© Kamla-Raj 2014 Anthropologist, 17(2): 523-532 (2014) Replicating Society’s Discrimination of Disadvantaged and Marginalized Groups: Inclusive Education and the Power of the Curriculum Rosemary Chimbala Kalenga 1 , Elsa Fourie 2 and Cosmas Maphosa 3 1 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa, 2 North West University, South Africa 3 University of Fort Hare, South Africa KEYWORDS Ecosystems Theories. Inclusion. Education. Leadership. Management Team. Curriculum ABSTRACT This paper sought to establish how the school system perpetuated the discrimination in society by failing to accommodate children with special needs in normal classrooms. The ecosystem theories, theories of inclusion and a transformational leadership model underpinned the whole study. The study was a qualitative in nature and made use of purposefully selected schools in one locality. Data were collected through interviews and observations of teachers. Convenient sampling was used to select school principals, teachers and parents who participated in the study. The analysis of data was informed by the theories and model that underpinned the study and through content analysis of emerging themes. The study revealed that while calls for inclusivity are pronounced through policies mainstream teachers have a plethora of challenges in ensuring inclusivity mainly because of the demands of the mainstream curriculum that sideline the needs of special learners. The paper recommends that a well structured strategic ecosystemic program that involves the Department of Education, Senior Management Teams, teachers and parents is the key to successful inclusive education. * Address for correspondence: Dr. Rosemary Chimbala Kalenga Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Research and Engagement, South Campus Building 7, Room 0127C Port Elizabeth, 6041, South Africa E-mail: rkalenga@nmmu.ac.za INTRODUCTION South African legislation and policy docu- ments stress the principles of human rights, so- cial justice, quality education for all, the right to basic education, equality of opportunity and re- dress of past educational inequalities (Bill of rights 109/1996; South African Schools Act 84/ 1996 White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education 2001). However, schools are faced with challenges of managing the power of the curriculum in terms of accommodating diverse learner needs. The curriculum is standardized and only those who achieve the required minimum are considered to be successful. Therefore, those who do not have the capacity and capability to successfully par- ticipate in the standardized curriculum are con- sidered as failures, regardless of the challenges that could have affected their results and with- out considering their gifts. Much as there are talks of adaptation and modification of the cur- riculum, school leaders doubt whether what ed- ucators do to implement these policies are ac- ceptable for the Department of Education. It is also a fact that National Examinations are not inclusive and that diverse learners are not ac- commodated in these examinations. High School success is measured by the final grade twelve results in terms of the number of students who are accepted at universities. The government subsidy for private schools is determined by re- sults too (more than a 50% pass rate). Nobody considers whether these schools have enrolled the ‘dropouts’, the teenage parents, the HIV/ AIDS learners and the street children, etc. No- body stops to think of what could be done in terms of making the curriculum standards user friendly for all learners. Nind et al. (2005) high- light the importance of pedagogy and curricu- lum in inclusive education. She argues that in- clusion and exclusion occur in the context of the curriculum and that differences in learning arise because learners fail to meet the requirements of a given curriculum. Young (1998) argues that a sociology ap- proach reveals the power struggle in the control of the curriculum with the powerful exerting more influence on the curriculum. He adds on to say that it ‘does not mean that a curriculum support- ed by those in positions of power and influence is necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in itself; the issue comes back to purposes: what we want the cur- riculum to achieve and what evidence we have