article · South African Journal of Childhood Education
Background: Inclusive education in South Africa has been prioritised. Still, research has shown that neurodivergent learners in the foundation phase continue to experience exclusion. Meanwhile, policy has not been adequately examined through a neurodiversity perspective that recognises cognitive difference as a natural human attribute. Aim: The study analysed the Guidelines for Responding to Learner Diversity in the Classroom through the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement using neurodiversity theory to determine their implications for curriculum and assessment in the foundation phase. Setting: The study was situated in the South African public basic education policy environment, with a specific focus on curriculum and assessment in the foundation phase. Methods: A qualitative theoretical document analysis was conducted on the Guidelines. The text was thematically coded and interpreted through a neurodiversity perspective to identify how learner differences, curriculum differentiation and assessment flexibility were construed. Results: The analysis revealed that the Guidelines strongly promote curriculum differentiation and flexible assessment, whilst rejecting narrow views of intelligence. However, learner differences are largely framed in terms of barriers and support needs, and not as positive neurocognitive variation. This leaves neurodivergence only implicitly recognised. Conclusion: Whilst the Guidelines support inclusive practices in principle, they have not fully embraced a neurodiversity-affirming understanding of learner diversity. As such, greater conceptual clarity and explicit recognition of neurodevelopmental variability are recommended. Contribution: The study links the national curriculum and assessment policy to neurodiversity theory in the foundation phase. This effort results in a conceptual argument for advancing inclusive, equitable and responsive early childhood education, which can potentially help in policy reform.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.4102/sajce.v16i1.1879
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.