Inclusive Education in the Philippines: Gauging Schools

ISSN 2309-0081 Muega & Echavia (2017)

427

I

www.irss.academyirmbr.com August 2017

International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 5 Issue.8

R S S

Inclusive Education in the Philippines: Gauging Schools’ and

Teachers’ Readiness to Take on the Challenge

MICHAEL ARTHUS G. MUEGA College of Education University of the Philippines,

Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Email: [email protected]

DARLENE D. ECHAVIA College of Education University of the Philippines,

Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Emal: [email protected]

Abstract

The teacher respondents in this study were found to be generally uncertain of their knowledge of basic

special education (SPED) concepts and their willingness to handle an inclusion class. Evidence shows that

the selected schools in the Philippines are not fully prepared for inclusion. A highly significant difference

was found between pre-school to grade 6 teachers and secondary schoolteachers in terms of their

knowledge of some basic SPED concepts. A significant difference was also found between the same groups

of teachers in terms of their willingness to include in regular class students with exceptionalities. Teachers’

willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities partially (positive) predicts their knowledge of

some basic SPED concepts. The teacher’s knowledge of some basic SPED concepts has a low positive

relationship with the readiness of their school for inclusion. Readiness of schools for inclusion partially

predicts the willingness of teachers to accommodate students with exceptionalities.

Keywords: Inclusive Education, Special Education, Teacher Preparedness, Social Justice.

Introduction

The history of special education (SPED) is marked with a long struggle of people with exceptionalities

against the ignorance and neglect with which they were treated in the so-called mainstream society. Even

before exceptional individuals were identified, boundaries have existed between those who are deemed “fit

to live” within the context of main social current and those who are perceived to be “out of sync”. Yet, the

irrepressible spirit of the human person continues to seek a truly just and egalitarian system, one that

recognizes the dignity of every citizen regardless of his/her physical, mental, and emotional conditions.

Over the last ten years, the world trend in SPED has been a move toward inclusion. Many SPED teachers

and researchers have been actively advocating inclusive education for exceptional students. And never has

it earned so much attention as today as it has finally been institutionalized in many countries. Many civil

rights movements for people with exceptionalities have earned important victories on many fronts and in

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


428

I



R S S

various parts of the world (Mittler, 2014). Some policies favorable to special and inclusive education are

now in place (Srivastava, de Boer, & Pijl, 2013) and normalization has become a real option for those who

have the assessed potential to cope with the daily demands of mainstream life. The United Nations

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) has already earned formal support from

more than 140 governments for the institutionalization of inclusion practices in their respective countries.

Also, the UNESCO has again demonstrated its express support for the same cause with the coming out of

“The Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion” (2004). Inclusion International

has also contributed to the global efforts to fully institutionalize inclusion by publishing “Better Education

for All: A Global Report” (2009). However, the battle for inclusion seems to be far from over as many

stubborn issues remain to be settled (Sharma, Forlin, Deppeler, & Guang-xue, 2013) to the satisfaction of

all the advocates, as well as doubters, of inclusion within the social and cultural realities of each country

that opened its shores to the movement. In sum, though the struggle for inclusion shows a great deal of

promise, much has yet to be done in order to afford every student with exceptionality genuine equal

opportunity in formal and general education.

In countries where inclusion is still at its infancy stage, various terms have been used loosely to stand for

the same concept. The same holds true in the Philippines. The terms “mainstreaming” and “integration” are

two of the many other terms that are used interchangeably with “inclusion”. Consequently, many schools

claim to be inclusive when in fact they are simply mainstreaming. Likewise, other schools would specify

that they do mainstreaming but the classroom teacher actually makes little effort to include (i.e., get to

participate actively in class activities) the special learner in the general education class.

Friend and Bursuck (2002) said that while mainstreaming is the placement of students in the regular

classroom upon meeting a certain set of criteria, inclusion is the physical, social, and instructional

accommodation of special learners in the general education classrooms, where teaching is based on their

learning needs. Placement here is not based on some defined criteria. While mainstreaming brings the

special learner to the available educational services, inclusion brings the available services to the special

learner.

Legal Bases of Inclusion

Inclusion is one of the provisions of Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, PL 94-142), the main law in

the United States mandating that children and youth with special needs should be placed in the least

restrictive environment (LRE) where they can develop their optimum potentials alongside their regular

student peers. The law requires the provision of an individualized education plan (IEP) for the use of the

classroom teacher and to the benefit of the child. This IEP is the blueprint of the developmentally

appropriate goals, activities, materials, and instruction for the special learner in the context of the regular

classroom.

In the Philippines, the Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilties (RA 7277, with amendments as RA 9442),

provides a general directive that children and youth with special needs should fully participate and be

integrated in the mainstream society. The amendment to the original law mentions special education

classes in all regions of the country, but there is no mention of inclusion. Evidently, the law was drafted at a

time when inclusion, in its fullest sense, may be considered a radical idea or principle.

Components

Inclusion involves the whole system of special education. It does not start and end in school. It reaches

even the recesses of family life. Each person interacting with the child has a role to play for inclusion to


429

I



R S S

work. Collaboration with other professionals and paraprofessionals is one of the major components of

inclusive education (Forlin, 2010; Mogharreban & Bruns, 2009). There has to be an understanding between

and among the team members as to the role each one has to play and the boundaries one must recognize

(Spasovski, 2010). Inclusion places the professional worker in a teamwork context, where trust and support

in the competence and role of other facilitators of learning is of paramount importance. Mogharreban and

Bruns (2009) and Bourke (2009) also advised that the amount of resources, human or financial, available to

support inclusion is an important consideration for the success of a program. In addition, linkages with

public or private institutions alleviate much of the concerns of administrators in terms of keeping the

personnel and maintaining the program.

Challenges and Advancements

No system, including education, could insulate itself from the demands or requirements of its larger

environment, the complicated network of cultural and political structures. On this matter, Purdue, Gordon-

Burns, Gunn, Madden, and Surtees (2009) emphasized the facilitative value of clear legislative bases for

inclusion in New Zealand, while Bartolo (2010) laments the lack of which in Malta.

Despite the difficulties with which inclusion is being introduced into the educational system, teacher

initiatives manage to find ways to progress in the field of teaching diverse learners (Purdue et al., 2010;

Bartolo, 2010). This highlights the willingness of teachers in some inclusive classrooms to organize

themselves and do something more for the special learner in their midst. This has given rise to best

practices studies, which bring to fore instructional strategies such as multisensory teaching or instruction,

peer-mediated learning, and cooperative teaching.

Among the many factors noted for the success or failure of inclusive education, teacher preparation has

been one of the major determinants of its effective implementation. Bartolo (2010) noted how the lack of

training of teachers in preschool inclusive classes actually lead to the exclusion and discrimination of

special learners. The teachers, not wanting to burden the child with what he/she cannot do, and not exactly

knowing what the child can and cannot do, end up leaving the child aside to keep a safe and silent distance.

Purdue et al. (2009), Pijl (2010), and Spasovski (2010) stressed the importance of preparing teachers to

handle diverse learners in their classrooms in terms of materials, instruction, and socialization. Knowledge

empowers them to become more confident in handling these learners and thus giving the latter the

developmentally appropriate education due them.

In the Philippines, it may be said that inclusive education has made considerable developments in the public

and private school systems. No less than the University of the Philippines College of Education SPED

tirelessly sets the pace for the practice of inclusion. But despite all the efforts of the advocates of inclusion

to include the exceptional population in general education setting, the potential or actual practice of

inclusion in the Philippines remains suspect to many regular schoolteachers, who are probably not fully

equipped to handle a class that includes at least one student with exceptionality. This type of teacher

problem had already been observed in a number of developing countries (Stough, 2003; Eleweke & Rodda,

2002).

Research Problems

This work looked into the readiness and willingness of schoolteachers and schools to administer inclusive

education. To generate possible foundational data for future studies on this topic, these researchers sought

to find whether there a significant difference (1) between the levels of knowledge of basic SPED concepts

of preschool to grade six teachers and secondary schoolteachers and (2) the levels of willingness of


430

I



R S S

preschool to grade six teachers and secondary schoolteachers. The researchers sought to find whether there

a significant relationship between the following: (3) the schoolteachers’ level of knowledge of basic

concepts in SPED and their willingness to include exceptional students in their class; (4) the

schoolteachers’ level of knowledge of basic concepts in SPED and their willingness to include exceptional

students in their class; and (5) the school readiness for inclusion and teachers’ level of willingness to

include exceptional students in their classes?

Conceptual Framework

This research was aimed at finding whether a teacher’s knowledge of basic concepts in SPED is related to

his/her willingness to handle inclusive classes. It is assumed in this work that those who have high-level

willingness to handle inclusive classes would want to know more about SPED in order to provide high-

quality service to students with special needs. Here, more knowledge in SPED means being more prepared

to handle inclusive classes than those teachers who believe that they do not have any background in SPED.

And if the school, in general, is ready for inclusion, then it may be said that the teachers are willing to

handle ES and are equipped with appropriate knowledge to partake in the administration of inclusive

education.

The study

This study was carried out on the assumption that every school in the Philippines ought to be ready to

include exceptional students in their classrooms in case they are deemed fit to join a carefully selected

regular class. This assumption implies that all teachers shall likewise be prepared to take on the required

tasks when handling a class that includes an exceptional student. Exceptional students in this study included

only those who are gifted, those with intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, autism, and attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Pre-school to Grade 6 Teachers

and

Secondary Schoolteachers

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework


431

I



R S S

All the 87 respondents in this study were in-service education masters students in a state university. Sixty-

four (64) of the respondents were female, nine were male, and four did not indicate their sex. Fifty-eight

(58) of the 87 respondents were pre-school to grade 6 teachers and 29 were secondary schoolteachers.

There were more respondents from the private schools (60) than the public schools (15).

Most (36.78%) of the respondents were BS Education (non-SPED elementary and secondary education)

graduates. A separate tally was done for BSE/BEEd SPED graduates and only 7 out of the 87 were listed.

Next to BS Education graduates were the BS/BA Psychology graduates (11.49%) followed by Home

Economics graduates, medical-related courses and arts and humanities.

Among the respondents, 40.23% (35) are in the MAEd SPED program while 35.63% (31) were enrolled in

MAEd programs specializing in other fields of study but have taken unit(s) of SPED or have attended

seminar(s) in SPED. Twenty-four percent (24%) have not had any units in SPED or have attended any

seminar(s) in SPED.

In terms of experience in handling exceptional students, most of the respondents claimed to be inclusion

teachers (35%). Others considered their experience as direct teaching (28%). Around a quarter (26%) of the

respondents have had no experience in handling exceptional students while a few others have had their

dealings with exceptional students as advocates or family members-teachers. These researchers developed a

survey questionnaire that had been submitted to a jury of experts for validation. Revisions were made based

on the comments and suggestions of such experts. The questionnaire consisted of a profile sheet and 43

items on a Likert scale. The items covered teachers’ knowledge of basic SPED concepts, teachers’

willingness to include exceptional students in their classes, and school readiness for inclusion.

Where teachers of graduate students could not administer the survey themselves, they were requested to

allow the researchers to do the survey for five to ten minutes before class meeting. Questionnaires that were

not answered completely and those that were answered by non-in-service graduate students of education

were discarded.

Results

Schoolteachers’ knowledge of basic SPED concepts

The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree to the items pertaining to their

knowledge of basic SPED concepts using a 5-point scale. In this scale, a score of 1 means strongly

disagree, 2 means disagree, 3 means uncertain, 4 means agree, and 5 means strongly disagree.

The computed mean for 87 respondents was 3.66 with a standard deviation of .733. This indicates that the

respondents were generally uncertain to somewhat agreeing that they are familiar and able to discuss basic

concepts of SPED. Looking into the profile of the respondents, it may be noted that while 40% of the

respondents were MAEd SPED students, 60% were non-SPED majors with some having units or attended

seminars in SPED while 24.14% do not have any SPED background at all. As to their undergraduate

courses, the 7 BEEd/BSE SPED respondents could not but be carried by the 36.78% education graduate

with no known undergraduate units in SPED.

Item 13 garnered the highest score among the 13 items under the knowledge category with a mean of 4.10

and a standard deviation of .778. It refers to the teachers’ familiarity and ability to discuss the concept of

classroom management. Not only is this concept important to an inclusive setting but also in regular

classrooms as well. Considering that 36% of the respondents are education graduates, and all of them have


432

I



R S S

teaching experience, it is not surprising that the respondents agreed to this item. Indeed, teachers of primary

and secondary schools should have at least the basic knowledge of classroom management.

Schoolteachers’ willingness to include exceptional students

Teachers’ willingness to include exceptional students in their classes was divided into three parts:

willingness to implement the IEP of an exceptional student, willingness to handle a class with an

exceptional student, and willingness to collaborate with other professionals. The items under each part

pertained to the exceptionalities of students namely: students who are gifted and are talented, those with

attention deficit and those with hyperactivity, those who have autism and intellectual disability. The 5-point

scale was also used to rate the degree to which they agree to the items.

The grand mean for the willingness part was computed at 3.85 with a standard deviation of .743. The

respondents are close to agreeing that they are willing to include exceptional students in their class. This

result is more positive than the level of knowledge they perceive as was discussed in the previous section.

Comparing the three subparts of the willingness section, the respondents agreed that they are willing to

collaborate with other professionals in handling exceptional students (mean= 4.16, SD= .845). This

presents a positive outlook on the part of the teachers for it is indeed in collaboration that they will be able

to sharpen their skills in inclusion (Forlin, 2010; Mogharreban & Bruns, 2009).

Looking at the teachers to include exceptional students across exceptionalities, it can be construed that they

agree in handling the gifted and the talented more than the other exceptionalities. This is perhaps under the

premise that those who are gifted and talented would be easier to manage and would in fact be a positive

element in a classroom as compared to those who have a disability. However, teacher preparation must be

geared towards helping all students and not just those whom teachers perceive to be less challenging

(Purdue, et al., 2009; Pijl, 2010; Spasovski, 2010).

Schools’ level of readiness for inclusion

The items under school readiness section referred to the components of an inclusive program such as a

SPED program, personnel, curriculum, facilities, linkages, financial resources, as well attitude of parents,

other students, and teachers towards exceptional students. The computed mean of 3.53 with a standard

deviation of .809 is indicative of the respondents’ uncertainty regarding this matter. Although 35% of the

teachers noted that they are teaching in an inclusive class, it is interesting t note that the respondents in

general do not positively perceive that their school is ready for inclusion. This brings us to question the type

of inclusive set-up is there in those schools who claim to be inclusive when their teachers do not see the

readiness of the schools in its program components.

Bartolo (2010) among others highlighted the role of preparing not only the teachers but the whole school in

preparing for inclusion. Dizon (2010) emphatically notes that inclusion is never a weekend planning

program. At the very least, a year of planning would be necessary to implement an effective inclusion

program for diverse learners. The banner “inclusive school” is indeed attractive. Many parents may come to

find a future for their exceptional child. But the lack of preparation of the teachers and the whole school for

that matter may be all the more a cause for the child to be further excluded (Bartolo, 2010).

Knowledge of preschool to grade six teachers and secondary schoolteachers

T-test was applied to determine the level of difference between the mean scores of pre-school to grade six

teachers and secondary schoolteachers under the category knowledge of some basic concepts in special


433

I



R S S

education. Pre-school to grade 6 teachers had a higher mean score of 100.5862 than secondary

schoolteachers who had a mean score of 71.4828. Their mean score difference is 29.10345. A highly

significant difference was found between pre-school to grade 6 teachers and secondary schoolteachers

under the category knowledge of basic concepts in special education, t(85) = 5.252, p.05. Equal variances

here are assumed.

Table 1. Knowledge of Two Groups of Teachers of Some Basic SPED Concepts

t-test for Equality of Means

t df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Knowledge

of basic

concepts

Equal

variances

assumed

5.252 85 .000 29.10345 5.54103 18.08639 40.12050

Equal

variances

not assumed

5.199 54.608 .000 29.10345 5.59814 17.88272 40.32417

There appears to be more students who need special attention at the pre-high school level than in secondary

school. Granting that this is true, it is possible that significantly more pre-school to grade 6 teachers had

been obliged to know more about special education than the secondary schoolteachers in order to meet the

requirements of a class that includes students with special needs even if an appropriate special program in

their school has yet to be implemented.

Willingness of schoolteachers to include

T-test was performed to determine the level of difference between the mean scores of pre-school to grade

six teachers and secondary schoolteachers under the category willingness to accommodate students with

exceptionalities who may qualify for inclusion program. Pre-school to grade 6 teachers had a higher mean

score of 83.4828 than secondary schoolteachers who had a mean score of 75.8276. Their mean score

difference is 7.65517.

Table 2. Willingness of Two Groups of Teachers to Accommodate Exceptional Students

t-test for Equality of Means

t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std.

Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Willingness to

accommodate

inclusion

students

Equal

variances

assumed

2.204 85 .030 7.65517 3.47258 .75076 14.55959

Equal

variances

not assumed

2.090 48.894 .042 7.65517 3.66272 .29426 15.01608


434

I



R S S

A significant difference was found between pre-school to grade 6 teachers and secondary schoolteachers in

terms of their willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities who may qualify for inclusion

program, t(85) = 2.204, p.05. Equal variances here are assumed.

The significance of difference here could be explained by the pre-school to grade 6 teachers having more

knowledge of some basic concepts in special education than the secondary schoolteachers. This claim is

based on the assumption that willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities is significantly

influenced by the teachers’ amount of knowledge in special education.

Schoolteachers’ knowledge of basic SPED concepts and willingness to practice inclusion

The willingness of schoolteachers’ to accommodate students who may qualify for inclusion program

partially predicts their knowledge of some basic concepts in education. The computed linear relationship is

.267. Both variables are significantly related at .05 level according to the results of 2-tailed test.

Table 3. Willingness to Accommodate Students with Exceptionalities and Schoolteachers’ Knowledge of

Some Basic Concepts in SPED

Knowledge of basic concepts

Willingness to accommodate

inclusion students

Knowledge of

basic concepts

Pearson

Correlation 1.000 .267*

Sig. (2-tailed) .012

N 87.000 87

Willingness to

accommodate

inclusion students

Pearson

Correlation .267* 1.000


N 87 87.000

As was noted, there is a significant relationship (based on 2-tailed test) between the teacher respondents’

knowledge of some special education concepts and their willingness to take on the challenges of inclusion

program. Such association signals that the low positive relationship between willingness to accommodate

students with exceptionalities and knowledge of some basic concepts in special education could possibly be

improved if the knowledge of all schoolteachers about inclusion and special education is upgraded.

Schoolteachers’ knowledge of SPED concepts and schools’ readiness to practice inclusion

The schoolteacher’s knowledge of the basic concepts in special education has a low positive relationship

with the readiness of their school to implement inclusion program. The computed linear relationship is only

.164. Both variables are not significantly related according to the result of 2-tailed test, p<.05.

Knowledge of basic concepts in special education will not suffice for the teacher respondents to say that

their schools are ready for the inclusion program. This suggests that there are other elements to consider

aside from knowledge (e.g., special education equipment, linkages, workforce).


435

I



R S S

Table 4. Knowledge of Some Basic SPED Concepts and Readiness of School to Implement Inclusion

Readiness of school Knowledge of basic concepts

Readiness of school Pearson Correlation 1.000 .164


N 87.000 87

Knowledge of basic

concepts

Pearson Correlation .164 1.000


N 87 87.000

School readiness for inclusion and teachers’ willingness to include

The readiness of school to implement inclusion program partially predicts the willingness of the

schoolteachers to accommodate students who may qualify for inclusion program. The computed linear

relationship is moderately positive, .478. Both variables are significantly related at .01 level according to

the results of 2-tailed test.

Table 5. School Readiness to Implement Inclusion and Willingness of Teachers to Accommodate Students

with Exceptionalities

Readiness of

school


inclusion students

Readiness of school Pearson Correlation 1.000 .478**


N 87.000 87


inclusion students

Pearson Correlation .478**

1.000


N 87 87.000

Willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities, just like knowledge in special education, will

not suffice to say that a school is ready to implement inclusion program. But willingness of the teachers to

accommodate students with exceptionalities is a vital component of a sound inclusion program. Since a

significant relationship has been detected between willingness to accommodate students with

exceptionalities and teachers’ knowledge in special education, it is not unwise to promote knowledge in

special education among teachers.

Discussion

Evidence shows that the respondents were uncertain as to their knowledge of basic SPED concepts. Though

they agreed they were willing to include children who are gifted and talented in their class, they were

generally uncertain as to their willingness to handle a diverse group of learners in class. It was noted that

the respondents agree that it is necessary to collaborate with other professionals in handling a class with

exceptional students. The respondents, however, were uncertain about their schools’ readiness for an

inclusion program even if a number of them have indicated that they are teaching in an inclusive class.


436

I



R S S

While the results of the study indicate that pre-school to grade 6 teachers and secondary schoolteachers are

not fully prepared to handle classes that include students with exceptionalities, it has been found that the

latter are more wanting in knowledge of basic concepts in special education. Such perceived lack of

knowledge in special education seems to shed light on why secondary schoolteachers are not as willing as

the pre-school to grade 6 teachers to take on the challenges of inclusion. It may be added, too, that pre-

school to grade six teachers have probably more experience in handling classes in which some students

would later show to have special needs. Although it is not the place of nearly all pre-secondary

schoolteachers to diagnose students for possible special needs, the possibility often impels many of

schoolteachers to do some quick research on how to deal with students with possible special cases.

Compared to the pre-service program for secondary education majors, it may be noted that basic special

education concepts are more frequently discussed in pre-service program for elementary education students.

Teachers’ level of willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities is related to the amount of

knowledge they have in special education finds support in the significance of relationship between

teachers’ willingness to accommodate students with exceptionalities and teachers’ knowledge of some

basic concepts in special education. However, one cannot reasonably assume that willingness to

accommodate students with exceptionalities would generate knowledge of basic concepts in special

education. The point is, if an institution wishes to raise the level of willingness of schoolteachers to handle

inclusion classes, the institution has to train and educate the schoolteachers in special education to equip

them with necessary competence to teach an inclusion class. In particular, it is the secondary schoolteachers

who need to know more about special education and its place in regular schooling.

Schoolteachers’ knowledge in special education and their willingness to handle inclusion classes, however,

do not signal preparedness of the school to accommodate students with exceptionalities. This suggests that

there are other things to consider in order to tell whether a school is fully prepared to take on the challenges

implementing a sound inclusion program.

One issue to consider is whether the school has the required equipment to address special needs. Another is

whether the workforce will suffice to implement inclusion program effectively. And another one is whether

the school has the required working relationship with other institutions and organizations that cater to the

special needs of students with exceptionalities.

It will also help to consider whether the school’s mission requires itself to meet the needs of all students.

On this matter, it helps to point out that the international clamor for equal opportunity in education at all

levels (UNCRPD, 2006; UNESCO, 2004) has been gaining strength.

This research gives schoolteachers a realistic view of their own perceptions about their knowledge in SPED

and their willingness to include exceptional students in their classrooms. As the particular areas of

individualized education are presented, the teachers may gain insight as to the area where they may be more

confident or least confident. This insight, it is hoped, may spur their interest to progress in their knowledge,

skills, and attitude as a teacher.

School administrators may also use the data generated in this study to identify SPED domains that are

relevant to inclusive education. This research also provides insight on the disparity between the meaning

and the practice of inclusion.

Needless to say, students with exceptionalities and their families would likewise benefit from a well-

prepared school where teachers and administrators are more aware of their strengths and limitations in

terms of inclusion. Consequently, parents will most likely spend their resources on a more effective

program for their child.


437

I



R S S

Policy makers and teacher training groups may also benefit from the results of this study as the correlation

between willingness and readiness for inclusion is herein presented. Some schools may perceive themselves

as academically ready but may not be willing to go through the process of inclusion. Others may be willing

but not yet ready to take on the challenge. It is important for policy makers and teacher training groups to

understand the dynamics of their subjects in order to provide the necessary environment for those who will

be in the forefront of this endeavor.

References

Bartolo, P.A. (2010). The process of teacher education for inclusion: The Maltese experience. Journal of

Research in Special Education Needs, 10(1), 139-148. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx.

Bourke, P.E. (2009). Professional development and teacher aides in inclusive education contexts: where to

from here? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8), 817–827. Retrieved from


Dizon, E.I. (2010). Education the child with special needs in the regular classroom. Conference

Proceedings. October 22, 2011, UP Diliman, Quezon City.

Forlin, C. (2010). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications

for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 177–184. Retrieved

from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx.

Eleweke, C.J., & Roda, M. (2002). The challenge of enhancing inclusive education in developing countries.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(2), 113-126.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W.D. (2002). Including Students with Special Needs: A Practical Guide for

Classroom Teachers (4th

ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Inclusion International. (2009). Better Education for All: A Global Report. Retrieved from

http://ii.gmalik.com/pdfs/Better_Education _for_All_Global_Report_October_2009.pdf.

Mittler, P. (2014). In Mariga, L., McConkey, R., & Myezwa, H. (2014). Inclusive Education in Low-

Income Countries: A Resource Book for Teacher Educators and Community Development Workers.

Cape Town: Atlas Alliance and Disability Innovations Africa.

Mogharreban, C., & Bruns, D.A. (2009). Moving to Inclusive Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms: Lessons from

the Field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 407–414. Retrieved from


Pijl, S.J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the Netherlands. Journal

of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 197–201. Retrieved from


Purdue, K., Gordon-Burns, D., Gunn, A., Madden, B., & Surtees, N. (2009). Supporting inclusion in early

childhood settings: some possibilities and problems for teacher education. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 13(8), 805-815. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Deppeler, J., & Guang-xue, Y. (2013). Reforming teacher education for inclusion in

developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 3-16.

Retrieved from http://ajie-bd.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/sharma.pdf.

Spasovski, O. (2010). Principles of the inclusive education and the role of teachers and in-school

professional staff. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation. 7(1-2), 67-86. Retrieved from


Srivastava, M., de Boer, A., & Pijl, S.J. (2013). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look

at its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.847061.

Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264243017_Inclusive_education_in_developing_countries_a

_closer_look_at_its_implementation_in_the_last_10_years.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx



http://ii.gmalik.com/pdfs/Better_Education%20_for_All_Global_Report_October_2009.pdf






438

I



R S S

Stough, L.M. (2003). Special education and severe disabilities in Costa Rica: Developing inclusion in a

developing country. Research and Practice of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(1), 7-15.

UNCRPD. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/disabilities.

UNESCO. (2004). The right to education for persons with disabilities: Toward inclusion. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf.

http://www.un.org/disabilities

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf

Documents

Inclusive Education in the Philippines: Gauging Schools