1

Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Southeast Asia

SciencesPo · UNICEF Malaysia

Eva Canan · Jin Chen · Daria Jarczewska · Youngeun Lee · Jack Wattiaux

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Part I. Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 6

Part II. Good Practices .................................................................................................................... 10

Part III. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 17

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 22

Annex A. Stakeholders ................................................................................................................... 23

Annex B. Case Studies ................................................................................................................... 25

3

Executive Summary

Inclusive education was first introduced at the international level in the context of the Convention on

the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989. This treaty recognises, in Article 23, the right for children

with disabilities to have access to education. Five years later, in 1994, the World Conference on

Special Needs Education affirmed inclusive education as a principle in the Salamanca Statement and

Framework for Action. It highlights that inclusive education is not only a right of children with

disabilities, but is also beneficial to all children. More recently, this principal has been enshrined in

Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted in 2006.

Malaysia has ratified both conventions, though with substantial reservations regarding non-

discrimination and equality of opportunities. The Malaysian government has made some efforts

towards inclusive education, however it remains largely unwilling to adapt its laws and policies to

make the necessary in depth changes to the educational system required to create truly inclusive

opportunities for children with disabilities. More generally, Malaysian society has not yet embraced

the idea of inclusive education, still largely viewing disability through the medical rather than the

social lens.

In response to this situation, UNICEF Malaysia has multiplied its efforts in the past years to promote

inclusive education for children with disabilities throughout Malaysia. Most recently it has established

a platform of relevant stakeholders in order to create synergy between actors and channel their

shared efforts to advocate and lobby for inclusive education. It is also preparing to launch a series of

pilot projects later this year to test new ways of addressing the topic.

4

Objective of the report

In support of UNICEF Malaysia’s endeavour, this report aims to identify good practices of inclusive

education performed in neighbouring Southeast Asian countries that could be replicated in Malaysia.

More precisely, our main objective is to analyse grassroots initiatives that have successfully promoted,

developed and implemented inclusive education in schools and communities from a bottom-up

perspective and draw from them recommendations for UNICEF Malaysia.

The findings of the report are based on ten case studies originating from six Southeast Asian

countries, namely Cambodia (2 case studies), Indonesia (1), Laos (1), the Philippines (2), Thailand (1)

and Vietnam (3). Beside their common characteristic of being grassroots initiatives, these case studies

cover a variety of situations. Some are led by individual teachers while others are set up by

international NGOs. Some focus on a single school while others have scaled up to a quasi-national

level. Some focus on adapting the classroom, others on reforming teacher training and yet others on

shifting the larger public opinion.

Structure of the report

The report is divided in three sections. The first section sets the landscape by offering an introductory

analysis of the main stakeholders and key dynamics of inclusive education. Its main objective is to

sketch out the essence of this complex web of actors and information in a simple and comprehensible

map. This map is then used throughout the report as a framework of analysis.

The second section provides a review of the good practices we have come across in the case studies

we have selected. Our analysis tries as far as possible to adopt a transversal approach in the sense that

it highlights common trends observed across different case studies. Six clusters of good practices

have been identified as a result of this analysis. Additional good practices encountered in individual

case studies are also mentioned.

The third section draws on the good practices in order to make recommendations to UNICEF Malaysia

on key elements we believe it should take into consideration when developing and implementing

5

effective initiatives on inclusive education. The list of eight recommendations we have identified can

be found at the end of this executive summary. The final section of the report further provides a

rationale and precisions for each recommendation.

Finally, after a few concluding remarks, the annexes of the report provide complementary information

on the map presented in the first section of the report (Annex A) and detailed insights into the ten

case studies that provided the basis of the report’s findings (Annex B). Relevant bibliographical

references are indicated after each case study.

Recommendations of the report

The outcome of the report can be found in the following set of eight recommendations. They offer a

snapshot of current good practices inclusive education developed by grassroots initiatives in the

Southeast Asia region.

1. Develop comprehensive awareness-raising campaigns

2. Stimulate connection and involvement of all stakeholders

3. Empower all children as actors of inclusive education

4. Ensure teachers’ sense of ownership of inclusive education practices

5. Promote diversification of teaching methods and resources

6. Foster good practice sharing between teachers

7. Emphasise the indispensability of school leadership support

8. Encourage progressive and clustered implementation of inclusive education

6

Part I. Stakeholders

In this section of the report, we will analyse the key stakeholders involved in inclusive education and

map them out. We believe this mapping exercise to be a necessary preliminary step to any further

analysis due to the diversity of actors and the complexity of their relations to one another in the field

of inclusive education. The map we propose below sketches an overview of the situation and

illustrates its essential features in a simple and comprehensible manner.

In the specific context of this report, our analysis has two main objectives. First it will allow us in the

second section of this report to have a better understanding and finer analysis of the case studies we

have selected. We will be able to identify which parts of the stakeholder map are targeted by good

practices and how these attempt to utilise or alter its dynamics in order to promote inclusive

education. Secondly, it will allow us in the final section of this report to pinpoint our

recommendations towards key leverage points identified on the map.

Two disclaimers need to be highlighted before presenting our map however. Firstly, the map does

not include an exhaustive list of stakeholders and relations. To avoid oversimplification, we decided,

in the interest of clarity as well as of relevance, to include only the most important stakeholders and

relations. Secondly, we intentionally did not draw a map specific to one country since we wanted it to

be applicable in all six countries from which our case studies are drawn. The obvious limit to this

approach is that it risks sidelining country-specific structures.

7

Stakeholders of

Inclusive Education Stakeholder Key

High involvement Medium involvement Low involvement Abc High influence Abc Medium influence Abc Low influence

Relations Key

Formal relation Hybrid relation Informal relation Strong relation

National Authorities

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Social Affairs

Ministry of Health Other Ministries

Parents

Principal

Teachers

Parents of Peers

Family

Peers

Child With Disabilities

Local Authorities

DPOs / CSOs

Community Leaders

Regional Authorities

Teacher Training Institutions

SCHOOL

LOCAL

REGIONAL

NATIONAL

8

Criteria of analysis

Five criteria of analysis are used to build the map. These criteria are:

o Level – This refers to the level at which stakeholders act. Four levels are distinguished: school;

local; regional; and national levels.

o Involvement – This refers to the degree of stakeholders’ impact on the implementation of

inclusive education. Three degrees are distinguished: low; medium; and high.

o Influence – This refers to the degree of stakeholders’ impact on the decision-making process

regarding inclusive education. Three degrees are distinguished: low; medium; and high.

o Type of relation – This refers to the nature of relations between stakeholders. Two types of

relations are distinguished: formal and informal. A third type – hybrid – is used in the specific

case of DPOs and CBOs to reflect the fact that the nature of their relation to other stakeholders

strongly varies.

o Strength of relation – This refers to the particularly strong relationship that exists between

certain stakeholders. A marker of strength is used to indicate this characteristic.

One criterion that is not used is the favourability of stakeholders to inclusive education. There are two

reasons for this. Firstly, referring back to the second disclaimer mentioned in the introduction,

positions depend on each country. For instance, while the Ministries of Education of certain countries

strongly support inclusive education, others are more reserved. Secondly, there are in many cases

strong variations of positions within a given stakeholder. Parents or teachers for instance, might

position themselves at any point on the spectrum of favourability.

Typology of actors

Based on the two criteria of involvement and influence, the following four key types of actors can be

distinguished:

o High involvement / High influence – These actors are the key actors of inclusive education,

both in terms of their potential to influence decisions and their potential to support

9

implementation. Their support is a sine qua non condition to the success of inclusive

education. The three key actors are parents, teachers and principals.

o High involvement / Low influence – These actors have high potential to support the

implementation of inclusive education, but they generally rely on other actors to make initial

decisions. E.g.: Children with disabilities and their peers.

o Low involvement / High influence – These actors have high potential to influence decisions

regarding inclusive education, though they do not themselves generally take part actively in

their implementation. E.g.: Community leaders or the Ministry of Education.

o Low involvement / Low influence – These actors are secondary actors, but remain relevant

nonetheless. E.g.: Local authorities.

For a summary table of each stakeholder’s score in terms of involvement and influence, see Annex A.

Key strong relations

Based on the fifth criterion, the following three key types of strong relations can be identified:

o Family – This is the relation between children, their parents and other family members.

o Classroom – This is the relation between the teacher and their students, both with and without

disabilities.

o Institutional – These are vertical and hierarchical relations, such as that between the principal

of a school and its teachers.

The main idea here is that any change of position or behaviour of one actor in a strong relation is

likely to have a significant influence on the position or behaviour of other actors in the relation. Thus

for instance, if the principal adopts a position favourable to inclusive education, it is likely that

teachers will themselves shift towards a more favourable position.

10

Part II. Good Practices

In this section, we will present the good practices identified through the case studies. After analysing

the case studies, we have come to identify five main areas of good practices for inclusive education. In

addition to these five clusters of practices that were commonly found among two to four case studies,

we will also mention other individual good practices, which provide insights into how inclusive

education can be implemented more effectively. More detailed information about each case study is

available in Annex B.

Comprehensive approach to inclusive education

Many case studies have shown us that awareness raising activities should target and also involve a

wide range of stakeholders (case studies 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9). A comprehensive approach is important

because inclusive education cannot be implemented effectively by changing perceptions of only

certain groups of the society. Through case study 2 on the Light for the World project implemented in

Cambodia, we noticed that involving civil society actors and local decision makers in awareness

raising activities is important in order to build a greater partnership among different levels of

stakeholders. The project also gives an example of how children with disabilities can be actively

engaged in the process of awareness raising activities. children with disabilities showcase their

talents through public performances, which directly challenges the perceptions of the community

members about children with disabilities.

Meanprasatwittaya School in Thailand (case study 7) also shows how building connections among

different stakeholders is crucial for the successful implementation of inclusive education. For

11

instance, the school created a board whereby a variety of actors, namely parents, business leaders and

religious leaders, came together to increase community-level support for inclusive education. The

school’s distribution of newsletters containing information about the on-going issues related to

inclusive education has also contributed to strengthening the connection between community

members.

Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre based in Philippines (case study 5) has particularly

stressed the importance of involving all stakeholders including provincial governments, local chief

executive, municipal department heads, beneficiaries and civil society organisations for creating

synergy among different partners and also ensuring financial sustainability.

Our case study 8 equally emphasises the need for awareness raising campaigns to be based on a

comprehensive approach, both targeting and involving a variety of stakeholders. Along these lines,

Catholic Relief Services has implemented participatory workshops and community events to

encourage community leaders, teachers and parents of both children with and without disabilities to

share information, identify challenges and discuss ways to move forward.

Students as enablers of inclusive education

We found through case studies 3 and 8 that it is important to encourage all students, both with and

without disabilities, to take part in the process of creating an inclusive learning environment. The

consequence of an absence of such a practice is twofold: (1) teachers would likely have difficulty in

comprehensively capturing and understanding the various learning needs and differences of

individual student and (2) students would tend to be divided into groups of those with disabilities

and those without. Both of these consequences can exclude students from the process of building an

inclusive classroom and position them as passive receivers of education.

The first step for a teacher to benefit from this practice is to educate students about diversity and help

them to understand that every individual has different backgrounds, ideas and needs. In such a way,

students are given opportunity to witness the diversity that exists in their classroom and teachers can

12

prepare and provide education catered to each student’s specific needs. In this process, teachers are

not expected to do the work alone. Instead, all students are welcomed and encouraged to discuss and

freely choose roles that they can take in the process of creating an inclusive learning environment.

Once they have learned about different needs present in their classroom, they can decide what

support they can give to one another to better meet their respective needs.

Dante Rigmalia, a teacher based in Indonesia that has been implementing inclusive education and

runs the Dante Rigmalia Foundation (case study 3) shows that when a child with disabilities is to

become a part of a classroom, a simple way to enable all students to take part in the creation of

inclusive environment can involve democratically deciding who will sit next to the children with

disabilities and who will provide what support for him or her. But it is important to note that this

should only be a part of an ongoing process of witnessing, learning and responding to the diversity of

the entire class and not an exceptional task specifically targeting inclusion of children with

disabilities. When such a process is recognised as an exceptional or an additional task by a teacher

and students, it risks creating an exclusive learning environment, segregating children with

disabilities apart from other students.

Catholic Relief Services (case study 8) also presents an interesting way to encourage all students to

become active contributors of inclusive education. This practice is exemplified through their strategy

of creating ‘circle of friends’ in which children with and without disabilities interact and support each

other. It such ‘network,’ children engage in the process of designing activities and also deciding how

to help their classmates who need support. Here, the children are recognised as a powerful resource.

Active teacher training

Two case studies, 9 and 10, illustrate ways that teachers and other educational professionals can get

more out of trainings. Given that training is key to the success of inclusive schools--without sufficient

preparation teachers feel frustrated and the quality of children’s education suffers--it is vital to design

effective training that will properly equip teachers.

13

Case study 9 shows a good example of participant-oriented, interactive, and dynamic training.

Participants should be led to draw their own conclusions rather than the trainers imposing their own

points of view. The training highlighted in case study 10 emphasises a focus on practice rather than

theory. Case study 10 also shows how incentives can increase participation in trainings; even if

participants are initially reluctant or not interested in the topic, once drawn to a training by incentives,

they can be won over and developed as strong advocates of inclusive education.

Individualised teaching and evaluation methods

Taking into account that each child’s uniqueness is the underlying wisdom beneath efforts to change

the way children learn and are evaluated. Children with disabilities may have specific needs that are

linked with their disabilities, but children without disabilities can also benefit from policies that do

not implement a one-size-fits-all approach.

Two key ways that take into account children’s different learning styles are individualised learning

plans (ILP) and certain nontraditional forms of evaluation.

If, after assessing whether a child with disabilities will be able to thrive in an inclusive mainstream

school, the child is admitted, elaborating an ILP will help to ensure the student’s success. This plan

can be drawn up by the teacher, the parents, and the student him or herself, setting short- and long-

term goals which may or may not align with the main curriculum. It is important to create an ILP that

takes into account the student’s strengths and weaknesses, taking into consideration that each

student has different learning needs. For two examples of ILP’s being implemented, see case studies

7 and 8.

In a similar vein, creating alternative forms of evaluation to the current norm, which is standardised

testing, is another way to allow room for students’ diversity and to create a less stressful way for them

to demonstrate what they have learned. Case studies 6 and 7 provide several models of inclusion of

children with disabilities, with regards to academic expectations, behavioral expectations, and

alternate forms of evaluation.

14

These changes which take into account student’s individuality contribute toward making inclusive

education efforts successful. Yet they are beneficial not just for children with disabilities, but for all

children. Another way to implement inclusive education sustainably is via progressive inclusion. Case

study 4 provides an example of the benefits of moving towards inclusion progressively rather than all

at once. Some children can benefit from inclusion in mainstream education but may also have special

educational needs which a mainstream school cannot properly address. In such cases, children may

have the best of both worlds by spending half the time at a specialised school and half the time at a

mainstream school. Case study 1 illustrates one such situation.

Good practice sharing among teachers

Teachers who do not feel that they have had sufficient training and practical experience before

teaching students with disabilities may experience lack of confidence – they avoid contact with

students with disabilities, unsure of what to do and nervous to make a mistake. Case studies 1, 7 and

8 show that facilitating the exchange of successful practices, pedagogies and methodologies between

teachers may remedy the potential inadequacies of pre-service training.

An NGO ‘Krusar Thmey’ (case study 1) which operates within 14 Cambodian provinces, providing

education for deaf and blind children, incorporated in their practices a mechanism to enable teachers

to learn from each other. The NGO not only enables students from mainstream public schools to

attend some classes at specialised schools, and conversely, for the purpose of their integration, but

they also facilitate such exchanges between teachers. Once a week, teachers from local mainstream

schools are invited to specialised school to learn new practices and pedagogies from teachers who

work in the specialised school. This way, they gain experience which prepares them for cases when

they will have students with disabilities in their own classrooms. It is a very important practice which

allows teachers to rectify their mistaken understandings of work with children with disabilities and

confront their inhibitions.

15

Another successful approach we have found is that of showcasing projects which have succeeded on

the national scale. For instance, the Meanprasatwittaya school in Thailand (case study 7) has been a

successful example of building child-centred and activity-based learning environment which led to it

becoming a nationwide model, with teachers visiting to observe how the school implemented

inclusive and child-centred education.

Our case study 8 on Catholic Relief Services also provides some insights into how teachers can

support each other. The project used an interesting strategy of training the ‘key teachers,’ usually

school vice-principals or district education officers, whose purpose is to assist other teachers in their

school as well as other schools around them in adapting their teaching methods and provide them

with technical support to be more inclusive in their classrooms.

Progressive implementation of inclusive education

Through the examination of the aforementioned case study of Khrousar Thmey school in Cambodia

(case study 1), we have also found that when it comes to the change of local practices the best

approach is to focus on progressive implementation. This is useful, first of all, from the perspective of

students, who may gradually get used to being in a mainstream school and also teachers, who

progressively teach more and more students with disabilities. In Khrousar Thmey students begin in

primary school by attending classes in mainstream schools once a week, spending the rest of their

time in a specialised school, to then be completely included by the time they reach secondary school.

Also, whenever mainstream schools offer courses without specialised pedagogy (for instance

geometry which without special pedagogy cannot be taught to blind students), students with

disabilities have additional classes in a specialised school. This is a very successful example of

cooperation between mainstream and specialised schools that has the interest of students at heart.

Another instance of progressive implementation is seen in Save the Children’s project in Laos (case

study 4). The program started at a pilot school and expanded gradually in clusters of several schools at

a time, eventually forming a network of inclusive schools. On the school level, progressive

16

implementation was also key, introducing inclusive practices one grade per year rather than all at

once. The scaling up process over the course of sixteen years allowed for lasting and effective change

which may not have been possible without the progressive implementation approach.

Other good practices

Strong school leadership support

Meanprasatwittaya School (case study 7) shows that successful implementation of inclusive education

is highly dependent on the school leadership. It is considered that the strong leadership of Mantariga

Witoonchat, the school’s visionary principal, has contributed largely to shaping the school’s direction

towards building an environment supportive for inclusive education. The case study also shows that

sustaining such leadership is equally important so as to maintain the school’s trajectory.

Combined services

The Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre in Philippines (STAC) (case study 5) uses a holistic

approach to providing services for children with disabilities by combining rehabilitation, training and

education activities. For instance, physical therapy is conducted on a regular basis while training

programs are provided to the parents of children with disabilities in order to ensure continuity of

rehabilitation activities beyond hospitals. STAC shows physical therapy and training of the parents in

addition to the educational services can be important elements for ensuring a holistic and a

sustainable development of the children with disabilities.

17

Part III. Recommendations

The final section of this report details our eight recommendations for UNICEF Malaysia. They build on

the previous section, which gave a snapshot of good practices of inclusive education in the Southeast

Asia region. Recommendations 1 and 2 take a bird’s eye view, while Recommendations 3-7 focus on

particular stakeholders. Specifically, Recommendation 3 focuses on children, 4-6 on teachers and 7

on school leadership. The last recommendation touches on the strategic planning of inclusive

education initiatives’ implementation.

1. Develop comprehensive awareness-raising campaigns

UNICEF should pursue its efforts to reinforce the comprehensive approach of its campaigns to raise

awareness on inclusive education. Comprehensive campaigns should target not only particular

stakeholders, such as schools and teachers, but also the general population. This should be done at all

levels, from the local community level to the regional and national level. Indeed, it is necessary to keep

in mind the whole picture – i.e.: society as a whole – while also focusing on certain parts of the picture –

e.g.: individual schools. The most often used means to achieve this are public events and mass media.

The long-term objective of such campaigns is to enhance the widespread recognition of inclusive

education in the society. It is also a fundamental requirement to foster the active involvement of the

general population and generate change towards a positive environment for inclusive education in

the broader social context. Overall, this is necessary for effective and sustainable inclusive education

initiatives to be successful.

18

2. Stimulate connection and involvement of all stakeholders

UNICEF should continue developing the national platform of partners it has created so as to include

all relevant stakeholders involved in inclusive education and strengthen links between them. More

generally, it should aim to promote the development of such relations at all levels to enhance

communication, information sharing, mutual support and strategic partnerships building between

actors.

Compared to Recommendation 1, this recommendation focuses more specifically on empowering

stakeholders to take action and generate change. Connecting and involving all stakeholders is

important because the successful implementation of inclusive education requires building

inclusiveness not only inside schools, but also throughout communities and society as a whole.

3. Empower all children as actors of inclusive education

Empowering all children as actors of inclusive education is a two-step process. Firstly, it requires the

recognition by other stakeholders – mainly parents, teachers and principals – of children’s role in the

process. Children should be seen not only as beneficiaries of, but also as agents of inclusive

education. Secondly, it requires giving them the tools to be actors. This includes providing them with

knowledge on inclusive education, encouraging them to take the initiative and including them in the

decision-making process. It is important to stress that empowering all children means involving

children both with and without disabilities.

Empowering all children not only helps to strengthen the horizontal links between students, but also

transcend the traditionally vertical, institutional relation between teachers and students in order to

make the process more integrated. Furthermore, this contributes to improving the efficiency and

effectiveness of inclusive education, by ensuring the needs of all children are considered and taken

care of, by encouraging children’s sense of ownership of education and by motivating their more

proactive engagement towards implementation of inclusive education.

19

4. Ensure teachers’ sense of ownership of inclusive education practices

In order to ensure that teachers have a sense of ownership over the inclusive education practices they

are meant to use in the classroom, it is essential that they understand the reasons why inclusive

education is needed. Aside from providing the tools of inclusive education, it is therefore crucial to

also explain why and how these are different from traditional education tools. Possible approaches to

increase teachers’ sense of ownership include participant-centred training and incentives, such as the

prospect of a promotion and increased salary.

As the case studies have shown, if teachers do not have a sense of ownership, there is a high

probability that the implementation of inclusive education will fail and that teachers will revert to

traditional education methods. Conversely, ensuring teachers’ sense of ownership increases chances

of success. It additionally stimulates teachers’ creativity and innovation regarding their teaching

methods as well as encouraging them to take more initiative in the process. This is all the more

important since teachers are key actors of education, having both high involvement and high

influence. Their sense of ownership is therefore an essential step towards guaranteeing a positive

shift towards more inclusive education.

5. Promote diversification of teaching methods and resources

Diversifying teaching methods and resources refers not only to introducing technology in the

classroom, but also to revising traditional pedagogy. The latter can already generate significant

changes in the classroom with few efforts and at a low cost. It should therefore be at the basis of any

initiative to promote inclusive education. Additionally, ways of developing the former as a valuable

and cost-efficient asset to the class have already been well researched by UNESCO and UNICEF at the

international level, though they have not yet been systematically implemented at regional and local

levels.

Using a variety of pedagogical approaches benefits not only students with disabilities, but all

students. It is for instance recommended to get students to work in groups and make teaching more

20

interactive. Such approaches recognise that every student has different means of learning and seek as

a consequence to tailor the learning process to each and every one of them individually. This

contributes to the aim of inclusive education to enhance the overall quality of education.

6. Foster good practice sharing between teachers

Teachers should be given the opportunity to share their good practices of inclusive education within

schools and between schools, at all levels and across all levels. Good practice sharing refers not only

to organising meetings, but also to providing tangible possibilities to experience the practice first-

hand. It is also beneficial to promote the systematic documentation of good practices and to make

this documentation publicly available as a resource at the grassroots level. Ideally, teachers would

also share practices with parents, community leaders and other relevant local stakeholders.

Good practice sharing allows teachers to build a strong network, which will have the added value of

give them a sense of community. It may also encourage further innovation in practices since, as the

saying goes, two heads are better than one. Finally, in the long term, it fosters the dissemination of

good practices, which in turn increases their legitimacy and visibility through widespread adoption.

This prepares the ground for progressive policy changes towards inclusive education.

7. Emphasise the indispensability of school leadership support

School leadership refers first and foremost to school principals, but also includes more generally

school administration such as directors and secretaries. Emphasising the indispensability of school

leadership support entails including them in inclusive education initiatives parallel to teacher-

focused activities. The approach touches on the vertical and institutional relation inside inclusive

education.

Emphasising the indispensable school leadership support is crucial because they have the authority

to set the tone of the institution, especially in the hierarchical culture of Southeast Asian countries.

Having strong and proactive school leadership is very powerful in promoting inclusive education.

21

Conversely, when school leaders are against inclusive education, efforts to develop an inclusive

environment can be severely inhibited. Beyond the classroom setting, the atmosphere within the

institution can also have a significant impact on the perception of inclusive education by parents and

to a lesser extent by the community as a whole.

8. Encourage progressive and clustered implementation of inclusive

education

Progressive implementation refers to a long-term process in which the inclusiveness of schools is

built up in gradual strategic phases. Considering that it is difficult for a traditional school to become

inclusive within the timeframe of a single year, inclusive education projects should be designed to be

implemented over several years, focusing each year on a separate grade or set of classes. Clustered

implementation refers to a process in which small groups of schools within the same district initiate

and develop the implementation of inclusive education practices together.

According to the case studies, both a progressive and clustered implementation increases the chances

of success of inclusive education programs. Such an approach also enhances the effectiveness of

projects because they can work hand in hand and support each other to reach their common goal of

becoming inclusive. Finally, this approach is overall more cost-efficient, less time-consuming and

more effective.

22

Conclusion

This report aimed to identify good practices of inclusive education at the grassroots level in six

Southeast Asian countries neighbouring Malaysia. The purpose of this analysis was to provide

guidance and insights for ways that UNICEF Malaysia can extend its efforts to promote and foster

inclusive education.

In order to do so, we followed three steps. Firstly, we outlined the main stakeholders involved in

inclusive education across all six countries and mapped how they are connected. This allowed us to

get a clearer picture of how they interact and influence one another. Secondly, we identified good

practices drawn from our ten case studies. Many of these are present in more than one country.

Finally, on the basis of these findings, we elaborated a set of eight recommendations.

Malaysia has made a small measure of progress toward promoting inclusive education at a top-down

policy level. Nevertheless, the government remains reluctant to fully adapt its educational system to

become more inclusive. Given this reticence, grassroots initiatives are needed to generate changes.

UNICEF Malaysia has already launched innovative programmes – we hope that our recommendations

will provide a basis for further action.

23

Annex A. Stakeholders

In the following annex, information included in the stakeholder power map presented in Part II of this

report is summarised in three tables. The first table focuses on the degree of involvement and

influence of stakeholders. The second table lists non-formal relations between stakeholders. The third

table lists particularly strong relations between stakeholders.

Table 1 – Involvement and influence

Stakeholders Involvement Influence

Children with

Disabilities High Low

Parents High High

Family Medium Medium

Teachers High High

Principal High High

Peers High Low

Parents of Peers Low Medium

Community Leaders Low Medium

DPOs / CSOs* Medium Medium

Teacher Training

Institutions Medium High

Local Authorities Low Low

24

Regional Authorities Low Low Na

tiona

l Aut

horit

ies

Ministry of

Education Medium High

Ministry of

Health

Ministry of

Social Affairs

Low Medium

Other

Ministries Low Low

* Degrees of involvement and influence of DPOs / CSOs vary. Medium level here indicates first and foremost that diversity.

Table 2 – Non-formal relations

Relations Stakeholders

Informal

o Children with Disabilities – Peers o Parents – Parents of Peers o Community Leaders – All other stakeholders

Hybrid o DPOs / CSOs* – All other stakeholders

* The nature of the relation of DPOs / CSOs to other stakeholders varies. Hybrid relations here indicate first and foremost that diversity.

Table 3 – Strong relations

Relations Stakeholders

Family o Children with Disabilities – Parents – Family o Peers – Parents of Peers

Classroom o Children with Disabilities – Teachers – Peers

Institutional

o Principals – Teachers o Ministry of Education – Teacher Training Institutions – Schools o National – Regional – Local authorities

25

Annex B. Case Studies

In the following annex, we will present the case studies that provide the basis of this report’s findings.

Information on key practices and main challenges faced, as well as relevant references will be

detailed for each case individually. Overall, we will present ten cases, coming from six Southeast

Asian countries, namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. These cases

are:

o Case Study 1 – Krousar Thmey (New Family) ............................................................................. 26

o Case Study 2 – Light for the World ............................................................................................. 27

o Case Study 3 – Dante Rigmalia Foundation ............................................................................... 30

o Case Study 4 – Save the Children Norway .................................................................................. 33

o Case Study 5 – Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre ...................................................... 37

o Case Study 6 – Guidance Support Programme .......................................................................... 40

o Case Study 7 – Meanprasatwittaya School ................................................................................. 42

o Case Study 8 – Catholic Relief Services ...................................................................................... 45

o Case Study 9 – Save the Children Sweden ................................................................................. 47

o Case Study 10 – NIES Special Needs Teacher Training ............................................................... 50

26

Cambodia

Cambodia is a challenging context for the education of persons with disabilities, with more than half

of them being under 20 years old. Only 10% of the country’s children and youth with disabilities

receive any education. They account for barely 3% of children enrolled in primary school and 40% of

children with disabilities are illiterate. This situation is driven by poverty and a one-size-fits all

approach at the governmental level. Geographical obstacles further impede reaching certain

populations and translating government decisions into grassroots realities.

Case Study 1 – Krousar Thmey (New Family)

By Krousar Thmey (New Family)

Main Objective

The organisation’s main aim includes the creation of the form and content of education for deaf and

blind children. Moreover, the NGO aims at integrating children with and without disabilities through

extra-curricular activities to ensure that they interact on daily basis.

Key Features

The organisation is active in 5 cities and 14 provinces of Cambodia, assisting approximately 2’600

children. Krousar Thmey schools are situated on land donated by the Cambodian government, but

the curriculum and materials are funded through their own resources. The school’s curriculum is

based on the standard curriculum of all other schools in Cambodia, but classes that cannot be taught

in the same manner are adapted. Children with disabilities attend half of their classes in specialised

schools, and another half in mainstream public community schools. This allows for progressive

integration as well as specialised pedagogy. The project achieved both ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’

success: students with and without disabilities often interact together outside of classroom settings,

exemplifying the diminishing horizontal barriers between students, and several Krousar Thmey

27

graduates went on to pursue higher education, which is proof of lower vertical barriers to educational

progression. Teachers from local, public schools are also invited to come to special schools to learn

new methodologies of work with deaf and blind students. Furthermore, in order to increase

employability of students with disabilities, they are taught tangible and practical skills – for instance

massage therapy, which is a developing field in Cambodia.

Challenges & Shortcomings

The schools are still suffering from the lack of specialised pedagogies. For instance, geometry is not

taught to blind kids due to lack of pedagogical capacity. The organisation also indicated lack of

reliable data on students with disabilities in the country as well as lack of funding as constraining

elements.

Further Reading

Vachon, M. (2016), NGO Transfers Schools for Blind, Deaf to Government. URL:

https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/ngo-transfers-schools-for-blind-deaf-to-government-

108648/

Zook, D. (2010). ‘Disability and democracy in Cambodia: an integrative approach to community

building and civic engagement’, Disability & Society, Vol. 25(2), pp. 149-161.

Krousar Thmey (n.d.), Presentation. URL: http://www.krousar-thmey.org/en/about-us/presentation/

Case Study 2 – Light for the World

By Kampot Krong Primary School

Main Objective

The project’s main objective is to bring about changes of behaviour of the relevant stakeholders to

improve the perception and integration of blind and visually impaired students in Kampot Krong

National School.

28

Key Features

The NGO aimed to affect the broader context in which inclusive education advocacy and work is

conducted in Cambodia, and to change how children with disabilities are perceived, by fighting

prejudice and stigma. To realise this goal the project took on a multi-actor perspective, seeking to

affect perceptions at different levels – among policy makers, civil society, government stakeholders,

teacher and broader communities.

The project involved civil society actors and local decision makers in a study trip, a community

awareness raising and progress-monitoring workshop. On the community level, the NGO set to

challenge pre-conceived ideas held by individuals about children with disabilities by showcasing their

talents through public performances. Parents and teachers participated in information sessions.

Community members were also often consulted on the advocacy efforts conducted by the NGO.

These initiatives combined have resulted in greater inclusion of students with disabilities in

mainstream public schools and classrooms. Parents who took part in information sessions started

sending their children to schools, which they did not do before. On the local administration level, the

efforts of the NGO have resulted in greater cooperation between actors – local organisations,

international NGOs and national authorities.

Challenges & Shortcomings

The project leaders stated that the main constraint concerns the fact that achieving behavioural

change takes time and requires a long-term vision and commitment. Moreover, funding and project

cycles are often short-term. This predominant paradigm affects what the NGO can achieve.

Due to time and funding constraints, this project targeted only lower- and mid-ranking officials, but

the project evaluators stated that including higher-ranking officials would have been beneficial. On

the community level, more time would have allowed greater community mobilisation for support of

children with disabilities – their early identification, assisting families in fulfilling their needs.

29

Further Reading

Light for the World (n.d.). ‘A collective Reflection on Actions and Approach to support Learning,

Change and the Promotion of Inclusive Education’. URL: http://www.lightfortheworld.nl/docs/ca

pacity-building/learning-history-inclusive-education-cambodia-%28summary%29.pdf?sfvrsn=8

30

Indonesia

From 2013 to 2014, at the primary education level, the number of students enrolled in special needs

schools was 75’426, while at secondary level the number was 17’157 (OECD 2015,106). In addition

to the gap in the enrolment rates for different levels of education, special needs schools in Indonesia

show higher enrolment of boys than girls due to traditional conceptions about gender. There is also

an enrolment gap among provinces. The Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (2012)

counted 457 special needs schools in East Java, while only 4 were counted in West Papua. Thus,

addressing a variety of disparities is a major challenge in the context of Indonesia.

Case Study 3 – Dante Rigmalia Foundation

By Gegerkalong Girang primary school (Bandung)

Main Objective

The main objective is to enable all children to receive quality education through (1) awareness raising

campaigns at the community level but also at school and classroom levels, targeting teachers, parents

and students in the classroom; (2) training teachers and other members of the school staff; (3)

knowledge sharing with other institutions within and beyond the Bandung community; and (4) helping

government with implementation of inclusive education in Bandung and other cities of Indonesia.

Key Features

Dante Rigmalia Foundation promotes and implements some interesting classroom level practices in

schools located in and beyond Bandung community, namely (1) classroom organisation that

embraces and nurtures diversity of all students and (2) using inclusive pedagogy skills.

(1) Classroom that embraces and nurtures diversity of all learners

Dante Rigmalia, the founder of the Foundation, particularly emphasises the need to educate students

about diversity and to help them understand the different needs of every individual. Once the aim of

31

education is set in this direction, a teacher is more likely to shift from ‘special needs education’, which

targets particularly those children with disabilities towards ‘inclusive education’, which encompasses

all students. This shift is then reflected in the teaching and learning process as well as in the creation

of a classroom environment, all of which more conducive to responding to the various needs of every

student. This also sets the pathway for every student to actively take a part in the process of organising

a classroom where students decide what support each one can give to one another to better meet

their respective needs.

Apart from the classroom level, it is also important to work in collaboration with the headmasters,

other teachers and administrators to create an inclusive environment in the school in which all

students are respected. Such an educational culture that aims to embrace and nurture diversity would

have relevant implications in the context of Indonesia’s approach to inclusive education, taking into

account gender disparity that has been hindering girls’ access to education.

(2) Using inclusive pedagogy skills

Reinforcing the mistaken idea that there are separate ways to teach students with disabilities and

those without may put teachers under pressure because such a separation will result in an addition of

work to already existing burden of ensuring high performances of the students. There is a need to

combat this dual approach. When teachers realise that what works well for students with disabilities

may work equally well for other students, this can alleviate some of the pressure they feel to teach

different students in different ways. Dante Rigmalia stated in the Enabling Education Review issued

in 2012 that the teaching methods she had adapted for her students with disabilities happened to be

good for all of her students and that her teaching had become clearer for everyone.

Challenges & Shortcomings

The biggest challenges that Dante Rigmalia Foundation has been facing in promoting and

implementing inclusive education are concerned with bureaucracy and ignorance about inclusive

education. In particular, teachers often believe that having students with disabilities will have a

32

negative impact on their school performances, while the government uses strict standards for school

evaluation.

Moreover, it is difficult for students to transition from primary level to secondary level education due

to a lack of secondary schools that can accept them. Some schools struggle to position themselves as

inclusive schools without any certification while others restrict acceptance of students to those with

only certain types of impairments. When students are moved to mainstream schools, there is

oftentimes a lack of understanding of inclusive education and thus, teachers tend to focus on

students with disabilities’ barriers to learning instead of providing quality education for all students.

The consequence of such problems is precisely reflected in the enrolment rate gap between primary

schools and secondary schools. One shortcoming of Dante Rigmalia’s work can be found in its limited

reach. Due to the fact that Indonesia’s education system gives less room for flexible evaluation, the

Foundation’s work to promote and implement inclusive education faces difficulty in reaching the

arena of mainstream education. Implementing inclusive education in the mainstream school system

across different provinces necessitates comprehensive exchanges and collaborations with other

relevant institutions. This itself requires significant amounts of time and costs for a grassroots level

foundation. Nevertheless, the Dante Rigmalia Foundation is working to achieve the wider

implementation of inclusive education beyond the Bandung community.

Further Reading

OECD/Asian Development Bank (2015), ‘Education in Indonesia: Rising to the Challenge’, Paris,

OECD Publishing. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264230750-en

MoEC (2013), ‘Overview of the Education Sector in Indonesia, 2012: Achievements and Challenges’,

Jakarta, Ministry of Education and Culture Publishing.

Sunardi et al. (2011), ‘The Implementation of Inclusive Education for Students with Special Needs in

Indonesia’, Excellence in Higher Education, Vol. 2(1), pp.1-10.

33

Laos

Laos is a State Party to the ICESCR (ratified in 2007), the CRC (1991) and the CRPD (2008). In the past

decades, it has managed to increase enrolment in primary education to reach a net rate of 95%. Yet,

access to quality education is still a challenge. This is especially true for the most vulnerable groups,

which include girls; children whose mother tongue is not Lao – the language of tuition –; children

from economically or socially disadvantaged backgrounds; and, last but not least, children with

disabilities. The rigidity of the education system and the lack of funds, are particular factors that bar

the latter group from being included in mainstream schools. More generally, the country’s context as

both a very diverse – 49 ethnic groups are officially recognised – and poor country exacerbates this

situation.

Case Study 4 – Save the Children Norway

By Save the Children Norway

Main Objective

Save the Children Norway’s project aimed to raise awareness and promote understanding, primarily

among parents, teachers and principals, that quality education must be student-centred and ensure

the participation of all students, especially those from vulnerable groups. Though initially focussing

on the inclusion of children with disabilities, the project later adopted a wider approach considering

that all students experience barriers to learning that must be addressed.

Key Features

Over the course of its sixteen years of action (1993-2009), the project expanded from one pilot school

in the capital, Vientiane, to 539 schools throughout the country. The progressive rolling out of the

project to schools was coordinated by a National Implementation Team – composed of ministerial

officials and staff from the pilot school – and assisted by locally implemented Provincial

34

Implementation Teams and District Implementation Teams. These teams would train staff prior to the

school starting to be inclusive and provide them with technical support thereafter.

When new schools were included in the project, specific attention was given to the following three

elements:

o Schools should only enrol students of the appropriate age in order to avoid being overloaded

with work during the transition period towards inclusiveness. Though this may mean that

schools initially have to refuse enrolment of children not of the appropriate age, therefore

perpetuating their exclusion, it is important to note that this is necessary for the mid to long-

term sustainability and success of the project. If schools are overwhelmed, they risk

abandoning the project.

o Schools should aim to become inclusive progressively, meaning that only classes of one grade

should become inclusive every year. Lao primary education being composed of five grades,

schools should therefore aim to be fully inclusive only after five years. Again, this measure

aims to build capacity progressively in order to ensure the mid to long-term sustainability and

success of the project.

o Schools should join the project in clusters. Typically three schools in the same district would

join the project together as ‘critical friends’ to build their capacities collectively, sharing good

practices and supporting each other in the process. Additionally, schools that are already part

of the project and therefore have more experience would be involved to support the newly

joined schools. As a whole the objective of this strategy is to build a strong local network of

inclusive schools.

The project developed two tools to support the development of inclusive practices. The first tool is the

Five-Point Star, which was used in the project’s training programmes – as well as for the final

evaluation of the project. Five key components of inclusive education in classrooms were identified,

namely the use of a range of different activities; the use of resources; the use of student groupings;

the choice of question styles; and the relevance to real life experiences of students (for more details

see Save the Children Norway 2009, 89-92).

35

The second tool is the Lao School Improvement Tool, which was used to assess school practices and

measure their impact. It was aimed to be used not only for external, but especially for self assessment

of schools. This latter point is important since it is crucial that schools, in collaboration with the local

community, take ownership of their transition to inclusiveness. The tool includes seventeen indicators

(for more details see Save the Children Norway 2009, Appendix B) and a five-stage evaluation process

to help schools identify, implement and monitor key priorities for self improvement.

Overall, Save the Children Norway identified five key factors of success for their project, namely

teachers are motivated and understand the value of inclusive education for the students and the

community as a whole; teachers are well trained, which includes the provision of refresher courses

every three to four years; teachers have the opportunity to observe inclusive classrooms – and not only

receive abstract knowledge through training – and share good practices with other teachers;

principals understand the value of inclusive education, support teachers in developing inclusive

practices and encourage them to share their practices amongst each other and with parents; and local

communities are supportive and involved.

Four key strategies to ensure the participation of all students in the classroom were also identified,

namely giving extra attention to students in difficulty; involving all students to support each other,

ideally by getting students to often work in small groups, changing these groups several times a day

to ensure mix; using resources to support learning; involving parents through homework clubs for

instance to encourage them to support their children.

For concrete and detailed examples of best practices that successfully implement these strategies and

factors, see the three case studies of an inclusive lesson, an inclusive principal and an inclusive

community as well as the testimonies of four students (Save the Children Norway 2009, 105-131).

Challenges & Shortcomings

The main challenges faced by the pilot project were:

o The strain caused by the enrolment of all students wishing to attend the first inclusive school.

36

o The lack of opportunities for teachers to share their experiences or seek advice.

o The initial continued reliance on traditional, teacher-centred pedagogy.

o The teachers’ lack of agency to influence school policy, practices and environment.

o The underdevelopment of parental partnerships.

These challenges were taken into account in the project’s expansion to other schools. Unfortunately

however, teachers continued to have difficulties in developing individualised teaching approaches for

each student as well as accessing support and advice. One factor that contributed to this is the

irregularity of visits from members of Implementation Teams to each school due to the number of

schools and the budgetary constraints. Additionally, retention of staff was challenging due to their

regular transfers and change of positions, highlighting the importance of adopting a broad

perspective within the project that includes vertical and horizontal cross-planning strategies.

Finally, the project had two main shortcomings. Firstly, despite its initial intention to include all

children, it could not include students with the most severe disabilities. This is a common challenge

to most inclusive education projects. Secondly, it found expanding to secondary schools much more

difficult and ultimately less successful than with primary schools.

Further Reading

Save the Children Norway (2009), ‘A Quality Education for All. A History of the Lao PDR Inclusive

Education Project 1993-2009’.

37

Philippines

The government of the Philippines has been supportive of education for children with disabilities.

Efforts have been made such as the implementation of the Republic Act 7277, also known as the

Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, since 1991 and the yearly Presidential awards for child-friendly

cities and municipalities since 1998. Governmental support in the Philippines facilitates the

development of education for children with disabilities, which may distinguish the Philippines from

most other Southeast Asian countries.

Case Study 5 – Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre

By Katipunan ng Maykapansanan sa Pilipinas Inc. (KAMPI – national federation of cross-disabilities organisations) & the Danish Society of Polio and Accident Victims (PTU)

Main Objective

Tubigon’s Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre (STAC) is one of the 138 STAC centres (by 2013)

in the Philippines under the Breaking Barriers for Children and Young Adults with Disabilities (BBCY)

project. The Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity Centre (STAC) was created to ‘provide free

comprehensive rehabilitation services including free physical therapy, occupational therapy, pre-

school training, and school placement for children with disabilities, aged 0 to 14’ (UNICEF n.d.).

Key Features

(1) Clear division of responsibility between KAMPI and Tubigon’s municipal government

KAMPI is ‘in charge of training the parents of CWDs, day care workers, and barangay [smallest

administrative division] health workers’ and ‘transferring knowledge and skills to the LGU (local

government units) to effectively operate the STAC’, while the local government is responsible to ‘look

for a permanent location for the STAC, personnel, equipment, counterpart funding, and ensure the

sustainability of the STAC’ (UNICEF n.d.).

38

(2) Clear schedule of implementation

There are detailed implementation steps, outputs, key implementers, timeframe, budget and

resources planning for each implementation step. Below are the implementation steps with specific

time frame (UNICEF n.d.):

o Establishing target beneficiaries and their corresponding profiles (2 months, December 2007 to January 2008)

o Briefing of STAC implementers (1 month, January 2008) o Establishment of STAC at the temporary location (1.5 years, 2008 to 2009) o Capacity building (2 months) o Official turnover of STAC (1 year, 2010 to 2011 to build the STAC) o Monitoring and evaluation (Yearly)

(3) Services and activities

STAC runs regular services and activities that combine rehabilitation, training and education among

other things (UNICEF n.d.):

Ideally, treatments like physical therapy, occupational therapy and SPED sessions are conducted thrice a week for one to two hours per session. Regular services and activities of the STAC are described below:

a. Doctor evaluation – Entails initial evaluation by a physiatrist or neurologist of the CWDs to identify his or her specific treatments. Subsequent evaluations are conducted, ideally every quarter, to check on the status of the CWDs after treatment. Physiatrists may also recommend CWDs for surgery or medical treatment in hospitals.

b. Physical therapy – Activities designed to maintain, restore, and improve general physical conditioning of CWDs.

c. Occupational therapy – Activities designed to attain the highest level of functioning for daily activities like eating, dressing up, and correct speech.

d. SPED sessions – Activities designed to attain the highest level of cognitive skills like writing and identifying numbers, shapes, color, body parts, etc.

e. Supplemental feeding – Activities are complemented with balanced snacks or meals. f. Socialization activities – Monthly activities for the CWDs and their families. Annual

socialization activities include celebration of Children’s month, National Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation week, and Christmas.

39

g. STAC Parents’ Association (STAC-PA) – Activities include group counseling; socialization; and planning, implementation, and evaluation of STAC-PA activities, which are aimed to empower peer support and self-help groups.

h. Parents’ Training Program – Parents are trained on basic exercises that may be done at home to ensure continuity in rehabilitation.

i. Other activities – Hydrotherapy; fund raising for additional expenses of the STAC, e.g. transportation allowance of parents; and enjoining NGOs to partner with Tubigon STAC to augment budget for operations and assistive equipment for CWDs.

(4) Establishment and development of the project involves participation of all stakeholders

The participation of the provincial government, local chief executive, municipal department heads,

MPDC, barangays, beneficiaries, and civil service organisations is important in addressing issues such

as financial sustainability.

(5) Institutionalised process helps turn over existing projects to the upcoming administration

KAMPI will turn over the centre to the local government after 18 months. KAMPI will also prepare

transition briefings for following governmental administration. Such process helps to institutionalise

the centre and guarantees its sustainability.

Challenges & Shortcomings

When the project was implemented, ‘some of the families of the CWD were not inclined to bring their

children to the STAC even though services were free of charge’ (UNICEF n.d.). After visiting the houses

of these families, the STAC staff understood that transportation costs could be prohibitive. The centre

then helped to raise funds in local community to support these families with transportation costs.

Some parents whose children have mobility disability could not carry their children and travel to the

centre. To solve this, STAC did home visits or provided them with wheelchairs.

There was also a quick turn-over of staff, since employees look for better working opportunities. This

led to demands for constant recruiting and training of new staff. This problem has not yet been solved.

40

Further Reading

Breaking Barriers for Children and YAWDs, Website. URL: https://bbcy.wordpress.com/about-bbcy/

UNICEF (n.d.), ‘Empowering Children with Disabilities: Tubigon’s Stimulation and Therapeutic Activity

Centre’. URL: http://www.unicef.org/philippines/COPCFLG-TubigonBohol.pdf

Case Study 6 – Guidance Support Programme

By O.B. Montessori Centre Inc. (OBMCI)

Main Objective

The GSP makes possible enrolling children with disabilities, classifying them and including them into

the mainstream environment.

Key Features

There are no classes exclusively for students with disabilities. All students with disabilities accepted in

the school will be integrated or mainstreamed to its regular classes. The school provides three

programs to children with disabilities, namely Regular Academic Program, Modified Program and

Non-Graded Program (NISE n.d.):

A. Regular Academic Program

In this program students are enrolled in the regular academic program despite their disabilities, or learning difficulties. Special students who are placed in the regular academic program are required to meet all the academic and behavioral expectations/ standards of the school like any other regular student.

However, they are closely monitored and guided with regard to their behavior and how they may respond to everyday situations taking into consideration their learning/ psychological difficulties.

Special students in this program are considered fully integrated.

B. Modified Program

When the special students are unable to cope with the regular academic program they are mainstreamed thru a modified program. These students are required to meet the minimum

41

academic expectations/ standards of the school.

Modifications in the program may include (a) content and scope (quota of work output) (b) implementation – pace of work; giving of quizzes; seatwork, exams, projects, other written work, etc. (c) special schedules for tests and tutorial sessions.

C. Non-Graded Program

Students who have minimal potential to cope with either the regular or modified program are placed in a non-graded program.

Their program is usually prepared in consultation with psychologists/educational specialist. Teachers implement the individualized learning program in the classroom in lieu of the regular academic program.

Usually, the students in this program do not receive a quantitative progress report card. Instead, a descriptive report card is prepared to evaluate and record the progress of the student based from his/ her individual program.

At times, a ‘shadow teacher’ or SPED teacher may be allowed to stay in the classroom to assist the student.

The major consideration for children under this program is to provide opportunities for the child to interact and develop socially within a normal environment and identify possible vocational options that would allow the child to eventually become a productive member of the society.

Challenges & Shortcomings

Parents of children with disabilities are required to submit the evaluations from professional

consultants. However, this may become an obstacle for those families who cannot afford the services

of such consultants.

Further Reading

O.B. Montessori Centre, Website. URL: http://www.obmontessori.edu.ph/index.php

National Institute of Special Needs Education (NISE) (n.d.), ‘Education of Children with Multiple

Disabilities in the Philippines’. URL: http://www.nise.go.jp/kenshuka/josa/kankobutsu/pub_d/

d-228/d-228_18.pdf

42

Thailand

Thailand has made promising advances for inclusive education at the policy level, but there is still a

need for more change at the school level in order for teachers to feel prepared to teach inclusive

classrooms (Agbenyega & Klibthong 2015). In 1999, the Thai government recognised that

segregation in education had some negative outcomes and since then, there has been a shift from

special education schools to inclusive mainstream schools. Thailand’s national policy grew out of

extensive research, consultation and collaboration with persons with disabilities as key stakeholders.

This participatory process was key in developing effective legislation. Thailand accompanied this

legislation with informational campaigns affirming the right to education for children with

disabilities.

Case Study 7 – Meanprasatwittaya School

By Meanprasatwittaya School

Main Objective

Since 1986, Meanprasatwittaya aimed to provide a child-centred and activity-based learning

environment for its students. As a part of this child-centred philosophy, the school sought to develop

three aspects of children: the intellectual, the physical and the spiritual, calling this the head, hand

and heart approach. Regarding children with disabilities in particular, the school’s main objective was

to enable the students to live in a mainstream environment. Another objective was to provide a

positive model to demonstrate to Thai society the benefits of children of varying abilities studying

together.

Key Features

In addition to the school’s main focus – child-centred and activity-based learning – it was also noted

for its art and music instruction and a flexible and evolving curriculum. Including disadvantaged

43

children was integral to Meanprasatwittaya’s model, more notably children with disabilities, who

formed around ten percent of the student body. The school was so successful that it served as a model

nationwide, with teachers visiting to observe how the school implemented inclusive and child-

centred education.

The admissions process itself – it was a private school – was key to the success of the school’s inclusive

education model. The process helped parents set realistic expectations and determined if the school

was, indeed, apt for a particular child’s situation. Even after initial acceptance, the child was observed

in a mainstream classroom environment to see if the child could be properly included or not.

Children with disabilities who were finally admitted needed a special learning plan elaborated

between teachers and parents. This plan allowed short-term goals to be established; thus, the

children with disabilities were not required to follow a set curriculum. All children were involved in

the process of choosing topics to be studied in their curriculum, in a dialogue with their teachers.

In order to gain community support, the school’s board was made up of a variety of leaders: parents,

business leaders and religious leaders. Another action contributing to the community’s bond with the

school was the distribution of a newsletter to community members informing them of what was

going on.

One key feature of the school was its alternative evaluation method. Rather than relying on

standardised testing and other conventional evaluations, they opted for a different approach. This

approach included a combination of (1) teachers’ daily observation of students’ progress; (2)

portfolios of students’ work; and (3) project-based assessments. Students presented about projects

that they had been working on in groups of mixed abilities.

Challenges & Shortcomings

Much of the success of Meanprasatwittaya School is due to its visionary principal Mantariga

Witoonchat, who in 1986 shaped the school’s new direction. While principals’ leadership is crucial in

building a school’s culture, this strength can also be a weakness. If a good leader is replaced by one

44

who does not share the same vision, the school’s trajectory can shift. This was the case in 2005, when

the Foundation Board managing the school voted to remove Witoonchat from her role as principal,

where she had been active for nearly two decades.

A limitation in terms of this case study, is its applicability to public schools. While it has served as a

model for inclusive education, with people coming to observe and learn from its example, there could

be aspects of the model that prove challenging to implement in mainstream governmental schools.

Another fundamental challenge is the way that disabilities are perceived in Thai society. Due to ideas

about karma, which are part of Buddhism, disability can be viewed as a result of negative actions in a

previous life. This belief can lead to placing blame on persons with disabilities. However, Buddhism

has had an overall positive effect in this particular school, with the religion being an integral part of its

philosophy and activities.

Further Reading

Agbenyega, J. S. and Klibthong, S. (2015), ‘Transforming Thai Preschool Teachers’ Knowledge on

Inclusive Practice: A Collaborative Inquiry’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40(7).

Grimes, P. and Witoonchat, M. (2005), ‘Developing innovative inclusive practice at

Meanprasatwittaya School in Bangkok Thailand’, 2nd International Conference on Inclusive

Education, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Voraypanya, S. and Dunlap, D. (2014), ‘Inclusive education in Thailand: practices and challenges’,

International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 18(10), pp. 1014-1028.

45

Vietnam

Only 66.5% of Vietnamese children with disabilities attended primary school in 2009, which is a

significantly lower rate of attendance compared to the national average of 96.8% (UNICEF Vietnam

2015, 10). Legislation to ensure access to education for all children has been adopted at the national

level since 2004 and the government has ratified the CRPD in 2014. However, implementation of

policies in schools is poor, with strong disparities being observed between provinces. The main

barriers to effective implementation are the lack of knowledge and training of school staff about

inclusive education as well as the lack of financial resources to develop inclusiveness in schools.

Stigma against persons with disability in the broader Vietnamese society is also a major challenge.

Case Study 8 – Catholic Relief Services

By Catholic Relief Services

Main Objective

Catholic Relief Services aims through its various projects on disability to promote the inclusion of

persons with disabilities in the Vietnamese society. It focuses especially, but not exclusively, on the

development of inclusive education in schools with the perspective that education has a long-term

impact beyond schools.

Key Features

Key elements to develop an inclusive education project include first of all identifying all relevant

stakeholders, including the less obvious ones such as parents of children without disabilities. Indeed,

investing in teachers alone will provide limited success. Awareness raising campaigns must target

school principals, parents and the wider community so that they become more involved in efforts to

provide an inclusive environment. Some of the initiatives Catholic Relief Services has carried out to

raise awareness include support groups, participatory workshops and community events to bring

46

community leaders, teachers and parents together to share information, discuss challenges and

develop solutions. They also suggest creating ‘circle of friends’ in which children with and without

disabilities interact and support each other.

Beyond awareness, teachers and administrators need to be provided training in inclusive education

practices. Some of the key best practices include tailoring activities so that all students can participate;

sitting children with disabilities amongst their peers, on the same rows rather than isolated at the

front of the class; and finding the right balance between teaching the class as a whole and giving

specific attention to children in areas they have difficulties with. For the latter, individualised

education plans should be systematically drawn up. To help teachers, teaching material should also

be developed. Catholic Relief Services has for instance published a collection of 10 teaching units, 5

for preschools and 5 for primary schools.

One of the key features of Catholic Relief Services’ inclusive education projects is the training of ‘key

teachers’. The main role of key teachers is to assist other teachers in their school as well as other

schools around them in adapting their teaching methods and provide them with technical support to

be more inclusive in their classrooms. According to Catholic Relief Services’ experience, the training of

key teachers is more cost-effective than hiring specialists. Additionally, they may play a role as

advocates of inclusive education to the national authorities, primarily the Ministry of Education, in

order to promote a larger policy shift.

Key teachers are typically vice-principals or district education officers. This is a strategic choice both

because teachers respect their authority and because they are already part of the local community.

They receive specific training in three areas: thematic issues regarding disability and inclusive

education; awareness raising; and coaching. Candidates must typically be motivated to become key

teachers (see specific selection criteria Catholic Relief Services 2010, 18). Incentives, including non-

financial incentives, can however also be provided to increase interest. Examples of incentives include

allocating small travel allowances to key teachers for their monitoring trips; awarding them a

certificate recognising their commitment; and highlighting the fact that their involvement as key

teachers will contribute positively to a career promotion.

47

Overall, the key lessons learned by Catholic Relief Services through its experience are:

o Simultaneous efforts to make the school, family and wider community environment inclusive

are crucial for the success of effective and sustainable inclusive measures in the classroom.

o Multi-level cooperation between stakeholders is necessary and sharing ideas between project

and non-project areas should be encouraged.

o Training is not enough, its application and impact in the classroom must be monitored

through follow-up sessions.

o Training and teaching materials must be regularly updated to remain suitable and relevant.

Further Reading

Catholic Relief Services (2007), ‘Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities’.

Catholic Relief Services (2010), ‘Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education’.

Case Study 9 – Save the Children Sweden

By Save the Children Sweden

Main Objective

The main objective of the workshops organised by Save the Children Sweden is to raise awareness

among all relevant stakeholders at the local level of the importance of inclusive education and further

promote cooperation to implement inclusiveness in schools and the wider communities.

Key Features

Each workshop is divided in three parts:

Parts Details

Part 1. Background concepts o 1.1. Introducing concepts. Participants discuss the meaning of concepts such as integration, inclusive

48

education, inclusive schools, normalisation and mainstream in order to share a common language (see suggested definitions Save the Children Sweden 1995, 20f.).

o 1.2. Analysing and understanding the historical aspects of rehabilitation. Participants are invited to understand the distinctions between the traditional, medical and social models of viewing disability.

Part 2. Community involvement o 2.1. Understanding the role of the local community. Participants reflect on what a community is and how it can be involved in promoting a cause.

o 2.2. Exploring attitudes and values of the local community. Participants identify the future their community aspires to reach and how persons with disabilities fit into this vision.

o 2.3. Discussing labelling within the community. Participants are first invited to identify arguments used in favour of segregation, secondly to come up with counter-arguments in favour of inclusion and finally to present both types of arguments in the form of a role play.

o 2.4. Formulating new educational principles. Participants brainstorm and formulate key principles they want their schools to apply, such as: ‘All children have the right to be together in the community of a regular classroom.’

Part 3. School environment Participants are invited to reflect on how they can act within the school to implement the educational principles identified previously. For this final part, each type of stakeholder receives a different training:

o Principals. They are first invited to identify obstacles to implementing inclusiveness in their schools. Then they reflect on how to turn these obstacles into possibilities by finding potential solutions and strategies. Finally, they

49

identify specific individuals in the school as well as the community that can support them in implementing these solutions and strategies.

o Administrators. Their training focuses on developing organisational and managerial skills in order to plan and implement effective inclusive education programmes. For instance, they plan out in detail the first month of implementation and identify first steps to involve the community in the process.

o Teachers. Their training is divided in two parts, firstly an introduction to inclusive education concepts and secondly a focused introduction to different types of impairments. Teachers that participate in the training make the commitment to train other teachers in their school for a 1-3 day course.

One of the key ideas promoted in the last section is the creation of children’s networks. The aim of

these networks is to alter the fact that children ‘constitute a powerful but little used resource’ (Save

the Children Sweden 1995, 33). Indeed, children are an important actor of inclusive education. They

should be fully involved in planning activities and implementing inclusiveness. The network would

be composed in its core of a school’s children, both with and without disabilities. Teachers, principal,

parents and families as well as any other relevant actor (e.g.: health service) should also be included

as peripheral members of the network.

Regarding the working methods of these workshops, it is crucial to emphasis its participant-oriented

approach. The philosophy behind this approach is that participants should be given the tools to

themselves become aware of their own potential to make inclusive education a reality. The method

does not therefore provide any ready-made answers, but rather invites participants to develop

answers themselves, at their own pace and based on their own experiences. Brainstorming sessions

and discussions are at the centre of the workshop to foster creativity and cooperation.

50

Related to this point is the broader one that ‘developing Inclusive Education is a process which must

be allowed to take time’ (Save the Children Sweden 1995, 19). Stakeholders must be given the

opportunity to familiarise themselves with the concept of inclusive education, understand the reasons

of its importance by comparing arguments for and against it and develop their own approaches and

strategies to implementing it. ‘Only by allowing each individual this opportunity to reach his or her

own conclusions can the programme be anchored in local life.’ (Save the Children Sweden 1995, 19)

Further Reading

Save the Children Sweden (1995), ‘Towards Inclusive Education. The Vietnamese Experience’

Case Study 10 – NIES Special Needs Teacher Training

By National Institute of Education Sciences (NIES) & Save the Children Sweden

Main Objective

The project aims to provide teacher training modules in inclusive education. These modules are

integrated to the in-service upgrading course primary school teachers with twelve years of formal

education and two years of formal pre-service training (so called ’12+2’ teachers) must follow to

receive the TTC Certificate and the status of ’12+3’ teachers. This certificate is necessary to have

professional teaching career prospects.

Key Features

The pilot project was constituted of twelve modules, representing thirty units of theory and practice in

inclusive education. This represents half the units that teachers must validate to receive the TTC

Certificate, the other half being obtained in core curriculum subjects. In subsequent revised models,

the number of units remained stable, but the number of modules was lowered to seven as emphasis

was increasingly placed on practice rather than theory.

51

The breakdown of modules is as follows (Save the Children Sweden 2003, 73):

Parts Modules

Part 1. Basic knowledge

o Module 1. Overview on education for children with disabilities (3 units)

o Module 2. Inclusive education for children with disabilities (5 units)

Part 2. Specialised knowledge o Module 3. Education for children with hearing disabilities (5 units)

o Module 4. Education for children with difficulties learning and moving (5 units)

o Module 5. Education for children with difficulties seeing (5 units)

o Module 6. Education for children with language difficulties (4 units)

Part 3. Pedagogical practice o Module 7. Pedagogical practice (3 units)

For a more detailed breakdown of units, see Save the Children Sweden 2003, 74ff.

Challenges & Shortcomings

The main challenge faced is getting teachers to want to participate in the training. ‘The NIES Pilot is

conscious of the fact that the motivation of the trainees is initially simply to upgrade their

qualification and not at all because they are interested in children with disabilities, let alone in the

concept of IE.’ (Save the Children Sweden 2003, 22f.). Yet, interviews with teachers after their training

indicate that they were pleased with the training and would recommend it.

This means that the training is a success, but that teachers need to be incentivised to participate in the

first place. To do so, either the module must be mandatory in the upgrading course or other

incentives must be provided such as the prospect of a higher pay and promotion. To provide support

in recruiting new participants, teachers having previously followed the training should be asked to

actively promote the training among fellow teachers.

52

Amongst the shortcomings of the project, the most sensitive one is linked to the observation that

teachers are not aware of whether or how they teach differently after compared to before the training.

This is because ‘there is very little opportunity within the curriculum for teachers to compare

pedagogical approaches, and relate it to their own experiences’ (Save the Children Sweden 2003,

29). One factor of this is the length of the training, which is very short, namely two 10-week

semesters. Some participants suggested that 15-week semesters would be more appropriate.

Another shortcoming regards the (im)balance between practice and theory. The module of practice

represents only three units, each of forty-five minutes. The idea that teachers participating in this in-

service training do not need much practice because they are already experienced is a misconception.

Inclusive education introduces such an important shift in pedagogical methods, that practice is

necessary. Therefore the ratio of units allocated to practice should be significantly increased. Doing so

might in fact also contribute to finding a solution to the first shortcoming. The report makes three

additional suggestions to improve the quality of the practice module:

o Using teachers that are already trained in inclusive education as ‘teaching practice supervisors’

to increase the number of classrooms available for practical training.

o Introducing team-teaching, in other words pairing up participants for the practical training so

that they can learn together.

o Setting up inclusion resource units in teacher training centres as a place to centralise

information, resources and best practices for present and past participants.

A final remark of the report is that any project around inclusive education should not let the best be

the enemy of the good. Indeed, while achieving high standards of inclusiveness is always the

ultimate objective, this should not be a barrier to letting experience guide improvement of practices.

Further Reading

Save the Children Sweden (2003), ‘Evaluation of the Teacher Training Components for Inclusive

Education in Vietnam’