8/10/2019 icbess-p119

1/4

1

A Survey of School Management Based on Inclusive Education

in the perspective of Principals and Teachers Performance

Munawir YusufSebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia

munawir_uns@yahoo.co.id

Abstract : This study aims to describe theperformance of principals and teachers in

implementing inclusive education in primary

school.To achieve these objectives, the research

survey has been done at the primary school of

inclusive education in 4 districts, namely Surakarta,

Karanganyar, Sukoharjo, and Boyolali, Central

Java Indonesia. The number of samples in this study

was 51 elementary schools, 51 principals, and 103

teachers. The data was collected using

questionnaires and processed by means of

descriptive statistics. The validity of Questionnaire

for Principals is in the range of 0312-0796 with

0962reliability. The Validity of Questionnaire for

Teachers is in the range of 0290-0815 with 0956

reliability. The results was summarized as follows:

(1)The performance of school principals in

implementing inclusive education is in the medium

category, (2)performance of classroom teachers in

implementing inclusive education is in the medium

category.(3)Principal performance mean score was

65.5 %, higher than the mean score achieved by

teachers (62.3%).

Key words: Inclusive School, teachers performance,

principalsperformance.

I. INTRODUCTIONBasically, inclusive education is an

evolution. It means it a changing paradigm ofeducation for children with special needs (CWSN).In the old paradigm, CWSN was the main source ofproblem to get their education. For this reason,education for CWSN was segregated from otherchildren of the same age. This type of model is

known as medical approach (Barnes & Mercer,2003) or personal tragedy theory, individual model,

or medical model. (Oliver, 1990, Barnes & Mercer,2003). In short, this kind of old paradigm assumedthat (1) disability is a problem in the individuaallevel (individual model), (2) disability is no otherthan physical or mental weaknesses or limitation(impairment), and (3) the only solution is byelimnating the weaknesses or limitation by means ofmedical, psychlogical,and psychiatric intervention.

The new paradigm rised as a protest to suchmedical approach for the injustice and

discrimination upon the disabilities. Some scienctistswith disabilities in England such as Oliver (1990)and Barnes& Mercer (2003) developed a new

approach widely kown as Social Model ofDisability. This new approach assumed thatenvironment and social organizations were the keyfactors to the education for children with disabilities.Should the environment and social organization bechanged in such a way that CWSN get theopportunity to education, Such children would havegrown and developed like others of the same ages ingeneral.

The changing paradigm from medical tosocial model implies that education system forCWSN shifted from segregation to inclusion.Stainback & Stainback (1996) state that allchildren are enriched by having the opportunity to

learn from one another, grow to care for one

another, and gain the attitudes, skills, and values

necessary for our communities to support the

inclusion of all citizens(p.4). This statement wassupported by Yi Ding, et.al (2006) asserting the newresearch findings that CWSN with some physicaland mental disabilities turned to achieve in regularschool settings through teaching strategy and othefacilities, curriculum, specially designed instruction

that enhance the CWSN learn meaningfully on theirindividual basis. This finding proves the the fact thatsocial approach managed to solve the educationalproblems experienced by CWSN. It also proves toexplain that medical model (segregation model) wasnot the only way to solve the problems of educationfor the CWSN.

The major issue of the implementation ofinclusive education is respected to the school setting,the school principal, and teachers as theresponsibility holder for the classrrom instruction.The question, then, is whether or not the

implementation of inclusive education is managedquite well. Secondly, how well could the pschoolprincipal and teachers manage the implementation ofinclusive education? These two questions becomethe main issues in this research.

To support this research, few relevantstudies have been elaborated. Studies on school

principals and teachers performance in inclusive

schools have been conducted. A research on 72school teachers in Serbia (Kalyva et.al., 2007)concluded that regular teachers were to some extentshowed negative attitude toward CWSN as compard

to teachers with considerable experience inincluding children in regular schools.Mdikana, et.al(2007) carried out a research on a number of

119

mailto:munawir_uns@yahoo.co.idmailto:munawir_uns@yahoo.co.id

8/10/2019 icbess-p119

2/4

2

students in University of Witwatersrand, diJohannesburg in Post Graduate Certificate inEducation, B.Phys. Ed. and BA (Ed.) with 22 boysstudents and 17 girl students. In general, thesestudents respond positively towds inclusiveeducation, and there is no different positive attitudebetween boys and girls. In her research, Charema

(2010) conducted on inclusive education in SubSaharan Afrika, Charema (2010) concluded that tobuild inclusive education ws not easy Charema(2010) because it involved positive attitude, values,teacher training program, and school system.Meanwhile, a change is one of permanent aspects,and not many people like it. A study conducted byAndrews dan Frankel (2010) in Guyana concludedthat thee main problems in inclusive educationinclude (1) attitude and perception toward CWSN;(2) change agent; (3) resourrces; and (4) experiencein involving CWSN in regula class.

Studies conducted in Indonesia such asYusuf, and Indianto (2009) on the profile ofinclusive schools in one region in Central Java,Sunardi, et.al (2010) found many problems inimplementing the inclusive education. However,studies on the principals and teachersperformancein inclusive education were not found.

II. METHOD OF RESEARCHThis research is survey involving 51 inclusiveschools, 51 principals and 103 teachers in four

region and/City in Municipality of Surakarta,Central Java. The data ws collected ales with fouroptions( 1, 2, 3, 4) which describe the freguency orquality inimplementing the iclusive education. Thevalidity of the questionnaires was 0,796, with thedegree of reliability 0,962. Validity ofquestionnaires by the Teachers was on 0,2900,815with the reliability of 0,956.

III. RESULT OF RESEARCH

1. Principals Performance in Implementing

Inclusive SchoolTable 1 :

School Principals Performance in ImplementingIclusive Education

(N = 51 Respondents School Principals)

No Aspects Mean Scores Ideal Scores

1 Institution 31 (77,5%) 40

2 Curriculum &

Instruction

48 (63,3%) 76

3 Students 26 (64,7%) 40

4 Human Resource 30 (67,8%) 44

5 School Fasilities 10 (50,0%) 206 Funding 15 (62,3%) 24

Average scores 160 (65,5%) 244 (100%)

This data is shown in the following.

Table 2.Category of School Principals Performance

Compared to Ideal CriteriaSub

ject

Categorization Subject Empi

rical

MeansScore Categori

zation

Frek

(N)

Percent

(%)

Principals

61< X

8/10/2019 icbess-p119

3/4

3

Based on the table 3, it can be drawn in thefollowing diagram.

Tabel 4.TeachersPerformance in Comparison to the Ideal

Criteria

Sub

jects

Categorization Subject Empi

rical

Mean

Score Cate

gory

Frek

(N)

Percent

(%)Tea

chers

48< X @9A

121

8/10/2019 icbess-p119

4/4

4

opportunity to join the meetings on incluisiveeduation trainings

VI. RECOMMENDATION

Both school principals and teachers need to

improve their performance in implementinginclusive education. Regular teachers need evenmore opportunities to have trainings so as toimprove their knowledge and competence in givingeducationa services for CWSN.

REFERENCE

Andrews,Amanda Ajodhia & Frankel, Elaine :

Ryerson University (2010), InclusiveEducation in Guyana : A Call For Change,

International Journal of Special Education,Vol. 25 No. 1, 2010.

Barnes, C. & Mercer, G. (2003), DisabilityCambridge, Uk : Polity Press (Chapter 1-Disability and Choices of Model).

Charema, John : Mophato Education Centre (2010),Inclusive Education in Developing

Countries in The Sub Saharan Africa : From

Theory to Practice, International Journal ofSpecial Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, 2010.

Kalyva, Efrosini ; Gojkovic, Dina ; & Tsakiris,

Vlastaris City Liberal Studies,Thessaloniki, Greece, (2007), SerbianTeachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion,

International Journal of Special Education,Vol. 22, No. 3, 2007.

Mdikana, Andile ; Ntshangase, Sibusiso &Mayekiso, Tokozile : University of theWitwatersrand (2009), International Journal

of Special Education, Vol.22, No. 1. 2007.

Oliver, M. (1990), The Politics of Disablement : ASociological Approach, New York : St

Martins Press.

Stainback, Susan & Stainback, William (1996),Inclusion, A Guide for Educators, Paul. H.

Brokes Pubisihing, Co. Baltimore, London,Toronto, Sydney.

Sunardi; Yusuf, Munawir; Gunarhadi; Priono(2010), The Implementation of Inclusive

Education in Indonesia, Research ReportInternational Collaborative Research GrantFunded by World Class University ProjectDIPA Sebelas Maret University.

Yi Ding; Gerken, Kathryn C.; VanDyke Don C. ; FeiXiao (2006), Parents and Special Education

Teachers Perspectives of ImplementingIndividualized Instruction inP.R. China : AnEmpirical and Sociocultural Approach,InternationalJoournal of Special Education,Vol.21 No. 3, 2006.

Yusuf, Munawir dan Indianto, R. (2009), Kajian

Tentang Implementasi Pendidikan InklusifSebagai Alternatif Penuntasan Wajib

Belajar Pendidikan Dasar Bagi Anak

Berkebutuhan Khusus Di Kabupaten

Boyolali, Laporan Penelitian, LembagaPenelitian dan Pengabdian MasyarakatUniversitas Sebelas Maret.

Yusuf, Munawir dan Indianto, R. (2010), KajianTentang Implementasi Pendidikan Inklusif

Sebagai Alternatif Penuntasan WajibBelajar Pendidikan Dasar Bagi AnakBerkebutuhan Khusus Di KabupatenBoyolali,Jurnal Pendidikan danKebudayaan, Vol. 16, Eddisi Khusus II,Agustus, 2010, Badan Penelitian danPengembangan Kementerian PendidikanNasional, hal. 136-148.

122