Progressed, Not Prepared: The Classroom Reality Behind South Africa’s Inclusion Policy

Keeping vulnerable learners in school is a legitimate policy goal, but advancing students who have not mastered foundational skills can create a different form of exclusion: they remain inside the education system while falling progressively further behind. New research from South Africa suggests that this tension between access and actual learning is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to manage.

The study, "Interrogating Learner Progression Policy in South African Schools Through Teachers' Perspectives," published in Education Sciences, was authored by Medwin Sepadi, Makobo Mogale, Emma Priscilla Barnett and Susan Thuketana. Based on the experiences of teachers in underperforming secondary schools in Limpopo Province, the researchers examine how a policy designed to reduce repetition and dropout operates when learners, teachers and schools lack the resources needed to make progression academically meaningful.

The warning is more consequential: promotion without systematic remediation can shift failure from one grade to the next rather than solve it, leaving teachers to repair years of accumulated learning deficits while simultaneously delivering the current curriculum.

Inclusion Works Only When Learners Are Advancing in Knowledge Too

South Africa's progression policy allows learners in certain circumstances to move to the next grade even when they have not met all normal promotion requirements. The rationale is grounded in inclusion: repeated failure can increase disengagement, marginalization and eventual dropout, particularly among students already facing socioeconomic disadvantage.

Nine of the 11 participants, or 82%, regarded progression as an important mechanism for keeping struggling learners connected to education. They saw value in giving students another opportunity rather than allowing repeated failure to push them permanently out of the system.

Yet every teacher in the study expressed concern about learners moving upward without the foundational knowledge required for higher-level work. Teachers described students encountering advanced mathematics without command of basic concepts, or entering higher grades with reading difficulties that limited their ability to understand questions across subjects.

Inclusion cannot be measured only by whether a learner occupies a classroom seat or advances administratively. If students remain enrolled but are unable to participate meaningfully in grade-level learning, the system may be delaying educational exclusion rather than eliminating it.

Teachers Are Becoming the System's Last Line of Remediation

The study is based on open-ended questionnaires completed by 11 teachers across five underperforming secondary schools in the Capricorn District of Limpopo. Participants had three to 18 years of teaching experience and worked directly with progressed learners. Researchers used reflexive thematic analysis to examine how teachers interpret the policy and respond to its consequences in their classrooms.

What emerges is a picture of substantial teacher adaptation. All 11 participants reported using additional strategies to close learning gaps. Nine provided extra lessons, eight revisited earlier content, seven used scaffolding and six adapted teaching methods, alongside peer learning, simplified explanations and individualized support where possible.

The effort demonstrates professional commitment, but it also exposes a weakness in policy design. Much of the academic recovery burden appears to be transferred to individual teachers after progression has already occurred. Teachers are effectively expected to deliver the current syllabus while diagnosing and repairing deficits accumulated across previous grades.

The problem becomes acute when individual effort substitutes for institutional capacity. Nine teachers emphasized the role of professional experience and judgment in deciding how to support progressed learners, yet participants also described being left largely to make those decisions themselves. School-Based Support Teams existed, but their effectiveness was constrained by shortages of time, training and resources.

This creates an equity problem inside the policy itself. If successful progression depends heavily on the skill, energy and discretion of individual teachers, learners with similar needs may receive very different levels of support depending on their school, subject or classroom. Teacher agency is valuable, but agency without institutional backing can become an unsustainable form of policy compensation.

Overcrowded Classrooms Turn Good Policy Intentions Into Impossible Trade-Offs

The schools examined in the study operate under severe constraints. Enrolment ranged from roughly 450 to 1,200 learners, while classes commonly contained 45 to 55 students. Schools also reported limited textbooks and technology, inadequate classrooms, shortages of science facilities and persistently weak examination performance.

Those conditions directly undermine the interventions progressed learners need. Eight teachers identified large classes as a major constraint, seven cited limited instructional time, six highlighted pressure to finish the curriculum and five reported inadequate resources. Teachers were therefore being asked to differentiate learning within classrooms containing students operating at widely different academic levels.

This reveals a broader policy contradiction. Progression assumes that schools can provide the additional help needed to prevent learning deficits from becoming permanent. But where a teacher is responsible for 50 or more students and must complete a full curriculum, time spent reteaching earlier material can come at the expense of current content.

The consequences extend beyond teacher workload. Stronger learners can lose instructional time, while struggling learners may receive only partial remediation. Curriculum coverage can become a race against the calendar rather than an indication that students have understood what was taught.

For policymakers, this means progression cannot be treated as a low-cost administrative intervention. If governments want fewer learners to repeat grades while preserving academic standards, they must invest in remediation, diagnostic assessment, instructional materials, teacher development and stronger support structures. Otherwise, the fiscal cost of repetition may simply be replaced by the educational cost of unresolved learning deficits.

Poverty Makes Progression a Development Challenge, Not Just a School Policy

The research also shows why the problem cannot be solved entirely inside classrooms. All 11 teachers identified socioeconomic conditions as important barriers to the success of progressed learners. Participants described poverty, hunger, weak access to books and internet, limited study space and family responsibilities that reduce the time and attention students can devote to school.

Eight teachers specifically highlighted limited parental and community support, although their accounts also showed that this cannot simply be interpreted as parental indifference. Some parents lacked the education, time or resources to support schoolwork effectively, suggesting that stronger school-family engagement must account for the constraints households themselves face.

This makes learner progression part of a wider development-policy problem. Academic deficits intersect with household poverty, food insecurity, infrastructure inequality and unequal access to learning resources. A student who is hungry, caring for siblings and without a quiet place to study faces disadvantages no promotion rule can correct on its own.

The study consequently supports a more integrated response. Progressed learners need structured remedial programs, continuous assessment and monitoring, while schools require stronger support teams and teachers need practical training for mixed-ability classrooms. The authors also call for better alignment between inclusion goals and academic expectations, alongside interventions that recognize socioeconomic barriers beyond school walls.

It is important to note that this is a small qualitative study involving 11 teachers from five low-performing schools in one district. It does not measure the actual academic outcomes of progressed learners, and it excludes the perspectives of students, parents, principals and district officials. The authors therefore call for wider sampling, mixed-method research and quantitative outcome data.

To sum up, South Africa does not face a simple choice between inclusion and standards. The real policy challenge is building an education system capable of keeping vulnerable learners enrolled while also ensuring they acquire the knowledge required to succeed.

Progression can prevent a child from being left behind administratively. Only sustained teaching, remediation and social support can prevent that child from being left behind academically.