Interrogating Learner Progression Policy in South African Schools Through Teachers’ Perspectives

Abstract

Learner progression policy in South Africa is intended to promote inclusive education by reducing grade repetition and preventing learner dropout, yet its implementation remains contested, particularly in under-resourced schooling contexts. Drawing on teacher agency and socio-ecological theories, this study explored teachers’ perceptions and experiences of learner progression policy in five underperforming secondary schools in Limpopo Province. A qualitative interpretivist design was employed, with data generated through open-ended questionnaires from eleven purposively selected teachers and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings reveal that, while teachers support progression as a mechanism for promoting access and reducing exclusion, they express significant concern about learners advancing without foundational knowledge, contributing to cumulative learning deficits. Teachers employ strategies such as differentiated instruction and extra lessons, yet these efforts are constrained by large class sizes, limited time, and inadequate resources. The study highlights the central role of teacher experience and professional judgment in mediating policy implementation, alongside the influence of socio-economic factors on learner outcomes. The study concludes that learner progression requires substantially stronger support structures, including structured academic support, robust monitoring systems, and improved alignment between policy intentions and classroom realities, to be effective. By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives from under-resourced contexts, the study contributes to ongoing debates about the persistent tension between inclusion and academic quality, offering implications for strengthening inclusive education in South Africa and similar contexts.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education in South Africa is anchored in a commitment to equity, access, and social justice, as articulated in key policy frameworks such as Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001). Within this transformative agenda, the learner progression policy has emerged as a critical intervention designed to address persistent challenges of grade repetition, learner dropout, and systemic inefficiencies. The policy is formally articulated in the Department of Basic Education’s (2017) Circular on Learner Progression and further elaborated in the Protocol on Learner Progression (Department of Basic Education, 2021), which provides guidelines for schools on managing progression decisions, particularly in cases where learners have not met all promotion requirements. By allowing learners to advance through grades despite not meeting all academic requirements, the policy seeks to ensure educational continuity and prevent marginalisation within the schooling system. However, while its intentions align with inclusive education principles, its implementation has generated significant debate within educational discourse and practice.

Globally, progression policies and social promotion practices have been associated with both positive and negative educational outcomes. On the one hand, such policies are credited with reducing dropout rates and promoting psychosocial well-being among learners (UNESCO, 2020; UNICEF, 2021). On the other hand, critics argue that they may contribute to declining academic standards, learner disengagement, and increased pressure on teachers tasked with supporting academically underprepared learners (OECD, 2021). This global tension between inclusion and academic quality is particularly acute in the South African context, where it is amplified by existing structural inequalities, including resource disparities, overcrowded classrooms, and socio-economic challenges that shape learners’ educational experiences (Spaull & Pretorius, 2019; Van der Berg et al., 2021).

At the level of classroom practice, teachers are positioned as key agents in interpreting and enacting learner progression policy. Their perceptions, beliefs, and professional experiences play a critical role in determining how the policy is implemented and how progressed learners are supported. In this study, teacher agency is defined as teachers’ capacity to make professional judgments and take deliberate actions that shape their pedagogical practice, influenced by their knowledge, beliefs, experience, and the structural conditions of their work (Priestley et al., 2021). This conceptualisation recognises that teachers actively interpret and negotiate policy within their specific contexts, rather than passively implementing it. Teacher agency is therefore understood as an ecological phenomenon shaped by the interplay of individual capacities, institutional structures, and broader cultural and policy environments (Priestley et al., 2021).

Emerging evidence suggests that teachers often rely on differentiated instruction, continuous assessment, and remedial strategies to bridge learning gaps (Ramaila, 2025; Santamaria, 2009). However, these efforts are frequently constrained by systemic limitations, raising questions about the sustainability and effectiveness of such interventions. Teachers in under-resourced contexts face particular challenges, including large class sizes, limited instructional time, inadequate resources, and pressure to complete the curriculum (Hoadley, 2020; Bantwini, 2019). These constraints significantly shape how teachers are able to implement progression policy and support learners who have been advanced without meeting all academic requirements.

Despite growing attention to learner progression policy (Mogale, 2023; Nkosi & Adebayo, 2021; Nkuna & Heystek, 2024), there remains a limited body of research that foregrounds teachers’ lived experiences and pedagogical responses within specific school contexts, particularly in under-resourced South African settings. Existing studies have tended to focus on policy analysis or quantitative outcomes, with less attention to the nuanced ways teachers navigate the tensions between inclusive education imperatives and academic accountability in their daily practice. Furthermore, the voices of teachers in underperforming, resource-constrained schools where the challenges of progression policy are most acute remain underrepresented in the literature. This study addresses this gap by exploring how teachers perceive and respond to learner progression policy, and how they navigate the inherent tension between inclusive education imperatives and academic accountability.

To examine these questions, the study draws on two complementary theoretical perspectives: teacher agency theory and socio-ecological theory. Teacher agency theory (Priestley et al., 2021) provides a lens for understanding how teachers exercise professional judgment and make pedagogical decisions within the constraints of policy and institutional structures. Socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tikly, 2019) enables analysis of the multiple systemic levels from classroom interactions to broader socio-economic conditions that shape the implementation of learner progression policy. Together, these frameworks allow for a nuanced examination of how teachers negotiate policy demands, respond to learner needs, and navigate the contextual challenges that characterise under-resourced schooling environments.

Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions:

• How do teachers perceive the learner progression policy?
• How do teachers support progressed learners in bridging content gaps?
• How do teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and experiences shape their instructional practices?
• What contextual factors influence the implementation of learner progression policy?

By engaging these questions through the lens of teacher agency and socio-ecological theory, the study makes three contributions to knowledge. First, it provides empirical evidence from under-resourced school contexts, foregrounding the voices of teachers who are often marginalized in policy debates. Second, it demonstrates how teacher agency operates under structural constraint, showing both the possibilities and limits of professional judgment in policy enactment. Third, it contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions about the tension between inclusion and academic quality, offering insights into how this tension is experienced and managed in practice. The study thus contributes to a deeper understanding of policy enactment in complex, resource-constrained schooling environments and offers implications for strengthening inclusive education in South Africa and similar contexts.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This section reviews the literature informing this study and presents the theoretical framework guiding the analysis. The review is organised around four key areas: the learner progression policy within inclusive education; teacher agency in policy enactment; differentiated instruction as a pedagogical response; and the socio-ecological contexts shaping learning inequalities. The section concludes with an articulation of the theoretical framework that integrates these perspectives.

2.1. Learner Progression Policy Within Inclusive Education

Learner progression policy in South Africa is embedded within the broader inclusive education agenda, which seeks to redress historical inequalities and ensure equitable access to quality education. The policy aligns with the vision of the Department of Education (2001) as articulated in Education White Paper 6, which advocates for systemic transformation towards inclusive schooling. Contemporary scholarship positions progression policies as mechanisms aimed at reducing grade repetition and mitigating dropout risks, particularly among vulnerable learners (UNESCO, 2020; UNICEF, 2021). The policy is further operationalised through departmental circulars that provide guidance on the conditions under which learners may be progressed, including the requirement that schools establish School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs) to identify and support learners at risk (Department of Basic Education, 2017, 2021).

Recent studies indicate that while progression policies can improve learner retention, they also generate unintended pedagogical and systemic challenges. For instance, Mahlobo (2015) argues that progression in South African schools often results in learners advancing without adequate mastery of foundational skills, thereby compounding learning deficits in higher grades. Similarly, Spaull and Pretorius (2019) highlight that learning backlogs in literacy and numeracy remain a persistent challenge, particularly in under-resourced schooling contexts. These findings suggest that progression policy, while aligned with inclusive education principles, may inadvertently reproduce inequalities if not accompanied by robust academic support mechanisms.

Globally, the debate around social promotion continues to reflect a tension between access and quality. Recent evidence suggests that progression policies are most effective when coupled with targeted remediation and differentiated support (OECD, 2021). Without such interventions, progression risks becoming a symbolic rather than substantive tool for inclusion. In the South African context, this tension is particularly acute given the systemic inequalities that characterise the education system. Nkuna and Heystek (2024) found that schools in disadvantaged communities often lack the resources and capacity to provide the kind of structured support that would make progression meaningful, resulting in learners being advanced without the necessary foundational knowledge to succeed in subsequent grades.

2.2. Teacher Agency in Policy Enactment

The implementation of learner progression policy is mediated through teacher agency, which plays a critical role in translating policy into classroom practice. The contemporary policy enactment literature emphasises that teachers actively interpret, negotiate, and adapt policy within their specific contexts (Ball et al., 2012). Rather than viewing teachers as passive recipients of policy, this scholarship recognises them as active agents who make professional judgments about how to implement policy in ways that respond to their learners’ needs and their classroom realities.

Building on this foundation, recent studies extend this argument by highlighting how teacher agency is shaped by institutional constraints, professional knowledge, and contextual realities (Priestley et al., 2021). Priestley and colleagues propose an ecological model of teacher agency that conceptualises agency as an emergent phenomenon the product of the interplay between individual capacities (knowledge, beliefs, skills), structural conditions (institutional policies, resource availability), and cultural factors (professional norms, policy expectations). This model suggests that teacher agency is not simply an individual attribute but is shaped by the environments in which teachers work.

In the South African context, teachers often operate within resource-constrained environments, which limits their ability to fully implement inclusive pedagogical strategies. Hoadley (2020) argues that curriculum coverage pressures and large class sizes significantly constrain teachers’ capacity to provide individualised support. Similarly, Bantwini (2019) emphasise that teacher professional development remains uneven, particularly in rural and township schools, thereby affecting the quality of policy implementation. These studies suggest that teacher agency in South Africa operates within significant structural constraints, raising important questions about how teachers navigate the gap between policy expectations and classroom realities.

Research specifically on learner progression policy has highlighted the central role of teacher judgment in progression decisions. Mogale (2023) found that teachers often rely on their professional experience and knowledge of individual learners when making decisions about how to support progressed learners, rather than following rigid policy prescriptions. This reliance on professional judgment reflects the operation of teacher agency but also points to potential inconsistencies in how the policy is implemented across different schools and classrooms. The research suggests that teacher agency in this context is both a strength allowing for flexible, responsive practice and a potential weakness, as it may lead to uneven support for progressed learners depending on individual teachers’ knowledge and capacity.

2.3. Differentiated Instruction as a Pedagogical Response

Differentiated instruction remains a central strategy in addressing the diverse learning needs of progressed learners. Contemporary research underscores its effectiveness in improving learner engagement and academic outcomes when implemented systematically (Deunk et al., 2018; updated evidence in Pozas et al., 2021). Differentiated instruction involves adapting content, teaching strategies, and assessment practices to accommodate learner diversity (Pozas et al., 2021). This approach recognises that learners enter classrooms with varied prior knowledge, learning styles, and readiness levels, and that effective teaching must respond to this diversity.

In the South African context, Makoelle (2012) highlights that inclusive pedagogy requires teachers to move beyond traditional teaching methods towards more flexible and responsive approaches. This not only involves differentiating instruction, but also creating inclusive classroom environments where all learners feel valued and supported. However, the implementation of such strategies is often constrained by structural challenges, including overcrowded classrooms and limited access to teaching resources. Ramaila (2025) found that while South African teachers recognise the importance of differentiated instruction, their ability to implement it effectively is significantly limited by large class sizes and curriculum time pressures.

Empirical evidence suggests that while teachers recognise the importance of differentiated instruction, its application is frequently inconsistent due to time constraints and workload pressures (Westbrook et al., 2022). This reinforces the need for systemic support structures that enable teachers to effectively implement inclusive pedagogical practices. In the context of learner progression, differentiated instruction is particularly important because progressed learners often have significant gaps in foundational knowledge that must be addressed if they are to succeed in higher grades. However, the research suggests that without adequate support, teachers struggle to provide the kind of individualised attention that progressed learners require.

2.4. Socio-Ecological Contexts and Learning Inequalities

Understanding learner progression requires a socio-ecological perspective that considers the broader contextual factors influencing learning. While Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory provides a foundational framework, recent scholarship has expanded this perspective to emphasise the intersection of socio-economic, cultural, and institutional factors in shaping educational outcomes (Tikly, 2019). This expanded socio-ecological perspective recognises that learning is shaped not only by what happens in classrooms but also by conditions in learners’ homes, communities, and broader society.

In South Africa, persistent inequalities in education are closely linked to socio-economic disparities. Van der Berg et al. (2021) demonstrate that learners from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to experience learning deficits due to limited access to educational resources and support. Similarly, Gustafsson (2021) highlights systemic inefficiencies within the education system that exacerbate these inequalities. These studies suggest that the challenges of learner progression cannot be understood solely at the classroom level; they are embedded in broader patterns of inequality that shape learners’ educational experiences from early childhood onwards.

The socio-ecological perspective is particularly relevant to understanding the implementation of learner progression policy because it illuminates why some learners struggle to succeed despite policy interventions. Learners who come from backgrounds of poverty, who lack parental support, or who face challenges such as food insecurity or unstable housing are likely to find it difficult to meet academic expectations, regardless of whether they are progressed or retained. This suggests that progression policy alone cannot address the educational challenges faced by disadvantaged learners; it must be accompanied by broader social and economic interventions that address the root causes of educational inequality.

2.5. Inclusion Versus Accountability: A Persistent Policy Tension

A critical issue emerging from both the literature and this study is the tension between inclusive education and academic accountability. While progression policies aim to promote equity and prevent exclusion, they also raise concerns about declining academic standards and learner preparedness. This tension is not unique to South Africa, but reflects a broader challenge facing education systems globally: how to ensure that all learners have access to quality education while maintaining high standards and expectations.

Recent scholarship frames this tension as a fundamental challenge within education systems globally. The OECD (2021) argues that achieving both equity and quality requires integrated policy approaches that combine access with effective teaching and learning strategies. In the South African context, Spaull and Pretorius (2019) highlight that improving learning outcomes remains a key priority, particularly in the early grades where foundational skills are developed. However, achieving this goal in the context of learner progression requires addressing the systemic inequalities that shape learning outcomes, ensuring that progressed learners receive the support they need to succeed.

Nkuna and Heystek (2024) argue that the tension between inclusion and accountability is particularly acute in under-resourced schools, where teachers must balance the imperative to include all learners with the reality that many learners lack the foundational knowledge required for success in higher grades. This tension is not simply a policy problem but is experienced daily by teachers who must make difficult decisions about how to support progressed learners while maintaining academic standards and covering the curriculum.

2.6. Theoretical Framework: Integrating Teacher Agency and Socio-Ecological Perspectives

This study draws on two complementary theoretical perspectives that together provide a comprehensive lens for examining teachers’ experiences of learner progression policy: teacher agency theory and socio-ecological theory. The integration of these frameworks allows for a nuanced analysis that attends to both the micro-level of classroom practice and the broader systemic factors that shape policy implementation.

Teacher agency theory (Priestley et al., 2021) provides the analytical lens for understanding how teachers exercise professional judgment and make pedagogical decisions within the constraints of policy and institutional structures. The ecological model of teacher agency conceptualises agency as an emergent phenomenon shaped by the interplay of three dimensions: iterational (teachers’ past experiences and professional knowledge), practical-evaluative (teachers’ capacity to make judgments and decisions in the present), and projective (teachers’ future-oriented aspirations and goals). This model is particularly useful for understanding how teachers in under-resourced contexts navigate the demands of learner progression policy, as it recognises that agency is shaped both by individual capacities and by the structural conditions in which teachers work.

In this study, teacher agency theory is operationalised by examining:

• How teachers draw on their professional knowledge and experience to make decisions about supporting progressed learners (iterational dimension).
• How teachers exercise judgment in responding to the immediate demands of their classrooms (practical-evaluative dimension).
• How teachers’ goals and aspirations shape their pedagogical practices (projective dimension).
• How structural factors (policy, resources, institutional support) enable or constrain teacher agency.

Socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tikly, 2019) provides the complementary lens for understanding the multiple systemic levels that shape the implementation of learner progression policy. This framework distinguishes between:

• The microsystem: The immediate environment of the classroom, including teacher-learner interactions, pedagogical practices, and classroom resources.
• The mesosystem: The interconnections between different microsystems, such as the relationship between home and school, or between classroom practice and school-level support structures.
• The exosystem: The broader institutional context, including school management, district support, and education department policies.
• The macrosystem: The broader cultural, social, and economic context, including socio-economic inequalities, cultural norms, and policy frameworks.

In this study, the socio-ecological framework is used to:

• Analyse how classroom-level factors shape teachers’ ability to support progressed learners (microsystem).
• Examine the relationship between school-level support structures and teacher practice (mesosystem).
• Consider how district and departmental policies enable or constrain policy implementation (exosystem).
• Understand how broader socio-economic inequalities influence learner outcomes and policy enactment (macrosystem).

Integration of the Two Frameworks: Together, these theoretical perspectives allow for a comprehensive analysis that attends to both the agency of teachers and the structural conditions that shape their practice.

The integration is particularly valuable for understanding learner progression policy because it recognises that:

• Teachers are active agents who make professional judgments and decisions, not passive implementers of policy.
• Teacher agency is shaped by structural conditions, including policy frameworks, resource availability, and institutional support.
• The implementation of learner progression policy is influenced by factors at multiple levels, from the classroom to broader socio-economic conditions.
• Understanding the tension between inclusion and academic quality requires attending to both teacher decision-making and the systemic factors that enable or constrain effective practice.

This integrated theoretical framework guides the analysis in this study by:

• Informing the development of the research questions.
• Shaping the data collection and analysis approach.
• Providing the lens through which findings are interpreted.
• Enabling connections between empirical findings and broader scholarly debates are developed.

3. Methodology

This section outlines the research design, setting, participants, data collection methods, data analysis procedures, strategies for ensuring trustworthiness, and ethical considerations. The methodology is described in sufficient detail to allow for assessment of the study’s rigor and to enable replication in similar contexts.

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a qualitative research design within an interpretivist paradigm to explore teachers’ perceptions and experiences of learner progression policy. A qualitative approach was deemed appropriate as it allows for an in-depth understanding of participants’ subjective meanings, professional judgments, and contextual realities (Creswell & Poth, 2021). The interpretivist paradigm recognises that knowledge is socially constructed and that researchers must seek to understand phenomena from the perspectives of those involved, rather than imposing external frameworks or seeking objective, generalisable truths (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Data were generated through open-ended questionnaires, which allowed participants to reflect on their perceptions, experiences and instructional practices related to learner progression policy. The questionnaire was designed to elicit rich, narrative responses while maintaining consistency across participants and schools. The use of written responses allowed participants to respond at their own pace and reduced the potential for direct interviewer effects that might occur in face-to-face interviews. However, we recognise that questionnaires are not value-neutral instruments; the framing of questions, choice of prompts, and nature of the written response format all shape what participants share. Rather than claiming enhanced ‘authenticity,’ we approach participants’ written accounts as situated knowledge constructed through their engagement with our questions, reflecting their perspectives within the specific context of questionnaire completion (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Given the complexity of learner progression policy and its enactment in diverse school contexts, this approach facilitated deep insights into how teachers interpret and respond to policy demands.

The choice of a qualitative design was further informed by the nature of the research questions, which seek to understand how teachers perceive and respond to policy, rather than how many or to what extent. This focus on meaning-making and interpretation is consistent with the interpretivist paradigm and with the study’s theoretical framework, which emphasises teacher agency as an interpretive and contextual phenomenon (Priestley et al., 2021).

3.2. Research Setting and Participants

3.2.1. Research Setting

The study was conducted across selected secondary schools within the Capricorn District of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Limpopo Province is one of South Africa’s rural provinces, characterised by significant socio-economic challenges, including high levels of poverty, unemployment, and limited access to educational resources (Spaull & Pretorius, 2019). The Capricorn District, in particular, includes both rural and township communities where schools face persistent challenges related to infrastructure, resource availability, and learner performance.

The schools in this study were identified as among the lowest-performing in the district, based on provincial examination results and departmental performance indicators. These schools were selected because they represent contexts where the challenges of learner progression policy are most acute, providing rich opportunities to examine how teachers navigate policy implementation under conditions of constraint. The schools represented varied institutional contexts, including rural and township settings, where challenges related to resource constraints and learner diversity are prevalent.

3.2.2. Participant Selection

A purposive sample of eleven (n = 11) in-service teachers was drawn from five secondary schools identified as among the lowest-performing in the Capricorn District. Purposive sampling was employed to select participants who had direct experience with learner progression policy and who were actively involved in supporting progressed learners (Campbell et al., 2020). This sampling strategy ensured that participants could provide rich, relevant data on the phenomenon under investigation.

The following criteria guided participant selection:

• Participants had to be in-service teachers currently employed at one of the five selected schools.
• Participants had to be directly involved in teaching progressed learners.
• Participants had to have experience with learner progression policy implementation.
• Participants included both subject teachers and members of School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs).

3.3. Participant Demographics

The eleven participants comprised seven female and four male teachers, reflecting the gender distribution typical of South African secondary schools. Participants’ teaching experience ranged from 3 to 18 years, with a mean of 9.6 years. This range ensured that the sample included both relatively new teachers and experienced educators, allowing for examination of how professional experience shapes teacher agency in policy implementation.

Participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 55 years, representing different career stages. Subject specialisations included Mathematics (3 participants), English (2 participants), Sciences (2 participants), Social Sciences (2 participants), and other subjects (2 participants). This diversity of subject areas allowed for examination of whether pedagogical responses to progression policy varied across different curriculum areas. (see Table 1).

Table 1. Participant and School Context.

Participant	Gender	Years of Experience	Age Range	Subject Specialisation	Role	School Type	Years Supporting Progressed Learners
P1	F	12	45–55	Mathematics	Subject Teacher, SBST Member	Rural	5
P2	M	3	25–35	English	Subject Teacher	Township	2
P3	F	8	35–45	Sciences	Subject Teacher, Grade Head	Rural	4
P4	F	15	45–55	Social Sciences	Subject Teacher, SBST Member, Department Head	Township	7
P5	M	6	35–45	Mathematics	Subject Teacher	Rural	3
P6	F	18	45–55	English	Subject Teacher, SBST Member, Grade Head	Township	8
P7	F	5	25–35	Sciences	Subject Teacher	Rural	3
P8	M	10	35–45	Mathematics	Subject Teacher, SBST Member	Township	5
P9	F	7	35–45	Social Sciences	Subject Teacher	Rural	4
P10	F	11	45–55	Other	Subject Teacher, Department Head	Township	6
P11	M	14	35–45	Other	Subject Teacher, SBST Member, Grade Head	Rural	6

Participants’ roles included:

• Subject teachers (all 11 participants).
• SBST members (6 participants).
• Grade heads (3 participants).
• Department heads (2 participants).

School Context Information

The five schools were characterised by:

• Learner enrollment ranging from 450 to 1200 learners per school.
• Class sizes averaging 45–55 learners per class.
• Limited access to teaching resources, including textbooks and technology.
• Infrastructure challenges, including inadequate classrooms and lack of science laboratories.
• High proportions of learners eligible for the National School Nutrition Programme.
• Below-average provincial examination results for the preceding three years.

3.4. Data Collection Methods

Data were generated through open-ended questionnaires, which allowed participants to reflect on their perceptions, experiences and instructional practices related to learner progression policy. The questionnaire was designed to elicit rich, narrative responses while maintaining consistency across participants and schools. The use of written responses minimised researcher influence during data generation, thereby enhancing the authenticity of participants’ accounts (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

3.4.1. Rationale for Open-Ended Questionnaires

The decision to use open-ended questionnaires rather than interviews was informed by several considerations: Logistical constraints: The five schools were geographically dispersed across the Capricorn District, making face-to-face interviews with all participants logistically challenging and resource-intensive. Consistency: Questionnaires ensured that all participants received identical questions in the same format, allowing for systematic comparison across responses. Reflective responses: Questionnaires allowed participants time to reflect on their responses, potentially generating more thoughtful and considered accounts than spontaneous interview responses. Reduced researcher influence: Written responses reduced the potential for direct interviewer effects, allowing participants to formulate their responses without the immediate presence of a researcher. This format enabled participants to share their perspectives in their own words and at their own pace.

3.4.2. Questionnaire Content

The questionnaire included four key questions, each designed to address one of the research questions:

Research Question	Questionnaire Item
1. How do teachers perceive the learner progression policy?	What are your perceptions of the learner progression policy?
2. How do teachers support progressed learners in bridging content gaps?	What strategies do you use to support progressed learners in your classroom?
3. How do teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and experiences shape their instructional practices?	How do your knowledge and experience influence how you support progressed learners?
4. What contextual factors influence the implementation of learner progression policy?	What contextual factors affect your ability to implement learner progression policy effectively?

Each question was followed by prompts to encourage detailed responses (e.g., “Please provide specific examples,” “Describe any challenges you face,” “How do you address these challenges?”). Participants were given two weeks to complete the questionnaire and were provided with contact information for follow-up questions.

3.4.3. Response Quality

Participants’ responses ranged in length from several sentences to multiple paragraphs. The average response length was approximately 250–300 words per question, with some participants providing more extensive responses (up to 500 words). While responses were generally detailed and reflective, the study acknowledges that written responses may not have provided the same depth as interview data. This is recognised as a limitation of the study.

3.5. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using a collaborative thematic analysis approach, drawing on the six-phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021) while adapting it to incorporate collaborative interpretation. This approach was selected for its flexibility and suitability in identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets. The collaborative thematic approach is particularly appropriate for interpretivist research because it acknowledges the active role of researchers in constructing themes and meaning through dialogue and shared interpretation, rather than assuming that themes simply emerge from the data (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

3.5.1. The Six-Phase Analytical Process

Phase 1: Familiarisation

The first author read all questionnaire responses multiple times to gain an overall understanding of the data. This involved reading each response holistically, noting initial impressions and potential patterns. All four authors then discussed their initial impressions during a research team meeting, sharing observations and identifying areas of interest.

Phase 2: Initial Coding

Two authors (Authors 1 and 2) independently conducted initial coding of the data. Coding was conducted inductively, meaning that codes were generated from the data rather than imposed from pre-existing frameworks. Each author read through the responses systematically, generating codes that captured key ideas, concepts, and patterns. This independent coding was not intended as a reliability measure but as a strategy to generate multiple interpretive perspectives on the data.

Phase 3: Theme Development

Following initial coding, Authors 1 and 2 met to compare their codes and identify potential themes through reflexive dialogue. This involved discussing similarities and differences in coding, exploring the interpretive reasoning behind different coding choices, and identifying broader patterns of meaning. Differences in coding were treated as generative opportunities for discussion, prompting reflection on alternative readings and challenging assumptions that might have remained unexamined if a single researcher had conducted the analysis. Through this collaborative interpretive process, preliminary themes were developed that captured the main ideas emerging from the data

Phase 4: Theme Review

All four authors participated in a research team meeting to review and refine the preliminary themes through collective interpretation. This involved:

• Checking that themes were internally coherent and distinct from one another.
• Ensuring that themes were well-supported by data.
• Discussing potential overlaps between themes.
• Revising theme definitions for clarity.
• Debating alternative interpretations and reaching provisional agreements through dialogue.

Phase 5: Theme Definition and Naming

Themes were carefully defined and named to capture their scope and focus. This involved writing detailed descriptions of each theme, identifying the core idea it captured, and selecting names that were both descriptive and analytically meaningful.

Phase 6: Reporting

The final phase involved integrating themes into a coherent analytical narrative, using participant quotations to illustrate and support the analysis. This phase is reflected in the findings section of this manuscript.

3.5.2. Coding Procedure Details

The coding procedure was designed to support a systematic and reflexive engagement with the questionnaire data while incorporating collaborative interpretation among the research team. Two researchers conducted the initial coding independently and subsequently compared their interpretations through reflexive dialogue. Differences in coding were discussed as opportunities to examine alternative interpretations and revisit the data, rather than being treated solely as discrepancies requiring resolution. The broader research team subsequently participated in theme development and refinement. The table below summarises the key aspects of the coding procedure, including the number of coders, coding approach, collaborative processes, disagreement resolution, software use, and maintenance of an audit trail.

Aspect	Detail
Number of coders	Two coders (Authors 1 and 2) conducted independent initial coding
Coding approach	Coders met to compare codes and engage in reflexive dialogue about interpretive choices
Coding collaboration	Coders met to compare codes and reach consensus
Theme development	All four authors participated in theme refinement
Disagreement resolution	Differences were treated as generative opportunities for interpretive discussion; provisional agreements reached through dialogue and revisiting data
Software	Manual coding; no software used
Audit trail	Coding records, theme development notes, team meeting minutes maintained

3.6. Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

Reflexive thematic analysis requires explicit attention to the researcher’s interpretive role, assumptions, and analytical decision-making (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This section outlines the positionality of the research team and how reflexivity was addressed throughout the study.

3.6.1. Author Positionality

The research team comprises four South African education researchers with backgrounds in teacher education, curriculum studies, and inclusive education. Two authors have experience as secondary school teachers in under-resourced contexts, which provided them with insider knowledge of the challenges teachers face in implementing policy. This experiential knowledge shaped the researchers’ interpretive lens, enabling empathetic understanding of participant accounts while also potentially influencing how data were interpreted. Rather than treating this as ‘bias’ to be eliminated, we approached it as an integral aspect of the interpretive process, acknowledging that all interpretation is shaped by the interpreter’s position and experience.

The research team includes authors from different racial and linguistic backgrounds, representing the diversity of South African society. This diversity was valuable in challenging assumptions and ensuring that interpretations were not limited by a single perspective. However, all authors are university-based researchers, which means they approach the data from an academic perspective that may differ from the perspectives of school-based teachers.

3.6.2. Reflexive Strategies

Several strategies were employed to address reflexivity throughout the research process: Research team meetings: Regular meetings were held to discuss emerging interpretations, challenge assumptions, and debate alternative readings of the data. Peer debriefing: Authors 3 and 4, who were not involved in initial coding, provided critical feedback on theme development and interpretation. Member checking: Preliminary findings were shared with two participants to check whether the interpretations resonated with their experiences. Audit trail: Detailed records were maintained of coding decisions, theme development, and analytical decisions to ensure transparency. Acknowledgment of assumptions: The research team explicitly discussed their assumptions about learner progression policy and inclusive education, and how these might shape the analysis.

3.7. Trustworthiness and Rigor

To ensure the quality and rigor of the study, the criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability were applied (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017).

3.7.1. Credibility

Credibility refers to the confidence in the trustworthiness of the findings. Credibility was enhanced through: Prolonged engagement with the data: Repeated reading of responses over several weeks ensured deep familiarity with the data. Collaborative interpretation: Two coders independently coded the data and engaged in reflexive dialogue about their interpretations, enhancing interpretive depth through the exchange of different perspectives. Member checking: Preliminary findings were shared with participants to explore whether interpretations resonated with their experiences and to invite alternative readings. Peer debriefing: Colleagues not involved in the research provided critical feedback on the analysis, challenging assumptions and prompting reflection.

3.7.2. Confirmability

Confirmability: Confirmability refers to the extent to which findings are grounded in participants’ responses and the interpretive process is transparent. Confirmability was achieved by: Grounding findings in data: All themes are supported by direct quotations from participants. Reflexivity: Positionality and assumptions were explicitly acknowledged and discussed within the research team. Audit trail: Analytical decisions are transparent and traceable.

3.7.3. Transferability

Transferability refers to the extent to which findings can be considered relevant to other contexts. Transferability was supported by providing thick description: detailed accounts of the research setting, participants, and context that allow readers to assess the applicability of findings to their own contexts. Rather than claiming replication, we provide sufficient contextual detail to enable readers to make informed judgments about the relevance of the findings to similar settings.

3.8. Ethical Considerations

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the University of the Free State and the Limpopo department of Basic Education.

3.8.1. Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained in writing, with participants signing a consent form that outlined the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality measures, and participants’ right to withdraw at any time without consequence.

3.8.2. Confidentiality and Anonymity

Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. No identifying information was included in the reporting of findings. Pseudonyms are used in the findings section to refer to participants. All data were stored securely on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team.

3.8.3. Ethical Principles

The study adhered to established ethical principles, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, ensuring that participants were not exposed to harm and that their rights were protected throughout the research process (Resnik, 2020). The ethical clearance approval confirmed that the study met the required ethical standards for research involving human participants.

3.8.4. Data Management and Compliance

In accordance with the ethical clearance conditions and institutional data management policies: Data will be stored securely for five years following the completion of the study. Access to data is restricted to the research team. Any amendments to the study will be submitted via the Research Information Management System (RIMS) to the ethics office. A final report will be submitted to the ethics office upon project completion.

4. Findings

4.1. Overview of Findings

This section presents the findings from the analysis of questionnaire responses provided by eleven teachers across five underperforming secondary schools in the Capricorn District of Limpopo Province. The analysis produced four main themes that capture teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and practices related to learner progression policy: Learner Progression as Support with Limitations, Pedagogical Strategies for Addressing Learning Gaps, Teacher Agency in Instructional Decision-Making and Contextual Challenges Influencing Learner Progression. The findings are presented using participant quotations to illustrate key points. Pseudonyms (P1–P11) are used to protect participants’ identities. Where relevant, the number of participants expressing particular views is indicated to provide a sense of the distribution and salience of themes across the sample.

4.2. Theme 1: Learner Progression as Support with Limitations

This theme captures the dual perspective that teachers hold regarding learner progression policy. On one hand, teachers recognised the policy’s value in preventing dropout and promoting educational access. On the other hand, they expressed deep concern about the academic consequences of advancing learners who have not met the required standards.

4.2.1. Progression as a Mechanism for Inclusion and Retention

The majority of teachers (9 out of 11 participants, 82%) viewed learner progression as a necessary strategy to prevent learner dropout and support continued participation in schooling. Participants described the policy as offering learners an opportunity to remain within the system despite academic challenges, which they saw as aligned with inclusive education principles.

For example, P4, a teacher with 15 years of experience, stated:

“The policy is good because it gives learners a second chance to continue with their education. If we did not have this policy, many learners would have dropped out of school, especially those from difficult backgrounds. It keeps them in the system and gives them hope.”

Similarly, P6, an SBST member with 18 years of experience, explained:

“We have seen learners who would have left school if they were not progressed. They stay, they continue, and sometimes they do well. The policy is important for keeping learners in school.”

P1, another SBST member, added:

“The intention is to help learners who are struggling. It is about not giving up on them. That is what inclusive education means everyone gets a chance.”

These responses reveal that teachers understand progression policy as fundamentally about access and inclusion. The language used “second chance,” “keeps them in the system,” “not giving up on them” reflects a commitment to the principle that education should not exclude learners who face academic challenges. Teachers appear to embrace the policy’s inclusive intentions, viewing it as a way to maintain learners’ connection to schooling.

However, the responses also hint at the tension that characterises this theme. While teachers value the policy’s role in retention, their references to “difficult backgrounds” and “struggling” learners suggest an awareness that progression alone does not address the underlying challenges these learners face. The policy is seen as necessary but not sufficient.

4.2.2. Concerns About Academic Readiness and Foundational Knowledge

Despite supporting the policy’s inclusive intentions, all eleven teachers (100%) expressed significant concern about learners advancing without adequate foundational knowledge. This concern was the most consistently voiced across all participants, indicating its centrality to teachers’ experiences of the policy.

P2, a relatively new teacher with 3 years of experience, expressed this concern directly:

“Learners are progressed without meeting the requirements. They move to the next grade without knowing the basics. How can you do mathematics in Grade 10 if you do not understand the basics from Grade 8 and 9? It is a problem.”

P7, a science teacher with 5 years of experience, elaborated:

“They come into my class and they cannot read properly. They cannot understand the questions. They have been passed on, but they do not have the foundation. I have to teach Grade 10 content, but I am also having to teach Grade 8 and 9 content at the same time. It is too much.”

P5, a mathematics teacher, provided a specific example:

“I had a learner in Grade 11 who was progressed from Grade 10. She could not solve simple equations. She did not know how to work with fractions. These are things she should have learned in Grade 8. She was passed on, but she was not ready. It is not fair to the learner, and it is not fair to the teacher.”

P10, a department head, offered a broader perspective:

“The problem is not the policy itself. The problem is that we progress learners and then we do not have the systems to support them. They are moved up, but they are not caught up. The gap just gets bigger and bigger. By the time they reach matric, they are so far behind that it is almost impossible to catch up.”

These quotations reveal a pattern of deep concern across all participants. The language used “without knowing the basics,” “not fair to the learner,” “gap just gets bigger” indicates that teachers perceive a fundamental mismatch between the policy’s intentions and its outcomes in practice.

4.2.3. The Tension Between Inclusion and Quality

The quotations above reveal a central tension that teachers navigate: they support the inclusive intentions of the policy but are deeply concerned about its academic consequences. This tension was articulated explicitly by several participants.

P8, a mathematics teacher with 10 years of experience, stated:

“We are told to be inclusive. We are told not to exclude learners. But we are also told to maintain standards. How do you do both? If a learner does not know the basics, how can they meet the standard? We are caught in the middle.”

P3, a science teacher and grade head, offered a similar perspective:

“Inclusive education is important. But inclusion without quality is not really helping the learner. You can include them in the classroom, but if they are not learning, what is the point? We need to find a way to include them and also to teach them. That is the challenge.”

P9, a social sciences teacher, added:

“I think the policy is good in theory. But in practice, it is difficult. We have to balance the need to keep learners in school with the need to make sure they are actually learning. Sometimes I feel like we are just moving them along without really helping them.”

These quotations capture the dilemma that lies at the heart of teachers’ experiences with progression policy. The phrases “caught in the middle,” “that is the challenge,” and “we have to balance” all indicate that teachers perceive themselves as being pulled in two directions.

What is significant is that teachers do not simply reject the policy or oppose inclusion. Rather, they are seeking a way to make inclusion meaningful. P3’s statement that “inclusion without quality is not really helping the learner” is particularly insightful: it suggests that teachers understand inclusion as more than physical presence. For inclusion to be genuine, it must be accompanied by learning.

The tension articulated here is not merely a personal frustration for teachers; it reflects a fundamental policy challenge. Teachers are being asked to implement a policy that has not been adequately supported by the infrastructure needed to make it work. The result is that teachers are left to navigate this tension on their own, making difficult decisions about how to balance competing demands.

4.3. Theme 2: Pedagogical Strategies for Addressing Learning Gaps

This theme captures the strategies teachers reported using to support progressed learners, as well as the challenges they face in implementing these strategies effectively.

4.3.1. Strategies Employed to Support Progressed Learners

All eleven teachers (100%) reported using some form of additional support to help progressed learners bridge learning gaps. The most commonly reported strategies included extra lessons (9 teachers, 82%), revision of previous content (8 teachers, 73%), scaffolding (7 teachers, 64%), and adapting teaching methods (6 teachers, 55%).

P6, an English teacher with 18 years of experience, described her approach:

“I give extra classes and revise previous content so that they can catch up. If they have gaps from previous grades, I go back and teach that content again. It takes time, but it is the only way they can understand the current work.”

P3, a science teacher, explained how she adapts her teaching:

“We use different teaching methods to accommodate learners who are struggling. I try to explain things in different ways. I use diagrams, I use examples from everyday life, I break things down into smaller steps. You have to find different ways to make it make sense for them.”

P1, a mathematics teacher, described her use of peer support:

“Sometimes I put them in groups with stronger learners. The stronger learners can help them. It also helps the stronger learners to explain things, because when you explain, you understand it better yourself.”

P11, an SBST member with 14 years of experience, described a more comprehensive approach:

“We try to identify the gaps early. Then we develop intervention strategies. Sometimes it is extra support in class. Sometimes it is individual attention. Sometimes we adjust the work to meet them where they are. The key is to be flexible and to respond to what each learner needs.”

Teachers’ responses reveal a range of strategies that align with what the literature describes as differentiated instruction and inclusive pedagogy. The strategies reported include: Remedial approaches: Extra lessons and revision of previous content represent attempts to address foundational deficits. Pedagogical adaptations: Using different teaching methods, providing multiple explanations, and breaking content into smaller steps reflect a responsive approach to teaching. Peer support: Using stronger learners to help those who are struggling reflects a collaborative approach to learning. Flexible and responsive teaching: P11’s description of identifying gaps early and developing individualised strategies reflects a proactive approach that goes beyond simple remediation.

4.3.2. Constraints on Effective Implementation

While teachers reported using various strategies to support progressed learners, they also identified significant constraints that limited their effectiveness. These constraints were mentioned by all eleven teachers (100%), indicating that they are pervasive challenges.

Large Class Sizes

Eight teachers (73%) identified large class sizes as a major constraint on their ability to provide effective support.

P7, a science teacher, explained:

“Classes are too big, and it is difficult to give individual attention. I have 55 learners in my class. How can I give individual support to each one? It is impossible. The ones who are struggling need more attention, but I cannot give it because there are too many.”

P2, an English teacher, echoed this concern:

“When you have 50 learners in a class, you cannot differentiate effectively. You try, but it is very difficult. The stronger learners finish quickly and get bored. The weaker learners fall behind. You are trying to teach everyone at the same time, but they are at very different levels.”

Limited Instructional Time

Seven teachers (64%) identified time constraints as a significant challenge.

P8, a mathematics teacher, stated:

“There is not enough time to cover the syllabus and also help those who are behind. The curriculum is very full. We have to cover so much content. There is no time to go back and re-teach what they should have learned in previous grades. We are always rushing.”

P5, another mathematics teacher, added:

“The extra lessons help, but we cannot do them every day. There is only so much time. And the learners are tired. They have been in class all day. By the time we do extra lessons, they are exhausted. It is not the best time for learning.”

Inadequate Resources

Five teachers (45%) identified lack of resources as a constraint.

P10, a department head, explained:

“We do not have enough textbooks. We do not have enough resources. How can I differentiate when I do not even have enough books for everyone? We are trying to do inclusive education with very limited resources. It is a challenge.”

P4, a social sciences teacher, added:

“Resources are a big problem. We need different materials for different levels. We need worksheets, we need reading materials at different levels, we need visual aids. But we do not have them. We have to make do with what we have, which is not much.”

Curriculum Coverage Pressure

Six teachers (55%) identified pressure to complete the curriculum as a constraint.

P9, a social sciences teacher, stated:

“We have to finish the syllabus. There is pressure from the department, from the school, from parents. Everyone wants to see results. But the learners who have gaps need time. They need to go slowly. But we cannot go slowly because we have to finish. It is a constant tension.”

P6, an English teacher, added:

“I am always rushing to finish the curriculum. I cannot spend too much time on one topic, even if the learners do not understand it. There is no space to go back. It is like we are just moving through the content whether they learn it or not.”

Teachers’ responses reveal a pattern of structural constraints that significantly limit their ability to implement the strategies they recognise as necessary. The constraints identified large class sizes, limited time, inadequate resources, and curriculum pressure are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

4.4. Theme 3: Teacher Agency in Instructional Decision-Making

This theme captures how teachers draw on their professional experience and judgment to make decisions about supporting progressed learners. It also reveals the strengths and limitations of relying primarily on individual teacher agency in the absence of strong systemic support.

4.4.1. Professional Judgment and Adaptive Teaching

Nine teachers (82%) emphasised the importance of their professional experience and judgment in identifying learner needs and adapting their teaching accordingly.

P10, a department head with 11 years of experience, explained:

“My experience helps me to identify learners’ problems and find ways to assist them. You learn to read the signs. You learn to see who is struggling and who is not. Over time, you develop strategies that work. You cannot just follow a script. You have to respond to what is happening in your classroom.”

P6, a senior teacher with 18 years of experience, elaborated:

“You have to adjust your teaching depending on the level of the learners. You cannot teach the same way to every class. One class might need more explanation. Another class might need more practice. You have to be flexible. That is what experience gives you—the ability to read the room and adjust.”

P4, a social sciences teacher, described how she uses her knowledge of individual learners:

“I know which learners are progressed. I know their backgrounds. I know their challenges. When I plan my lessons, I think about them. I think about how I can help them. You cannot separate teaching from the learners. You have to know them and teach them as individuals.”

P8, a mathematics teacher and SBST member, explained how he makes decisions about intervention:

“Sometimes I give them extra work. Sometimes I simplify the work. Sometimes I put them in a certain group. You have to make decisions based on what you see. There is no formula. Every learner is different. You have to use your judgment.”

These responses reveal that teachers exercise significant agency in their work with progressed learners. The language used “my experience helps me,” “you have to adjust,” “you have to use your judgment” reflects active, deliberate decision-making rather than passive implementation of policy.

4.4.2. The Role of School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs)

Six teachers (55%) were members of SBSTs. Their responses revealed that while SBSTs exist as a formal support structure, their effectiveness in supporting teachers was variable.

P1, an SBST member with 12 years of experience, described the role of the SBST:

“We identify learners who are struggling. We try to put interventions in place. We monitor their progress. That is what we are supposed to do. But it is not always easy. We have limited resources, and we are all teachers with our own classes to teach.”

P11, an SBST member and grade head, acknowledged challenges:

“The SBST is there to help, but we are not always effective. Sometimes we do not have the resources. Sometimes we do not have the time. Sometimes we do not have the training. We try, but we could do more.”

P6, an SBST member, noted the importance of the SBST but also its limitations:

“The SBST helps to identify learners who need support. We meet regularly and discuss learners who are at risk. But the support we can provide is limited. We cannot provide the intensive intervention that some learners need. We try our best, but we have constraints.”

In contrast, teachers who were not SBST members expressed limited awareness of the SBST’s role or felt that it did not adequately support them.

P2, a teacher who is not an SBST member, stated:

“I know there is an SBST at the school. But I do not really know what they do. They are there, but they do not interact with me much. I do not feel supported by them.”

P7, another non-SBST teacher, added:

“We are supposed to have support teams. But in practice, teachers are left on their own. We have to figure out how to support progressed learners by ourselves. There is no systemic support.”

There is awareness that SBSTs exist as a formal structure. Six participants were directly involved in SBSTs and described their roles and responsibilities. This indicates that the structure is in place at the school level. There is recognition that SBSTs face significant challenges. The statements about limited resources, limited time, and limited training suggest that SBSTs are not functioning as effectively as they might. The repeated use of “limited” and the acknowledgement that they “could do more” suggest a gap between aspirations and reality.

4.4.3. The Burden of Individual Responsibility

A consistent pattern across the responses was the sense that teachers bear primary responsibility for supporting progressed learners, with limited systemic support.

P5, a mathematics teacher, expressed this sentiment:

“At the end of the day, it is up to me. I have to make sure they learn. I cannot rely on anyone else. I am the one in the classroom with them. I have to find a way.”

P3, a science teacher, added:

“We do not get much support. We are expected to include everyone, but we do not get the support we need to do it. We just have to make it work.”

P9, a social sciences teacher, captured the exhaustion this can cause:

“It is draining. You try and try, and sometimes you see improvement. Sometimes you do not. But you keep trying because what else can you do? There is no one else to help them.”

These responses reveal that teacher agency, while a strength, also represents a burden in the absence of adequate systemic support. The language used “up to me,” “make it work,” “keep trying” reflects a sense of individual responsibility that can be exhausting.

4.5. Theme 4: Contextual Challenges Influencing Learner Progression

This theme captures the broader contextual factors—beyond the classroom and the school that teachers identified as influencing the implementation of learner progression policy.

4.5.1. Socio-Economic Factors

All eleven teachers (100%) identified socio-economic factors as significant challenges affecting progressed learners’ ability to succeed.

P4, a social sciences teacher, explained:

“Some learners come from backgrounds where there is no support at home. Their parents are not involved. They do not have a place to study. They might not even have food at home. How can they focus on school when they are hungry?”

P7, a science teacher, elaborated:

“The environment affects their learning because they do not have resources. No internet. No books at home. No one to help them with homework. They are expected to do the same work as learners who have all these things. It is not fair.”

P2, an English teacher, described the impact of poverty:

“Some learners cannot afford to come to extra classes because they have to look after younger siblings. Some have to work after school to help support their families. They are dealing with so much. School is just one more thing.”

P6, a senior teacher, offered a broader perspective:

“Poverty is a huge factor. We see it every day. Learners come to school hungry. They come to school without proper uniforms. They cannot afford to buy the things they need. We want them to learn, but they are struggling just to survive.”

Teachers’ responses reveal that socio-economic factors are pervasive and profound challenges. The issues identified include: Lack of parental involvement: Teachers described parents who were not involved in their children’s education, either because they were not able to be or because they did not prioritise it. Resource limitations at home: Learners lack books, internet access, study spaces, and other resources that facilitate learning. This creates a gap between learners who have these resources and those who do not. Basic needs not being met: Teachers described learners who come to school hungry, without proper clothing, or who have responsibilities at home that prevent them from focusing on school. Compounding disadvantages: The challenges learners face are multiple and interconnected. Poverty affects every aspect of learners’ lives, creating conditions that make learning difficult.

What is significant is the recognition that these challenges are beyond the school’s control. Teachers are dealing with the consequences of socio-economic inequality, but they cannot address the root causes. This creates a situation where teachers are expected to help learners succeed, but many of the factors affecting learner success are outside the classroom.

4.5.2. Lack of Parental and Community Support

Eight teachers (73%) specifically identified lack of parental and community support as a significant challenge.

P5, a mathematics teacher, stated:

“Parents are not involved. They do not come to meetings. They do not check their children’s work. They do not support their children at home. We cannot do it alone. We need parents to help.”

P8, a mathematics teacher, elaborated:

“When I contact parents, many do not respond. Some say they cannot help because they did not go to school themselves. Others say they are too busy. Some just do not care. It is difficult to help a learner when there is no support at home.”

P1, an SBST member, added:

“We try to engage parents, but it is difficult. Many parents are not interested. They see education as the school’s responsibility. They do not see their role. We need to change this, but it is not easy.”

P10, a department head, offered a more nuanced perspective:

“Some parents want to help but do not know how. They did not get a good education themselves. They cannot help with homework. They do not know how to support their children. We need to think about how to support parents to support their children.”

Teachers’ responses reveal a complex picture regarding parental and community support: there is a general perception that parental involvement is limited. Teachers described parents as not coming to meetings, not checking children’s work, and not responding to communication. There is recognition that the lack of involvement may be due to various factors. P10’s comment that some parents “want to help but do not know how” suggests a more nuanced view than simply blaming parents. Teachers recognise that some parents face their own challenges and limitations. The lack of parental support has consequences for learning. Teachers described trying to compensate for the absence of home support, but this places additional burden on them there is a recognition that schools need to think differently about engaging parents. P10’s suggestion that schools “need to think about how to support parents” indicates an awareness that the problem is not simply that parents do not care, but that there are barriers to engagement that need to be addressed.

4.5.3. Resource Constraints and Infrastructure Challenges

Six teachers (55%) identified resource constraints and infrastructure challenges as significant barriers to effective implementation of progression policy.

P4, a social sciences teacher, described the impact of resource limitations:

“We do not have enough resources. No computers. Not enough textbooks. No laboratory equipment. How can we teach science without equipment? How can we do research without access to information? The learners are at a disadvantage.”

P3, a science teacher, elaborated:

“The infrastructure is a problem. We do not have enough classrooms. Some classes are held in temporary structures. It is hot in summer and cold in winter. The environment is not conducive to learning.”

P11, an SBST member, described how resource constraints affect support for progressed learners:

“We want to provide support for progressed learners. We need materials for them. We need space for extra classes. We need resources for remediation. But we do not have them. We have to make do with what we have.”

Teachers’ responses reveal that resource constraints are not limited to educational materials but extend to the physical infrastructure of schools. The lack of computers, textbooks, and laboratory equipment is compounded by inadequate classroom spaces and facilities.

The significance of these constraints is that they affect not only regular teaching but also the ability to provide additional support for progressed learners. Extra classes, remediation, and differentiated instruction all require resources that teachers do not have. This means that the very strategies teachers recognise as necessary are difficult or impossible to implement.

4.5.4. Learners’ Multiple and Compounding Challenges

Six teachers (55%) described the multiple challenges that learners face, noting that these challenges often compound one another.

P7, a science teacher, described this compounding effect:

“The challenges are multiple. Poverty. Lack of support at home. Learning gaps. Sometimes they are also dealing with issues at home family problems, violence, substance abuse. These things all affect their ability to learn. And they are all connected.”

P2, an English teacher, added:

“It is not just one thing. It is everything. The learner who has gaps in their learning also comes from a poor family. Their parents are not involved. They might be dealing with other problems. It all adds up. It makes it very hard for them.”

P6, a senior teacher, offered a systemic perspective:

“We are dealing with the effects of inequality. The learners who come to us have been disadvantaged their whole lives. They have had less resources, less support, less opportunity. We are trying to help them, but the challenges are deep. They are not going to be fixed quickly.”

These responses reveal that teachers see learners’ challenges as interconnected and cumulative. The language used “everything,” “it all adds up,” “the challenges are deep” reflects an understanding that learners face multiple, compounding disadvantages. This perspective has important implications for understanding progression policy: it suggests that progression policy cannot be understood in isolation from broader issues of inequality and disadvantage. The challenges that progressed learners face are not simply academic; they are social, economic, and systemic. it suggests that interventions must address multiple levels. Providing academic support is necessary but not sufficient if learners are dealing with poverty, hunger, family problems, and other challenges. it suggests that expectations for progress must be realistic. P6’s statement that the challenges are “not going to be fixed quickly” indicates an understanding that deep-seated problems require sustained, long-term interventions.

4.6. Summary of Findings

The findings reveal that teachers in this study hold a dual perspective on learner progression policy. They support the policy’s inclusive intentions but are deeply concerned about its academic consequences. This tension between inclusion and quality runs through all four themes. Together, these findings paint a complex picture of policy implementation in under-resourced contexts. Teachers are committed to inclusive education and work hard to support progressed learners. But they do so under significant constraints, without adequate systemic support, and in contexts of deep inequality that shape learners’ experiences and outcomes.

5. Discussion

This study set out to examine teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding learner progression policy in underperforming secondary schools in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The findings reveal that while teachers broadly support the policy as a tool for inclusion, its implementation is marked by significant tensions related to academic readiness, pedagogical demands, contextual constraints, and the limits of teacher agency within under-resourced systems. This discussion interprets these findings through the lens of teacher agency theory (Priestley et al., 2021) and socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tikly, 2019), connecting the empirical evidence to the broader scholarly literature on inclusive education, policy enactment, and educational inequality.

5.1. The Inclusion-Quality Tension in Policy Enactment

The findings demonstrate that teachers support learner progression as a mechanism for keeping learners in school, yet they express profound concern about learners advancing without adequate foundational knowledge. This dual perspective valuing inclusion while worrying about academic quality reflects a tension that is well-documented in the international literature on social promotion and progression policies (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2020). However, the findings extend this literature by showing how this tension is experienced at the classroom level in under-resourced South African contexts.

Teachers’ descriptions of learners moving “to the next grade without knowing the basics” (P2, P5, P7) and the cumulative nature of learning deficits echo the concerns raised by Spaull and Pretorius (2019), who documented how learning backlogs in literacy and numeracy compound over time, particularly in disadvantaged schools. Similarly, Mahlobo (2015) argued that progression in South African schools often results in learners advancing without adequate mastery of foundational skills. The present study provides empirical evidence from teachers’ perspectives that confirms and extends these findings, showing that teachers are acutely aware of this problem and experience it as a source of frustration and concern.

From a socio-ecological perspective (Tikly, 2019), this tension can be understood as a mismatch between the microsystem (classroom-level interactions) and the macrosystem (policy frameworks and socio-economic conditions). At the policy level, progression is framed as an inclusive mechanism. At the classroom level, however, teachers encounter learners who lack the foundational knowledge to engage with grade-level content. This mismatch is not an implementation failure in the narrow sense; it reflects a fundamental tension between the goals of inclusion and the realities of teaching in contexts of deep inequality. As Tikly (2019) argues, inclusion cannot be reduced to physical access; meaningful inclusion requires attention to learning outcomes.

The findings also resonate with international research showing that progression policies are most effective when coupled with targeted remediation and differentiated support (OECD, 2021). In this study, teachers explicitly noted the absence of such support systems, suggesting that progression in their schools is functioning as what might be termed “symbolic inclusion” learners are physically present in the classroom but are not receiving the support they need to succeed. This finding is consistent with Nkuna and Heystek’s (2024) observation that progression policy in under-resourced schools often lacks the accompanying support structures needed to make it meaningful.

5.2. The Limits of Differentiated Instruction Under Constraint

Teachers in this study reported using a range of strategies to support progressed learners, including extra lessons, revision, scaffolding, peer support, and adapting teaching methods. These strategies align with the principles of differentiated instruction, which is widely recognised as essential for addressing diverse learning needs (Makoelle, 2012; Pozas et al., 2021; Ramaila, 2025). However, the findings also reveal that these strategies are implemented under significant constraints large class sizes, limited time, inadequate resources, and pressure to complete the curriculum that severely limit their effectiveness.

This finding confirms and extends the work of Hoadley (2020), who argued that curriculum coverage pressures and large class sizes significantly constrain teachers’ capacity to provide individualised support in South African classrooms. Similarly, Bantwini (2019) found that teacher professional development in rural and township schools is uneven, affecting the quality of policy implementation. The present study provides empirical evidence that these constraints are not merely contextual background but are actively shaping teachers’ ability to implement the pedagogical strategies they recognise as necessary.

From a teacher agency perspective (Priestley et al., 2021), these constraints can be understood as structural factors that limit teachers’ capacity to exercise agency, particularly affecting the practical-evaluative dimension teachers’ ability to make and enact decisions in their immediate classroom contexts. Teachers know what they should do (provide individualised support, differentiate instruction, address learning gaps), but the conditions of their work prevent them from doing it effectively. As Priestley et al. (2021) argue, teacher agency is not simply an individual capacity but is shaped by the interplay of individual factors, structural conditions, and cultural norms. In this study, the structural conditions large classes, limited resources, time pressures are constraining teachers’ ability to exercise agency in ways that would benefit progressed learners.

The finding that teachers are making significant efforts to support progressed learners despite these constraints is important. It suggests that teachers are not passive recipients of policy, but are actively working to make it work in their classrooms. However, the gap between their efforts and what is needed raises questions about the sustainability of these efforts and the equity of outcomes for learners. If the quality of support depends on individual teachers’ commitment and energy, learners will experience very different levels of support depending on which teacher they have. This points to the need for systemic rather than individual solutions.

5.3. Teacher Agency: Strength and Vulnerability

The findings highlight the central role of teacher experience and judgment in supporting progressed learners. Teachers reported drawing on their professional knowledge, adapting their teaching to meet learner needs, and making decisions about intervention strategies based on their understanding of individual learners. This reliance on professional judgment reflects the operation of teacher agency, which Priestley et al. (2021) conceptualise as the capacity to make and enact decisions in context.

The finding that teachers exercise significant agency is consistent with the contemporary policy enactment literature, which emphasises that teachers actively interpret, negotiate, and adapt policy within their specific contexts (Ball et al., 2012). Teachers in this study are not simply implementing policy in a mechanical way; they are making professional judgments about how to respond to the needs of progressed learners in their classrooms. This is a strength of the education system teachers bring expertise and experience to bear on complex problems.

However, the findings also reveal the vulnerability of this reliance on individual agency. Teachers described being “left on their own” (P7), “caught in the middle” (P8), and having to “make it work” (P3, P5) without adequate systemic support. This suggests that teacher agency is operating in a context where institutional support structures are weak or inconsistent. The School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs), which are supposed to provide structured support, were described as having limited resources, limited time, and limited effectiveness. This finding is consistent with Mogale’s (2023) observation that the role of SBSTs in supporting progressed learners is often uneven and constrained.

From a teacher agency perspective, this reveals a tension between the iterational dimension (teachers’ past experience and knowledge) and the structural conditions that enable or constrain agency (Priestley et al., 2021). Teachers have the knowledge and experience to support progressed learners, but they lack the structural support time, resources, collaborative structures to do so effectively. The result is that the burden of inclusion falls on individual teachers, with all the risks of burnout and inequity that this entails.

This finding has implications for how we think about teacher agency in policy implementation. While agency is often celebrated as a positive quality, teachers should be empowered to make professional decisions the findings suggest that agency without support is a burden. Teachers should not have to bear the full weight of implementing complex policies on their own. Effective policy implementation requires a balance between professional autonomy and institutional support.

5.4. Socio-Economic Contexts as Determinants of Policy Outcomes

The findings clearly demonstrate that learner progression policy is shaped by factors beyond the classroom. Teachers identified poverty, lack of parental support, resource constraints, and learners’ multiple challenges as significant factors affecting the implementation of progression policy. These findings are consistent with the socio-ecological perspective (Tikly, 2019) and with recent South African research showing that socio-economic inequalities continue to shape educational outcomes (Van der Berg et al., 2021; Spaull & Pretorius, 2019).

From a socio-ecological perspective, the findings reveal that progression policy operates at multiple systemic levels. At the microsystem level (the classroom), teachers are struggling to support learners with significant learning gaps. At the mesosystem level (the school-home connection), teachers identified limited parental involvement as a challenge. At the exosystem level (institutional resources), teachers pointed to limited resources and infrastructure. At the macrosystem level (broader socio-economic conditions), teachers described the impact of poverty and inequality on learners’ lives.

This multi-level analysis reveals an important insight: the challenges of learner progression are not simply educational but are deeply embedded in broader patterns of inequality. Learners who are progressed without adequate support are not just facing academic challenges; they are facing the cumulative effects of poverty, limited resources, and limited opportunities. As P6 stated, “We are dealing with the effects of inequality.” This perspective suggests that progression policy alone cannot address the educational challenges faced by disadvantaged learners; it must be accompanied by broader social and economic interventions.

The finding that socio-economic factors are a significant determinant of policy outcomes also raises questions about the equity of progression policy. If learners from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be progressed without adequate support and if they are more likely to face challenges that make it difficult to succeed, then progression policy may inadvertently reproduce or even exacerbate inequalities. This is consistent with Spaull and Pretorius’s (2019) argument that progression without support can reproduce inequalities by allowing learning deficits to accumulate.

5.5. The Gap Between Policy Intentions and Implementation Realities

A consistent pattern across the findings is the gap between what progression policy intends and what is achieved in practice. Teachers described the policy’s intentions as positive keeping learners in school, preventing dropout, promoting inclusion but they identified significant gaps in implementation. The absence of monitoring systems, the lack of structured support, and the limited resources available to schools were consistently mentioned as implementation gaps.

This finding is consistent with the policy enactment literature, which emphasises that policies are not simply implemented but are enacted through the interpretive work of teachers and other actors (Ball et al., 2012). However, the findings suggest that teachers are doing more than interpreting policy; they are compensating for its failures. When teachers provide extra lessons, develop intervention strategies, and adapt their teaching to meet learner needs, they are addressing gaps that should have been addressed by the policy itself.

From a teacher agency perspective, this reveals the projective dimension of agency teachers’ future-oriented goals and aspirations (Priestley et al., 2021). Teachers are not just responding to the present; they are working toward future goals of helping learners succeed. However, the gap between policy intentions and implementation realities means that teachers must work harder and do more to achieve these goals. This places a burden on teachers that may not be sustainable.

The absence of robust monitoring systems is particularly significant. Teachers explicitly called for “proper follow-up to check if progressed learners are improving” (P1, P4, P11). This suggests that teachers see progression as requiring ongoing support and tracking, rather than being a one-time decision. The absence of such systems means that learners may be progressed but then “lost” in the system, without the support they need to succeed. This finding is consistent with international evidence that progression policies are most effective when accompanied by data-driven support systems (OECD, 2021).

5.6. Theoretical Contributions and Extensions

The findings of this study extend teacher agency theory (Priestley et al., 2021) by demonstrating how agency operates under significant structural constraint in under-resourced South African schools. While the ecological model recognises the interplay of individual capacities, structural conditions, and cultural factors, this study provides empirical evidence of how these dimensions interact in a specific policy context. The findings reveal that teacher agency is simultaneously a strength—enabling adaptive, responsive teaching—and a vulnerability, as the absence of systemic support places an unsustainable burden on individual teachers. This suggests that policy should not simply rely on teachers’ professional commitment but must provide the structural conditions adequate resources, manageable class sizes, time for remediation, and functional support structures that enable effective practice. Furthermore, the study shows that agency operates at multiple levels, shaped not only by individual capacities but by institutional and policy contexts, reinforcing the need for interventions that strengthen agency across all these levels.

The study also extends socio-ecological theory (Tikly, 2019) by applying it to the specific context of learner progression policy in South Africa. The findings demonstrate the importance of multi-level analysis, revealing that policy implementation is shaped by factors at the microsystem (classroom interactions), mesosystem (school-home connections), exosystem (institutional resources), and macrosystem (socio-economic inequality) levels. Critically, the findings show how these levels are interconnected poverty, lack of parental support, and learning gaps reinforce one another in ways that cannot be addressed through school-level interventions alone. This underscores that meaningful inclusion requires policy responses that extend beyond the classroom to address the broader socio-economic conditions that shape educational outcomes, positioning learner progression not merely as a pedagogical or administrative matter but as a fundamentally socio-economic and equity issue.

6. Study Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. The small purposive sample of eleven teachers from five underperforming schools in Limpopo Province limits transferability to other contexts, while the use of open-ended questionnaires, though logistically necessary, restricted opportunities for probing deeper insights compared to interviews. The study’s exclusive focus on teachers’ perspectives excludes other key stakeholders learners, parents, school leaders, and district officials and reliance on perceptual data rather than quantitative outcome measures prevents assessment of the actual academic impact of progression policy. Future research should address these limitations through broader sampling, mixed-methods approaches, and inclusion of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

7. Implications and Recommendations

The findings of this study yield several implications for policy, practice, and future research. At the policy level, the study suggests that learner progression must be supported by robust academic support mechanisms remedial programmes, targeted interventions, and continuous assessment if it is to achieve its inclusive intentions rather than merely advancing learners without addressing foundational deficits. This implies that policymakers should ensure progression decisions are linked to clear support plans and that monitoring systems are strengthened to track the progress of progressed learners, with regular assessment and early identification of those requiring additional intervention. For school practice, the findings point to the need for strengthened School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs) that provide consistent, coordinated support to both teachers and learners, alongside practical support for teachers to implement differentiated instruction effectively including professional development focused on managing mixed-ability classrooms, reduced class sizes where possible, and improved access to teaching resources. Critically, the study implies that interventions must extend beyond the classroom to address socio-economic barriers such as poverty, lack of parental support, and limited access to learning resources, necessitating collaboration with families and communities. For future research, the study suggests the need for broader sampling across multiple provinces, mixed-methods approaches that combine qualitative insights with quantitative outcome data, and inclusion of diverse stakeholder perspectives including learners, parents, and school leaders to provide a more comprehensive understanding of policy enactment. Finally, the study implies that learner progression policy should be reviewed to ensure better alignment between inclusion goals and academic expectations, with clear guidelines on balancing progression with learner readiness.

8. Conclusions

This study examined teachers’ experiences of learner progression policy in underperforming secondary schools in Limpopo Province. The findings reveal that, while teachers value the policy for promoting access and preventing dropout, its implementation is marked by significant tensions. Teachers support progression’s inclusive intentions but are deeply concerned about learners advancing without foundational knowledge, leading to cumulative learning deficits. They employ various strategies extra lessons, revision, scaffolding to support progressed learners, yet these efforts are constrained by large class sizes, limited time, inadequate resources, and curriculum pressures. Teacher experience and professional judgment play a central role in mediating policy implementation, but this reliance on individual agency occurs without adequate systemic support, placing an unsustainable burden on teachers. Broader socio-economic factors poverty, lack of parental involvement, and resource constraints further shape learner outcomes, underscoring that progression cannot be understood solely as a classroom issue but must be situated within wider conditions of inequality.

The study concludes that learner progression requires substantially stronger support structures to be effective. Progression without structured academic support, robust monitoring systems, and adequate resourcing risks becoming symbolic inclusion rather than meaningful educational opportunity. A more balanced approach is needed—one that supports inclusion while ensuring learners develop the knowledge and skills required for academic success. By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives from under-resourced contexts, this study contributes to ongoing debates about the tension between inclusion and quality, offering insights for strengthening inclusive education in South Africa and similar contexts where teachers navigate complex policy demands under significant constraint.