The kingdom of Swaziland is a signatory to policies on universal education that ensure high quality basic education for all. Education for All is a commitment to provide equal opportunities for all children and the youth as provided for in the country’s constitution of 2005. The tone for the introduction of inclusive education in Swaziland was inevitably set by the new constitution of 2005. Since then several policies have been produced by the government, all aimed at providing equal education opportunities to all children in the country. These policies include the Swaziland National Children’s Policy (2009), Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan (2006) and Draft Inclusive Education Policy (2008). The Education for All Policy (2010) is the policy that upon implementation became a stimulus for the introduction of inclusive education into mainstream schools; as a result, all teachers in the country’s schools were expected to be competent enough to teach learners with a wide range of educational needs. However, in-service teachers received inadequate staff development and training ahead of the implementation of inclusive education and a majority of teachers were not professionally developed for inclusive education, as pre-service students at tertiary training level.
This study investigated barriers in the implementation of inclusive education at high schools in the Gege branch, Swaziland, with a view to finding lasting solutions to inform research and government policy.
This research is a qualitative interpretive case study based on selected schools in the Gege branch of schools. Data was obtained through semi-structured research interviews and document analysis. It was processed and analysed through data coding, unitising, categorising and emergence of themes, which became the findings of the study.
Lack of facilities in the governments’ schools and teachers’ incompetence in identifying learners facing learning challenges in their classrooms are some barriers to inclusivity.
The study concludes that there is a need for the Ministry of Education and Training to craft an inclusive curriculum in line with the inclusive policy in order to cater for the diverse educational needs of all learners in mainstream schools. It is thought that instituting a vibrant in-service and pre-service teacher training programme by the Ministry of Education and Training will increase teachers’ capacity to a level where teaching in inclusive classrooms does not negatively affect their competence.
According to Donald, Lazarus and Lolwana (
Several other international and local legislations have been signed by Swaziland. These policies commit the country to providing inclusive education in our school system, including the Salamanca Statement, Framework for Action on Special Needs (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO]
By signing the aforementioned international and local policies, Swaziland pledged its legal commitment to implementing inclusive education in mainstream schools. The extent to which the Swaziland government has domesticated the aforementioned international inclusive education policies attests to and affirms the commitment of the Ministry of Education and Training to the provision of quality education for all learners in the country.
Not many studies have been conducted in Swaziland in relation to how effectively inclusive education has been rolled out to schools. However, the few studies that have been found do point out that the Ministry of Education and Training in the country is facing some challenges in implementing inclusive education effectively in mainstream schools. These studies include ‘Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education at Elulakeni cluster primary schools in Shiselweni district of Swaziland’ (2015) and ‘Supporting teachers to implement inclusive education in the Kwaluseni District, Swaziland’ (2012). Against this background the main problem of this study can be stated as to determine barriers in the implementation of inclusive education in schools in the Gege branch, Swaziland, in order to discover how best these barriers can be overcome. The problem has been investigated by, among other means, reviewing literature from related studies. The literature expounds on the pedagogical and curriculum factors, inappropriate assessment procedures, teacher training barriers to effective teaching and learning, unqualified and underqualified teachers, lack of support for teachers, and inappropriate teaching and learning methods and support material.
The curriculum and teaching methods used by educators play a pivotal role in as far as attaining effective teaching in inclusive classrooms is concerned. However, a rigid and inflexible curriculum that does not allow for individual differences can lead to learning breakdown (Motitswe
The inflexible nature of the curriculum prevents it from meeting learners’ diverse needs. In research by Zimba (
Batsche (
According to Batsche (
This model was not encouraged by IDEA 2004, and no provisions have been made for it in the regulations. In fact, IDEA has never made routine assessment of cognitive processing part of the regulations because of the absence of evidence that these assessments provide unique information for identification and treatment planning, despite the routine use of these forms of testing in assessments of LD. Firstly, such assessments should not be used to identify children as having LD in the absence of evidence of low achievement. Thus, a child who has poor performance on a phonological awareness test, but average reading, is likely a false positive error (Torgesen
Pertaining to assessment as a means to identify learners with LD, Batsche (
According to Landsberg, Kruger and Nel (
According to Bagree and Lewis (
A study by Mahlo (
Sometimes educators, often through inadequate training, use teaching styles that may not meet the needs of some of the learners. An educator may teach at a pace that only accommodates learners who learn very quickly. Alternatively, the pace and style of teaching may limit the initiative and involvement of learners with high levels of ability. What is taught or the subjects that learners are able to choose may limit the learner’s knowledge base or fail to develop the intellectual and emotional capacities of the learner. Such barriers arise when sufficient attention is not given to balancing skills that prepare learners for work (vocational skills) and skills that prepare the learner for coping with life (life skills) (Department of Education
According to Savolainen (
Teachers and researchers often express concerns about training when discussing the abilities of teachers to cater for the diverse needs in inclusive classrooms. Loreman and Harvey (
Studies conducted post-implementation of inclusive education in Swaziland reveal that a vast majority of teachers in the kingdom’s schools are either not trained or underqualified in inclusive education; hence they feel they are inadequately prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom. According to a study by Zimba (
According to Pijl and Meier (
According to Fakudze (
According to Le Fanu (
The impact of inappropriate teaching and learning methods can be demonstrated in a study conducted in a primary school in Botswana. During class observations, Mukhopadhyay, Molosiwa and Moswela (
Mukhopadhyay et al. (
In a study by Najjingo (
The approach selected for this study was the qualitative research approach to get more information on the barriers teachers face in the implementation of inclusive education in high schools in Swaziland. The selection of this approach was based on the nature of the research problem and the characteristics of qualitative research that are applicable to this research. A case study was selected as a design for this study. According to McMillan and Schumacher (
According to Trochim (
Purposive sampling was used in this study. This method of sampling involves the deliberate selection of a small number of information-rich cases from a larger population for in-depth study (McMillan & Schumacher
Data used in this study was collected at the schools’ premises. Letters describing the study were sent to the teachers, who gave their written consent to the researcher. Semi-structured interviews were initiated by the interviewer, with a view to gathering certain information from the person interviewed. These were conducted face to face with individual teachers. Face to face interviews enabled the researcher to gather information about the situation regarding barriers in the implementation of inclusive education at the Gege branch of high schools. Approximately 30-minute long interviews were conducted after working hours and during teachers’ free teaching periods until all the respondents selected were interviewed. Interviews were voluntary, and respondents who participated gave the researcher their signed consent forms. The researcher used digital recording devices to record the interviews and then interviews were transcribed and coded by two independent researchers.
Interview questions were asked based on a literature review previously conducted to ascertain what other scholars have found in the same topic and the gaps thereof. The main research question the study sought to address was: What are the barriers to the implementation of inclusive education in high schools in Gege branch, Swaziland? The literature reviewed to inform the research questions included the following subtopics, inappropriate teaching and learning methods and support material, lack of support for teachers, unqualified and underqualified teachers, teacher training barriers to effective teaching and learning, inappropriate assessment procedures and curriculum delivery barriers to learning.
Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires (formatted on a five-point Likert scale) were used for data collection. Through the use of the semi-structured form of interviewing, the researchers were able to look at the way the responses were given, the tone used, facial expression, hesitation and gestures. To establish reliability, the instruments were pilot-tested with eight (four male and four female) teachers in a mainstream inclusive school in Nhlangano area. To ensure instrument reliability, the researchers used Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The reliability of the instrument was obtained at a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.85. This instrument was deemed reliable because the acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reliability is 0.70 and above (De Vos et al.
The policy documents reviewed were the Swaziland Education Sector Policy, 2011, and the teachers’ qualification registration form. The documents reviewed for this study gave information that complemented information gathered through interviews. For instance, teachers’ qualification registration forms provided evidence regarding how many of the interviewed participants had been trained and had not been trained in inclusive education.
The main question was interrogated through interviews with the participants. Responses to the questions asked regarding barriers in the implementation of inclusive education were tabulated in
Profile of teachers.
Teacher | Qualification | Teaching experience | Age |
---|---|---|---|
A | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma | 6 | 32 |
B | BA Humanities |
10 | 36 |
C | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma | 15 | 40 |
D | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma | 5 | 25 |
E | BA Humanities |
20 | 54 |
F | BA Humanities |
12 | 42 |
G | BA Humanities |
12 | 40 |
H | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma | 10 | 31 |
I | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma |
6 | 27 |
J | BA Humanities |
4 | 24 |
K | BA Humanities |
11 | 35 |
L | BA Humanities and PGCE | 14 | 46 |
M | Secondary Teachers’ Diploma | 8 | 37 |
N | BA Humanities and PGCE | 17 | 48 |
BA, bachelor of arts; BEd, bachelor of education; PGCE, postgraduate certificate in education.
Summary of teacher profiles.
Age, years ( |
Teaching experience, years ( |
Qualification ( |
---|---|---|
20–29 (3) | 1–9 (3) | BEd Inclusive Education (1) |
30–39 (5) | 6–11 (5) | Secondary teacher’s diploma (3) |
40–60 (6) | 15–20 (6) | Secondary teacher’s diploma (1) |
BA, bachelor of arts; BEd, bachelor of education; PGCE, postgraduate certificate in education.
The researcher was fully aware of the ethical and legal obligations he had to the study and the participants as well. The obligations included full disclosure of the study to participants, voluntary participation of respondents, informed consent and avoiding exposing participants to risks. Researchers also have an obligation to protect the privacy of participants, hence the need to pay attention to practices such as anonymity, confidentiality and appropriate storage of data (McMillan & Schumacher
The authors adhered to research ethics and the University of South Africa provided clearance. All stakeholders including participants consented by signing consent forms.
Participants were male (10) and female teachers (4), all qualified high school teachers, employed by the Ministry of Education and Training on a permanent basis in their schools. Some teachers were diploma holders whilst others were degree holders, and their teaching experience varied from 4 to 20 years. Participants have been represented by letters A to N under the teacher section of
The individual teacher profiles were grouped to show age, experience and qualifications. The aim was to summarily give the number of teachers with relevant qualifications in inclusive education. The summary of teacher profiles is presented in
All interviews with participants were conducted by the researcher during times that were suitable and comfortable to the participant teachers. Other participants were interviewed on weekends and after school hours when they had free time to answer the research interview questions.
According to Lee (
To reduce the impact of researcher bias, two independent researchers were engaged in the process of data coding and the themes that emerged from both were taken as the findings of the study. Below are the findings presented in tubular format as coded by both independent researchers. The themes are further deliberated on in the discussion section of this research study.
Units, categories and themes that emerged during data analysis.
Units | Categories | Themes |
---|---|---|
Barriers to the implementation of inclusive education | ||
Big numbers of learners in classrooms.
Overcrowded classes. Teacher cannot cater for the needs of all learners. |
Teachers have the problem of high numbers of learners. | Non-inclusive curriculum, high numbers of learners, lack of resources and teachers’ lack of competency are barriers to the implementation of inclusive education. |
Completion of syllabus is slowed down by workload. Curriculum is not inclusive. Lack of resources and equipment for the disabled. |
Lack of resources and non-inclusive curriculum. | |
Infrastructure not catering for the disabled. Teachers lack competence to deal with learners experiencing challenges. Teachers are not adequately trained in dealing with learning challenges. Teachers’ inability to identify learners with learning challenges. Teachers have negative attitude towards teaching learners with disabilities and learning challenges. |
Teachers do not have competence in dealing with learners experiencing learning challenges. | |
Training in inclusive education and identifying learners with learning challenges | ||
Not trained at all. Have not received training. Not trained at college. Not at all. Not trained in my teaching career. |
Teachers were not trained in inclusive education. | Teacher training in inclusive education is inadequate, and training in identifying learners with challenges is inadequate, not properly structured. |
Just introduced to inclusive education. Just taught about the meaning of inclusive education at college. |
Training received by teachers was not intensive. | |
Touched on it in my psychology studies. I am now studying inclusive education at university. I was given an overview of inclusive education in my guidance and counselling studies. Taught about dealing with learners with vision problems. Taught to be observant of strange signs in children’s behaviour. Not trained, just learnt informally. Not sufficiently trained. Just trained in psychology class. Trained to observe learner behaviour. Identify them without training. |
Content learned for identification of learners with challenges is shallow. |
The second researcher transcribed the audio interviews with participants of the study and the findings that emerged were listed and titled ‘Themes’.
High numbers of learners.
Curriculum is not inclusive.
Identification of learners with learning challenges.
Teachers lack competence to support learners with challenges.
Teachers not adequately trained in dealing with learners with learning challenges.
School buildings lack assistive equipment.
Non-inclusive curriculum.
Inadequate attention to learners with challenges because of other teaching activities.
The data gathered during this research study was coded by two independent researchers and the primary researcher analysed both sets of themes. The researcher observed that, to a large extent, the themes, which are the findings of the study, are largely similar, although they were coded separately. The participants’ responses to questions aimed to help the researcher ascertain what the barriers are to the implementation of inclusive education in schools in Gege branch, Swaziland. The themes presented are further discussed in detail in the following.
A respondent had this to say:
‘Teaching in a class with big numbers and having learners who experience learning challenges does slow down the teaching and learning process. At the end of the day syllabuss may not be completed at schools.’ (Respondent A, female, 32 years old)
Teachers viewed inclusive education efforts as being stifled by the large number of learners they were currently teaching in their classrooms. Teachers’ argument in this regard was that it becomes very difficult to cater to every child’s individual needs in a big classroom setup and still be able to meet other demands such as test schedules, piles of marking and constant evaluation. It was also argued by teachers that considering extracurricular activities in schools, inadequate attention is offered to learners with challenges.
Most teachers complained that a majority of their classes had more than 40 students per classroom, which is more than the official student–teacher ratio stipulated by the Ministry of Education and Training. To this end it can be argued that indeed classrooms were overcrowded as some teachers asserted.
Other teachers observed that the large numbers of students per class can perhaps be attributed to inflexibility of the curriculum. A respondent reiterated that:
‘The curriculum used itself, is not inclusive as it doesn’t take into consideration activities teachers and learners ought to do due to learning challenges and barriers that may be present in inclusive classrooms.’ (Respondent C, male, 25 years old)
It was felt not appropriate that the Ministry of Education and Training was mainstreaming inclusive education but still using a curriculum that was not designed to be inclusive. This argument by teachers seems valid because a curriculum needs to take into consideration teaching methods, lesson planning and lesson structures, as well as assessment methods. Because the current curriculum does not recognise the diversity of learners and their needs in the classroom, then indeed it does hinder efforts towards inclusion.
Another respondent noted the lack of facilities in the school as a challenge in implementing inclusive education in his school. A respondent observed:
‘[
However, Respondent H (female, 31 years old) submitted that lack of training in inclusive education makes it hard for a teacher to be in a position to support a learner with learning challenges even if the teacher can identify a learner’s problem area. She further noted that a learner can be identified to be having a learning challenge but if parents do not have the resources it becomes difficult to effectively help a child. For instance if a child has an eye problem requiring reading glasses and the parents cannot afford them, it becomes problematic. The child does not learn for long periods and thus misses out on a lot of subject matter. Other teachers felt that parents did not support them enough as well, because sometimes a teacher may be able to identify a learner to be having eyesight problems, for instance, which can be addressed by taking a child to an eye specialist who will recommend appropriate intervention. In such cases teachers complained that parents were usually unable to pay for the child’s medical bills, which may mean the child would not be helped for a prolonged period, thus resulting in the child’s eye problems becoming severe; hence the same effect would occur on his or her learning.
Poverty-stricken communities are also poorly resourced communities, which are frequently characterised by limited educational facilities, large classes with high pupil–teacher ratios, inadequately trained staff and inadequate teaching and learning materials. Such factors raise the likelihood of learning breakdown and the inability of the system to sustain effective teaching and learning. Learners from families where one or more of the breadwinners are unemployed or poorly paid are also more likely to leave school as soon as possible to go out to work to supplement the family income. This perpetuates the cycle of limited skills with fewer work opportunities, increased likelihood of unemployment or poorly paid work and, thus, ongoing poverty and exclusion (Department of Education
Respondent D (male, 25 years old) commented that he was unable to identify learners facing learning challenges in his classroom. According to Gwala (
One of the respondents commented that in the schools there was a problem of resources. She said:
‘For instance, there is no way we can teach learners with sight problems because we do not have braille machines so such teaching materials or resources we still do not have. Secondly, the school buildings are still not adjusted to accommodate learners with disabilities who may require assistive equipment and specially designed buildings to help them move around the school.’ (Respondent I, male, 27 years old)
South Africa, in an effort to support the implementation of inclusive education at foundation phase, introduced specialist teachers called learning support teachers (LSTs). Many teachers in that country did not have the benefit of being trained to teach learners who experience barriers to learning; hence most find it difficult. According to Mahlo (
Most schools in Swaziland are not accessible to disabled learners such as the blind and deaf. Observation by teachers interviewed for this study was that the infrastructure of schools in the Gege branch is not accessible for learners with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs. Against this background, the government of Swaziland has a project to modify the infrastructure of schools to increase physical access for children with special needs. However, teachers in the Gege high schools indicated that infrastructural development remains a concern. Some schools were constructed on sloping ground. This is a huge challenge for blind pupils and pupils in wheelchairs. Teachers also noted that the government only delivered mobile classes in primary schools and these classes have no provisions for blind pupils or pupils in wheelchairs. Teachers felt that the school infrastructure must be upgraded to accommodate pupils who are blind and are using wheelchairs.
It was also observed by teachers that whilst government policies advocate that every learner should attend schools that are in their neighbourhood, some disabled learners may not be able to access education there. It was argued that the high schools in Gege did not have resources such as braille equipment and the teachers were not competent in reading and writing braille; neither were they literate in sign language.
Teachers were asked how they were trained in inclusive education. From their responses it was clear that not all teachers were trained at tertiary level or at in-service level. There is evidence that even those who were trained were perhaps not adequately trained. The following are some of their comments:
‘I can say I haven’t received any training in inclusive education.’ (Respondent A, female, 32 years old)
‘I wasn’t trained at college in inclusive education. What happened was that we were introduced to inclusive education, simply the definition, just what it is about. We never learnt content in details.’ (Respondent B, male, 36 years old)
‘Well, I cannot say I was trained but as part of my training at college there was a topic we did on inclusive education. It was under another subject and lasted one or two months.’ (Respondent J, male, 24 years old)
‘Not at all. As part of my training at the University of Swaziland we touched on some Millennium Development Goals, which touched on the need for inclusivity in all schools in the country, but we never touched on topics on inclusive education.’ (Respondent K, female, 35 years old)
This notion is shared by Bagree and Lewis (
These responses by the teachers clearly show that teachers do not feel prepared enough to work with learners who have diverse learning needs. Hence, even those who did receive some degree of training complained that their training was not enough to prepare them to work in inclusive classrooms. For instance:
‘Barely. I only got to know about inclusive education as just an overview during one of my guidance and counselling classes at the University of Swaziland.’ (Respondent G, female, 40 years old)
This shows that there is a serious need to train teachers in the sampled schools on inclusive education methods. This is evidence that a large population of teachers in schools today have not been trained in inclusive education matters.
Teachers were further asked how they were trained to identify learners experiencing learning challenges in their classrooms. Various responses were given in response to this question but there were mixed feelings as a good number of teachers responded that they were not trained in light of them not having been trained in inclusive education at tertiary level. Other teachers alluded to the fact that identifying learners experiencing learning challenges is a skill that generally all teachers obtain during teacher training at teacher training institutions, regardless of whether the course a teacher is doing is inclusive education related or not.
‘I wasn’t trained but as a teacher you must be very observant, maintain eye contact so that you can be able to spot a learner with challenges. Being observant puts you in a position to identify and help learners experiencing learning challenges.’ (Respondent C, male, 25 years old)
‘I didn’t receive any training in inclusive education. Under educational psychology we did touch on inclusive issues but I still feel that was not enough training in the subject.’ (Respondent E, male, 54 years old)
‘Of course I was trained in identifying learners experiencing learning difficulties by observing how a learner writes, how they look at what is written on the board. Basically you have to figure it out yourself when looking at the learner’s behaviour that a learner might be experiencing challenges, then you can approach that learner and intervene in a way that addresses the challenge a learner has.’ (Respondent H, female, 31 years old)
Through responses from educators on this question, it is evident that indeed many teachers maintained that they were not trained in identifying learners with challenges. Teachers argued that they were not trained in inclusive education. Hence, they were not taught how to identify learners experiencing barriers to learning. However, closely looking at teacher’s responses, the researcher can argue that it is imperative that even those teachers who claim to have no background in inclusive education would have received training in the identification of learners experiencing learning challenges. According to Du Toit (
Among the documents reviewed was a teacher profile document, which contained teacher information and their qualifications. This document showed that in schools with 61 staff members there was one teacher that had a certificate or any qualification in inclusive education. One other teacher was still studying towards obtaining her bachelor’s degree in Inclusive Education. This highlighted the fact that teacher training is a very important factor towards achieving the desired competencies for the implementation of inclusive education to mainstream schools in Swaziland. The researcher also observed that negative attitudes by teachers towards teaching in inclusive classrooms are a barrier emanating from the fact that a majority of the teachers interviewed received inadequate training in inclusive education.
The other policy documents reviewed were the Swaziland Education Sector Policy of 2011 and the Inclusive Education: Responses, Challenges and Prospects for the Kingdom of Swaziland Report of 2011. The Swaziland Education Sector Policy (2011:13) states it as one of its policy goals that all attitudinal and physical barriers to inclusive education shall be removed in public, private and other schools and institutions. This research study has revealed through teachers’ responses that the barriers that the Ministry of Education and Training seeks to eliminate exist in schools today in many forms. It also transpired during the review of these documents that whilst the Ministry of Education and Training has policies in place to enforce implementation of inclusive education, schools do not have their own policies regarding the same adapted from the main government policies.
The aim of this research study was to identify barriers that have affected the implementation of inclusive education in mainstream schools in Swaziland, a case study on the Gege branch of schools. The prerogative of inclusive education is to serve the needs of all learners and to ensure that they reach their optimum potential, whilst seeking to include parents and communities in this process. Achievement of this aim not only fulfils the constitutional education obligation the country has to its citizenry, but it also increases the literacy rate and much-needed skills and labour need for growth and sustainability.
While Swaziland has promulgated sound policies to allow for effective mainstreaming of inclusive education, barriers such as a non-inclusive curriculum, high numbers of learners, lack of resources and teachers’ lack of competence have emerged as challenges. To this end it is advisable for the National Curriculum Centre of Swaziland to redesign the country’s curriculum to accommodate learning needs for children with different abilities and diverse learning needs. Also, establishment of district-based support teams to liaise with schools in teacher training and inclusive education support matters in schools could help eliminate barriers facing implementation of inclusive education at Gege branch schools in Swaziland. Also, there is a need for schools to create their own implementation matrixes with regard to facilitating implementation of inclusive education policies in order to breach the disconnect that currently exists between national policy and actual practice of it.
We thank the Director of Education in the Ministry of Education and Training in Swaziland for allowing us to conduct our research in their schools. We are very grateful to all the teachers who allowed us to interview them. Much appreciation goes to fellow researcher Dr Qandelihle Simelane for his input in language editing and scholarly advice. The study would not have been a success without the co-author Dr M.M. Malale from the University of South Africa.
The publication fees for the article were sponsored by the University of South Africa (UNISA), Institutional Funding Department and Department of ABET and Youth Development Research Output Incentive Fund.
The authors declare that they have financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. They have no relationship of any sort with anyone in the African Journal of Disability including peer reviewers.
The primary author and researcher was S.L.Z. who was responsible for all the research and writing. The role of M.M.M was advisory and largely supervisory. His contributions were mainly conceptual.