Evaluating the Socioecological Classroom in Full-Service Schools: A Whole-School Approach to the Inclusive Education Context in South Africa

Abstract

This paper evaluates the socioecological classroom in the context of a whole-school approach to inclusive education, which has evolved beyond the traditional classroom setting. Inclusive education calls for a paradigm shift to accommodate learners previously marginalised, with the classroom transforming into an ecosystem. The socioecological paradigm steers away from the notion that psychological and physiological elements are the main causes of disability. The importance of addressing multiple layers of influence is emphasised to create a supportive and inclusive learning environment. First, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, which emphatically explains how a learner’s development is influenced by the systems in the environment that surrounds them, and then Foucault’s Theory of Power and Knowledge, in which power and knowledge are interconnected and inseparable, with power being exercised through the creation and control of knowledge, guided this study. A qualitative approach was adopted, and semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and non-participant observation were used to collect data. Phenomenological analysis was used to analyse the data from these data-collecting instruments. It was found that learners with disabilities need support at home, with imbalances being found in the power–knowledge relations between teachers and parents, and teachers occupying a superior position regarding academic knowledge. Some teachers still believe in the Medical-Deficit Model. A strengths-based approach should rather be adopted. Strategies for enhancing community–school collaboration that balances teacher–parent power dynamics should be explored.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the concept of inclusive education has evolved beyond the traditional classroom setting, which is a teacher-centred approach, where the teacher is the main source of knowledge and learners are passive recipients. Less attention is paid to diversity and individual needs as learners are grouped according to age or aptitude. There is little regard for learners with disabilities or diverse learning styles, and there is minimal physical and instructional accessibility. A one-size-fits-all curriculum might not be able to meet the varied demands of every learner. Furthermore, communication takes place mostly inside the classroom, with little to no incorporation of outside support networks or community resources.

The title “Evaluating the Socioecological Classroom in Full-Service Schools: A Whole School Approach to the Inclusive Education Context in South Africa” reflects this shift from the traditional classroom setting, which is largely based on educational theories such as cognitivism, essentialism and perennialism. In all the aforementioned theories, the teacher leads learners through texts and exercises that promote intellectual growth through teacher-led activities and direct instruction. The traditional classroom setting does not cater for learner diversity, uniqueness and differentness. These theories contrast with a more learner-centred, socioecological approach, where the focus is on learner autonomy, collaboration, and the influence of the learning environment on development. Therefore, this title proposes a comprehensive perspective where the classroom is viewed as an ecosystem. This ecosystem encompasses not only the physical space but also the intricate web of social interactions and environmental factors that influence learning [1]. By emphasising the interconnectedness of learners, teachers, and the wider school community, this approach seeks to create a more holistic and inclusive educational environment. Social barriers towards people with disabilities have historically enabled the marginalisation and discrimination of learners with disability [2]. According to conventional wisdom, having a disability is a tragedy that restricts a person’s options and community involvement, leaving them in pain for the rest of their lives [3]. The medical model considers disability a consequence of an individual’s deficit in biological function, but the socioecological model does not support this view [4]. With its focus on the whole-school approach, the socioecological paradigm signals a break from the notion that psychological and physiological elements are the main causes of disability. Contrary, it acknowledges that a complex array of social factors and interdependent environmental interactions impact and are influenced by humans on multiple levels [5]. This paper explores the socioecological model of the classroom, examining its potential to foster inclusivity and enhance the educational experiences of all learners, including those with disabilities.

The main components of the socioecological model include the individual level, which contains traits such as the age, gender and individual behaviours of learners [6]. This could relate to a learner’s motivation, learning preferences and individual difficulties in the context of education. The interpersonal level, which makes up the second component, is concerned with peer, family and friend interactions. For learners to grow academically and socially, they need supportive interactions with their teachers, peers and families [7]. The larger school atmosphere, rules and procedures make up the institutional level, which is the third component. The educational experience is significantly shaped by variables such as school culture, teacher preparation and resource availability [8]. The community level, the fourth component, comprises the larger community backdrop, local organisations and community norms. The policy level, which is the fifth component, involves the larger societal and policy context, including national education policies, funding and legislation. Policies that promote inclusive education and provide adequate resources are essential for creating an equitable learning environment.

In the context of inclusive education, the socioecological model highlights the importance of addressing multiple layers of influence to create a supportive and inclusive learning environment [9]. Therefore, the whole-school approach becomes the vehicle that ensures the interconnectedness and collaboration within the school community to develop strategies, plans and policies that respond to the unique needs of learners [10]. As an example, at the individual level, intrapersonal relationships can be encouraged, which implies that learners, including those with disabilities, accept their condition. Personalised learning plans can be created to cater to each learner’s varying needs. At the interpersonal level, fostering positive relationships among learners, and between learners and teachers, can enhance engagement and motivation. At the institutional level, schools can implement inclusive policies and provide professional development for teachers. Community involvement can be encouraged to support learners with disabilities and their families, and at the policy level, advocating for inclusive education policies can ensure that all learners have access to meaningful quality education.

2. Literature Review

From a social constructivist-based approach, the socioecological perspective on settings acknowledges that the environmental systems in which people function play a pivotal part in influencing their health and wellbeing [11]. Socioecological systems are complex adaptive systems in which people and nature are inextricably linked, and both the social and ecological components exert strong influence over outcomes. The social dimension includes actors, institutions, cultures and economies, including livelihoods. On the other hand, socioecological systems research examines how a resource-dependent society interacts with nature to develop an adaptive capacity in response to various shocks and stresses, such as climate change, extreme events, disruption of biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity loss, deforestation and desertification [10].

A good example of the most basic Social Learning Theory in the classroom would be facilitating a dialogue between two learners representing opposing perspectives in a full-service school and rewarding the positive aspects while censuring the negative ones. Full-service schools are meant to accommodate learners with varying learning needs, including those with disabilities, within mainstream education. The whole-school approach, which is characterised by the working together of all stakeholders, within and outside the school, can be applied in all types of schools, including full-service schools.

A social learning environment, more often than not, involves constant communication among learners and teachers, which is exercised via peer and collaborative learning strategies [12].

According to [13], the factors of socioecological models comprise individual behaviours, sociodemographic factors (race, education, socioeconomic status), interpersonal factors (romantic, family, and coworker relationships), community factors (physical and social environment) and societal factors (local, State, and federal policies).

In essence, social classrooms focus on communication, responsibility, kindness, and accountability. This can be achieved by encouraging both team and group activities, working together, planning and collaborating, and creating ample opportunities for personal responsibility with classroom tasks and other duties [14].

Examples of Social Learning Theory in the classroom, according to [15], include and are not limited to the Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Central to this theory is reciprocal determinism, which states that a person’s behaviour is influenced by personal factors, environmental factors and the behaviour itself, all interacting with each other. The concept of self-efficacy, which refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations, is also key in Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, as it encourages learners to actively engage in their own learning. Furthermore, teachers can encourage peer modelling, role play activities, educational videos and reward systems. These theories emphasise the continuous interplay between cognitive processes and environmental influences during the learning and development of a learner.

The ecological approach to classroom management is holistic, with the anticipation of helping learners learn and regulate their behaviour [16]. Cognisance should be taken of the fact that holistic, in this case, means that it does not only focus on one area but strives to address the entire learning experience of learners. A whole-school approach is further aimed at raising quality and standards across the entire school. For this approach to be effective and efficient, schools need to identify and address the needs of the school community and engage in continuous, cyclical processes for improvement [17].

Schools that actively use school planning and school (self-)evaluation will be in a stronger position to eradicate early school leaving. In terms of external monitoring and assessment mechanisms based on quantitative and qualitative measures that reflect the diversity of activities for which schools are responsible, and the different starting points/contexts in which schools operate (for example, trying to measure the school’s ‘added value’), quality assurance mechanisms can truly play an advisory and supportive role to schools in implementing their early school-leaving strategies [18]. To a great extent, qualitative indicators can specifically assist schools in reflecting on the measures that are in place or that can be designed to address early school leaving. Quality assurance mechanisms seem to be most effective and efficient when both their ‘summative’ function (related to accountability, control and compliance check) and their ‘formative’ function (related to improvement and development) are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Cooperation and networking between schools of different types and levels, which are located in the same catchment area, can facilitate the exchange of practices and assist learners with disabilities and their families in easing the crucial transitions from early childhood education and care to primary schools, and from primary to secondary education [19]. Local authorities may have an instrumental role to play in promoting this cooperation.

For inclusive education to thrive and cater for learners’ educational needs, it requires a whole-school approach. Whole-school approaches assist in forming an inclusive ethos. When these form part of everyday practice, they support the inclusion, engagement and full participation of all learners. In an inclusive school, all learners are made to feel welcome and included, and individual differences are respected and celebrated [20,21,22].

Proper planning and developing an inclusive child-centred approach to learning and teaching can support a range of additional support needs. An inclusive learning environment will support all learners, including those with disabilities, in accessing the curriculum and participating in a range of experiences provided through a flexible, accessible and inclusive curriculum. It is everyone’s duty to be inclusive in their approach and to support all learners. Furthermore, a whole-school approach is a cohesive and collaborative action by a school community that is being strategically and continually constructed to improve the learning of learners with disabilities, their behaviour and wellbeing [23,24,25].

An inclusive whole-school approach involves adapting the psycho-social environment and teaching approaches to ensure genuine and valued full participation of all children and young people. It embraces human diversity and welcomes all as equal members of an educational community [26]. On the other hand, whole-class instruction is about learning together, teachers and learners at the same time, in the same space, and with each person focused on the same learning goals. As a result, whole-class instruction, implemented artfully, can bring a greater sense of community to the classroom [5,27].

The key features of an inclusive approach to learners’ learning are as follows:

All learners must receive equal treatment and respect. Learners with disabilities must also be afforded every opportunity to reach their full potential. Teachers must identify blockers, barriers or boundaries preventing learners with disabilities from partaking, completing assignments and learning [5,27].

3. Theoretical Framework

According to [28], a theoretical framework is a logically developed and connected set of concepts that are developed from one or more theories that a researcher creates to scaffold a study. This study was guided by two theoretical frameworks. The first was Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, which explains how a learner’s development is influenced by the systems in the environment that surrounds them [29]. The influence can be from the immediate sphere (interpersonal level), such as family and friends, to the broader context, such as the community or the State. In the context of this study, the whole-school approach to inclusive education entails the collaboration of the school community to deliver quality education to every learner regardless of their varying backgrounds, abilities, disabilities or circumstances. The learner’s socioecological environment has an impact on their development and progress [30]. As an example, how the learners with disabilities interact with their family members can either build confidence in them by being included in daily life activities, or being treated as outcasts that are an embarrassment to their families. At school (institutional level), the acceptance or non-acceptance of the learners with disabilities by their peers and teachers can result in the social inclusion or isolation of those learners, which can result in low self-esteem or even depression. The guidelines and policies, such as Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) for the South African Sign language (SASL) Grade R-12, Policy on Screening, Identification Assessment and Support [31], Guidelines for Full-Service Schools [32] and others, were meant to foster the effective implementation of inclusive education for the benefit of learners with disabilities.

The second theoretical framework is Foucault’s Theory of Power and Knowledge. Foucault posits that power and knowledge are interconnected and inseparable, and power is exercised through the creation and control of knowledge [33]. Therefore, those who produce knowledge can make it accepted as truth, because they possess other forms of power such as academic, economic or political power. Foucault further argues that power is not always hierarchical; it can be lateral, overlapping or bidirectional [34]. This entails that it is not only adults such as teachers or officials who have power over learners with disabilities. Instead, learners with disabilities themselves possess power to influence the decisions that are taken on their behalf. Foucault calls this effect ‘ontology of present’, which can be divided into two parts: first, the ‘ontology of ourselves’, which dictates that learners should know who they are and accept their fate [35]. The second part is referred to as the ‘ontology of the present time’, which demands that the learner with disabilities respond to their surroundings [36]. This relates to the interaction that the learner with a disability has with their environment at all levels. As an example, even though the teacher does exercise power over the learner by giving them instructions, deciding for them what to do and what not to do in class, the learner also has power (lateral power) to decide whether or not they want to listen and obey the teacher’s instructions, which is often referred to as resilience. In the context of this study, the influence of power relations within all the levels of the Socioecological Theory could not be overlooked. Those who possess knowledge and power at any given time can influence the path and direction that the implementation of inclusive education takes. Learners with disabilities are subjected to disciplinary power by their teachers, parents, peers without disabilities and even the community that they interact with on a daily basis. However, this does not render these learners helpless and defeated as they also have power to resist and rebuke those who subject them to unfair and discriminatory treatment. Unfortunately for them, when they exercise their power, they are labelled ‘stubborn’ or ‘rude’ (see Section 8.1, line 51) without considering the environmental influences that they find themselves under [37]. This study, therefore, sought to evaluate the socioecological classroom in the context of a whole-school approach in full-service schools, which considers the external and environmental factors that influence the plight of learners with disabilities.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Approach

This study employed a qualitative approach, which involved collecting data using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and non-participant observation. Using this approach allowed for an in-depth understanding of learners’, teachers’, principals’ and parents’ experiences of the implementation of inclusive education [38].

4.2. Research Paradigm

The interpretivist paradigm was selected, with a focus on understanding and interpreting the social and cultural interactions among the participants [39]. The emphasis was on the subjective nature of the way the interactions took place and the meaning that the participants created, especially learners with disabilities versus their teachers, teachers versus parents, and teachers versus principals through their experiences and interactions.

4.3. Research Design

A multiple-case design was selected, and the research was conducted in four full-service schools in the uMgungundlovu District of Education in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. The whole-school approach aims at ensuring that all parts of the school work together to ensure the wellbeing of the school community. Unlike other types of schools, full-service schools comprise a wider range of community over and above teachers, parents and learners. There are school-based support teams, teacher assistants, psychologists, therapists, etc. Full-service schools require distinct infrastructural development and diversified curricula that cater for the diverse needs of learners in the school. Furthermore, full-service schools are given an added responsibility of giving support to the nearby mainstream school. By virtue of these peculiar characteristics and functions, full-service schools provide an ideal environment for implementing the whole-school approach.

4.4. Sampling

The participants comprised four principals, four Foundation Phase Heads of Department and four School Governing Body chairpersons of the four participating full-service schools who were purposively sampled.

5. Data Collection Procedures and Tools

The data were collected through three different data collection tools, namely, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. Focus group discussions included two teachers in each of the four schools, meaning that there were four groups: one from each school. Four Grade 3 teachers were observed teaching: one from each school.

The focus of the interviews was on school management, administration and governance. Preparation was conducted where the aim and objectives of the study were explained to the participants. A structured guide, which included a list of questions to be asked, was developed. Before the interviews began, rapport was built with the participants for them to feel comfortable. Permission was sought from the participants to record the interviews. After the interviews were conducted, the audio was transcribed into text to prepare the data for analysis.

Focus group discussions and observations focused on teaching and learning, and learner behaviour. The protocol for observation was developed by creating an observation schedule first in order to guide the observations. The researcher had to ensure that he was not obtrusive during non-participant observations. Details about the setting, participants’ activities and interactions were noted down. After the observation, the notes were organised and compared with the data from the interviews and focus group discussions to identify patterns during data analysis.

6. Data Analysis

Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyse the data from interviews, focus group discussions, and non-participant observations. This strategy was employed inductively to explore how participants made sense of their experiences of the implementation of inclusive education [40]. It was also important to understand how learners with disabilities construct their social identities within an inclusive class and across the school premises. Unfortunately, the researchers had to rely on the teachers’ perceptions and views about learners with disabilities, since the learners were not interviewed, but only observed while being taught, and picking up the cues from their reactions. Data analysis included comparing the observation data with the data from the interviews and focus group discussions. As an example, during the interviews, principals lamented the fact that they were not trained to manage full-service schools before and during the implementation process. Lack of training for the implementation of inclusive education was also highlighted by teachers during the focus group discussions. It did not end there, as the researchers further noticed that the observed teachers displayed a lack of adequate knowledge on how to use inclusive teaching strategies such as instructional differentiation and curriculum adaptation effectively. This display of the lack of knowledge and understanding by the teachers in class also pointed to a lack of adequate training. Therefore, when researchers integrated the mentioned data from the interviews, focus group discussions and observations, it unanimously pointed to the failure of the Department of Education to provide necessary training to principals and teachers. This sort of integration of data from the three data collection instruments was carried out continuously so as to enhance accuracy and obtain a holistic picture and insights. The transcripts were read and re-read, and initial coding was conducted to identify the patterns across the cases [41]. The themes that emerged were parental involvement, teacher training and development, ethical leadership and funding of full-service schools.

7. Ethical Considerations

Ethics approval and permission were obtained from the relevant departments and institutions. The participants signed a consent letter agreeing to participate voluntarily in this study. The letter in question outlined the purpose of the study, confidentiality measures and anonymity, as well as data usage and storage. They were also informed about their voluntary participation and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any penalty. The participants’ identities remained concealed by using fictitious names.

8. Findings

The findings are presented in this section with discussions focused on the themes that emerged from the data analysis process, namely parental involvement, teacher training and development, ethical leadership and funding.

8.1. Parental Involvement

The discussion on the findings about parental involvement concentrated on the ways in which parents could be involved in the education of their children with disabilities. The issue of the absence of biological parents in the education and upbringing of children with disabilities added a new dimension to the issue of ‘parental involvement’ as a theme, since it had to be established first whether grandparents constituted ‘a parent’ of the learner as some learners are raised by their grandparents. This was echoed by E2 (educator) in SA (School A), who lamented, “Most of learners in my class are raised by their grandparents, who do not participate in academic programmes”. The South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act No. 84 of 1996) (SASA), as amended, defines a parent as follows:

The biological or adoptive parent or legal guardian of a learner;

The person legally entitled to custody of a learner; or

The person who undertakes to fulfil the obligations of a person referred to in the first two bullets towards the learner’s education at school. This definition confirms that grandparents who live with their grandchildren and are responsible for their education are regarded as parents.

The findings of this study revealed three important aspects about parental involvement in the learning of learners with disabilities in full-service schools, namely that the parents of learners with disabilities attended school events, which included meetings and other activities, quite satisfactorily. E4 in SB said, “When it comes to meetings, I don’t want to lie, parents do attend, especially if it is on Saturdays”. However, the parents of learners with disabilities were not involved in the academic support programmes of their children. According to Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Ecological Systems, the development of learners is influenced by their environment and such influence can be from the immediate sphere (interpersonal level), such as family. As a result of the non-involvement of parents in the academic support of their children, their academic development is hampered. Furthermore, the whole-school approach that this research seeks to promote emphasises the need for forces outside the school, in this case parents, to collaborate with teachers to ensure the proper academic development of the learners. Unbalanced power and knowledge relations between parents and teachers also put parents at a disadvantage as their hopes for the academic development of their children rest with only the teachers. This also has a negative effect on learners’ academic development, especially those with disabilities. Lastly, most learners with disabilities were under the guardianship of their grandparents, which in itself results in emotional challenges experienced by affected children [42]. The findings further revealed that even though the attendance of parents at school meetings was satisfactory, they were not making any meaningful contribution to enhance the implementation of inclusive education. This concern was traced to the unbalanced power and knowledge relations between parents and educators, which rendered parents inferior as they did not feel free to express their views in such meetings. On the opposite end, the non-involvement of parents in the academic programmes of their children presented educators with challenges as the learners needed support at home and that support was not forthcoming. This not only troubled educators but also rendered the interpersonal level (second component) of the socioecological model dysfunctional. The lack of family support for learners with disabilities meant that one pillar of the whole-school approach to inclusion was missing, to the detriment of the approach.

The findings further showed imbalances in the power and knowledge relations between parents and teachers, where teachers occupied a superior position regarding academic knowledge, which resulted in parents’ lack of active participation in meetings as they were regarded and also regarded themselves as redundant, irrelevant and unknowledgeable. SGB 3 (School Governing Body member) alluded that parents regarded themselves as inferior compared to teachers with regard to academic knowledge by saying, “We do not get involved in classroom matters, teachers know what they are doing, teaching is for them. We only help when they need money or school uniform. We know that they deal with stubborn children with mental problems, they know how to discipline them”.

8.2. Teacher Training and Development

The findings of this study showed that there were educators in full-service schools who had never received any kind of training prior to the commencement of the implementation of the Inclusive Education Policy. E5 from SC said, “During our training years there were no courses for learners with disabilities, this is all new to us”. These were the teachers who required re-skilling. There were also teachers who had received some sort of training during their initial educator training in the form one or two modules on inclusive education years ago. These teachers needed refresher workshops, and all teachers have to receive continuous professional development in inclusive education if inclusive education were to be a success. According to Foucault’s Theory of Power and Knowledge, knowledge gives one power, the power that allows one to make informed decisions and the power that would enable teachers to execute their duty with confidence and conviction. Without proper initial and in-service training, teachers felt inadequate and not ready to implement inclusive education. Unfortunately, the Department of Education (DoE) seemed to have abdicated its duties and responsibilities regarding the in-service training that needed to be provided to teachers as its employees. Teachers themselves have to improve their qualifications and attend workshops, seminars and other discussions on inclusive education that are organised by other stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations, labour unions, centres for disability studies and institutions of higher learning. This was alluded to by E6 from SC, who said, “We were promised that people from the district will arrange workshops for us, it has never happened since we started inclusive education last year”. The required shift from the medical model to the socioecological model is severely handicapped by the teachers’ lack of adequate knowledge to understand the significance of environmental factors in turning impairment into disability. Teachers’ lack of skills necessary to use learner-centred teaching approaches effectively in their classes further diminishes hopes of realising true inclusivity in full-service schools.

By failing to intervene decisively in the issue of training teachers, the DoE exercised its power negatively and in an unproductive manner. This is in contrast with Foucault’s [43] view on power, which he believed was not merely a negative, coercive act that forced individuals to do things against their wishes, but could be a productive force in society. This scholar further argues that power, as a productive force, produces knowledge. The DoE should be able to use the power relations that they have with teachers for the benefit of both the teachers and the learners in full-service schools. To strengthen the argument of power being a ‘productive force’, [44] posits the following:

What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it does not only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things; it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, and produces discourse. Similarly, the failure of the DoE to support teachers indirectly translates to their failure to support learners, especially those with disabilities. According to the Theory of Ecological Systems, the support from the Education Department would have impacted learners with disabilities positively in their development and would have been the second level of support outside family and friends.

The failure of the DoE to provide the necessary training for teachers to implement inclusive education, therefore, induced the possibility of resistance, in other words, teachers not willing to obey the instructions that ordered them to implement inclusive education. Resistance would have been teachers demonstrating their power against their employer, and as Foucault argues that power is directionless, it can be exerted from any direction. On this possibility, it is prudent to reiterate that the findings of this study did not reveal any resistance to power by teachers as they remained committed and willing to implement the Inclusive Education Policy despite the challenges they faced.

8.3. Ethical Leadership

The findings revealed that there was lack of ethical leadership in some of the full-service schools that participated in this study. Learners with disabilities were mostly affected by this. Negative school ethos meant that the overall atmosphere at these schools did not promote beliefs and values that embrace inclusivity [45]. School principals and School Governing Bodies who are supposed to be at the forefront of fostering behaviours and attitudes that promote mutual respect and inclusivity were not delivering on this mandate. P1 (principal) from SA said, “Remember that we were not trained or workshopped as principals to manage full-service schools, we try but it is not working”. Consequently, learners with disabilities were bullied by those without disabilities, and they also bullied each other.

There was poor communication among the staff members, and they were not working together to support learners with disabilities. According to the SIAS Policy [31,46], teachers are supposed to develop learners’ Individual Support Plans (ISPs) in collaboration with parents of the learners with disabilities. However, insufficient support to the teachers from management meant that these plans were not developed. In some schools, the ISPs existed, but were never used or updated. Teachers developed these plans alone without any input from the parents. It is imperative that school leaders set the tone for how teachers, parents and learners interact for the benefit of the learners.

It is the duty of school management to organise necessary teaching and learning resources, as well as the training and development of teachers [47]. However, this study revealed that some schools lacked the infrastructure needed for the accommodation of learners with disabilities and there were no programmes for the professional development of teachers for inclusivity. This was more evidence of the lack of ethical leadership in some of the full-service schools that participated in this study.

As schools are part of a broader community, leaders are expected to engage with families and community members to build a supportive network in support of learners with disabilities [48]. This is essential for the socioecological model to be executed successfully as leaders occupy a strategic position in the Socioecological Model Framework. However, the study findings showed that engagement between the school leaders and the community only occurred if there was an incident or dissatisfaction from either of the parties that needed to be addressed. SGB6 from S4 said, “We stay with the community, and they complain about the fact the principal does not call parents meetings, only when there are problems that they are invited”.

School principals and the chairpersons of the School Governing Bodies also raised concerns about the lack of support from the District Office of the DoE. They pointed out the lack of sufficient funding for the implementation of inclusive education as a stumbling block in their attempt to implement the Inclusive Education Policy. “How are we expected to run full-service school with a budget of mainstream schools? It is impossible, the needs are not the same”, said S4 from SD. This implies that even in the higher offices of the DoE, there is a lack of ethical leaders who would ensure that policies for the support of learners with disabilities are implemented by availing the necessary resources for such an undertaking.

In conclusion, the findings of this study show that ethical leadership is necessary to foster an inclusive atmosphere that upholds the Socioecological Inclusion Model. The comprehensive and holistic support structure that is required for learners with disabilities to succeed is jeopardised without it.

8.4. Funding of Full-Service Schools

The findings of this study indicated that full-service schools are not adequately funded by the DoE to be in a position to provide support material such as assistive devices and equipment for learners with disabilities. By not adequately funding the full-service schools, the DoE was not adhering to the Inclusive Education Policy. As an example, learners with disabilities who needed transport to full-service schools were not provided with it, which put the burden on parents of learners to ensure that they provided their children with such necessities. This was echoed by SGB2 from SB, who said, “We were promised scholar transport long time ago, till today there is nothing”. Failure of the DoE to subsidise the full-service schools led to learners from very poor families not being able to access education on a regular basis as their parents could not provide the necessary assistive devices for them to learn. It also compromised the quality of education that was provided to the learners with disabilities, similar to the way in which it had happened during the period of the special education system.

Despite having progressive policies such as the National Norms Standard for School Funding (NNSSF), the implementation thereof remained a challenge. After dismantling the system of unequal funding based on different racial and ethnic groups, the DoE introduced the National Norms and Standards for School Funding (NNSSF) Policy [49]. The NNSSF Policy was a strategy intended to redress the imbalances of the past with regard to funding for schools to provide quality education for all learners. The fundamental purpose of this policy was to equitably fund schools in favour of previously disadvantaged learners. Learners with disabilities fall under the category of ‘disadvantaged learners’ who were not well catered for under apartheid. This study revealed that the NNSSF Policy did not assist the full-service schools the way it was supposed to as there was no specific budget allocation for them over and above the Norms and Standards that are determined by the school’s Post-Provisioning Norm (PPN) and are meant for all types of schools, including mainstream schools [50].

9. Recommendations

Since this study revealed that there were teachers in full-service schools who had never received any kind of training prior to the commencement of the implementation of the Inclusive Education Policy (see E5 comment above), it is recommended that these teachers be skilled through seminars, learning from qualified/skilled colleagues, and attending conferences on inclusive education, among other interventions. This will ensure the implementation of strength-based approaches, where skilled teachers are able to identify and nurture the unique strengths and capabilities of learners with disabilities, rather than concentrating on their limitations.

In order to build and sustain a supportive network, it is recommended that principals engage families and community members to build a supportive network for learners with disabilities in line with the socioecological system and the whole-school approach. To solve the resource crisis, it is recommended that school management works in collaboration with the DoE and other stakeholders, such as community business forums, to promote the whole-school approach (provide ethical leadership).

Parents should be more involved in their children’s academic work in order to provide the much-needed interpersonal level of support to promote a socioecological system of education. Parents could help teachers in promoting a positive identity and encourage self-determination among learners with disability, which is part of a strength-based approach.

10. Conclusions

The Socioecological Model of Inclusion, which encompasses the whole-school approach to inclusive education, requires adequate funding to ensure that various inclusive education stakeholders at various levels collaborate through programmes, skill development, and sharing of ideas and knowledge, as well as support group activities. Without equitable funding, the realisation of a true inclusive education system will remain a pipedream that will never be achieved.