Abstract:
Background: An inflexible curriculum without any opportunity for modification or adaptation does not support inclusive education. Reports on early childhood education have resolved that traditional approaches to curriculum, such as those emphasizing drill and repetition of isolated academic skills are not in line with contemporary knowledge of human learning and neuropsychology. There has been advocacy for early education for children from disadvantaged environments including those with special needs because investing in education for the vulnerable improves their survival. The Universal Design for Learning framework has been designed with the aim of addressing the diversity of all students and creating a flexible curriculum that supports access, participation, and progress for all learners. This framework helps educators by providing a guide for creating curricula that meets the needs of all learners from the beginning. The South African NCF is a framework that seeks to honour the diversity of young children and their capabilities and is said to also recognise the need for every child to equally participate in a curriculum programme that aims to guide integrated care and education in varied settings. Its six Early Learning and Developmental Areas have been arranged to help adults to organise activities for babies, toddlers and young children according to the children’s development. This study was therefore aimed at examining the extent to which children with disabilities are conceptualised and accommodated in the South African National Curriculum Framework by; (i) identifying the nature of the language used in the curricula to mention, refer to or imply about children with disabilities; and (ii) by identifying and exploring the extent to which the South African NCF reflects and incorporates the principles of UDL.
Method: A comprehensive qualitative content analysis of the English version of the NCF curriculum document was conducted in order to understand the extent to which children with disabilities are mentioned and included in the South African National Framework Curriculum.
Results: The deductive content analysis revealed that there were a variety of terms used to refer to children with disabilities in different sections of the South African NCF. All of the three principles of UDL were also incorporated to some extent in the NCF. However, this is not consistent across the principles. The coding and in-depth reading of various goals, strategies and assessment within various ELDAs also highlighted that there are still too many opportunities that were missed where UDL principles could be included and made more explicit for ECD practitioners to know how to practically differentiate the curriculum for children with disabilities
Conclusion: It is clear that the NCF does take into account the use of different terminology when referring to disability. It should also be noted that the NCF does take into account the principles of UDL in its design where cultural diversity is honoured and acknowledged. However, the number of missed opportunities cannot be ignored. There remains a gap for the NCF to explicitly detail how ECD practitioners could successfully ensure that every learner is benefited by the curriculum in all its components.
