Adapting Curriculum for Inclusive Education: Insights from Special Schools in Limpopo Province, South Africa

Curriculum adaptation

Curriculum adaptation refers to the systematic modification of curriculum content, teaching strategies, assessment methods, and learning environments to accommodate the diverse needs of learners, particularly those with disabilities. It ensures that all learners can access and engage with the curriculum meaningfully (Eloff & Kgwete, 2020). Adaptation may include simplifying texts, using assistive technologies, providing visual or tactile supports, or adjusting pacing. In special and inclusive education contexts, curriculum adaptation is central to removing learning barriers and supporting equitable participation (Donohue & Bornman, 2021).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an educational framework that promotes flexible learning environments to accommodate individual learning differences. UDL is based on three core principles: providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018). In inclusive classrooms, UDL supports proactive planning that minimizes the need for retroactive accommodations. By designing curricula that are accessible from the outset, educators can ensure all learners, including those with disabilities, are included and empowered (Al-Azawei et al., 2022; Muthukrishna et al., 2021).

Differentiated instruction

Differentiated instruction involves tailoring teaching methods and materials to meet the diverse needs, readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles of students. It is closely related to inclusive education and complements UDL by offering various pathways for learners to understand and demonstrate knowledge (Tomlinson, 2017). In South African schools, differentiated instruction has been shown to enhance learner engagement and outcomes, particularly where classrooms include learners with a wide range of cognitive and physical abilities (Swart & Pettipher, 2022; Nxumalo & McKenzie, 2023).

Social model of disability

The social model of disability shifts the focus from individual impairments to the societal and environmental barriers that exclude people with disabilities. According to this model, disability is not inherent in the person but is created by attitudes, practices, and structures that fail to accommodate diversity (Oliver, 1996; Barnes & Sheldon, 2019). This perspective underpins inclusive education policies such as South Africa’s White Paper 6, emphasizing the need to change educational systems, not learners. Embracing the social model fosters a rights-based approach where inclusion is a matter of equity and justice rather than charity or remediation (Walton, 2022).

Purpose of the project

Understanding the practical implementation of curriculum adaptation in special needs schools is crucial for improving inclusive education. Curriculum adaptation involves modifying content, instructional strategies, and assessment methods to meet the diverse needs of learners with disabilities (Donohue & Bornman, 2021). In South African special schools, adaptation is often context-specific and shaped by available resources, teacher expertise, and learner profiles (Eloff & Kgwete, 2020). Studies highlight that many teachers employ differentiated instruction and flexible teaching methods, but the extent and effectiveness of these practices vary widely due to disparities in training and support (Muthukrishna et al., 2021). This objective seeks to capture experiences of participants by engaging directly with teachers, thereby providing an accurate picture of how curriculum adaptation translates from policy into classroom practice.

Collaboration with teachers enables the identification of both existing strengths and barriers in inclusive education delivery. Research shows that teachers’ commitment and innovative practices often form a strong foundation for inclusion, even in resource poor settings (Swart & Pettipher, 2022). However, systemic challenges such as inadequate professional development, insufficient teaching materials, and large learner-to-teacher ratios persistently hinder effective curriculum adaptation (Maphosa & Shumba, 2020; Nxumalo & McKenzie, 2023). Engaging participants in dialogue fosters a shared understanding of these factors and surfaces locally relevant opportunities for improvement, empowering schools to develop sustainable, contextually appropriate solutions (Pillay & Ndimande, 2023).

Context-sensitive recommendations are essential to address the specific needs of rural special schools in Limpopo. Effective curriculum support requires aligning national inclusive education policies with local realities, including socio-economic challenges and cultural factors (Moolla et al., 2022). Tailored recommendations might include targeted teacher training on curriculum differentiation, enhanced access to assistive technologies, and strengthened collaboration between schools and educational authorities (Chilisa & Preece, 2020). By grounding suggestions in community engagement findings, this objective aims to promote practical and sustainable improvements that respect the unique contexts of special needs education in Sekhukhune District of Limpopo Province.

Objectives of the project

The community engagement project aimed to engage directly with teachers in five special needs schools in the Sekhukhune District to explore and strengthen inclusive curriculum practices. Through collaborative discussions, classroom observations, and reflective activities, the project examined how curriculum adaptation is currently implemented to meet diverse learner needs. It identified key challenges such as limited resources, insufficient teacher training, and structural barriers to inclusion, issues widely reported in rural South African contexts (Moolla et al., 2022; Nxumalo & McKenzie, 2023). Teachers also shared innovative strategies they use, including differentiation, the use of visual aids, and assistive communication tools aligned with Universal Design for Learning (Donohue & Bornman, 2021; Eloff & Kgwete, 2020). Importantly, the project aimed to co-develop context-based recommendations with participating schools to enhance curriculum responsiveness, in line with inclusive education policy goals and participatory research principles (Pillay & Ndimande, 2023; Swart & Pettipher, 2022).

Project context and setting

Sekhukhune District is in the south-eastern corner of Limpopo Province, South Africa, spanning approximately 13,500 km² and comprising four local municipalities: Elias Motsoaledi, Ephraim Mogale, Makhuduthamaga, and Fetakgomo Tubatse. With a predominantly rural population of around 95% of its over 1.2 million residents, the district has a youthful demographic, with roughly 56% of inhabitants under 19 years old. Rural underdevelopment is stark: Sekhukhune has one of the highest poverty rates in South Africa (approximately 75%), with unemployment hovering around 28%, and average annual household incomes being roughly R30,000. Limited infrastructure is pervasive: only about 8% of households have municipal waste disposal, and a mere 30% have matric-level education or high. Economically, the district relies heavily on mining, iron, platinum, chrome as well as irrigated agriculture and small-scale farming, though water scarcity and land tenure issues remain critical constraints. Educationally, school attendance is high (97%), but quality is undermined by low infrastructural investment, under-qualified teachers, and limited access to technology, which are compounded in special needs education. These socioeconomic, geographic, and educational realities underscore the urgent need for community-responsive initiatives such as curriculum adaptation in special schools to foster meaningful inclusion in Sekhukhune.

Data collection methods

Focus group discussions were a key qualitative method employed in the community engagement project to collect experiential data from various staff members, including teachers, professional nurses, social workers, and support personnel in special needs schools. This method facilitated open, interactive conversations, allowing participants to reflect on their practices, voice concerns, and share strategies related to inclusive education and curriculum adaptation. Focus groups were particularly well-suited to educational settings as they encourage collaborative dialogue and generate deeper insights into shared experiences and group dynamics (Braun & Clarke, 2021). In this project, discussions were structured around themes such as instructional adaptation, learner support, inter-professional collaboration, and systemic barriers to inclusion. The dialogues also served as a reflective space where mutual learning and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange flourished, consistent with participatory engagement frameworks (Chilisa & Preece, 2020; Pillay & Ndimande, 2023).

By engaging with diverse staff roles, the discussions brought out multidisciplinary perspectives on how health, social, and educational needs intersect in the learning environment. This approach aligns with current thinking in inclusive education, which emphasizes the collective responsibility of school staff to respond to learner diversity (Swart & Pettipher, 2022; Muthukrishna et al., 2021).

In addition to the focus groups, the project involved a analysis of classroom learning materials used in the participating special needs schools. This document analysis helped assess the extent and nature of curriculum adaptation, including differentiation strategies, use of visual/tactile aids, language simplification, and integration of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) resources.

Document analysis has been found to be a powerful tool in inclusive education research as it allows for the triangulation of data, enabling researchers to compare what is practiced (as observed or described) with what is planned or prescribed (Bowen, 2009; Eloff & Kgwete, 2020). It also helps uncover hidden assumptions in curricular content and identify gaps where adaptation is either lacking or inconsistent with policy guidelines, such as those in Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001).

Reviewing instructional resources revealed both innovative adaptations and areas where teachers lacked support or clarity. The exercise also informed recommendations for improving curriculum alignment with learners' cognitive, linguistic, and sensory needs, particularly in under-resourced rural contexts such as Sekhukhune (Moolla et al., 2022; Nxumalo & McKenzie, 2023).

Ethical consideration

The study formed part of a community engagement project that focused on the use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) to support children with speech difficulties in special schools within the Sekhukhune South region of the Limpopo Department of Education, South Africa. Permission to conduct the study was granted by the Limpopo Department of Education. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Ethical clearance was granted by the University Research Ethics Committee (Ethics certificate number: 2019/05/15/90255194/32), University of South Africa (UNISA), Department of Inclusive Education. The study adhered to all ethical guidelines, including ensuring participant confidentiality, informed consent, and protection of participants’ well-being throughout the research process. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and all identifying information was anonymised in the reporting of findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Roestenburg, Strydom, & Fouché, 2021).

Data analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted to identify recurring patterns related to the curriculum adaptation for inclusion: a case study of special schools in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The analysis revealed five key themes: curriculum adaptation as modification and differentiation, use of teaching strategies and resources, and assistive technology, inclusion and equity, ensuring No Learner is Left Behind, and contextual and technological adaptation. The data presented in this study are available.

Theme 1: Understanding of the concept “Curriculum Adaptation”

Several participants described curriculum adaptation as the modification of content and teaching strategies to suit individual learning needs. For example, Participant 1 emphasised modifying the curriculum “based on their special needs,” and Participant 2 referred to “curriculum differentiation” during lesson delivery. Participants 3, 5, and 13 echoed this idea by emphasizing that curriculum adaptation ensures effective teaching and learning tailored to learners’ levels and needs. This aligns with literature that defines curriculum adaptation as the process of modifying what is taught and how it is delivered, to ensure it is responsive to learner diversity (Tomlinson, 2014). Differentiated instruction is central to inclusive education and involves varying content, process, product, and learning environment based on learners’ readiness, interests, and profiles (Tomlinson, 2014; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). From Theme 1, we can conclude that participants generally understand curriculum adaptation as a process of modifying and differentiating the curriculum to meet the diverse needs of learners in special schools. Their responses reflect an awareness that teaching and learning must be flexible and responsive to individual learner abilities, particularly in contexts where learners experience various forms of disability or learning barriers.

Participants consistently described curriculum adaptation in terms of:

This understanding aligns with scholarly definitions of differentiated instruction, which call for intentional variation in content, process, and product to ensure all learners can access the curriculum (Tomlinson, 2014). It also reflects an appreciation of inclusive education principles, even though some participants focused more on surface-level changes (e.g., content simplification) rather than deeper pedagogical shifts (e.g., learner-centered planning or ongoing assessment adjustments).

In summary, the participants in Theme 1 show a foundational understanding of curriculum adaptation, viewing it as necessary for equitable and effective teaching in special schools. However, the depth of their understanding may vary, indicating a need for continued professional development to strengthen their capacity in implementing comprehensive, inclusive, and learner-centered curriculum adaptations.

Theme 2: Use of teaching strategies and resources

Participants 4, 6, and 14 highlighted the strategic use of teaching resources and adapted methods to include all learners. For instance, Participant 4 stated that curriculum adaptation involves how “teachers use teaching resources to change and include all learners,” while Participant 6 described the simplification of content for better learner understanding. This supports studies that emphasize the importance of using visual, auditory, tactile, and interactive resources to ensure inclusive participation (UNESCO, 2017). For example, the use of visual aids, hands-on materials, peer support, and multi-sensory learning strategies enhances learning among learners with cognitive or sensory impairments (Ainscow & Miles, 2008).

From Theme 2, we can conclude that participants demonstrate a practical and application-based understanding of curriculum adaptation, viewing it as the strategic use of teaching methods and resources to promote inclusion. Their insights highlight the belief that curriculum adaptation is not limited to content changes but also involves modifying how lessons are delivered to ensure accessibility and engagement for all learners.

Participants emphasized:

This reflects a growing awareness among educators that diverse instructional tools and sensory-rich teaching methods are essential in accommodating learners with different needs, particularly those with cognitive, sensory, or communication barriers. It also aligns with inclusive education best practices, which recommend multi-sensory and differentiated approaches to support diverse learners (UNESCO, 2017; Ainscow & Miles, 2008).

In conclusion, the responses in Theme 2 show that participants understand curriculum adaptation as a dynamic, resource-driven process that requires careful selection and application of appropriate teaching strategies to facilitate inclusion. This suggests that teachers in special schools are not only aware of the need to adapt but also recognize the value of actively engaging learners through varied and inclusive instructional methods. However, the effective implementation of these strategies likely depends on access to adequate training and teaching materials.

Theme 3: Infusing AAC systems during teaching and learning activities

Participants 8, 10, 15, and 16 specifically referred to the use of assistive technology and AAC devices like Go-Talks, and low technology devices such as communication boards. These participants viewed the integration of AAC devices into classroom practices to enable participation for learners with speech and communication barriers. This reflects best practices in inclusive education, where assistive technology is used to bridge impairments (Beukelman & Light, 2020). South Africa’s DBE (2015) also advocates for the use of AAC tools to enhance inclusion for learners with disabilities, particularly in special schools.

From Theme 3, we can conclude that participants demonstrate a specialized and advanced understanding of curriculum adaptation by recognizing the critical role of assistive technology and other AAC tools in enabling inclusive learning. Their responses reflect awareness that curriculum adaptation must extend beyond content and teaching strategies to include technological supports that empower learners with speech, communication, and motor impairments to engage meaningfully in educational activities. Participants clearly understand that AAC devices are not optional additions but essential tools for learners with communication barriers. This indicates a shift from a purely instructional view of curriculum adaptation to one that incorporates universal design for learning (UDL) principles, ensuring multiple means of communication, representation, and expression (CAST, 2018). Their insights also align with inclusive education policy frameworks, such as South Africa’s Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS), which promotes the integration of AAC to ensure full learner participation (DBE, 2015).

In conclusion, Theme 3 reveals that these participants understand curriculum adaptation as a holistic process that includes the use of assistive technologies to remove communication barriers and ensure equity in learning. Their understanding reflects not only a commitment to inclusive education but also the ability to implement practical and context-specific technological solutions that support learners with complex needs. This theme underscores the importance of investing in AAC tools, training teachers in their use, and embedding assistive technology within the adapted curriculum to promote full learner participation.

Theme 4: Inclusion and equity ensuring no learner is left behind

Participants 7, 12, and 17 emphasized inclusion and equity, describing curriculum adaptation to ensure that “no learner is left behind” and that learners are given the opportunity to “express their views” and “interact with one another.” This is in line with the Social Model of Disability, which sees educational barriers as systemic and emphasizes removing these barriers to ensure participation (Slee, 2011). UNESCO (2017) also affirms that inclusive education is not only about placing learners with disabilities in schools but actively adapting curriculum and practices to meet all learners’ needs.

From Theme 4, we can conclude that participants demonstrated a values-based and learner-centered understanding of curriculum adaptation, grounded in the principles of inclusion and equity. Their responses reflect a strong belief that curriculum development must be guided by the fundamental right of every learner to participate fully and meaningfully in education, regardless of ability.

Participants emphasized that curriculum adaptation is a means of ensuring no learner is left behind, and that all learners are provided with opportunities to interact, express themselves, and engage in learning. This understanding aligns with the Social Model of Disability, which identifies barriers within the education system and not the learner as the main obstacle to inclusion (Slee, 2011). It also supports international frameworks, such as UNESCO’s (2017) inclusive education agenda, which emphasizes modifying curriculum content, delivery, and classroom culture to accommodate all learners equitably.

This theme reveals that participants see curriculum adaptation not just as a technical or instructional adjustment, but as a moral and social imperative, a process that must actively challenge exclusion and promote participation. Their understanding highlights the need for inclusive curriculum development to be flexible, responsive, and grounded in the belief that diversity is a strength, not a barrier.

In conclusion, Theme 4 demonstrates that participants understand curriculum adaptation as a mechanism for achieving educational justice, ensuring that all learners, especially those with disabilities, are included, valued, and supported in their learning journey. This perspective strengthens the call for policy alignment, inclusive teaching practices, and the development of equitable learning environments across special and mainstream education settings.

Theme 5: Contextual and technological adaptation

Participant 11 referred to the 4th Industrial Revolution, highlighting the need for technology integration in curriculum delivery. This suggests a forward-looking view that recognizes how digital tools (e.g., e-textbooks, learning platforms) can make learning accessible for all, especially in special schools. This aligns with contemporary inclusive education strategies, which emphasize digital inclusion and the equitable use of educational technology to improve learning outcomes for learners with disabilities (Chigona & Chigona, 2010; DBE, 2015).

From Theme 5, we can conclude that Participant 11 demonstrates an emerging, future-oriented understanding of curriculum adaptation, emphasizing the integration of technology in response to the evolving educational landscape shaped by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This perspective shows an awareness that curriculum adaptation must not only address learners' current needs but also align with broader technological and societal advancements to remain relevant and inclusive.

The participant’s emphasis on tools like e-textbooks and digital devices indicates a recognition of how technology can enhance accessibility, particularly for learners in special schools who may face barriers to traditional learning methods. This aligns with current inclusive education strategies that advocate for digital inclusion, ensuring that learners with disabilities have equitable access to digital learning platforms, assistive software, and interactive educational content (Chigona & Chigona, 2010; DBE, 2015).

This understanding reflects a shift from viewing curriculum adaptation solely as a response to individual learning challenges to also considering contextual and technological developments as key drivers of curriculum relevance and effectiveness. It highlights the importance of preparing learners with disabilities not just for academic success, but for meaningful participation in a technologically advanced society.

In conclusion, Theme 5 illustrates that curriculum adaptation must be forward-thinking and technology-integrated, considering the changing digital environment and the opportunities it presents for inclusive education. This calls for investment in digital infrastructure, teacher training, and policy frameworks that support the use of educational technology as a tool for curriculum accessibility and equity in special schools.

Challenges identified

Based on the data provided and aligned with recent literature, the following are two analytically rich paragraphs identifying key challenges related to the understanding of curriculum adaptation in the context of special schools: One of the main challenges identified from the participants' responses is the inconsistent depth of understanding regarding curriculum adaptation. While most participants acknowledged the importance of adapting the curriculum to meet diverse learner needs, several responses reflected a limited or surface-level interpretation of what adaptation entails. For example, some participants viewed adaptation primarily as content simplification or slowing the pace of instruction (e.g., Participant 6), rather than as a comprehensive process involving differentiated pedagogy, continuous assessment, and inclusive planning. This shallow understanding can lead to practices that do not fully address the diverse cognitive, sensory, and communication needs of learners with disabilities. Research by Donohue and Bornman (2014) confirms that many South African teachers, particularly in under-resourced areas, struggle with conceptual clarity around inclusive education principles, which in turn affects the quality of curriculum adaptation.

A second challenge is the lack of systematic support and training in the use of assistive technology and inclusive strategies. Although several participants (e.g., 10, 15, 16) demonstrated awareness of tools like AAC devices and Go-Talks, their responses also implied that the use of such technologies was dependent on individual initiative rather than a structured, school-wide approach. This aligns with findings by Engelbrecht and Savolainen (2018), who argue that without sustained professional development and institutional guidance, teachers may struggle to apply inclusive technologies effectively and consistently. The uneven integration of digital tools and inclusive resources also points to broader systemic issues, such as disparities in funding, infrastructure, and policy implementation, particularly in rural areas like Limpopo Province (Makoelle, 2020). These structural barriers exacerbate the gap between understanding the theory of curriculum adaptation and putting it into practice in meaningful, equitable ways.

Institutional and community factors

Institutional factors, particularly the roles of school leadership and support teams, play a crucial role in enabling or hindering effective curriculum adaptation. In this study, while some participants demonstrated an understanding of how to adjust teaching strategies and use assistive technologies, the absence of structured institutional guidance and leadership support was evident. Effective curriculum adaptation requires a coordinated approach led by principals, Heads of Departments (HODs), and School-Based Support Teams (SBSTs), who must provide clear direction, mentorship, and resources for inclusive teaching. However, without proactive leadership and ongoing monitoring, curriculum adaptation efforts remain fragmented and reliant on individual teacher initiative. According to Engelbrecht et al. (2017), schools with strong leadership and active support teams are more successful in embedding inclusive practices into the curriculum, suggesting that institutional commitment is essential for systemic change.

Another significant institutional barrier relates to infrastructure and access issues that directly impact the implementation of curriculum adaptations. Many special schools in rural provinces like Limpopo face shortages of appropriate teaching spaces, assistive devices, and accessible learning materials, which limit the extent to which teachers can practically modify and differentiate the curriculum. While some participants mentioned the use of AAC devices and visual aids, their responses also implied a dependence on improvised or limited resources, rather than systematic provision. This aligns with findings by Mahlo (2017), who notes that insufficient infrastructure and learning support materials often constrain inclusive teaching in South African schools. Without institutional investment in physical accessibility (e.g., ramps, adaptable classrooms) and resource allocation (e.g., ICT tools, Braille materials), curriculum adaptations risk being superficial and inequitable, ultimately excluding the very learners they are intended to support.

Reflections from the engagement team

One of the key insights gained through community engagement in this study is the critical role of parents and caregivers in supporting curriculum adaptations, especially when AAC devices are involved. Participants suggested that learners with speech or communication barriers benefit most when families are aware of and trained in the use of AAC tools such as Go-Talks, communication boards, or gesture-based systems. However, there was also an indication that limited community awareness and understanding of inclusive education practices can hinder learners’ ability to use these devices effectively outside of school settings. This is consistent with findings by Alant and Geyer (2020), who argue that community inclusion and training are essential to maximize the impact of AAC, especially in low-resource contexts. Engaging parents in workshops, school activities, and training sessions on AAC enhances both the continuity of learning and the effectiveness of curriculum adaptation efforts, ensuring learners experience consistent communication support across home and school environments.

The study also revealed the value of collaboration among teachers, school-based support teams, families, and external stakeholders, such as universities and non-profit organizations, in sustaining and scaling curriculum adaptations. Schools that involve community health workers, speech therapists, and social workers are better positioned to implement and maintain the use of AAC devices, ensuring that curriculum delivery is not only adapted but also enriched through expert support. Such collaborative efforts encourage the development of inclusive, responsive school cultures, where stakeholders collectively take ownership of inclusive practices. Moreover, the study highlighted several areas for further community-university partnerships, such as pre-service teacher training on AAC, community-based research on barriers to communication, and co-development of culturally relevant AAC materials. According to Makoelle (2020), universities can play a transformative role in strengthening inclusive education by linking research, innovation, and local practice, particularly in under-resourced schools. These partnerships can bridge knowledge gaps, introduce evidence-based AAC interventions, and build capacity at the community level, thereby reinforcing curriculum adaptation efforts and improving learning outcomes for all learners.

Recommendation and conclusion

The engagement with teachers, social workers, professional nurses, school personnel, and key stakeholders in special schools in Sekhukhune District of Limpopo Province, South Africa, revealed that curriculum adaptation is widely recognized as essential for promoting inclusive education and meeting the diverse needs of learners with disabilities. Participants demonstrated a foundational understanding of curriculum adaptation, often describing it as a process of modifying content, teaching strategies, and resources to enhance learner access and participation. Notably, the study highlighted innovative use of teaching strategies such as visual aids, tactile materials, and small-group instruction, as well as the integration of assistive technologies and AAC devices to support learners with communication barriers. However, it also exposed gaps in conceptual clarity and inconsistencies in implementation, which can be attributed to varying levels of training, resource availability, and institutional support.

The findings underscore a clear and urgent need for ongoing support, structured collaboration, and multi-level partnerships to strengthen inclusive practices. Curriculum adaptation cannot be sustainably implemented in isolation; it requires the combined efforts of school leaders, district officials, policymakers, and universities. Schools must foster collaborative teaching cultures and expand access to adaptive technologies, while district officials should ensure that professional development is continuous and focused on curriculum differentiation. Policymakers must provide targeted resources to support inclusive curriculum development, and universities should sustain community-based research and offer contextualized support to schools. Ultimately, the study reaffirms that inclusive education is not a one-time intervention, but an evolving process that demands continuous learning, adaptive systems, and a shared commitment to equity in education.