ABSTRACT:
Malaysia's move toward inclusion was given impetus by its participation in workshops and conferences set up under the auspices of the United Nations. Inclusive education is introduced in the new Education Act (1998) as part of the continuum of services available for children with special needs. However, the eligibility for special education placement is based on the 'educability' of children as assessed by a team of professionals. It is the perspectives of professionals that have the most power in determining the way students are categorised and inclusion conceived. It is clear that the context of a national policy on special needs education is based on the principle "that integrate and include children with special needs where possible, and retain the right to segregate where necessary". This presentation will discuss the interpretation of policy pertaining to inclusion, its contradictions and its translation into practice within the Malaysian context. Policy makers' and teachers' perceptions of 'educability' is crucial in the understanding on 'inclusion versus exclusion' issues that will lead to changing roles and practices that will promote more inclusive environments.
OBJECTIVES OF PRESENTATION
1. To discuss the interpretation of policy pertaining to inclusion, its contradictions and its translation into practice;
2. To share experiences on how the national context explain and constrain inclusive practices.
DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY
Reforms through the new Education Act 1996, which provide that special needs children, be taught in inclusive settings. The terms 'special needs' and 'inclusive education' are defined in the Act as:
"Students with visual impairment or hearing impairment or with learning disabilities"
and inclusive education is introduced as part of the continuum of services available for children with special needs:
"Special education programme" means -
(a) A programme which is provided in special schools for students with visual impairment or hearing impairment;
(b) An integrated programme in general schools for students with visual impairment or hearing impairment or with learning disabilities; and
(c) An inclusive education programme for students with special needs and
who are able to attend normal classes together with normal students.
(Education Act 1996, page 341)
The eligibility for special education placement is based on the 'educability' of children as assessed by a team of professionals. This is documented in the Education Act 1996, which states:
" A pupil with special needs is educable if he is able to manage himself without help and is confirmed by a panel consisting of a medical practitioner, an officer from the Ministry of Education and an officer from the Department of Welfare, as capable of undergoing the national educational programme". (page 342)
The Malaysian perspective on inclusion arises from decisions that emphasise learning difficulties as technical problems rather than awareness and acceptance of human characteristics. Policymakers continue to see special schools and categories as having an important place in provision.
It is the perspectives of professionals that have the most power in determining the way students are categorised and inclusion conceived; the principle that integrates and include children where possible, and segregates where necessary (Booth & Ainscow, 1998).
Organisational responses revealed an emphasis on diversity as problematic. Segregation is seen as providing the right to be educated.
A Malaysian experience (Jelas, 2000)
Change initiatives at the school level are dependent on the readiness of school heads to restructure and to manage confusion with which teachers meet the challenge of changing their conventional roles. Mainstream teachers in inclusive programs, despite not having much training, are given the autonomy to interpret events and circumstances on their own.
The dominant perspective on inclusion revealed a 'normalisation' approach in which pupils selected for inclusion are expected to meet the needs and demands of the normal classroom - an assimilationist model.
Role boundaries between mainstream teachers and special education teachers as support are formal and discrete. Mainstream teachers view the role of specialists as 'underestimating' their competence and authority and this is neither welcomed nor considered. Collaborative teaming cannot be expected from both groups of teachers.
Mainstream teachers described positive experiences in inclusion; they emphasised the development of friendships and social skills among disabled and non-disabled peers.
Parents placed a higher value on the development of social skills and were willing to trade of 'special education' benefits such as, specialised curriculum and individualised instruction.
Conclusion
Efforts toward inclusion reflect emerging support despite constrains. Policy reforms need greater clarity of the concept. Organisational and professional development issues must be acknowledged prior to inclusion. A whole school approach and commitment to policy initiatives are crucial to create an environment that promotes inclusion.
References
EDUCATION ACT 1996 (ACT 550) & SELECTED REGULATIONS, (1998) (Kuala Lumpur, International Law Book Services).
BOOTH, T. & AINSCOW, M., (1998) From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education (London, Routledge).
ZALIZAN M. JELAS, 2000. Perceptions of inclusive practices : The Malaysian perspectives. Educational Review, 52 (2) 187-196.
 |
 |