The study examined how the 2018 Lesotho Inclusive Education Policy, enacted under section 33 of the country’s 1993 Constitution, was being translated into daily practice. The policy provides guidelines intended to advance access, equality, relevance and equity for learners with special educational needs, while recognizing diversity among Basotho learners. Yet the participants described a persistent gap between the policy’s objectives and daily conditions in rural inclusive schools. Their accounts show that formal enrollment alone does not guarantee meaningful participation: learners with disabilities may attend classrooms alongside their peers while still facing inaccessible buildings, inadequate instructional resources and difficult travel routes.

Leribè District was purposively selected as a rural study site in Lesotho’s mountainous landscape. The district contains a pilot school that integrates deaf students with hearing peers, a separate school for deaf learners, and a centre serving learners with intellectual disabilities. The investigation itself included two inclusive or special schools, designated Schools A and B, selected because they had characteristics associated with inclusive schooling; the separate deaf school and intellectual-disability centre were not identified as sampled schools. The two included schools drew learners from surrounding communities. The study used an exploratory qualitative design and Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory as its interpretive framework, examining classroom experiences, relationships among schools and communities, external institutional conditions, national priorities and the passage of time.

Data collection combined semi-structured interviews, observations and document review. Purposively selected participants represented the main stakeholder groups: two principals, six teachers, eight learners with special educational needs, four community members and a disability desk officer from the district education office. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes and was audio-recorded. A sign-language interpreter supported the participant who was hard of hearing, and the interview was conducted away from environmental noise. Researchers observed classroom conditions, available teaching materials, learner movement, community involvement and the general school environment. Field notes were compared with interview responses, transcripts received independent review, and participant identities were anonymized. The researchers used inductive-deductive thematic analysis, with initial coding informed by the theoretical framework and literature while remaining open to patterns that emerged from participants’ narratives.

Overcrowding was among the clearest problems reported at the two schools. One grade 8 learner with diplegia described a class containing about 56 pupils and said the density made it difficult to move between desks and chairs. A learner who was hard of hearing said that noise, moving feet and dragged desks made the classroom almost unbearable, sometimes causing headaches and making concentration difficult. Teachers reported difficulty managing large classes and obtaining enough materials for everyone. One principal said School B served pupils from about seven communities, while another described enrollment rising markedly during the previous five years. Within the study’s theoretical framework, these conditions illustrate how a microsystem problem can constrain individual instruction and weaken links among classroom activity, family support and wider school systems.

Participants did not identify teacher expertise as the central failure. Principals described the teachers as qualified in their subjects, and the schools had provided refresher training on inclusive education. One teacher noted that not every colleague held a bachelor’s degree in inclusive or special education, but several had attended training on inclusion and holistic classroom practice. Another said the main obstacle was facilities and resources rather than competence. The analysis therefore placed limited teaching capacity in the interaction between trained personnel and environments unable to support individualized work: large classes, shortages of instructional materials, inadequate offices and other infrastructure deficits. Because the study did not directly measure teacher performance or learning outcomes, these conclusions describe the conditions reported by participants rather than independently demonstrated differences in teaching effectiveness.

Stakeholders across groups generally agreed that the LIEP had not been achieved comprehensively at the two schools. The policy calls for resources, facilities and training, but a teacher reported that the school still needed more teachers, better facilities and hostel accommodation for learners from distant locations. Another teacher described teaching a multigrade class because there were insufficient classrooms and instructional materials. A parent said the school buildings were poor and questioned how full implementation could be possible under those conditions. Although the policy had contributed to increased enrollment, one principal said, it could not by itself ensure that every provision had been realized. The researchers consequently characterized implementation in the sampled schools as fragmented rather than comprehensive.

Travel to school was another major concern. Participants reported that some learners covered roughly four to five kilometres each day through mountainous terrain. Teachers and principals said learners with mobility challenges crossed rocky hills and valleys, sometimes using crutches. A learner with a leg-length discrepancy described difficulty navigating stony roads and occasional falls when she missed a step. These are reported experiences at the two study sites rather than measurements of journey lengths across Lesotho. The finding also represents an unresolved implementation problem because the LIEP acknowledges that the country’s terrain restricts educational access when learners must walk long distances. The study therefore documented a gap between the policy’s recognition of the transport barrier and the local provision available to address it.

Limited government intervention was the other major stakeholder concern. School leaders repeatedly requested additional funding and supplies, reporting that allocations did not match enrollment and that some requests received no response. The district desk officer said the government attempted to prioritize inclusive schools but acknowledged that required materials were not always available. Missionaries and other well-wishers sometimes supplied missing items. Community responses were not uniformly hostile: participants expressed concern about facilities and travel distances, while the study found openness toward educating children with special needs. The findings locate much of the shortfall in material and logistical constraints within a multi-level system, rather than attributing it to a single barrier or stakeholder group. The limited government role identified in the study is therefore the reported condition of the sampled services, not a quantitative estimate of national spending or implementation rates.

On the evidence gathered in Leribè District, the researchers concluded that the LIEP’s ambitions were not being met fully at the two inclusive schools examined. They recommend establishing and adequately equipping more inclusive schools, giving greater attention to rural-specific implementation, targeting funding, strengthening teacher preparation and improving coordination among schools, families and government agencies. These are policy implications proposed by the authors; the study did not test the effects of any of those interventions. Important limitations constrain the findings: only two schools were included, interviews supplied the main evidence, observations played a supporting role and purposive sampling was not designed to represent all rural schools. Future research across more schools and districts, with greater use of classroom observation and document analysis, is needed to establish how widely the reported barriers occur in rural Lesotho.

Subject of Research: Inclusive education policy implementation in two rural schools in Lesotho’s Leribè District

Article Title: An exploration of the state of the inclusive education practices in Lesotho’s rural schools

Article References: Adigun, O. T., Monyane, M., & Lephoto, M. N. R. (2026). An exploration of the state of the inclusive education practices in Lesotho’s rural schools. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02327-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02327-7

Keywords: Lesotho, inclusive education, rural schools, disability inclusion, education policy, Leribè District, school infrastructure, teacher training, government funding, special educational needs, exploration, state