CONTEXT, INPUT, PROCESS AND PRODUCT EVALUATION OF
THE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM IN PUBLIC
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Bambang Suteng Sulasmono1, Tri Sulistyowati2 1Satyawacana Christian University, Salatiga Indonesia
sulasmonobambang@yahoo.com 2SD N Pateken, Wonoboyo, Temanggung
sragentinawati@gmail.com
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the context, the input, the process, and the product of inclusive education program in Elementary Public School 1, Mangunsari, Temanggung, Central Java. This research is descriptive evaluative. The program evaluation model used was: Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model. Data were collected through interviews, observation and documentation studies. The sources of the data include: headmaster, classroom teacher, subject teacher, and parents of students. The analysis technique used is a qualitative analysis data. The evaluation results in this study show that: (1) the inclusive education program was needed by the stakeholders of the Public Elementary School 1, Mangunsari because they realized the importance of education for children with special needs; (2) the inclusive education program in Public Elementary School 1, Mangunsari was well planned. Human resources and facilities support in schools are sufficient and relatively adequate for the implementation of the program programmed; (3) the process of implementation of the inclusive education program in Public Elementary School 1, Mangunsari was relatively good, but still need improvements; (4) . the products evaluation of the inclusive education program in Public Elementary School 1, Mangunsari show that: a) the objectives of six programs was attained properly, and b) the objectives of two program was not achieved. The recommendation proposed is that The District Education Office should facilitate the appointment of Special Guidance Teacher.
Keywords: Program Evaluation, CIPP, Inclusive Education Program, Elementary Public School
In response to The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education which stipulates the obligation for schools to accommodate all children, including children who have physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other disabilities. Government of Indonesia ensures the rights of children with disabilities to learn in inclusive education by Law No. 20 of 2003on“National Education System”,Article 5,paragraph 1 to 4. Subsequently, the Regulation of the Minister of National Education of Indonesia Number 70 of 2009 Article 1states that the inclusive education program is an education system that provides opportunities for all learners with disabilities, yet with full of potential intelligence and/or special talent, to participate in learning in an educational
environment together with other learners in general.
The main goal of inclusive education is to educate children with physical, mental, and social disabilities in regular classes together with non-disabled students but with additional support that they need. Previously, children with special needs mainly receive education from a special school, segregated from regular schools. However, it is important for school nowadays to make every effort to provide inclusion of children with disabilities. (Friend, 2006). Ideally, all schools in Indonesia from elementary to high school level accept children with special needs in regular schools but with special treatment. These students could follow regular classes, but on the other hand they also have to follow special programs according to their needs and capacity. The curriculum used is the regular curriculum, but with implementation tailored to the students’
In Temanggung, implementation of inclusive education program has been carried out since 2010. One of the inclusive schools in Temanggung is Mangunsari 1 Elementary Public School, Ngadiredjo, Temanggung, which was designated as an inclusive school in Temanggung by the Decree of the Head of the Department of Education Temanggung No: 120 /Kh8 /2015 on 24 February 2015. The number of pupils in this school is 126 students in 2014/2015 academic year, but there is at least one child with special educational needs in five class. According to the school’spsychological test report, almost all the special need students in this school have a level of intelligence (IQ) below average. There are 5 (five) slow learner students, one tuna laras
student and one ADHD student.
Based on the preliminary observations, there are fundamental issues in the implementation of inclusive education in SD Mangunsari 1. The first issue is that SD Mangunsari 1 has never held a thorough evaluation of the inclusive education programs they have run for five years. Evaluation of the current run is still focused on the results of teaching and student learning activities, but not exhaustive on the context, input, process and product of the program. There are various underlying reasons for not having run a thorough evaluation of inclusive education programs, one of which is the unavailability of time and instrument evaluation to see the development of the school. The second issue lies on the discrepancy of the school’s capability to maximize its resources to achieve the predetermined goal of inclusive education. The main doubt is on the management of the inclusive program school itself--not so much on the ability of the learners.
An evaluation was conducted to evaluate the context, input, proses, and product of inclusive education in SDN Mangunsari 1. Researcher applied the evaluation model developed by Stufflebeam called the CIPP Model. First,the context evaluation of the program. Evaluation at this stage is conducted to answer the questions is the inclusive education program needed by SD Mangunsari 1 stakeholders? . Second, the input evaluation. Evaluation at this stage is conducted to determine whether the program is compatible with the needs, and wether human resources and facilities support in schools are sufficient and relatively adequate for the implementation of the program programmed. Third, namely the evaluation of the process of program implementation. Evaluation at this stage is the relationship between the resources, tools and equipment to process
activities. Fourth, the product phase is evaluation of the result of the program. Evaluation at this stage is conducted to determine whether the product that was planned to be achieved is really achieved.
This study is an evaluative research. The model of evaluation used is Context, Input, Process and Product Program Evaluation Model. The program to be evaluated is the inclusive education program in SD Mangunsari 1, Temanggung. The source of data used in this study was obtained from the internal data of SD Mangunsari 1, the school where the study was conducted. There are two kinds of data: primary and secondary data. The primary data in this research is directly obtained by interviewing principal, teachers, parents, and the students themselves regarding the purpose of inclusive education, the planning and implementation of learning in education programs in school. Meanwhile, the secondary data includes Reports on Psychological Tests in the elementary school, a written report by the school’s principal regarding inclusive education program in SD N Mangunsari 1, as well as the school's own records on the number of admissions, the schoolteacher's status, and the school achievements. Data collection techniques used to evaluate the inclusive education program in SD N Mangunsari 1 are document analysis, interviews, and observations.
Context evaluation of the program
The context of inclusive educational program in SDN Mangunsari 1 was that it is a national inclusive educational program stipulated in Indonesian Minister of Education’s Regulation No. 70, 2009 about Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities and Special Intelligence and Aptitude. Paragraph 4 article (1) of this regulation stated that“District government assigns at least one primary school and one middle school in each subdistrict and one high school institution to conduct inclusive education which must allow the intended students in Paragraph 3 article (1) to study”
Based on that finding, SDN 1 Mangunsari was assigned by the government to be one of inclusive educational institutions in Ngadirejo, Temanggung district. Despite teachers’ initial insecurities due to their lack of competence and inadequacy of school’s supporting facilities to conduct inclusive education, the program was run anyway. In this case, seen from contextual perspective, national and regional regulation as well as the school’scommitment created a need of conducting inclusive education in SDN Mangunsari 1.
The inclusive education held in SDN Mangunsari 1 is a typical top-down program where schools are trying to translate national regulation into local context. Therefore, the need of this inclusive program was at first an external demand though later is combined with the schools’ internal needs. The fact that there were one students with special needs and 15 students who belong to“dull”category became a stepping stone for the school to see an opportunity to conduct inclusive education and therefore this program became a needed program in the school by the stakeholders.
Input evaluation of the program
In response to the above explained need, there were several inclusive education activities in SDN Mangunsari 1 which are: a) socialization of inclusive education to the society, b) Special Education Teachers nomination, c) improvement of teachers and the headmaster’s competence, d) students’disabilities identification, e) curriculum modification, f) supplying inclusive education facilities, g) inclusive learning, and h) disabled-students’talent/interests development.
The aim of socialization of inclusive education to the parents, both whose kids are normal and disabled, is to gain education primary stakeholders’awareness of what, why and how inclusive education is. This activity is critically strategic because it is the first key of inclusive education success. As what Suyanto and Mudjito (2012) asserted, connecting with families is really important for inclusive education institution because it could promote mutual understanding of students’ detailed information and background. Society has to equally treat students with special needs since equal treatment plays an important role to promote self-independence in children with special needs. It will also support inclusive education plan since those children will contribute to the society at the end of the day.
Special Education Teacher (SET) nomination is also intended to fulfil the standard service of an inclusive education institution for
the sake of the disabled-students. Normatively, SET plays a strategic role in inclusive education. SETs are responsible to (a) design and carry out specialized program, (b) identify, assess and design an individual learning program, (c) modify learning materials, (d) evaluate the program with class teachers, and report the program and the disabled-students improvements (Indriawati, 2013).
The improvement of teachers and headmaster’s competence is planned to be carried out by the third party (Education Department and LPMP) since the beginning of the program. This plan is a determining factor of the following inclusive education success since all teachers were regular educational manager at the first place. Teachers are SETs’ partners in doing inclusive teaching while the headmaster is a manager responsible for the inclusive program.
Students’ disabilities identification is planned to be carry out in the beginning of each academic year in order to accurately identify the students’disabilities. This identification could be used to screen, classify, referral, plan and review the learning process and the students’
improvement. Ideally, this activity should be done by SETs. However, when the school does not have any SET, the school could hire a psychologist or conduct the identification done by the existing teachers in the beginning of an academic year.
Curriculum modification is intended to adjust the regular curriculum to the students with special needs in each class. Based on the students’ disabilities identification, class teachers along with SETs would ideally a) design and implement the specialized program, b) compose individual learning program, c) modify materials according to disabled-students’special needs. In the school under study, this activity was planned to be carried out at the beginning of an academic year involving SETs, all teachers, class teachers, the headmaster and school committee.
Facilities which are planned are for inclusive learning in regular class, supporting media for disabled-students and development of talents or interests of disabled-students. Facility provision is definitely based on the disability identification of each students with special needs studying in the school.
(full inclusion), b) regular class with cluster, c) regular class with pull out, d) regular class with cluster and pull out, e) a special class with integrations, and f) full special class.
Disabled-students’ talent/interests development is intended to provide a specialized program in a form of non-academic activities with an aim to explore the students’ non-academic potentials. All of those above explained activities were fully funded by Central Java Government (Regional Budget Allocation I), both in the form of inclusive education grant or scholarship for students with special needs.
Process evaluation of the program
The process of the activities mentioned above is illustrated below:
a) Socialization of inclusive education
This activity was conducted in 2010 and 2013. The result of the socialization was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between disabled-students’ parents and the school about their children’s education. The MoU states consensus that a) the children of those parents are under the category of children with special needs (based on IQ test results, b) their children need a special treatment, c) those children need special attention both by teachers and their parents at home, d) those children cannot participate in National Examination, obtain a graduation certificate from the government, but only obtain a letter of passing the school from the school.
b) Special Education Teacher (SET) nomination
Until the fifth year of inclusive education implementation in SD Mangunsari 1, there is no SET nomination conducted. The school cooperates with Temanggung Special School instead to occasionally have SET from that institution. This activity is funded by the budget allocation or scholarship for those students with special needs. The unavailabitlity of SET has impacted on how students’
disabilities identification is carried out, curriculum modification, inclusive education model is chosen, and disabled-students’talent/interests development. c) Improvement of teachers and headmasters’
competence
The techers and headmaster of SD Mangunsari 1 have been in turn joining several inclusive education workshops since the school was appointed as one of inclusive
schools.the workshops were conducted in Central Java Vocatioanal Education Training Office, Central Java Education Quality Assurance Institution (LPMP) and SMPN 4 Temanggung. In average, all teachers have at least joined the workshops three times. In addition, the teachers and headmaster also did a comparative study to SD Baledono, Boyolali. All those activities were granted by grant from provincial government.
d) Students’disabilities identification
Students’disabilities identification showed these following progress: Before the school was appointed as an inclusive school, the identification was under the criteria of“students’
disabilities” and/or “students’ achievement towards minimum passing grades” or “not capable students in their classroom”. With these criteria which were too broad, 16 students with special needs were identified in 2010/2011 academic year, 10 students in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 academic year. In the following years, the identification was carried out in a more scientific way by cooperating with Mental Hospital Magelang. Under this method, there were 6 students found to have special needs in 2013/2014 academic year, and 7 students in 2014/2015. With a more accurate identification, the school could design a special treatment for those students in terms of teaching and learning process and its monitoring.
e) Curriculum modification
Curriculum modification is intended to adjust the existing curriculuk (KTSP) with the needs of those special students. The aim is to accommodate disabled-students’needs so that they could have a treatment based on their potentials. The modification is done in terms of learning goal, material, media, process and evaluation. The modification is carried out in the beginning of an academic year. Before undergoing the modification, meetings of curriculum team were held. This activity is funded by Regional Budget Allocation I, and the team consists of headmaster, class teachers, subject teachers, and school committee.
f) Facilities provision
with special needs as well as wheelchairs to support disabled-students activities. In 2013, the facilities supplied were a keyboard and a set of marching band instruments.
g) Inclusive learning
The unavailability of SET makes the school choose pullout model where the disabled-students learn in a regular class with other normal students. Then, when the class dismisses, those disabled students would stay in the class to have a special guidance from their teachers. Occasionaly, the teaching and learning process was also facilitated by teachers from Temanggung Special School.
h) Disabled-students’ talents/interests development
The unavailability of SET also has an impact on Disabled-students’ talents/interests development program. The school chose to be granted a keyboard, sound system and a set of marching band instruments. However, those instruments ended up being useless because the student who has a talent to sing moved to another city. While extracurricular activities for ADHD
students since the student did not want to come to the activity. Teachers have difficulties to coordinate students with special needs who are hyperactive and hard to control.
Table 1.Inclusive Education Product in SDN N Mangunsari 1
No Activity Realization Involved parties Results
1 Socialization 2010 & 2014 Headmaster, teachers and students’parents
5 agreements between the school and parents in 2014
2 Improvement of teachers and headmasters’
competence
2010-2015 Headmaster and teachers
The headmaster and 7 teachers obtained 2-3 certificates of inclusive education management
3 Curriculum modification At the beginning of each academic
year
Headmaster and teachers
Lesson plans of all classes were modified at the beginning of each
academic year
4 Facilities provision 2010 and 2013 Headmaster and teachers
Supply of inclusive education facilities
5 Special Education Teachers nomination
2010 and 2013 Headmaster Has not done yet. SET from Temanggung Special School visited
two times
6 Inclusive teaching All academic year
Class teachers and SET
Regular inclusive learning plus pullout model
7 Students’disabilities identification
2014 Headmaster and a psychologist from Mental Hospital
Magelang
In 2014/2015, 7 students were identified (1 ADHD, 1 double-disabled, and 5 slow learners)
8 Disabled-students’
talents/interests development
- Sport teacher Not done
Product Evaluation of the program
With program implemtation process explained above, the product of inclusive education conducted bt SDN Mangunsari 1 could be summed up in the table below:
From the above elaborated data, it is shown that from the contextual perspective, inclusive education program is needed by the school’s stakeholders. From input perspective, the existing program has fulfilled the school’sneeds according to inclusive education implementation regulation with sufficient human resources, facilities and budgeting. From the process perspective, school’s failure of not nominating any SET has impacted on inclusive education implementation either in students’ disabilities identification, curriculum modification, inclusive education implementation, or special program implementation for students with special needs. From the the product perspective, the goals of six activities (socialization, improvement of teachers and headmasters’
competence, students’disabilities identification, curriculum modification, facilities supply, and inclusive learning) were achieved. While two other programs which are SET nomination and disabled-students’ talents/interests development were not achieved.
The fact that the inclusive education did not run well in the research site due to unavailability of SET is an example of implementation gap. According to Centre for International Private Enterpise & Global Integrity (CIPE-GI, 2012)
“implementation gap is the difference between laws on the books and how they are carried out in practice”. Studies on public policy, including public policy in educational field, has shown that there are always gap between what is stated in the policy and its real practice on the ground. (Rosli & Rossi, 2014; Effiong, 2013; Iqbal Ahmad et.all, 2012; Center for International Private Enterprise and Global Integrity, 2012; .Makinde, 2008; Okorama, 2006; Lam, 2005; Collins, 2005; O’donoghue & Vidovich, 2004; Taylor, 2004; Morris & Scott, 2003; Morris, 2002; Meadmore, 2001). This occurrence cannot be separated from the fact that, in one hand, a public policy is in nature a compromise of several parties behind the policy itself while in other hands this policy is always accepted and understood from different perspectives and agenda, and being carried out or not according to the responsible parties’capacity. Similarly, this occurrence also happens in an inclusive
education implementation policy (Centre for Educational Research and Consulting, 2013; Haryono, et.all, 2015; Prita Indriawati, 2013 Bagaskorowati & Abdurrahman, 2013: Sunardi et.all, 2011).
According to CIPE-GI (2012) the reasons for why the implementation gap happens vary. The ultimate cause for implementation gap is a sum of several common underlying factors in political, economic, and social and cultural spheres. Political factors includes: state bureaucracy, legitimacy of the laws, quality of the laws, and divergent political agendas. Economics factors includes: resources to implementation the laws, barriers to economic activity, and vested interests. Social and cultural factors includes: influence of local elites, social structures, cultural legacy, and institution and incentives matter. The main obstacle in inclusive education implementation in SD Mangunsari was that inavailability of SET. This is because Education Depeartment of Temanggung’s has not yet been willing to nominate any SET for inclusive education institution. Its unwillingness is assumed to have a strong correlation with lack of educational bureaucracy commitment in the district in supporting the implementation of inclusive education. There were two indicators which strengthened this assumption: a) Education Department had just issued a decree about Inclusive Education Institution after thi program has run for 5 years, and b) instead of supporting the implementation of inclusive education, Education Department set up Special School. The unavailability of SET caused normative processes in the implementation of inclusive education did not run optimally. The activity of designing a specialized program, identification process, assessment and composition of individual learning program, material modification, learning program evaluation and learning program report as well as improvement of disabled-students have not yet implemented according to the existing standards.
We would like to express our deepest and sincere gratitude to Mr. Subagio, S.Pd., the headmaster of SDN Mangunsari 1 and all teachers who were willing to be the participants of this study.
REFFERENCES
International Seminar on Quality and Affordable Education, hal: 532-535. [2] Center for International Private Enterprise
and Global Integrity,. 2012. Improving Public Governance Closing the Implementation Gap Between Law and Practice; Victoria: CIPE-GI
[3] Collins J., 2005. Schooling for Faith, Citizenship and Social Mobility: Catholic Secondary Education in New Zealand, 1924-1944; Journal of Educational Administration and History: Vol 37 (2) September: pp. 157-172.
[12] Morris, P., 2002. Promoting curriculum reforms in the context of a political transition: an analysis of Hongkong’s experience;Journal of Educational Policy:
Vol. 17 (4) January-February, pp13-28.
[13] Morris, P. & Scott, I. 2003. Educational reform dan policy implementation in Hong Kong;Journal of Educational Policy:
Vol. 18 (1) 71-84.
[14] Mudjito, 2013. Pedoman Umum Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Inklusif (Sesuai Permendiknas No.70 tahun 2009). Jakarta:Direktorat Pembinaan PKLK
[4] Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Luar Biasa. PendidikanKementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.Dasar Direktorat Jenderal 2010.Memahami dan Menangani Cerdas
Istimewa dengan Berbagai Masalah yang [15] O’donoghue, T. & Vidovich, L., 2004. Menghambat Prestasi Akademis. Jakarta: Negotiating curriculum demands of ‘the
Direktorat PSLB, Dirjen Mendikdasmen, Chruch’and ‘teh state’: a case study of
Kemdiknas. one Australian school; Journal of
[5] Effiong,A.N,. 2013. Policy Implementation and its Challenges in Nigeria; International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance,
Vol. 4, No. 3, December; pp: 26–31.
[6] Friend, M. 2006. Including Students with Special Needs.Boston: Pearson
[7] Haryono,. Ahmad Syaefudin,. Sri Widiastuti,. 2015. Evaluasi Pendidikan Inklusif bagi Anak Berkebutuhan Khusus (ABK) di Provinsi Jawa Tengah; Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, Vol. 32 Nomor 2, hal: 119–126.
[8] Iqbal Ahmad,.Muhammad Rauf,. Imdadullah,. Alam Zeb,.2012. Implementation Gaps in Education Policies of Pakistan: Critical Analysis of Problems and Way Forward; International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol 2 No. 21 November, pp: 240-245.
[9] Lam, C.C., 2003. The romance and reality of policy-making and implementation: a case study of the target oriented curriculum in Hong Kong; Journal of Educational Policy:Vol. 18 (6) November– December, pp. 641-655.
[10] Makinde,T. 2005. Problems of Policy Implementation in Developing Nations: The Nigerian Experience; J.Soc.Sci., II(1) 63-69 [11] Meadmore, P. 2001.‘Free, compulsory and
secular’ The re-invention of Australian public education; Journal of Educational Policy:Vol. 16 (2) 113-125.
Educational Administration and History:
Vol 36 (1) April; 9–18.
[16] Okoroma,N.S,. 2006. Educational policies and problems of implementation in Nigeria: Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Volume 46 Number 2, July, pp:
[17] Prita Indriawati, 2013. Implementasi Kebijakan Tugas Guru Pembimbing Khusus pada Pendidikan Inklusif di SD Negeri se-Kecamatan Junrejo Batu; Jurnal Kebijakan dan Pengembangan Pendidikan, Volume 1, Nomor 1, Januari, hal: 49-55
[18] Rosli, A,. & Rossi, F,. 2014. Explaining the gap between policy aspirations and implementation: The case of university knowledge transfer policy in the United Kingdom; CIMR Research Working Paper Series.
[19] Sunardi,. Mucawir Yusuf,. Gunarhadi,. Priyono,. & Yeager, J.L., 2011. The Implementation of Inculusive Education for Students with Special Needs in Indonesia; Excelllence in Higher Education 2, hal: 1-10.
[20] Suyanto & Mudjito, 2012. Masa Depan Pendidikan Inklusif, Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan dasar.
