1 Journal of ICSAR ISSN (print): 2548-8619; ISSN (online): 2548-8600 Volume 3 Number 2 July 2019: 1-8 The Level of Support For Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary School in Banjarmasin Amka, Dewi Ekasari Kusumastuti Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin, Indonesia Email: amka.plb@ulm.ac.id Abstract: The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the level of support for successful learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin. It reviewed three aspects of success support, namely: institutional aspects, teacher aspects, and aspects of facilities and infrastructure. These three aspects are very essential to support the success of inclusion learning that researchers believe makes a strong contribution. The approach in this study was a quantitative approach with survey research. The data sources in this study were 10 inclusive primary school principals in the city of Banjarmasin and secondary data sources were documentation, photos, records of results of activities and letters. Data collection techniques in this study were observation and documentation. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis. This research was conducted by selecting 10 samples of Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin City. The results indicate that the level of support for successful learning in Banjarmasin Inclusive Primary School in terms of teacher aspects is 44%, 46% for institutional aspects, and 10% for facilities and infrastructure aspects. This means that the level of support for teacher aspects and institutional aspects is included in the category of moderate support, while the level of support for infrastructure and facilities is included in the category of very low. Keywords: The Level of Support, Learning Success, Inclusive. INTRODUCTION The European Commission and the United Nations declare that Inclusion is about the distribution of social justice and equal opportunities in education, as a prerequisite for the development of a fair society (European Commission, 2010; United Nations, 2006). This statement was reinforced by Permendiknas No. 70 of 2009 which describes the definition of inclusive education, namely the system of providing education that provides opportunities for all students who have abnormalities and have the potential of intelligence and / or special talents to participate in education or learning in an educational environment together with students in general. Inclusive education is not just for students residing in urban areas. Benefits of inclusive education for students with severe disabilities and their nondisabled peers have been well-documented (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007; Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Foreman et al., 2004; Peck et al., 2004) and therefore, the area of the country in which a student receives services should not hinder access to these benefits. In order to realize inclusive education, it is important to know that inclusive education has a very broad scope. Yusuf et al (2017) stated that Inclusive education covers a very wide range of aspects, including school culture. Therefore, inclusive education management is an education system that involves all aspects of school management (curriculum, learning, assessment, student, personnel, infrastructure, community participation and finance), and school management functions (planning, organizing, actuiting, & controlling) (Yusuf et al., 2017). Regarding the scope of a very broad aspect in inclusive education, there are a number of things that have not been implemented optimally in accordance with the statement of (Yusuf et al., 2017). that many of the factors behind inclusive education have not been implemented optimally. (1) inclusive education as a new paradigm, still bringing pros and cons to society (Sunardi, 1997); (2) inclusive education is seen as adding new burdens to principals and teachers (Sunaryo, 2009) , (3) the absence of clear compensation for schools that provide inclusive and non-existent education (Sunaryo, 2009); and (4) unavailability of management guidance and measurable guidance to determine the success and non-success of inclusive education (Yusuf, 2012). In connection with the statement above Grant and Jones-Goods (2016), explained the condition of inclusive education in Cyprus (in the south of Turkey) that the main shortcomings regarding the implementation of inclusive education in Cyprus, according to the interviewees and in consistence with other research findings (Grant and Jones-Goods, 2016; 2 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 2, July 2019: 1-8 Hodkinson, 2012), include inadequate teacher training, a non-existent curriculum, deficient infrastructure, lack of equipment and supporting material and the peers’s attitude. Based on the above explanation about the problem or can be said to be an inhibiting factor in the implementation of education, Since teachers’attitude and practices then seems to constitute key factors for exclusion, it seems important to design inspiring teacher training programmes that focus on combating segregating ideologies, labelling and marginalising stereotypes, particularly regarding children with cognitive disabilities. In this way, teachers may become able to see the person, not the disability and appreciate diversity. At a second phase, inspired teachers may be trained regarding inclusive teaching practices, such as differentiation and universal design for learning. Finally, teachers may be encouraged to become self – reflective and critical practitioners that recognise and combat by themselves the exclusive features of their attitudes and practices. In this way, the inclusive future for disabled children may be eventually built (Armstrong et al., 2016; Plows et al., 2017). It seems then the teacher’s attitudes and practices may play a twofold role regarding inclusion. Thus inclusive teaching practices, i.e. the ones that correspond to disabled student’s need, promote quality learning and facilities participation and personal improvement. In contrast, practices that do not accommodate diversity create disabling settings, i.e.situations of discrimination and marginalisation that promote underachievement and inferiority (Hodkinson, 2012; Shevlin, Winter, & Flynn 2013). In addition to the aspects of the teacher, the aspects of facilities and infrastructure had a very large impact on the successful implementation of inclusive education in accordance with Pivik’s statement that The schools pre-sented specific needs as regards infrastructures, which required adaptation to remove architectural barriers that colud hinder access to learning and aducational activities for student with motor disability (Pivik, 2010). There is one other aspect that is also very important and often creates problems in the process of implementing inclusive education, Valeo (2008) stated that the study of support systems in the implementation of inclusive education conducted, among others found that there are differences in perceptions between teachers and administrators in the implementation of inclusive education. Master is frustrated by the demands of the curriculum and time constraints. Cooperation between classroom teachers and special mentors is also not optimal. Based on this, it can be seen that the coverage aspect of inclusive education is very broad so that in its implementation it must pay attention to these aspects. Problems that often arise in the process of implementing inclusive education in the field are many related to teachers, facilities and infrastructure, and school institutions. Therefore, researchers are interested in conducting further research on these three aspects to get an idea of the level of support for successful learning in Banjarmasin Inclusion Primary School. METHOD This study was conducted in 10 Banjarmasin City Inclusive Schools, including: SD Antasan Besar 7, SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin, SDN Benua Anyar 8, SDN Benua Anyar 4, SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4, SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1, SDN Kuin Selatan 3, SDN Kelayan Timur 5, SDN Pasar Lama 6 dan SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin. The reason for choosing a research location in the city of Banjarmasin was due to the Decision of the Development Team of the inclusive education Working Group of the South Kalimantan Education Office, which determined the city of Banjarmasin as a pilot city for inclusive education. The approach used in this study is a quantitative approach to the type of survey research. Alsa (2004) suggests that quantitative research is research that works with numbers, whose data is a number (score or value, rank, or frequency), which is analyzed using statistics to answer specific research questions or hypotheses, and to make predictions that certain variables affect other variables. In connection with this, the selection of this quantitative approach is considered to be in accordance with the problems to be investigated because it is not too concerned with the depth of data or analysis. Researchers are more concerned with aspects of the breadth of data so that data or research results are considered to be a representation of the entire population. In addition, this study quantitatively describes the level of support for successful learning in Banjarmasin Inclusion Primary School by examining 10 samples of primary schools providing inclusive education in the city. The source of the data in this study is 10 school principals in the Banjarmasin City Inclusive Primary School and secondary data sources, namely documentation, photos, questionnaires, notes on the results of activities and letters. Data collection techniques in this study were interviews, observations, and questionnaires, and documentation. In this study, data analysis was carried out by descriptive statistical analysis techniques. The process of data analysis occurs simultaneously or alternately which means that in the process of data analysis starting from data collection to data analysis itself. In conducting an analysis of the data collected to reach a conclusion, the researcher performed both processing and analyzing calculations manually from formula calculations and assistance from the IBM SPSS Statistics 2.0 software program (Statistical Product and Service Solution). 3Amka, Dewi Ekasari K, The Level of Support for Successful Learning . . . . Table 1. The Analysis Results of Teacher Readiness Contribution to Successful Learning Support in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Number School name Score of acquisition Maximum scorel Percentage Readiness Category 1 SDN Antasan Besar 7 21 24 88% Very good 2 SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin 20 24 83% Very good 3 SDN Benua Anyar 4 18 24 75% Good 4 SDN Benua Anyar 8 17 24 71% Good 5 SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin 15 24 63% Good 6 SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4 13 24 54% Moderate 7 SDN Pasar Lama 6 13 24 54% Moderate 8 SDN Kelayan Timur 5 12 24 50% Moderate 9 SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 11 24 46% Moderate 10 SDN Kuin Selatan 3 11 24 46% Moderate FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings This study aims to provide an overview about the level of support for successful learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin. The results showed that the level of support for successful learning in Inclusive Primary School in Banjarmasin was viewed from teacher aspects, institutional aspects, and infrastructure aspects as follows: The Analysis Results of Teacher Readiness Contribution to Successful Learning Support in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Support for successful learning in inclusive primary schools in Banjarmasin can be seen from the contribution of teachers readiness and related parties in the school in preparing and implementing an service system of inclusive education, such as: (a) the number of special education teacher (GPK) in schools is proportional to the number of special needs children that must be served, (b) The available special education teacher has education qualification as Bachelor Degree or Diploma IV, (c) The available special education teacher has competencies as expected, (d) Regular teachers have additional experience and competencies in the education sector of special needs children, (e) Regular teachers have a positive attitude towards inclusive education demonstrated by a real effort to be able to handle special needs children according to their needs, (f) Regular teachers hold regular meetings with GPK to get the best service for special needs children, (g) Existing special education teacher shows positive performance in accordance with school expectations, (h) The opportunity to gain increased competence in inclusive education for regular teachers is very wide open, (i) Schools provide psychologists to help organize inclusive education, (j) The school provides therapist staff according to the needs of the special needs children (k) Schools provide health workers to serve all students. The results of the analysis in the eleven points above are described in table 1. The data in table 1, illustrates that there are two schools that get teacher readiness contribution in very good categories, including: SDN Antasan Besar 7 and SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin, three schools that received teacher readiness contributions in good categories included: SDN Benua Anyar 4, SDN Benua Anyar 8 and SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin dan five schools that received teacher readiness contributions in moderate categories included: SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4, SDN Pasar Lama 6, SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1, SDN Kelayan Timur 5 and SDN Kuin Selatan 3. The Analysis Results of Readiness Contributions in Institutional Matters to the Level of Support for Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Support for successful learning in inclusive elementary schools in Banjarmasin can be seen from readiness contribution in institutions matters to implement the service system of inclusive education, such as: (a) Schools legality as inclusive education providers, (b) The school assigns one teacher as the inclusion program coordinator, (c) The formulation of Vision, Mission and School Objectives illustrates the strong desire to implement the values of inclusive education, (d) The school has a written work program to implement inclusive education, (e) The inclusive work program is contained in the School Work Plan, (f) The school coordinates and delegates tasks to the Teacher in the implementation of inclusive education programs, 4 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 2, July 2019: 1-8 Tabel 2. The Analysis Results of Readiness Contributions in Institutional Matters to the Level of Support for Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Number School name Score of acquisition Maximum scorel Percentage Readiness Category 1 SDN Antasan Besar 7 32 35 91% Very good 2 SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin 30 35 86% Very good 3 SDN Benua Anyar 4 27 35 77% Good 4 SDN Pasar Lama 6 24 35 68% Good 5 SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin 24 35 68% Good 6 SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 23 35 66% Good 7 SDN Benua Anyar 8 20 35 57% Moderate 8 SDN Kelayan Timur 5 20 35 57% Moderate 9 SDN Kuin Selatan 3 17 35 49% Moderate 10 SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4 15 35 43% Moderate (g) The school conducts control, monitoring and supervision of the implementation of the inclusion education program, (h) The school provides learning facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the types of needs of special needs children for the smooth running of teaching and learning activities of students with special needs, (i) Schools complete facilities and infrastructure for mobility and accessibility for the convenience of special needs children in attending education, (j) The school provides guidance to teachers to improve competence in carrying out inclusive education programs, (k) The school provides Special Education Teachers according to their needs, (l) Schools collaborate with parties outside the school in order to better implement inclusive schools, (m) Schools explore funding sources to support the implementation of inclusion programs, (n) Schools specifically provide regular budgets to finance the operations of inclusive schools, (o) The school evaluates the process and results of implementing an inclusive education program, (p) The school makes an annual written report on the implementation of the inclusion program, (q) The school submits an annual written report as an inclusive school to the District / City Education Office. The analysis result on the seventeenth points above are described in table 2. The data in table 2, illustrates that there are two schools that have readiness contribution in institutional matters in very good categories, including: SDN Antasan Besar 7 and SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin, four schools that received readiness contributions in institutional matters in good categories, including: SDN Benua Anyar 4, SDN Pasar Lama 6, SDN Pekauman 3, and SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 and four schools that received readiness contributions in institutional matters in moderate categories, including: SDN Benua Anyar 8, SDN Kelayan Timur 5, SDN Kuin Selatan 3, and SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4. The Analysis Results of Readiness Contributions in Facilities and infrastructure Matters to the Level of Support for Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Support for successful learning in inclusive primary schools in Banjarmasin can be seen from the readiness contribution in facilities and infrastructure matters to implement the service system of inclusive education, such as: (a) The school has a source room (special class) that is equipped with equipment, media and adequate learning resources, (b) The school building has been equipped with special facilities that are accessible to special needs children, (c) Schools have facilities to support special needs children mobility according to the type of disorder, (d) Schools provide accessible bathrooms or toilets for wheelchair users, (e) The school has adequate learning aids according to the needs of special needs children, (f) The school provides wheelchairs, (g) The school provides white sticks for the blind, (h) The school provides Braille writing tools. The analysis results of the nine points above are described in table 3. The data in table 3, illustrates that there are two schools that receive readiness contributions in facilities and infrastructure matters in moderate categories, including: SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin and SDN Benua Anyar 4, two schools that received readiness contributions in facilities and infrastructure matters in less categories, including: SDN Antasan Besar 7 and SDN Kuin Selatan 3 and six schools have received readiness contributions in facilities and infrastructure matters in very less categories, including: SDN Benua Anyar 8, SDN Pasar Lama 6, SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4, SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1, SDN Kelayan Timur 5, and SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin. The criteria for assessing the readiness category of the three aspects and categories of support for successful learning in Banjarmasin Inclusive Primary School show in table 4. 5Amka, Dewi Ekasari K, The Level of Support for Successful Learning . . . . Tabel 3. The Analysis Results of Readiness Contributions in Facilities and infrastructure Matters to the Level of Support for Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Based on Questionnaire Results Number School name Score of acquisition Maximum scorel Percentage Readiness Category 1 SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin 8 16 50% Moderate 2 SDN Benua Anyar 4 8 16 50% Moderate 3 SDN Antasan Besar 7 6 16 38% Less 4 SDN Kuin Selatan 3 5 16 31% Less 5 SDN Benua Anyar 8 3 16 19% Very Less 6 SDN Pasar Lama 6 1 16 0,6% Very Less 7 SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4 0 16 0% Very Less 8 SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 0 16 0% Very Less 9 SDN Kelayan Timur 5 0 16 0% Very Less 10 SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin 0 16 0% Very Less Table 4. Assessment Criteria of Readiness Categories on Third Aspects and Categories of Support for Successful Learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin Criteria Level of Achievement Very less 0% - 20% Less 21% - 40% Moderate 41% - 60% Good 61% - 80% Very Good 81% - 100% Tabel 5. Comparison Between Levels of Support for Teacher Aspects, Institutional Aspects, and Facilities and Infrastructure Aspects in Each Inclusive School in Banjarmasin School name Level of support in teacher aspects Level of support in institutional aspect Level of support in facilities and infrastructure SDN Antasan Besar 7 41% 42% 17% SDN Al Firdaus Banjarmasin 38% 39% 23% SDN Benua Anyar 4 37% 38% 25% SDN Benua Anyar 8 48% 39% 13% SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin 48% 52% 0% SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4 56% 44% 0% SDN Pasar Lama 6 44% 56% 1% SDN Kelayan Timur 5 47% 53% 0% SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 41% 59% 0% SDN Kuin Selatan 3 36% 39% 25% Total Persentase 436% 461% 104% Based on the table 4, results of the above research, the comparison between the support level of teacher aspects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects in each school can be calculated by the calculation formula as follows: The Support Level of Aspect A in School X = (Persentage of Aspect A in School X) / (Persentage of Aspect A + Persentage of Aspect B + Persentage of Aspek C in School X) The calculation results are explained in the table 5. In the table 5, it has been explained about the comparison between the support level of teacher aspects, institutional aspects, and facilities and infrastructure aspects in each inclusive school in Banjarmasin quantitatively so that it is known as follows: 6 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 2, July 2019: 1-8 Figure 1. Comparison Between Levels of Support for Teacher Aspects, Institutional Aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects (1) SDN Antasan Besar 7 obtained a moderate level of support for the teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while the support level of facilities and infrastructure aspects is in very less categories, (2) SDN Al Firdaus obtained a level of support for less categories on teacher apects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects, (3) SDN Benua Anyar 4 obtained a level of support in the category of less on the teacher aspects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects, (4) SDN Benua Anyar 8 has a moderate level of support for the teacher aspect, the level of support for the less category on the institutional aspects, and the level of support for the category is very less in facilities and infrastructure aspecs, (5) SDN Pekauman 3 Banjarmasin obtained the support level of the moderate category on teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while facilities and infrastructure aspects obtained a very less level of support for the category, (6) SDN Antasan Kecil Timur 4 obtained the support level of the moderate category on the teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while facilities and infrastructure aspects received a very less level of support for the category, (7) SDN Pasar Lama 6 obtained the support level of the moderate category on the teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while facilities and infrastructure aspects gained a very less level of support for the category, (8) SDN Kelayan Timur 5 obtained the support level of the moderate category on teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while in facilities and infrastructure aspects the level of support for the category was very less, (9) SDN Kuin Cerucuk 1 obtained the support level of the moderate category on teacher aspects and institutional aspects, while in facilities and infrastructure aspects the level of support for the category was very less, (10) SDN Kuin Selatan 3 obtained a level of support in the category of less on the teacher aspects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects. Regarding the table above it is also known about the total percentage in each aspect. The percentage data is processed quantitatively to illustrate the comparison between the level of support of the teacher aspects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects as a whole. The calculation formula is as follows: Level of Support for Overall Aspects A = (Total Percentage of Aspect A) / (Total Percentage Aspect A + Total Percentage of Aspect B + Total Percentage of Aspect C). The calculation results of the comparison between the level of support of the teacher aspects, institutional aspects and facilities and infrastructure aspects as a whole are described in the figure 1. Based on the figure 1, it is known that the level of support for teacher aspects is 44%, institutional aspects 46%, and facilities and infrastructure aspects 10%. This means that the level of support for teacher aspects and institutional aspects is included in the category of moderate support, while the level of support for aspects of infrastructure and facilities is included in the category of very less support. Regarding the results of this study, that the effectiveness of supporting the implementation of inclusive education is determined by the readiness of the school concerned. The ability of the school to establish cooperation with other parties is one of the most decisive factors. Some of the factors that determine include: (1) have a network of cooperation with other relevant institutions, (2) provide special education teachers (GPK) set by the school, or teachers who are seconded from other institutions, for example from extraordinary school (SLB), (3) provide supporting facilities that are easily accessible to all children, (4) The school socializes inclusive education to all parties involved. Facilitators were suggested to be identified. It is in order to improve accessibility and promote full participation. The facilitators focused on three areas: (a) environmental modifications, (b) social/policy changes, and (c) institutional resources (Pivik et al., 2002) Furthermore, continued that the pattern of resource support in education units providing inclusive education is almost no different from the pattern of resource support in other education units. In general, the pattern of support for the implementation of inclusive education is grouped into two. School internal support and external school support. Internal school support is the support provided by all citizens inside the school, including principals, teachers, and other school residents (Garnida, 2009). In connection with the discussion above, the most important support from the principal is the leadership of the school. The character and leadership style of school leaders greatly determine the success of the school. The principal is a very important education leader because the principal is directly related to the implementation of the education program in the school. Other internal support comes from the teacher. Competent and 7Amka, Dewi Ekasari K, The Level of Support for Successful Learning . . . . professional teachers can manage learning in inclusive classes. The next is support from the culture and school climate. The perceptions and social habits of all school members are one of the factors that influence the school climate in question (Garnida, 2009). Meanwhile, external school support includes support from the government, the community, and the existing schooling system. Government support is represented through relevant agencies, including the directorate of SLB Development, PPPPTK TK and PLB (Special Education), and the district / city education office. The community consists of parents, school committees, professional institutions such as therapists, doctors, and / or psychologists. Other community groups that are expected to help are non-governmental organizations (NGO). Support from the school system includes policies related to the implementation of inclusive education, curriculum availability (Garnida, 2009). The implication is that a methodology for developing inclusive practices must take account of such social processes of learning that go on within particular contexts. It requires a group of stakeholders within a particular context to look for a common agenda to guide their discussions of practice and, at much the same time, a series of struggles to establish ways of working that enable them to collect and find meaning in different types of information (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010). CONCLUSION The level of support for successful learning in Inclusive Primary Schools in Banjarmasin in terms of teacher aspects is 44%, institutional aspects 46%, and facilities and infrastructure aspects 10%. This means that the level of support for teacher aspects and institutional aspects is included in the category of moderate support, while the level of support for aspects of infrastructure and facilities is included in the category of very less support. In connection with that, the level of support for aspects of infrastructure needs to get the focus of special attention from the government and related parties because it gets the lowest percentage and the difference is very far from the other two aspects. While for the teacher and institutional aspects, the percentage score is almost the same so that it is included in the category of moderate support, this means that support for these two aspects already exists, but it is not optimal so that cooperation from various parties is needed to optimize it for regular schools that are preparing for inclusion as well as schools providing inclusion education. This research is an initial research focused on the level of learning support Inclusive Primary School. Furthermore, more comprehensive research is needed including an evaluation of learning support. REFERENCES Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401– 416. doi:10.1080/13603110802504903 Alsa, A. (2004). Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif serta Kombinasinya dalam Penelitian Psikologi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D., & Barton, L. (2016). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. Routledge. Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174-185. Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: What makes it a good education for students with moderate to severe disabilities?. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16-30. European Commission. (2010). European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe. Brussels: European Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(3), 165-174. Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., & King, B. S. (2004). Evaluating the educational experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 183-193. Garnida, D. (2009). Sistem Dukungan (Supporting System) Dalam Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Inklusi. Bandung: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Taman Kanak- Kanak dan Pendidikan Luar Biasa Grant, M. C., & Jones-Goods, K. M. (2016). Identifying and Correcting Barriers to Successful Inclusive Practices: A Literature Review. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 64-71. Hodkinson, A. (2012). All present and Correct: Exclusionary Inclusion Within the English Educational System. Disability and Society, 27(5), 675-688. 8 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 3, Number 2, July 2019: 1-8 Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143. Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and Facilitators to Inclusive Education. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97– 107. doi:10.1177/001440290206900107 Pivik, J. R. (2010). The Perspective of Children and Youth : How Different Stakeholders Identify Architectural Barriers for Inclusion in Schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 510- 517. Plows., Vicky., & Whitburn, B. (2017). Inclusive Education: Making sense of Everyday Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher Shevlin, M., Winter, E., & Flynn, P. (2013). Developing inclusive practice: Teacher perceptions of opportunities and constraints in the Republic of Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(10), 1119-1133. Sunardi. (1997). Kecenderungan Dalam Pendidikan Luar Biasa. Jakarta: Ditjen Dikti Depdiknas. Sunaryo. (2009). Manajemen Pendidikan Inklusif (Konsep, Kebijakan, dan Implementasinya dalam Perspektif Pendidikan Luar Biasa). Bandung : Jurusan PLB FIP UPI Bandung. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities-/convention/ conventionfull.shtml. Valeo, A. (2008). Inclusive Education Support Systems: Teacher and Administrator Views. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 8-16. Yusuf, M. (2012). Kinerja Kepala Sekolah dan Guru dalam Mengimplementasikan Pendidikan Inklusif. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 18(4), 382- 393.. Yusuf, M., Sasmoko, S., & Indrianti, Y. Inclusive Education Management Model to Improve Principal and Teacher Performance in Primary Schools. In Proceeding of International Conference on Art, Language, and Culture (pp. 226-237).