THE PERCEIVED IMPACT OF MAINSTREAMING PROGRAM OF THE SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN THE SELECTED SCHOOLS IN DIVISION OF MARINDUQUE:

BASIS FOR A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR
NON-SPECIALIST TEACHERS

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

It is a common knowledge that everyone has the right to education, regardless of the age,

race, gender, socio-economic status, and disability. If everyone has the right to education, then, all

learners, young and adult, able and disabled must have equal access to quality education to meet

basic learning needs and enriches lives. Apparently, millions of children, youth, and adults continue

to experience exclusion within and from education around the world (UNESCO, 2013). UNESCO

Convention against Discrimination in Education and other international human rights treaties

prohibit any exclusion from or limitation to educational opportunities on the bases of socially

ascribed or perceived differences, such as sex, ethnic origin, language, religion, nationality, social

origin, economic condition, ability, etc. (UNESCO, 2013). Education is not simply about making

schools available for those who are already able to access them. It is about being proactive in

identifying the barriers and obstacles learners encounter in attempting to access opportunities for

quality education, as well as in removing those barriers and obstacles that lead to exclusion

UNESCO (2013, cited in Dapudong, 2014).

In Global Campaign for Education (2015), one of the goals is “Gender equality and

inclusion” which states that, by 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal

access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with

disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations. On inclusion, it means that all

1
people, irrespective of sex, age, race, color, ethnicity, language, religion, political or other opinion,

national or social origin, property or birth, as well as persons with disabilities, migrants, indigenous

peoples, and children and youth, especially those in vulnerable situations or other status, should have

access to inclusive, equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities.

In addition, one of the goals of Education for All (EFA) is also inclusion or the

mainstreaming of children with disability in regular classroom. In fact, inclusion or mainstreaming

is a main component that is used with EFA. Since EFA is a global movement all children are

involved: different cultures, religions, disabilities, and more. The problem that is faced with

inclusion is how different countries define disability (Peters, 2014). To be more specific the problem

comes with the definition of special needs. This can affect how or if those students can meet the

goals that are created. To make sure all children are included schools collaborate to see how all the

children can meet the certain goals given (Ainscow, 2015). This area may be a challenging one for

some and it comes down to what does the term “all” really mean in Education For All (Peters, 2014).

That is an answer that will vary country to country and everywhere around the world. There have

been predictions that by the year 2025 the number of children with disabilities will have risen. A

majority of that number will be children in developing countries. Therefore, answers are needed on

how to include all children in the learning and educational goals set (Ainscow, 2015). Similar to

technology in schools, inclusion can grow and become more common in schools.

In the Philippines, education is guaranteed to all, for the maximum self-realization to all its

citizens, children, and youth regardless of being abled or disabled, they are provided access to

educational opportunities to develop their potential and enable them to become productive members

of society and to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. The philosophy‘s concepts and commitments

2
are embodied in legislation, educational planning, and allied services for all children and youth in

general, and for those with special needs in particular.

As stated in Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, individual has the right to quality education,

regardless of sex, age, breed, socio status, physical and mental conditions, social and ethnic origin,

political and other qualifications. Thus, in a democratic country, like the Philippines, the state is

believed to exist for the welfare of the individual as practiced in all democratic societies including

the Philippines. The right of all children to education is inherent in a democracy. This philosophy

has led to special programs for exceptional children.

The provision was also supported by the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons also known

as RA 7277 (1997) that provides for the Rehabilitation for Self Development and Self-Reliance

of Disabled Persons and their integration into the mainstreaming of society and for other

purposes. In addition, the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603) Article 3 (2007) has specific

provisions intended for the welfare of exceptional children to be treated with sympathy and

understanding and be entitled to treatment and competent care and be given the kind of education

and care required by this particular condition.

The above mentioned provision mandates that attention should be given to children with

special needs regardless of their disabilities and should be given privileges in developing

themselves according to their capacity and abilities. It also implies on how children with special

needs be addressed not only on how to communicate or to express themselves but on how they can

develop their capabilities and potentials to the highest possible.

Sadly, the vast majority of people with disability in developing countries are

segregated and isolated deprived of even basic education. One hundred fifty million children

under 15 years of age are disabled; 93 million or 62% of them are in Asia Pacific Region; less than

3
5 % of them received education or training. The number of children with disability is increasingly

daily by the hundreds (Inclusive Special Education, cited in Jalos, 2015).

In 2017–2018, the number of students ages 3–21 who received special education services

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was 7.0 million, or 14 percent of all

public school students. Among students receiving special education services, 34 percent had

specific learning disabilities (The Condition of Education, 2019).

In the Philippines, the Department of Education reported that in 2016 there are over 600

schools cater to children with special needs. There is a total of 648 schools nationwide have been

allowed by the Department of Education (DepEd) to offer the Special Education (SPED) program

that provides the necessary educational interventions for students with certain exceptionalities. Of

these schools, both SPED centers and regular schools or DepEd schools, 471 are catering to

elementary students and 177 are catering to high school students. In fact, the DepEd has recorded

around 250,000 enrollees with certain exceptionalities at the elementary level and around 100,000

at the high school level in school year 2015-2016.

The disabilities cater include learners with visual impairment, hearing impairment,

intellectual disability, learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, communication disorder,

physical disability, emotional and behavioral disorder, multiple disabilities with visual impairment,

and to those who are orthopedically handicapped, chronically ill, and gifted and talented.

The instructional programs that the SPED teachers implement are the following: (1) Self-

contained/Special Class – a separate class for only one type of exceptionality that serves moderate

to severe types of disabilities; (2) Itinerant Teaching – a traveling teacher reaches out to children

with special needs in other schools or at home to provide direct and consultative services; (3)

Resource Room – a designated place where the child with special needs enrolled in the regular

4
school program, goes to in order to make use of the specialized equipment, either in a tutorial

situation or in a small group session handled by a SPED teacher; (4) Pull-out – a kind of program

where the child enrolled in the regular class reports to the resource room for a period of time for

special instructions by the SPED teacher; (5) Integration/Mainstreaming – refers to the enrolment

of a child with special needs in a regular class with support services. There are two degrees of

integration: Partial Integration and Full Integration. In Partial Integration/Mainstreaming, a child

with special needs enrolled in a special class is integrated with regular children in non-academic

activities like work education, physical education, arts, school programs, among others, then

gradually integrated in the academic subjects if qualified. Meanwhile, in Full

Integration/Mainstreaming, a child with special needs sits in the regular class in all academic and

non-academic subjects; and (6) Inclusion – all children with disabilities, regardless of the nature

and severity of their disability and need for related services, receive their total education within the

regular education classroom.

Similarly, in 2018 report on the enrolment rate of Special Education Children enrolled in

the Philippine, public schools raised to over 5,300. This is according to the report of DepEd SPED

Focal Person, Ellen Delante. According Delante, the number has increased from the previous 4,265

enrollees which include elementary, secondary, and senior high school students, for School Year

2017-2018. Delante stressed the opening of SPED program in regular schools, involvement of

parents and accessibility of such program even to marginalized families, have contributed to the

increase of enrollees this year. Teachers, especially in the mainstream, were also trained to handle

children with special needs (Paculba, 2018).

Locally, the Schools Division of Marinduque offers Special Education Program. This is in

compliance to the mandates of the Department of Education and the Philippine Government

5
 through provision of basic education to the learners with special education needs. In fact, Don Luis

Hidalgo Memorial School is the SPED center in the Schools Division of Marinduque. In addition,

there are at least 51 out of 181 elementary schools in the division that offer SPED program. Also,

there are 23 Special Education Teachers (SPET) and 40 resource or receiving teachers (teachers

that handled LSEN) in the regular classes.

The background implies not all the schools catered LSEN despite its existence, and not all

the teachers who handled these LSEN are not specialized of the program. Moreover, it can be

deduced that schools without Special Education Program and whose teachers who handled LSEN in

regular classes are employing mainstreaming as a mean to cater the learners with special needs in

the regular program. In this premise, this research will be conducted to find the impact of

mainstreaming program for learners with special education needs (LSEN) in the Schools Division

of Marinduque. Results will yield to the proposed training program for non-specialist teachers of

LSEN.

Statement of the Problem

The problem deals with the perceived impact of mainstreaming program of the Special

Education in the selected elementary schools in the Division of Marinduque. This will become the

basis for the training of non-specialist teachers.

Specifically, it seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What is the impact of the mainstreaming of learners with special needs in the regular

classroom as perceived by the :

1.1 Special Education Teachers

1.2 Receiving teachers;

6
 1.3 Administrators; and

1.4 Parents?

2. How do the learners with special needs respond to the following:

2.1 new classroom setting;

2.2 new classmates;

2.3 teachers;

2.4 learning?

3. What are the perceptions of the SPET, regular teachers, administrators, and parents on

the mainstreaming of children with special needs in the regular classroom as to the following

aspects?

3.1 new classroom setting;

3.2 new classmates;

3.3 teachers;

3.4 learning?

4. Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of the four groups of

respondents and the status of mainstreaming program?

5. What intervention can be proposed?

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The coverage of the study are the impact of mainstreaming of the LSEN in the selected

schools in the Division of Marinduque that are catering Special Education Program and those schools

7
which have cases of learners with special needs mainstreamed in the regular classes handled by the

receiving teachers (teachers with regular teacher plantilla item).

Moreover, it involves the perceptions of the school heads of the selected schools, the Special

Education Teachers (SPET), the Receiving/ Regular Teachers, and the parents of the LSEN who are

mainstreamed in the regular class.

In addition, the study will identify the responds of the LSEN to their new classroom setting,

new classmates, teachers, learning. This will be identified with the help of the teachers and parents.

Also, the perceptions of the school heads of the selected schools, the Special Education Teachers

(SPET), the Receiving/ Regular Teachers, and the parents of the LSEN on these aspects.

The study excludes the perceptions of the regular learners about the mainstreaming

instructional program, since these learners may not have complete awareness on reasons why the

learners with special needs are taught in the same program as they are in the regular class.

Significance of the Study

Knowing the perceived impact of mainstreaming of learners with special education needs

(LSEN) is deemed significant in obtaining and providing useful information for judging decision

towards the continuous implementation of the SPED program and its services in the Schools

Division of Marinduque. Generally, it is significant towards the attainment of Education for All

(EFA) goal and the Department of Education (DepEd) calls for inclusive education.

Specifically, this study may give ideas to the key persons and Special Education Program

implementers in the Schools Division of Marinduque for the improvement of planning and

8
implementation of the Special Education Program, particularly the instructional program of SPED

like mainstreaming such as partial mainstreaming and full mainstreaming or inclusive education.

Through this study, the perceived impact of the instructional program may be identified and

then remedial measures or interventions can be applied.

This study may give light to the reactions or attitudes of the School administrators and SPED

Teachers towards the implementation of the Special Education instructional program –

mainstreaming, which is one of the government and DepEd thrusts.

For the teachers the SPED teachers and receiving teachers, results of this study may

determine their strength and weaknesses to which may lead for planning towards professionalism

and enhancing teaching competences for teaching children with special needs to lessen such negative

perceptions.

For the parents, they may continue to cooperate and support their children especially

those with special needs for their guidance.

For the stakeholders, the result of this study may broaden their mind, to give heart with

helping hands and open opportunities for Children with special needs.

Ultimately, this may benefit all the learners with special needs in the Schools Division of

Marinduque to access equal opportunity to be educated just like the learners in the regular classroom.

For other schools without the Special Education Program but have clienteles, this study may

inspire them to open the program in their respective schools.

For the future researchers, this may serve as future references as they conduct related

studies treated hereto.

9
Theoretical Framework of the Study

The study is anchored on the following theories of special education instructional program

like mainstreaming. First the classification system in special education. It is a system that has been

a tool to organize information of pupils’ needs and has served among others things to understand the

differences among pupils or learners and to rationalize the distribution of resources and it been a

requisite to receiving special education and related services (Florian, et al. 2006, p.37). This

classification has negative and problematic effects because of its categorization and labelling in

education setting.

Next theory is the influential perspectives on disability. It pertains to learning that

emphasizes the additionality for the individual child (identified as an individual approach to

disability) and the other inclusively of the system (identified as a social approach to disability

(Norwhich, 2002). The tension between these two approaches gives rise to various models for how

an inclusive school should be realized, with reference to pedagogical practices, structures and

systems. Norwich (2002) points out, it is unclear whether and how far the terms “additionality” or

“inclusivity” go beyond the field of disability, as the distinction between adapted education and

special education is blurred, and as inclusive diversity also includes other vulnerable, disadvantaged

or oppressed groups (Norwich 2002, p.493). An effect of this might be that disability issues in

education are dissolved into a wider amorphous inclusive education and that the term “inclusive

education”, just like special education needs, can come to be a separatist term relative to mainstream

education (Norwich 2002). However, as Lindsay argues, there is an opportunity to implement and

evaluate a variegated system of inclusive education appropriate to the complex societies and patterns

of schooling in the twenty-first century where inclusion, in its widest sense, is impartial, addressing

10
religion, ethnicity, social class and other social dimensions as well as special education needs and

disability (Lindsay, 2007, 19).

Then, the principle of inclusive education. At the core of inclusion is the principle that

students with special or additional learning needs or disability belong in mainstream education. The

fundamental principle of an inclusive school is that all children should learn together, regardless of

any difficulties or differences. To be an inclusive school, therefore, means that the school

accommodates the needs of all students and welcomes diversity as a way to enrich learning for

everyone. To exclude a student because of a particular disabling condition is to diminish not only

the student but also the enriched learning that can take place within the school community. The

underpinning principle of inclusive education is that all children and young people, with and without

disabilities or other special needs, are learning effectively together in ordinary mainstream schools,

with appropriate networks of support. This principle means that we enable all students to participate

fully in the life and work of mainstream settings, whatever their needs (Ainscow, et al., 2006 p.2).

Finally, the researcher’s own belief that mainstream, an instructional program of the Special

Education Program (SPED) is important and valuable to achieve the goal of Education For All and

to give equal right and opportunities to the learners, young or adults who are enrolled in the Special

Education Program to be in the mainstream program so that they could experience to join and

participate in the regular classroom and enjoy equal treatment and rights of the “normal” pupils in

the regular classroom. Furthermore, the researcher believes, that LSEN being in the regular

classroom could help them to cope with realities and practicality in life because they will interact

with the regular students and that they would not feel that they are excluded, instead they belong.

As what Gearheart (2010) says, in mainstream program, there is equal right to education regardless

of disabilities and privileges in developing oneself, beneficial to SLEN hence they can learn to

11
interact in “normal” society, and provides opportunity to have “real” education as they are associated

with the nondisabled.

Research Paradigm

Input Process Output

Identification of the
Perceived Impact of
Mainstream Program using
Validated Multiple
Response Researcher-
Perceived Impact of the
Figure Made Questionnaire
Mainstream Program in
Selected Schools in the
Identification of the
School Division of
Responds of the Learners
Marinduque Proposed Intervention
with Special Education
by the School Heads, Program
Needs through Validated
SPET, Receiving
Multiple Response
Teachers, and Parents Training Program for
Researcher-Made
Non-Specialist Teachers
Questionnaire
Perceived Responds of of Learners with Special
Learners with Special Education Needs
Assessment of the
Education Needs into:
Significant Difference of
New classroom setting
the Perceived Impact of
New classmates
Mainstream Program of
Teachers
the school heads, Special
And learning
Education Teachers,
Receiving Teachers, and
Parents

Tabulation of Gathered
Data
Presentation, Analysis, and
Interpretation

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Figure 1 illustrates the paradigm of the study following the IPO format. The inputs are

variables for investigation such the impact of mainstream in the selected schools in the Division of

Marinduque as perceived by the school heads, Special Education Teachers (SPET), regular teachers,

12
and parents. Also, the responds of the learners with special education needs (LSEN) in their new

classroom setting, new classmates, teachers, and learning. On the other hand, the process is the

research design, method, and instrument used for processing the data. It includes the identification

perceived impact of the four groups of respondents and identification of the responds of the LSEN

using validated multiple response questionnaire and assessment of the significant difference.

Meanwhile, the output is offshoot of the study, it is proposed intervention, the training for the

teachers of LSEN who are non-specialist of the program.

Definition of Terms

To give shed to various terms used in the study, these are hereby either operationally or

conceptually defined as follows:

Inclusive Education. It is the inclusion of all children with disabilities, regardless of the

nature and severity of their disability and need for related services, receive their total education

within the regular education classroom.

Learners with Special Education Needs. These are the learners, regardless of age, gender,

disability, special needs who are enrolled in the Special Education Program and are mainstreamed

in the regular classroom.

Learning. It refers to the kind of learning the learners with special needs received in the

regular classroom as they are mainstream in the regular program with the regular learners. The

learning is based on the K to 12 curriculum which can be modified by the receiving teachers based

on the learning needs of the LSEN in class.

13
 Mainstream. It pertains to the enrolment of a child with special needs in a regular class with

support services. There are two degrees of integration: Partial Integration and Full Integration. In

Partial Integration/Mainstreaming, a child with special needs enrolled in a special class is integrated

with regular children in non-academic activities like work education, physical education, arts, school

programs, etc, then gradually integrated in the academic subjects if qualified. Meanwhile, in Full

Integration/Mainstreaming, a child with special needs sits in the regular class in all academic and

non-academic subjects.

New Classmates. They are the regular learners in the regular classroom where the LSEN

are mainstreamed.

New Classroom Setting. The regular classroom for the regular learners where the LSEN

are mainstreamed.

Perceived Impact of Mainstream. The impact of mainstream of the learners with special

education needs as perceived by the school heads, SPET, regular teachers, and parents.

Regular Teachers. They are the receiving teachers who handled learners with special needs

in the regular class.

Special Education Program. An educational intervention of the Department of Education

to provide basic learning and life skill to learners with special education needs through different

instructional programs such as: 1) self-contained/special class, itinerant teaching, resource room,

pull-out, integration/mainstream, and inclusion.

Special Education Teachers. They are the teachers with specialized trainings in teaching

learners with special needs and they have plantilla position of SPET.

14
Research Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the four groups of respondents

and the status of mainstreaming program.

15
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents selected foreign and local literature and related studies relevant to the

study that will give direction and provide additional insights and information for deeper

understanding of the problem presented for investigation.

Foreign Literature

Every child has the ability to learn, but the way children learn and how much knowledge they

can absorb can vary considerably — especially for a child with special needs. Yet, as a society we

owe all children a chance to reach their potential, so it is important to create the best possible learning

environment for that to happen. That is why many people suggest mainstreaming special-needs

children into regular classrooms rather than assigning them exclusively to special education classes.

Figuring out how to provide the best education for a child is never easy because what is best

for one child may not be best for another. When looking at mainstreaming, it is important to look at

inclusion, including full inclusion. With mainstreaming, special education students “earn” the right

to be in a regular classroom for at least one class to see if they are ready for the challenge. Inclusion

involves bringing special education services to a child who is in regular classes, rather than bringing

the child to the services (in a special education classroom). It focuses on the benefits of being in the

class, but the requirements for that student are tailored to the child’s special needs. With full

16
inclusion, all students are brought into the regular classroom, no matter what their disability might

be (Farell, 2014).

Moreover, proponents of mainstreaming point to the possible benefits of bringing a special-

needs child into the regular classroom. At the same time, they realize that full-time inclusion might

not provide the best learning experience for the special-needs child or the other children in the class.

Children who are mainstreamed will spend time in a resource room where they can receive more

individualized attention from teachers. By using both the regular classroom and individualized time

in special education classes, pupils are exposed to mainstream students but get the attention they

need for their specific challenges. Several studies have suggested that overall, including disabled

children in mainstream classrooms improves academic achievement, self-esteem and social skills

(ElZein, 2016).

When looking critically at either the mainstreaming or inclusion of special education students,

one of the first issues that comes up is budget. A 2015 study conducted by the Special Education

Expenditures Program (SEEP) showed that the price tag of educating a special-needs student is

between $10,558 and $20,000. Educating without special education services costs $6,556, by

comparison. Another potential drawback is that a special-needs child can easily get lost in a regular

classroom. In some cases they may be disruptive and may compromise the learning environment of

other students. Neither mainstreaming nor any sort of inclusion is right for every child, so it is

important that an Individual Education Plan (IEP) be developed for each special-needs child to help

them find the balance between regular classroom exposure and getting the attention each requires

(Gibb & Dyches, 2015).

Deaf children face a special challenge because the significant communication barriers

between them and their mainstream classmates can cause feelings of lower self-esteem and isolation

17
among the hearing-impaired. Some critics also fear the practice may undermine some components

of deaf culture. When addressing the needs of disabled students, it is important to remember the

needs of the rest of the class. Including special-needs children in a regular classroom can be

disruptive and make learning more difficult for the majority. However, children without special

needs can benefit from interacting with children who struggle in some ways. Whether a person with

a disability is a child or an adult, ultimately they have more in common with a non-disabled person

than they have differences. For children, and many adults, these distinctions are harder to discern

without exposure to disabilities. This exposure encourages children to help one another and develop

empathy for other human beings, whether they suffer official “disabilities” or not. At the end of the

day, we all have special needs, and many of these will be discovered by parents, teachers, mentors,

employers and friends throughout our lives. Mainstreaming special education may be the way to

assure we are as prepared as we possibly can be for all of the challenges that lay ahead (Florian,

2017).

In the review conducted by ------ on the effects of inclusion or mainstreaming of the children

with special needs in regular classrooms, some issues were raised. Accordingly, inclusion should

increase and not decrease children’s learning opportunities. The quality of the setting and its

appropriateness for individual students may be just as important as its segregated or inclusive nature.

This process should involve parents, all school-based personnel, support staff and the students

themselves. It needs to focus not only on current barriers to inclusion but also on issues such as

attitudes, ethos and curricula.

The changes that take place as a school moves towards becoming more inclusive also involve

overcoming some potential obstacles. These include existing attitudes and values, lack of

understanding, lack of necessary skills, limited resources, and inappropriate organization.

18
Overcoming these requires clarity of purpose, realistic goals, motivation, support, resources and

evaluation (UNESCO, 2015). As Fullan (2011) contends good change processes are characterized

by trust, relevance, and the desire to get better results. He suggests that accountability and

improvement become interwoven in the process but require a high level of sophistication. Some

aspect of change can be measured. These include direct benefits to children, wider impact on

policies, practices, ideas and beliefs, enhanced pupil participation, reduced discrimination,

strengthened partnerships and collaboration, strengthening of the education system, technology and

pedagogy to include all learners (UNESCO, 2005).

According to various researchers, one of the key factors towards successful inclusion or

mainstream program is the leadership of the school. The policies on admission and exclusion, for

example, will reflect the ethos within the school. The school and staff together must make a

commitment that all students are welcome in the school regardless of need. Teachers and other staff

will work to have inclusive classes, and to break down the barriers to learning and participation that

may exist. For this to occur and become part of the culture of the school, all staff must be committed

to this as a value for children, be able to articulate the reasons for their belief, be willing to defend

this practice against detractors, and be willing to struggle, learn, and seek answers when specific

approaches do not appear to be working for some students. Schools that are committed to high levels

of learning for all students, have specialists and support staff who are committed to developing

effective, collaborative and inter-disciplinary support systems for teachers, students and their

families. These schools tend to use specialized school and community resources effectively to

support and strengthen what happens in the classroom. They develop support teams to assist with

academic, social, and medical needs (Evans, 2009; Idol, 2007; Walther-Thomas, et al, 2010).

19
 In addition, central to successful inclusion are mainstream teachers who take ownership of

inclusion and who believe in their own competence to educate students with special educational

needs (Thomas et al, 2008). This may present a challenge since the underlying assumption has been

that students identified as having special needs belong in a different place, as well as a different

pedagogical category, and thus could not be taught successfully by ordinary teachers (Avramidis et

al., 2010).

Teachers’ practices are central to effective inclusion and a number of studies have explored

this theme. Elements of practice identified as supporting effective inclusion of students with special

educational needs include scaffolding, modelling, contingency management and other effective

instructional methods such as feedback (Flem et al, 2014). Collaboration and teamwork are also

essential aspects of inclusive practice, according to recent research (Lindsay, 2017). Critical to the

success of teamwork is time for planning and reflecting together (Hunt et al., 2013).

The role of the specialist educator needs to be re-examined and redefined if inclusion is to

be successful. Support through withdrawal from the mainstream is no longer seen as the default

response to pupils with special or additional needs. Apart from providing individualized instruction,

potential roles include adapting curriculum, co-teaching, supporting the mainstream class teacher

through teamwork, training support staff such as classroom assistants, and selecting and adapting

materials (Giangreco, 2007). Also important is the development of a positive ethos, with a shared

commitment to the values of inclusion (Fischer et al, 2012; Kugelmass, 2011). In general the

international research evidence ‘suggests that the success of inclusion stands or falls on the

availability of in-class support’ (Farrell, 2010, p.159).

If schools are to be successful, a professional community of support among teachers will be

needed. In an effective school, everybody works as a team. Specialists currently in special schools

20
or units may be considered as essential participants in this team approach, especially as the role of

the special schools evolves.

An important factor in determining the success of inclusion is the attitude of the teacher.

According to O’Brien (2010), the real key resource for successful inclusion lies inside the teacher’s

head. Some mainstream teachers have considerable reservations about the feasibility of inclusion in

reality. These reservations tend to be related to the types and severity of students’ difficulties, the

teachers’ own beliefs about the students and about their own ability to deal with them, and the

insufficient capacity of mainstream schools to address the difficulties experienced by the students

involved (Croll & Moses, 2010). As noted earlier, in the study on the Future Role of Special Schools

(DENI, 2016), most of the special school teachers surveyed believed that some students could not

be included successfully in the mainstream. Teachers are more positively disposed towards the

inclusion of pupils with physical or sensory disabilities and less so for pupils with emotional and

behavioural problems (Farrell, 2010; Lindsay, 2017). There is mixed evidence on the effect of

experience of contact with children with special educational needs. Many teachers, when faced with

the prospect of including a child with disabilities in their class, become less positive and experience

anxiety and stress. This, however, can be moderated by access to training, resources and additional

supports (Lindsay, 2007).

Teachers must be both competent and confident in their teaching ability. Brownell and

Pajares emphasise that teachers’ beliefs are ‘important determinants and predictors of teaching

practices’ (2009, p.154). In a review of the literature on inclusion, Avramidis and Norwich cite a

number of studies providing evidence that ‘the school’s ethos and the teachers’ beliefs have a

considerable impact on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion which, in turn, are translated into

21
practice’ (2012, p.140). Teacher training, both pre-service and in-service, is essential to develop the

skills necessary to teach successfully in inclusive settings.

Many teachers’ concerns centre on issues such as appropriate curriculum, in-class support,

ongoing training, their ability to teach diverse groups of children, planning time, how high to set

expectations and how to assess the students. Putnam (2008) acknowledges that it is not always easy

to teach children of very different abilities in the same class. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2016)

concluded from teachers’ feedback that the factors outlined in table 5.3 are essential for successful

inclusion if not mainstreaming such as” 1) time for planning one hour per day which is training

teachers need systematic and intensive training and access to ongoing education personnel resources

extra staff to assist in the classroom; 2) material resources adequate curriculum resources and

equipment to cater for those with disabilities; 3) class size class size should be fewer than 20 when

students with SEN are included consideration of the severity of the disability; 4) teachers are more

willing to include children with mild disabilities than students with more severe disabilities because

this is less disruptive to their overall goal of teaching the whole class.

Many teachers have not had any training in working with other adults in their classroom and

this can become quite challenging, especially in cases where the assistant has been with the student

for many years and knows the student’s capabilities extremely well. This may be intimidating for

some teachers and could result in the teacher deferring to the assistant when dealing with the student.

The assistant’s knowledge and skill must be acknowledged and utilized fully but the teacher has

ultimate responsibility for the student and the program being implemented. Lack of training and role

clarity for teaching assistants have both been highlighted as issues (Lindsay, 2007). Farrell (2010)

claims that good teamwork is contingent upon the training and expertise of teaching assistants. This

22
teamwork is essential to successful inclusion. Ofsted (2012) reported better quality teaching in

classes with teaching assistants.

Parents’ views on inclusion vary greatly (Farrell, 2014). The increasing number of students

with special educational needs in mainstream schools suggests that for many parents, inclusion is

the preferred option. The factors that influence parents’ choices of provision is relatively under-

researched but according to Giangreco (2007), central to inclusive practice is the acceptance that the

family is part of the collaborative team. He puts forward the following assumptions that are

considered crucial to working effectively with families in the interests of inclusion: • families know

certain aspects of their children better than anyone else • families have the greatest vested interest in

seeing their children learn • the family is likely to be continuously involved with the child’s

education programme throughout his or her entire school career • families have the ability to

positively influence the quality of educational services provided in their community • families must

live with the outcomes of decisions made by educational teams all day, every day (Giangreco, 2007

p.196).

Pupils are key stakeholders in education and the promotion of the voices of those with special

educational needs has been recognized as crucial to the development of a more inclusive education

system (Rose & Shevlin, 2005). Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states

that children have the right to be consulted and heard on all matters affecting them and to have that

view taken into account and given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. The Code

of Practice (DfES, 2011b) also stresses the rights of pupils to be involved in making decisions and

exercising choices. Schools have been relatively slow to set up the systems and structures which

might facilitate pupils contributing their perspectives on education (Davie & Galloway, 2006). It is

increasingly recognized, however, that students with special educational needs should contribute to

23
and participate in decisions about educational provision and individual education plans (Lewis &

Lindsay, 2010).

Pupils’ insights and perspectives have the potential to provide crucial directions for school

improvement and information to enhance learning, teaching and relationships (Gross, 2012). Flutter

and Rudduck (2014) highlight the “transformational potential” of consulting pupils; they see the

testimony of learners as providing essential firsthand evidence for improving teaching and learning.

Consulting children and including them in school decision making also increases educational

engagement and reduces the risk of exclusion (Frederickson & Cline, 2012). The experiences of

students with disabilities indicates that their opinions are rarely sought. When they are consulted,

the process is often tokenistic and their views are largely ignored (Noble, 2013 cited in Rose and

Shevlin, 2015).

Norwich and Kelly (2014) talked to pupils with moderate learning difficulties in both

mainstream and special schools and found that a significant proportion in the mainstream preferred

learning support in withdrawal settings. While most in both settings preferred their current school, a

minority in special schools expressed the wish to be in a mainstream setting. A high incidence of

bullying emerged as a theme, with students in special schools experiencing higher levels of bullying

than those in mainstream schools. Accumulating evidence suggests that both primary and secondary

students and girls in particular, have positive attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties

(Farrell, 2010). These attitudes tend to be even more positive if their school includes children with

significant learning difficulties. Farrell concludes that research evidence overall shows that

mainstream pupils accept children with special educational needs without difficulty and that bullying

is rare.

24
 Accessible and flexible curricula can be a key to creating schools that meet the needs of all

students. An inclusive approach seeks to discourage teaching that is based on a criterion of averages.

This means that some students will inevitably fall behind while others will find work too easy.

Curriculum must take into consideration the different abilities and needs of all students. It must be

capable of being adapted to meet diverse needs. Strategies such as flexible time frames for work

completion, differentiation of tasks, flexibility for teachers, time for additional support and emphasis

on vocational as well as academic goals can be useful (UNESCO, 2015). Together with flexible

curricula, flexible teaching-learning methodology is necessary.

Access to the curriculum is so much more than simply including a student in a mainstream

classroom, and involves subtler issues such as how students with special educational needs interact

with their peers, or how the classroom is structured. Universal design is the term given to the attempt

to improve accessibility to the curriculum, with advocates designing a curriculum from the bottom

up that is accessible to all students, regardless of ability. When universal design is applied to

learning, curricular materials are flexible enough to suit all learners, and the activities provided are

accessible to students across a diverse range of abilities. But universal design for learning is not just

about accessibility for students with disabilities. It is about access for all, and considers the potential

needs of all students when designing and delivering instruction.

Local Literature

Special education in the Philippines is anchored on fundamental legal documents that present

a chronology of events on the growth and development of the programs. The first legal basis of the

care and protection of children with disabilities was enacted in 1935. Articles 356 and 259

25
Commonwealth Act No. 3203 asserted “the right of every child to live in an atmosphere conducive

to his physical, moral, and intellectual development” and the concomitant duty of the government

“to promote the full growth of the facilities of every child.”

Other legal bases include Republic Act No. 3262 “An Act to Promote the Education of the

Blind in the Philippines, Republic Act No. 5225 “An Act Establishing a Ten-Year Teacher Training

Program for Teachers of Special and Exceptional Children” was signed into law in 1968. The law

provided for the formal training of teachers for deaf, hard-off hearing, speech handicapped, social

and emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded and mentally gifted children and youth at the Philippine

Normal University and the University of the Philippines.

Still another important legal basis is the Education Act of 1982 or Batas Pambansa Bilang

232 that states the right of every individual to relevant quality education regardless of sex, age,

breed, socioeconomic status, physical, and mental condition, social and ethnic origin, political and

other affiliations. Section 24 of Special Education Service of the same law affirms that the State

further recognizes its responsibility to provide, within the context of the formal education system

services to meet special needs of certain clientele. These specific types shall be guided by the basic

policies of state of embodied on General Provisions of this Act which include Special Education,

the education of persons who are physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, culturally different

from the so-called ‘normal’ individuals that they require modification of school practices and

services to develop to their maximum capacity (Inciong et al, 2007).

In support to this, the Department of Education ordered the institutionalization of Special

Programs in all schools in the Philippines under DepEd Order No. 26, 2. 1997. It aims to provide

access to basic education among children with special needs which include the gifted/talented, the

26
mentally retarded, the visually impaired, the hearing impaired, the orthopedically handicapped, the

learning disabled, the speech defectives, the children with behavior problems, the autistic children

and those with health problems through the formal system and other alternative delivery services

in education.

Furthermore, the order calls for all division under the DepEd to organize at least one SPED

Center which will cater to children with special needs. Programs organized here shall adopt the

inclusive education concept or the different types of SPED programs suited to the needs of the

learners. The SPED center shall function as a resource center to support children with special needs

integrated in regular schools, to assist in, the conduct of in-service trainings, to produce appropriate

teaching materials; and to conduct continuous assessment of children with special needs.

Likewise, all district levels are mandated to organize SPED programs in schools where there

are identified children with special needs. On the other hand, SPED center shall assist the teachers

in the assessment of children with special needs and in the orientation of the regular teachers who

teach these special children. The DepEd order also mandates local trainings at the regional, division,

and district levels which shall be conducted by school administrators and teachers who have had

trainings in SPED to tap their expertise and to ensure that the education of children with special

needs is an integral part of the educational system, annual allocation for extension position was

provided for teachers.

Special education in the Philippines has so far provided for the needs of many handicapped

children. However, the number served is less than 2% of the estimated exceptional population in

need of special services. A recent nationwide survey identified 98, 200 exceptional children in

various categories, out of the total school population of 850,000. Of this number, some children do

not receive SPED service while others are provided less than marginal programs. Based on the

27
synthesis of 13 regional reports, it appears that special education has become a significant

component of general education in the country today. The extent of special services nonetheless is

still considered far from adequate. Among the priorities still needing strengthening are: staff

development, instructional materials development and administrative support including other forms

of support mechanisms. Enrollment figures show that there are more programs for the intellectual

deviates the mentally retarded than or the other areas of exceptionality. Identified as the most feasible

SPED programs in the regions are: first, self-contained classes in special education centers for the

gifted, the mentally retarded, the deaf, the physically handicapped, and children with behavior

problems; second, integration and itinerant teaching for the blind; third, resource room services in

regular schools. In the National Capital Region, there is a concentration of special schools both

public and private, and a greater variety of service delivery systems; not to mention more recent

programs on mainstreaming, including reverse mainstreaming.

The Department of Education has realized different ways which are effective in teaching

individuals or so called “able children”. On the contrary, DepEd came across realizing that there are

children who need special attention also deserve to learn and attend formal education. These are

children with special needs like those blind or visually impaired, deaf or with hearing and

communication disorders, orthopedic, and other health impairments. Prior to this, a small number of

children with disabilities though not properly assessed were actually studying with their peers in a

regular classroom. With the advent of special education, children were thus identified, assessed, and

referred to a special class.

It was in the 60’s when mainstreaming gained acceptance. As stated by Inciong (2007), the

Department of Education, Culture and Sports has actually operationalized both partial and full

mainstreaming three decades ago. While on a very limited basis, the deaf and the blind children were

28
actually enrolled in the secondary schools in an integrated set-up. The need in social involvement

for differently able person should be given an attention and so Section 1 of Article V states that the

curriculum for special education program shall be based on the curriculum prescribed for the regular

school by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. The schemes may be adopted for special

education program depending on the reasons of the special learners.

Deaf pupils may be in some cases are those who are mentally normal and even have excellent

mental capacity where only hearing is affected that resulted also of being mute. But in other cases,

there are those who have multiple disabilities where made from being deaf and mute physical

difference like lameness, cerebral palsy, down syndrome with mental disorders affect their behavior

and attitude that give difficulties for teachers and pupils in the process of learning, but this conditions

should not be a hindrance for these pupils to come to school and learn.

Furthermore, Section 5, Article 1 of Policies and Guidelines for Special Education (1987)

specify that the ultimate goal of Special Education shall be the integration or mainstreaming of

learners with special needs into the regular school system and eventually into the community.

The government even though they are aware of these disabilities and know how hard teachers

can cope with the situation has begun establishing programs and curriculum in public schools for

the normalization of these children. They have started implementing the existence of special classes

without much expense but almost with the same benefits they could give unlike in the private schools

with high tuition fees that could bring another problem for parents who have low family income.

Mainstreaming of pupils with disability but can independently relate to class or normal children

where in some subjects teach manipulation of materials, learning through loco-motor development,

experiments, counting numbers is being utilized as early as in elementary grades.

29
 In addition, Inciong (2007) stated that the Salamanca in Statement of Principle, Policy and

Practice in Special Needs Education emphasizes that the fundamental principle of inclusion school

is that all children should learn together, whether possible, regardless of any difficulties or

differences they may have. Inclusion is also implemented where differently able children can be

enrolled to a normal class in exception with the deal who are advised to have a shadow teacher or

teacher interpreter to sign language purpose in high school.

Integration/mainstreaming programs as explained by Quijano (2007) carried out through

either the resource room plan or the itinerant teacher plan. The resource room like other children at

the appropriate level, goes to a resource room teacher who renders special instruction such as Braille

reading/writing and tutorial assistance to supplement the work for the classroom teacher. For the

itinerant teacher plan, a travelling teacher serves two or more schools to enable the special child to

attend the school nearest his home. Under both plans, the teacher provides consultative services to

the regular teacher and other school personnel, prepares special instructional materials and assists in

processing special textbooks and equipment.

On the other hand, Capulong (2007) said that when the child cannot benefit from full

integration, then partial integration is resorted to and the cooperative class plan is implemented.

Here, the child receives academic instruction in communication arts, mathematics, science, and

social studies. He joins the regular class in some subjects, usually physical education, music, arts,

work education, and co-curricular activities. Whenever possible, the child is moved from partial to

full integration in regular classes which usually takes place in the upper grade levels.

Another service discussed by Inciong et al., (2007) in their book “Special Education in the

Philippines” is the Self-Contained. Accordingly, children with severe cases or those who have multi-

impairment and even the intellectually gifted learners are educated here. They explained that self-

30
contained service is under the provision of pull-out, in which children with severe disabilities have

to be taught separately to make them ready for mainstreaming group. In this service, children are

taught to participate in the non-academic co-curricular activities of the regular school.

Foreign Studies

Many researchers have conducted studies in inclusive education all over the world. It is worth

perusing some of the studies conducted the world over on the issue of Inclusive Education. Carroll

(2007) had compared academic achievements of 20 students of special class with that of 19 mentally

retarded children who attended regular classes for half the school day and special classes during the

other half. The study subjects were about 8 years old, and all had been attending special classes on

full time basis in the school year before the study. The Test for reading, spelling and arithmetic

subtests were administered 1 month after the beginning of academic year at school began and again

8 months into the school year. The finding through t-test about the grade equivalent from pre-to post-

difference scores indicated that the partially integrated children with mental retardation achieved

much higher gains in reading than the segregated ones. The study concluded that integration helped

in the improvement of the performance of the MR students achieved much higher gains in reading

than the segregated ones. The study concluded that integration or mainstreaming helped in the

improvement of the performance of the MR students.

A study was also conducted by Fernandez, et al. (2009) about inclusive education in India

and made several recommendations to help achieve effective inclusive education. Jena, (2011) in a

study titled “Priorities of training and attitude of special educators towards people with mental

handicap”, tried to examine the priorities of training and attitude of the special teachers towards

people with mental handicap. The study focused on trained special teachers at a refresher course,

31
and found that most special education teachers felt that training in early intervention as the most

important area of training in special education. The study by Shanthi (2011) titled “A study on the

attitude of regular teachers’, resource teachers, Visually Impaired Children, Sighted Children and

School Administrators towards inclusive education” focusing on the Coimbatore area in Tamil

Nadu. The study wanted to find out the attitude of regular teachers and recourse room teachers as

also of the school administrators and visually impaired children towards inclusive education. The

study covered 135 persons which included 40 regular teachers, 40 resource room teachers, 15 school

administrators and 40 visually impaired children from rural and urban areas of Tamil Nadu. This

study found that there was a significant difference between regular teachers, resources teachers,

visually impaired sighted children and school administrator’s perception towards inclusive

education.

The study by Das et. al (2011) titled “Inclusive education for students with disabilities: The

challenge for teacher education” considered the Person with Disabilities Act, 1995 and looked at the

benefits for the students with disabilities. Under the Act regular school teachers are expected to

provide effective education to students with disabilities. The question was whether these teachers

are competent to teach disabled students. Hence the study was conducted in Delhi, to find out the

views on a number of issues such as the competencies the general teachers perceive to be necessary

to work effectively with students with disabilities. The study also tried to see how these teachers

perceived their competencies. The study made a number of suggestions to help teacher education in

India to suit the changing needs of providing inclusive education

In a comparative study by Soni, (2011) titled “Attitudes towards Integrated Education”

looked at the attitudes of visually impaired and sighted students in Manchester and New Delhi

towards the integration of children with visual impairment into ordinary schools. The attitudes of

32
visually impaired and sighted students towards friendship with each other were also surveyed in both

the locations. The study considered many different aspects that resulted in differences and

similarities in the views and perceptions of the students with and without sight impairment in two

different cities.

Soni (2012) also conducted another study to find out the perceptions of student, parents, and

teachers and all other staff of school education about education of disabled children in primary and

upper primary schools in Dewas district of Madhya Pradesh. The study included thirty-five students,

seven parents and twenty-nine teachers and administrators from rural areas of Dewas district. The

findings of the study showed that the attitudes of girls were more positive than those of boys. The

majority of teachers were also found to have positive attitude towards the education of disabled

children and this despite the fact that they had not received any special training in the area of special

education.

The study by Joseph, (2014) titled “A study on opinions of regular primary school teachers

towards inclusive education of children with mental retardation” was conducted in the state of Kerala

to find out the opinions of regular primary school teachers towards inclusion of children with mental

retardation in the regular classroom. The study was focused on 60 regular teachers with 28 males

and 32 females working in the Government and Private schools in Kerala. The study found that in

general majority of primary school teachers were in favour of inclusive education of children with

mental retardation. The study did not find any significant difference with regard to

age/gender/education of teacher on inclusive education of children with mental retardation. The

study also revealed that there was significant difference in the teachers’ opinions with respect to

level of retardation of students wherein they preferred only children with mild mental retardation in

33
their classroom. The study also found that there was no significant difference between private and

Govt. School teachers’ attitudes to inclusion.

The study by Kala (2016) titled “Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability

and inclusive education in Mumbai, India attempted to study the attitude teachers as being one of

the most important variables in the education of children with disabilities. This study focused on the

attitudes of general teachers in the city of Mumbai, towards disabilities and inclusion of students

with disabilities into regular schools. The study used two attitude scales to measure the attitudes of

the teachers in these schools of Bombay. The study tried to see if variable background characteristics

such as age, gender, income level, education levels, years of teaching experience, acquaintance with

a person with a disability, having a family member with a disability, frequency of contact and

closeness to a person with disability had any effect on the attitudes of teachers towards people with

disabilities and towards inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools. The study

concluded that while some of the variables of did affect teachers’ attitudes towards disabilities, the

only variables that affected teachers’ attitudes the most towards inclusion was the prior acquaintance

of the teacher with a person with a disability.

Singal (2016) in an article entitled “Inclusive education in India: International concept,

national interpretation” considered the possibility of inclusive education of children belonging to

marginalized groups, with particular reference to children with disabilities, within the Indian context.

The scholar discussed the various steps already taken by Government including the various

educational provisions and laws made for education of the children with disabilities. This study

article also focused on the Government’s role in the development of special schools and its attempts

at moving towards integration, as also the recent efforts of the government to achieve inclusive

34
education. The article particularly argues for a need to develop inclusive education in a manner

suitable and relevant in the Indian context.

In a recent study carried by NR Smitha and Sujata Acharya (2010) and titled as “Attitude of

Teachers Ttowards Inclusive Education for the Disabled” the researchers studied the attitude of 300

teachers in Ernakula, Keral and came to the conclusion that majority of the teachers were not in

favour of inclusive education.69 It is evident from the studies cited above that studies have been

done in the area of Inclusive Education in India but these studies have tended to look at mostly

broader level. Some detailed studies under the sponsorship of the UNESCO have been undertaken

in the major states of India like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and so on.

Praisner (2013) studied the “Attitudes of Elementary School Principals towards the Inclusion

of Students with Disabilities.” The researcher also examined opportunities for including students with

disabilities by educating school administrators by developing positive attitude to inclusion. The study

found that if the administrative support is positive towards inclusion then it helps the class teachers’

attitude to be positive also.

The study found that the degree of administrative support is determined by their attitude and

support to inclusion. The study findings showed that Principals’ attitude is important for including

students with disabilities.

Colin (2014) studied the nature of relationships between the mainstream and special school

students in the school setting. The study found that the students expressed the two schools as very

different, not only in physical size but in the level of resources. The student with severe disabilities

were perceived as having closer and more intimate relationships with their teachers, whereas the

greater number of students and bigger the size of school meant more distant relationships between

35
the mainstreamed students and their teachers. This study held special importance for looking at how

teachers would manage a more diverse student’s community in a school and yet find the time to build

closer relationships with students.

Lifshifz, et al. (2014) examined the effects of an intervention program on sense of efficacy on

regular and special teachers. The results showed that the intervention program was more useful to the

regular teachers, compared to the special education teachers. The study also considered the

correlations between the attitudes and sense of efficacy following intervention and concluded that the

same increased after intervention.

Frederickson, et al. (2014) studied the Mainstream – special inclusion partnership: pupil,

parent and teacher perspectives.” The study looked at the attitudes and values and sharing with staff

expertise. The study also followed the progress of students in the context of inclusion of children

with special needs in the same school. The findings of the study showed that academic and social

advantages are positive benefits when children with special needs are given education through

mainstreaming them. The study also showed that attitude, values and sharing staff expertise are

important for successful mainstreaming of the disabled students.

Snelgrove (2015) in his work titled ‘Bad, mad and sad: developing a methodology of

inclusion and a pedagogy for researching students with intellectual disabilities’ had focused on

interactions in the inclusive education setup. This study explored a range of methodological and

interpretive strategies for including children with significant intellectual disabilities in research

Watgson and Boman (2015) in their study titled “Mainstreamed students with learning

difficulties: Failing and underachieving in the secondary school” found that, even though schools

and governments say that student with learning difficulties and other disabilities are well supported

36
within schools, there was clear evidence which suggested that inclusion was not really doing well.

The study noted that the students with learning difficulties were not focused upon in various

statistics. This study focused on teaching practices, policies and school structures to understand their

effects on the academic outcomes and emotional well-being of students with learning difficulties.

Local Studies

The study of Rabara (2017) 26 revealed the experiences of the teachers in the Special

Education Program across country. Accordingly, every year, there are several trainings and seminars

for education development and improvement covering different areas in SPED such as programs,

career development, research, etc. However, most of the schools that offer Special Education

Program do have funds to support the trainings and professional growth of the teachers. Worst case

scenario, the teachers are the ones who paid for their trainings. This is important to look into because

here lies the competence of the teachers to deliver the appropriate method and strategies in teaching

children with special needs.

Similarly, the study of Jalos (2015) found out that Special Education Teachers in the Division

of Marinduque received a little training, especially those who are called “resource teachers” who are

in-charged to handle learners with special needs without any training or experience to teach children

in the Special Education Program. Jalos found out that teachers lack competence to deliver

appropriate teaching methods and strategies. Also, in the study, teachers have problems regarding

assessment and instructional materials due to limited resources and fund for the Special Education

Program in the division.

37
 On the other hand, the study of Villamero (2014) revealed the assessment of strategies used

the teachers in teaching children with disabilities. Salient findings include teachers learned lessons

that in assessing children with disabilities, employment of variety of strategies is a necessity.

Sticking to traditions without exploring other authentic strategies does not necessarily respond to the

diverse needs of children with disabilities. Teachers provided significant information in this study

clearly highlight their substantial level of awareness towards assessment as a concept.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that how the teachers assessed children with

disabilities in the regular classrooms indicates innovation, creativity, and willingness which are

important in bringing the inclusive education forward.

This scenario creates a positive image to the teachers’ role in educating children with

disabilities especially that in most cases, teachers’ incapacity to accommodate these children are

consistently highlighted as a failure in inclusive education. In addition, this gives due credibility to

the Department of Education that amidst challenges within the education system, the department is

critical in ensuring that children with disabilities are accommodated in schools at least in the aspect

of assessment. Although the teachers in this study showed a number of strengths in assessing

children with disabilities, there is one area that has to be improved and that is the use of

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in the process of assessment.

38
 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods of research and procedure which includes the methods of

research used, sampling design and sample, data gathering procedures and research instrument used

which further involves the construction of the instrument, validation of the instruments,

administration of the instrument, and the statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

This study will make use of the descriptive survey research design. It is characterized as a

survey or normative approach to the conditions of the variables of the study. It is also an essential

guide to one’s thinking. It is concerned with conditions of relationships that exists, practices that

prevail, and beliefs, processes that are going on, effect that are being felt or trends that are

developing. Hence, this design is used to identify the impact of mainstream program of the Special

Education Program as perceived by the school heads, special education teachers, regular teachers,

and parents. Results would become the basis for training program for the non-specialist teachers of

learners with special education needs (LSEN) in the Schools Division of Marinduque.

Respondents of the Study

This study will employ total enumeration technique in getting the number of head teacher,

Special Education Teachers, receiving teachers, and parents as respondents of the study. The

researcher believes that this is best suit for this investigation since there are only limited number of

elementary schools which offer Special Education Program and those schools who cater learners

39
with special needs in the regular classroom in the Division of Marinduque, thus, all of target

respondents are considered.

Table 1

Respondents of the Study

Respondents Frequency Percent

Special 23 100%
Education
Teachers

Receiving 30 100%
Teachers
Total 53 100%

Not so sure with the number ma’am

Research Instrumentation

There are two sets of validated researcher made multiple response questionnaire to be used

for generating answers to the specific problems raised in the study.

Part 1. This part of the questionnaire contains 10 indicators about the perceived impact of

the mainstream as instructional program of the Special Education Program in the Schools Division

of Marinduque. Indicators of the questionnaire are merely based on the review of related literature

and studies of the research.

40
 Part 2. This portion indicates the responds of the learners with special education needs in

terms of their new classroom setting, teachers, new classmates, and learning. Assigned teachers will

help respond to this based on their observations to LSEN they handled.

To be continued

41