‘Unconscious’ inclusion of students with learning disabilities in a Malaysian mainstream primary school: teachers' perspectives

Abstract

The inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream regular schools has been seen as the best practice in special education provision, most markedly since the 90s. International research has provided amassing evidence towards the advantages of inclusive model over a segregation model of special education provision. However, nearly two decades after the signing of the international pledge, namely the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO) towards accepting inclusive education, Malaysia has not yet fully gained the momentum to implement inclusive education for children with special needs, especially for children identified within the category of learning disabilities. Because of the delay in policy implementation, inclusive education remains sparingly practiced in some schools without formal support. This study aims to investigate a scenario of this practice in a mainstream primary school via interviewing the regular teachers. The ultimate aim of this investigation is to identify ways to move forward from the current practice of 'unconscious inclusion'.

The evolution of special education in Malaysia

“…They identified three challenging areas in the implementation of inclusive education in developing countries, namely, (1) inadequate facilities and personnel training programmes, (2) lack of funding structure and (3) absence of enabling legislation. Today, these challenges are still the major obstacles being faced in many developing nations, including Malaysia (Lee & Low, ). As a result, many low‐income and developing countries have taken the more pragmatic ‘twin‐track’ approach to service delivery (Bines & Lei, ; Croft, ).…”

“…Students with learning difficulties are not welcomed into the mainstream as readily as students with visual impairment, because of poor attainment. As was highlighted in a study on ‘unconscious inclusion’ (Lee & Low, ), teachers' efforts to include students with special needs are not recognised; instead, teachers have had to answer for the poor examination results obtained by their students with special educational needs. Rather than rewarding schools on the basis of excellence in examinations, as is currently the case, an alternative reward system could be set up by the Government, to reward schools for their efforts to include children with special needs (Asia Community Service, ).…”

“…However, gaps still remain in the actualisation of policy and the execution of outcome measures. At the practitioner level, studies have been conducted and many have argued for change (Adnan & Hafiz, ; Asia Community Service, ; Lee & Low, ; Mohd Ali et al., ; Mohd Yasin et al., ; Hussin, Quek & Loh, ; Jelas, ). Studies conducted by practitioners have shown that teachers welcome positive changes to special education and would welcome improved training and support frameworks to drive actual practice.…”

“…Forty‐four papers were traced using ‘Special education AND Malaysia’ as the keywords, but only six papers related to special needs education (Adnan & Hafiz, ; Toran, Mohd Yasin, Tahar & Salleh, ; Lee, ; Mohd Tahir, Mustafa & Mohd Yassin, ; Mohd Ali, Mustapha & Jelas, ; Mohd Yasin, Ramli, Rahman, Kasbin & Zahari, ). Searches using the keywords ‘inclusive education/inclusion AND Malaysia’ gleaned additional papers written by Jelas (, ), Jelas and Mohd Ali () and Lee and Low ().…”

L’agir ensemble en contexte d’école inclusive : qu’en dit la littérature scientifique récente ? 1

“…L'intérêt de considérer la culture dans le développement de l'école inclusive ressort également au niveau microsocial de l'école. McMaster (2013), dans sa recension sur les Bélanger, J., Frangieh, B., Graziani, E., Mérini, C. et Thomazet, S. La relation avec les parents est entre autres évoquée comme de « l'agir ensemble », en particulier pour l'identification des besoins, la recherche de solutions (Day et Prunty, 2015 ;Davis et Deponio, 2014 ;Lee et Low, 2013 ;Srivastava et coll., 2015), la planification de l'action et, plus rarement, la contribution à l'intervention (Montgomery et Mirenda, 2014). Quant à eux, Lauchlan et Greig (2015) réfèrent à l'implication des parents dans la décision de participation de leur enfant à des enseignements réguliers comme élément d'action conjointe.…”