LEARNING INSIGHT

Inclusive Education emphasizes student-centered practices and the social construction of

knowledge and conceives of teaching as complex professional activity necessarily embedded in
particular moral, political, historical, economic, and cultural contexts. The philosophy of the
program is simultaneously driven by the larger institutional conceptual framework for teacher
education programs, which emphasize inquiry, curriculum, and social justice.

I learned that Inclusive education is carried out in a common learning environment; that
is, an educational setting where students from different backgrounds and with different abilities
learn together in an inclusive environment. Common learning environments are used for the
majority of the students’ regular instruction hours and may include classrooms, libraries, gym,
performance theatres, music rooms, cafeterias, playgrounds and the local community. A
common learning environment is not a place where students with intellectual disabilities or other
special needs learn in isolation from their peers.

Teachers are the most important determinant of learning. Teaching assistants and other
support staff and school management can also play a critical role for children with disabilities.
National education systems need support to restructure pay to compensate teaching staff
competitively, to reward good performance and monitor learning outcomes more effectively.
 ARTICLE
Inclusive Education in the Philippines:
Through the Eyes of Teachers, Administrators,
and Parents of Children with Special Needs
Michael Arthus G. Muega

This article is a study on the knowledge and involvement of schoolteachers, school

administrators, and parents of children with special needs (CSN) in the implementation of
inclusive education (IE). One set of research questions was aimed at determining the participants’
concept of IE and how they are involved in its practice. The other set of questions was aimed at
finding whether there is a significant difference among the answers given by the participant
groups regarding their concept of and involvement in IE. The problems related to IE were
approached using grounded theory and quantitative analysis. Utilizing a modified survey
questionnaire, data was collected from 91 participants who have a firsthand knowledge of and
experience with inclusive schools located in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines. Research
hypotheses were tested after open coding had been completed and an answer was given to each
qualitative research question. It has been found that the participants neither question nor resist
the practice of inclusion in their respective general education settings. They admit, however, that
they are not sure whether their understanding of IE conforms to widely accepted definitions. The
participants are in doubt whether their claimed practices are potent enough to be responsive to
the requirements of high-level inclusive education. No significant difference was noted among
the participants’ mean scores in the survey of their knowledge of IE and involvement in IE.
KEYWORDS inclusive education, children with special needs, practice of inclusion, normalization,
general education ARTICLE Inclusive Education in the Philippines: Through the Eyes of Teachers,
Administrators, and Parents of Children with Special Needs Michael Arthus G. Muega SSD 12:1
2016 6. This study stems from the fact that very little is known about the practice of educational
inclusion in the Philippines. The absence of a shared approach to education in the country, one
that is open to all students, suggests that a strong conceptual basis for inclusive education (IE)
remains to be established. This lack of grounding for a sound practice of IE makes it difficult to
articulate the reasonable extent of involvement members of the school community must have in
the education of children with special needs (CSN). What form IE should take and what
requirements must be met (MacBeath, Galton, Steward, MacBeath & Page, 2006) are issues that
remain unresolved to the satisfaction of the major stakeholders in IE. So far, the practice of IE in
Philippine basic education is largely determined by Department of Education Order No. 72, s.
2009, an outdated directive which does not specify a stable, clear, and definite process of
including CSN in the general education setting. A move to effect high-quality inclusion in
Philippine schools is said to be underway, but at present, the Special Education Act (Philippine
Senate Bill 3002), which is supposed to determine the practice of inclusion in general education
schools, is still under review at the Philippine senate. The continued delay of this bill’s passage
into law and which standards should be met in its implementation are issues that continue to
defy definitive resolution. Overseas, Freeman and Alkin have observed that debates on IE and its
implications for the lives of CSN have been raging (as cited in Fitch, 2003). Many governments
have introduced IE into their respective systems as an attempt to find satisfactory and durable
solutions to the many problems besetting the practice of inclusion in different contexts. A
multitude of actions have been planned, tested, challenged, and overhauled. There are also
educationists who are convinced that standards-based schooling is not just for children without
special needs (Jesness, 2002). That is to say, having learning problems does not necessarily lead
to the inability to meet requirements of high-quality education (Jesness, 2002). As for the
difficulty that one may experience in the early stages of learning, Jesness (2002) seems to view
such phenomena as a simple fact of learning, something that should not make schoolteachers
push their students to attain what may appear to be a remotely achievable goal at the beginning.
The road to success in teaching and learning can be tricky, however, and the attempt to get
students to where they should be inevitably carries certain encumbrances (MacBeath et al.,
2006), especially on the part of inclusive school personnel and parents of CSN. It is not surprising,
therefore, if a number of them have questioned the wisdom behind the policy that suggests they
are largely responsible for schoolchildren’s performance in standards based tests or in any
ordinary general education setting. In June 1994, representatives from 92 countries and 25
international organizations met at the World Conference on Special Needs Education in
Salamanca, Spain, 7 MUEGA – Inclusive Education in the Philippines to promote IE as a global
norm. The conference forged and adopted a framework of action that calls for appropriate
education for CSN in the general education setting. Arguing that inclusion and participation are
human rights, the UNESCO Salamanca Statement asserts that the general education setting
should be regarded as a venue of human development open to all schoolchildren, regardless of
their physical, emotional, and intellectual states. Inclusive schools are expected to view various
categories of differences as a matter of having unique traits that distinguish individuals from each
other. This entails teaching and learning that is tailored according to the learner’s conditions. At
this writing, over 140 governments have formally expressed their support for the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) for the implementation of
inclusion policies. IE has become the goal of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the
United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and other similar
organizations (Paliokosta & Blandford, 2010). The UNESCO continues to push for the
institutionalization of inclusionary practices in more countries with the publication of, The Right
to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion. Inclusion International also joined
the movement toward inclusion by publishing Better Education for All: A Global Report. Since the
promotion of IE in various countries, scholars who have studied its implementation have found
that not many school personnel consider this a purely positive development. While the practice
of IE is predominantly cognizant of the learners’ individual differences, inclusive school
personnel, together with the parents of CSN and other professionals, are expected to prepare
individualized education programs (IEPs) that suit the unique needs of CSN in a general education
school. The whole process of IEP preparation poses a gargantuan challenge to the major
stakeholders. Even if the school administration does not go through the whole process of creating
standardized and procedural IE and IEPs, the possible failure of students in the context of general
education is often blamed on the teacher. And this usually leads to tension among various
stakeholders including teachers, administrators, and parents both of CSN and children without
special needs. Whether the teacher is accountable for the failure of CSN in the general education
setting remains unresolved. Other related disagreements over such concerns continue to
generate studies that offer inconsistent, if not contradictory, explanations, theories, and
proposed remedies. Consequently, questions such as, “Which proposed solutions to adopt?”, “In
what context?”, and “Why?”, become stubborn issues that saddle the practice of educational
inclusion. Despite issues brought about by the practice of IE, new educational approaches in
accordance with the principle of education for all were implemented. Such approaches started
to evolve in the wake of the institutionalization of inclusion policies. Measures were taken,
tested, and revised to address the identified inadequacies of IE approaches. Apparently, IE in
many countries that have long SSD 12:1 2016 8 opened the doors of general education to CSN
has evolved and has become more responsive to the demands or requirements of high-quality
IE. In this study, high-quality IE is defined as the procedural practice of effecting maximum
learning among CSN within the general education setting. The notion of high-quality IE may be
illustrated by examining the way IE is practiced in the United States. Inclusive American schools
have a relatively uniform way of addressing the needs of students with learning problems
(Kritzer, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The approach is commonly referred to as
the “Special Education Process”. It begins with the classroom teacher’s attempt to help the
student address his or her learning difficulties. If the teacher’s solutions fail, the matter is brought
to a team that will likewise try to address the student’s learning difficulties. The team—referred
to as the “Student Study Team”, “Child Study Team”, or “Student Success Team”—consists of the
following: school principal or a representative; teacher of student with learning problem; parent
of the same student; special education expert; school psychologist; nurse; and other
professionals, if necessary. The team studies evidence of the student’s problems (i.e., sample of
student work) before offering solutions. If the proposed solutions later prove to be ineffective,
the CSN is recommended for assessment to determine if he or she is eligible for special education
services. If the student is eligible, a one-year Individualized Educational Program (IEP) is prepared
and this is modified whenever necessary. Parents then are notified of the learning progress of
their child, who will then be re-assessed every three years to determine if he or she is still in need
of continued special education services. In the Philippines, what every schoolchild must learn and
why it must be learned, regardless of his or her abilities or lack thereof, are issues that have yet
to undergo intense debate. Rich and sustained argumentative discussions surrounding IE and
special education in the Philippines must be encouraged to discern what is best for all Filipino
schoolchildren. Whether the Philippines should adopt the inclusion policy and specific
approaches to IE practiced in other countries and which adjustments to make according to the
demands of the country’s own cultural, economic, and social realities—these are serious matters
that need immediate attention, for high-quality education is an entitlement all school-aged
Filipino children must enjoy, regardless of what they have or lack.

file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Downloads/ZZZZZZZZZZSSDjournalINCLUSIVEED.pdf
 Republic of the Philippines
SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY – TOMAS OPPUS
San Isidro, Tomas Oppus, Southern Leyte

(SPECIAL TOPIC)

SUBMITTED BY:
ROLAND P. PLATERO
STUDENT

SUBMITTED TO:
MR. NONILON B. CONSUL
INSTRUCTOR