Exploring Curriculum Implementation for Learners with Intellectual Disability in South Africa

Abstract

In South Africa, learners with intellectual disability (ID) have historically been marginalised from mainstream education, despite policies like Education White Paper 6, which advocates for inclusive education. The implementation of appropriate curricula for these learners remains a significant challenge, with many still excluded from equitable educational opportunities. This study examines different curricula for learners with intellectual disability in South Africa, aiming to contribute to an evidence base to guide future curriculum improvements and promote inclusive education practices. A qualitative research approach was employed, utilising semi-structured interviews with 20 participants, including education officials, teachers, parents, and learners with intellectual disability. Thematic analysis, aided by NVivo (14) software, was used to identify three key themes: (a) separate curriculum goals and learner placement, (b) common curriculum with adjusted access, pace, and support and (c) supportive efforts. While significant strides have been made in developing curricula for learners with ID, this study highlights the need for continued reform to ensure true inclusion and equity. The use of alternate curricula needs to be approached with caution and collaborative efforts between relevant stakeholders are key in overcoming the existing challenges and advancing inclusive education in South Africa.

1. Introduction

Children with intellectual disability (ID) have historically been excluded from education and from progressing toward full participation in general society (Tyabashe-Phume, 2023). Developing countries, such as South Africa, are grappling with addressing these high levels of exclusion through the implementation of inclusive education in contexts of underdevelopment, and with colonial legacies (Walton, 2018). The South African Schools Act (Department of Education, 1996) legislated the possibility of inclusive schooling by asserting that where it is reasonably practicable, learners with special education needs should be served in the mainstream and relevant support should be provided for these learners (Walton, 2018). Mainstream education refers to ordinary schools within the national education system that follow the standard curriculum and are intended to accommodate all learners, including those with disabilities, within inclusive education policy frameworks (Pillay & Di Terlizzi, 2009). Education White Paper 6 (EWP6), accessed on 31 October 2024: Special Needs Education was published in 2001, as the basis for inclusive education policy in South Africa and promotes the right to quality basic education, regardless of gender, age, race and disability and highlights that every learner with and without disabilities should pursue their learning potential to the fullest (Department of Education, 2001).

Curriculum is defined as an agreed-upon or legislated policy document that outlines learning goals for students in specific grades and which structures content and learning experiences for students to engage with in their educational settings (Raley et al., 2018; Wehmeyer et al., 2020). It includes not only the content of what is taught but also the underlying principles, objectives, methods and assessments guiding the students’ educational experience (Moljord, 2020). The South African curriculum reform process takes place in a global context, of inclusive, equitable, quality education and lifelong learning as expressed in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 (https://sdgs.un.org/, accessed on 31 October 2024). In reporting on SDG4, the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) report of 2020 (UNESCO, 2020) states that: ‘All children should learn from the same flexible, relevant and accessible curriculum, one that recognises diversity and responds to various learners’ needs. Yet many countries still teach students with disabilities a special curriculum…’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 21).

Currently, in South Africa, children with mild, moderate and severe ID attend both regular and special schools. Evidence from the implementation of inclusive education indicates that one of the major barriers experienced by this group is an inappropriate or irrelevant curriculum (J. McKenzie, 2021; Isaacs et al., 2025). Differentiation of the national curriculum, as envisaged by EWP6, appeared to be untenable in the views of many who felt the need for a curriculum more directly tailored to the learning needs of learners with ID, particularly with regard to more functional and vocational skills (Department of Basic Education, 2018). Children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities are largely excluded from the formal education system, either remaining at home or attending special care centres (Diale, 2022).

The study presented in this paper explores curriculum implementation for learners with mild, moderate, severe and profound ID in South Africa in an inclusive education system. The study is primarily situated within the Western Cape context and does not claim to represent all provinces in South Africa. The timing of this study is particularly important in the South African context as EWP6 undergoes review for the next phase of inclusive education policy development.

2. Curriculum Policy Background

The global implementation of inclusive education is not uniform but rather it takes different forms in different contexts. In South Africa, inclusive education policy and its implementation are inseparable from the historic use of curriculum as a method of domination of the black majority under the apartheid regime (Brown, 2016; J. McKenzie, 2021). ‘Bantu education’ was predicated upon rendering the black population docile as an unskilled labour force to service their white capitalist masters (Gwalla-Ogisi et al., 1998). This was evident across the education system and in learner support and provision for special education. Provision was inequitable on racial lines and adopted the segregated, special education view for educating children with disabilities in special schools (Department of Education, 2001). With the advent of democracy, there was a huge impetus for change toward one curriculum for all which aimed to empower and create opportunities for all South African citizens rather than as a means of oppression (Nkabinde, 1993).

The Education White Paper 6 aimed to address the racial inequity, limited educational access and segregation of children under the apartheid regime (Department of Education, 2001; Brown, 2016). At the same time, the policy recognised multiple causes of educational disadvantage. The term ‘special needs’ was expanded to encompass barriers to learning which might arise from multiple forms of disadvantage including economic, social and linguistic factors as well as psychosocial challenges, such as the effects of HIV/AIDS (Naicker, 2019; Gow et al., 2020). The vision of EWP6 was one of inclusive education where all children would learn together within a seamless system of support that would address not only disability but also a range of barriers to learning arising from poverty, inequality, and other social conditions (Department of Education, 2001; Naicker, 2019).

Estimates of the number of children with disabilities who are out of school is a contested issue in South Africa. However, the best evidence suggests that at least 300,000–500,000 children with ID are likely out of school in South Africa. Given South Africa’s exceptionally high Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FASD) rates, HIV-related neurodevelopmental impairment, and other local risk factors the true figure is likely to be in the upper range (Capri et al., 2018). The number of children expected to be catered for in each of these models that are discussed below cannot therefore be indicated with any certainty but Kleintjes et al. (2006) estimate prevalence of ID in the Western Cape in the following proportion: mild ID at 2.5%, moderate at 0.4% and profound ID at 0.15%.

A central tenet of the inclusive education policy was a firm commitment to one curriculum for all (J. A. McKenzie & Dalton, 2020). This is reflected in the adoption of curriculum differentiation as the major strategy for inclusion of learners with ID (J. A. McKenzie & Dalton, 2020; Sepadi, 2025). However, this view has changed over the past ten years based on the observation that learners with mild ID were not able to obtain certification under the national senior certificate qualification (Department of Basic Education, 2018). Furthermore, teachers have found it difficult to adapt to the needs of these learners and frequently make use of referral strategies to special schools when they are unable to cope in the regular classroom (J. McKenzie et al., 2018; Malahlela & Johnson, 2024; Sepadi, 2025). Parents and families have described endless struggles in getting their children with ID accepted into regular or even special schools, especially when their children have multiple disabilities (Human Rights Watch, 2015).

In 2010, after extensive advocacy, the Western Cape Forum for Intellectual Disability (WCFID), representing a range of organisations working with people with ID and their families, tackled the exclusion of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in a case against South Africa’s National and Western Cape governments (Wood et al., 2019). The forum argued that the state failed to meet its constitutional and legislative obligations to provide formal education for these children, who were excluded from both mainstream and special schools due to their high support needs (Wood et al., 2019). The Western Cape High Court ruled in favour of the Forum, finding the governments in breach of the children’s rights to basic education, protection, equality, and dignity (Western Cape High Court, 2011). The judgement mandated actions to ensure quality education, including developing suitable curricula for learners with severe and profound ID.

Current Curricula for Learners with ID in South Africa

A working group was set up by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) in 2013 to review the curriculum for learners with ID. The first programme for mild-to-moderate ID was to be a full qualification with its own curriculum as part of the National Curriculum Statement (NCS), while the others were seen as learning programmes within the framework of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy (Department of Basic Education, 2016b). While the intention was to develop programmes that could be delivered in a variety of educational settings, these curricula or learning programmes became aligned with a place of teaching in the course of the curriculum development process: children with mild-to-moderate ID would be in schools of skills for vocational training, children with severe ID would be in special schools and the curriculum for profound ID would be for children currently not accommodated in the education system (J. McKenzie, 2021; Walton & Engelbrecht, 2024). The latter concerned children who were either out of school or partially accommodated in special care centres, and who had won the right to be included in education through a court case brought against the National Government of the Republic of South Africa as well as the provincial government of the Western Cape Province (Wood et al., 2019).

Currently the approach that the Department of Basic Education (DBE) has taken is described in its presentation on progress in inclusive education to the portfolio committee in basic education in parliament on 5 September 2023 (Department of Basic Education, 2023):

(a)

Learners with severe and profound ID are offered the learning programme for learners with profound intellectual disability, which is largely delivered at special care centres.

(b)

The Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement for Learners with Severe Intellectual Disabilities is being piloted in special schools for learners with severe intellectual disability.

(c)

The needs of learners with mild to moderate ID are intended to be addressed through the Occupational Stream for Learners with Mild to Moderate Intellectual disability, which is also being developed as a third stream of education within the national curriculum.

In this process, education for learners with ID in South Africa has seen a shift from one curriculum for all within the general education system as a relatively low-cost and simple solution to an elaborate system of three different curricula. This raises questions as to how and whether these learning programmes can be implemented in such a way that ensures inclusion and equity for learners with ID.

According to the Department of Basic Education, the Curriculum for Learners with mild to moderate ID focuses on providing adapted academic content that allows learners to engage with the general curriculum at a modified pace and less complex level. This curriculum is explicitly positioned as a bridging and pre-vocational pathway that connects school learning to later technical and vocational options and designed for learners aged 14 to 18 years, spanning a comprehensive three to four-year programme. Academic subjects are intended to develop learners’ essential foundational knowledge, while skills subjects focus on practical, hands-on learning, allowing learners to acquire specific competencies relevant to various vocational fields (Western Cape Education Department, 2013).

The Learning Programme for Learners with Severe ID emphasises functional academics and life skills, supporting learners to build independence in everyday tasks. The Differentiated Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (DCAPS) for learners with SID has been piloted at special schools since 2018, catering to students up to the age of 18 years (Department of Basic Education, 2016a). This programme is a breakdown of the standard content into smaller, more manageable units, allowing for incremental and measurable learning progress. The curriculum covers both academic and skills-based subjects, aligned with the Grade R-9 framework (Department of Basic Education, 2016a).

By offering a balance between academic instruction and practical skill development, the DCAPS curriculum aims to foster cognitive growth and functional independence, equipping learners with essential life skills needed for everyday living (Department of Basic Education, 2016a). The inclusion of skill subjects provides opportunities for learners to develop competencies in areas such as arts and crafts, basic vocational skills, and personal care. In addition, the DCAPS places significant emphasis on creating an inclusive and adaptive learning environment for learners with SID (Department of Basic Education, 2016a). It aims to ensure that learners can actively engage without being overwhelmed by the demands of the standard curriculum. This approach is intended to promote social and emotional growth, and help learners build confidence and self-esteem through achievable goals.

Learners with profound ID were historically excluded from formal education in South Africa, often relegated to home care or special care centres with limited access to structured learning (Wood et al., 2019). The ruling in the court case described above led to the development of the learning programme for learners with PID, which now operates in special schools and care centres. This programme is guided by a modified version of the Grade R–5 CAPS framework that focuses on essential developmental areas like communication, spatial awareness, and life skills (Department of Basic Education, 2016a). This programme is for learners aged 3 to 18 years, but it is significantly adapted to meet the specific needs of learners with PID (Department of Basic Education, 2016a). One of the key characteristics of this programme is its delivery model, which is often facilitated by caregivers rather than qualified educators. The experience of these caregivers needs to be acknowledged, but they are not qualified teachers and many of these children are not taught in schools but in special care centres.

Assessments for school placements of learners with ID are considered to be critical in determining the most appropriate educational setting to meet their unique needs. Conducted by multidisciplinary teams (i.e., psychologists, special education specialists, and other medical professionals), these assessments evaluate cognitive, emotional, and social functioning using standardised tests, screenings, observations, and caregiver input (Department of Basic Education, 2014). The stated aims are to understand the learner’s abilities, challenges, and specific support requirements, and then classify learners by their severity groups: mild/moderate, severe and profound intellectual disability. However, skilled personnel to carry out this work are scarce on the ground and learners do not always fit neatly into these categories (J. McKenzie et al., 2018).

A frequently expressed concern around the adaptation of the curriculum in general education is the possible neglect of the ‘traditional’, special education focus on life skills and social skills with a much stronger focus on academic skills. This is seen as a crisis by some, limiting the prospects of persons with severe intellectual disabilities or profound and multiple learning difficulties (Moljord, 2020). They argue that the teaching of functional skills, a long-time focus of special education, should not be set aside, becoming the ‘ignored curriculum’ (Moljord, 2020). It is perhaps this concern that has led to a growing practice of developing alternate curricula for learners with ID, which are intended to be specifically designed for the learning needs of this group of learners (Hanreddy & Östlund, 2020). This tendency is also evident in Norway (Moljord, 2020) and Ireland according to severity of disability in terms of mild, moderate, severe and profound ID (J. McKenzie, 2021; Morrissey et al., 2024). Similarly, alternate curricula have been developed and are now being piloted in South Africa.

J. McKenzie (2021) notes how the three curricula became aligned with different placements: children with mild-to-moderate ID in schools of skills for vocational training; those with severe ID in special schools; and the curriculum for profound ID designed for children previously entirely excluded from the education system, who won the right to be included through a court case. Rens and Louw (2021) found that teachers implementing the life skills CAPS for learners with severe ID in Northwest province faced challenges including limited resources, lack of specialised workbooks, heavy workload, and excessive assessments. Solomon et al. (2024) similarly found that the DCAPS vocational curriculum lacks learning and teaching support materials does not come with textbooks, requiring teachers to source all materials independently, with inadequate training and poor support systems identified as the primary implementation barriers.

These implementation challenges are compounded by inadequate capacity in the system more broadly. Vergunst et al. (2021) note that children with severe to profound ID have historically been excluded from the compulsory education system in South Africa, and that training of educators and caregivers is only in its infancy. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and deepened these gaps. Mudali and Munongi (2025) document the educational challenges experienced by learners with severe ID from low socioeconomic backgrounds were exacerbated during the pandemic. A further concern is to what extent these curricula prepare learners for life beyond school. Ellman et al. (2020) describe the significant challenges faced by parents of youths with severe ID navigating the transition from special school to post-school life, noting the limited support available at this critical juncture.

With regard to implementation, teachers are not passive recipients of curriculum demands. Genovesi et al. (2025) demonstrated in a systematic review of 28 qualitative studies across African countries that teachers seek to meet the needs of learners with developmental disabilities through teaching and task adaptations, targeted support and reinforcement, and whole-class inclusive approaches.

The debate continues as to whether curriculum for learners with ID can be sufficiently accommodated within the general education curriculum, adapted for their specific learning needs. For some, such adaptation can be supported through the proactive planning and curriculum design framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which guides the development of flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments to address learner diversity (Al Hazmi & Ahmad, 2018; J. A. McKenzie & Dalton, 2020), whereas for others, the use of individual education plans (IEP) is the key to an adapted curriculum (Kurth et al., 2020). However, in low-to-middle-income contexts, the relationship between special and general education is expressed most starkly by Adeniyi and Omigbodun (2016). In Nigeria, systematic barriers such as the absence of curriculum adaptation in mainstream settings combined with limited availability of specialised provision may result in learners with ID remaining outside the formal education system (Adeniyi & Omigbodun, 2016).

This debate in the literature is largely concerned with the intended curriculum, which specifies learning outcomes, assessments, projects, and learning and teaching support material. However, there is very little empirical evidence in the South African context that speaks to how this curriculum is enacted and how it is experienced by teachers, learners and their families (J. McKenzie et al., 2026). The current implementation of three curricula in South Africa (albeit somewhat patchy and incomplete) provides a unique opportunity to examine the implementation of different types of curricula in one education system.

The aim of this study is to examine perspectives on the implementation of curricula and learning programmes for learners with intellectual disability in South Africa, with particular reference to promoting inclusive and equitable education. To achieve this aim, the study explores how current curricula and learning programmes for learners with ID promote inclusive and equitable education, assesses the effectiveness of their implementation in addressing the diverse teaching and learning needs of learners with ID across different educational settings, and identifies both the challenges and opportunities involved in adapting curricula to ensure meaningful participation and engagement in education.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a qualitative analytic approach, where semi-structured interviews were used to document and understand the views of education officials, teachers, parents and learners with ID from the perspective of their lived experiences. This data collection method provided us with an opportunity to gain in-depth and meaningful data on their views about the successes and challenges of the implementation of the different curricula and learning programmes for learners with ID.

3.1. Recruitment, Enrolment, and Informed Consent Procedures

Ethical approval was sought from the University of Cape Town’s Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee and was received (HREC no.901/2023). Permission was also sought and received from Departments of Basic Education and the provincial Western Cape Department of Education (WCED) to conduct interviews with officials, teachers and learners.

Participants were sampled purposively and recruited from three settings: schools of skills for vocational training, special schools and special care centres. These sites were selected because they represented the educational contexts in which the differentiated curricula and learning programmes for learners with intellectual disability are currently being implemented. Permission was sought from the National and Provincial Departments of Education. Once formal permission was granted, information sheets detailing the study’s aims were distributed to potential participants, and consent was obtained. The participant group consisted of education officials, teachers, parents, and current or former learners with intellectual disability, with five participants recruited from each stakeholder category to ensure representation across different perspectives. Participants were selected purposively based on their direct involvement in curriculum implementation, support, or lived experience within the identified educational settings, and recruitment was facilitated through institutional permissions and site-level referrals.

For participants with ID, reasonable accommodations such as easy-to-read consent forms were made to ensure comprehension, with pre-consent information and verbal explanations provided before each interview (Horner-Johnson & Bailey, 2013). The category of ID is operationally defined in terms of the curriculum within which the learner is enrolled. It is not the focus of this study to determine exact levels of ID but rather to better understand how curricula are matched to the learning needs of the learners with ID who are enrolled in a specific curriculum.

Data were collected from 20 participants comprising five participants from each participant group (government officials, current and former learners with ID, teachers and parents of learners with ID). Learners with ID were not classified according to the severity of their impairment, but inclusion was based on learners’ capability and willingness to participate meaningfully in the research process, in accordance with ethical considerations and informed consent procedures. Additionally, the majority of learner participants were enrolled in Schools of Skills for vocational training, and many had previously attended both special schools and mainstream schools. This educational trajectory provides important contextual insight into their experiences without reinforcing deficit-based categorizations.

The participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 65, with a majority in their late 30s to 60s. Learners with ID were between the ages of 21–26, parents were between 32 and 50 years, teacher ages ranged from 28 to 63 and officials were aged between 50 and 65. Females were more represented, making up 65% of the participants, indicating a gender imbalance. Racially, the group was diverse, with 50% identifying as Coloured, 30% as African/Black, and 10% each as White and Indian. This diversity in age, gender, and race provides a broad range of perspectives, enriching the understanding of the experiences studied.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Participant Category	Age	Gender	Race	Province
Learner 1	26	Male	Coloured	Western Cape
Learner 2	22	Female	African/Black	Western Cape
Learner 3	24	Male	Coloured	Western Cape
Learner 4	21	Female	African	Western Cape
Learner 5	21	Male	African/Black	Western Cape
Parent 1	37	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Parent 2	48	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Parent 3	50	Male	White	Gauteng
Parent 4	32	Female	African/Black	Mpumalanga
Parent 5	39	Female	African/Black	Gauteng
Teacher 1	64	Male	Coloured	Western Cape
Teacher 2	59	Male	African/Black	KwaZulu-Natal
Teacher 3	29	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Teacher 4	59	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Teacher 5	65	Female	Indian	Western Cape
Government Official 1	65	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Government Official 2	53	Female	Coloured	Western Cape
Government Official 3	58	Male	Indian	Western Cape
Government Official 4	59	Female	White	Gauteng
Government Official 5	61	Female	Coloured	Western Cape

In the South African context, Coloured is an apartheid racial category which referred to people of mixed blood/race. In this study, we refer to Coloured as a racial and cultural identity, not skin colour (Erasmus, 2001).

below highlights the general demographics of this study’s participants:

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews (SSIs). The SSI guides were mapped from the research questions, informed by the literature review. Interviews were conducted by the researcher (first author); these were conducted both in-person and virtually through Zoom, Microsoft Teams and WhatsApp. The interviews were conducted in English, were recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed verbatim. Supporters of learners with ID assisted with explaining consent documents and clarifying the questions prior to the interviews.

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, with the aid of the NVivo software. Data analysis was both deductive—guided by the themes present in the interview schedules, and inductive—themes that emerged from the data analysis process (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). Data were classified and organised through a structured approach involving seven stages: transcription, familiarisation, coding, developing a working analytical framework, applying the framework, charting, and interpreting the data (Gale et al., 2013). Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and repeatedly reviewed to identify key themes, which were coded and organised into an analytical framework. This framework guided data interpretation, ensuring a coherent narrative aligned with the study’s focus.

The initial coding of the interview transcripts was undertaken by the first author, after which the second author independently reviewed and checked the coding framework and thematic interpretations. Coding discrepancies, emerging categories, and interpretations were discussed collaboratively by both authors, and revisions to the coding framework were made through an iterative consensus process. This collaborative approach strengthened analytical rigour and ensured that themes were grounded in the data rather than reflecting the perspective of a single researcher. Themes were refined through repeated engagement with the data and ongoing comparison across participant groups and educational settings. During this process, overlapping themes were merged, distinctions between themes were clarified, and themes were refined to ensure alignment with the research questions and the broader conceptual focus of the study.

Several procedures were employed to support the credibility and dependability of the findings. Credibility was strengthened through prolonged engagement with the data, the inclusion of multiple stakeholder perspectives, and the use of verbatim participant quotations to support thematic interpretations. The study also utilised both deductive and inductive analytical approaches, allowing themes to emerge from the data while remaining informed by the study objectives and the existing literature. Dependability was enhanced through maintaining a clear audit trail of coding decisions, analytical memos, and theme development throughout the research process. Regular discussions between the authors during data analysis further supported reflexivity and consistency in interpretation. In addition, the use of semi-structured interview guides across participant groups contributed to consistency in data collection while still allowing flexibility for participants to share their experiences in depth.

4. Results

The findings of this study are organised into three key themes: (a) separate goals and school placement—this theme unpacks learning barriers addressed through a separate curriculum, (b) common curriculum with adjusted access, pace, and support—this theme highlights how the curriculum is adapted, and (c) supportive efforts—this theme speaks to the reasonable accommodations put in place and the available support structures for curriculum implementation.

4.1. Separate Curriculum Goals and Learner Placement

This theme addresses the variety of curricula offered to learners with ID in schools within the South African school system. Since most learners with ID in South Africa attend special schools, special care centres or schools of skills, dependent on the severity of their disability and the level of support needs that these learners have. Learners with ID often move from mainstream schools to special schools. Most of the learners who participated in this study, largely learners classified as having mild ID, mentioned that they were at a mainstream school before they were placed at special schools and school of skills. The placement process seems to have been largely opaque to the learners themselves as indicated in the following quote:

‘I went to (name of school with-held) Primary School, it is classified under normal schools and then from there I was sent here (School of Skills).’

(Learner 2)

Findings further highlight the structure and provision of education for learners with ID, showcasing the differences in approaches between mainstream and special education systems. Some learners shared that mainstream schools were often fast-paced and less accommodating, while special schools offered the time and support needed for better comprehension.

‘It was not the same as (name of a mainstream school). In (name of a mainstream school), we did the normal high school subjects and those were difficult, and in (name of a school of skills), they focused on subjects that have to do with our hands [skills subjects]. They were not focused on grades, you understand right? It was not the same as normal schools [mainstream school] …… When I moved to the Western Cape, I was used to the fast-paced system from East London where what they taught us was difficult.’

(Learner 4)

The DBE’s Curriculum for Learners with Mild and Moderate ID is structured as a bridging, pre-vocational programme that adapts academic content while integrating practical skills training to prepare learners for technical and vocational pathways. This curriculum provides adapted academic content delivered at a modified pace and complexity, while explicitly serving as a bridging and pre-vocational pathway for learners aged 14–18. It combines foundational academic subjects with hands-on skill subjects aimed at developing competencies relevant to vocational fields. One teacher, for example, describes the occupational curriculum:

‘They do the subjects, home language, English and mathematics and these are the academic subjects and take optional skills subjects. We got a variety of skills subjects they have to choose in year one. It can be welding, woodwork, ICT which is computer, sewing, arts and crafts, hospitality. Those are the skills subject options.’

(Teacher 2)

Learners are encouraged to select their preferred skill subjects, but teachers also help by identifying the learner’s needs, interests and capabilities and guide them to select subjects that could be suitable for them. One teacher explained how learners are allocated subjects and how they guide them in selecting these subjects:

‘We look at how the child is disabled, and we put the child into a probation of about three months, so that you can see what his or her passion is all about. So, where he or she has the interest and where they got the capability or ability of that particular subject in the skills subject.’

(Teacher 2)

Another learner described how they select their skill subjects:

‘When we started with school, we went around all the workshops [skills classes]. So we had a taste of all the workshops, and then we could decide what workshop we want to join. So I chose motor mechanics and then afterwards, like in the second year I felt like it wasn’t working out and then I was like, no, I change my workshop and then actually started doing working on the overlocker [sewing]’.

(Learner 3)

Successful completion of the curriculum is intended to culminate in the attainment of an NQF Level 1 certificate to signify that learners have met the required educational standards. However, this certificate is not yet available and does not necessarily afford them equal post-school opportunities such as higher education or employment.

‘So that is the academic and skills program that we are offering as a special school in grade 6 and going upwards. So, in grade 6 there is year one, year two, year three, year four. When the child exits, they will exit with NQF level one, which means that nobody will employ them.’

(Teacher 1)

‘We are working with a department with Umalusi that accredits these courses, to try and get that level one NQF, I think it’s level one NQF qualification recognised as soon as possible, there’s also moves to an intermediate high school qualification after the phase of compulsory schooling, which is grade nine, that we have a general education certificate for all learners. So, it’s not only the National Senior certificate that’s grade 12. And the idea is that there will be the GC technical occupation one, which is just occupational, and these learners will be eligible for. So, that will also help if they want to go on to further studies and so on.’

(Official 1)

Learners with PID were historically excluded from formal education in South Africa, often relegated to home care or special care centres with limited access to structured learning. The ruling in the court case described above led to the development of the learning programme for learners with PID, which now operates in special schools and care centres. One official alluded to this by stating that:

‘We were given a year in which to respond to the court order, the court order was in November of 2010 and by November of 2011, we had to put measures in place. One of the problems that we realised was that there were no education programmes at special care centres and so we set about putting together a draft curriculum, which subsequently, when national, started responding to the court order, a national task team for development of a learning programme for children with severe to profound intellectual disabilities was formed.’

(Official 1)

4.1.1. Experiences of Implementation

The effectiveness of these curricula in meeting the diverse educational and developmental needs of learners with ID is highlighted by the findings. The integration of life skills, such as gardening, cooking, and caregiving, has proven to be a valuable component of the curricula.

‘For example, if I teach agriculture, I integrated with maths, I integrated with science, I integrated with life skills, you know, so there’s that cross pollination or integration, the way there’s a deliberate attempt to do that and this is effective for our learners.’

(Teacher 1)

Additionally, the curricula’s emphasis on individualised learning has allowed learners to progress at their own pace. Findings highlight progress in areas such as life skills, which marks a significant achievement for the learners. These incremental but vital improvements demonstrate the potential of curricula to help learners achieve developmental milestones that significantly improve their quality of life.

‘I can say that the one for learners with profound ID, I see improvement and progress of those learners since they came to the school, they are developing, and they are so happy, and they enjoy the program. Coming to this one with SID, we do the programme for three years, and they are benefiting these learners. It’s not the same as in the mainstream because they are slow learners. So, their speed of learning is not so normal. So, they take it slowly, and the curriculum is designed in such a way that it can take two years for those who are in grade one up to grade four, they are also benefiting in that way. When going to grade four and grade five, there is academic and there are skills subjects where they also benefit these learners. Those skills are not so big. They are the skills that when they go to the society or to the community, they are able to use those skills. Like I may put it, they can be able to make tea, they can be able to do gardening, something like that, or do something like nails, small skills that they can enjoy when they are out of school.’

(Teacher 2)

4.1.2. Supporting Teachers to Implement Curricula

However, teachers have repeatedly expressed that the shortage of support, particularly in the form of teacher aides and therapists, limits the effectiveness of individualised support plans (ISPs). Another notable challenge, according to teachers, lies in the mismatch between the academic content and the learners’ intellectual abilities. Teachers often find the numeracy and literacy components of the DCAPS curriculum too advanced for SID learners, requiring extensive adaptations. Moreover, the absence of structured guidance from the Department of Basic Education has been a significant obstacle. Teachers have reported that they often must design their own templates for marking and assessment, without receiving adequate support from subject advisors or the department.

‘As a teacher, you need to adapt, you need to differentiate, and we have got to put it easy. We have got to have a methodology on how you are gonna teach these learners this high-level syllabus and we have got to design an individual learning program for a child. Bring it low because this syllabus is at a higher level, and we got a child maybe he’s 15 years, but the child is thinking like a 3–5 year old according to chronological age, you’ll put a child maybe in grade 4, and it can work in a great wonder for that child…. It’s a big challenge, we have about 10 to 15 learners. Each and every learner has got to have his or her own individual support program, we call it the ISP. It means that a teacher, when he’s making a lesson plan, has got to make a lesson plan for about 15 people, which is a big challenge, and we do not have enough teachers and support. In the classroom, we need to have about five to six learners, not more, because it becomes heavy for a teacher to teach the individual support program for each and every learner.’

(Teacher 2)

This lack of specialised oversight has left teachers feeling isolated, forced to implement the curriculum as best they can with little guidance. Despite a six-year pilot program, there remains uncertainty regarding the curriculum’s appropriateness, as it has not undergone proper evaluation or stakeholder engagement for finalisation. One teacher for example stated the following:

‘It’s still like a pilot curriculum. So, you get it from the department and as a teacher, you are the one who has to adapt it further to fit the needs of your children in your classroom…. There are guidelines to what activities and stuff we can do, you know, but that’s not really helpful. It’s really not helpful.’

(Teacher 3)

Some officials argue that transitioning directly from development to implementation without a structured pilot undermines the integrity of the process, wasting public resources and hindering learners’ educational progress.

‘I mean, running a pilot for six years. So, in other words, the pilot was planned, but they’ve never piloted it, they’ve just gone straight from development to implementation. This is a total violation of these learners’ rights to have an unfinished curriculum.’

(Official 4)

Additionally, teachers who provided feedback to the Department of Basic Education about the curricula are yet to receive meaningful responses or evidence that their concerns have been addressed.

I think it was the latter part of 2018, where we had to write down our concerns about the pilot curriculum and send them to the Education Department, which we did. We had lots of staff meetings, speaking about the whole thing. And we don’t even know whether those things were implemented, you know, there were suggestion of the irregularities or the problems that we are experiencing. You know, we are not curriculum writers, teachers aren’t curriculum writers.

(Teacher 1)

4.2. Common Curriculum with Adjusted Access, Pace, and Support

Curriculum adaptations, as indicated by the findings, involve multifaceted approaches to meet the diverse needs of learners with ID. One of the primary strategies is differentiated instruction, where teachers modify lessons based on individual learners’ abilities. This necessitates teachers to assess and adjust their teaching to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for all learners. Teachers reported that incorporating visuals and hands-on activities significantly enhances understanding. Some teachers further highlighted the importance of flexibility in curriculum design. This adaptive mindset allows for curriculum adjustments that foster a more effective educational environment.

Many teachers from this study expressed frustration over the lack of guidance from the DBE and the struggle with finding appropriate materials for differentiation. One teacher stated that:

‘There’s very little guidance given from the department side, as to how you implement… the only guidelines relate to activities we can do, you know, but that’s not really helpful. These don’t really help us when it comes to differentiation, it’s basically you have to create, or research different ways to teach a certain concept.’

(Teacher 3)

Some participants emphasised the importance of integrating approaches, such as the Universal Design for Learning principles as guiding frameworks in adapting the curriculum. This reflects the necessity for teachers to innovate and adapt their instructional approaches that do not fundamentally alter the learning objectives but enable learners with ID to access the curriculum.

Reasonable Accommodations

One significant reasonable accommodation highlighted by the findings is the provision of extra classes or additional individualised support for struggling learners. A learner remarked:

‘I won’t say that the teaching methods should be changed but there should be extra classes where teachers take struggling students and help them…. they should take their time in explaining the subject until you understand it and you can sit next to them as you process the lesson and be able to see that you are on the right track.’

(Learner 2)

This sentiment reflects a broader concern that current educational systems may not adequately cater to the diverse needs of all learners, particularly those who require more focused assistance. The idea of separating struggling learners for additional help is echoed multiple times, suggesting that such practices could enhance learning outcomes. This highlights the importance of patience and understanding in teaching approaches. Some teachers expressed the importance of adapting assessments based on individual capabilities. This indicates the significance of educators recognising varying levels of understanding among learners and adjusting their teaching strategies accordingly. Overall, the findings highlight the need for more reasonable accommodations that prioritise personalised support and adaptive teaching methods to foster better learning experiences for all learners.

4.3. Supportive Efforts

This theme highlights the importance of a comprehensive support system to facilitate the successful education of learners with ID.

4.3.1. Support for Learners

According to the findings learners with ID require tailored interventions, such as personalised assistance, tutoring and extra classes in order to grasp challenging subjects. Some learners appreciated teachers who were willing to explain concepts multiple times and provide ongoing encouragement, fostering a supportive classroom environment.

‘I won’t say that the teaching methods should be changed but there should be extra classes where teachers take struggling students and help them, for example, there was a teacher who paid attention to all the struggling students and take them to a separate class and teach them the subject until they understood. I did not feel right at first, because sometimes the teacher would repeat things that you can see that are easy. I would notice that after the teacher has explained it, I would notice that what I am being taught is simple by looking at it’.

(Learner 2)

Parents and educators alike emphasise the importance of individualised attention and innovative approaches, such as using physical activities to manage emotional challenges.

‘I know they’re doing that at school, and they have more room and more patience to do things like that versus what I can do at home…. I am very happy with what he is learning at school at the moment because if there’re challenges at school that they can’t deal with, his teacher will phone me and we will address it together and we will see where we can close the gap, I’m quite happy with the level of education he’s receiving currently.’

(Parent 2)

The learners expressed appreciation for teachers who fostered understanding and communication, allowing learners to seek help without hesitation. Additionally, findings highlight the importance of collaborative learning environments, where peers help each other with complex subjects, fostering a sense of community and motivation.

4.3.2. Support for Teachers

Support for teachers includes professional development opportunities, such as training on managing learning barriers and supporting learners with specific needs. The Western Cape Education Department provides workshops, logistical support, and covers costs like accommodation and travel to ensure accessibility.

‘A lot of our training happens on a Saturday, or we’ve gotten a lot to blended learning and have been doing a lot of online, short webinars and just short micro learning opportunities as we would we’d have series of things, building up to something bigger and building up to a Saturday workshop. Anybody can attend the online courses and then register for the face-to-face workshop, CTLI actually pays for accommodation, the travelling costs are seen to and food is provided.’

(Official 2)

Teachers implement learned strategies in their classrooms, but some feel the training lacks practical relevance to their specific challenges. Collaboration is encouraged through informal networks, WhatsApp groups, in-house training sessions, and partnerships with local organisations, fostering resource sharing and peer support. These initiatives promote teacher-led professional growth and enhance their ability to address diverse learner needs. Despite their intrinsic motivation and dedication, many teachers highlight the need for more practical training and resources to effectively fulfil their roles.

Another significant challenge noted is that many caregivers in special care centres lack formal teaching qualifications, which affects their confidence and effectiveness in the classroom. However, there have been efforts to enhance teacher capacity through large-scale training initiatives and on-site support from itinerant teams, which provide valuable guidance and professional development. One official stated that there is support aimed at upskilling caregivers at Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges, this represents a positive step towards improving the qualifications of caregivers.

4.3.3. Government Support

The government provides support for learners with ID but faces challenges in achieving comprehensive inclusion. Funding, including conditional grants have facilitated the creation and expansion of special education teams. These outreach teams, supported by provincial contributions, ensure that even rural and underserved districts receive necessary services. Integrating these teams within special schools and care centres fostered collaboration between staff and parents, promoting tailored support for each learner. Another key measure of government support has been the allocation of funding for infrastructural improvements in schools, such as diaper-changing stations and wheelchair-accessible facilities, to accommodate learners with high support needs. While the government has allocated funding to infrastructural developments, questions persist about the effectiveness of these initiatives and their alignment with inclusive education. Funding is often limited to specific uses, such as employee compensation and training, but excludes important areas like caregiver stipends, leading to high staff turnover.

4.3.4. Collaborative Efforts

Collaboration among teachers, parents, and the community is essential for supporting education. Regular communication and joint problem-solving between parents and teachers enhance learners’ progress, with interactions facilitated through meetings, WhatsApp groups, and direct contact. According to some teachers, this partnership bridges home and school environments, fostering holistic support for the learner’s academic and personal growth. Active parental involvement in school activities and decision-making processes is encouraged, as teachers emphasise that consistent collaboration is critical for meaningful progress. This mutual exchange ensures that skills and support provided at school are reinforced at home. Findings also highlight that collaboration between schools is essential for fostering a supportive and unified educational environment, moving away from working in silos and embracing collective responsibility. Schools are developing a sense of community, referring to other schools as “sister schools” and organising mutual aid initiatives, where even those with limited resources contribute to support schools in need.

4.3.5. Advocacy and Awareness

Advocacy, awareness, and information sharing play a crucial role in supporting education. Teachers, parents, and officials work collaboratively to raise awareness about the needs of learners with ID. Advocacy efforts extend beyond school grounds, as educators and parents champion for inclusive practices through both formal and informal means. Teachers also highlight how they are ‘the voices’ of children, actively pushing for their enrolment in schools that best meet their needs, indicating that advocacy drives long-term educational reforms. In some instances, parents and school communities take visible action, standing with picket signs on main roads to raise public awareness about the needs and challenges faced by learners in special schools. This kind of public advocacy ensures that communities are informed about issues that are often overlooked and helps build broader societal support for inclusive education.

5. Discussion

The rich data that has been reviewed in this analysis provides some key insights that can be applied to the curriculum for learners with ID. The development of separate curricula has been a response to the lack of differentiation and the perceived difficulty of the national CAPS curriculum. However, it is abundantly clear that the differentiation of curriculum based on level of severity runs counter to an inclusive philosophy. By its very nature this approach requires a focus on the learners’ deficits which are seen to be inherent within the child and can only be addressed through specialist provision in line with a special education model (Connor, 2005). The differentiation of levels requires sophisticated assessment, which should ideally be ongoing but this is unlikely with scarce professional resources available to complete this type of assessment (Govender, 2024). This may well mean that once the child receives the initial label and classification, it might be difficult for them to move from one curriculum to another. Within the multiple curriculum system, issues of assessment and placement are critical. This should include a mechanism for mobility through the different curricula which does not seem to have been explicitly built into the system.

This raises the question of the relationship between the curricula for ID and the standard curriculum. Possibly due to the commitment to one curriculum in South Africa, the separate curricula are presented as less complex versions of the standard curriculum in terms of subjects, learning outcomes and assessment criteria. This assumes a quantitative difference between learning needs of those with and without ID as well as between levels of ID, based on the extent to which this capacity deviates from the norm as represented by the CAPS curriculum. However, the extent to which the curriculum differs from the CAPS does not, according to this research, obviate the need for curriculum differentiation. The question then arises that if differentiation is still required for a learner in a segregated setting with a separate curriculum, then what is the contribution of a formal curriculum separate from the national curriculum?

The expectations that these alternate curricula would address learning needs of all learners with a certain level of ID is not met and teachers express frustration that the level is too high or too low and that they are not guided on how to differentiate the levels. Individualised provision needs to be thought out in a much more nuanced way, rather than reverting to the default position of segregation without truly understanding its challenges and benefits. In addition, it seems that any curriculum needs to provide guidance on how to adapt to a diverse range of learners, whether they have disabilities or not. Furthermore, the separate curricula do not provide an articulated pathway into further education or employment as yet. The Occupational Stream is intended to do so, but this would require certification and an articulation with further and higher education, which is currently not resolved. There is a great deal of concern as to what constitutes a pilot. Teachers feel that their views are not being considered in this evaluation, and yet they feel that they have a lot to contribute. A systematic and rigorous feedback process would be of benefit to all concerned as it would clarify the effectiveness of the curriculum as well as engage stakeholders actively in the process. Teachers are critical voices in the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation, but learners and families’ views are equally important and need to be heard in ensuring curriculum access and quality education for learners with ID.

Similar to the standard national curriculum, the rigidity of the alternate curriculum implementation is problematic for teachers (Mahlaule et al., 2024). Teachers are asking for support that is not just about how to do activities step by step but rather a framework within which they can make adaptations in a logical manner. It seems that their interest in Universal Design for Learning may be well worth pursuing in this regard. The use of technology is hinted at but not fully explored. There are indications that curriculum differentiation and the implementation of UDL can be enhanced through technology as it allows for more flexibility in presentation of information, and the engagement and assessment of learners. The recognition that flexibility and adaptation take time and planning means that it might not always be possible for overburdened teachers to carry out. This leads to the notion of a classroom assistant who might be able to support inclusive practices. These support staff can be a powerful tool for inclusion as they expand the capacity of the teacher to deal with diversity (Zhao et al., 2021). Caregivers who work with learners with SPID might very well find that they are well suited to this role and with the necessary training could support these learners in special and ordinary schools.

The separate curricula support segregated placements as there is currently no evidence that these are offered in mainstream schools. This tendency has been observed by Hanreddy and Östlund (2020) who note that an alternate curriculum: ‘…creates a structural barrier that explicitly designates students as incapable of using the same curriculum as nondisabled peers’ (p. 235). They review such curricula in the USA and Sweden and note that these types of curricula are on the rise globally, with the negative consequences of entrenching segregation, lowering learning outcomes and decreasing access to learning opportunities in the countries that they have examined. The alternate curricula become the default position, and inclusion is the exception rather than the other way around as envisaged in the UNCRPD General Comment no 4 which mandates that persons with disabilities not be excluded from the general education system (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016).

However, it is important to acknowledge the decolonial critique of inclusive education which identifies its roots in the global north (Walton, 2018). In these high-income contexts, there was a pre-existing well developed system of special education. This system could be drawn upon to resource inclusive education, within well-functioning systems of basic education with relatively few learners were out of school (Walton, 2018). We note that the pressure for inclusive education often overlooks how colonial histories and ongoing underdevelopment in Global South countries exacerbate educational exclusion. It is therefore important to consider our data in the light of the current South African context and the perceived progress of the alternate curricula, with the goal of quality education in mind.

Relatively simple strategies that are largely found in special schools have been found helpful by learners. Teachers who give learners with ID some extra time and communicate with them in caring respectful ways are highly valued. Learners prioritise emotional well-being and being treated with dignity. Many of them have had painful experiences in regular schools and found refuge in the more protected environment of the special school. The practical skills taught in the special schools, both in the vocational and severe ID programmes, show some successes in accessing work and further education after school and this is valued by both learners and parents. However, the fact that the occupational stream is not yet certified is limiting this positive development. Its effectiveness is also limited where schools are only able to offer limited range of elective skills training. In this case, skills may not be suited to the needs and interests of the learners.

We propose that the tension between same and adapted curriculum, and between segregated and inclusive settings can be considered through two intersecting continua demarcating four quadrants. This might help practitioners and researchers to avoid binaries where one approach is desirable and another is not, but rather to acknowledge a tension between them in the pursuit of quality education for learners with intellectual disability.

Figure 1 provides a scheme for locating the balance between setting and curriculum in an attempt to avoid binaries but rather develop a creative tension between these elements.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the study was based on a relatively small qualitative sample of 20 participants and was conducted primarily within the Western Cape province of South Africa. However, some parents and officials were from other provinces within the country. Although the study included a range of stakeholders, including education officials, teachers, parents, and learners with intellectual disability, the findings cannot be generalised to all provinces or educational contexts within South Africa. The study should therefore be understood as an exploratory, policy-relevant qualitative inquiry rather than a comprehensive national account of curriculum implementation for learners with ID. In addition, most learner participants were adults between the ages of 21 and 26 years and were largely associated with Schools of Skills or special school settings. Learners were not categorised according to severity of intellectual disability, and the study does not claim to represent the perspectives of the full spectrum of learners with mild, moderate, severe, and profound ID currently enrolled across different educational settings. Consequently, the findings reflect a bounded set of experiences and perspectives situated within a particular historical and policy context.

A further limitation relates to the nature of the data collection process and the interpretive scope of the findings. Interviews were conducted in English, which may have limited the depth of expression for some participants whose first language was not English. While the study provides valuable insight into stakeholder perceptions of curriculum implementation, it relies on self-reported experiences and perceptions rather than direct classroom observation or evaluation of curriculum outcomes. As such, caution should be exercised in drawing broader system-level conclusions regarding the effectiveness of curriculum policy and implementation across the South African inclusive education system.

6. Conclusions

The implementation of three different programmes for learners with different levels of ID is patchy and not well monitored. This is unfortunate as the dangers of this approach as a force for exclusion have been highlighted drawing on international experience. However, positive developments have been noted that are relevant to our context and should inform future planning. We suggest that it is only through rigorous evaluation of the pilot that the gains can be balanced against the potential negative elements. It is a matter of urgency that this be undertaken to avoid implementing polices that have been shown to be flawed in other international contexts, but which may be contextualised for our own situation. Considerations would include an understanding of the use of curriculum adaptation and individual support plans and to what extent do these require a segregated placement. The plea from learners for more explanation of the work and more teaching time should also be considered across all types of schools, an issue that regular schools need to address. Similarly, dignified and respectful treatment should not only be found in special schools, but in every school and it should be required of every teacher in their interaction with learners.

This study highlights the critical need for inclusive, adaptable curricula that meet the diverse learning needs of learners with ID in South Africa. There is significant progress in developing tailored curricula for learners with ID, yet challenges persist, particularly in ensuring that these adaptations foster true inclusion rather than perpetuate educational segregation. The study highlights the necessity of supporting teachers through adequate training, smaller class sizes, and the provision of clear guidelines and resources, which are essential for the effective implementation of these curricula. However, it cautions against the uncritical adoption of alternate curricula as this contributes to segregation. Collaboration between educators, parents, caregivers, and policymakers is key to creating a more equitable educational environment for learners with ID. This study illustrates the importance of gaining the different perspectives of stakeholders to gain an insight into the implementation and impact of these curricula, both positive and negative.

There is a need for future research evaluating the implementation and outcomes of the pilot curricula, including their impact on inclusion, learner outcomes, teacher support, and post-school opportunities. We agree that rigorous evaluation of the pilot programmes is critically important for informing future curriculum and policy development in South Africa.