50 Journal of ICSAR ISSN (print): 2548-8619; ISSN (online): 2548-8600 Volume 1 Number 1 January 2017 FLEXIBLE MODEL ON SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES IN INCLUSIVE SETTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Imas Diana Aprilia Indonesian University of Education E-mail : imasdaprilia@gmail.com Abstract: This research intends to study the implementation of inclusive education in elementary schools in the district of Bandung in order to create a model for special education services in regular schools. The results of the implementation analysis combined with the results of the literature study used as a basis to design the model of special education services in inclusion settings. The main finding of this study is “Flexible Model on Special Education Services in Inclusive Setting Elementary School”. This model is built in three main foundations, which are Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), guidelines for the implementation in Elementary school in the form of eight National Education Standards (NES), and the principle of the model implementation, namely flexibility. Keywords: flexible model, special education, inclusion, elementary school Educational services for students with disabilities have changed over time. The changes are in line with the development on the perspectives and attitudes towards people with disabilities that are getting better (Ametepee & Anastasiou, 2015). The education services for students with disabilities have changed from segregation, integration and inclusion. The fact, that three type of services still be implemented (Florian, 2008), like that in Romania (Ghergut, 2011), in China (Deng & Zhu, 2016). Segregation is an education system which segregates the education for students with special needs with education for students in general. The implementation of this system is the existence of special schools known as Sekolah Luar Biasa (SLB) in Indonesia for different types of disabilities, namely special schools for students with visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and behavioral disorders While integration is the education system in which they learn together with students in general. However, not all students with disabilities participants can be accepted or attend regular schools. Those who can meet the terms and conditions applied are able to attend the regular school. As an example a student with visual impairment could attend regular school only if they have normal intelligence, have orientation and mobility skills at the certain level and the student doesn’t have issue of behavior and so forth. In this education system student has to adjust into the prevailing system in school. The fact, there are problems about it, for example, a majority of the students were stressed about school work and keeping up with their sighted peers and described feelings of loneliness (Verdier, 2016). Unlike the system of segregation and integration, inclusion system is a system that accommodates the education needs and all forms of challenges to learning experienced by students. Therefore, it can be said that inclusive education accepts all learners with a wide range of diversity without any exception (Kratochvilova, 2015). In addition, a student study in inclusive education setting school doesn’t adjust into the prevailing system in school but vice versa (Nasibullov, et al, 2015). Principally, in the inclusive education system all students regardless their condition are accepted in the school. Basically, inclusive education is an education that respects differences in children and provides services to all children without making an exception regardless of their physical, mental, intellectual, social, emotional, economic, gender, ethnicity, culture, residence, language and so on. All children learn together, both in the formal or informal classroom or school. The study shown that children from inclusive classroom were expressed more high sympathy for children with disabilities (Gasser, et al, 2013; Gonçalves & Lemos, 2014). In 1990 the international community implemented the world declaration on Education for All (EFA), which agreed that all countries should be committed on providing access to education for all children. In fact, in most countries there are still many children who are discriminated in education of whom are children with disabilities or children with special needs (Hameed & Manzoor, 2016). According to the Ministry of Education Regulation No. 70 in 2009, all elementary schools should accept all children with special needs. In reality there are still 51Imas Diana Aprilia, Flexible Model on Special Education Services . . . . many elementary schools that are unwilling to accept children with special needs due to various reasons the school makes. Some reasons are quite reasonable, although it doesn’t support the principles of inclusive education. The principle of inclusive education is children shouldn’t be refused in any schools they want to attend (Booth, M. T. & UNESCO, 2003) Therefore, in 1994 the special needs education stakeholders held world conference on Special Education in Salamanca, Spain that produces the Salamanca Statement. Indonesia, as one of the participating countries to sign and approve the conference, is obliged to implement inclusive education. Inclusive education has been pioneered in Indonesia since the 1990s. Until now, inclusive education continuously disseminates and develops. The success on its implementation is influenced by many factors such as culture, politics, and human resources (Kwon, 2005). This research was conducted with the motivation to implement the ideal of inclusive education in Indonesia through the application of the special education services in an inclusive setting. The same research were about the implementation of inclusive education for special needs learners in Malaca Malaysia (Latiff, et al, 2014), in Sweden (Ineland, 2016), in Botswana (Mukhopadhyay, et al, 2012), in New Zealand (Selvaraj, 2016), in Japan (Futaba, 2016), in Korea (Song, 2016), in Hongkong (Poon-McBrayer & Wong, 2013), in Australia (Anderson & Boyle, 2015), in England (Lauchlan & Greg, 2015), in India (Sharma & Das, 2015). In special education 2013 curriculum there are indications that do not comply with the spirit of inclusive education. For example, there are three concepts of education services for children with special needs, namely education services for children with special needs who have average and above average intelligence. These children are given the opportunity to enroll in regular schools using the regular curriculum as a whole; for children with mild and moderate level of special needs with below average of intelligence are encouraged to enroll in special classes with special teachers and curriculum; and for those who experience severe disabilities are encouraged to enroll in special schools. Thus, the implementation of the education based on the 2013 curriculum is not in accordance with the concept or the philosophy of inclusive education. The main problem of this research is the implementation of education for children with disabilities in elementary schools as the implementation of inclusive education. It is considered important because there has been a gap between the ideal conditions with the actual conditions on the implementation of special education with the inclusion model in elementary school. Conducting a research focusing on developing the education services model for children with disabilities (special education) in inclusive setting in elementary school is absolutely important to help decreasing or eliminating the education gap. METHOD This research was conducted in elementary school having. The school is the state elementary school in district of Bandung which has 27 students with special needs which include intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, learning difficulties, and multiple disabilities. The principal and four teachers participated as respondents in this study. In accordance with the objectives of this research, namely to design a model of special education service in inclusive setting in elementary school, then the research was conducted with a qualitative approach. This qualitative approach carried out by the following procedure: (1) a descriptive study on the implementation of special education at an elementary school to draw real conditions, (2) do a literature study related to the implementation of inclusive education in elementary school, and (3) Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to test the feasibility of the model. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings The model is built on three foundations: First, education service procedure for students with special needs called Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Second, the guidelines for the implementation in Elementary school in the form of eight National Education Standards (NES), and third is the principle of the model implementation, namely flexibility. Figure 1. Three Foundation of the Special Education Model in Inclusive Setting This model is called a flexible model of special education services in inclusive settings in elementary school because one of the foundations used in this model is the flexibility principle This model is a framework to guide the implementation of inclusive special education in elementary school. These three model foundations can be described in the chart below. 52 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 1, Number 1, January 2017: 50-54 Figure 2. Flexible Model in Special Education Services in Inclusive Setting In the outline the implementation of inclusive education using this model in elementary school will implement through this following stages. A student who is going to attend the school will be selected by Panitia Penerimaan Peserta Didik Baru (PPDB), a committee in charge of accepting new student in the school. The approval for accepting the student with special needs in school is still highly depends on the principal’s policy. After the student is accepted at the school, there will be an identification to find out the challenges that the student might have during the learning and the further assessment will be performed. This information will be used as the foundation to design the learning based on the student’s needs. The learning program can be individualized learning program (ILP) or the classical learning program with a wide range of adjustment. After learning program is available, the teacher then starts the learning or intervention in accordance with the learning program that has been compiled. In the learning process, the regular teachers are responsible both for the student with special needs and the other students. To provide education for student with special needs, regular teachers may be assisted or receive consultation from Guru Pembimbing Khusus (GPK) or special teacher. The study shown that importance of collaboration between general dan special education teachersʼ in inclusive education practices (Khairuddin, 2016). The special teacher is a teacher who has the qualifications to handle student with special needs. In addition, in the learning process the student with special needs also needs support from all communities involved such as parents, government and others (Kozleski, et al, 2015). In principle, the learning for student with special needs can be implemented in regular school with various modifications, such as modifications on the learning objectives, materials, and learning methods (Kuyini, et al, 2016). Evaluation is needed to analyze the student with special needs’ progress based on the learning objectives that have been designed. This evaluation for student with special needs in regular schools also requires adaptation as well as the learning process. In addition the program and implementation of intervention should also be evaluated. Furthermore, the assessment process, program design and implementation of the program need an annual review thoroughly as feedbacks for the program following year. In implementing this model, school has to follow all the procedures and integrate it with the eight National Education Standards (NES) as the foundation for the implementation. In addition, all activities should be implemented flexibly. Discussion This flexible model on Special Education Services in Inclusive Setting Elementary School is built in three foundations, namely; education service Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for children with special needs, guidelines for the implementation in Elementary school in the form of eight National Education Standards (NES), and the flexibility principle. The stages (syntax) within this model refer to the SOPs activities which include (1) the new students’ admissions (PPDB), (2) identification and assessment, (3) learning or intervention, and (4) evaluation. These stages are adapted from the model formulated by Mc Loughlin & Lewis (2001). In Indonesia student who attends elementary school is selected by Panitia Penerimaan Peserta Didik Baru (PPDB). The selection conducted in most primary schools so far has not given ample opportunity for children with special needs to go to school. Furthermore, the rejection towards student with special needs is also based on the severity level of disabilities. If the level of disability is relatively mild some elementary schools are willing to accept the student. In fact, some students with special needs are not identified at the time they register to school, but more likely during their learning process. For example, children are known to have intellectual disabilities when their scores on all subjects are below the average. The provision of Guru Pembimbing Khusus (GPK) or Special Teacher is still facing many challenges, such as in terms of funding and availability of GPK. In addition, GPK academic qualifications has not fully achieved because they don’t have special education qualification. For that, both are needs of models for preparing special and general education preservices teachers focussed are in use of assistive technologies, functional behavioral assessment, and instructional 53Imas Diana Aprilia, Flexible Model on Special Education Services . . . . accommodations (Laarhoven, et al, 2007). Needs of approaches to asessing pre-service teachersʼ learning (Walton & Rusznyak, 2016) and needs of using an intersectional approach to understand difference and exclusion and examining boundary practices to examine teacher learning for inclusive education (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). Exchange perceptions of teachers about the inclusion (Tiwari, et al, 2015). CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION Basically, the readiness of the teachers and other school members are quite good. Both the teacher and principal show positive attitudes towards the existence of children with special needs. On the other hand, they haven’t had sufficient understanding and experience on teaching children with special needs. Some schools which have students with special needs do not have adequate facilities and infrastructure to support the learning process for students with special needs. Even so the attempt to change and modify the physical environment has been carried out to support the need of the students with special needs. It is very important for every inclusive school to have some experts such as psychologists, doctors, physicians, social workers and so on. Nevertheless, this school has not got any of the experts mentioned. Resource Centre is a support resource for the implementation of inclusive education that has been prepared by the government. Resource center is a Special School specially prepared to add its duties and functions as special school. On the implementation, this inclusive school has not collaborated with the resource center. Thus, the support from the resource center to help this school implementing the inclusive education has not been perceived as it is expected. REFERENCES Ametepee, L. K., & Anastasiou, D. (2015). Special and inclusive education in Ghana: Status and progress, challenges and implications. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 143-152. Anderson, J., & Boyle, C. (2015). Inclusive education in Australia: rhetoric, reality and the road ahead. Support for Learning, 30(1), 4-22. Booth, M. T., & Unesco. (2003). Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education: a challenge & a vision; conceptual paper. Unesco. Deng, M., & Zhu, X. (2016). Special education reform towards inclusive education: blurring or expanding boundaries of special and regular education in China. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 994-998. Depdiknas. 2009. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 70 Tahun 2009 tentang Pendidikan Inklusif Bagi Peserta Didik yang Memiliki Kelainan dan Potensi Kecerdasan dan/ atau Bakat Istimewa. Jakarta. de Verdier, K. (2016). Inclusion in and out of the classroom: A longitudinal study of students with visual impairments in inclusive education. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 34(2), 130-140. Florian, L. (2008). Inclusion: special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202-208. Futaba, Y. (2016). Inclusive Education Under Collectivistic Culture. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 649-652. Gasser, L., Malti, T., & Buholzer, A. (2013). Children’s moral judgments and moral emotions following exclusion of children with disabilities: Relations with inclusive education, age, and contact intensity. Research in developmental disabilities, 34(3), 948-958. Ghergut, A. (2011). Education of children with special needs in Romania; attitudes and experiences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 595-599. Gonçalves, T., & Lemos, M. (2014). Personal and Social Factors Influencing Students’ Attitudes Towards Peers with Special Needs. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 949-955. Hameed, A., & Manzoor, A. (2016). DEFEATING INEQUALITIES IN SCHOOL ACCESS: A CASE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN PAKISTAN. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 345-350. Ineland, J. (2016). Hybrid structures and cultural diversity in welfare services for people with intellectual disabilities. The case of inclusive education and disability arts in Sweden. ALTER- European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 10(4), 289-300. Khairuddin, K. F., Dally, K., & Foggett, J. (2016). COLLABORATION BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN MALAYSIA. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 909-913. 54 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 1, Number 1, January 2017: 50-54 Kozleski, E. B., Yu, T., Satter, A. L., Francis, G. L., & Haines, S. J. (2015). A never ending journey: Inclusive education is a principle of practice, not an end game. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 211-226. Kratochvílová, J. (2015). Learning Conditions-Part of the Support System for Pupils in an Inclusive Classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 637-643. Kuyini, A. B., Yeboah, K. A., Das, A. K., Alhassan, A. M., & Mangope, B. (2016). Ghanaian teachers: competencies perceived as important for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1009-1023. Kwon*, H. (2005). Inclusion in South Korea: The current situation and future directions. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(1), 59-68. Latiff, M. A. A., Mohamed, W. A. W., & Asran, M. A. (2015). Implementation of Inclusive Education for Special Needs Learners with Learning Disabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 81-87. Lauchlan, F., & Greig, S. (2015). Educational inclusion in England: origins, perspectives and current directions. Support for Learning, 30(1), 69-82. McLoughlin, J. A., & Lewis, R. B. (2001). Assessing students with special needs. Prentice Hall. Mukhopadhyay, S., Nenty, H. J., & Abosi, O. (2012). Inclusive education for learners with disabilities in Botswana primary schools. SAGE Open, 2(2), 2158244012451584. Nasibullov, R. R., Kashapova, L., & Shavaliyeva, Z. S. (2015). Conditions of Formation of Social Successfulness of Students with Disabilities in the System of Continuous Inclusive Education on the Basis of Value Approach. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(4), 543-552. Poon-McBrayer, K. F., & Wong, P. M. (2013). Inclusive education services for children and youth with disabilities: Values, roles and challenges of school leaders. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1520-1525. Sharma, U., & Das, A. (2015). Inclusive education in India: past, present and future. Support for Learning, 30(1), 55-68. Selvaraj, J. A. (2016). Inclusive education in New Zealand: rhetoric and reality. History of Education Review, 45(1), 54-68. Song, J. (2016). INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN JAPAN AND KOREA–JAPANESE AND KOREAN TEACHERS’SELF‐EFFICACY AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 643-648. Tiwari, A., Das, A., & Sharma, M. (2015). Inclusive education a “rhetoric” or “reality”? Teachers’ perspectives and beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 128-136. Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing special and general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 440-455. Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356. Walton, E., & Rusznyak, L. (2016). Approaches to assessing preservice teachers’ learning in authentic and rigorous ways: the case of an inclusive education module. Perspectives in Education, 34(1), 84-101.