Exploring the Impact of Multigrading on Learners with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study in Harry Gwala District, KZN, South Africa

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates the impact of multigrade classroom arrangements on learners with disabilities in the Harry Gwala District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, the research explores how systemic factors, from classroom-level practices to broader policy environments, shape inclusive education in rural multigrade settings. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with twenty teachers and ten principals. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes: instructional challenges, emotional and professional strain on teachers, systemic resource limitations, leadership constraints, and long-term developmental implications for learners with disabilities. Participants reported that multigrade settings hinder differentiated instruction, leading to frustration and disengagement among learners with disabilities. Teachers expressed emotional exhaustion and a lack of training tailored to inclusive multigrade contexts. Principals highlighted chronic resource shortages and unclear policy directives, which limited their ability to support inclusive practices. Despite these challenges, some school principals demonstrated strong commitment and agency, suggesting that leadership can be a catalyst for change even in under-resourced environments. The study contributes to the literature by disentangling the lived experiences of teachers from policy interpretations and by foregrounding the voices of those navigating inclusive education in complex rural settings. It recommends structural reforms, including context-sensitive teacher training, improved resource allocation, and leadership development. These findings align with international commitments such as Article 24 of the UNCRPD and offer practical insights for policymakers, teachers, and researchers committed to advancing equity in education.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education has become a cornerstone of global educational reform, aiming to ensure that all learners, regardless of their abilities, have access to quality education (Yang et al., 2025). South Africa has embraced this global vision through a range of policies aimed at reshaping the education system to better serve learners with diverse needs. The concept of inclusive education is underpinned by social justice and human rights theories, which advocate for the dismantling of exclusionary practices and the creation of equitable learning environments for all.

This global shift toward inclusive education is both a pedagogical necessity and a moral and legal obligation, as articulated in international frameworks such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNCRPD, 2006) and the Sustainable Development Goal 4. These frameworks call for inclusive and equitable education for all, emphasising the need to dismantle systemic barriers. They also stress the importance of inclusive environments that respect the dignity and potential of every learner, regardless of disability, socio-economic status, or geographic location.

Foremost among these is the Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001), which lays the foundation for an inclusive education and training system in South Africa. It highlights the need to address barriers to learning and development across all contexts, including rural and under-resourced schools. Complementing this, the Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS, Department of Basic Education, 2014) provides a standardised framework for identifying and supporting learners who experience barriers to learning, ensuring that inclusive practices are implemented even in multigrade classrooms. These policies are informed by Ecological Systems Theory, which recognises the interplay between individual learners and the broader social, institutional, and policy environments in shaping educational outcomes. Recent research by Makoelle and Malindi (2025) reveals that inclusive education policies in South Africa often neglect the specific challenges presented by multigrade classrooms. Multigrading is an approach where a single teacher teaches learners from two or more grade levels within the same classroom (Barbetta et al., 2021). Makoelle and Malindi (2025)’s study reveals that although teachers in the multigrade settings face significant constraints, inclusive pedagogy can be meaningfully enacted through context-sensitive strategies and critical reflection.

Additionally, the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 envisions an inclusive, equitable, and high-quality education system that leaves no learner behind. It acknowledges the disparities in educational provision and calls for targeted interventions in rural and multigrade schools to ensure that inclusive education is a lived reality. The NDP also advocates for a whole-system approach that includes health, social development, and education sectors working together to support learners with disabilities (National Planning Commission, 2021).

Despite these policy intentions, the implementation of inclusive education remains uneven. Rural schools lack the infrastructure, human resources, and pedagogical support necessary to meet the diverse needs of learners (Mpu & Adu, 2021). Teachers are ill-equipped to apply inclusive strategies in multigrade settings where the complexity of instruction is significantly heightened. This aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, which highlights how microsystem-level challenges, such as teacher preparedness and classroom structure, can significantly influence learner development. Korkie et al. (2025) further support this view, arguing that inclusive education must be grounded in ecosystemic theory and supported by interdisciplinary training. Their findings point to a persistent disconnect between policy knowledge and its practical implementation, a challenge that becomes more pronounced in multigrade teaching environments.

Scholarly work demonstrates that inclusive practices continue to be hindered by systemic challenges, including insufficient teacher preparation, limited availability of assistive technologies, and weak institutional support structures (Walton & Moonsamy, 2022; Ayaya & Makoelle, 2023). Despite growing international and national commitments to inclusive education, there is a gap in empirical research examining how multigrade settings shape the experiences of learners with diverse support needs in under-resourced contexts. This study contributes to addressing that gap by drawing on both theoretical and empirical insights to examine the intersection of multigrading and inclusive education. By exploring the lived experiences of teachers and principals in multigrade classrooms in the Harry Gwala District, this study seeks to generate contextually grounded insights that can inform inclusive education policy and practice in similar rural settings.

Through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, the study captures the lived experiences and professional insights of 20 teachers and 10 principals who navigate the complexities of multigrade teaching daily. The participants’ responses and accounts reveal a concerning picture: Multigrade classroom arrangements can sometimes challenge the delivery of high-quality teaching, especially for learners who thrive in personalised learning environments. In ecologically diverse settings, these challenges are compounded by the need to integrate local biodiversity knowledge, making adaptive and inclusive educational strategies essential. The Harry Gwala District serves as a microcosm of broader national challenges, where the intersection of poverty, geographic isolation, and systemic underfunding creates a perfect storm that undermines inclusive education efforts. These conditions limit access to quality education and perpetuate cycles of exclusion and inequality for learners with disabilities.

The objective of this study is to examine how multigrading affects the educational experiences and outcomes of learners with disabilities. The study also seeks to contribute to the broader conversation on educational equity by emphasising the pressing need for policies and resource distribution that are responsive to local contexts, such as multigrading.

The study adopts a qualitative approach grounded in interpretivist theory, thereby enabling a rich and in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, ensuring depth and richness in the findings. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns and insights, with particular attention paid to the emotional, pedagogical, and institutional dimensions of multigrade teaching. This methodological approach sheds light on the complex challenges embedded in the multigrade teaching context and highlights possible pathways for meaningful systemic reform.

The qualitative approach is effective in uncovering the subtle and neglected experiences of teachers operating in multigrade classrooms. It allows for a deeper understanding of how structural inequalities shape the educational trajectories of learners with disabilities.

The remainder of this study is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on multigrading and inclusive education. Section 3 outlines the research methodology in detail. Section 4 presents and discusses the findings of the study in relation to the existing literature and theoretical frameworks, while Section 5 discusses the study’s contribution to the broader knowledge on inclusive education.

2. Literature Review

This section explores the intersection of inclusive education and multigrade teaching, with a particular focus on learners with disabilities in rural South African contexts. While inclusive education and multigrade teaching are often studied in isolation, their convergence in rural schooling presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities that remain underexplored. The inclusive education literature frequently emphasises policy development and urban implementation (Kefallinou et al., 2020), whereas multigrade teaching is typically examined through curriculum delivery and teacher workload. This section bridges that gap by drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from education, disability studies, and rural development, using Ecological Systems Theory to understand the layered influences shaping inclusive education in multigrade settings. The section also foregrounds the lived realities of teachers and principals in the Harry Gwala District.

2.1. Conceptual Foundations of Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is globally recognised as both a human right and a pedagogical imperative. Foundational international frameworks such as the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Inclusive Education (UNCRPD, 2006), and UNESCO’s 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report collectively underscore the need for systemic transformation to ensure that all learners, particularly those with disabilities, are meaningfully included in mainstream education.

The foundation was established by the Salamanca Statement, which declared that all students should be accommodated in schools, irrespective of their linguistic, intellectual, social, emotional, physical, or other circumstances (UNESCO, 1994). It emphasised the importance of child-centred pedagogy and the restructuring of mainstream schools to become inclusive learning environments.

Building on this, General Comment No. 4 by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides a legally binding interpretation of Article 24 of the UNCRPD. It stresses that inclusive education is not merely about placement in mainstream settings but about systemic reform, including curriculum adaptation, teacher training, and the elimination of discriminatory attitudes and practices.

The 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report further highlights the persistent global disparities in access to inclusive education, calling for stronger accountability mechanisms, better data collection, and increased investment in inclusive practices.

In the South African context, Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001) and the SIAS policy (Department of Basic Education, 2014) echo these global commitments by advocating for the inclusion of all learners in mainstream classrooms. At the macrosystemic level, these policies reflect a national alignment with international norms and a commitment to equity and social justice. However, at the microsystemic level, the translation of these ideals into classroom practice remains fraught with challenges. Teachers often face inadequate training, limited resources, and systemic barriers that hinder the realisation of inclusive education.

By situating South African policy within this broader international discourse, this study acknowledges both the global consensus on inclusive education and the localised tensions that complicate its implementation.

2.2. Multigrade Teaching in Rural Contexts

Multigrade teaching is common in rural areas because of the shortage of teachers and low learner enrolments. This model demands high levels of instructional differentiation and classroom management. While Donnie et al. (2021) and Thaba-Nkadimene and Molotja (2021) highlight the potential for peer learning and learner autonomy, they also note that multigrade teaching often overwhelms teachers due to the complexity of juggling multiple curricula.

In KwaZulu-Natal, multigrade teaching is prevalent specifically due to small, geographically dispersed schools. Teachers in these contexts frequently experience professional isolation and limited support (Zulu & Mukeredzi, 2021), reflecting exosystemic shortcomings such as inadequate district-level backing and insufficient professional development. Taole et al. (2024) further emphasise that school leaders in rural multigrade contexts face significant challenges due to insufficient training and limited access to resources. These conditions hinder the ability of teachers to meet the diverse needs of learners, especially those with disabilities (Engelbrecht et al., 2017).

Recent scholarship by Herrera-Sedaa and Walton (2025) adds a critical dimension to this discussion by highlighting how teacher education in the Global South often mirrors Global North paradigms, neglecting the contextual realities of rural and multigrade environments. They advocate for decolonial and locally responsive frameworks that empower teachers to navigate inclusive education within their unique settings.

2.3. Intersection of Disability and Multigrade Pedagogy

Intersecting vulnerabilities across several ecological layers are introduced when learners with disabilities are included in multigrade classrooms. Despite complicated classroom dynamics, teachers are expected to respond to learners’ diverse support needs within the microsystem level. According to Deroncele-Acosta and Ellis (2024) and Rashid and Wong (2023), many teachers lack the resources and training necessary to deliver individualised teaching successfully. Jardinez and Natividad (2024) concur, asserting that limited infrastructure and professional development impede inclusive practices, particularly in multigrade settings.

Taneja-Johansson and Singal (2021) further emphasise that while inclusive education is globally endorsed, its implementation remains elusive due to contextual challenges. Their findings align with Wilcox et al. (2021) and Griggs and Moore (2022), who highlight how learners with diverse support needs often face social exclusion and limited learning opportunities in under-resourced multigrade classrooms due to systemic barriers and insufficient inclusive support. However, while Rashid and Wong (2023) focus on teacher preparedness, Taneja-Johansson and Singal (2021) stress the need for systemic humility and cross-contextual learning to address these gaps.

Moreover, recent technological advancements offer potential solutions. For instance, AI-powered inclusive education tools discussed by Singh et al. (2025) highlight how personalised learning plans can support multigrade classrooms, particularly in biodiverse regions, by fostering context-sensitive approaches that respect and integrate local ecological knowledge. This contrasts with earlier views that primarily emphasised human resource limitations, suggesting a shift toward hybrid pedagogical models.

Korkie et al. (2025) reinforce this perspective by arguing that inclusive education must be supported by interdisciplinary and context-sensitive training, especially in multigrade settings where systemic barriers are magnified. Their findings support the use of ecosystemic theory to address both institutional and pedagogical gaps.

2.4. Ecological Systems Theory as an Analytical Lens

A helpful framework for comprehending how different tiers of influence, from national policy to classroom practices, shape inclusive education in multigrade contexts is offered by Ecological Systems Theory. The size of the classroom, the requirements of the curriculum, and the resources available all influence teacher–learner interactions at the microsystem level. Relationships between schools and outside parties are part of the mesosystem, whereas district-level infrastructure and assistance are part of the exosystem. National policies and cultural perspectives on inclusion and disability are reflected in the macrosystem.

This layered approach helps explain why inclusive education policies often fail to translate into practice in rural multigrade contexts. For example, while White Paper 6 promotes inclusion, its implementation is hindered by exosystemic and mesosystemic barriers such as poor infrastructure, lack of assistive technologies, and limited teacher training (Wills & van der Berg, 2024). Jardinez and Natividad (2024) support this view, noting that the absence of aligned legislation and policy frameworks further complicates inclusive efforts. Comparatively, Taneja-Johansson and Singal (2021) argue that inclusive education must be reimagined post-COVID-19 to include socio-emotional well-being and community-based learning.

This broader interpretation of the ecological model suggests that inclusion is not only about access but also about nurturing holistic development through responsive, context-aware educational systems. The divergence in emphasis, between infrastructural limitations (Wills & van der Berg, 2024) and socio-emotional dimensions (Taneja-Johansson & Singal, 2021), highlights the need for a multi-pronged approach to policy reform.

2.5. Policy, Culture, and the Macrosystem

Although South Africa’s inclusive education regulations are in line with international standards, local cultural, economic, and infrastructure realities influence how they are implemented. The intricate web of limitations that rural schools frequently face affects how inclusion is implemented. In addition to pedagogical difficulties, teachers in these environments also have to deal with cultural perceptions of disability, which can have an impact on learner support and family participation.

Recent studies (e.g., Taole et al., 2024; Engelbrecht et al., 2017) suggest that without culturally responsive training and community engagement, inclusive education efforts may falter. This is reinforced by Ituma (2025), who argues that differentiated instruction grounded in cultural awareness is essential for bridging educational gaps in diverse and rural classrooms.

Similarly, Navas-Bonilla et al. (2025) emphasise the importance of adapting inclusive education strategies to local realities through the integration of context-sensitive technologies and pedagogical tools that foster equitable participation.

Poursalim (2025) introduce a technological dimension, proposing that inclusive education can be enhanced through adaptive learning technologies that respect cultural and linguistic diversity. This view complements but also expands upon Engelbrecht et al. (2017) emphasis on human-centred approaches, suggesting that technology and culture must coalesce in inclusive policy design.

Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights into the intersection of international education policy and local implementation. Key recommendations include prioritising culturally responsive practices, ensuring equitable resource distribution, and involving stakeholders in policy development. These findings support a more inclusive and effective educational framework.

This literature review has synthesised research across five key themes to illuminate the complex interplay between inclusive education and multigrade teaching in rural South African contexts. By applying Ecological Systems Theory, the section has highlighted how structural and human factors converge to shape educational outcomes for learners with disabilities. The review also identifies critical gaps in teacher support, policy implementation, and community engagement, setting the stage for the study’s empirical focus on the Harry Gwala District.

Recent research highlights the importance of inclusive education strategies that are culturally attuned, supported by technology, and tailored to specific local contexts (Armstrong, 2023). While scholars agree on the importance of inclusion, their perspectives diverge on the mechanisms, ranging from systemic reform and teacher training to AI-driven personalisation and community engagement. These insights reinforce the urgency of structural reforms and the integration of local knowledge to uphold the principles of inclusive education and fulfil international commitments such as Article 24 of the UNCRPD.

2.6. Gaps in the Literature: Towards a Multilevel Understanding

Although there is a considerable body of research on inclusive education and multigrade teaching as distinct areas, such as Ainscow (2020); L. Recla and Potane (2024); Florian and Black-Hawkins (2021), limited attention has been given to how these two domains intersect, especially when viewed through a multilevel ecological framework. Much of the existing literature tends to concentrate either on classroom-level strategies or on broader policy discussions, often neglecting the dynamic interplay between these levels (Zusho & Prieto, 2020; Rapp & Corral-Granados, 2021; Freeman-Green et al., 2023).

Moreover, the perspectives of teachers who navigate the complexities of inclusive, multigrade classrooms are seldom highlighted, leaving a critical gap in understanding the lived realities of these educational settings. To address the identified gaps in the literature, this study applied Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory as both a conceptual and analytical framework to explore the intersection of inclusive education and multigrade teaching. This study reveals the complex, multi-layered influences that shape educational experiences for learners with disabilities. It does so by examining how these two domains (inclusive education and multigrade teaching) interact across the microsystem (classroom-level interactions), mesosystem (relationships among teachers, principals, and parents), exosystem (district-level support and resource allocation), macrosystem (national education policies and cultural attitudes), and chronosystem (historical and policy shifts over time). This approach allows the researcher to move beyond fragmented discussions of classroom strategies or policy frameworks and instead highlight the dynamic interplay between these levels, an area often neglected in existing research.

Importantly, the inclusion of both teachers and principals as participants through interviews and focus group discussions strengthens the study’s contribution by capturing a broader spectrum of lived experiences and institutional perspectives. Teachers offer insights into the daily realities and emotional stress of managing inclusive, multigrade classrooms, while principals provide a strategic and operational view of the systemic constraints and leadership challenges involved. By highlighting these perspectives, this study addresses a significant gap in empirical research, and enhances theoretical understanding by demonstrating how ecological systems function within actual educational environments. The findings can guide recommendations across multiple levels, from teaching methods in the classroom to leadership approaches and policy development, offering a comprehensive and practical contribution to advancing inclusive education in rural, multigrade settings.

3. Research Methodology

This section outlines the research design, methodology, and procedures employed in this study, which explores the impact of multigrading on learners with disabilities in the Harry Gwala District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. It presents the philosophical underpinnings of the study, justifies the case study design, details the sampling strategy, describes data collection and analysis procedures, and discusses validation strategies. Each methodological decision is supported by seminal literature, including the works of Yin (2018), Creswell and Creswell Báez (2021), and Creswell and Creswell (2022), to ensure rigor, transparency, and theoretical traceability.

The study is guided by the following central research question: how does multigrade classroom arrangement affect the educational experiences and outcomes of learners with disabilities in rural South African schools?

This question is exploratory in nature and aligns with the qualitative design, which does not require formal hypotheses but seeks to uncover patterns, meanings, and systemic influences through rich, context-specific data.

Given the complexity of inclusive education in multigrade settings, a qualitative case study approach was deemed most appropriate for capturing the nuanced experiences of teachers and school leaders. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the lived realities of participants, thereby enabling the researcher to uncover insights that may not be visible through quantitative methods (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). Chafe (2024) explains that an interpretivist paradigm in qualitative research emphasises the socially constructed nature of reality, highlighting how individuals’ experiences and perspectives, particularly in educational contexts, are shaped through social interactions and subjective meanings. This paradigm aligns with the study’s aim to understand how multigrading affects learners with disabilities within their real-world educational environments.

Ethical considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and respect for participants’ autonomy, were central to the research design and are discussed in detail later in the section.

3.1. Research Paradigm and Design

This study is situated within the interpretivist paradigm, which emphasises understanding the subjective experiences and meanings constructed by individuals within their social contexts (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). Given the study’s focus on the lived experiences of teachers and principals in multigrade classrooms, a qualitative case study design was selected. While the study focused on teachers’ perspectives to understand instructional and systemic dynamics, it acknowledges the absence of direct learner voice as a limitation and recommends future research that centres the experiences of learners with disabilities to uphold inclusive and participatory research ethics.

According to Yin (2018), a case study is suitable when the research seeks to explore a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly defined. This study employed a single instrumental case study design, using the Harry Gwala District as a bounded context to investigate broader issues related to inclusive education in multigrade settings. This design enabled a detailed examination of systemic and contextual factors without aiming for statistical generalisation (Quintao et al., 2020; Berger & Luckmann, 1966/2020).

The interpretivist paradigm also supports flexible, emergent research designs that evolve in response to the data and context (Lincoln et al., 2018). This flexibility was essential in navigating the dynamic realities of rural multigrade classrooms. The design facilitated prolonged engagement with participants, enabling the researcher to build trust and gain deeper insights into the socio-cultural and institutional dynamics at play. The case study approach also allowed for the integration of multiple data sources, interviews, focus groups, and document analysis, enhancing the credibility and depth of the findings through triangulation.

3.2. Sampling Strategy

This study employed purposive sampling, a non-probability technique widely used in qualitative research to select participants who can provide rich, relevant, and diverse insights into the phenomenon under investigation (Ahmad & Wilkins, 2025). The sample comprised 20 teachers and 10 principals from multigrade schools in the Harry Gwala District. Participants were selected based on their direct experience with multigrade teaching and inclusive education.

Theoretical justification for this sampling lies in the need to engage with those most affected by and knowledgeable about the phenomenon. Sampling continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point at which no new themes or insights emerged from additional interviews—guided by recent discussions on saturation as a critical marker of completeness and rigor in qualitative research (Sebele-Mpofu, 2025). The diversity of participants in terms of school size, location, and teaching experience further enhanced the richness of the data.

3.3. Data Collection Methods

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, allowing for both individual depth and collective reflection. Interviews were conducted with principals to capture leadership perspectives, while focus group discussions with teachers facilitated the exploration of shared challenges and coping strategies.

Participants were purposively sampled from ten farm schools within the Harry Gwala District to ensure contextual depth and relevance. While all schools shared the rural, under-resourced characteristics typical of farm schools, variation was sought in terms of school size, staffing levels, and learner demographics. Including both principals and teachers enabled the study to capture perspectives from both leadership and classroom levels.

Thematic saturation was considered reached when no new codes or themes emerged from the final two focus group discussions and interviews. This was assessed through iterative coding and memo-writing, where recurring patterns became increasingly redundant, and no novel insights were identified. The decision was further validated through peer debriefing sessions.

All sessions were audio-recorded with participants’ consent to ensure accuracy and completeness. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and annotated manually using field notes to capture non-verbal cues, contextual details, and emotional tones. This multimodal annotation enriched the interpretive depth of the analysis.

The interview and focus group protocols were developed based on the conceptual framework of inclusive education and multigrade pedagogy. Questions were open-ended and flexible, allowing participants to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives.

3.4. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s updated six-phase framework:

Familiarisation

Coding

Theme development

Reviewing themes

Defining themes

Writing up

The process was both inductive and deductive, allowing themes to emerge from the data while also being informed by the conceptual framework (Ibrahim et al., 2025). Coding was conducted manually and supported by NVivo 12 software to enhance organisation and traceability. A codebook was developed iteratively, and codes were refined through constant comparison.

To ensure transparency, an audit trail of coding decisions and theme development was maintained. The conceptual framework informed the analysis by connecting empirical data to key theoretical concepts such as differentiated instruction, inclusive teaching practices, and structural support mechanisms.

3.5. Trustworthiness and Validation Strategies

To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, several validation strategies were employed:

Triangulation: data were triangulated across sources (teachers and principals) and methods (interviews and focus groups) to corroborate findings, following recent methodological insights that emphasise triangulation as a means to enhance credibility, validity, and depth in qualitative research (Vivek et al., 2023).

Member checking: preliminary findings were shared with a subset of participants to verify accuracy and ensure alignment with their lived experiences, using a participatory approach that fosters co-creation and enhances the trustworthiness of qualitative findings (Kullman & Chudyk, 2025).

Peer debriefing: the researcher engaged with academic peers to challenge interpretations and ensure analytical rigor.

Thick description: detailed contextual information was provided to enable transferability of findings to similar settings.

Reflexivity and Research Transparency: As a university-based academic with a background in inclusive education, the researcher maintained a reflexive journal throughout the study to critically examine personal assumptions and positionality. This reflexive journal encouraged continuous consideration of the potential effects of theoretical orientation and professional experience on data interpretation. The researcher took a position of cultural humility, acknowledging the power dynamics present in the research process, given the delicate environment of farm schools in the Harry Gwala district, which is characterised by socio-economic marginalisation and systematic neglect. Every person was treated with respect and encouraged to participate. Peer debriefing enhanced the study’s credibility and ethical integrity by exposing blind spots and posing interpretive biases, therefore promoting reflexive practice.

Indicators of saturation were observed when no new themes emerged during the final rounds of data analysis, particularly after the 8th teacher focus group and 7th principal interview. At this point, data became repetitive and thematically saturated.

Sampling variation was also considered. While the study focused on rural multigrade schools, efforts were made to include schools of varying sizes and geographic remoteness within the Harry Gwala District to ensure contextual diversity and richer insights.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained, and participants were informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights, including voluntary participation and confidentiality. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ identities, and all data were securely stored on a password-protected computer and backed up on an encrypted external hard drive. Access to the data was restricted to the researcher, and all digital files were stored in folders protected by two-factor authentication.

In conclusion, this section has detailed the study’s methodological approach, covering essential components such as the research design, participant selection, data collection methods, analytical procedures, and validation strategies. Each stage was anchored in both foundational and contemporary literature to ensure methodological integrity and theoretical alignment. The following section presents the findings that emerged from this carefully structured research process.

4. Results

This section presents the findings of the study on the effects of multigrade classroom settings on learners with disabilities in the Harry Gwala District. The results are organised thematically and interpreted through Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Each theme is supported by direct quotes from participants and reflects the layered challenges and opportunities within multigrade inclusive education.

4.1. Instructional Challenges in Multigrade Settings (Microsystem)

Teachers reported difficulties in providing differentiated instruction due to the demands of managing multiple curricula simultaneously. Learners with disabilities often received insufficient support, particularly in classrooms with wide grade spans.

“I have Grade 2, 3, and 4 in one room. I can’t give enough time to the child who needs more help. It’s not fair to them.”

(Teacher, School A)

• This reflects a core microsystemic challenge where instructional overload compromises the ability to meet diverse learning needs.

4.2. Emotional and Professional Strain on Teachers (Microsystem and Mesosystem)

Participants described emotional exhaustion, feelings of inadequacy, and a lack of professional development tailored to inclusive education in multigrade contexts.

“We are expected to teach everyone, but we were never trained for this. It’s emotionally draining.”

(Teacher, School D)

• This theme highlights the intersection of personal well-being and institutional support, revealing how mesosystemic gaps in training and collegial support exacerbate stress.

4.3. Systemic Resource Limitations (Exosystem)

A lack of assistive devices, inclusive learning materials, and access to specialist support services was a recurring concern. These limitations were not isolated but systemic across schools.

“We don’t even have enough desks and chairs, let alone resources for learners with disabilities.”

(Principal, School F)

• This exosystemic constraint reflects broader infrastructural and policy-level shortcomings that hinder inclusive implementation.

4.4. Leadership and Institutional Support (Mesosystem and Exosystem)

School leaders expressed a strong commitment to inclusive education but cited limited autonomy, unclear policy directives, and insufficient training as barriers to effective support.

“We want to support our teachers, but we don’t have the tools or the training ourselves.”

(Principal, School B)

• This theme illustrates the disconnect between policy expectations and institutional capacity, revealing leadership as both a potential enabler and a constrained actor.

4.5. Implications for Learner Development (Microsystem and Chronosystem)

Teachers observed that learners with disabilities often experienced frustration, low self-esteem, and academic stagnation over time. These outcomes were attributed to persistent instructional and systemic barriers.

“Some of these learners just give up. They stop trying because they know they won’t get the help they need.”

(Teacher, School C)

• This theme connects immediate classroom experiences to long-term developmental trajectories, underscoring the chronosystemic impact of sustained exclusion.

5. Discussion

This section interprets the findings presented in Section 4 through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, offering a layered analysis of the challenges and possibilities for inclusive education in multigrade rural settings. The discussion is structured thematically, integrating participant voices, theoretical insights, and empirical literature to provide a coherent, balanced, and compelling narrative.

5.1. Instructional Challenges and Inclusive Practice

This study confirms that multigrade classrooms significantly hinder differentiated instruction, especially for learners with disabilities. Teachers’ accounts of managing multiple curricula simultaneously (Section 4.1) illustrate how instructional overload leads to fragmented attention and reduced learner engagement. This aligns with L. C. B. Recla and Potane (2024) and Khanna and Bhola (2023), who argue that multigrade settings complicate inclusive teaching. However, this study extends their argument by showing how microsystemic pressures, such as time constraints and curriculum complexity, create environments where inclusive intentions are undermined by structural limitations. The quote from a teacher juggling Grades 2, 3, and 4 poignantly captures the ethical tension between professional commitment and practical feasibility.

5.2. Teacher Well-Being and Professional Support

Teachers’ emotional exhaustion and lack of training (Section 4.2) reflect challenges within both the microsystem (individual stress) and mesosystem (school-level interactions). The emotional toll described by participants supports Calandri et al. (2025), who emphasise the need for emotional competence and collegial support. This study adds nuance by revealing how mesosystemic gaps in professional development and peer collaboration exacerbate stress, leading to feelings of inadequacy and burnout. The quote, “We were never trained for this,” underscores the systemic neglect of teacher preparation for inclusive multigrade contexts. These findings suggest that teacher well-being must be reframed as a structural concern, not merely a personal challenge.

5.3. Resource Constraints and Systemic Barriers

The exosystemic lack of resources, including assistive devices, inclusive materials, and specialist support, was a recurring theme (Section 4.3). This aligns with Isaacs et al. (2025), who highlight infrastructure deficits as barriers to inclusion. However, this study deepens the analysis by showing how these deficits are compounded in rural multigrade settings, where even basic resources like desks and chairs are scarce. The principal’s statement about lacking furniture, let alone disability-specific resources, illustrates the layered nature of exclusion. These findings point to a systemic failure that transcends individual schools, requiring coordinated policy and funding interventions.

5.4. Leadership and Policy–Practice Gaps

School leaders expressed commitment to inclusive education but cited limited autonomy and unclear policy guidance as major constraints (Section 4.4). This reflects disconnects within the mesosystem and exosystem, where institutional capacity does not match policy expectations. The findings support Walton et al. (2019), who call for coherent leadership and policy alignment. Yet, this study also reveals a paradox of leadership: despite systemic constraints, some principals demonstrated agency and innovation. Their efforts suggest that empowered leadership, even in resource-poor contexts, can drive meaningful change. However, without systemic support, such efforts remain isolated and vulnerable to burnout.

5.5. Learner Outcomes and Long-Term Impact

Teachers observed that learners with disabilities often experienced frustration, low self-esteem, and academic stagnation over time (Section 4.5). These outcomes reflect the chronosystemic impact of sustained exclusion, where early educational disadvantages accumulate into long-term developmental setbacks. This finding is consistent with Burchinal et al. (2024), who link early learning environments to lifelong outcomes. The quote, “Some of these learners just give up,” is a stark reminder that inclusive education is not only about access but about sustained, meaningful engagement. The study underscores the urgency of addressing systemic exclusion to prevent entrenched educational disadvantage.

5.6. Contradictions, Surprises, and Limitations

A surprising finding was the strong commitment of some principals to inclusive education despite severe resource constraints. This contradiction suggests that leadership-driven change is possible, even in under-resourced settings. It highlights the importance of empowering school leaders through targeted training and policy support. However, the study’s focus on one district limits generalisability. Future research should explore whether similar patterns exist in other rural contexts, and how leadership agency can be scaled and sustained.

5.7. Synthesis of Findings

This study reveals a multi-layered interplay of ecological factors that shape inclusive education in multigrade rural settings:

At the microsystem level, instructional overload and lack of differentiation hinder inclusive practice.

Within the mesosystem, inadequate training and fragmented leadership structures exacerbate teacher stress.

The exosystem reveals systemic resource constraints and policy–practice gaps that undermine implementation.

The chronosystem highlights the long-term consequences of exclusion for learners with disabilities.

These findings reinforce that inclusive education in multigrade settings cannot be achieved through isolated interventions. It requires systemic reform that transforms classroom practice, strengthens institutional support, and aligns policy with the lived realities of educators and learners. The compounded challenges of multigrade classrooms demand a multi-level response, one that is responsive, resourced, and resilient.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

This study explored the impact of multigrade classroom arrangements on learners with disabilities in the Harry Gwala District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, the research examined how systemic factors, from classroom-level practices to broader policy environments, shape the educational experiences of these learners.

The study addressed three key objectives:

To examine how multigrade teaching affects the inclusion of learners with disabilities.

To explore the lived experiences of teachers and principals in implementing inclusive education in multigrade rural schools.

To identify systemic barriers and enabling factors that influence inclusive practices in these contexts.

Findings revealed that at the microsystem level, teachers face significant instructional challenges due to the complexity of managing multiple grades simultaneously. Learners with disabilities often receive insufficient support, leading to disengagement and limited academic progress. This aligns with L. C. B. Recla and Potane (2024), who argue that multigrade settings complicate differentiated instruction and inclusive pedagogy.

At the mesosystem level, the lack of collaboration and professional support among educators contributes to emotional exhaustion and professional isolation. These findings are consistent with Calandri et al. (2025), who emphasise the importance of collegial support and emotional competence in inclusive education.

The exosystem further compounds these challenges through chronic resource shortages and policy–practice gaps. Isaacs et al. (2025) similarly highlight infrastructure and service deficits as systemic barriers to inclusion. The chronosystem dimension reveals that prolonged exposure to unsupported learning environments can have lasting developmental consequences for learners with disabilities, echoing Burchinal et al. (2024).

Despite these challenges, the study also uncovered opportunities for transformation. Some principals demonstrated strong commitment to inclusive education, suggesting that leadership agency can be a catalyst for change even in under-resourced settings. This finding supports Walton et al. (2019), who advocate for coherent leadership and policy alignment to strengthen inclusive practices.

Multigrade classrooms should not be phased out but rather strengthened through structural reforms that enhance their capacity to support diverse learning profiles. This includes developing accessible pedagogical approaches, integrating assistive technologies, adopting co-teaching models, and enabling access to itinerant support specialists. Such reforms uphold the principles of inclusive education and align with international commitments, including Article 24 of the UNCRPD, by enabling learners to thrive within their local communities.

A notable limitation of this study is the absence of direct input from learners with disabilities. While the focus on teachers and principals provided valuable insights into instructional and systemic dynamics, future research should adopt participatory approaches that centre the voices of learners themselves. This would enrich the analysis and align with inclusive research ethics and the principles of learner agency.

6.2. Contribution to the Body of Knowledge

This study makes a significant contribution to the literature on inclusive education by addressing a critical and underexplored intersection: the impact of multigrade classroom arrangements on learners with disabilities in rural South African contexts.

While multigrade teaching has been extensively explored for its general instructional dynamics, this study brings into focus the unique and often compounded challenges experienced by learners with disabilities, advocating for inclusive practices that honour the diverse learning needs and strengths of all learners within these settings. By applying Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, the study offers a multi-layered analysis that connects classroom-level instructional challenges with broader systemic and institutional dynamics.

The study introduces new knowledge by doing the following:

Empirically documenting the emotional and professional toll on teachers, with all participants reporting a lack of preparedness for managing inclusive multigrade classrooms.

Extending existing research by highlighting the long-term developmental risks for learners with disabilities and the policy–practice gaps that perpetuate educational inequality.

Challenging the prevailing narrative of multigrading as a necessary compromise by proposing evidence-based reforms that can transform these settings into inclusive, community-based learning environments.

These insights are valuable for principals, teachers, policymakers, and researchers committed to advancing equity and inclusion in education. The study reinforces the need for context-sensitive, systemic interventions that address both pedagogical and structural dimensions of inclusive education in rural multigrade schools.

6.3. Recommendations

6.3.1. Policy Reform and Structural Change

Transform multigrade classrooms through targeted support and inclusive design, particularly in contexts where they remain necessary due to geographic or economic constraints. Where multigrading significantly hinders inclusion, consider gradual restructuring supported by infrastructure and staffing improvements.

Develop and implement inclusive education policies that are contextually grounded, particularly in rural and under-resourced settings, ensuring they reflect the lived realities of schools and promote equitable access to quality education for all learners.

6.3.2. Teacher Training and Professional Development

Invest in specialised teacher training focused on inclusive education strategies for multigrade settings, including flexible grouping, differentiated instruction, and learner support planning.

Establish continuous professional development and peer support networks to mitigate teacher isolation and burnout, ensuring teachers are equipped and supported in implementing inclusive practices within multigrade classrooms.

6.3.3. Resource Allocation and Infrastructure

Increase funding for assistive technologies, learning materials, and support personnel (e.g., therapists, learning support teachers) in rural schools.

Ensure that basic infrastructure needs, such as classroom space, furniture, and teaching aids, are met to create conducive learning environments.

6.3.4. Leadership and Institutional Support

Equip school principals with training focused on inclusive education and the transition away from multigrade classrooms. Leadership development should prioritise strategies for managing change, reallocating resources, and fostering inclusive, single-grade learning environments.

Promote collaborative school cultures where principals, teachers, and support staff work together to design and implement inclusive practices that support all learners during and beyond the transition.

6.3.5. Monitoring and Evaluation

Establish robust monitoring systems to track the academic and emotional development of learners with disabilities, particularly during the transition away from multigrade classrooms. These systems should generate data-driven insights to guide inclusive education policy reforms and ensure equitable allocation of resources in support of single-grade, inclusive learning environments.

6.3.6. Pedagogical and Community-Based Innovations

Flexible grouping strategies: Encourage teachers to use dynamic grouping based on learners’ interests, strengths, and support needs rather than fixed grade levels. This promotes peer learning and accommodates diverse learning profiles.

Teacher co-creation of learning materials: Teachers in multigrade classes should be encouraged to collaborate in creating contextually relevant instructional materials. In addition to encouraging professional agency, this co-creation method guarantees that the materials are adapted to the various linguistic backgrounds and learning requirements of the learners. Workshops for peer-led resource development and online forums for sharing can help with this endeavour.

Community-based supports: Involve family members, community leaders, and disability advocates in inclusive education initiatives to reinforce relationships between local communities and schools. In raising awareness, assisting students with impairments, and encouraging inclusive practices, these stakeholders can be extremely helpful. To improve learner support, schools should set up frequent platforms for community involvement and make use of local expertise.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Integrate UDL principles into curriculum planning and instructional delivery to accommodate learner variability. This includes providing multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. UDL can be particularly effective in multigrade settings, where learners differ widely in age, ability, and learning style. Teacher training should include practical strategies for implementing UDL in resource-constrained environments.