Based Support Team, pp. 983–996, Routledge, Abingdon.
Makoelle, T.M., 2014, ‘School-based teams as communities of enquiry: A case of developing inclusive practices in the Free State Province of South Africa’, International Journal of Education and Science 7(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890170
Mpanza, L.P. & Govender, S., 2022, Primary school-based support teams’ experiences and practices when supporting teachers community engagement: Transdisciplinary approach view project intervention strategies for students working with, and parents and teachers of, learners with special learning needs: A transdisciplinary approach view project, viewed 15 December 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359009186.
Nel, N.M., Tlale, L.D.N., Engelbrecht, P. & Nel, M., 2016, ‘Teachers’ perceptions of education support structures in the implementation of inclusive education in South Africa’, Koers 18(1), 1–14.
Robey, I., 2017, Wellbeing freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined, Open Book Publishers, Cambridge.
Rulwa-Mnatwana, B., 2014, ‘School-based support teams’ understandings and experiences of inclusive education in Western Cape’, Master’s thesis, University of Western Cape.
Samayang, K.R., Celendron, K., Declaro, N.P. & Flandez Jr, D.L., 2022, ‘Mainstream learners with special needs in a regular classroom: A scoping review’, Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(3), 106–114.
Sen, A., 1998, ‘The possibility of social choice’, American Economic Review 89(3), 349–378. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.349
Stephenson, J., Carter, M., Webster, A., Waddy, N. & Morris, T., 2022, ‘Supporting students with disability: Learning and support teachers and learning support teams in NSW schools’, Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education 46(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2022.10
Steward, A., 2014, ‘Case study’, in J. Mills & M. Birks (eds.), Qualitative methodology: A practical guide, pp. 145–159, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tsotetsi, C. & Omodan, B.I., 2020, ‘School-based support teams trajectories in rural contexts of South Africa: The teachers’ perspectives’, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 17(3), 194–207.
UNESCO, 1994, The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education, UNESCO, Paris.
US Department of Education, 2017, Issue brief: Student support teams, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Services, Washington, DC.
Wang, Y., Mu, M.G., Wang, Z., Deng, M., Cheng, L. & Wang, H., 2015, ‘Multidimensional classroom, support to inclusive education teachers in Beijing, China’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 62(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1077937
Whitby, J.S.P., Marx, T., McIntire, J. & Wienke, W., 2013, ‘Advocating for students with disabilities at school level: Tips for special educators’, Teaching Exceptional Children 45(5), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500504
Zwane, L.S. & Malale, M.M., 2018, ‘Investigating barriers teachers face in the implementation of inclusive education in high schools in Gege branch, Swaziland’, African Journal of Disability 7, 391. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v7i0.391
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
