M01624
Evaluation of Inclusive Education Program for Slow Learners
in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga
Yanuet Indah Z.T
[email protected]
PPs-Magister ManajemenPendidikan
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga
BambangS.Sulasmono
[email protected]
PPs_MagisterManajemenPendidikan
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to evaluate the Inclusive Education Program for Slow
Learners in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga using Discrepancy evaluation model (Malcom
Provus). It assesses the gap between the inclusive education program for slow learners in
SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga and its standard program. It has four stages (design,
installation, process, and product). The interviews to the head of school, teachers,
students and parents were employed to collect data, and observations in some classrooms
were conducted to understand the condition of the slow learner inclusive education
implementation in that school. The findings showed that there were gaps in all stages:
design (the gap in teacher component, the support of society, measuring instrument for
social skills area), installation (the gap in special education needs teacher/SEN teacher,
learning process, and the infrastructures), process (the gap in teaching learning activity),
product (the gap in students’ social skills and behavior assessment). It was suggested that
SD Pulutan 02 need to create the instrument for assessing students’ achievement in
social and environment skills, create special learning strategy for slow learners, provide
the infrastructures for slow learners and create the inclusive planning and
implementation program for slow learners.
Keywords
: Educational Program Evaluation, Inclusive education, slow learners,
discrepancy analysis
INTRODUCTION
Inclusive education is a strategy to promote effective universal education. The
main goal of inclusive education is to educate children with physical, mental, and social
disabilities or often referred to children with special needs in regular classes together with
non-disabled students but with additional support that they need. Previously, children
with special needs mainly receive education from a special school, segregated from
1
regular schools. However, it is important for school nowadays to make every effort to
provide inclusion of children with disabilities. (Friend, 2006; Lewis &Doorslag, 2006).
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education
provides the obligation for schools to accommodate all children, including children who
have physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other abnormalities. In
Indonesia, the right to learn is stipulated in Law No. 20 of 2003 on “National Education
System”, Article 5, paragraph 1 to 4. In particular, the Regulation of the Minister of
National Education of Indonesia Number 70 of 2009 Article 1 states that the inclusive
education program is an education system that provides opportunities for all learners with
disabilities, yet with full of potential intelligence and/or special talent, to participate in
learning in an educational environment together with other learners in general. The
implementation of inclusive education aims to provide the widest possible opportunity
and to realize the provision of education that respects diversity of students' abilities and
demonstrates non-discrimination.
Currently, all Inclusive schools in Indonesia from elementary to high school level
accept children with special needs in regular schools but with special treatment. These
students could follow regular classes, but on the other hand they also have to follow
special programs according to their needs and capacity. The curriculum used is the
regular curriculum, but with implementation tailored to the students’ ability.
In Salatiga, experiments on inclusive education program have been implemented
since 2010 to six elementary schools and two junior high schoolswith over 115 students
joined the inclusive program. One of the inclusive schools in Salatiga is Elementary
School
District
of
SidorejoSalatigaPulutan
02
(SD
NegeriPulutan
02
KecamatanSidorejoSalatiga ), which was designated as an inclusive school in Salatiga by
the Decree of the Head of the Department of Education, Youth and Sports No: 420 /
0241.a / 101 on 24 January 2012. The number of pupils in this school is quite a few--with
only 80 students total, but there is at least one child with special educational needs in
each class. According to the school’s psychological test report, almost all the special need
students in this school have a level of intelligence (IQ) below average. Thus, much of the
inclusion effort in this school is tailored to students with slow learning capability.
2
Based on the preliminary observations of researchers, there are fundamental issues
in
the
implementation
of
inclusive
education
in
SD
NegeriPulutan
02
KecamatanSidorejoSalatiga ever since it was established as an inclusive school. The first
issue is that SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatigahas never held a thorough evaluation of the
inclusive education programs they have run for two years. Evaluation of the current run is
still focused on the results of teaching and student learning activities, but not exhaustive
on the input, process and output of the program. There are various underlying reasons for
not having run a thorough evaluation of inclusive education programs, one of which is
the unavailability of time and instrument evaluation to see the development of the school.
The second issue lies on the discrepancy of the school’s adaptability to maximize its
resources to achieve the predetermined goal of inclusive education. The main doubt is on
the management of the inclusive program school itself--not so much on the ability of the
learners. As an already “established” school, as opposed to a new inclusive school, SDN
Pulutan 02 develops a tendency to approach their program just like the general primary
school education. This becomes both a strength and weakness of the school that needs
further investigation.
An evaluation was conducted to determine the level of quality of inclusive
education in SDNPulutan 02 in comparison to certain criteria or primary standard.
Researcher applied the evaluation model developed by Malcolm Provus called the
Discrepancy Evaluation Model. This evaluation model is applied because it stresses on
the view that there is a discrepancy in the implementation program--and it assesses the
magnitude of the gap that should be achieved in reality. The gap measured in this
inclusive education program is the gap between the program implemented in reality as
compared to the standard program which has been set as a reference.
Aspects and dimensions of the object to be evaluated are input evaluation, process
evaluation and output evaluation. The targeted object of this evaluation model has 4
stages. First, the design stage is the design of the activities or work program. The focus of
activity at this stage is to formulate the goals, processes or activities, as well as the
allocation of resources to carry out the activities and achieve the goals that have been set.
Second, the installation stage is the provision of tools and equipment needed for the
programs. Evaluation at this stage is the accuracy and suitability of a variety of resources,
3
tools and equipments available for the implementation of the program. Third, namely the
process stage is the process of program implementation. Evaluation at this stage is the
relationship between the resources, tools and equipment to process activities. Fourth, the
product phase is the result of the program. Evaluation at this stage is the final result /
program objectives.
RESEARCH METHODS
This study includes an evaluative study, which analyzed the discrepancy between
the program implementation (or real conditions) with the standard program (point of
reference). This evaluation will be analyzed with the discrepancy model. This
discrepancy evaluation model is performed in 4 phases: the design phase, the installation
phase, the process phase, and the product phase.
The program to be evaluated is the inclusive education program for slow learners
in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, with various input, process, and output components, as
well as certain variable criteria.
The source of data used in this study was obtained from the internal data of SD
NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, the school where the study was conducted. There are two
kinds of sources: primary and secondary data. The primary source in this research is
directly obtained by interviewing principal, teachers, parents, and the students themselves
regarding the purpose of inclusive education, the planning and implementation of
learning and parental involvement in education programs in school. Meanwhile, the
secondary data includes the Decree of the MInistry of Youth and Sports No
420/0241.a/101 on January 24, 2012, Reports on Psychological Tests in the elementary
school, a written report by the school’s principal regarding the Role of the Principal and
the Education Curriculum of SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, as well as the school's own
records on the number of admissions, the schoolteacher's status, and the school
achievements.
Data collection techniques used are document analysis, interviews, and
observations. As for testing the validity and reliability of all data (internal validity) of this
study was done using the credibility test (internal validity) through the extension of the
observation. Extension of the observation means that the researcher returned to the field
to make observations, conduct interviews with the data source.
4
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The study in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga is described in three stages, namely
Input, Process, and Output, in six standard references according to the Inclusive
Education Program by Minister of Education (Kemendikbud 2013). These six include:
students, curriculum, teachers, learning activities, infrastructures, and community
empowerments. Meanwhile, the criteria that is used as a comparison or point of reference
is the standard criteria designed by Malcolm Provus (1969) as follows:
Table 1. Design Criteria/Design Standards
INPUT
PROCESS
A. Variables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Students
Curriculum
Teachers
Learning Activities
Infrastructure/Facilities
Community/Parents/Com
mittee Empowerment
B. Establish Criteria for each
variable
OUTPUT
A. Variables:
A. Variables:
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
3. Public/Parents/Committ
ee Contri-butions
1. Student Variables
2. Educator Variables
3. Community/Parents/C
ommittee
Contributions
B. Establish Criteria for
each variable
B. Establish end goals for
each variable
Source: Malcolm (1969)
The discussion section is analyzed using the gap analysis (discrepancy models) in
four parts, namely: design stage, installation stages, process, and product.
First Stage: Design Stage
Table 2. The Gap of Design Programm
Input Design
Indicator Design
Gap Findings
1. Students
Positive
interactions
between
non-disabled
students
and
special
educational need students
Interactions between nondisabled students and
special need students are
normal--no rejections
2. Curriculum
Integrated/accommodated
into two different needs
Integrated/accommodated
into two different needs
3. Educators
Accredited
relevant
expertise understand the
vision/ mission of inclusive
schools.
The number of special
need educator for each
classroom does not meet
the needs
5
The
availability
of
differentiated
classroom
teachers, subject teachers
and
special
needs
teacher/assistant
per
classroom
4. Learning Activities
Devoted to the student,
smaller class size
The approach is quite well
5. Infrastructure/Facilities
Public
Facilities
Specialized Facilities
and
Public facilities are met,
specialized facilities are
still lacking.
6. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Empowerment
Support
from
community/parents/commit
tee
There is high support from
community/parents/commi
ttee though not organized.
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boys/Girls Scout, Physical
Education, Art, exemplary
coaching, special lesson for
special need students
Assessment of learning
outcomes is still focused
on the achievements of the
student's
general
knowledge.
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
Methods and materials that
focus on the potential
growth, needs and interests
of students: small class
size, normal integration and
inclusion for special need
students, which comprise of
the
teachers,
subject
teachers,
special
need
educators,
informal
teacher-student relationship
The ratio of students each
class to classroom teacher
is not ideal.
3. Public/Parents/Committ
ee Contributions
Direct,
intensive,
integrated
with
student’s needs
and
each
High public enthusiasm to
register their slow learning
children.
Students master: Important
Life Skills: Personal Skills
(Self and Environment),
Analytical
Skills,
and
Report cards and final
exams show satisfying
result, but there is no
assessment
tool
for
Design Process
Output
1. Student Variables
6
Social
(Communication
Teamwork)
Skills
and
personal skills, analytical,
and or social skills.
2. Educator Variables
Increased skills, expertise
and teaching methods to be
more varied and intensive
to support the growth and
development of students.
Adaptation capability of
educators is satisfactory,
even though it is in need of
more assistant labor and
advanced training in the
field
of
inclusive
education.
3. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Contributions
Parents recognize and
support the needs, talent
developments of their
children. Public actively
support schools’ regulation
The level of satisfaction
from parents and general
public has never been
assessed.
In the design phase, there is a little gap in the input design and process design,
which is in the educator variables. The reason is because the number of slow learners in
each class is plenty in proportion to the number of special guidance counselor or special
need teachers available, which is only one teacher for the whole school. This number is
inadequate to handle all slow learning students in the school. Meanwhile, for the output
design, for the student variables, the results from their report cards and final exams are
satisfactory. Yet, there is still no assessment tool to measure personal skills
(self/environment), analytical, and social skills. In the educator variables, adaptation by
the educator is also satisfactory, even though there is a lack of guidance and advanced
training in the field of inclusive education. Lastly, there has never been an assessment of
the satisfactory level in the community/parents/committee variables.
Second Stage: Installation Stage
Table 3.The Gap of Installation Programm
Installation Stage
Installation Indicators
Gap Findings
Installation Input
1. Students
Administration for a new The school has not set the
concept of admission of new ideal number of regular
students
students and special need
Students recognize the students admitted to the
concept
of
inclusive school.
7
education
Not all students and
parents are aware of the
inclusive
education
program by the school-parents are only concerned
that their children are
admitted to a nearby and
affordable school
2. Curriculum
Vision, mission, and goals Lack of teaching materials
of
the
school
in for slow learners
NationalCuricullumare well
defined.
3. Teachers
Teachers have relevant There is no school policy
expertise; ideal teachers to to specifically educate
students ratio
teachers or to regulate the
number of teachers per
student
4. Learning Activities
Designated
learning Learning activities have
activities in a small class not been drafted in the
size
syllabus, lesson plans, or
teaching materials in an
orderly manner
5. Infrastructure/Facilities
Regulation of public and Provision
of
public
specialized facilities
facilities is still dominant,
while specialized facilities
procurement policy is still
lacking
6.
High support from parents, School committee is still
community, and committee not optimal
Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Empowerment
Installation Process
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boys/Girls Scout, Physical
Education, Art, exemplary
coaching, special lesson for
special need students
Learning
support
materials, such as books,
laboratories,
sport
equipments, art and culture
specific to the slow
learning
students
are
lacking
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
Methods and materials that
focus on the potential
growth, needs and interests
of students: small class size,
Parameter to maximize the
function of teachers to
achieve
the
targeted
objectives
is
still
8
normal integration and unavailable
inclusion for special need
students, which comprise of
the
teachers,
subject
teachers,
special
need
educators, informal teacherstudent relationship
3. Public/Parents/Committe
e Contributions
Direct,
intensive,
integrated
with
student’s needs
and High and positive public
each response to enroll their
slow learning children
Installation Output
1. Student Variables
Students master : Important
Life Skills: Personal Skills
(Self and Environment),
Analytical Skills, and Social
Skills (Communication and
Teamwork)
Report cards and final
exams show satisfying
result, but there is no
assessment
tool
for
personal skills, analytical,
and or social skills.
2. Educator Variables
Increased skills, expertise
and teaching methods to be
more varied and intensive to
support the growth and
development of students.
Adaptation capability of
educators is satisfactory,
even though it is in need of
more assistant labor and
advanced training in the
field
of
inclusive
education.
3. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Contributions
Parents
recognize
and
support the needs, talent
developments
of
their
children. Public actively
support schools’ regulation
The level of satisfaction
from parents and general
public has never been
assessed.
At this installation stage, gaps are found in almost every component, such as in
the student variables, curriculum, teachers, learning activities, infrastructure and
facilities, and community/parents/committees empowerment.
Third Stage: Process
This process stage is to determine whether the behavior of the studied components
change as expected or not. If it does not, it means there is a discrepancy resulting in the
need to amend activities geared toward achieving the behavioral changes.
Table 4. The Gap of the ProgrammProcesses
9
Process Stage
1. Student Variables
Process Indicators
Gap Findings
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boy/Girl
Scouts,
Physical Education, Art,
Exemplary
Coaching,
Special Program for
Special Need Students
Assessment
of
learning outcomes is
still focused on the
achievements of the
student's
general
knowledge.
Approaches
for
regular
learning
activities are still
dominant.
Slow learner’s activity
is not a priority
2. Educator Variables
Methods and materials
that focus on the
potential, the growth, the
needs and interests of
students: small classes,
normal integration and
inclusion for special
needs students, which
comprise the teachers,
subject teachers, special
need educators, informal
teacher-student
relationship
The composition of
the number of students
and
number
of
teachers (teacher to
student ratio) is not
ideal.
3. Community/Parents/Committee
Contributions
Direct, intensive, and
integrated with each
student’s needs
High and positive
public response to
enroll
their
slow
learning children
At this process stage, there are gaps found in the student learning activities
variables as a result on the assessment of learning outcomes that is still focused on the
achievements of the student's general knowledge. Consequently, the learning activities
still employ the regular/conventional education that do not prioritize the slow learners.
Moreover, there are gaps in the educator side as well, specifically in the teacher to
student ratio that is considered disproportionate. The number of slow learning students
exceeds the proportion each class could support. Simultaneously, the learning activities
are also still focused on the regular/conventional method of teaching. In contrast, there
10
has been a positive response in the community/parent variable, in which they support the
implementation of inclusive education in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga.
Fourth Stage: Product
During the product stage, the assessment is to determine whether or not the final
goal is reached.
Table 5. The Gap of the ProgrammProduct
Product Stage
1. Student Variables
2. Educator Variables
Product Indicators
Gap Findings
The rate of passing and Slow learning students are
graduating students is identified but solely based
100%
on
psychological
tests,
without
any
assessment
on
Students
passing
and
graduating after mastering : students after graduating
(a) life skills, (b) personal from elementary school. As
skills
(self
and a result, the product outputs
environment),
(c) are yet to be measured.
analytical skills, (d) social The academic goal in terms
skills (communication and of the 100% percentage rate
cooperation).
of graduating students has
Student's needs before and been reached.
after the program have not
been assessed clearly,
especially for slow learning
children.
Increased
skills
and
expertise coupled with a
more variant and intensive
teaching
method
that
support the growth and
development of students
Teachers are able to modify
their teaching method in
accordance with the vision,
mission and goals of the
school, however there is still
a lack of special teaching
assistant in each classroom
especially
with
the
disproportionate number of
students in each class
Possession of capacity and
education background that
corresponds to areas of
work and expertise of
teaching
The school is able to modify
Possession of a better their regular school program
awareness
of
the and curriculum to be an
administration
in
the inclusive school though there
planning, implementation are still some weak points
that need to be fixed.
and evaluation of teaching
and learning
Documents and reports on
11
the vision, mission, and
school curriculum have been
developed into the concept
of inclusive school.
National Curriculum has
been integrated into teaching
materials of the inclusive
education
3.
Community/Parents/Commi
ttee Contributions
School committees and
communities are involved in
school activities planning,
implementation and
evaluation of school.
The level of satisfaction
from public and parents has
not been measured.
School
committee
runs
smoothly although their role
is still limited in financial
management and program
planning.
Based on the above table, the gap in the product stage is divided into three
measurement variables, such as the student variables, educator variables, community
variables. For the student variables, academically, the output product is achieved even
though other non-academic assessment such as personal skills has not been measured.
For the educator variables, educator output has increased in terms of skills and ability to
carry out the vision and mission of the school, especially in teaching special need
children. However, there are still gaps in the number of special teaching assistant in every
classroom--especially with the high number of slow learners enrolled in each class.
Consequently, these students are not aided optimally. There is a need for assistance to
handle these slow learners, so that teaching activities can be carried out directly,
intensively, and in accordance to their needs. The same goes for the community
variables/parents/school committees--for public with lower income, the establishment of
this inclusive school is received warmly and greeted enthusiastically because it shelters
their children with special educational needs. Yet, there are still gaps in terms of the
public contribution and its role in accordance with the school inclusive program planning.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The study of inclusive education programs in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga showed gaps
in its evaluation, which is divided into four stages as follows:
12
On the input design and process design, there are gaps in the educator variable
since there is no provision by the school for the amount of educators, specifically
designed to address the slow learners. With only one educator per class, the amount is
inadequate to handle all the slow learning students in the school.In the design of the
output, there is also gap found in the student variables in which there is no measuring tool
to assess personal skills/environment, analytical and or social skills of the students.
Additionally, there are gaps in the educator variables, which are still lacking support for
assistance and advanced training in the field of inclusive education. There are also gaps
in the public/parents/committee variables because their level of satisfaction has not been
measured as well.
On the installationstage, there are gaps in the variables:(1) Educators. The
majority of the teachers still rely on the experience they had on regular/conventional
education program, since there is no qualified and clear teaching guides given by the
school for slow learning students. The number of qualified educators is still lacking with
only one teacher to serve all classes from grade 1 to grade 6. This educator is unable to
perform all of their main tasks as a special need educator.(2) Learning Activities. In the
planning and implementation of learning activities, teachers experience a lack of learning
devices (i.e. syllabus, Lesson Plan/ Teacher’s guidance and other special tools) that are
organized together with other stakeholders, such as educators, psychologists, or
physicians, and parents. Consequently, the learning materials presented to the special
need students are the same as the ones for normal students.(3). Infrastructure/Facilities.
No specialized infrastructure is built for the slow learning students (Resource Room).
On the processstage, there are gaps in the teaching and learning activities,
specifically in the composition of teachers, subject teachers, and classroom teachers.
General school infrastructure still dominates the school, in comparison to a development
of specialized tools for the special need students.In terms of education staff, gaps often
occur in the qualification and suitability of educator's skills with the subject they teach.
This also includes gap on the education and training provided by the school to advance
the quality of the teacher.From other stakeholders' point of view, such as general
public/parents/committee, the program received warm welcome although their level of
satisfaction is not measured yet.
13
On the productstage, despite an increase in the students' graduation rate, which is
100% rate, the assessment for social, environment, and behavior is not known and is not
measured due to a lack of measurement instrument. On the educator's side, no advanced
training and education is available that is based on the needs of teachers. Additionally, to
increase the support from the public, the role of planning, implementation, and evaluation
of school needs to be revised.
Suggestions:
Based on the gap findings in the Inclusive Education Program of slow learners in
SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, the author conveys some suggestions as follows:
1. For Inclusive Education School Administrator
The result of the study indicate gaps in the design phase, which requires
administrator to create a tool to measure the success of students in the field of personal
skills, such as social, communication, and environment. This can be done by forming a
team that consists of principals, teachers, and parents, as well as experts in accordance
with the school's needs. This area could potentially demonstrate the specialty of inclusive
school in comparison to regular school, which is dominated by solely an academic
assessment.Infrastructure and facilities specialized for special need students (in this case,
the slow learners) are needed, specifically the development of a “resource room”. This
resource room has a lot of benefits in aiding these students since it demonstrates a focus
on individual assistance. Additionally, both students and special education teachers could
gain trust and concentration in the subject taught--which could potentially provide
therapy for these students.
2. For the School's Principal
The shortage of special assistance teachers could be fulfilled by using job
training’seducators who have educational background in psychology or counseling.
Additionally, they could also use experts from the public or even parents in order to
fulfill the needs for special education teachers in each classroom. School also needs
coaching in developing, planning, and implementing the inclusive education program for
slow learners.
3. For Educators
14
With learning activities still the same for both regular and special need classes,
educators are expected to revise their understanding of the slow learners in order to make
learning strategies that seek to enhance the learning achievements of these students.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. 2001.Understanding the DevelopmentofInclusive Schools: Some Notes and
Further Reading Paper Available from EENET
Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar-dasarEvaluasiPendidikan.Jakarta :BumiAksara
Bandi.D. 2006. PembelajaranAnakTunagrahita. Bandung :PTRefikaAditama.
Carlberg, C.&Kavale. K. 1980. The efficacy of special class vs regular class placement
for exceptional children: a metaanalysis . TheJournal of Special Education.
14,295-305
Cooter.K.S. & Cooter.R.B.2004.One Size doesn’t Fit All : Slow Learners in Reading
Classroom. International Reading Association (pp.680-684).
Friend, M. 2006. Including Students with Special Needs.Boston: Pearson.
Fernandes,H.J.X.1984.
Evaluation
of
Educational
Program.
NationalEducationPlanning,Evaluation and Curriculum Development.
Jakarta:
Lerner, J.W. 1988. Learning Disabilities: theory,diagnosis and teaching strategies. New
Jersey: Houghton Miffin Company
Hallahan, DP &Kauffman,J.M. 1991 dan 1986. Exceptional Children,Introduction to
Special Education.Fifth Edition Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
O’Neil,J.1994. Can inclusion work? A Conversation with James Kauffman and Mara
Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership.52 (4)7-11
Provus, Malcolm M. 1969. The Discrepancy Evaluation Model: An Approach to Local
Program Improvement and Development. Washington DC: Pittsburg Public
School.
Suyanto&Mudjito,
2012.
Masa
DepanPendidikanInklusif,
Jakarta:
KementrianPendidikandanKebudayaanDirektoratJenderalPendidikandasar.
Undang-undangNomor 20 tahun 2003 tentangSistemPendidikanNasional
UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Frame work for Action on Special Need
Education.Paris
15
in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga
Yanuet Indah Z.T
[email protected]
PPs-Magister ManajemenPendidikan
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga
BambangS.Sulasmono
[email protected]
PPs_MagisterManajemenPendidikan
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to evaluate the Inclusive Education Program for Slow
Learners in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga using Discrepancy evaluation model (Malcom
Provus). It assesses the gap between the inclusive education program for slow learners in
SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga and its standard program. It has four stages (design,
installation, process, and product). The interviews to the head of school, teachers,
students and parents were employed to collect data, and observations in some classrooms
were conducted to understand the condition of the slow learner inclusive education
implementation in that school. The findings showed that there were gaps in all stages:
design (the gap in teacher component, the support of society, measuring instrument for
social skills area), installation (the gap in special education needs teacher/SEN teacher,
learning process, and the infrastructures), process (the gap in teaching learning activity),
product (the gap in students’ social skills and behavior assessment). It was suggested that
SD Pulutan 02 need to create the instrument for assessing students’ achievement in
social and environment skills, create special learning strategy for slow learners, provide
the infrastructures for slow learners and create the inclusive planning and
implementation program for slow learners.
Keywords
: Educational Program Evaluation, Inclusive education, slow learners,
discrepancy analysis
INTRODUCTION
Inclusive education is a strategy to promote effective universal education. The
main goal of inclusive education is to educate children with physical, mental, and social
disabilities or often referred to children with special needs in regular classes together with
non-disabled students but with additional support that they need. Previously, children
with special needs mainly receive education from a special school, segregated from
1
regular schools. However, it is important for school nowadays to make every effort to
provide inclusion of children with disabilities. (Friend, 2006; Lewis &Doorslag, 2006).
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education
provides the obligation for schools to accommodate all children, including children who
have physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other abnormalities. In
Indonesia, the right to learn is stipulated in Law No. 20 of 2003 on “National Education
System”, Article 5, paragraph 1 to 4. In particular, the Regulation of the Minister of
National Education of Indonesia Number 70 of 2009 Article 1 states that the inclusive
education program is an education system that provides opportunities for all learners with
disabilities, yet with full of potential intelligence and/or special talent, to participate in
learning in an educational environment together with other learners in general. The
implementation of inclusive education aims to provide the widest possible opportunity
and to realize the provision of education that respects diversity of students' abilities and
demonstrates non-discrimination.
Currently, all Inclusive schools in Indonesia from elementary to high school level
accept children with special needs in regular schools but with special treatment. These
students could follow regular classes, but on the other hand they also have to follow
special programs according to their needs and capacity. The curriculum used is the
regular curriculum, but with implementation tailored to the students’ ability.
In Salatiga, experiments on inclusive education program have been implemented
since 2010 to six elementary schools and two junior high schoolswith over 115 students
joined the inclusive program. One of the inclusive schools in Salatiga is Elementary
School
District
of
SidorejoSalatigaPulutan
02
(SD
NegeriPulutan
02
KecamatanSidorejoSalatiga ), which was designated as an inclusive school in Salatiga by
the Decree of the Head of the Department of Education, Youth and Sports No: 420 /
0241.a / 101 on 24 January 2012. The number of pupils in this school is quite a few--with
only 80 students total, but there is at least one child with special educational needs in
each class. According to the school’s psychological test report, almost all the special need
students in this school have a level of intelligence (IQ) below average. Thus, much of the
inclusion effort in this school is tailored to students with slow learning capability.
2
Based on the preliminary observations of researchers, there are fundamental issues
in
the
implementation
of
inclusive
education
in
SD
NegeriPulutan
02
KecamatanSidorejoSalatiga ever since it was established as an inclusive school. The first
issue is that SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatigahas never held a thorough evaluation of the
inclusive education programs they have run for two years. Evaluation of the current run is
still focused on the results of teaching and student learning activities, but not exhaustive
on the input, process and output of the program. There are various underlying reasons for
not having run a thorough evaluation of inclusive education programs, one of which is
the unavailability of time and instrument evaluation to see the development of the school.
The second issue lies on the discrepancy of the school’s adaptability to maximize its
resources to achieve the predetermined goal of inclusive education. The main doubt is on
the management of the inclusive program school itself--not so much on the ability of the
learners. As an already “established” school, as opposed to a new inclusive school, SDN
Pulutan 02 develops a tendency to approach their program just like the general primary
school education. This becomes both a strength and weakness of the school that needs
further investigation.
An evaluation was conducted to determine the level of quality of inclusive
education in SDNPulutan 02 in comparison to certain criteria or primary standard.
Researcher applied the evaluation model developed by Malcolm Provus called the
Discrepancy Evaluation Model. This evaluation model is applied because it stresses on
the view that there is a discrepancy in the implementation program--and it assesses the
magnitude of the gap that should be achieved in reality. The gap measured in this
inclusive education program is the gap between the program implemented in reality as
compared to the standard program which has been set as a reference.
Aspects and dimensions of the object to be evaluated are input evaluation, process
evaluation and output evaluation. The targeted object of this evaluation model has 4
stages. First, the design stage is the design of the activities or work program. The focus of
activity at this stage is to formulate the goals, processes or activities, as well as the
allocation of resources to carry out the activities and achieve the goals that have been set.
Second, the installation stage is the provision of tools and equipment needed for the
programs. Evaluation at this stage is the accuracy and suitability of a variety of resources,
3
tools and equipments available for the implementation of the program. Third, namely the
process stage is the process of program implementation. Evaluation at this stage is the
relationship between the resources, tools and equipment to process activities. Fourth, the
product phase is the result of the program. Evaluation at this stage is the final result /
program objectives.
RESEARCH METHODS
This study includes an evaluative study, which analyzed the discrepancy between
the program implementation (or real conditions) with the standard program (point of
reference). This evaluation will be analyzed with the discrepancy model. This
discrepancy evaluation model is performed in 4 phases: the design phase, the installation
phase, the process phase, and the product phase.
The program to be evaluated is the inclusive education program for slow learners
in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, with various input, process, and output components, as
well as certain variable criteria.
The source of data used in this study was obtained from the internal data of SD
NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, the school where the study was conducted. There are two
kinds of sources: primary and secondary data. The primary source in this research is
directly obtained by interviewing principal, teachers, parents, and the students themselves
regarding the purpose of inclusive education, the planning and implementation of
learning and parental involvement in education programs in school. Meanwhile, the
secondary data includes the Decree of the MInistry of Youth and Sports No
420/0241.a/101 on January 24, 2012, Reports on Psychological Tests in the elementary
school, a written report by the school’s principal regarding the Role of the Principal and
the Education Curriculum of SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, as well as the school's own
records on the number of admissions, the schoolteacher's status, and the school
achievements.
Data collection techniques used are document analysis, interviews, and
observations. As for testing the validity and reliability of all data (internal validity) of this
study was done using the credibility test (internal validity) through the extension of the
observation. Extension of the observation means that the researcher returned to the field
to make observations, conduct interviews with the data source.
4
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The study in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga is described in three stages, namely
Input, Process, and Output, in six standard references according to the Inclusive
Education Program by Minister of Education (Kemendikbud 2013). These six include:
students, curriculum, teachers, learning activities, infrastructures, and community
empowerments. Meanwhile, the criteria that is used as a comparison or point of reference
is the standard criteria designed by Malcolm Provus (1969) as follows:
Table 1. Design Criteria/Design Standards
INPUT
PROCESS
A. Variables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Students
Curriculum
Teachers
Learning Activities
Infrastructure/Facilities
Community/Parents/Com
mittee Empowerment
B. Establish Criteria for each
variable
OUTPUT
A. Variables:
A. Variables:
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
3. Public/Parents/Committ
ee Contri-butions
1. Student Variables
2. Educator Variables
3. Community/Parents/C
ommittee
Contributions
B. Establish Criteria for
each variable
B. Establish end goals for
each variable
Source: Malcolm (1969)
The discussion section is analyzed using the gap analysis (discrepancy models) in
four parts, namely: design stage, installation stages, process, and product.
First Stage: Design Stage
Table 2. The Gap of Design Programm
Input Design
Indicator Design
Gap Findings
1. Students
Positive
interactions
between
non-disabled
students
and
special
educational need students
Interactions between nondisabled students and
special need students are
normal--no rejections
2. Curriculum
Integrated/accommodated
into two different needs
Integrated/accommodated
into two different needs
3. Educators
Accredited
relevant
expertise understand the
vision/ mission of inclusive
schools.
The number of special
need educator for each
classroom does not meet
the needs
5
The
availability
of
differentiated
classroom
teachers, subject teachers
and
special
needs
teacher/assistant
per
classroom
4. Learning Activities
Devoted to the student,
smaller class size
The approach is quite well
5. Infrastructure/Facilities
Public
Facilities
Specialized Facilities
and
Public facilities are met,
specialized facilities are
still lacking.
6. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Empowerment
Support
from
community/parents/commit
tee
There is high support from
community/parents/commi
ttee though not organized.
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boys/Girls Scout, Physical
Education, Art, exemplary
coaching, special lesson for
special need students
Assessment of learning
outcomes is still focused
on the achievements of the
student's
general
knowledge.
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
Methods and materials that
focus on the potential
growth, needs and interests
of students: small class
size, normal integration and
inclusion for special need
students, which comprise of
the
teachers,
subject
teachers,
special
need
educators,
informal
teacher-student relationship
The ratio of students each
class to classroom teacher
is not ideal.
3. Public/Parents/Committ
ee Contributions
Direct,
intensive,
integrated
with
student’s needs
and
each
High public enthusiasm to
register their slow learning
children.
Students master: Important
Life Skills: Personal Skills
(Self and Environment),
Analytical
Skills,
and
Report cards and final
exams show satisfying
result, but there is no
assessment
tool
for
Design Process
Output
1. Student Variables
6
Social
(Communication
Teamwork)
Skills
and
personal skills, analytical,
and or social skills.
2. Educator Variables
Increased skills, expertise
and teaching methods to be
more varied and intensive
to support the growth and
development of students.
Adaptation capability of
educators is satisfactory,
even though it is in need of
more assistant labor and
advanced training in the
field
of
inclusive
education.
3. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Contributions
Parents recognize and
support the needs, talent
developments of their
children. Public actively
support schools’ regulation
The level of satisfaction
from parents and general
public has never been
assessed.
In the design phase, there is a little gap in the input design and process design,
which is in the educator variables. The reason is because the number of slow learners in
each class is plenty in proportion to the number of special guidance counselor or special
need teachers available, which is only one teacher for the whole school. This number is
inadequate to handle all slow learning students in the school. Meanwhile, for the output
design, for the student variables, the results from their report cards and final exams are
satisfactory. Yet, there is still no assessment tool to measure personal skills
(self/environment), analytical, and social skills. In the educator variables, adaptation by
the educator is also satisfactory, even though there is a lack of guidance and advanced
training in the field of inclusive education. Lastly, there has never been an assessment of
the satisfactory level in the community/parents/committee variables.
Second Stage: Installation Stage
Table 3.The Gap of Installation Programm
Installation Stage
Installation Indicators
Gap Findings
Installation Input
1. Students
Administration for a new The school has not set the
concept of admission of new ideal number of regular
students
students and special need
Students recognize the students admitted to the
concept
of
inclusive school.
7
education
Not all students and
parents are aware of the
inclusive
education
program by the school-parents are only concerned
that their children are
admitted to a nearby and
affordable school
2. Curriculum
Vision, mission, and goals Lack of teaching materials
of
the
school
in for slow learners
NationalCuricullumare well
defined.
3. Teachers
Teachers have relevant There is no school policy
expertise; ideal teachers to to specifically educate
students ratio
teachers or to regulate the
number of teachers per
student
4. Learning Activities
Designated
learning Learning activities have
activities in a small class not been drafted in the
size
syllabus, lesson plans, or
teaching materials in an
orderly manner
5. Infrastructure/Facilities
Regulation of public and Provision
of
public
specialized facilities
facilities is still dominant,
while specialized facilities
procurement policy is still
lacking
6.
High support from parents, School committee is still
community, and committee not optimal
Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Empowerment
Installation Process
1. Student’s Learning
Activities
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boys/Girls Scout, Physical
Education, Art, exemplary
coaching, special lesson for
special need students
Learning
support
materials, such as books,
laboratories,
sport
equipments, art and culture
specific to the slow
learning
students
are
lacking
2. Educator’s Teaching
Activities
Methods and materials that
focus on the potential
growth, needs and interests
of students: small class size,
Parameter to maximize the
function of teachers to
achieve
the
targeted
objectives
is
still
8
normal integration and unavailable
inclusion for special need
students, which comprise of
the
teachers,
subject
teachers,
special
need
educators, informal teacherstudent relationship
3. Public/Parents/Committe
e Contributions
Direct,
intensive,
integrated
with
student’s needs
and High and positive public
each response to enroll their
slow learning children
Installation Output
1. Student Variables
Students master : Important
Life Skills: Personal Skills
(Self and Environment),
Analytical Skills, and Social
Skills (Communication and
Teamwork)
Report cards and final
exams show satisfying
result, but there is no
assessment
tool
for
personal skills, analytical,
and or social skills.
2. Educator Variables
Increased skills, expertise
and teaching methods to be
more varied and intensive to
support the growth and
development of students.
Adaptation capability of
educators is satisfactory,
even though it is in need of
more assistant labor and
advanced training in the
field
of
inclusive
education.
3. Community/Parents/Co
mmittee Contributions
Parents
recognize
and
support the needs, talent
developments
of
their
children. Public actively
support schools’ regulation
The level of satisfaction
from parents and general
public has never been
assessed.
At this installation stage, gaps are found in almost every component, such as in
the student variables, curriculum, teachers, learning activities, infrastructure and
facilities, and community/parents/committees empowerment.
Third Stage: Process
This process stage is to determine whether the behavior of the studied components
change as expected or not. If it does not, it means there is a discrepancy resulting in the
need to amend activities geared toward achieving the behavioral changes.
Table 4. The Gap of the ProgrammProcesses
9
Process Stage
1. Student Variables
Process Indicators
Gap Findings
General
Knowledge,
Counseling
Guidance,
Boy/Girl
Scouts,
Physical Education, Art,
Exemplary
Coaching,
Special Program for
Special Need Students
Assessment
of
learning outcomes is
still focused on the
achievements of the
student's
general
knowledge.
Approaches
for
regular
learning
activities are still
dominant.
Slow learner’s activity
is not a priority
2. Educator Variables
Methods and materials
that focus on the
potential, the growth, the
needs and interests of
students: small classes,
normal integration and
inclusion for special
needs students, which
comprise the teachers,
subject teachers, special
need educators, informal
teacher-student
relationship
The composition of
the number of students
and
number
of
teachers (teacher to
student ratio) is not
ideal.
3. Community/Parents/Committee
Contributions
Direct, intensive, and
integrated with each
student’s needs
High and positive
public response to
enroll
their
slow
learning children
At this process stage, there are gaps found in the student learning activities
variables as a result on the assessment of learning outcomes that is still focused on the
achievements of the student's general knowledge. Consequently, the learning activities
still employ the regular/conventional education that do not prioritize the slow learners.
Moreover, there are gaps in the educator side as well, specifically in the teacher to
student ratio that is considered disproportionate. The number of slow learning students
exceeds the proportion each class could support. Simultaneously, the learning activities
are also still focused on the regular/conventional method of teaching. In contrast, there
10
has been a positive response in the community/parent variable, in which they support the
implementation of inclusive education in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga.
Fourth Stage: Product
During the product stage, the assessment is to determine whether or not the final
goal is reached.
Table 5. The Gap of the ProgrammProduct
Product Stage
1. Student Variables
2. Educator Variables
Product Indicators
Gap Findings
The rate of passing and Slow learning students are
graduating students is identified but solely based
100%
on
psychological
tests,
without
any
assessment
on
Students
passing
and
graduating after mastering : students after graduating
(a) life skills, (b) personal from elementary school. As
skills
(self
and a result, the product outputs
environment),
(c) are yet to be measured.
analytical skills, (d) social The academic goal in terms
skills (communication and of the 100% percentage rate
cooperation).
of graduating students has
Student's needs before and been reached.
after the program have not
been assessed clearly,
especially for slow learning
children.
Increased
skills
and
expertise coupled with a
more variant and intensive
teaching
method
that
support the growth and
development of students
Teachers are able to modify
their teaching method in
accordance with the vision,
mission and goals of the
school, however there is still
a lack of special teaching
assistant in each classroom
especially
with
the
disproportionate number of
students in each class
Possession of capacity and
education background that
corresponds to areas of
work and expertise of
teaching
The school is able to modify
Possession of a better their regular school program
awareness
of
the and curriculum to be an
administration
in
the inclusive school though there
planning, implementation are still some weak points
that need to be fixed.
and evaluation of teaching
and learning
Documents and reports on
11
the vision, mission, and
school curriculum have been
developed into the concept
of inclusive school.
National Curriculum has
been integrated into teaching
materials of the inclusive
education
3.
Community/Parents/Commi
ttee Contributions
School committees and
communities are involved in
school activities planning,
implementation and
evaluation of school.
The level of satisfaction
from public and parents has
not been measured.
School
committee
runs
smoothly although their role
is still limited in financial
management and program
planning.
Based on the above table, the gap in the product stage is divided into three
measurement variables, such as the student variables, educator variables, community
variables. For the student variables, academically, the output product is achieved even
though other non-academic assessment such as personal skills has not been measured.
For the educator variables, educator output has increased in terms of skills and ability to
carry out the vision and mission of the school, especially in teaching special need
children. However, there are still gaps in the number of special teaching assistant in every
classroom--especially with the high number of slow learners enrolled in each class.
Consequently, these students are not aided optimally. There is a need for assistance to
handle these slow learners, so that teaching activities can be carried out directly,
intensively, and in accordance to their needs. The same goes for the community
variables/parents/school committees--for public with lower income, the establishment of
this inclusive school is received warmly and greeted enthusiastically because it shelters
their children with special educational needs. Yet, there are still gaps in terms of the
public contribution and its role in accordance with the school inclusive program planning.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The study of inclusive education programs in SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga showed gaps
in its evaluation, which is divided into four stages as follows:
12
On the input design and process design, there are gaps in the educator variable
since there is no provision by the school for the amount of educators, specifically
designed to address the slow learners. With only one educator per class, the amount is
inadequate to handle all the slow learning students in the school.In the design of the
output, there is also gap found in the student variables in which there is no measuring tool
to assess personal skills/environment, analytical and or social skills of the students.
Additionally, there are gaps in the educator variables, which are still lacking support for
assistance and advanced training in the field of inclusive education. There are also gaps
in the public/parents/committee variables because their level of satisfaction has not been
measured as well.
On the installationstage, there are gaps in the variables:(1) Educators. The
majority of the teachers still rely on the experience they had on regular/conventional
education program, since there is no qualified and clear teaching guides given by the
school for slow learning students. The number of qualified educators is still lacking with
only one teacher to serve all classes from grade 1 to grade 6. This educator is unable to
perform all of their main tasks as a special need educator.(2) Learning Activities. In the
planning and implementation of learning activities, teachers experience a lack of learning
devices (i.e. syllabus, Lesson Plan/ Teacher’s guidance and other special tools) that are
organized together with other stakeholders, such as educators, psychologists, or
physicians, and parents. Consequently, the learning materials presented to the special
need students are the same as the ones for normal students.(3). Infrastructure/Facilities.
No specialized infrastructure is built for the slow learning students (Resource Room).
On the processstage, there are gaps in the teaching and learning activities,
specifically in the composition of teachers, subject teachers, and classroom teachers.
General school infrastructure still dominates the school, in comparison to a development
of specialized tools for the special need students.In terms of education staff, gaps often
occur in the qualification and suitability of educator's skills with the subject they teach.
This also includes gap on the education and training provided by the school to advance
the quality of the teacher.From other stakeholders' point of view, such as general
public/parents/committee, the program received warm welcome although their level of
satisfaction is not measured yet.
13
On the productstage, despite an increase in the students' graduation rate, which is
100% rate, the assessment for social, environment, and behavior is not known and is not
measured due to a lack of measurement instrument. On the educator's side, no advanced
training and education is available that is based on the needs of teachers. Additionally, to
increase the support from the public, the role of planning, implementation, and evaluation
of school needs to be revised.
Suggestions:
Based on the gap findings in the Inclusive Education Program of slow learners in
SD NegeriPulutan 02 Salatiga, the author conveys some suggestions as follows:
1. For Inclusive Education School Administrator
The result of the study indicate gaps in the design phase, which requires
administrator to create a tool to measure the success of students in the field of personal
skills, such as social, communication, and environment. This can be done by forming a
team that consists of principals, teachers, and parents, as well as experts in accordance
with the school's needs. This area could potentially demonstrate the specialty of inclusive
school in comparison to regular school, which is dominated by solely an academic
assessment.Infrastructure and facilities specialized for special need students (in this case,
the slow learners) are needed, specifically the development of a “resource room”. This
resource room has a lot of benefits in aiding these students since it demonstrates a focus
on individual assistance. Additionally, both students and special education teachers could
gain trust and concentration in the subject taught--which could potentially provide
therapy for these students.
2. For the School's Principal
The shortage of special assistance teachers could be fulfilled by using job
training’seducators who have educational background in psychology or counseling.
Additionally, they could also use experts from the public or even parents in order to
fulfill the needs for special education teachers in each classroom. School also needs
coaching in developing, planning, and implementing the inclusive education program for
slow learners.
3. For Educators
14
With learning activities still the same for both regular and special need classes,
educators are expected to revise their understanding of the slow learners in order to make
learning strategies that seek to enhance the learning achievements of these students.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. 2001.Understanding the DevelopmentofInclusive Schools: Some Notes and
Further Reading Paper Available from EENET
Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar-dasarEvaluasiPendidikan.Jakarta :BumiAksara
Bandi.D. 2006. PembelajaranAnakTunagrahita. Bandung :PTRefikaAditama.
Carlberg, C.&Kavale. K. 1980. The efficacy of special class vs regular class placement
for exceptional children: a metaanalysis . TheJournal of Special Education.
14,295-305
Cooter.K.S. & Cooter.R.B.2004.One Size doesn’t Fit All : Slow Learners in Reading
Classroom. International Reading Association (pp.680-684).
Friend, M. 2006. Including Students with Special Needs.Boston: Pearson.
Fernandes,H.J.X.1984.
Evaluation
of
Educational
Program.
NationalEducationPlanning,Evaluation and Curriculum Development.
Jakarta:
Lerner, J.W. 1988. Learning Disabilities: theory,diagnosis and teaching strategies. New
Jersey: Houghton Miffin Company
Hallahan, DP &Kauffman,J.M. 1991 dan 1986. Exceptional Children,Introduction to
Special Education.Fifth Edition Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
O’Neil,J.1994. Can inclusion work? A Conversation with James Kauffman and Mara
Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership.52 (4)7-11
Provus, Malcolm M. 1969. The Discrepancy Evaluation Model: An Approach to Local
Program Improvement and Development. Washington DC: Pittsburg Public
School.
Suyanto&Mudjito,
2012.
Masa
DepanPendidikanInklusif,
Jakarta:
KementrianPendidikandanKebudayaanDirektoratJenderalPendidikandasar.
Undang-undangNomor 20 tahun 2003 tentangSistemPendidikanNasional
UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Frame work for Action on Special Need
Education.Paris
15