Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assessing Inclusive Ed-Phil
Assessing Inclusive Ed-Phil
Suggested Citation: Andaya, O.J. et al. (2015). Assessing of the Implementation of inclusive Education
Among Children and Youth with Special Needs . The Normal Lights, 9(2), 72 – 89.
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
Introduction
“Special Schools alone can never achieve the goal of
Education for All (EFA)” (Rocal, 2011). Participants of
the 1994 Conference on Special Needs education held in
Salamanca, Spain issued this statement and reaffirmed the
right to education of every individual, as enshrined in the 1984
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This reaffirmation
served as renewal of pledge of the world community at the
1990 World Conference on Education for All (EFA), 2007.
Hence, the Department of Education (DepEd) adopted policy
of Inclusive Education as a basic service for all types of
exceptional children and youth; a handbook on Inclusive
Education as primary reference and guide for Special
Trainings and promotion of the ideas (Inciong, et.al., 2007).
73
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
74
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
75
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
76
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
77
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
Methodology
Using the Descriptive method, the study involved two (2) of
the three (3) school administrators, thirteen (13) randomly
selected regular teachers, two (2) Special Education teachers
and 26 parents of disabled children and 187 parents of non-
disabled children comprising the population from selected
schools in Isabela where inclusive education is fully
implemented. A research instrument or checklist to assess the
implementation of inclusive education in selected three (3)
schools in Isabela, subjected to validation by experts in the
78
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
1. There is an 3.33 3.17 3.08 3.15 3.15
implementation
and maintenance of
warm and accepting
classroom commu-
nities that embraces
diversity and honor
differences.
2. Teachers implement 3.50 3.50 3.19 3.11 3.11
a multi-level,
multi-modality
curriculum
3. Teachers teach 2.50 3.25 2.54 2.70 2.70
interactively
4. There is a provision 3.75 3.00 2.46 2.35 2.36
of continuous sup-
port for teachers in
the classroom and
breaking of profes-
sional isolations.
5. Parents are actively 3.33 3.00 2.75 2.45 2.46
involved in the
planning process in
meaningful ways.
Overall computed
average mean=2.76
x = mean QD=Qualitative Description
79
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
80
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
1. Will Inclusion 3.00 3.50 2.35 2.35 2.35
reduce the aca-
demic progress
of non-disabled
children?
2. Will non-disabled 3.00 2.75 2.35 2.21 2.22
children lose
teacher time and
attention?
3. Will non-disabled 3.00 3.25 2.08 2.29 2.29
children learn un-
desirable behavior
from students with
disabilities?
Overall
computed
average mean= 2.29
81
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
1. Reduced fear 3.00 3.17 3.15 2.83 2.84
of human
differences
accom-
panied by
increased
comfort and
awareness.
2. Growth in 2.63 3.50 2.77 3.03 3.03
the social
cognition.
3. Improvement 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.05 3.05
of self-con-
cept
4. Development 3.00 3.50 2.81 2.94 2.94
of personal
principles
82
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
Overall com-
puted average
mean=2.97
x = mean QD=Qualitative Description
83
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
1. Adminis-
3.50 4.00 3.21 2.93 2.94
trator
2. Regular
2.00 3.50 3.41 2.90 2.91
Teacher
3. SPED
2.00 4.00 2.83 2.72 2.72
Teacher
4. Parents 2.50 3.00 2.85 3.01 2.94
Overall com-
puted average
mean=2.87
84
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
2. Regular
2.50 3.40 3.06 2.82 2.83
Teacher
3. SPED
2.50 3.70 2.65 2.62 2.62
Teacher
4. Parents 3.25 3.00 2.50 2.72 2.72
Overall com-
puted average
mean=2.73
85
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
x QD x QD x QD x QD x QD
1. Adminis-
3.75 4.00 2.82 2.60 2.61
trator
2. Regular
2.50 3.50 2.87 2.56 2.57
Teacher
3. SPED
2.50 4.00 2.21 2.72 2.71
Teacher
4. Parents 2.25 3.13 2.13 3.04 3.02
Overall
computed
average
mean=2.73
86
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
87
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
References
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2000). Index
for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participa-
tion in Schools. Bristol: Center for Studies for Inclu-
sion in Education.
Department of Education. (2003). Education and In-
clusion in the United States. ED Pubs, Education
Publication Center, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.
Department for Education and Skills. (2001b). Inclusive
Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs.
London: DfES
Farrel, M. (2005). Key Issues in Special Education: Raising
Standards of Pupils’ Attainment and Achievement.
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY: Routledge Taylor
& Francis Group.
Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D.K. (1989). New Conceptualizations
for Special Education. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 4(1), 16-21.
Kliewer, C. & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2014) cited Giangreco,
M.F., Doyle, M.B., Suter, J.C. (2004). Every child
strengthens the literate community. Retrieved 2014
from Disability, Literacy & Inclusive Education for
the Young Children: Citizenship for all in the Early
Childhood of Literate Community, page 88, http://p
www.uni.edu/inclusion/links.html
Heubert, J. (1994). Assumptions underlie arguments
about inclusion. Harvard Education Newsletter,
10(4), 4. Retrieved 2014 from Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory (SEDL): http;//www.sedl.org/
p; g
Heward, L. (2006). Introduction to Special Education.
New York: McMillan Co.
88
The Normal Lights
Volume 9, No. 2 (2015)
89