FULL-SERVICE-SCHOOLS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2: THE CONCEPT OF FULL-SERVICE SCHOOLS WITH REFERENCE TO BRNOFENBRENNER’S ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

“Ordinary schools with an inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system”
(Salamanca Statement, principle 5).

 INTRODUCTION

The quotation above emphasises the importance of ordinary schools with an inclusive practice. These schools are named FSS in the South African context. In the previous chapter, the researcher described the introduction and background to the study. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept FSS in detail. Different sources were consulted in order to build a common understanding and practices regarding how and why FSS were established internationally, as well as in South Africa. This assisted the researcher to develop a profound understanding of how teachers can support learners experiencing reading problems in FSS. Furthermore, the researcher discusses Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the theoretical framework to guide support for Grade 3 learners experiencing reading problems in FSS.

 FULL-SERVICE-SCHOOLS

In June 1994, more than 300 representatives of 92 governments and 25 international organisations formed the World Conference on Special Needs Education, held in Salamanca, Spain. At this conference, hosted by UNESCO, the Salamanca Statement on the Principle, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education was adopted. The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994:11-12) declared inclusion as a right ensuring that all learners have access to quality education that meets their essential needs and improves their lives. As a result, schools should cater for every learner regardless of their learning barriers. In order to make sure that the needs of every learner is addressed, Full Service Schools (FSS) were introduced in South Africa. FSS are not newly established schools but former mainstream schools that serve to develop and implement the inclusive models that will later be considered for system-wide application (DoE 2001:8). In this regard, the need for enhancing inclusion in these schools is of paramount importance.

Full-Service Schools (FSS) Internationally

The concept of FSS was first used in 1991 when the Florida legislature in the United States of America passed a law supporting the development of FSS, which was driven by diverse social phenomena and targeted high-risk learners needing medical and social services (Dryfoos 2002:6).
In the United States of America (USA), the concepts of full-service, extended-school service and full-service community schools are used interchangeably. Initially, these schools were ordinary schools and were transformed in order to meet the demands of the community and as a solution to the fact that “schools can’t do it alone” (Dryfoos 2005:7). According to a 1991 Florida law, “a full-service school assimilates different services such as social, education, human and medical services that are useful to meeting the needs of children, youth together with their families on school premises or in places which are easily reachable”. As such, it provides the types of support, prevention and treatment services for families and children in need to allow them to succeed at school. To add to the statements, Dryfoos (2005:7) argues that services in these schools are of a high calibre, inclusive and are grounded on collaboration among government and local, public and private entities. Taking this into account, FSS incorporate both quality of education and support services. Considering what has highlighted above, FSS in the USA were transformed in order to meet specific needs for the school and its community. However, attaching a single definition to the concept is difficult. Kronick (2012:14-15) affirms that there is no single explanation attached to the concept of FSS. Hence, he provided the following three explanations of FSS:
A school which serves as an essential point of delivery for providing health, education, social, employment and human services. It, therefore, serves as a single community hub where learners are supported in order for them to succeed in school and in the community.
A new kind of school designed to meet the needs of modern learners and families. In this school, there is integration of support services such as mental health, health and social services in order to provide quality education and so as to enrich the lives of the children, the parents, and the community.
A school that not only provides the best health education, academic and mental health services but also improves the lives of families by adding parenting classes, parent resource centres and adult education.
From the explanation provided, Kronick (2012:14-15) emphasises the need to integrate the school with other support services in order to provide both academic and non-academic support for learners to succeed. The researcher looked at the explanations very closely and came to the understanding that FSS strive to provide individual support to every learner in need and promote a child-centred approach. This view is in accordance with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (section 2.3) that acknowledges the interrelatedness of four systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. This theory submits that different systems have a direct or indirect influence on a child’s development. It is, therefore, important for all members in each system to understand their roles in order to be capable of strengthening support from a holistic perspective for learners experiencing learning barriers including those experiencing reading problems.
Australia shares the same sentiments as the USA about FSS. The concepts of full-service extended schools and schools as community hubs are used in Australia. According to Black, Lemon and Walsh (2012:5), full-service extended schools are viewed as logical extension of a large number of initiatives that seek to achieve more integrated service provision for learners and young people in high need contexts. Furthermore, the Australian Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) (2013:21) also argues that being at its infancy stage, these schools depend on the needs of the community and rely on a “place-driven approach” as opposed to the “one-size-fits-all approach” (ibid.:9). Consequently, in terms of providing service and support to learners, no school will look the same as another school.

 Full-Service Schools in South Africa

In South Africa, the idea of FSS was new to the education system although, by 2009, numerous schools and other institutions for learning had effectively made strides towards the development of educational systems that were responsive to the diverse needs of learning (DoE 2009:7). This concept was firstly presented in the Education White Paper 6 (EWP6) (DoE 2001:22) so as to underline the significant role that mainstream schools (also alluded to as ordinary schools) need to play in building up an inclusive practice, and to elucidate their function as levers of change. As noted in the previous section, many explanations regarding the concept of FSS have evolved throughout the world. In South Africa, where the research was conducted, the concept of FSS has been clarified by the DBE (2010(a):7) as “first and foremost mainstream education institutions that provide quality education to all learners by supplying the full range of learning needs in an equitable manner”. The special emphasis of these schools as highlighted in DBE (2010(b):11) is on inclusive standards, which comprise of adapting teaching and learning and providing educational assistance to teachers and all learners, irrespective of their ability. In line with this, such schools are furnished and assisted to cater for a broad range of learning needs so as to allow every learner to learn and participate fully. In addition, LSTs are also assigned to these schools as a means of strengthening curriculum support for both teachers and learners.
Ideally, FSS are established in order to promote IE. Thus, teachers need to improve their skills and knowledge on how to deal with matters relating to inclusivity in the classroom. To address this, the DoE has provided training for teachers in FSS on how to support diverse learners in their classrooms. However, according to the researcher’s experience, not all teachers are confident in supporting learners who experience learning barriers such as reading problems. This situation makes teachers feel incompetent when having to support such learners on a daily basis. This was affirmed by the number of learners that were referred to the district offices for support while the researcher was still working for the DoE.
With regard to its responsibilities, the Gauteng Education Department (GDE) emphasises that the responsibilities of FSS include, among other things, the implementation of an inclusive model; promotion of early identification of barriers to learning and intervention in the Foundation Phase; mobilisation of the community; and increasing parent participation (DBE 2014(b):26). Barriers to learning, according to the DBE (2014(b): vii), are the difficulties that arise within the learners, learning sites and education systems that preclude access to learning and development. In South Africa, like any other country, the notion of supporting learners with learning barriers has been given the highest priority in the education system. Hence, some of the mainstream schools were transformed into FSS in order to accommodate diverse learners.
According to DBE (2010(a):21), FSS should accommodate learners who need moderate levels of support, and the DBST should monitor admissions. As a result, everybody in the FSS is responsible for the education of every learner irrespective of their learning needs (DoE 2005a:8). Considering the framework presented in the EWP6 regarding the execution of IE, it is noted that the aim of establishing FSS is to promote inclusion (DoE 2001:22).
Ainscow and Farrell (2002:3) define inclusion as a policy by which the government, schools, local authorities and communities attempt to decrease learning barriers and increase participation for all people. This signifies that for inclusion to be functional, all learners should be fully included and accepted in the community and school environment regardless of their disabilities. Booth (2005:25) further indicates that in education inclusion can be described as two related processes: increasing learners’ participation in schools; and reducing exclusion of learners from the curriculum, cultures, communities and mainstream schools. Inclusion should, therefore, respond to the diverse needs of learners by reducing exclusion within entire education system. Thomas and Loxley (2001:118) affirm that inclusion is about more than disabilities or special needs, but it is concerned with IE, equality and collective belonging. In order for inclusion to be operational in South Africa, the majority of mainstream schools will have to be transformed to function as FSS.

The need to transform mainstream schools into full-service schools

The concept FSS was initiated so as to demonstrate how mainstream schools can be transformed to become fully inclusive institutions of care and support (DoE 2010(a):1). Although the importance of transforming mainstream schools into FSS was highlighted in the EWP6 (DoE 2001:22), all schools will not be transformed at the same time. During the piloting phase, it was indicated that approximately 500 mainstream primary schools would be converted to FSS, starting with 30 primary mainstream schools in identified districts. In Gauteng, at the time of this study, 75 mainstream schools had already been transformed into FSS. This shows the commitment of the DoE to implement inclusivity in schools and to address the need to support learners experiencing barriers to learning.
To transform means to change or to convert. According to the DoE (2002:22), transformation involves “… a shift from a pedagogy of exclusion to a pedagogy of possibilities that takes into consideration barriers to learning, different intelligences and learning styles as well as a shift from organising services according to categories of disability towards determining level of support needed”. Taking that into account calls for a major shift in terms of how teachers should support learners experiencing learning barriers including those with reading problems. This will involve a paradigm shift from viewing the learners’ challenges from a medical deficit perspective to a socio-ecological perspective.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
1.5 AIM OF THE RESEARCH
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.7 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY
1.8 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.9 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.10. CONCEPT CLARIFICATION
1.11 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.12 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: THE CONCEPT OF FULL-SERVICE SCHOOLS WITH REFERENCE TO BRONFENBRENNER’S ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 FULL-SERVICE-SCHOOLS
2.3 BRONFENBRENNER’S ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK UNDERPINNING SUPPORT IN FSS
2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3: READING AND READING SUPPORT FOR GRADE 3 LEARNERS IN FULL SERVICE SCHOOLS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 TEACHING GRADE 3 LEARNERS TO READ
3.3 READING PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY GRADE 3 LEARNERS IN A FSS.
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 THE RESEARCH PARADIGM
4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH
4.4 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING
4.6 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS
4.8 TRUSTWORTHINESS
4.9 ETHICS IN RESEARCH
4.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PROFILE OF FULL-SERVICE SCHOOLS (FSS) AND PARTICIPANTS
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD
5.4 RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS
5.5 RESULTS FROM OBSERVATIONS
5.6 RESULTS FROM DOCUMENTS ANALYSIS
5.7 DISCUSSION OF THE THEMES EMERGING FROM FINDINGS
5.8 SUMMARY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
6.3 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW AND FROM THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND FINDINGS FROM THE EMPIRICAL STUDY
6.4 VERIFICATION OF RESULTS
6.5 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR DRAWING UP AN EFFECTIVE READING SUPPORT
6.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.10 CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT