A MODEL FOR INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS IN THAILAND
by
SERMSAPVORAPANYA
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
And the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy
December 2008
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Sermsap Vorapanya
Title:
"A Model for Inclusive Schools in Thailand"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Educational
Leadership by:
Diane Dunlap, Chairperson, Educational Leadership
Deborah Olson, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Kathleen Scalise, Member, Educational Leadership
Kathie Carpenter, Outside Member, International Studies
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the
Graduate School for the University of Oregon.
December 13,2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of
Oregon Libraries.
© 2008 Sermsap Vorapanya
III
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Sermsap Vorapanya for the degree of
in the Department of Educational Leadership to be taken
Title: A MODEL FOR INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS IN THAILAND
Approved:
Dr. Diane Dunlap
IV
Doctor ofPhilosophy
December 2008
Inclusive education is now accepted worldwide as the best educational practice
for children with special needs, but there is still considerable debate about how best to
implement inclusion in specific cultures.
The purpose of this research study was to develop a model of inclusion that is
appropriate for elementary schools in Thailand and to identify appropriate leadership
roles in adoption of inclusion practices. This research study was divided into two phases.
The first phase consisted of an extensive review of inclusion practice and research
findings around the world and development of a best practices inclusion model to guide
subsequent interviews. Ten best practices inclusive elementary school principals were
interviewed, and observations were conducted in classrooms and surrounding school
environments. The phase one findings were then used to create a draft model for Thai
inclusive education. In the second phase of research, two focus groups, made up of ten
nationally recognized experts in the area of Thai special education, were used. The
vparticipants assisted with refinement of the best practices model for Thai elementary
schools.
Findings included identification of three critical aspects that affect the adoption of
inclusion practices: specific characteristics of Thai society and culture; current policy
and practices related to current policy; and financing of inclusion. School principals were
found to be essential to successful inclusion adoption. Recommendations are made for
changes in practice and policy and for future research.
The final conclusion drawn from this study was that, even though Thailand had
made a great beginning to a monumental and honorable task, the idea of inclusive
education is still in early development. The core findings of the research study argue
that, while more steps needs to be taken as implementation of inclusion continues, the
principals, teachers, parents, education experts, and the people of Thailand have the
commitment and strength of determination to make inclusion an integrated part of Thai
education.
Vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Sermsap Vorapanya
PLACE OF BIRTH: Thailand
DATE OF BIRTH: August 18, 1974
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
Kasetsart University, Thailand
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Policy, Management and Organization, 2008,
University of Oregon
Master of Science in Early Intervention, Special Education, 2005, University of
Oregon
Master of Education in Educational Administration, 2000, Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance Management, 1996, the
University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Policy in Special Education
Linked System in Inclusive Education
Mainstreaming School Administration
Classroom Management for Diversity and Mixed Abilities Students
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Teacher, Lumnarai Vocational School, Thailand, 1996-1998
Assistant to the principal, Narai Wittaya School, Thailand, 1998-2002
VB
Graduate Teaching Fellow, Yamada Language Center, University of Oregon,
2004 - 2008
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Recipient, scholarships for dissertation entitled "A Model for Inclusive Schools in
Thailand", from: The Ken A. Erickson Memorial Scholarship Award, the
Claire Wilkins Chamberlin Memorial Research Award, and the UO
Graduate School Research Award, 2008
V111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My gratitude and great appreciation to Professor Dr. Diane Dunlap who
encouraged, inspired, and supported me as she walked me through the tough process of
producing a dissertation, while never letting me collapse. She provided not only
professional expertise, but deep conversations about many aspects in life. Besides being
my mentor, she is my role model of an ideal leader. Her tremendous advocacy made my
project becomes a reality. A very sincere thank you to Dr. Deborah Olson, Dr. Katie
Carpenter, and Dr. Kathleen Scalise. Besides benefiting from their beneficial guidance, I
learned many of the fundamentals for structuring my research project in courses they
taught. I deeply appreciate their great guidance, kindheartedness, and friendship along
with their encouragement.
Special thanks to the research scholarship providers: The Ken A. Erickson
Memorial Scholarship Award, the Claire Wilkins Chamberlin Memorial Research
Award, and the DO Graduate School. In addition, thank you to those who were my
research subjects: The school principals and the special education experts as well as other
people who were involved in helping me to get the process of field research all
beautifully completed.
Great thanks for all kinds of support to Jeff Makoto, who is not only a boss, but is
also a mentor and a great advocate for every process of my dissertation. Moreover,
deeply thanks to Dr. Karen Lawrence, who provided huge support as an excellent editor,
IX
a kind mentor and a great friend. Special thanks to all my friends in the Eugene and
Springfield community, including every staff member at Educational Leadership
Department, everyone at the Yamada Language Center, friends at World Language
Academy and Self Study Language Program, friends in the Early Intervention Program,
all of my Thai friends here in Eugene and in Thailand, and everyone of my loved ones
who provided encouragement and other forms of support.
To everyone in my family and extended family in Thailand, including my uncle
Niyom, Aunt Sumran, cousin sisters Arunee; Rachanee; Numtip, cousins brothers
Prasert; Pongsak; Satat, nephew Worapong, uncles, aunties, nieces, nephews, brothers
and sisters in law, and relatives, I wholly appreciate their remarkable encouragement and
support. Special thanks to my father in particular, who has provided me with
unconditional love and support and has waited for my returning home, and my great
sister, Suneerus, again with her unconditional love and support, my academic life aboard
becomes a phenomenon.
DEDICATION
To my beloved mother and my bookworm brother
who died young, but valued
education the most.
x
Xl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODlJCTION 1
Overview of Thai Education 4
Purpose Statement 10
Organization of the Dissertation 10
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12
Research on Inclusion 12
Inclusion in the United States and Other Western Countries 13
Inclusion in Southeast Asia 29
Research Fratnework 34
III. METHODOLOGY 43
Overview 43
Methods 45
Phase I 45
Phase II 72
Interview Transcription and Data Analysis 75
Ethical Issues and Trustworthiness 76
Protection ofHuman Subjects 77
IV. DATA REPORT 80
Perceptions ofThai Society and Culture 81
Current Policy............................................................................................ 86
xu
Chapter Page
Current Financing ofInclusion . 91
Initial Screening and Assessment Practices 95
First Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 109
Classroom Placement 118
IEP Review and Other Reports of Accomplishment 142
Leadership of Inclusion............................................................................ 152
Problems of Putting Policy into Practice 163
Need for New Policy 169
V. INTERPRETATIONS OF FINDINGS 170
Effects ofThai Cultures on Inclusion Practices 170
Initial Screening and Assessment 173
Initial IEP Development 174
Classroom Placement 175
IEP Review 176
Leadership of Inclusion 176
Policy Implications 177
Summary 178
The Thai Model for Inclusion............. 179
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 189
Recommendations for Changes in Practice 190
Recommendations for Future Research 199
Limitations of This Study.. 200
Conclusions.............................................................................................. 205
APPENDICES 206
A. THE COLOURED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES: CPM 206
Chapter
X11l
Page
B. THE CONJ\JERS ABBREVIATED PARENT/TEACHER
QUESTIONAIRE: CPTQ 209
C. EIGHT FORMS FOR SCREENING DISABILITIES OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION REFERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION....... 211
D. A DRAFT MODEL PROPOSED TO THE FOCUS GROUPS FOR
SUGGESTIONS AND REVISIONS 230
REFERENCES 233
------ -_ ..-_.
XIV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. The Two Phases of the Study Used in Creating a Practical Model for
Inclusion in Thai Elementary Schools 44
2. Schools Included in the Qualitative Study of Thai Inclusive Schools ...... 47
3. Names and Credentials of School Leaders in the Qualitative Study........ 48
4. Checklist Used During Observations of Schools 69
5. General Topics Covered in Interviews with School Leaders 71
6. Expert Participants Invited to Participate in the Focus Groups 74
7. The Three Representatives Who Participated in Focus Groups in
Place of the Experts ;..................................... 75
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
F~re P~
1. Map of Thailand 5
2. Leadership Practice from a Distributed Perspective 38
3. A Model for Mainstreaming 40
4. A Modified Model Incorporating Salend's (1990) Procedures within
Spillane's (2006) Three Elements 41
5. A Modified Model Showing How Leadership Across Roles Can
Support Inclusion Practices.. 42
6. Stages of the Research Study . 44
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The importance of inclusion in the field of special education is reflected in the
intensity of the debate found in the field's academic journals and in the popular media in
the last 20 years. The issue is driven by both legal and social forces. Many parents of
children with disabilities have long advocated for school districts to serve their children
in general classrooms, and have been a powerful force behind the mandates that all
children with disabilities receive educational services in a setting with or in close
proximity to children who do not have disabilities (Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, &
Wesley, 1998).
The rights of children with disabilities to develop their potential has become a
worldwide concern reflected in the mandate of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989). Article 23 states that
Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in
accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of
charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the
parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the
disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care
services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation
opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible
social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and
spiritual development to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their
experience in these areas (p. 7).
The United Nation's mandate brought inclusion into a wide moral framework.
Five years after it was written, in June 1994, representatives of 92 governments and 25
2international organizations formed the World Conference on Special Needs Education,
held in Salamanca, Spain. They issued a dynamic new statement, named the Salamanca
Statement, on the education of all children with disabilities, calling for inclusion to be the
norm (UNESCO, 1994). The statement argued that regular schools with inclusive
orientation were the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating
welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all.
Moreover, it argued, inclusive schools provide an effective education to the majority of
children and improve the efficiency, and ultimately the cost-effectiveness, of the entire
education system (p. ix).
During the same time period in the U.S., special education services in all of their
aspects have been fertile ground for research and practice. Changes in how children are
identified for eligibility in special education and refinements in assessment processes
have added to rapid growth in the number of children identified as eligible for special
education in the U.S. (MamEn & Harris, 1998). As inclusive practices have been
adopted, researchers, educators, and parents have learned more about what constitute
special needs and what forms of pedagogy best serve all students.
Inclusion of children with disabilities in regular classroom settings is now
accepted as recommended practice, but strong debate continues on how to best
accommodate widespread inclusion (Blenk & Fine, 1995). Current issues of concern in
countries that practice inclusion include governmental advocacy; how administrators and
teachers are prepared and supported; the ratio of students and teachers in the classroom;
collaboration between regular and special education teachers; behavior management
3practices; and acceptance and involvement of parents of students with and without
disabilities (Power-deFur & Orelove, 1997).
This dissertation has as its focus the special education services of Thailand, in
particular how inclusion is being implemented there. Thailand is a country in transition
regarding its special education practices. It has recently passed legal mandates for special
education provision for students with disabilities and is just beginning to require
inclusion. However, moving from policy to practice has been challenging. In recent
research, school administrators in Thailand have been found to have little knowledge
about appropriate inclusion practices (The Office of Education, Religion, and Cultural
Development Regional 11th, 2001). Class sizes in Thailand are typically larger than those
in the U.S. (i.e., approximately 45-50 students). Requiring new methods for incorporating
children with disabilities will add a difficult burden for teachers, especially for those who
have not been trained to work with disabilities (Umpanroung, 2004). Thus, problems
need to be solved at many levels in order for inclusive practices to become the norm in
Thailand.
It will be helpful at this point to provide a brief overview of the education system
in Thailand. Following this description will be an introduction of the purpose of the
dissertation along with the research questions, and a brief overview of the chapters of this
study.
Overview of Thai Education
The Kingdom of Thailand, a country located in the heart Southeast Asia, covers
an area of approximately 514,000 square kms-about the size of the state of Texas. It
shares borders with Burma to the West and north, Laos to the north and northeast,
Cambodia to the east and Malaysia to the south. With Bangkok as its capital, it contains
76 provinces, four distinctly different geographic regions, and a variety of ethnic groups.
Thailand is essentially an agricultural country with rapidly growing industry in a few
areas (Office of the National Education Commission, 2003; Suvanus, 1981). The
population has been increasing rapidly and now consists of over 60 million people, 70%
ofwhom live in rural areas (Thai National Statistical Office, 2008). For reference, a map
of Thailand is provided in Figure 1.
4
5Cambodia
FIGURE 1. Map of Thailand.
Special education in Thailand must be viewed through a cultural perspective,
particularly in terms of religion and family structure. Ninety percent of the Thai people
practice the religion of Buddhism. It is critical to understand that most Buddhists believe
in reincarnation: If one life is lived in goodness, then positive things will happen in the
next life. Disability is widely viewed as a deserved failure to lead positive previous lives.
Traditionally, most Thai extended families have worked together to support parents and
children with disabilities in the home. School attendance has not been an option for most,
6although a family's location in the country, level of education, and economic status are
factors in the services initiated for children with disabilities. Thai families who are poor
or live in rural areas are less likely to be aware of existing programs or to have the
willingness and means to access those services (Fulk, Swerlik, & Kosuwan, 2002). In
past years, wealthier and more educated individuals might not have publicly
acknowledged children with disabilities in their families but may have sought private
services.
Today, as the general population becomes more knowledgeable about individuals
,
with disabilities through nationally-sponsored media promotions and campaigns,
acceptance of disability is improving, and people are becoming more comfortable in
acknowledging a disability in their family. Individuals with disabilities are now seen in
public more often in both rural and urban communities. National laws have been passed
in the last decade to bring children with disabilities into schools.
The first law for the education of children with disabilities was passed in 1999.
The 1999 National Education Act states, in the section of Educational Rights and Duties,
that:
In the provision of education, all individuals shall have equal rights and
opportunities to receive basic education provided by the State for the duration of
at least 12 years. Such education, provided on a nationwide basis, shall be of
quality and free of charge. Persons with physical, mental, intellectual, emotional,
social, communication, and learning deficiencies; those with physical disabilities;
or cripples; or those unable to support themselves; or those destitute or
disadvantaged; shall have the rights and opportunities to receive basic education
specially provided. Education for the disabled in the second paragraph shall be
provided free of charge at birth or at first diagnosis. These persons shall have the
right to access the facilities, media, services, and other forms of educational aid in
conformity with the criteria and procedures stipulated in the ministerial
regulations (Office of Education Council, 2004).
7Since this law was passed, many more Thai students with disabilities have been
accessing educational services. Between 2000 and 2004, students with disabilities have
increased from 144, 684 to 187,050 (Bureau of Special Education Administration, 2004).
According to national records, there are now 18, 618 "inclusive" schools serving more
than 187,000 children in Thailand (Office of Education Council, 2006). Many schools
have started mainstreaming students with disabilities in order to meet the state mandate
and obtain associated extra funding from the government. Many schools are located in
rural areas and are poorly funded, and the extra financial support for students with
disabilities is a new way to obtain funding for the whole school (The Office of Evaluation
Regional 4th , 2005). However, simply including the emollment of students with special
needs does not guarantee that students are receiving appropriate services.
The pressure to provide inclusive education for all children was increased in
February, 2008, when the Education Provision for People with Disabilities Act became
law. This act aims specifically at equal access for people with disabilities to the
educational system and educational service provision. The Act states that one of the
service provisions is inclusive education, and that people with disabilities have rights to
be included at every level of the educational system and in various forms. It has become
unlawful for educational institutes to deny admission to students with disabilities. In
addition, every educational institute shall provide an Individual Educational Plan (IEP)
and shall update the IEP at least once a year in regard to criteria and procedures
determined by the announcement of the Thai Ministry of Education (Rajkijjanubaksa,
2008). The Act determines the educational rights of people with disabilities: 1) they shall
8receive free education from birth or from the diagnosis of disabilities through the rest of
their lives, and receive technological and educational materials as needed; 2) they shall
have choice of access to schooling by the abilities, interests, expertise, and needs of each
individual; and 3) they shall receive a high standard of education in accredited
institutions, including appropriate curriculum design and assessment for their special
needs (Rajkijjanubaksa, 2008).
The education system in Thailand is administrated by the government through
central agencies, education service areas, and educational institutions. Children are
expected to be enrolled in basic education institutions from age 7 through 16. Basic
education also covers pre-primary education, as well as six years ofprimary, three years
oflower secondary education and three years of higher secondary education (Office of
Education Council, 2006).
The Bureau of Special Education Administration oversees special education for
students with disabilities. The administration recognizes nine types of disability: (a)
hearing impairment, (b) mental impairment, (c) visual impairment, (d) physical or health-
related impairment, (e) learning disabilities, (f) autism, (g) emotional and behavioral
disorders, (h) speech and language disorders, and ( i) multiple disabilities. Education
services are provided by the Department of Social Development and Public Welfare, as
well as by some university laboratory schools, municipal schools, and private
foundations. Some hospitals also organize classes for children with chronic conditions.
There are currently three types of schools in which students with disabilities can receive
education. "Special schools" are those specifically designed for students with mental,
9physical, visual or hearing impairments. In practice, however, children with any type of
disability will be accepted in these schools. Thailand provides 43 special schools.
Similar to special schools, there are currently 76 "special centers," one in each province
of the country, that render services in specially set up locations such as inclusive schools,
hospitals, and in the home. They conduct research, and develop curriculum for short-term
training for students with disabilities. The centers also organize meetings and seminars
for parents as well as for staff of various organizations. "Inclusive schools" constitute the
major option for educating children with disabilities. There are currently 18,618 inclusive
schools, or regular schools that accept children with disabilities for basic education. In
providing education for students with disabilities, they receive assistance from special
schools and special centers that provide teachers, training, materials, facilities, and
coordination with concerned agencies.
The budget for students with disabilities comes from two primary sources: A
regular allocation from the office of the Basic Education Commission, and the
Educational Fund for students with disabilities. In 2004, the Government Lottery Office
also contributed 200 million baht to the Fund to provide scholarships to teachers for
advanced study in fields related to special education. The combined funds are not
considered adequate to serve the entire population and considerable attention is being
paid to how Thailand can best proceed to make inclusion in education a widespread and
successful practice for all children (The Office of Evaluation Regional 4th , 2004).
10
Purpose Statement
As has been shown in the brief overview of Thai education services, special
education services on a national level are a relatively new development in Thailand.
There is an urgent need for the development of an infrastructure to support the training of
teachers in serving children with special n~eds, in screening children for services, and in
appropriate curriculum. Development ofan appropriate inclusive school model for Thai
society would support Thai school administrators, teachers, and students with disabilities.
The purpose of this research study was to develop a model of inclusion that is appropriate
for Thai elementary schools. The research questions are as follows:
Research Questions
1. What are the best inclusive practices in Thailand today?
2. Are there problems in the best inclusive practices? If so, what are the apparent causes?
3. Are there areas where advancements can be made? If so, what is needed to advance
inclusive practices?
4. Can a Thai-specific model of inclusion be deduced from comparing best practices
models to requirements for Thailand today?
Organization of the Dissertation
The study has been organized around a conceptual framework that is first
presented at the end of Chapter II. This framework provided an organization for the data
collection in Thailand's very diverse and emergent setting, described in Chapter III. It
11
was employed to provide a logical, clear pathway through the dense data in Chapter IV.
In Chapter V, an analysis has been made of the similarities and differences between the
conceptual framework as originally developed in Chapter II, largely from western
research and practices, and the current practices identified in Thailand. From that
comparison, it was possible to modify the conceptual framework into a Thai-specific
framework, to identify the strengths of the current system, and to design a timeline for the
next steps needed in building a broad-based system of inclusion for all Thai schools.
12
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Research on Inclusion
A review of the literature on inclusion will focus on work in the U.S. and other
western countries, as well as the limited research that is available in Southeast Asian
countries. It focuses specifically on research that supports arguments for the positive
benefits of inclusion. The study begins with a focus on legal advocacy and social
benefits, followed by an examination of current inclusion practices. The review
concludes with a discussion of what research has identified in terms of high quality
inclusive practices.
Studies of inclusion conducted in Southeast Asia have been reviewed when
available. Practices of Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam were reviewed, followed by the
limited literature on research and practices in Thailand. Although Thailand initiated some
special education practices more than thirty years ago, inclusion is still in its early stages
in terms of widespread adoption throughout the country. Few research studies have been
conducted to date. The goal of this literature review was to place the limited Thai
literature in the context of other developing practices and research in Southeast Asia and
oflT.S.-led research and practice, in order to compare and contrast the unique situations
of Thailand with the larger research-based views of inclusion in other parts of the world.
13
Inclusion in the United States and Other Western Countries
Introduction of Terms
The terms "inclusion" or "inclusive education" do not appear in U. S. federal law
and there has been confusion over the exact meaning of the terms (Power-deFur &
Orelove, 1997). Several different terms have been used to describe the practice of
teaching students with disabilities in the same classroom settings as their peers without
disabilities. Historically, this practice was first called "mainstreaming," followed by
"integration," and has recently been called "inclusion" (adorn, 2000). In special
education, the term inclusion has been widely used since the early 1990s to describe the
practice of combining children with and without disabilities in the same classroom setting
and focuses on providing services to all students in the regular classroom, rather than
pulling students out of the regular classroom to receive special services (Galis & Tanner,
1995).
Current use of the term inclusion depends, in part, on the setting in which it is
being used. Bricker (1995), an expert in the area of early intervention, documented the
use of the different terms of mainstreaming, integration and inclusion in the context of
research in early childhood special education. She explained that mainstreaming initially
referred to the reentry of children with mild disabilities into regular education programs.
Although the use of mainstreaming has broadened over time, it has never fit particularly
well when discussing young children with disabilities for two reasons. The applicability
of the term to infants and toddlers is questionable because oftheir age (e.g., it is difficult
14
to understand how 6- or l8-month olds would be placed in a mainstream program). In
addition, there are a limited number of public school programs for young children
without disabilities, which seriously reduces the number of mainstream options available
to preschool age children with disabilities. These two reasons suggest that public school
mainstreaming terms are not applicable to pre-kindergarteners.
Mainstreaming today refers primarily to the practice of removing children from
their special education classrooms for part of the day and placing them in general
education classes (McLean & Hanline, 1990). In contrast, according to Winter (1999),
inclusion refers to full participation of children with disabilities in programs and activities
designed for typically developing children, while providing children with disabilities the
necessary services and supports within the context of the regular classroom. Inclusion has
become a broad term incorporated into advocacy efforts for children with disabilities to
participate in all community activities and routines used by their peers without disabilities
(Odom, 2000). It is not necessarily limited to participation in classrooms or early
childhood centers, but classroom inclusion is the way in which the construct typically has
been operationalized (Bailey et aI, 1998). The goal of inclusion is therefore to provide all
children with equitable opportunities for a successful education (Janko, Schwartz,
Sandall, Anderson, & Cottam, 1997; Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993), with anticipation for
their later success in life.
15
Legal History
In the 1960s, the civil rights movement crystallized awareness in the U.S. of
prejudice toward and educational segregation of its African American citizens (Korstad
& Lichtenstein, 1988). The disability rights movement used some of the same moral
arguments and tactics for increasing awareness of problems inherent in the segregation of
people with disabilities, constructing a moral basis for inclusion (Scotch, 2001). The
moral argument is a simple one, that is, that children with disabilities have the right to
participate in the programs and activities of daily life available to other children (Bricker,
1978). This moral assertion has been interpreted in different ways by different groups of
individuals. Many proponents argue that full inclusion applies to all children under all
circumstances. Driven by the belief that systematic segregation of any group of children
or families is unacceptable, the moral argument is based not on legal or empirical
grounds, but rather on the assumption that inclusion is the right thing to do and thus must
not be compromised (Stainback & Stainback, 1992).
From a legal perspective, the first events of significance related to changes in
schooling of children with disabilities in the U.S. were in the 1960s. In 1965, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10), and in 1968 the Handicapped
Children's Early Education Assistance Act (P.L. 90-538) were enacted (Bowe, 2004). In
1975, P.L. 94-142 introduced the concept of the least restrictive environment (LRE) and
required that this principle be used in determining appropriate placements for school-
aged children with disabilities. The LRE principle was reiterated in later amendments to
the legislation extending the provision to preschool-aged children. In subsequent
16
reauthorizations of what is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), this resulted in substantial increases during the 1990s of community-based and
public school kindergarten programs that included young children with disabilities
(Worery, Holcombe-Ligon, Brookfield, Huffman, Schroeder, Martin, & et al.,1993).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provided further support by
establishing that federally-funded programs, including early childhood programs, must be
accessible to people with disabilities. With this law, programs or services in the public
service sector could not deny entry to children with disabilities (Osborne & DiMattia,
1994). With the solid backing of the law, it has become more acceptable to U.S. society
that students with disabilities have the same rights to access the school system as those
without disabilities. These moral arguments and legal mandates in early childhood and
special education have supported the development of services and set a foundation for
changes to occur in society regarding the acceptance of children with disabilities as
potential positive contributors to society.
Social Benefits ofInclusion
Inclusion has become one of the recommended practices for early childhood
special education (McLean & Odom, 1993). Bricker and Pretti-Frontczak (2004) have
argued that including children with disabilities in the regular classroom setting assists
them in acquiring and generalizing critical developmental skills which are necessary for
them to achieve independent functioning across environments. The major national
association for professionals working with young children with disabilities, the Division
17
for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, shares an agreement with
the National Association for the Education of Young Children that identifies inclusion as
a developmentally appropriate practice (The National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 1996). Promotion of inclusion by these professional organizations has
contributed to increasing social acceptance of difference and diversity and promotion of
the understanding that everyone is a part of society.
Bricker (1995) has argued that inclusive classrooms are not only beneficial for
children with disabilities, but they also help children without disabilities to learn to accept
human diversity. Interacting with peers is an important component ofthe socialization of
all young children and eventually becomes a major influence in their lives (Guralnick,
1986). Starting inclusion at an early age builds self esteem by minimizing exclusionary
behavior by peers who have not yet formed stereotypes (Bricker, 1995; Buysse & Bailey,
1993). Inclusion allows social interaction with peers to occur in the classroom settings
and that helps all children to understand diversity and to accept differences. Social
interaction allows children with disabilities to develop their interactive and attention
skills. Peer interaction also presents children with disabilities with opportunities to
develop and practice communication (Nienhuys, Horsborough & Cross, 1985).
A wide range of studies has built the empirical base and has furthered thinking
about how children can be successfully supported in inclusive classrooms. Kontos,
Moore, and Giorgetti (1998) conducted interviews of parents of 40 children with mild to
moderate disabilities in 4 school districts. They found that children progressed in
development and increased their engagement with their typically developing peers in the
18
classroom settings. Parents described specific accommodations to the free-play context
(e.g., art and manipulative activities) by teachers that took advantage of children's
strengths in the process of remediating their deficits. A study by Cross, Traub, Hutter-
Pishgahi, and Shelton (2004) also provided evidence for successful inclusion while
discussing the kinds of support needed. This qualitative study of43 professionals and
family members investigated the practices used by early childhood special education
specialists and early childhood educators in preschools and childcare centers to support 7
children with significant disabilities. Cross and his colleagues (2004) concluded that in
order to support progress gain in all domains of child development, adults must playa
major role in designing and carrying out supports. This group of researchers found that
support from adults 1in the form of embedding learning opportunities in daily activities
had to be implemented over time and implementation needed to be carried from one
educational setting to another (e.g., preschool to kindergarten).
Inclusion is still in its infancy in the U.S., and advocacy continues to be needed to
ensure that children with disabilities have access to educational services in order to
develop to their full potential (Hanson, Hom, Sandall, Beckman, Morgan, Marquart, & et
aI., 2001). In the next section, the contexts needed to support inclusion in terms of school
leadership and parent advocacy will be discussed.
Contexts for Inclusion
In practice, inclusion requires many levels of collaborative work in order to
provide appropriate services for children. Leadership personnel, teachers, and parents all
19
have their own perspectives in how they understand inclusion. Empirical research has
provided evidence that these differing perspectives affect how inclusion is enacted.
Leadership Personnel. Attitudes of leadership personnel at the level of school
principals and superintendents toward the disability population and their support for
inclusive programs are important aspects of successful inclusion. Katsiyannis,
Conderman and Franks (1995) conducted a national survey regarding states' progress on
inclusion. Thirty-three out of the 40 states which replied reported they were supporting
inclusion pilot projects. The authors concluded that there is great variety in state policies
and practices, and there is an accelerating trend of inclusion activity. Despite this
progress, Praisner (2003) found in a survey of 408 elementary school principals that only
about 1 in 5 principals' attitudes toward inclusion were positive, while most were
uncertain. Praisner found that administrators' positive experiences with students with
disabilities and exposure to special education concepts were associated with a more
positive attitude toward inclusion. Further, principals with more positive attitudes and
experience were more likely to place students in less restrictive settings.
Varying attitudes toward inclusion may be related to types of disabilities. A
survey of 60 administrators of Local Educational Authorities (LEAs) in England and
Wales identified the types of disabilities that they felt were easier to include in regular
classrooms. These were physical, sensory, speech and language, and moderate learning
disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, and specific leaming disabilities (Evans & Lunt,
2002). Emotional and behavioral disabilities, multiple disabilities, severe leaming
disabilities, and children who needed health services were identified as difficult to
20
include. As a result, Evans and Lunt found that schools tended to include children with
learning or physical difficulties, and exclude children with behavior difficulties.
Successful inclusion of specific disabilities may be related to the lack of appropriate
curriculum as well as specific characteristics of disabilities. Focusing on students with
cognitive disabilities, Manset and Semmel (1997) reviewed 8 models of inclusion and,
concluded that inclusive programs can be effective for some but not all students with
mental disabilities.
Inclusion requires commitment at the leadership level to develop classroom
practices and forms of school organization that respond positively to student diversity. It
is necessary that administrators understand and develop professional experience in the
requirements of inclusion in order to support the needs of both teachers and children
(Ainscow, Farrell, & Tweddle, 2000). Galis and Tanner (1995) reported on a survey of
252 special education directors and elementary school principals in U.S. state of Georgia.
They found that administrators who had been in the field for many years held a more
positive opinion of inclusion than those who had less experience. Anderson & Decker
(1993) also concluded that inclusion often faltered when principals who were are
prepared well to administer general education programs were made responsible for a
broad range of special education program in areas in which they had little training and
experience.
Support by administrators for collaboration between special education and regular
education teachers was seen as a key element in working with students with disabilities in
surveys conducted by Daane, Beirne-Smith, and Latham (2001). Their study of 15
21
administrators, 42 elementary special educators and 324 general education teachers
focused on collaborative efforts of inclusion in one school district in the southeastern
U.S. They reported that administrators and teachers agreed that general and special
education teachers needed to collaboratively plan children's IEPs. Respondents reported
that team teaching took place in the general education classroom, but difficulties arose in
working together, such as conflict of personalities, lack of planning time, and limited
time in the classroom by the special education teacher. Both administrators and teachers
identified the social benefits of inclusive models of education but disagreed with the idea
that students with disabilities achieved more academic success in general education
classrooms.
Teachers. In the early childhood area, teacher collaboration has also been
identified as a barrier to successful inclusion. Rose and Smith (1993) identified the
barriers of lack of teacher preparedness and awareness, and issues of collaboration and
communication between early childhood and special education teachers. Teachers'
beliefs and attitudes are critical in ensuring the success of inclusive practice since
teachers' acceptance of the policy of inclusion is likely to affect their commitment to
implementing it (Hornby, 1999). Bricker (1995) suggested that inclusion is supported by
teachers' attitudes, and positive inclusive experiences can occur when teachers provide
opportunities for children with disabilities to participate in a meaningful way. The large
role teachers play in facilitating and maintaining interaction among children with and
without disabilities has been identified in several studies.
22
Antia, Kreimeyer, and Eldredge (1994) concluded in a study of 13 preschool,
kindergarten, and 151 grade programs in west and east coast regions of the U.S., that when
teachers provided consistent opportunities for children to work together in small groups,
children both with and without hearing impairments had more positive interactions. In
their naturalistic study of 153 children with disabilities Hauser-Cram, Bronson and
Upshur (1993), found that in classrooms where teachers offered more choice of activities,
children with disabilities engaged in higher levels of peer interactions, showed less
distraction, and had more persistence in mastering tasks. In contrast, File (1994)
identified the importance of the teachers' role in facilitating peer interactions. She
observed the interactions of 14 typically developing children and 14 children with mild
and moderate cognitive and speech delays, and their 36 teachers in integrated preschool
classrooms. She found that teachers rarely promoted interaction between the children and
concluded that there is a need for teachers to provide activities so that children with and
without disabilities could work together and gain benefit from inclusion. Finally, in a
study based on interviews with 29 teachers from 16 programs, Lieber, Capell, Sandall,
Wolfberg, Hom, and Beckman (1998) identified a widespread belief in the importance of
diversity. Teachers generally believed that children with disabilities would benefit from
inclusion because they learned by interacting with their peers without disabilities;
differences between children could be highlighted and respected (Scruggs and
Mastropieri, 1996).
Yet, even when teachers believe in inclusion, they are not always able to
implement it. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) found in a review of 28 studies published
23
between 1958 and 1995 that a majority of teachers (i.e., 65%) supported the general
concept of inclusion, but only about half reported that they were willing to teach students
with disabilities or that students could benefit from inclusion. Only about one third of
teachers believed that the regular classroom was the best place for students with
disabilities because of the insufficient time available to the teachers and their inadequate
expertise.
A study of teachers' attitudes in many countries made by Fullan (1991) generally
supports the findings from Scruggs and Mastropieri' s study (1996). Fullan articulated that
teachers' daily workload prevents most of them from having positive attitudes toward
their work. In major countries all over the world most teachers reported they felt harassed
by their daily workload and felt unable to provide adequate support for the needs of
students. Moreover, in regard to special education teachers, Yatvin (1995) pointed out
that they had less training in academic areas than regular education teachers. She
identified the lack of a holistic approach to teaching and learning; instead teachers
focused on strategies for teaching exceptional students, including behavior management
and diagnosing or remediating deficiencies.
In viewing this problem from another direction, several studies have provided
support for the idea that more experienced teachers may be more positive towards
inclusion. A study of primary and secondary teachers in England by Avramidis, Bayliss,
and Burden (2000) concluded that teachers with substantial training were more positive
about inclusion, and this reflected in their confidence in IEP meetings. In a survey of 680
general and special educators and administrators from 32 schools in the U. S. and
24
Canada, Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin (1996) found that participants' commitment
to inclusion often emerged only after teachers had gained the professional expertise
needed to implement inclusive programs, particularly when they were given
administrative support. Similarly, LeRoy and Simpson (1996) found that teachers'
attitudes changed in a positive direction over a three-year period. They concluded that as
teachers' experience working with children with disabilities increased, so did their
confidence levels. This holds true for faculty in higher education as well. Shimman
(1990) found that college teachers who had been trained to teach students with learning
difficulties expressed more favorable attitudes and emotional responses towards
including students with disabilities. Likewise, a national survey of 204 faculty members
in college level general early childhood education from all regions of the U.S. identified
lack of trained staff and consultation as the largest barrier to making inclusion successful
(Wolery, Huffman, Holcombe, Martin, Brookfield, Schroeder, & et aI., 1994).
Parents. Many parents of children with disabilities view inclusive classrooms as a
benefit to their children's development. Cross and colleagues (2004) conducted
interviews and observations of parents of children with disabilities. Parents commented
that their children were more independent and made better developmental progress as a
result ofparticipating in an inclusive classroom setting. Not only did their children
receive benefits from interacting with providers, but parents were also willing to
participate in the classroom to help teachers feel more confident working with their
children, increasing the success of placements.
25
However, as pointed out by Staub and Peck (1994), inclusion can reduce the
academic progress of children without disabilities. They identified large teacher-child
ratios and lack of teacher preparation as contributing to the loss of academic quality.
Buysse, Wesley, and Keyes (1998) identified elements that affected the quality of
preschool programs in North Carolina. Parents identified concerns including class size,
teacher-child ratios, inadequate teacher training, and lack of teacher planning time.
Concerns associated with coordinating and integrating services for young children with
disabilities and their families included lack of communication and inadequacy of
supervision and support from staff. Seery, Davis, and Johnson (2000) reported that
parents' opinions about the benefits of inclusion varied in a mid-western, urban inclusive
university preschool program. Parents of typical children cited loss of instructional time
because teachers were preoccupied or overburdened by attention taken up by children
with disabilities. Parents of children with disabilities were concerned with teachers' lack
of preparation to meet the needs of children with complex disabilities.
Many parents have identified the transition from early childhood programs into
school-based programs as problematic. In a longitudinal qualitative study conducted by
Hanson and her colleagues (2001) through interviews of25 parents of children with
disabilities, parents contrasted their experience of inclusive preschool classroom settings
with those in elementary school where more restrictive placements, lack of experienced
teachers, and lack of support prevailed. Yet, Hanson and her colleagues (2001) reported
that over half of the children in her study successfully remained in inclusive placements
over a 5-year period.
26
In these and other studies, parents have identified problems in class size, the
availability of specialized therapists and services, children's acceptance by other children,
teachers' judgments or attitudes about the child's disability, and the appropriateness of
teachers' training and experience in addressing the children's needs (McWiliam, Lang,
Vandiviere, Angell, Collins, & Underdown, 1995; Hanson et aI., 2001). These challenges
are compounded when parents are unfamiliar with the general middle class cultural
values and public school systems and laws, particularly when their native language is not
English (DeGanfi, Wietlisbach, Poisson, Siein, & Royeen, 1994). Lynch and Hanson
(1998) made recommendations to modify educational services to ensure that children and
families have access to information and culturally responsive services in order to allow
them full participation. This has become more important in the U.S. as population has
continued to diversify (Lynch & Hanson, 1998). Cultural, ethnic, and linguistic
influences have been found to be important factors values, beliefs, and expectations, and
are important influences on educational practices and methods of service delivery
(Hanson et aI., 2001).
The Quality of Inclusion
The large variety of factors that affect the quality of inclusion has been touched
on in the previous section. These include qualified personnel, adaptation of the classroom
environment, provision of specialized therapies, small staff-child ratios, and
developmentally appropriate practices (Buysse, Skinner & Grant, 2001). Bricker (1995,
2000) argued that successful inclusion is supported by attitudes and beliefs of people who
27
are involved, professional knowledge and skill, and adequate support systems ranging
from professional development and collaboration to appropriate physical
accommodations. Others have included philosophy, positive teacher-child interactions,
administrative leadership and support, and a variety of opportunities for family
involvement as essential elements (Odom, 2000; Whitebook, Howes, & Philips, 1989).
The ability of teachers to organize the learning environment and use specific instructional
strategies is also essential (Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996; McLean & Dunst, 1990). In
addressing inclusion on a world scale, the United Nation's standard rules on the
equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities (1993) stated that the success of
inclusion will depend on clearly stated policy that is understood at both the school and
wider community level, the promotion of flexible curricula with adaptations, and the
provision of quality materials, and on-going teacher training and support.
The key factors necessary for successful inclusion have been investigated in
empirical studies. Lipsky and Gartner (1998) distilled seven key factors from a large
study of school districts in Britain. These factors included visionary leadership,
collaboration between all participants, refocused use of assessment, support for staff and
students, appropriate funding levels, parent involvement, and effective program models.
Vaughn and Schumm (1995) worked with teachers, parents, administrators, and
governors on a longitudinal research study implementing inclusive approaches in three
primary schools in large urban areas in the U.S. They identified nine essential
components. The first component is to use the satisfactory academic and social progress
of students with special needs in general classes as the major criteria for considering
28
alternative intervention. The second is to allow teachers to choose whether they will be
involved in teaching inclusive classes. Third, it is necessary to ensure adequate human
and physical resources. Fourth, schools need to be encouraged to develop inclusive
practices tailored to the needs of the students, parents and communities they serve while
taking into account the expertise of their own staff. Fifth, schools need to maintain a
continuum of services including withdrawal of students from regular classrooms for
small group teaching and placement in special education classrooms. Sixth, continual
monitoring and evaluation of how services are organized must occur in order to ensure
that students' needs are being met. Seventh, ongoing professional development must be
available to all staff who need it. Eighth, alternative teaching strategies and adaptation of
the curriculum must be developed to meet the specific needs of students with a wide
range of abilities. Lastly, an overarching philosophy and policy on inclusion must be
developed which provides guidance to teachers, parents, and others (Vaughn & Schumm,
1995).
At the policy level, Evans and Lunt (2002) provided insight about the need for a
shift in the culture, organization and expectations of schooling in order for effective
inclusion to take place, including improving results, focusing on the appropriateness of
the curriculum for young children with disabilities, and promotion of support for minority
students. The National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1994) found
that superintendents in Indiana understood that two issues are important for successful
inclusion: Leadership and money. Lieber, Hanson, Beckman, Odom, Sandall, Schwartz,
and et al. (2000) also reported in their qualitative study of state level administrators in 18
29
public schools across the United Sates that leadership is a crucial variable. They
concluded that strong leaders who share belief and commitment to inclusive education
can enhance the infrastructure to support inclusion. Inclusion can only be successful
through leadership of administrators who value the education of students with disabilities,
have a positive view of the capabilities of teachers and schools to accommodate the needs
of all students, and promote the belief that everyone benefits from inclusion (Rose &
Smith, 1993).
Inclusion in Southeast Asia
Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam are countries in Southeast Asia that share
commonality of policy in developing support for fundamental human rights, especially
the right to an education (Sadiman, 2004). These countries share many of the same
problems and issues that are found in Thailand. Examining how these countries have
addressed challenges may help Thailand in developing inclusive schools.
Singapore
Special education in Singapore has achieved significant development in the past 40
years since the country's independence in 1965. Despite having no legislation on special
education, Singapore has been very successful in implementing new practices. Special
education in Singapore began when groups of volunteers started classes for children with
leprosy in 1947 (Quah, 1993). The subsequent six decades have seen the founding of
voluntary associations offering educational services for children with a variety of
30
disabilities (Lim & Nam, 2000). Services such as schools and centers are managed by
voluntary welfare organizations (VWOs) and are organized along a continuum ranging
from total segregation to partial integration to total integration with children who do not
have disabilities (Chen & Soon, 2006).
However, without specific legislation, movement toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities within regular schools has been slow in Singapore. General education
teachers still refer children with even mild disabilities to special schools, and some
children may not be accepted by either general education or special schools, decisions
which are difficult to contest by parents. In spite of gains, inclusion remains elusive for
many students with disabilities in Singapore, especially those with moderate to severe
disabilities (Rao, 1998). In 2004, then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong attempted to
remedy the lack of inclusion by calling for an inclusive society in Singapore. He
announced that US $100 million would be used to provide special training for both
special and general education teachers. This announcement of teachers' training was
welcomed by schools and parents. (Lee, 2004).
Malaysia
In Malaysia, special education is reserved for learners who are hearing impaired,
visually impaired and those with "learning difficulties." Learners who are diagnosed as
physically disabled are excluded. Current policy and practices pertaining to education for
students with disabilities could be thought of as discriminatory (Law of Malaysia, 1996).
This is due to the fact that some aspects of current policy and practice do not take into
31
consideration the personal needs oflearners and of their caregivers, because they are seen
as "deficient" or disabled first, and learners or people second (Adnan & Hafiz, 2001).
Malaysian CARE represents the importance of non-governmental organizations
O\IGO) in developing programs for children with disabilities. Malaysian CARE
established early intervention programs (EIP) in centers across the country for children
aged 6 and below who are diagnosed with physical and mental impairments in order to
support their cognitive academic potential (Department of Social Welfare, 1999). The
work ofNGOs in Malaysia usually provide services for families who live in urban
settings and whose parents are keen on their education and are able to pay for services.
Students with disabilities who live in rural communities, however, still have to rely
entirely on the government for their education (Adnan & Hafiz, 2001). In a country of
more than 23 million people, only 23,951 people were officially registered as disabled
between 1996-1999 (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2000). The fear of parents to
register their physically or mentally impaired children contributes to the problem of
identifying this population (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2000).
The average class size in Malaysia is around 40 students. In addition to their
regular duties, teachers have other non-teaching duties and some have to juggle extra
duties out of school hours (Special Education Department, Malaysia, 1999). Jelas (2000)
has reported that although Malaysian teachers are willing to learn new techniques to
incorporate children with disabilities, they argue that inclusion is not feasible for them
without the help of classroom assistants.
32
VietNam
In 1975, at the same time that the U.S. Congress was enacting the Education for
All Handicapped Children's Act, Viet Nam was initiating the construction of a special
separate school system for children with disabilities. By 1991, Viet Nam had established
36 special schools throughout the country (Villa, Tac, Muc, Ryan,Thuy, Weill, & et aI.,
2003).
Viet Nam was the second nation, and the first in Asia, to ratify the United Nations
convention on the Rights of the Child. In the same year, Viet Nam enacted legislation in
keeping with the U.N. convention that required compulsory primary education and
enacted a second piece of legislation that dealt with the protection and care for children.
The Law of Protection and Care for Children addressed the reintegration of students with
disabilities into society (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). However, in its
creation of a separate school system for children with disabilities, Viet Nam has not
followed a path of inclusive educational opportunities. Policies and practices have not
supported inclusive education, and the school system faces difficulties in organizational
collaboration (Villa et aI., 2003). Burr (2006) documented that even in integrated
programs, children with disabilities lack support from materials or classroom adaptations.
Thailand
Since the 1999 National Education Act became law, Thai schools have been
mandated to include students with disabilities. This process has been supported by a
public awareness program to improve the social status of children with disabilities. By
33
law, children with disabilities have rights and opportunities to receive basic education
provided by the state free of charge for at least twelve years (Office ofEducation
Council, 2006).
Since the legislation mandating inclusion was passed, there has been an
expression of confusion among educators regarding appropriate service provisions in
inclusive schools. Benja Chollatanon, who was a consultant to the Ministry of Education
during the early 2000s, created a model of inclusion known as the SEAT project, in
which S stands for students, E for Environment, A for activities, and T for tools. The
SEAT project has been used in many inclusive schools to provide a broad perspective of
inclusion administration. However, guidelines for teachers in the areas of curriculum
adaptations and appropriate assessments for students with disabilities still need to be
developed (The Office of Evaluation Regiona13Td, 2001).
Thailand has much work to do on both the administrative and teacher levels. A
study by the Office of Education, Religion, and Cultural Development Regional 11th,
(2001) found that school administrators in Thailand know little about appropriate
inclusion practices, and that fundamental changes in class size and teacher support need
to be made (Umpanroung, 2004). The lack of budgetary support was identified as a
barrier to inclusion in a survey of 140 schools in the northern region of Thailand (Office
of Evaluation Regional 4th, 2004). A study of the Srisakate province in northeast Thailand
came to a similar conclusion (Kumsopa, 2004). In a survey of 60 inclusive schools in
Nakornrajchasrima province in northeast Thailand, teachers reported that it was
complicated for them to prepare their lessons for both students with and without
34
disabilities. Teachers lacked knowledge of how to work with different types of
disabilities. Their particular focus of concern was curriculum adaptations for students
with disabilities. The study found that most students with disabilities were pulled out
from the classroom to have individual lessons. In addition, teachers expressed concern
about misusing assessments they were not trained on (The Office of Educational,
Religion, and Cultural Development Regional 11 th, 2001).
As the 1989 mandate ofthe United Nation's Convention on the Rights ofthe
Child attested, all children have the right to access an appropriate education in the least
restrictive environment (Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). However, much remains to be done.
School leaders need training and experience in managing inclusive school settings. Issues
around teachers' skills and experience in working with students, collaboration between
regular and special education teachers, and improved instructional design need to be
addressed.
Research Framework
Most of the leadership in the inclusion movement has come from western
countries, including research relevant to inclusive practices. A serious gap in knowledge
remains as to what might constitute optimal inclusive practices in Asian countries, and
specifically in Thailand. It is that gap in knowledge that motivated this study.
Yet many lessons have been learned by the West, as it has experimented with and refined
inclusive models, that will prove useful for a model adapted to Thai society. The
literature on leadership and inclusion theory that has been reviewed here can be sorted
35
through several lenses: Those of the actors in inclusive education, including the people in
schools and supportive services; the resources that are needed to make inclusion
successful; and the procedural elements necessary for inclusion to work. These three
factors will be summarized from the literature review in the next section.
The Actors in Inclusive Education
The following essential roles have been identified from the literature. First, the
roles that need to be considered before children enter inclusive education include the
children themselves, both those with special needs and those who are typically
developing; parents of both kinds of children; and members of the schools' surrounding
communities. There are also non-school specialists such as physicians and other medical
and non-medical personnel who may playa role, particularly in initial identification of
the special needs child. Within the school itself, the principal, regular classroom teachers,
special education classroom teachers, teaching assistants, and other school professionals
are important. In addition, the policy makers at the higher levels of government must be
included, such as ministers in the Ministry of Education and influential physicians.
Resources Needed to Make Inclusion Successful
Resources such as well-designed school buildings, school resource rooms and
resource centers, and appropriate funding for necessary curricular supplies and needed
building accommodations are important elements in building inclusive practices. In some
cases, necessary resources for best practices might also include hospital services, special
36
schools and other training centers where outsourcing is needed for services to be
supplied.
Procedural Elements Necessary for Inclusion
Procedural elements include the initial screening and assessment ofthe child,
development and modification of the IEP, varieties of placement, development of
appropriate curricula, and provision of related training for any of the people involved in
the inclusion process. Appropriate policy provisions to guide this process and practice are
also included here.
Models for Inclusive Education
After reviewing best practices from the western literature on inclusion, literature
on inclusive models were investigated to identify those that could be used to provide a
conceptual framework for building a model of inclusion appropriate to Thailand. Two
theories were identified that have many of the elements identified above. The first theory
is that of distributed leadership as developed by James Spillane (Spillane, 2006). The
second is Spencer Salend's model for mainstreaming (Salend, 1990). These theories will
be discussed below.
Distributed Leadership
James Spillane (2006) argued that at the school level, schools work best when
"leadership" is distributed by the principal down and across people in the organization.
Distributed leadership is a joint interaction of school leaders, followers, and aspects of
37
their situations. Distributed Leadership model thus particularly fits with the principal of
inclusive education where collaboratively working is considered to be implemented.
The model of distributed leadership is based on a longitudinal research study done
in Chicago schools for five years by Northwestern University professor Spillane. It is
based on the belief that in practice, school leadership is distributed in the interactions of
school leaders, followers, and their circumstances. Distributed leadership focuses on the
processes of leadership, rather than on leaders, leadership roles, or leadership functions.
The practice of leadership, according to Spillane, takes form in the interactive
web of leaders, followers, and their situations, rather than from the actions of an
individual leader. The aspect of distributed leadership that is worthy of most attention is
the recognition that school leadership involves multiple leaders: both administrators and
teacher leaders. It also involves more than matching particular leaders with particular
leadership functions and activities (Spillane, 2004). Spillane's (2006) model is
represented in graphic form in Figure 2 below.
38
FIGURE 2. Leadership Practice from a Distributed Perspective (Spillane, 2006, p.3).
A Model for Mainstreaming
The second model that will provide a useful structure for this study is that offered
by Spencer Salend. His model for inclusion was based on the mainstreaming literature
and his own research studies. The model offers educators specific procedures for
successfully including students with special needs in regular classrooms (Salend, 1990).
Sa1end's model is composed of what he believed are the essential elements needed to
provide services for students with special needs to be successful in inclusive educational
systems. Salend begins his model with the establishment of criteria for mainstreaming.
Before mainstreaming can begin, the academic policies must be in place that determine
whether a child is ready for mainstreaming. Related to this level, a child who is not ready
can be supported to develop the readiness skills. The second aspect of Salend' s model is
to prepare the educational community for inclusion. This includes both children with and
39
without disabilities and determines whether the teaching environment is ready. The next
level, of modifying instruction, requires that teachers have been prepared to individualize
instruction for students with disabilities. Readiness on the part of the school environment
includes teachers' skills in adapting assessments and a school structure in place that can
evaluate student progress in order to ensure that students with disabilities continue to
benefit academically, socially, and behaviorally. A feedback loop must be in place to
periodically modify the system. Salend's model is graphically represented in Figure 3
below.
A Modified Model Based on the Model of
Distributed Leadership and a Model for Mainstrearning
Elements from both models are needed to construct a model for Thai inclusive
education. The education system in Thailand is of a strongly hierarchical nature. Leaders
have the power of decision making starting at the ministry level on down to the school
level. Changes made in this kind of system currently occur in a top-down manner. The
development of collaboration skills will be a key principal in incorporating a model such
Spillane's (2006) distributed leadership model. Considering a decentralized model in
which every level of school personnel participates in leadership will benefit the inclusive
process, but will need to be adapted to the Thai system.
The two models discussed above were combined to identify the roles inclusion
leaders and teachers within the practices or circumstances of inclusion. The resultant
process models are shown below in Figures 4 and 5 below. In the first modified model,
40
Salend's (1990) specific procedures have been sorted under the three elements of
Spillane's (2006) distributed leadership model. In the second modified model, Spillane's
(2006) model has been adapted to show how inclusion can be advanced by distributing
leadership throughout schools.
................................ _ ,
T€":at.:'h Stu.de-f4.. th.€:
:.,ki.l.h;: ne~de(i fo.t,
re ed.u1.e S f:
if no 1)etJ?:t1:nil\8 a
gt\1d.ent ":.';. n"!d.-d.ll'l"~S~
fb-r n\a:in:sh~aJ:'ning
Establish a. lttau).sttealu.ix'.l.g
t1ehJ;'~Qt'k a:n d
C()In:tnUn.1Catl0n SJ<ste:rn
Prepare disablled
;,,;tude:nt fC)l
mto th •.' ,m,u.sheaJ:h
.rVJ~:-1difyU'lsh"u,c!iclt1. f'\.. r tl\t'::
It"Il;.\.tt)'sU"e>\t1H:d. stlldf~nt-
".:\ d(ipt U-l~: evaluation
s).rst.eu\ for. U',v~
tl"ta.irlstteaJ"t\Bet sb..ld-:-.:nt
F>./'"i.l.lu·ate th~ p:r(Jg:n~$$ cd" tb,C"::
n\~u).~1.tt e 8l.r~e d tt\-au',t.st:re (lIne d
student
PH~pa.:n.~ t'\.Oflclisabled
stud..::uts rOl' <.'1..
n\ain.stv~.<,unit1.g
FIGURE 3. A Model for Mainstreaming (Salend, 1990, p. 23).
41
!
Circumstances
Place students Ulto
ulclusion
Modify instmction for
students ,,\ith disabilities
Adapt the evaluation for
students with disabilities
II Evaluate the progress of
L Ute students withclisabilities
Prepare students withI
disabilities to enter into
ulclusion
1
Prepare parents ofboth
students with and without
(usabilities for ulclusion
lj--- ----"
Prepare srudents ,,\ithout
disabilities for inclusion
1
Establish a cliteda for
inclusion
Determine ashldellts
readiness for inclusion
1
Establish aninclusioI~"'-l
network and I
communication system-l
'--- L_ea-rd_e_rs__'"'_-....l·~-'~'+'L! T_e_a-rd_le_f_S r'
J
1
Revise system based on
evaluation data
FIGURE 4. A Modified Model Incorporating Salend's (1990) Procedures within
Spillane's (2006) Three Elements (Modified Modell).
42
1,/\
i\
L / \/\ ;' \
L / \ / \!\ / \/ \
i \' \ \Lead.er~ I '\(i , \
/\ / +:S \
/ \\ / \ "",c\§I'; \\
/ ' .~,~ \V 'f"\~ \
, \ '::'''' \10.<:J,'i:J \ .
/ \.~ \ \ ~
I'r 1 '\. \\ \ C/ .;~~~~:~:l \ \\----_.~,c'\"........,~.x.:.,/ \--- ---_:. c/ \
! \L......- ,
'Teachers Circmllstances /
FIGURE 5. A Modified Model Showing How Leadership Across Roles Can Support
Inclusion Practices (Modified Model 2).
These modified process models shown in Figures 4 and 5 were used to guide both
conceptual development of the methodology and also reporting of the collected data.
They were used to format interviews and observations for a qualitative study of the
current best practices in inclusive elementary schools in Thailand. The data obtained
from the qualitative study were used to further modify the models to create a Thai
inclusive education model that was consequently refined by two focus groups of experts
in Thai inclusive education. This methodology will be explained in Chapter III.
43
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose of this research study was to recommend a practical model of
inclusion for Thai elementary schools. This was accomplished through a two-phase
process that was composed 1) of investigating the literature on recommended practices in
inclusion and examining best current practices in Thailand through onsite observations
and interviews and using these sources to construct a draft model of inclusion for
Thailand, and then 2) using the support of leading experts in Thai special education to
refine the working model. These phases are shown in Table 1 below, and are summarized
in graphic form in Figure 6. Following the table and figure, each phase will be described
in detail in the Methods section.
44
TABLE 1. The Two Phases of the Study Used in Creating a Practical Model for Inclusion
in Thai Elementary Schools
Phase I
1) A draft model incorporating the recommended practices in inclusion was created
based on the review of literature
2) A qualitative study of current best practices in inclusive Thai elementary schools was
conducted
2A) Inclusive classrooms and school environments were observed
2B) Principals of the selected inclusive schools were interviewed to obtain
administrative perspectives
3) The original draft model was revised to incorporate data from the qualitative study
and a draft model of inclusion practices for Thailand elementary schools was created
Phase II
1) The draft Thai inclusion model was shared with leading experts in Thai special
education in focus groups and interviews and they were asked to critique and extend it
2) Feedback from focus groups and expert interviews were incorporated into the draft
and a final Thai inclusion model was created
PHASE I PHASE II
Current best practice in
inclusive schools, observe Current best practice in
classrooms and school-based Thailand
environment in ten schools
.- .I Focus group often Thai inclusion model
I•
I Thai special educators for elementary school
Current best practice in
inclusive schools, interview - Western inclusion
of 10 school leaders model and practice
FIGURE 6. Stages of the Research Study
45
Methods
Phase I
The Creation of a Draft Inclusion Model from the Review of Literature
The process of creating a draft model from the literature review was described in
Chapter II, which was based upon combining the two models of distributed leadership
(Spillane, 2006) and a model for mainstreaming (Salend, 1990) (see Chapter II, figures 4
and 5). The modified model was used to plan data collection for the qualitative study of
current best practices in Thai inclusive schools.
Qualitative Study: Population and Sampling
The population for the qualitative study that occurred in Phase I consisted of
schools in the central region of Thailand identified by the government as "inclusive"
schools (i.e., 1,499, out of8,816 total schools in the region). These 1,499 schools were
located in the 29 provinces across the central region which included Bangkok, the capital
and largest city in Thailand (Office of the Basic Education Commission Department
Operation Center, 2005). This region of Thailand was chosen for several reasons. First,
Thailand is made up of several socially and geographically distinct areas; findings from
research in one area may not apply to another area. Since it was not possible to conduct a
country-wide study because of time constraints, the region that was most likely to have
the most advanced inclusion practices in Thailand was chosen for the study. The intent of
the study was to identify both current best practices, and how those practices might be
-------------
46
extended in the immediate future by the government; it seemed logical to start where
most of the practices of inclusion have already been implemented. In addition, not all
geographic areas of Thailand are readily accessible, nor would all parts of Thailand be
safe for the conduct of research at this time. The region selected provided both
reasonable physical access and relative physical safety for the researcher.
The sample for the study was drawn from the regional population of federally-
designated inclusive schools. Ten of these schools were recognized in 2006 by the
Ministry ofEducation (MOE) as sites using "best practices" for inclusive education in the
central region of Thailand. All 10 of these schools were invited to participate in the study,
as I wished to form a model of inclusive education from the known best practices rather
than working with a sample of randomly selected inclusive schools from the entire pool
of the schools in the central region of Thailand. In doing so, I may not have included
some high quality inclusive schools that were not identified by Ministry of Education.
During recruitment, one of the best practice schools had a declining enrollment of
students with disabilities and directed the researcher to another school. The recommended
school, named Nongsou Roungwitayanugoon School, was in the same province as the
school identified for its best practice, but was not recognized by the government for best
practice itself. Therefore, nine of the schools in the sample had the best practice
designation, and one did not. The ten schools were composed of six private and four
public schools. Their names and locations are identified in Table 2 below. While the
schools have been identified here, no specific data will be attributed to a specific school
47
in the remainder of the study. They have been identified here to thank them for agreeing
to participate in the study.
TABLE 2. Schools Included in the Qualitative Study of Thai Inclusive Schools
Private schools:
1. Anantaa School, located in Bangkok
2. Supawan School, located in Bangkok
3. Satit Bangna School, located in Bangkok
4. Sanitwittaya School, located in Angtong
5. Kumjonwit School, located in Lopburi
6. Preedawit School, located in Supanburi
Public schools:
7. Kasetsart Laboratory School, located in Bangkok
8. Piboonprachasan School, located in Bangkok
9. Nongsou Roungwittayanugoon School, located in Nakompratom
10. Sarmsanenork School, located in Bangkok
Recruitment. The 10 schools were identified from the announcement of the Office
of the Basic Education Commission for 2006. The researcher contacted the Office of
Basic Education Commission by phone to confirm the names of schools that were
identified for best practice, and they were informed the plan of conducting a research
study with the schools. The government official suggested that a letter should be sent
asking for a permission to contact the schools. The researcher sent the letter of request to
the Office of Basic Education Commission, Ministry of Education in December, 2007
and received a letter back from the secretary of the Ministry of Education giving
permission to conduct the research in late January, 2008. At this time, the researcher
-----------_._--
48
began contacting and scheduling the subjects in the school sample directly to schedule
interviews and school and classroom observations. Eight principals made themselves
available for interviews and the remaining two interviewees were with assistant
principals. Information on each interviewee in the school sample is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3. Names and Credentials of School Leaders in the Qualitative Study
Interviewee Name Degree School Name Role
Private Schools:
1. Muntarika Witoonchart M.ED. Anantaa Principal
2. Supapom Sriroungsakul Ph.D. Supawan Principal
3. Chuleepron Achawaoumrung Ph.D. Satid Bangna Principal
4. Noynnate Kawayawong M.ED. Sanitwittaya Principal
5. Pimmalee Dumkhum M.S. Kumjonwit Principal
6. Doungpom Roummake RED. Preedawit Principal
Public Schools:
7. Rapeepom Supamahitom M.S Kasetsart Assistant to the
Laboratory principal
8. Supranee Kriwatnusorn Ph.D. Piboonprachasan Principal
9. Thummasak Kummanee M.ED Nongsou Principal
Roungwitaya-
10. Jittranun Teerachaisombat RED nugoon Assistant to the
Sarmsanenork principal
Data were gathered from observations of classrooms and school environments in
5 ofthe 10 schools in the study. It was not possible to observe classrooms in all ten
49
schools because the timing ofthe study coincided with some schools' final examination
periods. Thai schools offer two semesters per year. The first semester runs from May to
September and the second semester from November to March. Recruitment and
appointments for observations had been made several months previously while the
researcher was in the U.S. Upon arrival in Thailand, several schools asked for
rescheduling, causing the observations to be delayed until late in the first semester. Two
of the five schools refused to allow observations to interrupt the students' examinations;
the remaining three schools had already closed after examinations.
Interviews were conducted with school leaders in all 10 of the schools in the
sample. Since the study focused on leadership perspectives and roles in inclusive
education, the principals ofthe schools became the main subjects of the first phase of the
study. Because Thai society respects authority, I expected to gain more information about
the schools by going directly to the principals. Nine out often school principals were
women. Their ages ranged from 43-62 years. Three principals held Ph.D. degrees in the
field of education, while five principals held master degrees in educational area and the
remaining two school leaders had received bachelor degrees in education. Their year of
experience working in inclusive school settings ranged from 2 to 25 years.
Qualitative Study: General Description of the School Sample
Before describing the characteristics of each school in the sample, a brief
description of the Thai educational system will be given. After this, each of the ten
subject schools will receive a short profile.
50
The ten schools in the sample were located in the central area of Thailand, with
the majority of schools located in and near Bangkok. Until recently, there were no
national laws requiring schools for all children in Thailand, and schools were slow to
develop in poor and rural areas in particular. Families and institutions such as charities
with sufficient means were encouraged by the government to establish privately-operated
schools. Historically in Thailand, early practices of inclusion developed mostly in family-
owned private schools. Subsequently, a system of public schools was developed,
primarily funded by the national government. A loosely organized system of private
schools that are partly supported by government funds still currently serve many children.
Thus, it is not surprising that family-supported private schools are represented in the
sample of schools chosen by the government as examples of best practices in inclusion.
Six of the ten schools in the sample have a background of family-developed private
funding.
Another aspect of the historical development of schools in Thailand is the
adoption ofBritish-type exit examinations. Exams are given at third, sixth, ninth and
twelfth grades. Individual scores are sent to the school and to parents, and average
school scores are posted online and are open to the public. A passing score is highly
desirable for continuing on in school; however, in practice, students are passed into the
next grade with or without a passing score. Schools and communities "lose face" if
overall school scores are low; many Thai people oppose inclusive education because of
concerns that special education students will lower a school's average scores. In practice,
51
school principals have the option of exempting students from the tests; thus schools have
some flexibility in determining which students are required to take the examinations.
Thailand has a national curriculum. It is viewed largely as a core curriculum that
is a guideline to practices; however, it is not equally applied in all parts of the country
due to large cultural variances in different regions. Schools with more access to experts
and money are likely to have a richer base of curricular materials. All of the schools in
the sample used the same basic curriculum with variations in teaching methods and local
variations in additional curricular materials. Part of the reason for selecting ten schools
from a particular geographic region was to minimize curricular variation.
All ten schools in the sample received funding in different forms and for different
purposes from the Thai Ministry ofEducation. Students who were identified by
physicians and held a certificate of disability received coupons for monthly expenses and
additional funding from the government to support their education. Teachers who held
degrees in special education, teachers who had special needs students included in their
classes, and all those who had attended two hundred hours of special education training
provided by the Ministry of Education also received extra pay per month (i.e., about 2000
bath, or $60).
Thai law requires students who may have disabilities to be examined by a
physician to identify the type and level of their disability before being admitted to school.
Children are issued a certificate of disability. However, in practice, most students come to
school without a certificate, or are identified with a disability after they have entered
school. Two different terms have been broadly used in Special Education in Thailand to
52
distinguish these two types of students with disabilities. The term "identified student"
refers to a student who has been examined and diagnosed by a physician and holds a
certificate. "unidentified student," in contrast, is a term that refers to a student who has
not been issued a certificate by a physician, but does in fact demonstrate some
characteristics of disabilities and needs to receive testing by a school after he or she has
enrolled.
Schools are required to provide their own screening protocols to identify
"unidentified students." Schools in this study used two approaches for screening students:
testing and observing. The most frequently used screening tests were checklist forms that
were created by special educators of the Bureau of Special Education Administration in
the Ministry of Education. A simple form is used for each of the nine types of disabilities
determined by law: (a) hearing impairment, (b) mental impairment, (c) visual
impairment, (d) physical or health-related impairment, (e) learning disabilities, (f) autism,
(g) emotional and behavioral disorders, (h) speech and language disorders, and (i)
multiple disabilities. Schools in the sample employed these tests in conjunction with
other kinds of approaches, such as observations and parents interviewing, or more
complex protocols for specific types of disabilities.
Since each school in the sample was unique in several important ways, the
following profiles were developed to show important differences between the school
sites. The profiles will be presented with the six private schools first, composed of three
schools in Bangkok and three in other provinces, followed by the four public schools.
Three of these public schools were in Bangkok and one was in another province. To
53
maintain confidentiality of the school participants, English scripts from A to J have been
used to refer to each school.
Qualitative Study: School Profiles - Private Schools
School A. School A was a private inclusive kindergarten-elementary school in the
Nongjork District, located in an outskirt area ofBangkok. The school was surrounded by
fields, and on one side of the school was a large pool of blooming lotus. This school was
founded three years ago by an experienced special educator who wanted to start her own
private practice. She held a masters degree in education and had 25 years of experience as
a principal.
The school's mission focused on a "Student-Centered Learning Approach." This
approach was appealing to educated parents who preferred their children to receive more
than academic support from school. Most of the students came from families with high
socio-economic status, and funding was primarily from tuition, with some support from
the government for students with disabilities in the form of coupons. The school did not
require an entrance examination; like most schools in the sample, the age of the child was
used as a norm for admission.
The school was considered small in size with 150 students. The school maintained
a percentage of students with disabilities of exactly ten percent. Ten students were
"identified" students with disabilities, and 5 were "unidentified." The ratio of students per
teacher was 10:1, one of the lowest ratios in Thailand. Although neither the principal and
nor anyone on the team of around 15 teachers held a degree in special education, many
54
had years of experience working with students with disabilities. The school staff
expressed the belief that the teachers in an inclusive setting should not be categorized as
general or special educators but, instead, should all be trained and know how to support
students with special needs. The school provided many amenities, such as a sensory
room, an audio room, a library, and a resource center to support all students in meeting
the school's goal that everyone have access to all the educational services provided.
The school used the national curriculum as a guideline, and also implemented a
"project approach" at all levels and individuals, allowing each individual to perform at
his/her own pace. Assessments were based on individual capabilities and each person's
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Moreover, school policy supported "student-
centered" or "child-centered" learning focusing on the needs, abilities, interests, and
learning styles of the students, with the teacher as a facilitator oflearning. Student-
centered learning requires students to be active, responsible participants in their own
learning, in contrast to the usual curriculum in Thailand in which teachers are in charge
of all activities and students are in a passive, receptive role.
Prior to attending the school, each student with special needs was required to be
screened by a psychiatrist or school specialists. Once their disabilities were determined,
each student had to attend a two-month-summer course provided by the school to prepare
for inclusion. If parents could show that their child was in the process of being trained by
a hospital or other early intervention agency, then the school training could be waived.
School B. This was a private, inclusive school serving kindergarten through high
school located in the outskirts area of eastern Bangkok known as Bangnaa District. The
55
school was located in a residential area to serve the students from the community.
Kindergarten classrooms were designed to look like houses and were placed outside the
buildings that were for older children. The school was located on a large plot of land that
was used for children's learning activities. The school was founded 15 years ago in order
to provide educational opportunity for children with and without disabilities. The
principal served for many years as a professor in a College ofEducation at one of the best
universities in Thailand; she was invited to serve as principal after her retirement from
the university. The school was founded by a charity organization, and was administered
by a committee through the authority of the principal.
The school was funded through tuition from families in the high-income bracket,
and this allowed the school to develop a diversity of approaches and to purchase
equipment to support students' learning. Of the 1,000 students, 70 were "identified"
students and 19 were "unidentified." For these 19 students, the school had its own full-
time clinician who conducted a screening process using both paper testing and
observation. The school attempted to make screening as natural as possible for the
children and their parents.
About 65 teachers and staff served the school. The ratio of students per teacher
was 15:1. Most of the teachers and staff had been trained to work in inclusive education
but did not hold degrees in special education. Most of the facilities and trained teachers
had been prepared for students with mental disabilities.
The school provided students with a "child-centered environment" while
following the guidelines of the national curriculum. The principal reported that all
56
activities in the school promoted individual potential no matter what a child's capacity.
The school leaned toward a "project approach" to teaching and achievement was assessed
at each child's own pace. This type of approach was thought to support learning for all
children, and to be supportive to students with special needs in particular. The school did
not claim an academic orientation. Instead the principal was proud that the school was
well-known for developing the whole child, and declared that the mission of the school
was the happiness of students. School was seen as a place for "living, loving, and
learning."
School C. School C was a private, inclusive kindergarten through elementary
school nested in the Bangkok Noy Community, and located in Thonburi District. Within
1.5 acres, the school was known as an inner city school, located in a very densely
populated area surrounded with businesses. The school buildings stood several stories
and were designed to contain 450 students along with 50 teachers and staff. The ratio of
students per teacher was 9: 1.
Despite its location, the owner of the school desired that students develop a love
of nature, and the school was designed with natural materials such as wooden doors and
the windows and wood flooring in the library and assembly room. Moreover, art
appreciation was an important aspect of the school. Students were encouraged to produce
art works and their products were displayed around the school.
Most of the students attending the school came from middle class families who
lived in the Bangkok Noy area. Sixteen "identified" students and 30 "unidentified"
students were included. Throughout the year, students with disabilities were assessed by
57
the special education-trained teachers, who incorporated observation from home. Each
individual with disabilities was provided an IEP and was observed on a regular basis in
activities provided at school, as well as being assessed through regular testing.
Students who were suspected to have disabilities after they were enrolled (i.e.,
"unidentified students") were screened by trained teachers. Screening tests from many
sources were employed (i.e., tests from the Siriraj Hospital, Kasetsart Laboratory School,
and the Ministry of Education). There was a shortage of specialists who could do the
screening, and parents of the students who had potential disabilities were requested to
take their children to physicians to receive a certificate. However, the school found it
difficult to convince parents because they were afraid of their children becoming labeled
with disabilities.
The principal held a Ph. D. in Education and had worked in the school for more
than 30 years. She appeared to be a dynamic leader and to have the support of a well-
trained teaching team. Even though few teachers held special education degrees, most of
the teachers in the school had been trained to work with special needs students. The
students with disabilities received funding through governrnent coupons, and some
teachers had passed the 200 hours of training from the Ministry of Education to obtain
extra pay.
The principal reported that she was very concerned about the "high" percentage
of children with disabilities in her school. While ten percent of the student population
was considered low in other schools, here the principal was concerned that the perception
of the general community was that "this is where disabled students go" and that her
58
school therefore might have a lower reputation for academic quality. This principal was
the only participant who noted a possible conflict between perceptions of service to
disabled students and the community's perceptions of its academic quality.
School D. This inclusive, private kindergarten through elementary school was
located in the Moung District of Lopburi province, which is around two hours drive north
of Bangkok. Even though the school was located in the inner city of Lopburi, the feeling
of density in this school was different from inner city schools in the Bangkok area. The
school was located in a quiet and peaceful residential area. Surrounded by many different
types of trees, the school looked like a botanical garden. The buildings of the school were
designed to be double-storied and formed aU-shape surrounding a cement area used for
school assemblies and sport activities.
There were 1,350 students, including 25 "identified" and 30 "unidentified
students. There was no entrance exam for this school. The principal held a master's
degree in counseling and guidance and had worked for 20 years in the school. Out of 89
teachers, none held a special education degree, but 20 teachers had been trained to work
with students with special needs. The ratio of students and a teacher was 15:1. To screen
children, the school used tools from the Ministry of Education, identification from
physicians at Anantamahidol Hospital in Lopburi province, and teacher observations.
Each student with disabilities was on an IEP.
The school had historically been known for its rigorous academic program;
however, in the last fifteen years the school had provided services for both physically and
mentally disabled students. The principal believed that the increasing numbers of students
59
with special needs had shifted the school from a solely academic focus toward working
more individually on each child's appropriate academic and social development. The
school staffwas self-taught and had learned to work with the students with special needs
by trial and error. Eventually, even though there was a shortage of teachers who held a
degree in special education, everyone in the school had developed the skills to teach
students with special needs. The school staff integrated a Buddhist ideology in the belief
that everyone can learn at their own pace. A variety of approaches were implemented,
including the Whole Language, Project, and Waldorf Approaches in order support
different kinds of learners.
School E. This was an inclusive private school serving children in kindergarten
through middle school. It was nested in a very busy business area, close by the open
market of the district, with a bus station and street vendors in front of the school. The
school conserved the old typical Thai building style made out of wood with a high roof,
but with less maintenance, the buildings appeared to be run down. The school was
founded 60 years ago under the mission of helping underprivileged students in
Wisatechaichan District, Anngtong province. Even though it was a private school, there
was no entrance exam and the tuition was free of charge, although students paid for their
own educational materials, supplies, and other mandatory fees.
Anngthoug Province is about two hours drive northwest ofBangkok. Most of the
students enrolling in this school came from lower to middle class families, ranging from
farmers in the rural area to government officials in the urban part of the province. The
school also provided education for students from other districts of the provinces and other
60
provinces, particularly for students with disabilities. The school began to admit students
with disabilities in the past 10 years primarily for humanitarian reasons, and like other
schools, many children with disabilities were identified after they were enrolled. In 2004,
the school was chosen by the Ministry ofEducation to be a pilot school for inclusion, and
received more funding. Coupons paid to students with disabilities were also increased.
The total number of students was 960; the ratio of students per teacher was 19:1.
Among 31 students with disabilities, only 9 were "identified." For screening children, the
school leaned toward the process of observations in addition to using the checklist from
the Ministry of Education; few other tests were available in the local area. The school
provided services for students with physical and mental disabilities; however, the school
was designed without ramps or elevators, which proved challenging for students with
physical disabilities.
The principal of the school held a masters degree in Educational Administration
and had worked as a teacher and a principal for more than 32 years; however, her
experience working with children with disabilities began 10 years ago. None of the
teachers held a degree in special education but most had been teaching long children with
special needs were placed in their classrooms. Teachers received regular funding for
training, and three out of 49 teachers had passed the 200 hours of training provided by the
Ministry of Education and obtained extra pay.
School F. This private, inclusive school serving children from kindergarten
through elementary had such an excellent reputation that it had only 3-5 seats available
for the first grade level each year. The school is located in the heart of Sriprajan District,
61
Supanburi province. It is about a two-hour drive from the center of Bangkok. The 4-acre
school is surrounded by a residential area and is close to the open market of the district,
protected somewhat by many big trees from the noisy central city. A few buildings have
been preserved in the old wooden Thai style, making more of a home atmosphere in the
school.
The principal held only a bachelor degree in education, but had been working in
school for 20 years. Fourteen hundred students were served by a team of teachers and
paraprofessionals numbering 90. The ratio of students per teacher was 15:1. Even though
there were no teachers with special education degrees, most of the teachers had received
training to work in the inclusive setting. To be admitted to the school, emollees needed to
pass an observation for school readiness by a team teacher. Funding primarily came from
the tuition paid by middle to higher income families of the province.
The school had its own policy for inclusion, which included only children with
mild to moderate disabilities. As a result, the number of students with disabilities was
limited at around 11 students per year, lower than the other schools in the sample. Five
out of the eleven current students were "identified." For "unidentified" students, the
school provided a screening process of observation of students' behavior in a less
restrictive environment with their parents included. Interviews with parents were
employed along with the screening protocol of the Ministry of Education to test students.
The school worked closely with Supanburi Hospital and the Regional Special Education
Government Agency to identify students and provide services. Teachers receive training
62
through the agency, and the school received financial support. The school closely
monitored progress of students with disabilities.
In addition to the national curriculum, the school recently adopted a policy from
the Ministry of Education called "Learning from a Botanical Garden in SchooL" This
curriculum encourages the appreciation of nature through the activity of taking care of
trees in the school. Each student was assigned responsibility for trees and gardens, and
the theme was interwoven in academic subjects. Students learned responsibility and to
share social awareness with others. The principal reported that the curriculum supported
the ultimate goal of education in which everyone understood human differences and
being different could be a positive part of greater society.
Qualitative Study: School Profiles - Public Schools
School G. This public school was located in a busy central area of Bangkok, and
was an inner city school on a large property surrounded by dense lower income family
apartments. The area was noisy with lots of traffic. The school received funding from the
government under the umbrella of the Bangkok Metropolis School District. The principal
of the school held a Ph.D. in higher education and had worked for 30 years of experience
as a teacher and principal. She had been in charge of this school for six months.
There were 1,800 students from kindergarten to high school grades, with 287
students defined as having both physical and mental disabilities. The ratio of students per
teacher was 20: 1 Most the students without disabilities came from local low income
families, while most of the students with disabilities came from middle to higher income
63
families and lived outside the immediate school area. Children with disabilities were able
to go to any school and, in practice, parents looked for schools with properly trained
staff; schools customarily recommended that students attend elsewhere if they did not
have the right staff training.
The school had included students with disabilities since its establishment, and was
built to provide accessibility, assistive equipment, and resource centers. Forty out of the
90 teachers held special education degrees and the remaining fifty had been trained for
teaching students with special needs. Each student with special needs had an IEP.
Since the school was equipped with specialists, a greater variety of screening
protocols were used than in other schools in the sample. Besides the Ministry of
Education checklist, the school employed two tests which will be described in more detail
here. The Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM), developed by John C. Raven, was
originally a multiple choice test of abstract reasoning designed for younger children, the
elderly, and people with moderate or severe learning difficulties. A candidate is asked to
identify the missing segment required to complete a larger pattern in each item. Many
items are presented in the form of a 3x3 or 2x2 matrix, giving the test its name (Raven &
Raven, 2003). The Conners Abbreviated Parent/Teacher Questionnaire (CPTQ) is a
rating scale measurement. The APTQ includes 10 items to observe a candidate's
behaviors in the areas ofrestless (overactive), excitable or impulsive, disturb other
children, fail to finish things he starts (short attention span), fidgeting, inattentive and
distractible, demands must be meet immediately: frustrated, cries, mood changes quickly,
temper outbursts (explosive and unpredictable behavior). Each item is rated from not at
64
all, just a little, pretty much, or very much (Green, 2007). Besides using these tests,
qualified teachers observed students with peers and parents were often included in setting
the time and process of these observations (See APPENDIX A and B for sample pages
from the tests).
School H. This large public school was located in the same district as the
previously described public school and provided education from kindergarten through
middle school. It served about 4,000 mostly lower income students, including 172
students with disabilities. The ratio of students per teacher was 30: 1, which is closer to
the average classroom ratio in Thailand than other schools in the sample so far. The
school is nested in the area known as Houy Kwang market, which is extremely busy with
traffic and people going about their business. Noise from the large crowds of people at
the market just across the street from the back of the school, cars honking, and the sound
of traffic movement were easily apparent in the classrooms; however, there was also a
community park across the street in the front of the school. The school was on a small
plot of land and was built in 6 stories; buildings were connected with ramps for children
with disabilities on every other floor.
The most frequent disability represented was physical impairment. The 130
teachers were required to be trained to teach children with special needs by the Ministry
of Education 200-hours program; however, only about 15 teachers had completed the
training and very few of the teachers held a degree in special education.
As a public school, the primary source of funding was from the government with
supplemental donations from both national and international foundations/agencies. The
65
school had received funding from a Japanese foundation for building ramps connecting
all buildings for students in wheelchairs. The school had a policy to help increase student
self-esteem by encouraging students with disabilities to participate in sport competitions;
some ofthe students with disabilities were selected to attend in Paralympics Games,
which showcased the talents and abilities of the world's athletes with physical disabilities
in multi-sport competitions.
Students were required to be "identified" before entering school; however some
students were admitted to the school as "normal" students and later were identified with
disabilities. When this occurred, the school used the screening test from the Ministry of
Education to categorize disabilities. The school had no specific protocols to screen
students, and did not have access to specialists. Even though the school provided an IEP
for each child, students made little progress.
School 1. This public school located in Bangkhen district provided education from
elementary through high school. It was a so-called "lab school" connected to a university,
and was located near the College of Education. The school had a pleasant atmosphere,
with many trees and gardens surrounding it. The school was originally founded to serve
the children of university faculty and staff. However, around two decades later the policy
of admission was changed, and now attracted students from all over Bangkok and other
adjacent provinces. A good score on a written entrance examination at the beginning of
first grade, at middle school entrance, or at high school, was required for admission along
with observations from the team of teachers. Only about 10% of students who applied
were admitted.
66
The school served 3,000 students, including 70 students identified with autism, 50
identified with learning disabilities, and 40 "delayed" students. There were 400 teachers,
including 38 teachers with special education degrees or who had been trained in special
education. All of the students with autism and learning disabilities were certified by
physicians from Yuwapasart Wiyopratum Children's Hospital, and they had received
some basic training prior to acceptance. The school also did additional tests and
observations once the students enrolled. The school identified "delayed" students through
the use of screening tests and observations. The principal held a Ph. D. in school
psychology, and had been working on developing a screening protocol that fit with Thai
society that she expected to share with other schools.
Within the school, there was a research center for children with special needs that
focused on helping the "mainstream" understand the philosophy of special education of
the school. The center director reported directly to the principal ofthe school and had its
own experts and specialists in special education.
Children had to meet three policies of the school prior to receiving services.
Firstly, the school could admit only 5 students with disabilities per year and those
students needed to be identified and trained by psychiatrists at Yuwaprasart Wiyopratum
Children's Hospital. The second criteria centered around the financial issue that parents
of children with disabilities had to absorb the tuition cost (about 80,000 baht or 2,400
US$ per year). This money was for hiring special education teachers, teaching assistants,
buying assistive technologies I materials, and for related development and management
costs. The third condition was that the students with disabilities would be separated from
67
the mainstream classrooms and students for one year. The disabled students were in
classes of the specific category of their disabilities to receive training until they were
deemed ready to be included in mainstream classrooms. This class was called Hong Lek,
a term which means a small special needs class. While attending the Hong Lek, the
students with special needs would also be included within some mainstream classes under
supervision. If they were not disruptive, they could be moved to receive full inclusion,
which is called Hong Yai, or mainstream classroom. Each individual with disabilities had
an IEP. Since most of the students with and without disabilities came from a higher
socio-economic strata of society, the school reported that the parents' time availability
and their collaboration were factors that supported successful inclusive education.
School J. This school had provided inclusive education for 25 years to students
with special needs in the Ban Nongsou community. The principal was new to the school,
having been moved to the school the previous year by the rotation policy of the Ministry
of Education. He had few years of experience working in inclusive settings, but with a
master's degree in Educational Administration and more than 20 years of work in
schools, expressed confidence in running an inclusive school. The school adopted the
national curriculum and there was no entrance exam.
This elementary school had 447 students, including 10 students with disabilities
and 17 teachers. The ratio of students to teachers was 26: 1. In its screening processes, the
school used the screening tests provided by the Ministry of Education, but preferred
children to be "identified" by a physician because of a shortage of knowledgeable people
who were familiar with screening procedures.
68
The school is located in a rural area of Nakrnprathom province, about an hour
drive south of Bangkok. The school was located in the same area ofWat Nongsou where
there is a monastery of the community. The big trees called Ton Yang divided the land
between the monastery and the school. The old two-story buildings showed a typical style
of rural public schools from the 1970s era, though they were well maintained. With many
acres on the property, different kind of trees, and a canal flowing through the land of the
school provided fresh air for the students. However, ninety percent of the students came
from "grass roots" families whose parents worked in the rice fields and farms, and in
industrial firms. Because of the pervasive poverty in the area, students received free
lunches, uniforms, education materials and supplies from the Ministry of Education.
The rationale of including students with disabilities in the school long before there
were any government mandates was interpreted by the school principal and staff as a
responsibility to the community even if the school was not prepared because of limited
funding and no trained educational staff to serve students with any particular disability.
When children with disabilities were first emolled, they were simply included in regular
classrooms with regular teachers. Later on, once the teachers received training and
became more knowledgeable, students began to receive specific services for behaviors
and communication, as well as learning daily self-help skills. As a result, the school's
reputation broadened and many parents of children with disabilities throughout
Nakornprathom province were interested to have their children receive services from the
school. In 2000, the school joined the inclusive education pilot project of the Ministry of
Education. The school has received additional support in terms of trainings, increased
69
budget, and advice and counsel on how to administer an inclusive school. To achieve the
goals of inclusive education, the school currently applies the SEAT project as a guideline
for inclusive school administration. SEAT project provides broad elements of what
should be included for a cooperating inclusive school. First S means students, E
represents environment, A stands for Assessments, and T indicates Tools.
Qualitative Study - Data Collection
The interview and observation protocols were developed in advance, based on
best practices inclusion literature and the draft model drawn from the literature.
School observations. Schools were visited for observation by the researcher from
March 18th to 30th, 2008. Each observation lasted approximately 60 minutes. A pre-
prepared observation form was used to take data. The general checklist was constructed
prior to observing the schools. The checklist acted as a guide for observing similar issues
in each school. A copy of the checklist can be found in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Checklist Used During Observations of Schools
Preparation of student with disabilities to enter into inclusion
Preparation of students without disabilities for inclusion
Preparation of parents of both students with and without disabilities for inclusion
Student placement
How instruction is modified for students with disabilities
How assessments are adapted for students with disabilities
How progress of students with disabilities is evaluated
70
The general process for conducting the observations included providing the
schedule for the visit to each school by phone. On the day of observation the letter from
the secretary in the Ministry of Education was given to school officials to demonstrate
that permission had been obtained to conduct research. The researcher conducted each
observation by sitting on a chair by the back door outside of the classroom without
talking or interacting with the students. The pre-prepared observational form was filled
out as the class was observed. Some schools provided more than one class to observe,
depending on the availability of their class schedules. Within the hour of observation
time, it was not possible to witness all of the areas on the observational form. Besides
allowing me to watch students in classes participating in activities and observing
classroom environment, three schools provided some documents used in the process of
including students with special needs into the regular classroom, ranging from screening
documents to IEP development paper. Because of the time of observations in some
classrooms the students were in the middle of final examinations, and it was possible to
see the assessment forms that the schools provided for the students with special needs.
Interviews with school leaders. In-depth interviews were conducted with one
school administrator in each of the ten schools in the study between March 10 and March
26,2008. An appointment was made by phone, and on the day of the interview, the letter
from the secretary of the Ministry of Education was used to demonstrate permission to
access the school for conducting research. In three schools it was possible to conduct
both an interview and an observation in the same day.
71
Eight principals and two assistants to principals were interviewed. Each interview
lasted approximately 60-120 minutes. All of the interviews occurred in the principal's
office and occurred as an informal conversation. All of the principals provided a little bit
of a school tour as their time allowed.
Table 5 presents the general topics that were covered in interviews. Interviews
were conversational in nature and did not follow a structure, although every issue on the
list of general topics was covered for each school.
TABLE 5. General Topics Covered in Interviews with School Leaders
Administrator's background and experience
Administrator's understanding of inclusion
How the school established criteria for inclusion
How student readiness for inclusion was determined
What kinds of networks and communication systems existed among home, school and
community
How students with disabilities were prepared to enter the school environment
How students without disabilities were prepared for inclusion
How parents of both students with and without disabilities were prepared for inclusion
How inclusive placements were made
How instruction for students with disabilities was modified
How assessments for students with disabilities were adapted
How student progress was evaluated
Whether there was a feedback system to modify processes based on evaluation data
72
Phase II
Phase II of the research was aimed at further refining of an appropriate model for
Thai inclusive schools by calling upon the knowledge and expertise of leading experts on
special education in Thailand. Ten experts in the area of special education were identified
to participate in two focus groups, each lasting three hours. In each focus group meeting,
the researcher asked these experts to compare the proposed Thai model and practice data
to their understanding of needs and constraints in Thailand related to adopting full
inclusion practices. The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed, and then coded
by two independent coders for emergent themes. The final product of the dissertation
research is a revised Thai inclusion model incorporating western best practices, Thai
practices, and Thai expert analysis.
Participants
Participants in Phase II consisted of ten experts in the area of special education.
They were nationally recognized as experts of the Bureau of Special Education
Administration. Table 6 provides the names and roles of each expert. They have been
listed under the focus group to which they were invited.
Three of the experts listed in the table were unable to participate in the focus
groups and sent representatives who came from different settings under the Ministry of
Education. However, after the focus groups, the three experts who had not participated
were subsequently scheduled for interviews to seek their direct input. The three substitute
representatives and their roles are listed in Table 7 below.
73
Focus Groups
The two focus groups were organized on April 16, 2008. The first focus group
was held in the morning from 9 a.m.-12.00 p.m. and a second group was held in the
afternoon from 1- 4.00 pm. The experts were provided with a copy of the draft model and
the details of each element in the model (See APPENDIX D). The researcher provided a
presentation summarizing the literature review of inclusive practices in western countries,
mainly focused on the two models of distributed leadership ( Spillane 2006) and the
model of mainstreaming (Salend, 1990) in order to describe how the draft model was
constructed.
74
TABLE 6. Expert Participants Invited to Participate in the Focus Groups
Name
Focus Group One:
Asst Professor. Benja Chollatanon, Ph.D.
Mrs. Sujinda Pongaugsorn, Ph.D.
Mrs. Mantarike Witoonchart, M. Ed.
Ms Doungtip Trakoondit, M.Ed.
Professor. Sriya Niyomtum, M. Ed
Focus Group Two:
Professor. Padung Arrayawinyu, Ph.D
Mrs.ladesada Kittisuntorn, Ph.D
Mrs. Nisita Peetijarountam, M. Ed.
Mrs. Soomboon Arsirapoj, M. Ed.
Mrs. Penkea Limsila, M.D
Role
Legislation and Policy Consultant of the
Ministry of Education of Thailand
Special Education Specialist of the
Ministry of Education of Thailand
Principal of Annantaa School
Special Education Supervisor ofMetropolis
Special Education Government Agency
Special Education Department, Prasarnmite
University and the Chairman of Gifted
Students Foundation of Thailand
Director of Special Education Department,
Soun Dusit Rajabat University
Special Education Specialist of the
Ministry ofEducation of Thailand
Clinical Psychologist of Ban Oun Rak
Institute (Early Intervention Private
Agency)
The Director ofMetropolis Special
Education Government Agency
Yuwaprasart Wiyaooppratum Children's
Hospital
The purpose of the focus groups was to invite the experts to assist with further
refining of the model for its appropriateness for Thai inclusive schools. The focus groups
were conducted as open forums for the experts to critique and make suggestions about the
needs and constraints in Thailand to adopting full inclusion.
75
TABLE 7. The Three Representatives Who Participated in Focus Groups in Place of the
Experts
Experts Who Did Not Attend
Focus Groups
Professor. Sriya Niyomtum,
M.Ed.
Professor. Padung
Arrayawinyu, Ph.D.
Mrs. Penkea Limsila, M.D
Names of Representatives
Surapong Saneboon,
M.Ed.
Tanat Loppai, B.Ed.
Wasana Lertsilp, Ph.D
Role
The Director of Special
Education Government
Agency of Ayuthaya
Province
General Education
Teacher with long time
experience working with
special needs students at
Watnang School,
Bangkok
Academic Supervisor
from the Office of the
Basic Education
Commission
Interview Transcription and Data Analysis
Prior to the focus groups, the interview data from the qualitative study of Thai
inclusive schools were coded for emergent themes by two independent coders. Then the
researcher constructed a revised draft model, specific to Thailand, to present to the focus
group in the second phase of research.
The transcribing process began after the first interview. Two previous students of
the researcher who were studying at college level were employed to process all the
transcribing from the audiotape recoding in the Thai language. To ensure the
trustworthiness of their transcriptions, the researcher compared what was transcribed, by
76
reading the transcriptions while listening to the original tape recordings. The two students
were not majors in Education, and they misunderstood some terms used, especially when
some of the principals used English jargon. It was possible to find and correct these kinds
of errors.
Data analysis began by comparing transcriptions to data gathered from
observations at each school. The interview transcriptions were completed by the first
week of April, 2008, at which time the original draft model was reexamined in light of
the interview transcripts and observation notes, and a revised model for Thailand was
drafted.
Within the two focus group meetings, besides providing the critique and
recommendations to the draft model, the experts provided insights regarding Thai society
and the perceptions ofThai people toward persons with disabilities and their
understanding about education for persons with disabilities. These points were taken into
consideration in developing the model to fit the needs of Thai students with disabilities,
their parents, and society as a whole.
Ethical Issues and Trustworthiness
Concerns about ethical issues focused on research bias, various issues of harm,
consent of the subject participants, participants' privacy and the confidentiality of data
(Berg, 2007). A discussion of researcher bias will occur separately from the other ethical
issues. These will be reported under the section of human subjects' protection.
77
Researcher Bias
An assumption was made by the researcher that the principals of inclusive schools
would understand technical terms used in inclusion. Therefore, the interview questions
were constructed from the framework of special education terminologies. However, once
the questions were translated into Thai, they were interpreted differently by different
interviewees. Time had to be spent in interviews discussing basic definitions. This may
have introduced some researcher bias into the interviews. In addition, by the selection of
this topic, it would be clear to participants and to the reader that the researcher is an
advocate for inclusion practices. An attempt was made to compensate for this bias by
doing a thorough search of the prior research literature, and by using blind coders during
the coding and early analysis of the data. Triangulation methods between the
observations, interviews and focus group meetings were also used to ensure that findings
came from more than one source. However, the researcher's personal support of inclusive
practices may still be embedded in the discussion of findings.
Protection of Human Subjects
Since it is a requirement that the research project pass the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) review, the issue of trustworthiness has been supported in the researcher's
attempt to avoid the factors that are considered offensive to ethical issues. An attempt
was made to make every step clear to the participants. Beginning with the contacting
process, phone calls were made to each of the 10 subject schools, introducing the
researcher and describing the research to be conducted. Similar phone calls were made to
78
each of the10 experts. Once both groups of participants agreed to participate, they were
sent a consent form via email containing more information about the study.
Regarding the issue of confidentiality, after the data were transcribed,
pseudonyms were used for each school. The tape recording files were stored separately
from transcriptions and the code key. Transcripts were stored electronically on a
computer accessible only by password. Tapes and the code key were kept in a separate
secured location. Only the transcription assistants and researcher had access to the
transcripts; in addition translations of the transcriptions were available to the academic
advisor. If within three years the data is not used for further research, it will be deleted.
The study posed no physical risk to participants. Some psychological risk was
possible, such as anxiety, confusion, embarrassment, depression, etc. Therefore, an
attempt was made to make the interview questions clear, and the researcher behaved with
decorum while conducting the observations. The questions for interviews were
constructed to be straightforward and academically orientated. The content was unrelated
to the feelings or personal information of subjects. Seniority is strongly recognized in
Thai society, and as a younger person, the researcher could not challenge or harm
interviewees or members of the focus groups. These factors minimized the psychological
risk factors. Moreover, because the interviews were conducted in private, the
psychological risk was minimal and confidentiality was assured.
The experts who participated in the focus groups were familiar to each other; they
appear to share in a relaxing manner, which could be considered as having minimal
psychological risk. However, there may have been the possibility of breach of
79
confidentiality in the focus groups because participants may have chosen to speak about
the experience outside of the groups.
The data collection process was strengthened by the rich data from each
individual and the opportunity to exchange knowledge and experiences between the
practices of Thailand and the U.S. The data obtained and the exchange of information
with participants deepened the researcher's understanding about the context of Thai
inclusive practices, which in turn aided in precisely reporting and analyzing the data.
Scholarships for the research study were granted from three different sources
including the Kenneth A. Erickson Award, Clare Wilkins Chamberlin Memorial Award,
and Graduate School scholarship, and included the cost oftraveling from the U.S. to
Thailand, ground transportation, hiring assistants for transcribing, and compensations.
Each interview subject received $20 and each school received $60 to purchase books and
materials for the school library. Each expert participant received $50 for participating in
the focus groups. Every participant also received an Oregon calendar after their
participation.
80
CHAPTER IV
DATA REPORT
As described in Chapter II, previous researchers have found that successful
inclusive education practices are composed of many linked elements. In this chapter, I
report the data results from my interviews, observations and focus group meetings using
the elements identified in the literature review to organize my findings and emergent
themes. In Chapter V, I will compare the findings of this study to the successful practices
identified in the literature review in Chapter II.
This chapter begins with a brief report about the perceptions of the principals and
focus group experts on how the unique qualities of Thai society at this time affect the
adoption of inclusion practices. This will be presented in three sections: Perceptions of
Thai Society and Culture, Current Policy, and Financing ofInclusion.
In the remainder of the chapter, the data will be organized around the initial
school year for a child with disabilities. When a child first enters school, some type of
Initial Screening and Assessment Practices occur, followed by development of the First
Individual Education Plan (IEP), usually simultaneous with Classroom Placement in the
most appropriate setting. Monitoring and review of the child's progress is usually
formally noted in the IEP Review and Other Reports ofAccomplishment, but may also
include Other Assessments ofProgress, particularly at the year's end.
81
This chapter concludes with general data on Leadership ofInclusion that has not already
been included in leadership sections throughout the chapter, Problems ofPutting Policy
into Practice, and Needfor New Policy.
Perceptions of Thai Society and Culture
One principal interviewed in this study compared inclusive education to learning
a new language. She said that it is helpful, if one wanted to learn this language of
inclusive education, to allow oneself to be immersed in the culture where the target
language is spoken. In this way a person could practice speaking and become more
fluent. More importantly, the new language learner could be immersed in the
surrounding culture of the language and, thus, learn more readily the contextual reasons
why this language of inclusion might turn one way or another. For even the most adept
language learner, this immersion in a strange society and language could be stressful and
even frightening.
The general practice of inclusion in schools has primarily been developed in and
adopted from western countries. All of the ten principals in the study talked about the
unique qualities of Thai society and how adoption of a new system that came out of other
cultural roots was a complex process. The principals described themselves and all Thai
people as fundamentally a polite and caring society, but one that embedded patronage
systems where seniority is often essential to obtaining a job and advancing in
employment. They all said that principals and teachers were generally highly respected
members of the society. They said they are viewed as having special knowledge and also
82
as having the power of a government position in which they are paid to guide children's
education. However, many of the principals also said that these perceptions were held
within a hierarchical structure in which physicians were held in higher esteem, and family
linkages to power were used to manipulate any system to their advantage. The principals
talked about parents who used their social status to try and override school
recommendations for their child, especially if they had some personal connections to
someone higher in the education hierarchy.
Many of the principals explained that the adoption of inclusion was slowed by an
underlying cultural attitude of blame towards people with disabilities. In Buddhist
thinking, being born with a disability comes from having bad karma in a previous life.
Social status is viewed as important, and someone born with a disability was perceived as
having lower status.
While Thai people were described as being considerate and polite, there were
some drawbacks in those apparently positive manners. The principals noted that people
generally followed leaders, and were easily convinced to believe things even when not
supported by facts. In education, there was little creativity invested in solutions to
educational situations that were culturally specific to Thailand, as opposed to importing
Western models. They noted that the Thai education system largely followed the patterns
of Western countries, even when some ideas and practices did not seem to fit their
society, nor make sense to the principals, teachers, or the parents. They hoped that they
would be able to adapt Western inclusion practices to better fit Thai schools.
83
The Role of Compassion
Since the majority of Thai people are Buddhist, and compassion for all living
beings is at the heart of Buddhist practice, it was not surprising that seven out of the ten
leaders mentioned that the impetus for adopting inclusive education practices in Thailand
must come from a sense ofmercy and compassion for all living beings. One principal put
it this way, "The main principle for people who work with children with special needs
[must be first] mercy, then compassion, and then being patient."
Each of the seven principals expressed a different aspect of their compassion
toward their students with special needs. Each one linked the practice of compassion as a
balance against the belief that someone with disabilities has bad karma. One principal
shared her thought that, as a serious practitioner of Buddhism, she learned from
Pratribidok (Buddhist Bible) that disabilities today come from what was done (bad
karma) in past lives. She argued to her teachers and staff that the reason they had to take
care of students with special needs today was "because we might have [been] related to
them in some way in the past life, so this life we need to help them." Conversing with
teachers and staff in the way of Buddhist ideology, the principal believed that it allowed
them to create an understanding that we need to support students with disabilities and that
it was not proper to shun them or exclude them from school. This principal also reported
that not all families appeared to treat a child with a disability well. Sometimes families
apparently saw their job as punishing the child instead of showing compassion. From her
experiences working with children with disabilities, she said she had found children had
sometimes been treated poorly by their family:
84
Sometimes I found pinch marks all around the children's bodies. I so
sympathized with their being [treated] hatefully by the people who are
supposed to love them. I almost cried when I saw these situations, so that
is why my rules for everyone here at [school is that we all] must love the
students and give them mercy.
Another principal of a public school told about these experiences working in her
previous public inclusive school:
Everyday one student with Down syndrome would come to sit in my
office. She would just come to see me, once she knew that I was here at
the office and then she left to [go to] her classroom after giving me a hug.
Sometimes she came with lots of complaints about how she hated the
teacher, blah, blah, blah.... I would tell her that the teacher loved her and
wanted to have her in class. She would think about that and then she
would go to the classroom. This was her routine with me.
The principal talked about this being her opportunity to show the student that she
was loved by people in the school. She said that this child was typical of many children
who need emotional as well as educational supports. She then went on to say that when
she was assigned to move to a new school, she lost track of that student until she
happened to go to a meeting at the previous school and found out that the student had
dropped out of school. The current classroom teacher informed her that the girl had gone
to see the principal and had found someone else sitting in her old office. The new
principal found her sitting and waiting and told her to leave. The girl apparently tried to
communicate what she wanted from the new principal but she was not able to make the
new principal understand. She was taken back to the classroom where she cried for a long
time. The next day her mother called to say she was sick and she had not returned to
school since that time. This school principal learned that some children suffer greatly
when compassion is withdrawn, and she talked about how quickly one person could make
85
a difference in either direction-either to support the child's learning, or to destroy the
child's confidence. She concluded that this kind of sad event is a major drawback of
being uncompassionate, or lack of personal caring and attention to a student in need. She
said that she had learned that attention alone affects much more than one might expect.
Therefore, giving love and care to children with disabilities makes them happily stay in
school. She said, "I never expect them to meet the academic standards easily, I just want
to see them develop at their own pace."
One of the private school leaders talked about how she coped with the perception
of disabilities. She viewed compassion in a different way. She explained,
Including children with disabilities in school settings, I don't think about
compassion in the same way others do, but as a principal. I told myself
that every Thai child has to be included in school because oftheir rights. If
you think that it is their right to get an education, you show your
compassion and kindness to them. Therefore, regardless of their
disabilities, they must get a good education the same as other normal
students do.
She strongly recommended that, in the future, principals should be first taught this
principle during their formal education in teacher college so that everyone who becomes
a teacher will consider the rights of all children and the duties of teachers. When they
later become principals, they will know what should be done to support inclusion in a
compassionate manner. Other principals also talked about the necessity of gently
coaching school staff, parents, children, and community members in how compassion can
overcome bias against disability.
More discussion of the role of compassion is included in the sections on screening
and assessment, and classroom placement.
86
Current Policy
By law, all Thai children must be included in the school system. The principals
in this study demonstrated through their experiences that the law required them to do
something that they were not prepared to do. Technically, they were required to take in
all children, even those with very severe disabilities, when they had no staff or room to
support them. Parents were informed about the law and brought their children to the
schools. In practice, it was an impossible situation for the schools and there were wide
variations in meeting the requirements of the law.
One public school principal in Bangkok talked about being unable to screen for
children's readiness before admitting them to first grade. The children just showed up,
and screening was initiated even as the children were expected to enter their first class.
Another admission problem carne when parents brought students to the school in the
middle ofthe academic year when no prior assessment of skills or readiness had been
done. The principals said average class size was already about 50 students, so teachers
had to be given great credit and support when suddenly they had one or more
undiagnosed special needs student added to the already large class, often with little
warning and sometimes mid-year.
Another principal said that there had been controversy over what was determined
by the Educational Law versus what was covered by Special Educational Law. She
explained that there were already laws in place for some severe conditions, such as
blindness or deafness, when the inclusion law was adopted. It was not clear to anyone
-- ---- -----_._- - ---------
87
how the two laws were to interact, and parents, teachers, and principals were making
their own decisions as time passed.
Since many parents knew about the inclusion law, the school principals said that
parents brought their children to the school expecting them to be admitted. The principals
all agreed with and accepted the human right to education, but they knew that they could
not handle every child properly. In fact, three principals stated that schools across the
country were not ready for full inclusion. Their own schools were designated as best
practice schools, and they could easily point to where they had to make decisions that did
not match best practice. They believed that it had to be worse in other schools where
there was not a commitment to inclusive practices and where even fewer resources would
be available to help children with special needs. They said it was quite awkward for them
to have to balance each need between what the law endorsed and what the school could
provide. They tried to use good assessment processes to diagnose each child's disabilities
and needs, and they tried to talk with parents about what the law said and what the school
could do. However, actual practices could vary dramatically, and they knew they were
"on the line" for explaining every one of them.
Practice Related to Current Policy
Many schools faced the challenge of high numbers of students with special needs
wanting admission. Since there was no written national policy on limitations for
placement, each school developed its own rule about the number and type of students
with disabilities if they could not reasonably handle them all. One school principal
88
reported that the number of students with special needs that the school was able to admit
was five per year. Another school principal said that her school policy was only two
students with special needs in anyone class. She said that the school had previously had
problems with admitting up to five students per class because they felt compassion for the
parents and the child, but it had been unworkable.
Another school principal stated that she had to make a rule that took into account
the types and the levels of the students' disabilities. She said there should be a "balance"
between mild to severe conditions and different types of disabilities for each class. For
example, she said that she thought there should be one student with learning disabilities
and another student with Down syndrome as a maximum in anyone class. Another
school principal demonstrated similar reasoning when she said that she did not put
disabilities like autism, ADHD or ADD together, because it would be too much for one
teacher to handle. In contrast, one expert in the focus group argued that different types of
disabilities required different educational approaches. Students with different types of
disabilities should not be placed in the same class. For example, she argued, students with
Down syndrome needed a lot of repetition, but that was an unwanted behavior from the
students with autism. Neither the principals nor the experts in the focus group discussions
saw any way that a particular school could handle all disability conditions, as
theoretically demanded by the inclusion law.
Six of the principals said that they used a "ten percent" rule, where they only
admitted a total often percent of children with special needs in the total school
population for any given year. They also said that they were careful to consult with
89
teachers about placement of each child in a particular classroom. Even though the ten
percent rule seemed to be widespread, I found no evidence that it came from any national
or regional law. Many of the principals talked about it as ifwere a law, but, in fact, the
admission rules varied at the school level.
Public and Private Schools
As in other countries, educational services in Thailand are provided through both
public and private systems. The public school system is funded primarily from the
national level and schools are known as "neighborhood schools." Any student in the
immediate community is eligible for the closest neighborhood school. Others who live
outside the neighborhood school may attend it if there are available spaces after the local
community is served.
While public schools in Thailand use some parts of "school-based management,"
both the principals and experts said that those ideas must be implemented in a very
hierarchical and centralized system that is run by the Ministry ofEducation. The end
result of heavy top-down management is often rigidity in practice and budget. Change is
difficult simply due to the long-embedded nature of the system.
There are also many private schools in Thailand. Some of these schools were
founded by charities or religious organizations, while others were founded by families or
owned by one person. It is interesting that five out of six of the participating private
schools in this study were from the latter group. Private schools are managed quite
differently when compared with public schools in terms of organizational structures,
90
sources of budget, and budget management. There is more variation in practices and
more flexibility in curriculum within private systems.
There is a nationally prescribed basic curriculum in place, but there is
considerable leeway extended to private schools, in particular, in how they may
supplement and implement the national curriculum. Schools with more interest and more
funds could augment their curriculum with more teachers, differently trained teachers,
and supplemental resources for the classroom.
School Accreditation
By law, every four years Thai schools are evaluated by the national Office of
Educational Standards. The school principals said that the accreditation system used
national test scores as one of the most important criteria for judging each school. The
principals said that one possible problem was that including children with special needs
in their schools would lower their average school scores and could affect the school
ranking. They said this would damage both their personal and school reputation. This was
one reason why almost all of the principals said that they needed to limit the number of
children with special needs in their school at anyone time, and that they were more
inclined to admit students whose needs were the least likely to interfere with achieving a
high score on the national tests. Some school principals reported that they solved the
problem by not including students with disabilities in the group taking the national test.
However, some parents expected to see national test scores and some principals were also
concerned that excluding the children with special needs from taking the test ran counter
-----------
91
to the basic principles of inclusion. Only three of the school principals said that they did
not worry about the scores on the national test, because they were an inclusion school
where everyone was welcome, and lower scores might just be a necessary outcome.
Current Financing of Inclusion
There were four sources of school funding identified in the interviews: National
funding to the schools, national extra funding to teachers, national extra funding for
certificated students, and funding from parents and other private sources.
National Funding for Schools
All of the principals said that the level of national funding for schools was a long
way from being sufficient to properly teach all students. Each inclusive elementary
school currently receives 10,000 baht (around 300 US$) per year. Three principals said
that this money was not even enough for basic management of the school before
inclusion, and did not include funds for any teacher training. The problem in elementary
schools is comparable to those at the middle school level, where the principals reported
that each school received 8,000 baht (around 240 US$) per semester. This funding
covered only the basic salary expenses and utilities. Middle schools had to do fundraising
to cover remaining basic expenses as well as anything they wanted to include above and
beyond them. Most of the additional fundraising was done by and from parents.
In one public school, the national funding only covered teacher salaries. All other
expenses were covered by the parents of children in the school. However, two other
92
principals said that this was still better than the "old days" when they had to order even a
box of chalk from the national office because everything was managed at the national
level.
One private school principal in the province said that she was exhausted with
managing the school within a limited budget. She said the school hardly ever purchased
new teaching materials or training equipment for special needs students because of
budget constraints. She said she wished that the national government recognized how
much effort private schools put into educating Thai children so that they could be better
supported. Another private school principal said that she had to be pro-active in getting
needed funds. They had used the media to talk about how her school was an inclusion
school. She knew that Thai people were kind and generous, and she thought that once
they knew that the school was serious about providing better education to the children,
they would be willing to help.
National Funding for Teachers
Teachers who hold a degree in special education or have completed at least 200
hours of special education training, and teach no less than 18 hours a week, receive about
2,000 baht (around 60 US$) a month in addition to their regular teaching salary.
However, no one was certain how long this subsidy would last because of national budget
problems, and currently payment was often delayed. One principal explained that many
teachers in her school had passed the 200 hours training almost a year earlier, and met all
the other criteria to receive the incentive money, but they had not yet received it. Because
93
of the small amount of incentive money, because of the delays in payment, and because
of the uncertainty of the incentive continuing, three of the private school principals said
the teachers did not depend on these funds.
National Funding for Certificated Students
The national government extends extra funding for students with special needs, in
the form of coupons for the school. These funds are extended only for those students with
special needs who have received a certificate of disability (see discussion under the
section on Initial Screening and Assessment). Each coupon is worth about 50 baht
(around 1.5 US$) and the principals estimated that each certificated student received
about 1,500 baht (around 45 US$) per school semester. This was generally not
considered sufficient to cover basic expenses for specialized materials or adaptive
equipment for each child.
Funding from Parents and Other Private Sources
Seven out often principals reported that most of their extra basic budget came
from parents, as they were the people most willing to support schools to provide better
services for their offspring. The principals agreed that they could not wait for federal
funding levels to catch up with realistic support levels. The schools needed to be
independent right now in finding their own ways to earn money, ranging from fund
raising to donations from parents and community. The shortage of teaching assistants was
often mentioned by the principals in this regard. They explained that most of the extra
94
money from parents was spent for hiring teaching assistants to assist the teacher with
children with special needs.
Several of the principals also described extensive expenses for those parents of
children with special needs where services were required in a hospital or training center.
One of them said:
The parents are charged by specialists by the hour and it is very expensive.
Actually parents by law should be able to take their children to get trained from
government intervention agencies or state hospitals, but there are long waiting
lines and sometimes the child and the parent cannot wait. Parents have to take
their children to the private hospitals and then get double or triple charged. It is a
pity that all of the expenses become a burden on the family. I want to see that they
get more support from the state, but I know it is quite impossible.
One principal put the pressure of working with insufficient funds this way: "I felt
lonesome sometimes working without any support from the state even though inclusion is
government policy."
The private school principals talked about the need to charge high tuition to make
up for the lack of sufficient funding. This caused them to have to take into consideration
a family's ability to pay when deciding whether to accept a child. These principals talked
about the constant financial pressure on all parents of children in private schools. One
said,
The school is proud that, with less support, or I could say almost being
isolated from the federal government, we have done a great job providing
services for our special need kids. The people schools must thank are the
parents ofkids both with and without disabilities. They become part of the
school and never say no when the school needs help. Part of it is, I think,
they know that the benefit would fall to their children anyway and nobody
else is going to pick up the slack.
95
Initial Screening and Assessment Practices
All Thai children who come to school for the first time fall into one of three
categories: Children who have already been identified as having special needs by an
outside agency, children who have special needs but who have not yet been identified by
an outside agency, and children who do not have special needs. All of the school
principals agreed that the initial screening process at the school level was important,
regardless of any prior assessment that had been done, and that each school should be
able to provide adequate screening processes with a well-trained principal in addition to
trained and experienced teachers. However, in practice the screening and assessment
processes were unanimously reported to be limited by a) variation in and inadequacy of
initial screening and assessment protocols, b) few trained staff available for administering
the tests, and c) little financial support for improving the screening process.
Three primary themes related to the child's initial screening and assessment
processes emerged from interviews with principals: Use of assessment and certification
from external agencies; use of internal screening and assessment processes; and the
principal as leader of inclusion during initial assessment.
External Assessments
In Thailand the preferred method of determining if a child has special education
needs is through an assessment process by physicians in a medical setting, prior to the
child coming to the school. This process ideally results in issuance of a certificate of
special needs for the child, and the child and parents arrive at the school with the
96
certificate of need in hand. If medical certification has been completed, the school is
eligible for federal money to support the special needs child.
If the child is not certificated, but is subsequently determined after admission by
the school to have special needs, neither the child nor the school are eligible for federal
educational support until certification is acquired. For that reason, school personnel
typically refer parents to a certificating medical agency when an uncertificated child is
determined by the school to have special needs.
However, a serious cultural issue emerged from the data at this point in the study.
Two principals explained that most parents do not want their child labeled as having a
disability. These parents believe that certification of a disability constitutes a "loss of
face." Even when they understand that the school will receive extra money from the
federal government to educate their child, they may still resist taking the child through
the certification process and may even resist any labeling that may occur within the
school.
Other principals said that some parents were afraid that once their children were
certified as children with disabilities, the school would refuse to admit them to the school.
A principal reported that even though she explained that the student would be included no
matter what level of disability, the parents still would not take their children to be
identified by a physician. This concern about social stigma also meant that children may
lose many benefits, such as pre-school training.
Some of the principals expressed understanding of the parents' reluctance, but
others said that they could not understand why parents would delay in certification when
97
the child's disability was readily obvious to others. One principal said she successfully
argued for the child being certified in this way, "I told them [parents] that we die before
[the child]. Children will get support from the government once they get certified, and
that is an option."
Several of the principals talked about how some parents viewed their child with
minimal disabilities as being typically developing, even when they were not. These
parents were said to also be resistant to certification and to any special support for their
child, not because they seemed concerned about any social stigma, but because they were
convinced that their child was normally developing.
Inadequate External Support
Five of the principals talked about receiving inadequate support from medical
professionals and other outside professionals in assisting the schools in proper early
identification. For example, one principal reported that her school used the local hospital
to assist in initial assessment. However, the school found that most physicians spent very
little time with the child, and may not have been trained in the different forms and types
of disability, since sometimes misdiagnoses would occur. This school leader argued that
in order to have an accurate initial diagnosis, the assessment should be done in a variety
of settings, with adequate time, and by people with appropriate training and experience.
These principals also talked about how less severe, less "physical"-appearing disabilities,
such as a learning disability, were particularly difficult to diagnose using medical
98
standards, and that many of the hospital staff were not interested in assisting schools with
this process nor were their staff trained to understand special learning disabilities.
In a similar way, another school principal reported that the school did not have
staff trained in good screening and assessment procedures so the school sent students to
obtain assessments from the Special Education Government Agency (SEGA). Not all of
the school principals used a SEGA or had ready access to personnel trained in identifying
both medical and educational needs. She argued that she and her staff could be trained to
do this assessment themselves, but in the absence of such training they had to rely on an
external agency.
One school principal reported that her school was provided with protocols and
training from professors at a nearby university. However, she also reported that the
process of assessment provided was quite rough and the school still relied on assessments
provided by medical settings as well. Another school leader reported that, since the
majority of the students with disabilities in the school did not hold a certified paper from
a physician, the school had to provide the initial assessment process for each student.
However, she also reported that the school staff tried to use the hospital assessment tools
but they were not trained in assessment. She was concerned about initial
misidentification, both because the hospital assessment tools were aimed at severe
disabilities and also because staff were unfamiliar with the protocols. Both principals
argued that the assessment must be done by the school, must be an ongoing process, and
needed to be done carefully by experienced and trained teachers. However, the school
leaders also confessed that, in Thai society, even though teachers are highly respected,
99
physicians were perceived as more capable and more knowledgeable about any form of
disability than were teachers. The principals argued that if a medical diagnosis was
available, members of society would generally view that as superseding any diagnosis
made by schools. They said this was true if the disability was of a medical nature or of an
educational nature. They said parents sometimes mistrusted the assessments conducted
by teachers, more than they would distrust any diagnosis made by medical personnel.
This was viewed as particularly difficult for the school staff and for the child when not all
children had access to medical diagnoses, and not all medical diagnoses were accurate.
Internal Assessments
Eight out of the ten school principals reported that determining the readiness of
each child for school was their first concern; the remaining two rated it as their second
concern. Thus, even if the child arrived with a certificate of disabilities, the school still
conducted their own screening and assessment process in order to determine appropriate
classroom placement. The principals were particularly concerned with identifying
children with severe disabilities who should be referred to a specialized school. They
knew that the skills and training to work successfully with the student did not exist in
their current staff.
Four out of the eight school principals who said readiness was their first concern
reported using a modified Stanford-Binet IQ test as the first form of assessment. While
three of the school principals did not tell me the score required for a student to be
admitted to the school, one school principal stated that if the IQ score was below 60, the
100
school would not admit the child. Each of the four school principals who said they used
the IQ test explained that the IQ score was not always the sole criteria for admission.
Sometimes they also had a conversation with the child to assess communication levels.
These school leaders reported that their screening methods were sometimes looked at as
being harsh, but they had to keep in mind the limitations of their school and staff, and
believed that it would not be responsible to take in a student who they did not think they
could help. They were not willing to admit students with severe disabilities if the teachers
were not ready to work with them without lowering the overall acceptable levels of
performance for all of the children. Therefore, for them, initial screening had to help
them determine if a disability was too severe for the school to handle.
The other four school principals reported that severity of need did not always
determine if the student was admitted to the school. These principals were concerned
about initial identification but they felt they had to admit a student with severe disabilities
out of compassion for the student or the parents, even though they might be very
concerned about their ability to appropriately accommodate the student's needs. The
remaining two principals who did not list determining readiness as their first objective
stated that, since the school would not tum away any student, their first concern was
getting the student into the school, and then screening and assessment could occur. In
their cases, "readiness" was irrelevant to initial admission. Thus, all ten principals agreed
that initial screening and assessment was essential for each student and especially for
those with more severe disabilities. The initial assessment might be used to deny
admission or it might be used to begin more extensive assessment of needs.
101
Observations, Checklists and Task Performance
The most popular assessment methods used by the schools, after the initial IQ
test to check for severity level, was principal and teacher observations. Observations were
defined and accomplished differently from school to school. All of the schools provided
some type of assessment check form for the teachers and principal to use during the
observation.
One school principal, for example, reported that the observations in her school
were done systematically using a school-created check form that included tasks for
students to complete, observations of on-task behaviors, and observation of language
skills when engaged in dialogue with others. The form was created by a school
psychologist in conjunction with the classroom teachers, based on a structure of domains
testing provided by the Ministry of Education. However, the school principal reported
that most of the time the school employed the original test of the Ministry ofEducation
(see APPENDIX C). Another school principal reported that, since the school worked
collaboratively with one hospital, the school used the identification results initially
provided from the physicians. The principal and teachers then compared the physicians'
assessments with observation results provided by a team of school psychologists, and
they then made an initial identification from the combination of the medical assessment
and the school psychologist assessment. Next, they observed the students on several
occasions after the initial admission, to make sure initial assessment and placement was
correct.
102
One school principal reported the use of a protocol from the Ministry of
Education which allowed categorization into one of nine types of disabilities. The school
principal reported that it was powerful enough for the school to be able to use it as an
initial identification protocol at the schoo11eve1 before sending the child on to a doctor to
double check the initial assessment and receive certification from the doctor as a special
needs child. However, sometimes the school principal said that the school also needed to
consult with the Special Education Government Agency in its region because of the
inexperience of school staff in identifying the nine types of disabilities.
Another school principal reported using the same Ministry of Education protocol.
Since the protocol was considered reliable, the school did not send, or ask the parents to
take their children, for a second opinion from physicians. She explained that one reason
was that the community hospital was "crowned" and they would not have treated the case
seriously. The hospital had informed the school principal that if there were cases of
learning disabilities the school was requested to assess the students. The only exception
was in cases of severe mental or physical disability. The school principal complained that
the students should not be subjected to such a double standard. The school did not have
expert staff sufficiently trained to identify all cases and the principal thought that the
hospital staff should have certified all disabilities. Also, since the hospital refused to
certificate special needs, the school was then not eligible for federal funds to support the
education of the child.
One principal reported that she applied all the assessment approaches as
"holistically" as possible. She used a check form of four developmental areas (i.e.,
103
physical, cognitive, social, and emotional) that had been developed by a team of teachers.
Since her school contained a small number of students, she could assess each student
individually by herself. She liked to know her students and their parents as closely as she
could and the initial assessment process was an important start for her getting to know the
particular needs and attributes of each student.
Another school principal reported a different assessment process, employed after
the student's admission to the school. The principal realized that it was not quite
appropriate to screen students only after admission, but her school followed this practice
because they were not allowed to tum any students away. Once the child was admitted,
the school staff used a similar process of observations in assessing the students as the
other schools.
Other Forms of Assessment
Three schools reported that they conducted assessment of reading comprehension
along with an observation check form. Performance of a reading passage was a good
criterion for testing, as sometimes students with learning disabilities might not be
identified through other behavioral observations. Two principals stated that a mild
learning disability might otherwise only appear after the child had been attending the
school for a few weeks.
Admission sometimes occurred even though initial observations might indicate
that the child was not ready for school or that the school was not ready for the child. One
principal said that a child might be admitted because of the compassion of the principal
and the teachers for the limited options otherwise available to the child and parents. One
104
principal stated that even though the school might recognize the severity of a student's
disability during observation, and the school staff might not believe they were fully
prepared to teach the student, they might still go ahead and admit the student as it was the
best possible location for the student to get any help. Another principal said that
sometimes she suggested that the child go on a waiting list and, meanwhile, the child
could receive more interventions and trainings through other agencies before re-applying
to the school.
Four of the principals had instituted a "ten percent" rule that they used to limit
admission to their school. While public schools were not legally allowed to tum in-
district children away, in practice many ofthem used a school-generated rule to restrict
admission. The principals said that they had to do this in order to assure that all children
could be helped. If the principals determined that they did not have adequately trained
staff or sufficient room, they would turn away a child. One ofthem said it depended, to
her, on whether other professional help was available to the child. The principal said that
she did everything she could to not "hurt the feelings of the parents."
Interviewing Parents
Interviewing parents was the third process identified in internal assessment, even
though many ofthe school principals confessed that they did not receive completely
truthful information from parents. They said that parents tended to report positive
information on their child because they wanted their child to be able to attend the school.
The principals reported that they listened to parents, and they paid attention to external
105
evaluations, but they balanced this information with their own assessments and with
reports of daily progress of the child in the school.
All of the principals said that, from their experiences with parents, most parents
lacked understanding of their child's disabilities, and also did not know how they could
assist the principal and teachers with the education of their child. Nine of the ten
principals said that educating the parents about their child's disability and about how the
parents could assist in the education of their child was a primary role for the principal and
teachers.
The principals also said that most parents, reasonably, wanted their child to
succeed in school and had little understanding of why that might not be possible. One
example given by a principal was of a child with severe autism who was compulsive
about ashes from cigarettes. He was unable to leave a used cigarette alone, would pick
one up and rub it on his body. His compulsive behaviors interfered with his educational
accomplishments and with his ability to be with other children. However, his parents
wanted the school to promote him on to middle school, despite the principal and the
child's teachers being unanimous that more complex learning was not possible for this
child without some type of extensive behavioral interventions to lessen his compulsions.
The principal explained that what the boy needed was life skill training. However, there
are few such programs in Thailand at this time and the boy had not received the help he
needed and was not functioning well in elementary school.
106
One of the experts in the focus group reported another problem. She had observed
schools where parents were separated into two different informational groups by the
school staff: One for students with disabilities, and one for students without disabilities.
This is not the idea of inclusion; the idea of inclusion is everyone must be
included. It might be difficult at the beginning, but it will get easier once
everyone gets included, gets to learn, and gets to be informed about how
one can help another.
She talked how this process showed both a lack of understanding on the part of
school staff about what inclusion, but also demonstrated assumptions about a child's
capacity in advance of initial screening and assessment, or any observed performance in
school.
In summary, all of the school principals in the study referred to the importance of
adequate initial assessment processes, and all of them talked about how the processes
could be improved.
One school stood out from the other nine best practices schools in several
important aspects. The principal had a background in school psychology. The school had
received financing from parents for inclusive practices for more than twenty years. The
extra financing, combined with the skill and experience of the principal, allowed the
principal to build and train an experienced staff. The school worked collaboratively with
a local hospital on initial screening and assessment, and used regular meetings of
interdisciplinary teams to ascertain each child's progress during the school year. This
principal was rightfully very proud of her school and the achievements ofthe children.
However, she also argued that the whole screening and assessment process, if done
properly, was very time consuming and expensive at the individual school level. She
-----_._------ -------------
107
argued that a national screening and assessment process needed to be in place so every
child and every school had ready access to high quality initial assessment. She also
reported that forming, and then working regularly with, interdisciplinary teams for each
child was very time-consuming. She argued that it would be important in the future for all
new teachers and other school professionals to begin their careers with experience in their
pre-service programs with screening and assessment, and also with how to work in
interdisciplinary teams.
One principal expressed sympathy for parents who experienced their children
being denied by many schools. Many parents resorted to using their children's right to
education to force schools to admit their children. This problem would never be solved
until educational policy and practice could work collaboratively. One of the principals
stated that her school had to admit students with special needs, no matter what their level
of disabilities, because the school was located in a rural area and right in the middle of
community. The school could not deny the children admittance and still keep a good
standing with the members of the community. School staff later realized that they could
not provide adequate services for students with disabilities, but it seemed that parents
were fine with just having them included in the school system.
The Principal as Leader of Inclusion During Initial Assessment
Five ofthe principals directly addressed the importance of the principal stepping
into a leadership role during all the processes of initial screening and assessment, and all
ten of the school principals demonstrated and documented their leadership behaviors in
108
their interviews. Five of them used the ironical Thai phrase ofNo commands from the
head, no movement at the tail to represent to me how they thought Thai society is
structured. These principals agreed with the experts agreed that change has to be made
from the top of every hierarchical organization. In the case of inclusive education,
principals must serve as role models for appropriate behavior, as the coach and mentor of
the school staff, and as the coach and supporter for children and their families. Without
this leadership, inclusive practices will not be widely understood or supported by
professionals in the school or by the broader society. One of the principals argued that the
"job of the school" was to serve the needs of the students and parents in order to build a
stronger future for everyone in Thailand. As educators, she argued, principals had to look
at how they can help develop every Thai child, no matter their abilities or disabilities. She
said,
It is unprofessional, quite selfish, and against the teaching principle to just
allow only [the most] capable students into school settings. In doing that it
would make a school homogeneous and in such system students learn less
about diversity. They would lose connections to the idea of diversity along
the way, and that would cause troubles living in a heterogeneous society
once they get older.
This principal believed that principals should "open the school gate" and "open their
minds" to welcome all Thai children into the school. The leaders in the school, she said
artfully, "Should work to create a school society where anyone can join and learn."
Another school leader reported her belief this way:
Leaders are the key people who make changes. Leaders can make the teachers
consent by communicating and referring to the law of inclusive education, and
that we need to be concerned about every group of students. I have been role
modeling and making the teachers understand that this is not a burden, but this is
the way of working. I want to see fully inclusive education happen in my school.
109
And I know that no matter how capable teachers are, without understanding and
support from the principal, there is no chance for inclusion to succeed.
One private principal from a more rural area encouraged all the leaders of inclusive
school to be brave in leading changes.
I don't want to see that principals are afraid. We need to gradually communicate
with people daily till they listen and accept what we are doing. It is the right
thing! I motivate my teachers and staff to work for special needs kids. I talk to
parents of children with and without disabilities, that we as adults need to be
cooperative in order to help our kids. The benefits are for our kids. We do it for
them as we want to help them.
Thus, these principals saw that their role was necessarily one of leadership within their
school and within their broader community. They saw that they had to show the way for
others and that they had to advocate for all children.
First Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
As the child is entering school and initial screening and assessment is completed,
the results are used to guide development of a first IEP for students with special needs.
The first IEP is intended to be a master plan to guide the day-to-day education of the
child during the school year and is designed to serve as a mutual benchmark for the many
people involved in guiding the child's education. In theory, the IEP is a written set of
guidelines that can be used by the parents, the teachers, specialists, and anyone else
involved in the child's formal education to determine if sufficient and appropriate
progress is being made.
All of the principals said that they developed IEPs, particularly for their
certificated special needs children. However, in practice, the principals of the "best
110
practices" schools in this study consistently reported that they believed that the IEP was
not used as it should be. They said it was, in practice, more of a paperwork process done
because it was needed to document eligibility for the subsidy, and not as a useful tool to
increase awareness for parents and teachers about the child's needs and achievements.
However, the principals understood the potential usefulness of constructing a good IEP,
and using it to guide classroom activities throughout the school year.
The Principal as Leader - Again
The theme of the importance of the school principal serving as a leader emerged
in the development of the first IEP just as it emerged during discussion of initial
screening and assessment. One of the experts in the focus group stated this point
succinctly.
To be easier for principals to manage this kind of situation, the first meeting is
important. So, tell parents what the children with special needs will receive from
schools, specifically state about the policy of the school, and tell the parents the
limitations of the schools. I think first communication is essential. As principals,
they should be able to make this kind of thing under control and make related
people in inclusive settings understand what the inclusive education should be
like.
However, another expert from the focus group acknowledged that working with
the needs of people is challenging even though principals have the authority to dictate
what happens. Parents of children with disabilities come to school with the hope that their
children will make progress like other children. If they do not, they blame the principal
and teachers. If they do make progress, parents' expectations can immediately rise and
they desire their child to perform at an even higher level. This expert noted that while it is
111
important and beneficial that there is a national curriculum in place with national
expectations for learning in eight core areas, this national curriculum can be the default
standard that parents of children with special needs defer to when trying to assess
whether their child is succeeding, and hold the school staff responsible if the child is not
succeeding at the levels desired by parents. The issue of having common standards and
yet allowing differential achievement against the standards is not resolved in Thailand at
this time.
In summary, the principals and the national experts from the focus groups both
talked about the importance of the initial IEP. However, the principals readily admitted
that the IEP is largely not currently being used in Thai schools to guide academic
achievement or assessment, and there is little understanding ofhow an IEP can related to
the eight academic areas of the national curriculum or to alternative assessments of
accomplishment. The principals and the national experts agreed that this is potentially a
great opportunity for the school principal to show leadership in teaching all those
involved how the IEP can be integral to student progress.
Three of the principals expressed concern that the academic goals set in the first
IEPs were often not sufficiently rigorous. One principal mentioned a sixth grade biology
curriculum focused on the cell as example. The students with special needs in her school
may have been introduced to only the basic elements of a cell, such as the wall and the
nucleus, while the other students without disabilities were taught more complex
knowledge. The principal stated that this was one easy way to accommodate different
student learning levels to meet their IEP goals, and for the students to be given a "good"
112
grade. However, students may have been capable of much more than meeting the very
modest goal set for all of them. She noted that the IEP was not referenced in this example
by the teachers or the parents to determine ifthe goal and the progress were appropriate.
The principals also noted that there was substantial cultural pressure to report high
grades for all students. Setting very modest goals might make it easier to report a high
grade and please parents. Several of the principals said that they believed most parents
were happier to "deceive themselves" that their student was making "nice grades" than
they were to understand about the student's actualleaming. One said she often thought
about giving up because of the unrealistic demands of parents. In fact, she had sometimes
invited a medical doctor to chair the IEP meeting because the medical profession was
more likely to be able to get the "truth" about a child accepted by parents.
There was inconsistency about whether the IEP was used for assessment of
progress or ifthe schools defaulted to the eight national curriculum goals for reporting
progress. The principals said that most parents knew about the national curriculum areas
and they expected to see their child's progress reported on each area. This expectation
came from the fact that their child was "being mainstreamed." To many parents, that
meant that the school should tell them how their child was doing on each area, even if the
child was not yet capable to performing in each area. One of the arguments that some
parents used for assessment by the eight subject areas is that this would be accepted more
readily later in their child's school career. The IEP was seen as something "made up" at
the school that would not necessarily be understood or accepted by another school. The
resulting pervasive practice appeared to be that the teachers worked hard to develop the
113
first IEP, but then defaulted to more standard classroom practices based on the national
curriculum to guide teaching and reporting on the child's progress. This resulted in an
unwelcome dual burden of paperwork for the teachers and did not always result in
adequate detailed assessment of progress on individual goals.
Teachers in IEP Groups
Principals also reported that it was difficult to work with teachers and other
school specialists in the group process that traditionally accompanies the development of
an IEP in western countries. Thai schools were not accustomed to developing a
curricular plan for a child in this way. The principals also reported that teachers were not
familiar with including social goals in a student plan, even though they might be
important goals for the student. These principals said that most teachers were used to
having the principal available to assist if the teacher had questions but that they were not
used to working as a team for a particular student. Teachers were accustomed to being
responsible for developing their own curricular plans for their children. The principals
reported that it was difficult and time-consuming to get everyone to work on the initial
IEP, and when the IEP was completed, it was unusual for anyone to consult it to guide
daily teaching and assessment, and it was almost unheard of for the original IEP team to
reconvene to review child progress on the IEP.
114
Parents in the IEP Process
Principals reported that most parents did not understand what an rEP was or what
its potential was for guiding their child's education, and that parents typically did not
participate in IEP meetings. Much work will have to be done to assure parents that there
is a place for their input in the IEP process.
One principal reported that variations in the education level of parents made it
difficult to work with some. The principal explained ironically that sometimes educated
parents acted as if they were over water in a cup, that is, that they already know so much
that they know more than the teachers. Other parents were so unused to the school setting
and to the rEP process, that they did not feel like they knew anything or could add
anything to the process when they were surrounded by educated people. These parents
might have had opinions, said the principals, but they were unlikely to disagree in a
public setting with anything that the principal or the teachers said.
The principals explained that the national curriculum goals were still largely used
to report progress for students with special needs. They also pointed to the necessity of
explaining to both parents and teachers how the IEP and the eight national curriculum
goals could relate to each other and that both could be used to develop an appropriate
initial IEP for the child with special needs. Nine of the ten principals said that parents
confused IEP goals with national curriculum goals, and many of them did not understand
why their child could not now accomplish the national curriculum goals since they were
in school. Parents thought that the school was responsible for seeing that their child could
perform and learn at the same level of achievement of any other child. The principals said
115
that they tried to talk about learning at a child's own pace, but many of the parents did
not seem to understand how that might not result in high scores on national tests.
Expectations
Another principal brought up the issue of teacher resources. She said that some
parents thought that the teacher should spend all her time with their child to bring their
child's performance up to the same level as other children. The principals said it was
difficult to bring the expectations of parents into alignment with what their child could
do, what the teacher could do, and what the school could do to support the child and the
teacher. Sometimes it was difficult for them to make parents understand that there was
not sufficient funding or training to do everything that might be possible for a particular
child, and that it was not the school's fault but mostly a question of available resources.
Most of the principals agreed that sometimes it was harder to work with the
parents than it was to work with their special needs children. Several principals also
reported that some families brought their special needs children to the school and then
ignored what happened from then on, as if the school was now fully responsible for the
child. One principal said some parents came with expectations that their child could do
nothing, and other parents came expecting the school to somehow, magically, make their
child's special needs go away. One example of an unrealistic expectation was that parents
of a child who could not write expected him to be able to take paper-based national
exams. Another example was of parents of a boy with severe autism who wanted him
trained for graduate school. A third example given by several principals was that parents
valued only the academic program in schools, whereas what the principals and teachers
116
thought some special needs children needed more was social and life skills training. The
principals said that the real, underlying problem was moving from such extreme levels of
expectation to something that matched the school's abilities and the child's potential.
Often, the first place where a principal or a teacher could conduct an ongoing dialogue
with a parent to modify unrealistic expectations was during the development of the first
IEP. Unrealistic expectations often surfaced during initial screening, but it was only
when the IEP had to be constructed that parents came into direct contact with how
practice for their child might differ from the parent's expectations.
Attitudes
How particular parents would react to finding out that their expectations for their
child were unrealistic would affect how they reacted to development of the IEP.
According to the principals, parents of children with special needs, as well as the other
parents ofchildren in the classroom where a special needs child was placed, displayed a
range of attitudes towards inclusion of children with special needs in the regular
classroom, and these differing attitudes often played an influential role in the drafting of
the first IEP and subsequent classroom placement for the special needs child.
Some parents of children with special needs blamed the school, the principal and
the teacher if the IEP reflected less than they thought their child could accomplish. Others
began to modify their understanding of what the school could do with their child, and did
not approach the situation by blaming. Interestingly, several of the principals said that
parents from low income backgrounds were more likely to listen to the school personnel
and to ask how they could assist the school. Parents with higher education degrees and
117
from higher economic levels were more likely to challenge the judgment of the school
staff.
Several of the principals remarked that parents of students without disabilities
were often more likely to accept the disability of someone else's child than were the
parents of that child. Many parents seemed to want to deny the disability completely.
This first appeared as a problem when parents did not take their child to the physician for
treatment, diagnosis, or certification. Problems arose again when the IEP was developed
around an obvious disability, and the parents could not accept that the disability existed.
One principal said that this denial behavior was because parents did not want their child
to be labeled in a society that looked down on people with disabilities.
Several of the principals discussed how they reasoned at length with parents who
were in denial and had little success in changing their minds. Around half of the children
with special needs remained uncertificated and schools could not claim the national funds
earmarked for children with special needs.
When parents of children without disabilities showed acceptance of another
family's diagnosis of disability, it sometimes came with expressions of sympathy and
support. On the other hand, it sometimes came with hostility toward the school for
accepting the special needs child. Several of the principals gave examples of parents who
referred to an inclusive school as a "school for abnormal children," and removed their
child from the school or did not let their child sit by or play with the special needs child.
Sometimes, the principals reported, this was out of parental concern that the disability
could spread to others.
118
All of the principals discussed their hope that they would find ways to convince
all of the parents and all of the teachers that it was for the good of all to have special
needs children mainstreamed in regular classrooms. They all thought that some progress
was being made as more and more people became more knowledgeable about how
special needs children could be helped to live more independent lives. However, they all
clearly felt that this was a big part of their ongoing jobs and they asked for national,
regional and local help in order to achieve this goal for every school.
Classroom Placement
When I began collecting data for this study, my familiarity with other national
systems of inclusion led me to expect that the first thing that would result from initial
screening and assessment and development of the first IEP was appropriate classroom
placement in one of two types of settings: A regular classroom with minor
accommodations, or in a special needs class where completely individualized appropriate
teaching could occur. I expected to see students with learning disabilities or Asperger
syndrome in regular classrooms, along with students with minor physical disabilities
without cognitive impairment. If a student with special needs could not function in a
regular classroom with "minor" accommodation, I expected to see placement in a special
needs class. However, most of the schools I observed and conducted interviews did not
have special needs classes because of limitations of budget and knowledgeable staff and,
thus, each school staff had to provide unique accommodations for their students. Most of
the students identified as having special needs went into a regular classroom setting.
119
Teaching Children with Special Needs
The 10 school principals reported different teaching approaches based on
students' level of learning. Six out of the ten school principals reported that "child-
centered" awareness was the best philosophy to help students with special needs learn
and develop. The reason given was that each teacher could focus on individual students
rather than comparing their progress with the norm of the whole class. One principal
supported the idea of a "child-centered approach" by advocating for a spiral curriculum
designed for different levels of student learning where the learning process moved from
the beginning stage progressively to more complicated activities.
Three principals used a project approach in which each individual could learn to
work on a project at their own pace and the level of expectations for success from the
teachers depended upon the ability to perform and the amount of progress made. These
same principals reported that lots of reinforcement helped the special needs students to
perform well and make progress. One principal stated that as her school employed
'project approach' learning method with students, the level of creativity of each
individual emerged. While the students with disabilities may create something simple, the
students without disabilities produced more of a complex work within the same topic.
This approach allowed the students to "think out of the box," to assist each other on their
projects, and allowed special needs students to succeed without using a testing
measurement.
Another principal argued that if everyone saw the school as the center of an
expansive learning and teaching process for all students, then the focus would be on
120
learning and not so much on failing. She said that every student could be seen as having
unique capabilities and talents. Two other principals agreed that it would be more
egalitarian if all students were seen as having unique gifts and unique challenges. That
way, it would not be necessary to point out only the children with special needs as
requiring unique understanding. The principals stated that this was a core fundamental to
teach all students to understand differences and respect others.
One principal said that, to assist the whole class to understand disabilities, her
teachers had provided activities for students without disabilities to learn about having
limitations. Examples given included blindfolding a seeing student and having him walk
around the room and try to identify others, or having a person write with her non-
dominant hand. The objective of these activities was to attempt to increase a sense of
understanding and compassion for the students with disabilities.
In contrast, the remaining four school principals said that while they believed a
child-centered philosophy was a beginning, it was difficult to implement with some
children because of severe behavioral problems. Their schools school depended on a
more "teacher-centered" awareness, as they believed that teachers needed to stimulate
students with special needs to make progress. These schools employed extra teaching
hours after school for students with special needs so they could keep up with the other
members ofthe class by spending more time with the teacher. All 10 of the principals
talked about the importance of more time on task for most children with special needs.
Opportunities to raise awareness and to teach all of the children were also found
outside the classroom. One of the principals said that the school provided an activity,
121
such as school assembly in the morning, to help students learn discipline, with the belief
that all students in the school could practice being punctual.
The principals reported that many teachers, children, and parents expressed fears
about the consequences of inclusion practices. Teachers were afraid they could not teach
all of the children. In particular, they were concerned about students with severe
behavioral problems. The principals also acknowledged their own fears that the tasks
before them were so large that they might fail to accomplish all of them. One principal
reported, for example, that even though students understood their peers with disabilities
and they generally got along with each other, the teachers still needed to keep an eye on
some special needs students with severe behavioral problems. One principal shared her
experience of a boy with autism who had just reached puberty and did not understand
proper manners in public about his genitals. This boy masturbated in front of the other
students in the classroom and frightened several children and their parents. The principal
said:
This became an opportunity for everyone in school to help the student
with the behavior get improved. It was a problem, I know, and it took time
to fix. I know that the boy did not understand about what was appropriate
in public and what was not. I believe that with the intervention from the
teacher and time, he could develop his understanding. I also had to work
with his parents, and with the parents of the other children to assure
everyone knew that all of the children were safe.
Some parents were afraid to let their special needs child out of their sight, and
other parents were afraid that their child or another child would be injured at school. The
---------- --------- ------
122
children themselves expressed fear of being in a new place with new expectations for
them. Fear of failure and fear of harm were pervasive throughout the system.
Overprotection from parents was seen in many schools. One principal reported
that some parents carried backpacks to school for their special needs child when it was
not necessary. Some stayed at school all day to watch over their children. Another
principal narrated a situation in her middle school where "puppy love" occurred among
the adolescent students. Most of the parents were worried that male students with autism
would sexually harass their daughters. The principal explained that such a situation
would have worried her, too, if she had a daughter. However, she said she trusted that the
teachers had strategies to help protect the girls and teach the girls to protect themselves.
She was convinced that school was the place where all adolescents needed to learn and
practice socially appropriate behavior and therefore she worked with her teachers to learn
better ways of teaching about inappropriate behaviors while protecting all the children.
Values and Attitudes
All the principals agreed that recruiting teachers with the right skills, experiences
and attitudes is the first stage for successful inclusion. They said finding teachers who
have dedication and compassion for teaching all students is not easy. They hoped for a
good teacher who had skills and training, and whose first love was their teaching and
their students. They said that the teachers must have mercy and compassion for less able
learners, and they had to be willing to sacrifice their time and energy for a demanding
process. However, in practice, they said that many teacher's attitudes and values had
123
changed no faster than the broader society when it came to working with and
understanding special needs children.
They all said that teachers' jobs are hard with relatively low compensation. One
of the principals stated that, in this "materialism era," people's values had changed from
working hard because that was the right thing to do, to working hard for money. She
added:
When I was young, I was taught to value hard work to accomplish my
goal in the future, but now the younger generation does not care about
such values. They just want a short cut to accomplish their goal, which
from my experience, I never see happen.
Another principal who also taught at a College ofEducation at one of the
universities in Bangkok reported sadly that, when she asked her students in class how
many of them would like to be a teacher, only three of thirty raised their hands. She then
asked them why they were in the College of Education if their goal was not to be a
teacher. They responded that they had passed the college entrance examinations and this
was the easiest course of study for them.
Another principal said that the country had been misled in the direction of
developing materiel and infrastructure without attention to human development.
"Developing humans takes longer than constructing buildings," she said. She felt that
Thailand now faces a problem of weakened societal values. Those who care about
education and human development were mocked as "brainless," she said.
One principal said that in her more than twenty years of experience she always
looked for a teacher "with a good heart" more than a teacher with particular skills. She
argued that she could teach the skills that were needed, but there was no replacement for
124
a teacher who really cared about teaching and about children. "If the heart is not there,
they cannot be a good teacher," she said.
In contrast, principals in a few schools where teachers had positive attitudes
toward their jobs and toward children said that most of the time children can tell if a
teacher cares about them or not. One principal shared that it was tough to alter people's
attitude in a short period oftime. She inserted "Dhumma" in meetings, as a devout
Buddhist, with the hope that it would be assimilated into the teachers' hearts and souls.
This approach was helpful, she said, for she could see from the teachers' softened
personalities that they demonstrated their caring toward children with disabilities in the
school. Moreover, besides academic training, the school provided the teachers with
"Dhumma Camp" where the whole school attended the meditation practice led by monks.
The principal accepted that it was not easy to deal with people's negative or stubborn
attitudes, but they could change over time and experience to better serve the students in
the school.
Another school principal said that she thought the small, rural location of her
school made a big difference in how people viewed special needs children. People shared
a community spirit and had compassion for everyone in the community. As all ofthe
teachers were known to the community, they shared compassion and support from the
people. In her school, she said there was less of a problem ofteachers having negative
attitudes toward students with special needs. Most of the teachers were recruited from the
community and built rapport with parents at a personal level.
125
Learning about Differences
Students without disabilities learned about differences from being in school with
special needs children. Most of the principals reported preparing, or trying to prepare, the
students without disabilities to have a welcome feeling toward their peers with
disabilities. However, communication in each school was done in different forms and
levels. Most ofthe schools made information available for their students on school
boards, informed the students in meetings and home-room periods, and some schools
provided group activities for the students to directly expose them to knowledge about
different types of disabilities. One school used stories to portray fundamental knowledge
regarding people with disabilities. The school used a story telling approach to explain the
differences between people in order to prepare the students to understand the diversity
among them. A principal in a school that included more physical disabilities reported that
the school talked about what was needed for physical support.
In addition, one principal stated that many students without disabilities started
learning to accept special needs children by working in groups with their peers. Students
learned from the strengths of each peer, and that disability does not mean dumb. They
learned that skills ranged across all students. Through the process of group work, they
learned to share, to agree and argue, and afterward they came to the stage that if they
wanted to have their group work be successful, everyone in the group had to join in and
be in harmony with the group. The principal explained that group work were
126
tremendously useful as a successful teaching approach that also improved social
relationships as well.
Another principal narrated a touching story which was a result of teaching
students about differences. After the school assembly in the morning, a girl came to the
principal and begged her for mercy to wave a punishment for her peer with Down
syndrome who showed up late for the assembly. The principal narrated the story with a
smile and said:
This is the result of what they were taught. I am glad that my student
learned to empathize with her peer who was weaker. This shows how this
girl perceives people who are weaker and she understands the concept that
the weaker need more support.
Home and School Relationship
All 10 ofthe school principals reported that they worked hard to build a strong,
collaborative relationship between school and home throughout the year. They described
orientation meetings, as well as regular written communications and announcements as
the main approaches that they used to communicate with parents on a regular basis.
The principals described the orientation meeting at the beginning of the school
year as the first opportunity to inform and educate parents about what mainstreaming and
inclusion meant. They talked about it as the "open gate" for the school year. They were
able to talk to parents of students without disabilities about why the school was required
to take in children with special needs, and they could talk to families with children with
special needs about the school's expectations for the parents and for the children. They
discussed both the pros and cons of inclusion. They opened the meeting for questions
127
from the parents, but most parents were very reluctant to speak up in a first meeting.
They received more comments and questions from parents at the orientation meeting if
they provided them with a pencil and paper for questions.
Principals also said that the easiest way to maintain open communications with
the parents was to be available when the parents came to pick up their children. During
this time, questions could be asked and information shared in an easy and relaxed manner
that seemed to be more comfortable for many parents. As a result, all ofthe principals
made it a point to be present near the front of the school during the time when parents
came to pick up their children so these conversations could occur in a regular and easy
fashion.
School principals reported that meetings were mostly done individually with the
parents of students with disabilities. Typical meetings included IEP meetings and other
student progress meetings required over semester depending on each student's needs and
issues. However, four out often school principals reported holding meetings for other
very specific reasons. One school principal reported she held a small conference with the
parents and the teacher at the start of the year about the child and the school. A second
principal said she did a similar thing, but invited all the parents of children with special
needs and their teachers to a weekend-long workshop the first week after school started.
Another principal said that periodically she invited an expert on a current topic to make a
presentation at the school for the parents and sometimes for the broader community as
well. For example, her school had provided a free presentation on Emotional Intelligence
Quotient (EQ) for the parents and the community at large the first week after school
128
started. Additionally, one other school principal hosted a monthly meeting between all
the parents of children with special needs and their teachers, where the agenda for the
meeting was to build a plan for support between home and school, and to brainstorm how
to deal with particular problems that might come up. The meeting served as a support
group for parents and teachers.
These principals also used different announcement methods to keep their parents
informed. Some schools found that knowledge boards around the buildings were helpful
for parents to read during the time they waited for their children. The information on the
boards could be about upcoming events, "hot issues" about education, and other news
that the parents should know. The school principals stated that about 50 percent of the
information was on disabilities to educate anyone who might be reading the boards. One
school principal said that her school made pamphlets on the process ofmainstreaming
and about how to support children with special needs. These were made available to the
parents and the larger community. One school principal reported that, since the principal
of the school was often interviewed by media regarding the accomplishments of
mainstreaming in the school, the school became a recognized resource in the community.
The principal had been invited to be a guest speaker in college level class and at other
related institutes where she had additional opportunities to talk about her school and to
raise public awareness about inclusion.
All of the principals said that it was also common for parents to talk directly with
the classroom teachers almost on a daily basis. A few of the principals said they provided
journal books for the parents to write in at home in order to correspond with classroom
129
teachers on a regular basis. Principals also talked about making telephone calls to
parents. One problem that was described as being solved through ongoing conversations
occurred when parents, for whatever reason, stopped giving needed medication to their
child and their behavior deteriorated at school. Regular daily contacts could stop this kind
ofthing very quickly. Another example was when a child was late for school. When a
parent gave an excuse for this, it was possible to note that all children were expected to
be on time and to also refer to any patterns that may have been developing.
Principals worked hard to make sure that there were both formal and informal
opportunities for two-way communication between the principal, teachers and parents.
They talked about the importance of this type offriendly and open collaboration in
resolving issues as they arose in a caring and appropriate manner. They were also careful
to build a written record documenting each child's progress and activities. This was not
only a record to meet national requirements for IEPs, but was also a record that was a
shared history between the school and home about the child's progress.
One of the outcomes that sometimes occurred in this ongoing communication
process, according to several of the principals, was comments made by parents of
children without disabilities about how their child's experiences had modified parental
attitudes. Gaining a positive attitude about special needs, for some families, came from
their children without disabilities who reported activities they had completed together in
school with special needs children. Children shared their experiences ofplaying,
accommodating, and being with other children with disabilities in school. Parents became
familiar with children with and without disabilities in school together. One principal
130
explained, "I knew this was good news from the parents of children without disabilities
as they reflected back to me of admiring how their children had treated their friends with
disabilities."
One principal proudly described her appreciation of a family that lived about one
hundred miles away from school, but commuted with their child with autism to school
everyday. The father confessed to the principal that the school took good care of his
child, which was reflected in the boy's verbal improvement after being in the school for
more than two years. This scenario showed that trust from parents could build a good
rapport between home and school.
Networking
Many of the families built a network to support their offspring and the schools.
Others depended on services provided from the federal government through the schools.
However, most of the schools found parents to be collaborative, and together they created
a team to support children besides what the school provided. Networks brought parents
and community together to share information, and to emotionally and physically support
each other.
One principal distinguished the networking that occurred between rural and urban
communities. While the rural community was based on extended families and personal
relationships of people who shared daily life experiences, the urban community tended to
set up its networking under a rigorous principal who could bring together people from
diverse families, perspectives, and career paths. The urban community was viewed as
131
professional and formal in setting. However, no matter the form taken by networking, it
helped schools to support children's development.
Three school principals all agreed that parent networks helped to build
understanding among parents. When they got an opportunity to share, compassion
occurred and they learned about new ways to support their children as a group. One
principal said that her school had a community hospital as part of its network. A group of
parents of children with special needs contacted specialists from the community hospital
to mentor parents in the group. Now the network was expanded, and sometimes hosted
lectures by the physicians and invited people in the community to be trained in
facilitating support for children with disabilities in the community.
However, one principal argued that this network system had not happened at her
school, even though there was a movement among some parents of children with
disabilities. Being in a big city like Bangkok, their lives were full with many things. They
tended to isolate themselves and assisted their children on their own.
On the other hand, a principal from a rural school described how in his
agricultural community, the leader of the community played a significant role in
gathering community members to support the school. Since community was based on
extended families, relatives, and neighbors, forming a network for the school was easy.
The parent's network of this school created a project ofNoung Baht Chouy Nong, which
literally meant "one baht from everyone in the school and community" (in Thai currency,
a baht is not even a cent) to help the special needs children in the school. The principal
reported that even though the amount of money was not enough to buy new materials and
132
facilities for special needs students, the school appreciated the dedication and support
from the community. He was glad that these children with disabilities were accepted in
the community so that they could grow up to be part of it.
Teachers as the Key to Classroom Success
I found a strong similarity of opinion among school leaders that teachers were the
key mechanism for making a difference in student development. The principals talked
about teacher workload, issues of ongoing assessment, and needed training for teachers.
Teacher Workload
All of the principals talked about the demanding daily workload of teachers.
Teachers had large classes with little extra assistance. Children with multiple special
needs were placed in the same class. Teachers needed to learn to use many types of new
assessment procedures to accommodate different special needs diagnoses, but were not
paid to acquire this new knowledge. Teachers had substantial paperwork, especially for
children with special needs. Principals reported that both they and their teachers thought
that the paperwork required for each student with special needs was repetitive and took
too long to complete. They thought that the purpose of the paperwork was to serve the
bureaucratic system more than it focused on any improvements for the child. They argued
that if inclusion failed in Thailand, it would be primarily because the teachers were
overworked, underpaid, and under-trained to accomplish the required tasks.
Some teachers showed strong dedication to support special needs students.
However, their hard work did not always meet the unrealistic expectations from parents
who wanted to see improvement in their children in a short period of time. The result,
133
principals said, was stressed teachers who felt under-appreciated for attempting to do a
very hard task that no one else was willing to attempt. Some teachers who did not hold a
degree in special education were already anxious about working in unfamiliar areas, and
criticism from parents made their extra work even more difficult.
When schools were forced by Thai society to admit special needs children who
were not prepared to be included, some teachers developed poor bad attitudes toward
students with disabilities before the children even arrived at school. Principals speculated
that these attitudes may have never developed if funds and training had been available to
prepare teachers, and if there had been ongoing help available in the classroom so that the
teacher could work with many different kinds of learning at the same time.
The Time Needed to Do the Job
A majority of principals talked about how habits of parents increased the length of
the school day for many teachers. Most of them mentioned a scenario of students waiting
until late evening at school for their parents to pick them up. Parents typically argued that
work kept them away. Some parents convinced schools to offer after-school, weekend, or
summer programs for this group of children. However, schools seldom had funding for
such activities. Some of the principals complained that some parents seemed to view the
school as a babysitting service. One principal stated that some parents sent the nanny to
attend the parents' meeting. Also some parents showed that they were ashamed to have
children with disabilities by keeping their children at home and never taking them out in
public for family activities. These kinds of behaviors of parents toward their children and
toward the school were very hard for teachers to accept.
134
Teacher Motivation
A few principals talked about how hard it was, in Thai society, for teachers to say
no to parents to some of the behaviors described above. Teachers were perceived taking
the whole responsibility in developing children. When something wrong happened in
society, there were always remarks made, principals said, about it being caused by bad
teachers. One principal put the Thai situation this way:
The teacher's job in Thai society is shame-based when compared with other
careers. With less money, but more workload and responsibility, this career has
been seen as gradually less attractive to decent people. And this is a problem for
the whole country in the long run. People blame teachers and don't want to be the
ones to take blame.
In Thailand, it was expected that teachers would stay at school as long as there
was a child present. Teachers were reprimanded if they left before all the students from
her class left. It made the principals particularly angry if a teacher left a child with
special needs unattended. Several of the principals said that they expected their teachers
to work over the weekend if necessary. One principal commented that it was a good thing
that most Thai teachers were single because they needed to spend all of their time
working for the school and supporting students with special needs. She went on to say
that most teachers were willing to make this kind of time commitment ifit helped the
children, and she was very proud of this. She also commented that she was very lucky
that she had very little turnover among her staff.
Another principal made similar comments, reporting that her teachers had
encouraged her to have the school become inclusive and they often volunteered as a team
to work on special projects. This school became a pilot inclusion school three years ago,
135
and most of the push to join came from the teachers. The principal said that she was more
hesitant than the teachers at the beginning but, "I give them [teachers] all the credit, and
they did as promised with their hard work and dedication."
Issues of Ongoing Appropriate Assessment
The principals also identified ongoing appropriate assessment as a big issue for
teachers. Eight out of ten principals reported that once the teachers developed each
student's curriculum design, they struggled with appropriate individualized assessment
methods for measuring progress. For example, students with learning disabilities who
could not yet read could not complete the regular written paper examinations. One
principal stated that, "If the students can't read, let them speak. If they can't write, let
them draw. If they can't speak or write, have them use their body languages and gestures
to present their understandings."
Two principals reported that diminishing the numbers of items on tests was
considered an accommodation and allowed some students with special needs more time
to work on each item. In other words, they saw the teachers struggling to help all of the
students, and finding ways to accommodate some of them appropriately. However, nine
of the ten principals reported that they did not feel that they or their staff were adequately
prepared to immediately help all types of special needs in the current environment of
large classes, inadequate funding, and inadequate training for each type of need.
136
Needed Training for Teachers
All the school principals reported that in addition to a shortage of special
education teachers, they also had shortages of teachers for mathematics, science, and
language learning. The principals complained that since sometimes teachers did not have
enough training in each subject they had difficulty guiding students in understanding the
subject matter. Principals suggested that all teachers be prepared for children with special
needs in their training programs before they came to the schools to teach.
All of the school principals stated that it was difficult or impossible to send all
teachers to get needed training. Training was not offered often enough to accommodate
all teachers, and neither the schools nor the teachers typically had sufficient funds to send
all teachers. All of the principals talked about sending particular teachers to be trained,
and then when they returned to the school, they would train the teachers who could not
go. While this accomplished part ofthe goal of training, some learning was "lost in
translation" and, in the absence of nearby ongoing training specialists, missed
understanding could not be corrected once the training for the original person was over.
The principals of the private schools said that they provided their own continuous
training for their staff, either by doing it themselves, or hiring experts. They could not
wait for the national government to fund what was needed, because the problems were
happening for their teachers now. However, they also complained that they should have
had national support and it was a great hardship to the school to pay for the training
themselves.
137
Four of the principals talked about the effectiveness of well-motivated teachers
learning through "hands on" experiences about different forms of disabilities, and passing
their successful methods and ideas on to other teachers. Some teachers did this very
effectively. However, some teachers did not take this obvious opportunity to improve
teaching practices for everyone.
All of the principals agreed that special education training for teachers in
inclusive school settings should be done as "whole school training," as everyone in the
school needed to know as least the basics of how to facilitate students' educational
experiences. At a minimum, everyone on the school staff should know how to be friendly
and supportive of all students, and to assist them if assistance was needed without making
students feel that they were being treated differently.
A students' transition from one grade to another required communication between
the two classroom teachers. It was crucial, the principals said, for the teacher of the next
grade to know the individual's needs and not have to repeat "learning from scratch" what
the previous teacher had already learned. However, only a few of the principals talked
about scheduling such meetings between teachers for students with special needs.
These principals all agreed that it was preferred that teachers with training in
special education be available in the school, even if all of the regular classroom teachers
also had received general training for working with special needs children. They argued
that special education teachers could have a deeper level of skills for working with more
severe disabilities, and they could also be available to classroom teachers as mentors and
coaches when working with a particularly difficult or complicated educational or
138
behavioral situation. They also agreed that it was important to have available knowledge
and skills through trained specialists when more children with more severe disabilities
were present in the school.
Most of the training described by these principals was provided by special
education government agencies. Principals of both private and public schools reported
receiving training on average twice a year. However, the inclusive schools in the city of
Bangkok were exposed to more opportunities from different institutions. One principal of
a school in Bangkok said that the teachers were sent to receive training provided by
universities or hospitals in Bangkok. Moreover, half of the principals reported attending
the training with their teachers and said that this was important so they could understand
and reinforce what the teachers were learning when they returned to their classroom
practices.
Finance and Funding Concerns
Principals reported that the easiest accommodation to make was to provide
equipment or modified facilities to assist a student with physical disabilities who did not
also have cognitive abilities. Another relatively easy accommodation was reported for
students with Down syndrome. The principals reported that parents were more
understanding of the limitations oftheir child, the children themselves were relatively
calm and non-disruptive to other students, and the kind ofteaching required was
primarily simple repetition that could often be done by a teaching assistant. Moreover,
parents were more likely to accept life skills training as being appropriate in order for
their child to become independent.
139
In contrast, all of the principals identified students with autism or with Aspergers
syndrome as difficult to assess and assist because there was a wide range of conditions
included in this general disability category and all of them required consistent attention.
Most of the schools did not have sufficient numbers of trained teachers or teaching
assistants to accommodate many students with autism in one class or one school.
Greatly individualizing teaching for one or several students among many
presented a number of difficult problems for under-prepared teachers in crowded
classrooms. First, there was not sufficient staff present in the classroom to teach several
levels of a topic simultaneously. Secondly, differentiated instructional needs often
fragmented the teacher's time to the point where all education suffered. Thirdly, several
of the principals noted that their staff might be more familiar with one or several kinds of
special needs, and then a student with a different need would show up in the class. The
lack of experience with a new kind of disability compounded the struggle to meet many
individualized needs at the same time.
Use of Teaching Assistants in the Classroom
Seven out often school principals reported the necessity of having teaching
assistants in the classroom where special needs students were included. Many of the
schools, both public and private, said the salary of teaching assistants was paid for by
parents. Some schools were unable to provide teaching assistants even when they were
needed as neither the school nor the parents could afford the extra expense.
140
Use of a School-Based Resource Room to Support Classroom Placement
Nine out of ten school principals agreed that even though their school was
identified as a best practices school in the mainstreaming system and they worked hard to
include all students in the mainstreamed classroom, they also argued that they still needed
a staffed resource center. Only one principal did not believe in resource rooms as a good
practice for mainstreaming. She believed that students needed to be included at all times
in the regular classroom and it was the responsibility of the classroom teacher to provide
an appropriate education for students with special needs. The nine principals who argued
for the value of an in-school resource center described their own inadequate and under-
funded resource centers and limited equipment and specialized materials. Each had his or
her own way to handle resource center services. One principal reported that her resource
center was a great place for students to practice skills and to work one-on-one with
teachers. This school principal reported that by using a combination of regular classroom
and resource room practice in the first and second grades, most children could be
completely mainstreamed by third grade.
Another principal reported that, even though the school was perceived as a
mainstreaming school, the resource room was still needed to help support certain type of
disabilities. She gave an example of children with cerebral palsy who could not be
included all day in the classroom because of their physical limitations. Instead of having
them sit in class and learn nothing, the school placed them in the resource center to
practice specific skills one-on-one. Another principal described the "sensory center" used
in her school for a high number of students with autism who benefited from learning in a
141
different setting. The teacher in this sensory center also worked to develop autism-
appropriate learning activities for the classroom teachers to use in the regular classroom.
Two of the school principals reported they didn't have a whole resource room, but
set up a corner of a library or underused classroom. Two of the principals reported that
they had resource rooms but they were underutilized by the teachers because there was no
one to manage the room and regular classroom teachers did not know how to use the
resource room to support teaching in their classrooms. One of these principals said that
her resource room was originally located on the second floor of her school where some
students with special needs could not access the room. It was subsequently moved to the
first floor but was still not widely used by the classroom teachers.
Use of Outside Resources to Support Classroom Placement
Seven out often school principals reported using outside resources such as
hospitals, training centers and intervention agencies to provide needed services for
children with special needs when the school was unable to provide the services. In some
cases, children were sent for part of each day to receive special services outside of the
school; the remainder of their school day was spent in the regular classroom. The types of
services most frequently reported were diagnostic meetings with physicians and
psychologists, language training with speech pathologists, physical therapy and training
for increasing gross motor hand-eye coordination in order to support writing skills, and
training on fine motor coordination for increased capacity to walk upright. Life skills
training was also reported to be provided by some hospitals and training centers.
Behavioral adjustment skills for children with autism, ADD and ADHD were generally
142
provided through intervention agencies. Most of the outsource agencies were private and,
therefore, costly. Expenses were typically covered by the school and the parents.
In summary, most of the schools had little choice but to place all students with
special needs in already over-crowded regular classrooms and then "make do" with
whatever on-site resource facilities and trained staffthey had, along with supplementing
training with available external hospitals or other training centers. Typically, parents and
the school paid out of pocket for any additional services.
IEP Review and Other Reports of Accomplishment
Principals reported that the initial IEP was seldom used over time to evaluate the
progress of each student during the child's first school year. Most of the schools realized
that communication was needed to support children with special needs. Most of the
schools held a meeting focusing on the issue of special needs students so that every
teachers and staff would have the same base of understanding.
All ofthe school principals felt the IEP had the potential to be an important
process for assessing students. However, most of the principals said that their current IEP
review processes needed to be strengthened to become an important part of ongoing
assessment. Since inclusion was still new in Thai schools, the tendency of the school staff
was to place the child, develop a brief initial IEP, and then not review progress with the
IEP again until required by the principal to do so at the end of the school year.
143
IEPs and the National Curriculum
The confusing issue of the relationship between an IEP and the national
curriculum came up when principals were asked about end-of-the-year IEP and academic
review. According to nine ofthe ten principals, neither parents nor teachers seemed to
understand how the eight strands of the national curriculum could relate to an IEP for a
child with special needs. The parents of these children wanted and expected to see the
same graded report on the eight strands that was received by parents of other children.
The principals said that they thought this was because parents assumed that if their child
was admitted, then the child could learn the same way other children learned. Thus, they
did not understand why the school would use an IEP instead of the strand grades. The
principals reported several instances where parents were angry with the principal and the
school because their child did not suddenly perform as well as other children, and some
had even sued schools for their child's failure to perform.
Other Assessments of Achievement
A variety of authentic assessments had been implemented in Thai inclusive
schools. Each school principal offered details about the successful assessment approaches
used in their school. Principals reported that observations were done over time by the
principal and the teacher to see the development of each special needs student.
Sometimes the principal or the teacher would directly interview the student to add to their
understanding of how the student was interpreting a lesson. One school principal reported
that the school did not and could not rely on a paper and pencil test only; assessment
144
processes had to be flexible enough to accommodate different levels and capacity for
learning.
Three schools assessed their students through work accumulated in portfolios over
a semester. Two schools counted the students' participation with the group and the whole
classroom as part of progress. One school did physiological testing every three years,
and four schools used weekly journals between home and school as an additional
assessment of emotional and behavioral progress.
Success Stories
Despite the fact that the initial IEPs did not seem to provide a useful benchmark
by which to measure progress, progress was made by many students and all of the
principals spent some time in their interviews talking about success stories. Often, these
stories of success were told using neither IEP language nor the language of the national
curriculum strands. Instead, they were told proudly as difficulties identified and then
overcome.
Principals talked avidly about how many students only needed extra time to learn
about social and academic skills to succeed alongside their peers. One principal gave an
example of a second grader with mild autism who was initially afraid ofpeople in the
school. Because ofhis high level of separation anxiety and his initial inability to socialize
with other children and with teachers, the school allowed his mother to accompany him
in the classroom for the first year. Soon he began to understand what was expected of
him and what he could expect from the other students and from the teachers. He noticed
that the other students did not have their parents in attendance. Before the year was over,
145
he no longer needed or wanted his mother at school with him and joined the other
children in appropriate social and academic exercises.
Another principal told a similar success story about a girl with autism who
avoided eating food served at school. Her mother reported that she only ate "rice with
fish sauce" and could get a tongue irritation from other kinds of food. However, after
awhile in school, the classroom teacher offered her other simple dishes. The girl refused
to try at first but, after many times of rejection, she realized that many foods did not
bother her tongue and began to eat some of the different foods. As time passed, the
teacher exposed her to a greater variety of foods. By the end of the school year, she was
able to enjoy and eat the foods served to the other children. The principal noted that it
took time to find out what she was able and willing to eat. The principal reported that the
girl's peers influenced her because she could see that her peers enjoyed eating with the
group at the canteen of the school. Through her teacher's help, the girl was able to behave
more normatively and to have more enjoyment in her school setting.
Another principal told a story about a girl with ADHD who could not stay still
and initially screamed every time she was given a work assignment. In this case, the
teacher tried many different interventions, such as a "picture system" that could be used
whenever she screamed. The teacher showed the girl a picture of a child being quiet.
After awhile, the picture would quiet her somewhat. The teacher also used time outs until
she stopped screaming. The student slowly learned the rules about communicating
verbally instead of by screaming when she did not want to do or did not understand a
task. The principal reported that the girl's behavior was greatly improved by the end of
146
the first year. She still could not always control her screaming but she clearly knew that it
was not an appropriate response in the classroom.
One of the improvements often reported by the principals was how students
became independent after being included in a mainstreaming school and learning needed
social and life skills. One principal even stated that she did not personally focus on
academic areas as much as on helping children learn the social and life skills they needed
to function in society. She said that life skills were a more important benefit when they
went out to live in society. She reported that she was happy that the school was able to
help in toilet training for a boy with Down syndrome. Even though he was a third grade
student, he had not completely learned this skill at home. The principal was pleased that
he could later learn to tell the classroom teacher that he needed to go to the bathroom.
One principal explained that to help students make progress, assessments had to
be flexible and appropriate to their levels of learning. She told a story about one girl with
learning disabilities who spent two years in first grade in order to develop the skill of
writing a simple sentence. The principal recommended that the teacher teach the girl to
write scripts and the girl gradually was able to add the scripts appropriately to form
simple sentences. The principal told this story as a success story, both for the student who
learned to write and for the teacher who learned to modify her methods to produce
achievement.
Another principal described how one of her students with learning disabilities
stayed two years for each grade until fourth grade because of her difficulties with reading
at level. The girl was in a miserable social situation largely because of the age differences
147
among the students in her classes. The principal confessed that repeating each grade may
have given the student needed time to master a skill but it also lowered this student's self-
esteem. However, after the teachers changed the approach to allow her to perform at the
level she could handle and moved her more rapidly into a peer age group, she put more
effort to the work that was assigned. The principal explained that even though ability to
read was important for her to move on to the higher grades, self esteem was part of
helping her continue to care about her learning and for her to become independent.
Another principal talked about promoting students so they could play in
appropriate sports as a way to increase individual autonomy and independence and
maintain enthusiasm for school. Another described a student with learning disabilities
who needed extra years to complete school successfully but now, at age twenty-seven,
was running his own business despite continuing difficulties with reading and writing
beyond basic levels. Another success story was told about a boy with moderate autism
who made no eye contact and could not interact with others when he first came to school.
The teacher used peer-supported techniques to teach him how to be part of a group and
soon he was able to interact with others appropriately.
Several of the principals talked about successfully including students with special
needs in school activities like assemblies, boy and girl scouts, and sports. One principal
used the example of friendships between students with and without disabilities. While the
students with disabilities gained many social and academic benefits from interacting in a
friendly fashion with those without disabilities, the children without disabilities also often
learned to be compassionate towards others and how to guide and teach others. Another
·148
principal agreed that positive social interactions between children with special needs and
children without disabilities played a key role for all children. The students with special
needs learned to absorb different ways of thinking and more ways to express ideas and
manners from their peers without disabilities. She said she had seen socialization increase
understanding of oneself and understanding of other people for students with and without
disabilities. One principal told a story about a hearing impaired child who first attended a
special school but whose parents brought her to the mainstreaming school so she could
learn a wider range of social interactions. Another talked about a boy who was given
verbal guidance and cues to speak for several years before finally being able to talk in his
fourth year in the school. The classroom teacher and the parents never gave up helping
this boy to speak, and he finally started pronouncing some words. The principal reported
that his peers influenced the boy as role models. His peers came to understood all his
nonverbal gestures and translated what he wanted for others. Through their friendship,
the boy became more confident of speaking and, when he began to speak, his friends
were happy for him.
These principals also told success stories about teachers learning to accept
gestures and forms of requesting from children who were nonverbal as an indication that
they understood what was wanted from them. Teachers learned that verbalization often
followed simpler forms of expression and that what was important was reinforcing the
appropriate behavior in order to lead to the verbalization of the behavior. Another
principal agreed that allowing students to repeat their tasks supported their development,
as well as adding new words when a word or two were first spoken. While these events
149
clearly took more time and work, the principals spoke of the gradual accomplishments
with pride.
One principal explained that, in her school, daily meditation was provided.
Everyone in the school soon realized that it greatly helped the students with ADD to be
more tranquil. The school did not try to help the ADD students understand the whole
concept of meditation, but the students learned to be calm at a certain time required
through meditation practice. Their concentration skills also increased in other parts of
their school day.
Principals talked about the fact that simply going to a school was not sufficient
for all children with special needs to make progress. One principal gave an example of a
boy with autism who went to a special school where he was largely ignored and learned
very little. His parents then brought him to the mainstreaming school where he became
healthier and where his teachers and peers saw him as a regular part of the school society.
Another of the school leaders talked about a boy with autism who was very antisocial
when he first came to the school. The teachers surrounded him with books and
encouraged his reading and studying by himself. He eventually learned to read very well
and is now a successful college history major. The principal said that his parents were
thankful to the school for finding what would work for their son as they never thought
that their child would be able to pass to that high a level of study.
In the same school, the principal talked about a girl with Aspergers syndrome who
initially had a hard time understanding reading and mathematics because she could not
concentrate long enough to learn. Her teachers discovered that she was able to sit longer
150
during art classes and they modified an IEP goal to focus on using painting and drawing
to increase her attention span, first in art and then extended to reading and math. This was
the only example given where the IEP was talked about as being used to increase success.
The principal proudly said that she graduated from the school six years ago, passed the
entrance examination to a prestigious university in Bangkok, and graduated with a major
of interior design with first class honors.
Success Stories About Peer Support
A majority of the principals reported that they were glad that the mainstreaming
process was part of helping students who did not have disabilities understand the concept
of diversity. One principal reported that her school always taught students to support each
other. Stronger helped weaker, and older helped younger was the philosophy for students
in her school. Students without disabilities helping to carry heavy belongings for their
peers with special needs was regularly seen.
Another school leader reported in a similar way that the school mission,
Knowledge along with Mercy, was used to remind students regularly to help their peers.
Once this understanding was by students, when they get older they would carry this
perception ofliving among diversity to their real society. Some students were proud to
report their parents each day about assisting their special needs friends. This was the
structure of the relationship between students with and without disabilities that schools
wished to observe.
151
In a school where there was no elevator for the students with physically
disabilities, the principal reported that there was a great deal of help from their peers
without disabilities to help support their friends with disabilities in walking up the stairs.
One school leader shared an experience ofwitnessing students with disabilities
being bullied by their peers without disabilities. She narrated that bullying was perceived
by for boy students as more of a tough playing among boys. However, it was the
responsibility of the school to educate students without disabilities about the appropriate
level ofplay with the peers with disabilities.
One principal explained her school continued to hear about how students
supported each other after they had graduated. One principal related that the special needs
students received wonderful support from peers, as everyone in the school perceived
them as part of the school. They thrived in the secure environment provided by peers and
teachers. Such supportive circumstance helped students with disabilities to make
progress.
Principals related many success stories about their students and their teachers.
However, few ofthe stories talked about the integral use of the IEP, IEP review, or the
strands of the national curriculum in determining whether a student had been as
successful as possible. Few of them mentioned turning to other professionals in seeking
ways to work with a particular student. None of them referenced using written materials
on successful practices in other schools or other countries.
To summarize the current inclusion processes in these best practices schools,
school leaders reported a diffused, incomplete but extensive set of processes of initial
152
screening and assessment of children. They reported that at the minimum, simple IEPs
were developed for at least the certificated students. However, IEPs seldom included
behavioral and social goals along with academic goals and did not always reference the
strands ofthe national curriculum. Most students with special needs were placed in
regular classrooms with modest additional support provided to the teacher to
accommodate these additional demands on her teaching schedule. Principals reported
that they used some external resources, paid for by the school and the parents, to
supplement what the school could offer. Although IEPs were not used to assess progress,
many of the principals spent time describing instances of successful intervention and
were clearly proud of their ability to help at least some children who would have
previously not been able to attend school.
Stories About Problems
One school principal reported a concern about transitions to middle schools. She
found that there was a lack ofcommunication between teachers from the two school
levels. Her elementary school heard stories from parents that teachers in the middle
school lacked knowledge and willingness to work with special needs students. The school
did not try to accommodate the new students with special services, and parents reported
negative experiences from them.
Leadership ofInclusion
Ninety percent of the school leaders and one hundred percent of the experts in the
two focus groups strongly agreed that leaders are the most influential people in successful
--------------- -
153
inclusion. As one of the principals stated, "Thai society is different from others. Top-
down policy is obviously seen in schools. If the principal shows effort, it becomes a role
model for teachers and the teachers will follow along." Another expert also articulated
that, "The principal is the one who creates the work environment in a school. If a fine
working environment is created, it promotes teachers' motivation and that will influence
the success of inclusion." They agreed that the overall culture of Thailand supports strong
leaders who teach and show others how to proceed with daily activities and beliefs.
In addition to the need for leadership in initial screening and development of the
first IEP, both the principals and the focus group experts talked about leadership practices
needed throughout the whole process of developing inclusive schools. Principals reported
having to disagree with some parents in determining what was best for a particular child.
One school principal said that school readiness did not mean just readiness for the first
admission to school, but had to also mean readiness to move from grade to grade and
from elementary to middle school. She said, in her experience, parents wanted their
children to continue to high school even when they were not ready to be moved on to
more complex learning. This opinion was reflected in stories told by each of the 10
principals about parents resisting information that pointed to the special needs of their
child. This was first identified by parents exaggerating their child's abilities during initial
interviews, or denying that any special help was required. It showed up in parents'
demands for "good grades" and for reports on their child's progress on the national
curriculum. Several of the principals said that their responsibility rested in supporting the
child's development, and teachers' determination ofthe child's accomplishments and
154
capabilities, even if the parents did not agree. If some parents wished to have their
children move to the next grade with their peers even when they were not ready, it was
the responsibility of the principal to keep this from happening, for the ultimate good of
the child.
The first recommendation from the school leaders and experts was to develop a
vision about sharing the importance of inclusion. Progress cannot be made if the leader
does not know about or support the practices of inclusive education. This includes
knowledge of disabilities and knowledge of leadership. It also includes an understanding
of the immediate community and how to work with parents, teachers, and children.
Both the school leaders and the experts in the two focus groups agreed that
knowledge about inclusive education and a vision for how inclusive education can
improve the lives of children with disabilities and the country itself were the most
substantial attributes for leaders. Three experts reported in a similar way that if principals
are knowledgeable about inclusion and know how to develop inclusive schools, they
would provide great support to children with disabilities and their families and benefit the
whole community. One principal even commented that, "What the principal thinks and
says impacts onto the whole school, as their ideas are the ones that will be brought into
the plans and implemented into practice." Another principal had a similar comment that,
"It is all about the principals' roles, as the principal is the one who brings changes to the
school in order to make the school provide better educational services to students."
However, eight of the school leaders acknowledged that they initially knew very
little about children with disabilities when they started mainstreaming in their schools.
155
When a child with a disability arrived at their school, the principals had to educate
themselves about what would work for each child. The school leader' s own strong
motivation became what drove schools to "best practice." School leaders initially
educated themselves and then trained their teachers. They learned by trial and error in the
classrooms, by reading textbooks, by attending conferences on disabilities, by seeking out
training from professionals in the area (such as physicians, physical therapists, and
occupational therapists), and by communicating with the parents of students with special
needs.
Many of the school leaders confessed that it was a difficult task to pull all the
needed knowledge together about how to teach children with disabilities, and then to put
their new knowledge into good practice when many of the teachers and parents knew
even less than they did about what was needed. They understood that they could never
stop learning since there was a large amount of new information becoming available all
the time. Two of the leaders reported that leaders must be lifelong learners, and learning
must not be limited to academic books -- it must also come from being in the situation,
and communicating about needs with experts as different approaches are tried. One of the
principals gave an example of the necessity of being keen for new knowledge.
I knew nothing about children with disabilities when I started with the first child
with special needs over 10 years ago. But I was not afraid to learn new things, and
didn't hesitate to talk to knowledgeable experts in the field, and wasn't reluctant
to be involved with my special needs students. Well, I look back now and realize
that I've learned so much. I think I know more than I thought ... I think that
eagerness for knowledge should be one of the characteristics of leaders.
One of the principals talked about what happened when she first started including
students with special needs in her school. She had to learn a lot, and quickly. She now
156
believes that it would have been easier for her and her school if school-wide knowledge
had been available prior to admitting students with disabilities, but she worked hard to
learn what she needed to know to guide her staff and the students.
I would have ruined myself, my school setting, my students, and
[everyone], if! had stopped learning. I [was] suddenly short of vision and
capabilities and had to accept that I had to learn new knowledge. I keep
myself updated by communicating with experts. It's not a shame. I ask
questions about everything.
Another leader from a private school explained her situation in this way: "It was
hectic 15 years ago when we had a child with autism, but the bad thing was we
didn't know what it was." This school leader explained that information about
how to support children with disabilities was limited when she started including
students with special needs15 years ago. Western texts were available only within
a group of medical professionals and experts in the field during that time. She
went to special education professors at one of the universities and was loaned
western text books. Thus began her first actual learning about children with
disabilities.
I learned the different types of disabilities, and it helped me to learn the
steps [of working] and where to begin.. .it was more like working a jigsaw
puzzle in which you have to be patient, putting little pieces together to see
the big picture. This was how I learned.
She also discussed why leaders should have knowledge and vision:
Because I have to educate my teachers and parents, how could I know less
than them? This is a huge job of the nation, very huge and heavy... I
search online as I want to be superior and want to provide better services. I
don't have to know everything about best practices for teaching my
students with disabilities, but I must know enough to get my inclusive
school [to] run.
157
In addition, one school leader who holds a Ph.D. in higher education confessed
that she was worried after she was assigned by the Ministry of Education to become the
principal of an inclusive school. Her background was in the area of educational policy,
and she knew little about inclusive education practices. However, in a positive fashion,
she reported that the students became her "text books," and that she could "never stop
reading." Since each student was different, she found it interesting to observe them on a
regular basis. She learned greatly from allowing herself to know each student
individually. She had a vision for inclusion and felt that "if the leader says 'no' to
inclusive education, many Thai children with disabilities would be left out of the
educational system and that would later cause problems in Thai society as a whole."
Furthermore, with the many responsibilities as a school leader, she realized that time was
the greatest constraint that prevented her from learning what was needed to serve each
student. However, she said:
I always find time for myself to learn more about developmental psychology and
children's diseases so that I can be more proactive about what I am doing now. I
invited experts to come help us at the school. This helped me to be smart and
allow others in the school to learn at the same time.
Another principal said:
This is my standpoint. As a teacher, I know more than parents how much the
children will struggle in class. I will do whatever is proper for my students. The
parents may just want me to serve their needs.
Several of the other principals talked about needing to talk with parents regularly
about their child's progress. They prepared parents so that the end result of a year's
progress would not be a complete surprise. These principals also talked about the need to
support their teaching staff to work with children and their parents. Eighty percent of the
158
interviewees agreed that supporting their staff in difficult decisions was a key in
developing successful inclusion practices. One interviewee stated that, "I try to provide
support everywhere I can. Special education teachers in our schools are sent to get
training many times a year and that's why we can serve our special needs students."
One private school principal stated that the teachers in her school worked very
hard and sacrificed their personal lives to work for students with special needs.
Therefore, it was her job to support them however she could. One way she helped was by
providing food for her staff.
There are always snacks and coffee available for all of the teachers, since they
come to school early in the morning, and sometimes without having breakfast.
Well, think about 40-50 kids per class that one teacher has to deal with all day,
including children with disabilities, so forget about having a break. It is a lot and
at the end of the day they are exhausted, so this is one of the things I can do to
support my teachers.
One of the focus group participants identified an organizational issue that limited
the ability of some school principals to guide and support their teachers. In Thailand
public schools, special education teachers are listed under the Special Education Bureau,
whereas regular classroom teachers are listed under the Office ofBasic Education. Policy
may differ between the two agencies and the site principal is limited in applying rewards
and punishments for good teaching practices, particularly with the special education
teachers. Special education teachers are not considered "core" to the school but as having
a "support" function where the special education teacher reports more directly to the
Bureau than to the site principal.
A focus group expert participant pointed out a problem with this dual
identification. She noted that some principals believe that inclusion is about special
159
education, so they assign all ofthe workload related to inclusive practices to the special
education teachers. They do this without providing any additional support. In fact, she
reported, many principals around Thailand do not even attend orientation or IEP meetings
but expect their special education teacher to handle everything.
Another topic related to the principal as leader came up in both focus groups. In
Thai society, the site principal is expected to participate in the community as well as to
manage the school. Principals have extensive work outside of the school building as well
as full legal responsibility for the appropriate management of the school itself. As a
result, what should be routine leadership and coaching moments between the principal
and the teachers or students with disabilities may not happen. Two of the focus group
experts recommended that there should be a person who is more like a "middle man",
who can coordinate all the activities of the school, and who is given authority from the
principal to make everyone in school work in the same direction. Another expert gave a
practical suggestion related to this problem:
If the principals have no time, they should assign the work to assistants. By law,
this is the way to do it. In schools, there are many assistant positions, the leaders
simply have to select one; probably an 'assistant to the academic affairs' person
who might take responsibility to be a coordinator of the school. Remember, the
special needs children belong to everyone in school, not only to the special
education teachers.
Another expert stated that "the leaders must use power and allow their power to
influence people in the workplace. In Thai society, as we know, teamwork will not
happen without commanding." In the same way, another expert in one focus group stated
that, "In school, a leader should not believe that working with special need kids is the job
of special education teachers only. The leader should make everyone think that taking
160
care of each individual kid is a job for the whole school." Another one agreed, arguing
that, "Principals must lead and create a working atmosphere so that everyone in school
will consent to and willingly dedicate themselves to the principles of inclusive education
for all of the children, for the school, and for the community."
Experts also described negative experiences in their work with schools. It was
reported through one of the experts that when she was serving the Ministry of Education
as a supervisor for special needs students, she visited a school in Bangkok and was
surprised that she was directed to see whole groups of special needs students who were
separated from the mainstream. She stated that, "This is not the way that inclusion should
be." She believed that once children are placed into separated classrooms, even though
they are in the same school, it will go back to the system of special education setting.
When she talked to the principal she was surprised to learn that this had been done for a
long time. According to the principal, working with students with special needs should be
the work of special teachers. "He does not want to know about special education or
inclusion," she said. She felt that, "This is very narrow-minded and it is totally wrong at
the head level of the school."
However, another expert described the characteristics of the leader of another
public school who she felt should be admired and would lead a successful inclusive
school.
This leader called me and asked where she should get started as a principal of an
inclusive school. She confessed that she had a lot of experience working in
different sizes of schools, but for inclusion she was very worried. However, since
then, I have talked to her regarding the work. I meet her almost everywhere for
trainings and conferences. I like that she's been so patient and keen for
knowledge.
161
Thus, these school leaders and national-level experts agreed that it was necessary
for the school principal to be knowledgeable about the disabilities present in the school,
about what kinds of pedagogic practices might help each child with a disability, and to
have the vision to guide the teachers, students and parents towards complete inclusion of
children with disabilities. While the knowledge necessary to help students with
disabilities could, and did, come from many sources, consultation with experts in the field
emerged as an essential component of gaining necessary knowledge and confidence to
lead an inclusive school.
The principals agreed that collaboration was necessary between everyone
involved for inclusion to be successful. Therefore, the leaders of the schools had to playa
significant role in distributing the workload for each teacher, and for helping the parents
understand and support what the school was trying to do.
All of the experts in the focus groups agreed that the ability to acquire knowledge
and vision are important characteristics for leaders. However, experts had either negative
or positive attitudes, depending upon the expert's experiences in working with school
principals. One of the experts in the focus group, who is a screening specialist and a
special education trainer for the Ministry of Education, reported from her experiences
that many principals had no vision of what was possible. Thus, they were not serious in
supporting training for their teachers. She said:
The teachers who are sent to get trained are too old, malfunctioning, and almost
close to retirement. Some principals don't send young, good quality teachers to be
trained because they want them to stay and work at school. They don't think that
training is important. This shows how they perceive children with disabilities. As
a trainer, I am mad that they take this for granted. I believe that if they [the
162
principals] had vision, they would send excellent teachers to get training so that
they can go back to extend the knowledge to others in the school. I think this is
the way kids will be helped.
It was noteworthy that all of the private school leaders had more concerns
regarding funding than the leaders of the public schools. All of the private school leaders
reported that since tuition comes from parents, their satisfaction is the first thing to take
into consideration. One of the principal stated that,
I have to manage everything to serve the needs of the teachers, parents, and
students, as well as the community. The budget is the greatest concern for me. As
a private school, I receive some financial support from the government, but for
the most part, it comes from the parents so I have to be cautious using the money.
Another principal believed in the "4 Ms" theory, which includes men, materials,
money, and management. She said that her job is making all men, materials, and money
work through her management. She said she tries to make all people work together under
the least conflict. However, she admitted that:
People have limitations. My job is pulling their capability out to prove it to them.
Sometimes I have to understand and accept their constraints. I know that some of
the teachers could work only at minimal level, so as a leader, I have to work a lot
harder gathering these people to work so that the policy of the school could be put
into action.
In addition, nine of the ten school leaders concurred that teamwork is a
requirement for making change in any organization. One of the principal reported that:
Every place has problems and divergences, but the job of the leader is to
use different kinds of strategies to make everyone work together.
Fortunately in my school the teachers understand their duties, and even if
sometimes, conflicts take place, they compromise and move on.
In contrast, the experts from the focus groups were generally quite pessimistic
about the leaders of public schools. Eighty percent of them agreed that the attitude of
163
most school leaders needed to be changed if successful inclusion is to occur in Thailand.
Some of them said that some parts of the education system were more ready to move than
others. One expert from the first focus group stated that, "We need to accept that private
schools are more flexible in working. They work faster as a team because of their
leaders."
Other experts explained that the way leaders work is through people. Leaders use
management skills to motivate people, they agreed. They believed that leaders must get
everyone to work for the school as a team. One expert was frustrated when explaining
his experience dealing with school leaders:
I don't understand why most of the principals say that their schools are not ready
to be inclusive schools. They actually don't have to do it themselves. They will
get support if they agree [to inclusive education]. If they just allow the
opportunity to happen in schools and for kids, there will be no concern. I know
that the school will be run with great teamwork if there is good support from the
leaders. So there should not be this kind of concern anymore. This is a job for
Thai children. No matter whether they [the principals] want to do it or not, the
Ministry of Education will make them do it sooner or later. So one thing I can
recommend for them is starting to prepare their teamwork now.
In summary, the principals and the experts all agreed that leadership by principals
was essential to success. They just did not agree on why that leadership might not always
occur.
Problems ofPutting Policy into Practice
Eight out of ten schools agreed that educational policy did not work well when it
was put into practice because of a lack of unity among policy makers. Policy makers did
not understand how policy was put into practice, since they lacked direct understanding
,.------- ----- ----- -----
164
about the process of working in special education and inclusion. In addition, the minister
of the Ministry of Thai Education had often been replaced, depending upon the
government. As a consequence there was a lack of continuum in policy. Each school
reported the effect from the poorly formed educational policy in different ways,
depending on the impact that each felt.
The first school reported about the lack of understanding of inclusive education at
the federal level. Each year the federal educational policy extended the number of the
schools that were to become inclusive. The principal's opinion on the effect of this policy
was that although there were more demands for schools to admit students with disabilities
all over Thailand, many schools could not prepare themselves to provide a good
education in so short a time. This principal suggested that instead of extending the
number of inclusive schools, the government must focus on first preparing
knowledgeable staff and proper facilities. Unless this happened, the government would
be wasting money and would have a very difficult time regulating the quality of inclusive
schools.
Another principal's opinion focused on funding. If inclusion was to be successful,
it needed supports financially. This principal's school had been absorbing the increasing
cost of hiring and training more teachers, teaching assistants, proving equipment and
facilities, and other kinds of costs which the school could not pass on to parents.
A private school from the provinces stated that because of the lack of consistency
from the federal policy, the school experienced a budget shortfall for students with
special needs. This was one of the pilot schools for inclusion. After the Ministry of
165
Education learned that the school received a subsidy from different departments, it cut the
school's budget. However, the principal reported, even though the school was no longer
in the group of pilot schools, it did not give up serving those with disabilities as an
inclusive school. "What should we do with the 30 students with disabilities?" the
principal asked. "They would have nowhere to go. I had to ensure the parents that our
school policy still maintained support for the special needs students." This school leader
brought up the interesting point that special education teachers needed more ethical
education to work with students with special needs. There was a need for the government
to develop teachers holistically rather than merely provide them career training. This
principal also identified contradictions in screening criteria for children with disabilities
from different ministries. The Ministry ofEducation identified nine types of disabilities
in its screening protocol. In contrast, the Ministry ofPublic Health identified 13 types of
disabilities. This contradiction was identified when children were taken to a hospital to
receive their diagnosis. The discrepancy has financial ramifications because if a child's
diagnosis did not fall into the categories of the Ministry of Education protocol, he would
not quality for financial support from that ministry.
Another principal from a private school related that the, school had been providing
education for parents and the community regarding disabilities issues, yet had not
received support from the government. In this principal's opinion, the federal policy
needed to include a process of educating the community about disabilities and the
benefits of mainstreaming. Since government officers in the Ministry of Education did
166
not take an overall perspective or vision of how inclusive schools should work, their
policies could not possibly function when they were put into practice.
One school leader reported a heavy burden of repetitive paperwork. A
disagreement between the Special Education Government Agency and the Office of the
Basic Education Commissions caused a duplication of bureaucratic reporting to both
agencies. Sometimes the school was informed by the Office of the Basic Education
Commissions on one policy, but once they checked with the Special Education
Government Agency, different activities were requested. The need to communicate with
both agencies sometimes caused a delay in compliance. Even when the school carefully
followed the instructions on paperwork to receive financial support for students with
special needs, the Office of the Basic Education Commissions made changes in the
process without informing the Special Education Government Agency. This caused a
delay in coupon payments for students.
Another principal complained that the private school system was neglected by the
federal system.
Being a private school, we are left out. The government does not care how much
we help the country educate Thai children. We are looked at as a well-off
institute, but actually we are not. They don't know how much of the expenses
wait for us each month.
This school leader expressed the opinion that teacher training provided by the
government was almost useless. It was of low quality and teachers learned little. The
principal felt that that the government wasted time and money. "I could have used the
money more effectively if! had gotten a chance to manage the budget," she challenged.
167
Another principal explained that the link between the policy and practice was
weakened by the lack of support from research. The government should have conducted a
feasibility study about mainstreaming in each region in order to plan the new system.
Thailand is a large country, where each region has its own character. An exploratory
study could have helped design policies unique to each region. This principal pointed out
that the system of decentralized "School-Based Management" was in fact a hierarchical
structure directed by the Ministry of Education. The policies of the ministry did not
benefit schools because its policies underestimated the difficulty of including all children
with disabilities.
One principle attributed the poor rate of success of government policies to the
lack of unity among the ministries that were responsible for disability policy. This
principal stated that the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Public Health, and the
Ministry ofInterior, needed to work collaboratively, as each ministry had schools under
its umbrella. Without collaboration among the ministries, inclusion was proceeding in
contradictory directions, causing schools to struggle. This principal also pointed out that
the language used by the government should be modified to show respect for people with
disabilities. Language is a sensitive issue and could influence misunderstanding among
people in the society. Many individuals with disabilities and their families were irritated
by the negative language with which they had been labeled. Inclusion at the school level
should be spread to the rest of society to discourage discrimination against people with
disabilities. The principal recommended that the ministries perform more studies of the
--- --------
168
research done in the field of mainstreaming in order to incorporate ethics as part of
government policy.
Principals from private schools reported that they received less support than
public schools from the Special Education Government Agency. Private schools in
Bangkok reported that they received less supervision from the Metropolis Special
Education Government Agency than public schools despite the fact that all inclusive
schools should have been provided the same level of service from the agency. Similar
problems were identified in private schools in other provinces regarding their relationship
to the Regional Special Education Government Agency. Schools from two other
provinces stated that the Regional Agency lacked enough staff to supervise the schools'
work. When they provided training on new intervention techniques or new assessment
processes, the agencies provided little follow-up support. When the schools were stuck,
there was no consulting available. Principals reported that many teachers would like to
have continuous support from the Special Education Government Agency through
training by psychologists for behavior problems, and for assessment techniques.
A school in another province stated that it was required to report the progress of
students with disabilities on their IEPs to the agency, but this amounted to a great amount
of paperwork. The teachers complained to the principal that half of their time was spent
on paperwork, and this took away from their time helping their students with disabilities.
They also complained that the bureaucracy demanded strict compliance on filling out the
forms at the expense of content.
169
Need for New Policy
The 10 school leaders I interviewed all agreed that it was necessary for the
Ministry ofEducation to support change with mandates, money, and training. They said
that their first job as school-site leaders was to "educate new generations." School leaders
had to educate their whole communities in a holistic way in order to generate positive
attitudes and create a supportive environment for inclusive education in their schools.
Four out often school leaders provided a simple formula for improving practice:
1) welcoming parents of students with disabilities into the school society;
2) educating everyone in the school to transform to the stage of acceptance;
3) providing training to the teachers and all school staff to work and support
students with special needs; and
4) promoting a supportive atmosphere of living together among all of the
students.
These leaders were aware of where barriers to acceptance were most likely to arise, and
felt that with these simple activities, change could occur.
170
CHAPTER V
INTERPRETAnONS OF FINDINGS
In this chapter, I analyze my findings by comparing them to earlier published
research findings and ideas about best inclusion practices identified in Chapter II of this
dissertation. I then propose a Thai-specific model of inclusion based on my findings and
analysis.
To organize analysis of my findings in relationship to prior research and theory, I
use largely the same categories of the inclusion process that I used in Chapter IV: Effects
ofThai Cultures on Inclusion Practices, Initial Screening and Assessment, Initial IEP
Development, Classroom Placement, IEP Review, Leadership ofInclusion and Policy
Implications. These categories were derived, from the combined best practices model of
Salend (1990) and Spillane's (2006)) distributed leadership model as described in
Chapter II.
Effects of Thai Cultures on Inclusion Practices
Probably the most pervasive finding of this study was the obvious under-funding
of the Thai education system in general and of inclusion practices specifically. This
showed up in every aspect of the study. Classrooms were overcrowded. Teachers were
underpaid for the amount of work and difficulty of work required ofthem. There were
inadequate training and support services available. There were inadequate funds for many
171
needed resources to support inclusion. In fact, it seemed clear to me that the hardest
impact fell on those least able to deal with it: Poor parents with children with severe
behavioral disorders had few resources available to them. Parents with few resources
often had to use them to support the schools and classrooms in aiding their children
during the course of the school day. This is consistent with what has been reported in
early stages of adoption in other countries (Buysse, Skinner & Grant, 2001).
In contrast, perhaps another equally significant finding was in the stories of
dedication and success told by the principals about their schools, classrooms, and
teachers. Parents often were trying hard to understand how they could help the schools
help their children. There were many more stories told of people "going the extra mile" to
support a child, than there were of people simply refusing to help when a problem or
need was discovered. It is important to note that all ofthe elements needed for a
successful best practices system were present, although not in sufficient depth and quality
to assure success. This is comparable to other countries in a similar stage of development
(Odom, 2000; Lipsky & Gartner, 1998; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Whitebook, Howers
& Phillips, 1989).
In examining Thailand's school system in terms of Spillane's (2006) leadership
model, as illustrated in Figure 4 in Chapter II, all aspects were in place for leaders,
teachers, and for the circumstances of including children with special needs in the schools
in the study. Principals worked hard to establish criteria for inclusion, even in the absence
of such criteria from the national level. They participated in initial screening and
assessment to determine students' readiness for inclusion. They built and maintained
172
some sort of system or network for communication with teachers, parents and the
surrounding community. Teachers met with parents of children with special needs and
parents of children without disabilities to talk about inclusion practices, strengths and
weaknesses. Teachers modified their instruction for students with disabilities, attempted
to adapt evaluation procedures so they were appropriate for each child, evaluated the
progress of each child in some way, and sometimes revised their teaching and school
systems based on their evaluation data.
Thus, the first finding of this study that is both similar to and different from the
findings of prior research rests in the particular stage of implementation in Thailand
today, and the unique nature of Thai culture. Thailand is in a relatively early stage of
implementing inclusion practices in all of its schools, and that showed in this study. The
history in Thailand does not include similar civil rights movements that would support or
"pave the way" for the kind of thinking required for inclusion, as occurred in the United
States in the 1960s and 1970s (Scotch, 2001; Bricker, 1978). Therefore, initial progress
might be expected to be slower in Thailand. Many teachers, even in the schools with best
practices, were clearly unprepared to work with children with special needs. Many
principals were committed to implementing the new law but struggled with limited
resources and general lack of training and preparation for these children to join the school
population.
The importance of taking Thailand's unique cultures into consideration in
designing an inclusive system clearly stood out in this study. The fact that Thailand is
predominantly a Buddhist society made the role of compassion for every living being and
173
the consideration of "karma" in relationship to disability key influences in Thai attitudes
about children with special needs. Many of the participants in the study talked about
compassion as being at the core of their professional practices, but they also talked about
the shame that many people felt and directed at people with disabilities, because of the
assumption that they "deserved" their disability from past life failures. In a culture like
Thailand's, where there is considerable deference to those who are older, richer,
professional, and who have higher status because of family ties, shame played a direct
role in fears that arise out of ignorance. Many people would not directly talk about
special needs, and consequently were ignorant about and feared them. In settings where
the knowledge might be available from professionals, many parents, for example, often
deferred to professionals and would not raise questions. This was true for parents of
children without disabilities as well. While these parents were often reported to readily
accept disability in someone else's child, their primary concerns were often about
whether their own child was at risk in any way because of the presence of a child with
special needs.
However, both fears and the practice of polite deference were often balanced by a
clear willingness to cooperate and collaborate for the good of all children. This was
consistent with Western findings (Daane, Beirne-Smith & Latham, 2001)
Initial Screening and Assessment
Thailand has a unique set of issues related to appropriate initial assessment for
certification of disability. This study found inconsistency in assessment practices,
174
procedures, forms, and rules. There was inconsistency between medical assessments and
educational assessments. There was lack of agreement across all assessors about
disability definitions and conditions. These problems in Thailand are consistent with prior
research findings on assessment in other countries. There were also clearly significant
differences in attitudes and opinions reported by the principals between the regular
classroom teachers and special education teachers. This has been previously found to be a
serious obstruction to implementing inclusion practices in other countries (Rose & Smith,
1993; Hornby, 1999; Bricker, 1995).
Initial IEP Development
The important role of the principal in seeing that the IEP process occurred with all
parties is consistent with all prior research findings on this topic (Praisner, 2003; Evans &
Lunt, 2002; Lieber et aI, 2000). The important role of parents and the problems that arise
when parents are not prepared to participate fully in the IEP process were also consistent
with prior research findings (Cross et al, 2004; Hanson et aI, 2001; Lynch & Hanson,
1998). If parents in Thailand did not feel like they were "equal partners" in the IEP
development, they were unlikely to participate in it. Issues also arose in discussions of
IEP development about conflicts of attitude and beliefs between regular classroom
teachers and special education teachers and other specialists (Avramidis, Bayliss &
Burden, 2000; Villa et aI, 1996; LeRoy & Simpson, 1996). This was a particularly
difficult issue when the principal was not viewed by the special education teachers as
their "boss."
175
A number of unique questions about and issues related to what constituted an
appropriate IEP for Thailand elementary schools arose throughout the interviews and in
the focus group discussions. Prior recommended practices for IEP procedures reported in
the Western literature may not be appropriate for the Thailand situation.
Classroom Placement
Overcrowding as a significant constraint against good inclusion practices was
present throughout discussions in the interviews and focus groups, and was observed by
the researcher in the school settings. Again, this is consistent with prior research findings
in the U.S. (Staub & Peck, 1994; Buysse, Wesley & Keyes, 1998). Much of prior
research does not provide guidelines for an optimum number of children in a classroom
with one teacher, so it is difficult to compare what "overcrowding" means in different
countries and in different studies. However, the fact that Thai classrooms all seemed to be
around 40-45 children per classroom, with upwards of five or more children with special
needs in the mix, and usually with only one teacher per classroom, there is little doubt in
my mind that "overcrowding" as it is identified in Thailand would be considered
overcrowding in almost every country in the world.
The principals and the experts in the focus groups all identified many benefits of
inclusion for all children, and this is consistent with prior findings (Bricker, 1995;
Guralnick, 1986). They identified serious lack of training in inclusion practices for all
participants, and this is consistent with prior fmdings as well (Antia, Kreimeyer &
Eldredge, 1994; Hauser-Cram, Bronson & Upshur, 1993; File, 1994: Forlin, Douglas &
176
Hattie, 1996; McLean & Dunst, 1990). The consistent identification of lack of sufficient
support was also consistent with prior research findings (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;
Yatvin, 1995; Jelas, 2000). In fact, the serious and pervasive low level of financial and
professional support for inclusive classrooms made the many successes reported by the
principals all the more dramatic because they came out of situations where success was
not very likely.
IEP Review
The principals reported considerable inconsistency of use of the IEP to guide the
academic year. There also appeared to be substantial confusion about how the IEP
related to other assessment processes, such as examinations for the national curriculum.
Principals also reported difficulty in convening IEP meetings, and getting team members
to work together. While these problems were consistent with prior reports of early
implementation of inclusion in other countries, they seemed to be more consistent across
all schools in this study (Jelas, 2000; Rao, 1998; Scotch, 2001).
Leadership of Inclusion
The distributed leadership model was upheld and useful in analyzing the data
(Spillane,2004). There was substantial agreement between the principals and the experts
from the focus group discussions about the importance of the role and attitudes of the
principals, and this was consistent with all prior research findings (Evans & Lunt, 2002;
Katsiyannis, Conderman & Franks, 1995; Lieber et aI, 2000; Praisner, 2003; Rose &
177
Smith, 1993). In particular, both the principals and the national experts talked about
principals' ability to support and coach teachers in new practices, and that was consistent
with prior research on this topic (Ainscow, Farrell & Tweddle, 2000; Anderson &
Decker, 1993; Galis & Tanner, 1995).
The biggest difference that arose in this study from findings from prior research
studies was a persistent problem reported by the principals of both getting all people who
were supposedly under their leadership to do what the principal thought needed to be
done, and also with being required by law to do things that were not possible given the
budget and staffing constraints. The principals often talked about having to do things that
might not have been considered in strict accordance with the law in situations in which
they were not able to meet the specific requirements ofthe law. None of them discussed
this in the context of "breaking the law." Instead, their concerns were mostly around how
to do what was best for a child in a situation where only a portion of what was "best"
could be implemented.
Policy Implications
Thailand has used the right to education for all people as a fundamental guideline
in their new inclusion laws, and this is consistent with prior research for other countries
(Sadiman,2004). The important need for the inclusion law was referred to by many of
the principals and experts, and that is consistent with prior research where inclusion is
attempted without a framing law (Rao, 1998). However, the principals and experts
identified several misalignments in policy and law that were causing problems: There
178
needed to be clarification of inclusion categories, clarification of admission requirements,
clarification about priority in admitting disabilities, and adoption of consistent non-
admission rules. These problems were also consistent with problems that have been
found during early implementation in other countries ( Evans & Lunt, 2002; The National
Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1994).
None ofthe participants talked about the concept ofleast restrictive environment,
and this is different from findings of prior research (Bowe, 2004). Several of the
principals and the experts talked about agencies in conflict, For example, some discussed
the conflicting goals between the accreditation agency and the Ministry of Education in
testing procedures. No prior research on this subject was found. Nor was there prior
research available to which I could compare the positive aspects of a mixed public and
private educational system as occurs in Thailand. While some of the principals talked
about the need for earlier identification of children with special needs in order to make
sure children were ready to enter the first grade, none of them talked about having a
system ofpersistent early assessment, pre-school, and kindergarten, as would have been
consistent with prior research findings (Cross et aI, 2004).
Summary
The Salend (1990) model was useful in collecting and interpreting the data, but
needs to be modified for Thailand based on the findings of this study. Thailand has the
start of a good system, largely because of the willingness of everyone to make it work.
179
The biggest disconnect that I identified was in what the law requires and what resources
are available at the school level to make it possible to meet the requirements ofthe law.
The Thai Model for Inclusion
The Thai Model for Inclusion that will be described in this section is based on
combining the model ofmainstreaming of Salend (1990) and the distributed leadership
model of Spillane (2006) as they are applied to the primary findings of this study. The
largest difference between the combined model used to guide this study, and the revised
Thai Model for Inclusive Education is a stage that has been added at the beginning of the
inclusion process.
Many limitations to full inclusion were identified in this study, beginning with the
inclusive education policy itself, to profound national budget constraints, the lack of
broadly held knowledge about disabilities, the lack ofknowledge about how to best
educate children with special needs, to the unavailability of sufficient and affordable
training for school personneL Not all medical personnel who needed to know about all
disabilities knew what they needed to know, and the general population was unaware and
sometimes fearful about disabilities. The experts in the focus groups recommended that
the model that would fit best with Thai society must be simple, but still cover all
elements and functions needed to assure the trustworthiness and appropriateness of
inclusion policies and practices. Figure 7 represents their input into adaptation of a Thai
Model and indicates all stages of students with disabilities being
180
GENERAL PUBLIC STAGE
All Thai
I
Identified Children ~ Children H Unidentified Children I
~ /
I
FORMAL SCHOOLING I
~ /
I
Screening and Assessment Processes
I
~
I
First IEP Development I
Each individual with disabilities and their parents are
prepared for inclusion
~
Classroom Placement
(General Ed with Special Ed trained
teachers, students with and without
disabilities)
/ '\.
Full Curriculum with Individual Curriculum Design
Accommodations and Instruction
~ rIEP Review
~ ~
__A_c_h_ie_v_e_d__1 I Progressed I I IEP Revision
Referral
FIGURE 7. The Thai Model for Inclusive Education
181
mainstreamed, both before and after inclusion. I named the first stage, before the students
are included in schooling, the General Public Stage. The second stage occurs after
students with disabilities have entered school, and is named Formal Schooling. Within
this second stage is included the four elements in operating inclusive education as used in
this dissertation.
General Public Stage
The General Public Stage of this model is defined as the time before students
with disabilities enter formal schooling. I considered including principals as leaders of
their communities in this stage, as well as in the next stage when children enter formal
schooling. However, in the general public stage, children have not yet been admitted to
school, and a principal is not officially "on duty" for them. "Children" in this context
means all children, both identified and unidentified children with disabilities, and
children without disabilities. Because these populations intersect prior to initial
assessment and classroom placement, it is important to acknowledge all children at this
point. "Parents" includes all parents, as well as other members of the surrounding
community. This is to acknowledge that people who live in the community also are
affected by the children and schools in their community, and have a need to know about
inclusion. Therefore, before the child enters formal schooling, the leadership functions
are held by different players than after the child enters formal schooling.
Thailand does not have in place, at this time, a systematic way to perform early
diagnosis of children with special needs. In fact, principals reported that they believed
182
some Thai children with disabilities were kept at home without receiving any training or
education. Many parents feel shameful to have children have disabilities. However, both
the principals and experts talked about the need for early assessment, so that training can
begin as early as possible. The findings of this study point to the need for more
systematic early identification processes, and that is what led me to include this stage in
the Thai model.
Another reason for including a public stage is because ofthe limited knowledge
held by many people about disabilities and about the potential of many children with
special needs to playa larger, happier and more productive role in Thai society ifthey
have sufficient and timely education. I also included the public stage in the Thai model
because the findings of this study point to the need for a multifaceted educational process
aimed at developing increased understanding and acceptance of different forms of
disability in the general population of Thailand.
Formal Schooling
Once children come to school to be admitted, they are divided into three groups:
Children without disabilities, children who arrive at the school with a certificate of
disability and children who may have disabilities but have no certificate. Some students
come to school with obvious disabilities, such as severe cognitive or physical
impairment. Whether or not they have prior certification, children with severe disabilities
are usually those who are first identified as needing further screening and assessment. For
them, screening and assessment could begin on the first day of school.
183
Another, more difficult group to identify early consists of students who show up
at school without obvious symptoms of disability. This was the largest group of children
with special needs that was identified by principals in the study. Most of the school
leaders stated that the teachers figured out after about a month following admission that
some students experienced learning difficulties beyond what they considered a normal
range for novice learners. Therefore, inclusive schools require a good ongoing system of
screening and assessment.
Screening and Assessment Process
In Thailand, the disability identification process is considered to be best
conducted by medical professionals, based on a model of understanding all disability as
being physical disability. However, many medical professionals were identified by
principals in the study as being unfamiliar with all forms of disability and often not
taking sufficient time to make a correct diagnosis. Some physicians even refused to
conduct diagnosis for certificates, and some charged parents for diagnostic services.
Principals reported that when there was a need for assessment at the school, most parents
preferred or gave preference to the medical diagnosis, and sometimes this caused them a
problem with correct classroom placement. However, the more pervasive concern was
that many children remained unofficial because they were without certification. Even
though they were being provided special services in their classrooms, the schools were
not eligible to received funding.
Principals in the study reported that Thai schools used three different kinds of
screening and assessing: Observation, using testing protocols, and interviews with parents
------------- ------
184
(in some rare cases, diagnoses reported by medical professionals were also used). The
results of screening and assessment influenced the decision as to whether the student was
included as a mainstreamed student or whether referrals were made to other settings that
offered more appropriate services for particular types of disabilities. Such settings
included special schools, occupational schools, hospitals or rehabilitation centers.
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Development
Initial IEP development begins after the screening and assessment are completed
and the school admits the individual with disabilities. Or, if a child is identified later in
the school year as being a child with special needs, an initial IEP would be completed at
that time. Even in the best practice schools, the principals in this study said that it was
challenging to develop the first IEP. The process itself was new to teachers and parents,
and it required collaboration from many parties both in and outside of schools. One
expert even questioned whether Thai society or schools were ready for the idea of an IEP
because of the high level of collaboration and ongoing assessment required by the
practice. With the shortage ofmoney, small body of knowledge, time available, and other
constraints, IEP development emerged as a big concern. Two experts recommended
simplified forms or perhaps some alternative process to replace the IEP. In this model,
even though I realize the limitations in developing IEPs in the Thai context, I kept them
in the model as I believe the principals and experts all agreed with the basic principle of
having some form of shared plan at the start of the year for each child, and then having
some way to check back over the year to see how the child had progressed. Even though
Thailand may need to do more training and preparation for everyone who participates in
185
the IEP process, it should be used as a fundamental way to track progress and placement.
Collaboration during development of the initial IEP, combined with appropriate
screening and assessment processes, has the potential to provide the student with the best
possible plan for success as a mainstreamed student. The findings of this research
indicate that a great deal of improvement needs to be made both in assessment practices
and in IEP processes.
Most of the principals described IEPs as containing specific objectives and goals,
based on the results ofthe initial screening and assessment processes. Four to five
developmental goals seemed to be manageable for these principals and teachers. Goals
did not always include academic, social, emotional and behavioral goals. The findings of
this research study indicate that development of a consistent simplified rEP format and
process, along with training and support for collaboration of all parties throughout the
school year, would greatly improve the usefulness of the IEP process.
Regular Classroom Placement
Appropriate classroom placement involves two types of placement for students.
The first type ofplacement consists of placing students who are qualified to receive the
same curriculum as their peers without disabilities, but with modest accommodations by
regular classroom teachers. The second type ofplacement involves students who do not
qualify for placement in the mainstream classroom and require a more individualized and
specific curriculum and instruction in accordance with their specific needs.
Unfortunately, the findings ofthis study indicate that almost all children were placed in
regular classrooms, with or without additional needed support personnel or supplies,
186
because of the budget difficulties of placement in a specialized classroom or out-placed
to another facility.
The second type of placement, which includes students with more severe
disabilities, consists of an individualized curriculum design and instruction. This kind of
placement would be provided mostly with students with severe cognitive disabilities,
including Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Attention
Deficit Disorder, other kinds of cognitive disabilities such as Down syndrome, and
mental retardation. Based on the findings of this study and according to other research
findings, it is recommended that an individual curriculum design in the Thai context
focus more on the development of life skills and functional skills than on academic goals.
The participants in this study argued that assessment for this group must be authentic
assessment, based primarily on each individual's improvement without comparing their
progress to that of other students in the mainstreamed classrooms.
IEP Review
Given the inconsistent use of initial IEPs, and the overcrowded classrooms, it was
not surprising to learn from the principals in this study that the IEP review process is not
fully used in most schools. The review process is intended to assure the validity of the
implemented IEP that was established by the original screening and assessment process.
IEP review is divided into three categories and evaluated by evidence from the
individual's progress towards his or her educational goals. Currently in the Thai school
system, the IEP review process is not sufficient and needs improvement. The following
descriptions of the three levels are recommended, based on these findings.
187
The first recommended evaluative category is termed the achieved level. This
level indicates whether the individual made progress to meet all the aspects of the
education goals and objectives of the IEP. For individuals who have achieved all of their
IEP development goals and objectives, a new IEP can be established.
The next recommended category is the progress level, in which the individual
makes progress to meet at least half of the educational goals and objectives on the IEP.
Each individual whose progress falls into this level does not have a new IEP developed
until the individual makes more progress and meets all of the established developmental
goals and objectives.
The revision level is the stage where students with special needs demonstrate
progress on less than half ofthe developmental goals and objectives on the IEP. For
example, ifthere are six developmental goals and objectives and progress is made
towards less than 3, the IEP must be considered for revision. The goals and objectives on
the IEP need to be adjusted to the level ofthe student's developmental ability.
Individuals who fall into this level of revision may also be considered for referral
to more appropriate support in other settings, such as special schools, hospitals, and
rehabilitation or career training centers. Referral could be conducted in two different
ways. One form of referral could place the student in a non-inclusive setting. The second
kind of referral is for short term training, which allows the student to return to the
mainstream system after training. In the second option, students could also receive
training in outside settings at the same time that they are enrolled in an inclusive school.
This second case may be considered by schools which do not have their own resources
188
for special support for students, such as resource rooms, equipments, materials and
supplies, special education teachers or other school professionals. The findings of this
study indicate that lack of these kinds ofresources may be a reality for many schools and
referral to services outside of schools should be a consideration for improving the
efficiency of inclusive education for Thailand.
.-----------------------
189
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this research study was to develop a model of inclusion that is
appropriate for Thai elementary schools. That model, called the Thai Model for
Inclusion, was presented in the previous chapter.
The model was designed in response to several research questions that
investigated the current practices in inclusive elementary education in Thailand. These
research questions were presented in Chapter I and are given again below for the reader's
convemence:
1. What are the best inclusive practices in Thailand today?
2. Are there problems in the best inclusive practices? If so, what are
the apparent causes?
3. Are there areas where advancements can be made? If so, what is
needed to advance inclusive practices?
4. Can a Thai-specific model of inclusion be deduced from
comparing best practices models to requirements for Thailand
today?
A qualitative study was conducted of 10 inclusive elementary schools in the
geographic region around Bangkok in Thailand that have been designated by the
government as those using best practices. Through conducting interviews with their 10
190
principals, completing eight classroom observations in five of these schools, and through
conducting two focus groups with 10 nationally-named experts in inclusion, I determined
that the idea of inclusive education has been introduced to the Thai education system for
more than two decades, but is still in its early developmental stages. The best practices in
Thailand, as much as I could identify them, are described in this study. Are there
problems? Yes. Are there apparent causes? Yes. I describe both in Chapters IV and V.
Are there areas where advancement can be made? Yes. I began discussion with the Thai
Model for Inclusion presented at the end of chapter V and continue here with
recommendations for changes in practice in Thailand and recommendations for needed
future research.
Recommendations for Changes in Practice
All one needs to do is go from category to category in the Thai Model to identify
where needs exist. There is no category that my participants or I would consider fully
acceptable at this point in time. Every finding in this study points toward the need for
more funds in every category, more pre-service training, more in-service training, more
support in the classroom, more support to the classroom, more opportunities for sharing
learning among teachers across schools, and much more. Despite the burden of
attempting to perform a monumental set of tasks with woefully insufficient resources, the
participants in this study were unanimous in reporting that almost all of the people they
talked to about inclusion were willing to help inclusion succeed. The discussion that
continues below will focus on recommendations that would help this process move
191
forward. In the discussion that follows, the largest problems that need to be addressed by
the federal government, such as increases in funding, time resources, and other large
limitations will be left for discussion at a later time. The recommendations presented here
will focus on the special education processes that appear in the Thai Model of Inclusion,
such as screening and assessment, the IEP process, and classroom placement.
Screening, Assessment and Standardized Processes
The shortage ofprotocols for screening and assessment has exacerbated the
problem of misidentification and inappropriate placement of students in Thai elementary
schools. Support is needed from experts in developing new protocols that are appropriate
for Thai culture. The specialists in the field may consider collaborative work between
universities both in Thailand and in other countries in developing more tools appropriate
for our culture. The reliability of many current protocols is questionable because they
have been taken from western countries and translated into Thai language without
norming and customizing for Thai culture. In translating western protocols, the process of
customization must be done carefully.
Protocol development should be supported at the policy level through grants for
experts in the field of special education and related fields in order to produce more and
various types of screening and assessment protocols that fit with different age ranges and
different types of disabilities. Once this is accomplished, it will provide a basis for more
intensive training so that school personnel are able to become independent in identifying
children with disabilities. Moreover, better coordination between medical setting and
192
education settings should be established to help transform and transfer the knowledge of
screening and assessment between settings. At the same time, parents and the broader
society should be educated by these two groups, of educators and medical personnel, so
that they have basic knowledge of screening and assessment and will become actively
involved with the process of helping their children be ready for school. Teamwork during
the IEP process should follow once parents and professional personnel are trained.
Student Preparation
Preparation at this point should not be considered merely to prepare students with
disabilities. In addition, students without disabilities need to be prepared to understand
and support peers with disabilities in their classrooms. For students without disabilities,
schools should begin the process of preparation even before the school year begins, with
discussions at the first parents' meetings. This should be continued in other activities
provided during the school year; for example, schools could focus on students working
together during the daily morning assembly as well as during class time.
Students with special needs who are identified before school begins need to be
trained in particular areas to give them strategies for success in mainstreaming. During
the Summer before children begin school is the proper time for schools to arrange
intervention services. Parents, especially of students with disabilities, need to be involved
during the first process of screening in order to gain knowledge about supporting their
children at home.
193
IEP Development
The IEP does not seem to be currently used as a guideline in developing
children's educational plans. Instead, the IEP has become a burden for teachers, both in
its development and implementation in the curriculum. At this point in the development
of Thai inclusive education, ifthe IEP could be conceptualized as a very simple
document, this would lessen the burden on teachers. The IEP should be developed by a
team of parents and other experts, with cooperation from school. Since Thailand has a
shortage of specialists, I suggest that specialists could be replaced by other professionals.
For example, since there are greater numbers of nurses than physical and occupational
therapists, nurses could be trained to work with children in schools. Since nurses have
foundational medical knowledge, using nurses in this way could increase the presence of
medical personnel participating in the IEP development.
In terms of improving the participation of teacher in IEP development, experts
from the Ministry of Education could be used to instruct them on how the IEP relates to
the national curriculum. Experts could also improve the understanding of parents about
school reports of the progress at the end of the year. With training from the Ministry,
teachers would become more confident in merging the information on student progress
from the IEP and the national curriculum in reports to parents.
In order to assist teachers in developing IEPs, there could be a standardized IEP
form provided as a guideline for teachers. The standardized form could be adjusted for
each individual student. Even though there are currently IEP forms being offered by the
Ministry of Education and some university professors, teachers need more support in
194
writing IEPs for diverse types of disabilities. Along with a standardized IEP form, the
teachers should receive training on how to develop, write and individualize the IEP to fit
each individual's needs.
Classroom Placement
More resource centers or resource rooms are needed, both outside of and inside
schools. Resource centers should be provided with equipment and materials to support
the learning of the diversity of special need students. More training and intervention
agencies also need to be established in each community. If the federal Ministry cannot
make enough training and intervention agencies sufficiently available, it would be
important to promote private parties to provide services. However, private agencies
should be required to work under the regulations of the federal Ministry so that they
remain of high quality and affordable for parents.
Since Thailand is predominantly a Buddhist country, instructional design for
special needs students could incorporate the practice of being a Buddhist into the daily
instruction. For example, simple activities such as mediation could stretch the attention
span of students with attention deficit disorder. Inserting the Lord Buddha's teaching into
instruction could help soften students whose tendency is to have aggressive, violent
behavior.
Parents are part of the process of successful classroom placement, and the level of
their knowledge is important. However, the Thai National Education Council in 2003
reported that the Thai population in the 15-59 age range, people of labor force age, have
195
an average education at the lower secondary level (Office of the National Education
Commission, 2003). It can be assumed that most parents are in this age range. They may
lack broad knowledge about disabilities, and this lack will be reflected in their lack of
understanding about how to support their children with special needs and how to
collaborate with schools.
In fact, the majority of the Thai population requires a broader understanding about
people with disabilities and how to care for people with disabilities to the community.
Parents in particular, but also school personnel, federal staff, and even medical personnel
need to improve their knowledge about special education and issues about people with
disabilities. Moreover, since Thailand is not a reading-based culture, parents especially
need to be more informed about accessing resources by not simply asking for support, but
also acquiring knowledge and information in order to be active participants who can
cope with the difficulties of raising children with disabilities.
Principals and experts in the study reported about the uniqueness of Thai society,
in which compassion plays an important role in how Thai people look at those with
disabilities. As has been reported, Thai people have shown a high level of compassion
toward people with disabilities; however, without knowing how to help, appropriate
implementation does not occur. If the community could be provided with a knowledge
base of how to support people with disabilities, they would be equipped with the
fundamental tools to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities. With the
understanding ofthe whole community, schools will no longer work alone, and help for
students with disabilities will be synchronized as teamwork.
196
Spreading knowledge about supporting people with disabilities in the community
and parent education has not been the focus of my research focus. However, in analyzing
how principals in the study mostly focused on the social economic status of parents, I
realized that part of the disagreements that occur between home and school, and the
problems encountered by students with special needs are really based in the limited
knowledge and understanding of parents about how to support their children with special
needs. To improve the inclusive system, the first and foremost improvement that needs to
be made is to establish teamwork between parents and schools.
I do not intend to blame parents, but instead, I believe that the federal Ministry
should take responsibility to improve understanding about people with disabilities and to
support inclusive systems in the community. Implementation could be accomplished
through the leadership of principals since they are considered educational leaders of the
community. As Spillane suggested (2004), leadership is typically thought of as something
"done to" followers, but from a distributed leadership perspective, followers co-produce
leadership in interaction with leaders. I believe the distributed leadership model is very
similar to the teamwork concept that is frequently cited as best practice in special
education. If principals in Thailand could step in to play the role of leader in a distributed
leadership model, through their efforts to broaden knowledge in the community and by
requesting collaboration, many parties in the community would join to support schools
and their students.
Training needs to be implemented at both local and national levels in Thailand to
prepare all of those involved to support improvements in the inclusive education system.
197
Training will help construct an understanding about how to support children with
disabilities, how to provide proper assistants for the classroom, how to design curriculum
for children with special needs, and how to improve the quality of education in schools.
Through this process of improving inclusive education in Thailand, there is the
possibility that Thai society as a whole could improve its understanding about how to
support people with disabilities in the community.
Training
I have discussed at length in Chapter V the need for improvement in assessment
protocols and procedures, for a standardized and simplified IEP format, for reduced class
sizes and increased staffing, and for ongoing assessment of how curricular strategies are
working throughout the school year. However, I want to comment here about the training
that will be needed in order for improvements in each of these areas to take effect.
More and different kinds of training need to be provided for school professionals
through an ongoing process because there is always new knowledge and information for
supporting students with disabilities and for coping with this demanding and often
stressful work area. In addition to school personnel, this training process should be
extended to medical personnel who are involved in assessment and the critical
certification process. Training for both medical and education staff should focus on
specifics of types of disabilities, the law related to education in Thailand, knowledge
about forms and processes, and on-hands practice with working in collaborative groups
across institutional and organizational boundaries.
198
Because of lack of adequate knowledge and a cultural mindset that may make
support the reluctance to participate, parents and community currently do not play the
support role recommended in prior research on successful inclusion. If there are
appropriate and sufficient trainings provided to parents and other community members, it
will help construct understanding about people with disabilities and offer support and
knowledge to increase parental confidence. It might even be interesting to explore the use
of parent and child advocates in the system to lessen the social strain on parents,
particularly in IEP meetings and processes. In addition, Colleges of Education should
provide more practice-based courses and fundamental knowledge about supporting
people with disabilities for its students in both general and special education. For college
students in programs of special education in particular, more courses that provide
experience in the field need to be provided in order to expose students to a wide variety
of disabilities. Pre-service training in hands-on experience would be as beneficial to
students as courses offered in lecture format.
Policy Recommendations
Even though an inadequate budget has been identified as the core constraint for
implementing inclusive education in Thailand, an equally important area needing change
is educational policy. Schools need to be able to implement the policies written by the
Ministry of Education. There needs to be some revision of the correspondence work
between schools and special education government agencies to reduce the workload and
redundant work of schools. The critical point is that educational law allows all Thai
---------
199
children to be included in the school system; schools cannot deny these students even
though they are unable to provide an adequate education. The educational policy at this
point should be explained thoroughly. Back-up plans need to be available for the Thai
children who cannot be mainstreamed so that schools have options for parents and
children who would otherwise be left out of the educational system. An important point is
that even though the policy of decentralization from the Ministry to the local community
was logical when it was written, the question carne up over and over again in this study
about whether the local principal had sufficient power to implement policy decisions. In
this study, I found that some local schools were ready for change, and others were not.
The process ofproviding inclusive education is intense and each step needs professional
support. I believe that the major support must corne from the central government.
Budget is another area needing reform. Ten thousand baht per student (around
300 USD) a year, is too meager to support quality education. Thus there should be a
larger budget to subsidize schools in order to reduce the burden placed on parents who
have to pay for their children's schooling. Moreover, the budget should be used wisely to
improve the quality of education through different kinds of trainings. Thus the most
benefit will be gained and the investment will be wise.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was of a very small sample in a very large and complex country. The
study needs to be replicated throughout Thailand. I recommend that replications include
more kinds of informants, including parents and teachers. Since it has been obviously
200
demonstrated here that inclusive education in Thailand needs improved assessment and
training processes, additional research would help make the needs and solutions more
explicit. Expert direct observations in inclusive classrooms should also be done for
authentic determination of appropriate assessment, curriculum development, teaching
strategies, and individual educational goals. In addition, research needs to be done on the
level of cultural appropriateness in developing IEP and curriculum development.
Because there was a wide range of strategies and resources to serve students
among the "best practice" schools in this study, I realized that it would be beneficial if
the government could set up a demonstration school. If such a school receives funding
from the federal government, it could be used as a research base for inclusion. The school
could provide a fully inclusive education to demonstrate to other school settings about
how to operate a high quality inclusive school. The school would need to be designed as
a typical school so that its practices could be applied to other schools. Once this kind of
model is publicized, it could attract more attention from professionals and community
members who want to be involved in helping inclusion become successful throughout
Thailand.
Limitations of This Study
Samples and Participants
In the first phase of this study in which interviews and observations were
conducted, the samples were selected from best practice schools instead of being selected
randomly from the pool of 1,499 inclusive schools in the central region of Thailand.
201
I chose to do this, as described in the research design in Chapter III, because it was more
likely that I would see the best inclusion practices in Thailand. However, because of the
selection method, the sample is not random and therefore cannot be considered
representative. Because the sample size was small, it may also not even be representative
of the complete pool of the best inclusive schools. Another potential drawback of the
sample is that most of the 10 schools in the study are in Bangkok, but the rest are in
nearby provinces. Even though people in the central region share many commonalities,
the data comes from a few particular places and may not represent the current practices in
schools across the central region or across Thailand. However, since inclusion is new to
Thailand, it is likely that these schools do represent the "best practices" in the country.
As this was an exploratory study, there was no attempt made to generalize from the
samples to the entire population. Instead, generalization has been made from the sample
to the theoretical model, which was then tested against opinions of expert informants in
Thailand. Still, the model remains only a "best guess." Whether it is fully appropriate for
all of the diversity of Thailand can only be proved through subsequent refinement of the
model, adoption, practice, and assessment.
In terms of the second phase of this research study, all of the participants in the
focus group were designated experts by the Thai government and were well known in
Thailand to Thai educators. They were also busy people, and three of them were unable
to participate in the focus group sessions and instead sent representatives. There lack of
attendance at the focus groups may have lessened the internal validity of the model.
However, since all three experts were well experienced in the field of special education, I
202
thought it was worthwhile to meet with each individual to share the model and ask for
their individual opinions on refinement. In this way, their opinions were incorporated into
the study even though they could not participate in the focus groups.
Including Parents
Practices from western countries described in the literature suggest that parents
should be included in an inclusive school system. However, the readers may notice that in
this study I did not include parents as a direct part of the study. There are four reasons I
chose to not include them. First, special education in Thailand began with a legal
mandate, not through the parental advocacy or civil rights movements that occurred in
other western countries. To date, there has been minimal participation from parents in the
processes oflaw or in requests for service. Second, the cultural personality of Thai people
must be taken into consideration. As a people, they are reserved compared to western
citizens, and showing opinions is difficult for them. It would be culturally inappropriate
in Thailand to include them in this project, and their inclusion might be considered
psychologically harmful. Third, Thai people respect teachers very highly; hence, what
teachers say is the final word for parents. It would be extraordinary in Thai culture to ask
teachers and principals about inclusion, and then ask parents the same questions. Parents
would defer to the educational staff. Last, but not least, Thailand is predominantly
Buddhist. There are strong beliefs that people born with disabilities may "deserve" them
as some part of their behavior in prior lives. Parents are not likely to be forthcoming
either about disability or about their children's needs. However, I realized differences
203
between most parents in Bangkok from those in other provinces during the field research.
Parents in Bangkok were more outspoken than parents in the provinces. To investigate
regional differences, I recommend future study with parents.
Including Teachers
A similar question could be asked about why I did not include teachers directly in
the study. For this study, I was particularly interested in the leadership aspects of
inclusion. However, during field research, principals informed me that teachers are one of
the fundamental parameters that make the system of inclusion function. When I was
observing the classrooms, I could not talk to the teachers because I had not included them
in my original design, and I found that I clearly was missing some essential data. From
this experience comes another recommendation for future research.
Time Constraints
By the time human subjects approval was received in the United States, schools in
Thailand were at nearing the end of the semester. This gave me a time constrain of nine
weeks within which to complete my field research. Time may have been an important
constraint on the validity of the findings, as a lot had to be accomplished in a very short
period of time.
Databases in Thailand
There are at least six universities in Thailand that have departments of special
education. However, none of their published papers are available through a searchable
204
database. Since I had only a short time to conduct my field research, I was not able to go
to each of these departments and see what other Thai research might have that was not
available to me online. I believe that there is related Thai literature that I could not reach
during the time period of my study, and this may be an additional limitation in the
comparison of my findings to prior studies. I undoubtedly do not have all prior studies
listed here.
Translation
As this research was done in Thailand, the language used for data collection was
Thai. However, to report the findings, I needed to translate Thai into English. I found it
extremely difficult to do translation, coding, and analysis simultaneously. Even though I
did my best, it took a lot longer than planned in every step and I may have inadvertently
introduced some bias into the translation processes.
Problems with Government Agencies
There are at least three ministries in Thailand responsible for taking care of
people with disabilities: The Ministry ofEducation, the Ministry ofPublic Health, and
the Ministry ofInterior. Each of them has different policies for providing educational
services for people with disabilities. After receiving information about the best practice
schools from the Office of the Basic Education Commission, in the Ministry of
Education, I assumed that the lists of schools were the most comprehensive for the
purposes of this study. However, once I went back to Thailand and began my field
205
research, I learned from the school principals and some of the experts that there are some
good inclusive schools under the umbrella of the Ministry of Interior that were not
included in the Ministry of Education list, because they were not part of that ministry. I
missed some good inclusive schools that did not belong to the Ministry of Education, and
thus what I report here may not include all of the "best of the best" practices.
Conclusions
Thailand has made a great beginning to a monumental and honorable task. The
core findings of this research study argue that while more steps need to be taken as
implementation of inclusion continues, the principals, teachers, parents, education
experts, and the people ofThailand have the commitment and strength of determination
to make inclusion an integrated part ofThai education and to provide leadership on
inclusion to the world.
APPENDIX A
THE COLOURED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES: CPM
206
207
THE COLOURED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES: CPM
Instructions for matrices: Have a child choose one of the choices below to fill in the blank
on the big picture. Note: The school provided only these two examples out of the picture
series.)
,t,
",;..('''- ~'x,"
,I
208
5
n
2 3
DJ~,,,_·-..I
e 1
r'l
I i I
209
APENDIXB
THE CONNERS ABBREVIATED PARENT/TEACHER QUESTIONAIRE: CPTQ
210
THE CONNERS ABBREVIATED PARENT/TEACHER QUESTIONAIRE: CPTQ
(excerpts)
Instructions for the questionnaire: Listed below are items concerning children's behavior
or the problems they sometimes have. Read each item carefully and decide how much
you think this child has been bothered by this problem at this time: Not at All, Just a
Little, Pretty Much, or Very Much. Indicate your choice by circling the number in the
appropriate column to the right of each item.
Answer All Items Not at All Just a Little Pretty Very Much
Much
1) Disturbs other children 0 1 2 3
2) Fails to finish things he 0 1 2 3
starts (short attention span)
3) Mood changes quickly 0 1 2 3
4) Temper outbursts (explosive 0 1 2 3
and unpredictable behavior)
None Minor Moderate Severe
How serious a problem do you
think this child has at this time?
o 1 2 3
211
APPENDIXC
EIGHT FORMS FOR SCREENING DISABILITIES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
REFERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
212
EIGHT FORMS FOR SCREENING DISABILITIES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
REFERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (franslated from Thai Language)
1. Screening for Visual Impairment
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with a visual impairment, the screening tool will identify whether
or not the student is in need of special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental areas and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate if the student is doing the activity regularly and
check the "No" box if the student rarely or never does the action.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 Walks clumsily and cannot avoid obstacles while
walking
2 Cannot walk or run straight forward and falls down
without reason
3 Head low or bent when looking at an object that is
placed in front of him
4 Has to walk closer to an object or picture when
looking at it
5 Opens eyes wide, squints, or closes one eye to look
at an object
6 Reads the same line or skips a line while reading a
book
7 Rubs eyes, blinks eyes, or move eyes more
frequently than usual
8 Narrows eyes to protect them from light
9 Red eyes, tears,or frequent rash on eye lids
10 Usually use hands or other senses to explore
objects rather than using eyes
11 Always has headache, eyeache, stomach sick,
dizzy, itchy eyes, or has difficulty seeing
213
12 Cannot see the details of a picture or an object
13 Cannot identify similar colors such as blue-green,
white-gray
Scoring:
If a student obtains "Yes" on 10 items, the student is likely to have a visual impairment.
The student should be referred to an ophthalmologist or other specialist for further
evaluation and intervention.
Result:
o Detection
Other comments:
D No detection
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
214
2. Screening for Hearing Impairments
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade _
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with hearing impairments, the screening tool will identify whether
or not a student needs special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate whether or not the student is doing the activity
regularly and check the "No" box to indicate whether the student rarely or never
does the behavior.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 No reaction to loud noise, conversation, or music
2 No response to being called
3 Does not speak, but use gestures instead
4 Unclear spoken voice, abnormal voice, speaks in
same rhythm
5 While having a conversation, looks at speaker's
lips or face at all times
6 Gives the wrong answer or does not give an
answer
7 Cannot repeat or copy words from teachers
8 Has a history of ear infections
Scoring:
If a student obtains a "Yes" in 3 items, the student is likely to have a hearing problem.
The student should be referred to an ear doctor or specialists for further evaluation and
intervention.
Result:
o Detection o No detection
Other comments:
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
215
216
3. Screening for Cognitive Disabilities
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with cognitive disabilities, the screening tool will identify whether
or not a student needs special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate whether or not the student is doing the activity
regularly and check the "No" box to indicate whether the student rarely or never
does the behavior.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 No coordination between fine motor skills and
visual skills while doing an activity
2 Moves or walks more slowly than children his!her
age
3 Does not talk or unclearly speaks
4 Use inappropriate language for hislher age level
5 Short attention! cannot focus on learning or doing
activities
6 Cannot respond for up to 2 commands or gets
confused easily
7 Short memory! cannot remember what he!she
learned
8 Slow learner or repeats each lesson or task such as
mathematics, writing, summary
9 Imitates friends' gestures or speech
10 Cannot independently complete daily routines on
hislher own
11 Cannot apply skills that have been learned in daily
routine
12 Likes to play with children younger than his age
13 Slow response to stimulus environment
14 Responds to environment inappropriately
15 Gets angry easily
16 Gets confused easily
217
17 Cannot follow commands
19 Writes incorrect sentences
20 Likes to imitate or copy others' ideas (words,
speaking) without using his/her own idea
21 Needs to be under supervision constantly
22 Does not pay attention to things around him/her
23 Repeats activity
24 Cannot concentrate or focus on what he/she is
doing
25 Cannot apply learning skills in daily life
Scoring:
If a student obtains "yes" on 15 items, the student is likely to have cognitive problems.
The student should be referred to specialists for further evaluation and intervention.
Result:
o Detection
Other comments:
o No detection
Completed by
Name , ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature .
.---------~~ --------
218
Notes:
Cognitive disabilities refers to a person who has developmental delays compared to
individuals with typical development. The person will have an intelligent quotient below
normal (IQ -:::'70). The person will have disabilities in at least 2 out of 10 areas:
1. Communication
2. Personal care
3. Adaptive life
4. Social communication
5. Self esteem
6. (I don't understand this)
7. Academic learning
8. Working
9. Leisure
10. Hygiene and safety
Cognitive disabilities can occur from birth to 18 years of age and are divided into 4
categories:
1. Less: Intelligent quotient (IQ) 50-70
2. Middle: IQ 35-49
3. Strong: IQ 20-34
4. Severe: IQ less than 20
219
4. Screening for Physical Heath Disabilities
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with physical health disabilities, the screening tool will identify
whether or not a student needs special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate whether or not the student is doing the activity
regularly and check the "No" box to indicate whether the student rarely or never
does the behavior.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Arealbehaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 Can sit without support
2 Can sit on a chair (a chair without arms)
independently
3 Sits down and stands up
4 Stands on two feet independently
5 Stands up on one foot for at least 5 seconds
6 Walks without a walker or walking assistants
7 Stands up from sitting down on a chair or furniture
8 Can run
9 Jumps on two feet
10 Jumps on one foot
11 Alternately walks up stairs
12 Catches and throws a ball from/to a target
13 Kicks a ball forward
14 Peddles tricycle
15 Walks and holds an object
16 Uses fork and spoon for eating
17 Can hold a glass of water for drinking
18 Uses one hand to comb hair
19 Uses two hands to button and wear skirt or pants
20 Turns body on the bed
21 Sits down then stands up
22 Walks on the floor for 10 steps
23 Steps up on at least 4 stairs while holding stair rail
24 Transfers small toy from one hand to the other
hand
25 Holds up an cylindrical object such as a candle or
pencil
26 Draws a straight line, curve, or curving line
27 Draws a straight line, vertical and horizontal
28 Stacks blocks to make a building
29 Cuts and makes 3 pieces of a puzzle
30 Opens and closes a screw-on bottle lid
31 Stacks blocks to make a bridge
32 Threads a string through different sizes of beads
33 Cuts up a paper using scissors
34 Makes shapes such as circle, triangle, or rectangle
by cutting with scissors
35 Uses two hands when doing an activity
Scoring:
If a student obtains "no" on 21 items, the student is likely to have a physical health
problem. The student should be referred to specialists for further evaluation and
intervention.
220
Result:
q Detection
Other comments:
o No detection
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature .
221
5. Screening for Learning Disabilities
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For students age 5-9 years old with learning disabilities (LD), the screening tool
will identify whether of not a student needs special education.
2. There are two sections in this area.
3. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate if the student is doing the activity regularly and
check the "No" box if the student rarely or never does the action.
4. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, and caregivers.
The person must have known the student for at least 3 months.
Section I:
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 Typical development in every area excluding
learning area
2 Has learning problems in at least two of the
following areas:
2.1 Reading
2.2 Writing
2.3 Math
3 No visual, hearing, or cognitive problem, or
autism, being abandoned, or coming from a
disadvantaged background
Scoring:
If a student obtains "Yes" on 3 items, the student is likely to have a learning problem.
The student should be observed in the second section.
Section I-Result:
J:;l Detection o No detection
222
Section II
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
Reading Disabilities
1 Cannot read
2 Slow reading, reads word by word, cannot
remember words
3 Cannot spell a word
Reads the same word, skips passages, or adds words
5 Cannot use tones (low, mid, high, or highest)
6 Cannot specify 'm' and 'n' sounds or 'd' and 't'
sounds
7 Misses sentences or loses position, misses a line
8 Does not know the meaning of words
9 Does not comprehend reading
Writing and spelling Disabilities
1 Cannot write a letter
2 Writes letters in reverse
3 Cannot write a sentence
4 Writing difficult to read
5 Cannot put letters in each word in the right position
6 Confused about similar letters and numbers such as
6-9, b-d, :lJ-ll ,HI VHf
Math Disabilities
1 Cannot count
2 Cannot understand the counting system
3 Cannot add, multiply, subtract, divide
4 Cannot calculate by using plus or minus signs
5 Cannot solve simple addition or subtraction
problems
6 Cannot understand mathematic concepts such as
numbers, shapes, symbols, time, direction, size,
distance, ordering, comparing etc.
Scoring:
1. Reading disabilities: If a student obtains "Yes" on 6 items above, the student may
have a reading disability.
2. Writing disabilities: If a student obtains "Yes" on 4 items above, the student may
have a writing disability.
3. Math Disabilities: Ifa student obtains "Yes" on 6 items above, the student may
have a math disability.
223
The student should be referred to specialists or psychologists for further evaluation and
intervention.
Section II-Result:
o Detection (Reading Writing Math)
Other comments:
o No detection
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature .
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature .
224
6. Screening for Communication Disabilities
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with communication disabilities the screening tool will identify
whether or not a student needs special education. Please observe the student's
developmental area and behaviors in each item. Check the "Yes" box to indicate
if the student is doing the activity regularly and check the "No" box if the
student rarely or never does the action.
2. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 Produces the wrong words by using similar
phonemes
2 Cannot pronounce a double initial consonant such
as klang, plaa
3 Mumbles, speaks unclearly, speaks softly, makes
strange sounds
4 Stutters
5 Cannot pronounce "kwang" but says "ka wang"
6 Cannot make high-low sounds or uses the wrong
tones
7 Uses incorrect grammar
8 Uses lower level language than is appropriate for
his/her own age
Scoring:
If a student obtains "yes" on 6 items, the student is likely to have a communication
problem. The student should be referred to specialists for further evaluation and
intervention.
Result:
q Detection
Other comments:
D No detection
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature .
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
225
226
7. Screening for Social-Emotional Problems
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with social/emotional problems, the screening tool will identify
whether or not a student needs special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate ifthe student is doing the activity regularly and
check the "No" box to indicate the student rarely or never does.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information of the student, the person who
completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Arealbehaviors Observation Note
Yes No
1 Complains or makes an excuse to avoid
participating in an activity or work
2 Steals at home or school
3 Avoids meeting people, close friends
4 Does not respect others, break school rules or
social rules, bullies and discriminates against
others
5 Often gets into a quarrel with others
6 Cannot control emotions, aggressive, bothersome
to others
7 Lack of confidence, avoids social communication,
does not have communication skills
8 Rushes around, cannot focus on lessons or
environment
9 Skips class, low grades
Scoring:
If a student obtains "yes" on 4 items, the student is likely to have a social-emotional
problem. The student should be referred to specialists for further evaluation and
intervention.
Result:
o Detection o No detection
-- - ------ --------
Other comments:
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
227
228
8. Screening for Autism
Student's name Sex Age _ (years) _ (months)
Student's date of birth Grade
----
Today's date Person filling out the form _
Instructions:
1. For individuals with autism, the screening tool will identify whether or not a
student needs special education.
2. Please observe the student's developmental area and behaviors in each item.
Check the "Yes" box to indicate if the student is doing the activity regularly and
check the "No" box to indicate if the student rarely or never does.
3. In order to obtain correct and accurate information about the student, the person
who completes the form should be the student's teacher, parents, or caregivers.
No. Area/behaviors Observation Note
Yes No
Emotional behavior
1 Avoids friends, likes to be alone
2 Does not know others' emotions or feelings
3 Cannot accept change
4 Does not understand game rules or appears not to
want to understand
5 Constant and persistent behaviors such as shaking
fingers, playing with hands etc.
6 Obsession with certain parts of objects
7 Walks or stands on toes
Communication
8 Uses own words or speaks in a very odd way using
incorrect grammar which others do not understand
9 Mimics others' sayings or repeat others' questions
10 Obsession with phrases or speech that has been
picked up from books, music, or TV
11 Cannot start conversation with friends or elders
12 Uses gestures without using words when asking for
something
Social
13 Does not make eye contact when speaking with
others
14 Does not play "make-believe" games or copy other
children who are playing
15 Plays alone
Cannot interact with friends or start
friendships/relationships
229
Scoring:
If a student obtains "yes" on at least 2 items in each area, the student is likely to have
autism. The student should be referred to specialists for further evaluation and
intervention.
Result:
Q Detection
Other comments:
o No detection
Completed by
Name ( First Screening Administrator)
Signature .
Name ( Second Screening Administrator)
Signature ..
APPENDIXD
A DRAFT MODEL PROPOSED TO THE FOCUS GROUPS FOR
SUGGESTIONS AND REVISIONS
230
231
A DRAFT MODEL PROPOSED TO THE FOCUS GROUPS FOR SUGGESTIONS
AND REVISIONS (Translated from Thai language)
1) Identified Children 2) Unidentified Children
\
3) SCreeni:g&
~----------'I ~,--_A_s_s_es_s_m_e_n_t_---J
4) IEP meeting V
5) Individual Curriculum Design
and Authentic Assessment
6) Classroom
Learning
7) Supervision and
Collaboration
8) IEP Assessment
232
1) Identified Children: Children who have been diagnosed by physicians and hold a
certificate of having disabilities
2) Unidentified Children: Children who have never been diagnosed by physicians, and do
not hold a certificate of having disabilities
3) Screening & Assessment:
@Screening: A rough assessment to identify if children have symptoms or characteristics
of having disabilities.
@Assessment: An assessment provided to diagnose the disabilities of children in depth.
The results of this assessing level will be used to develop the IEP.
Note: The process of screening and assessment should be done by a principal, classroom
teacher, or teacher trained in special education.
4) IEP Meeting:
This process should have these following people involved: A principal, parents, a
classroom teacher, a special education teacher, medical professionals (physician, physical
therapist, occupational therapist, nurse, visual specialist, etc.), and other school
professionals or non-school professionals (school psychologist, speech pathologist,
counseling psychologist, or other specialists if they are available in the community)
5) Individual Curriculum Design and Authentic Assessment:
This stage depends on the results of the IEP meeting.
6) Classroom Learning:
• Activities are appropriated to the capability of the child
• Encourages children both with and without disabilities to work together
• Authentic assessments are employed
7) Supervision and Collaboration:
This process is comprised of all parties working together, including teachers, parents,
medical professionals, other school professionals, non-school professionals, and a
principal. The support from a resource room or outsourcing agencies are included in this
stage to accommodate students' learning.
8) IEP Assessment:
Moving to this level depends upon whether or not a child meets the criteria of the goals
and objectives on his/her IEP. If a child meets the criteria (i.e., passes), the next IEP
development will occur. However, if a child does not make progress and cannot meet the
criteria (i.e., no pass), hislher IEP will be revised and more accommodations must be
taken into account.
233
REFERENCES
Adnan, A. H., & Hafiz, 1. A. (2001). A disabling education: The case of disabled learners
in Malaysia. Disability & Society, 16, 655-669.
Ainscow, M, Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. ( 2000). Developing policies for inclusive
education: A study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal
ofInclusive Education, 4,211-229.
Anderson, R. 1., & Decker, R. H. (1993). The principal's role in special education
programming. National Association ofSecondary School Principals Bulletin, 77,
1-6.
Antia, S. D., Kreimeyer, K.H., & Eldredge, N. (1994). Promoting social interaction
between young children with hearing impairments and their peers. Exceptional
Children, 60, 262-275.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers'
attitudes toward the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the
ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20,
191-211.
Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R.A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (1998). Inclusion in the
context of competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 27-47.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th Ed.) Boston:
Pearson.
Blenk, K. & Fine, D. L. (1995). Making school Inclusion work: A Guide to every
practices, Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Bowe, F. G. (2004). Early childhood special education: birth to eight (3 rd ed.). New
York: Thomson.
Bricker, D. (1978). A rationale for the integration of handicapped and non-handicapped
preschool children. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration
ofhandicapped and non-handicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press.
234
Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 19, 179-
194.
Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene had changed. Topics in Early Childhood
Education, 20, 14-19.
Bricker, D., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2004). An activity-based approach to early
intervention (3 rd ed.) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bureau of Special Education Administration. (2004). Special education. Retrieved
December 5, 2007 from http://special.obec.go.thl
Burr, R. (2006). Vietnam's children in a changing world New Jersey, NJ: Rutger
University Press.
Buysse, V., & Bailey, D.B. (1993). Behavioral and development outcomes in young
children with disabilities in integrated and specializing settings: A review of
comparative studies. Journal ofSpecial Education, 26, 434-461.
Buysse, V., Skinner, D., & Grant, S. (2001). Toward a definition of quality inclusion:
Perspectives of parents and practitioners. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 24, 146-
161.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P. W., & Keyes, 1. (1998). Implementing early childhood inclusion:
Barriers and support factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13,169-184.
Chen, K., & Soon, T. C. (2006). Education and services for children and youth with
emotional and behavioral disorders in Singapore. Preventing School Failure, 50,
37-42.
Cross, A. F., Traub, E. K., Hutter-Pishgahi, 1., & Shelton, G. (2004). Elements of
successful inclusion for children with significant disabilities. Topic in Early
Childhood Special Education, 24, 169-183.
Daane, C.J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2001). Administrators' and teachers'
perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades.
Education, 121,131-138.
DeGanfi, G., Wietlisbach, S., Poisson, S., Siein, E., & Royeen, C. (1994). The impact of
culture and socioeconomic status on family-professional corroboration:
Challenges and solutions. Topics in Early Childhood Special education, 14, 503-
520.
235
Department of Social Welfare (1999). Welfare institutes. Retrieved December 14,2007,
from http://kempadu.gov.my/jkm/institusipapar.htm
Department of Statistics, Malaysia, (2000). Visual Statistics. Retrieved December 14,
2007, from http://www.statistics.gov.my/English /page2.html
Evans, J., & Lunt, 1. (2002). Inclusive education: Are there limits? European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 17, 1-14.
File, N. (1994). Children's play, teacher-child interactions, and teacher beliefs in
integrated early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9,
223-240.
Forlin, c., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusion practices: How accepting are
teachers? International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education, 43,
119-133.
Fulk, B.M., Swerlik, P.A., & Kosuwan, K. (2002). Special education in Thailand:
Teaching Exceptional Children, 73.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The meaning ofeducational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Galis, S. A., & Tanner, C. K. (1995). Inclusion in elementary schools: A Survey and
policy analysis. Education Policy Analysis Achieves, 3, 1-24.
Green, W. H. (2007). Child and adolescent clinical psychopharmacology 4th ed.
Baltimore: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.
Guralnick, M. J. ( 1986). The peer relations of young handicapped and non-handicapped
children. In P.S. Strain, M. J. Guralnick, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Children's social
behaviors: Development, assessment and modification (pp. 93-131) Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hanson, M. J., Hom. E., Sandall, S., Beckman, P., Morgan, M., Marquart, J., Barnwell,
D., &Chou, H. (2001). After preschool inclusion: Children's educational
pathways over the early school years. Exceptional Children, 68, 65-83.
Hauser-Cram, P., Bronson, M. B., & Upshur, C.C. (1993). The effects of the classroom
environment on the social and mastery behavior of preschool children with
disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 479-498.
236
Hornby, G. ( 1999). Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Supportingjor Learning,
14, 152-157.
Janko, S., Schwartz, 1., Sandall, S., Anderson, K., & Cottam, C. ( 1997). Beyond
Microsystems: Unanticipated lessons about the meaning of inclusion. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 17,286-306.
Jelas, Z. M. (2000). Perception of inclusion practices: the Malaysian perspective.
Educational Review, 52, 187-196.
Katsiyannis, A., Conderman,G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion.
Remedial and Special Education, 16, 279-287.
Kontos, S., Moore, D., & Giorgetti, K. (1998). The ecology of inclusion. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 18, 38-48.
Korstad, R., & Lichtenstein, N. ( 1988). Opportunities found and lost: Labor, radicals,
and the early civil rights movement. The Journal ojAmerican History, 75, 786-
811.
Kumsopa, K. (2004). A program evaluationjor inclusion is elementary schools in
Srisakate Probince. Master Thesis, Sukhothaitummatiraj University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Law of Malaysia (1996). Malaysian education act and selected regulations. Retrieved
December 13,2007, from http://www.parlimen.gov.my/actindexbi/pdf/ACT-
550.pdf
Lee, L. (2004, September 24). Teachers get special needs training. The Straits Times, 1.
LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive
education, Support jor Learning, II, 32-36.
Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S. R., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Beckman, P. (1998).
Inclusion preschool programs: Teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13,87-105.
Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Beckman, P., Odom, S., Sandall, S., Schwartz, 1., Hom E., &
Wolery, R. (2000). Key influences on the initiation and implementation of
inclusive preschool programs. Exceptional Children, 67, 83-98.
Lim, L., & Nam, S.S. (2000). Special education in Singapore. The Journal ojSpecial
Education, 34, 104-109.
237
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational
Leadership, 58, 78-81.
Lynch, E., & Hanson, M.J.(1998). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for
working with children and their families (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Mamlin, N., & Harris, K. R ( 1998). Elementary teachers' referral to special education in
light of inclusion and peripheral: "Every child is here to learn...but some of these
children are in real trouble". Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90, 385-396.
Manset, G., & Semmel, M. I., (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild
disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. Journal of
Special Education, 31, 155-180.
McLean, M. E., & Dunst, C. J. (1990). On the forms of inclusion: The need for more
information. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 200-202.
McLean, M. E., & Hanline, M. F. (1990). Providing early intervention services in
integrated environments: challenges and opportunities for the future. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 62-77.
McLean, M. E., & adorn, S. (1993). Practices for young children with and without
disabilities: A comparison of DEC and NAEYC identified practices. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 274-292.
McWiliam, R, Lang, L., Vandiviere, P., Angell, R, Collins, L., & Underdown, G.
(1995).Satisfaction and struggles: Families perceptions of early intervention
services. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 19,43-60.
Nienhuys, T.G., Horsborough, K.M., & Cross, T.G. (1985). A dialogic analysis of
interaction between mothers and their deaf or hearing preschoolers. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 6, 121-140.
adorn, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 20-27.
Office ofthe National Education Commission, (2003). Education ofThai People, 2003.
Retrieved September 29, 2008, from
htp://www.onec.go.th/publication/46066/fu1l46066.pdf
Office of the Educational Council, the Ministry of Education Kingdom of Thailand
(2004). National Education Act HE. 2542 (1999). Bangkok, Thailand:
Pimdeekarnpim.
238
Office of the Basic Education Commission Department Operation Center (2005).
Inclusive schools. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from
http://doc.obec.go.th/dataonweb/report/indexsum-'-prov.php
Office of the Educational Council, the Ministry of Education Kingdom of Thailand.
(2006). Education in Thailand 2005/2006. Bangkok, Thailand: Office ofthe
Educational Council.
Osborne, A. G., & DiMattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's least restrictive environment: Legal
implications. Exceptional Children, 61,6-14.
Peck, C. A., Odom, S. L., & Bricker, D. (1993). Integrating young children with
disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspective on research and
implementation. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes.
Power-deFur, L. A., & Orelove, F. P. (l997).Inclusive education: Practical
implementation ofthe least restrictive environment. Gaithersburg, MA: Aspen.
Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69,135-145.
Quah, M. L. (1993). Special Education in Singapore. In M. L. Quah, S. Gopinathan,
Gopinathanand, & S.C Chang (Eds.), A review o/practice and research in
educationfor all in Singapore: Country report submitted to the Southeast Asia
Research, Review and Advisory Group (pp. 89-102). Singapore: National
Institute of Education.
Rao, M.S. (1998). Beliefs and attitudes of pre-service teachers towards teaching children
with disabilities. Unpublished master thesis, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Rajkijjanubaksa (2008). The Education Provisionfor People with Disabilities Act,
Bangkok, Thailand: Thai Government Printing Office.
Raven, J & Raven, J. (2003). Raven progressive matrices. In R. S. McCallum (Ed.),
Handbook ofnonverbal assessment. London: Plenum Press.
Rose, D. F., & Smith, B. J. (1993). Preschool mainstreaming: Attitude barriers and
strategies for addressing them. Young Children, 48,59-62.
239
Sadiman, A. S. (2004, November 16). Challenges in Education in Southeast Asia. Paper
presented at the International Seminar on Towards Cross Border Cooperation
between South and Southeast Asia: The Importance ofIndia's North East Playing
Bridge and Buffer Role. Paper retrieved September 29, 2008, from
http://www.seameo.org/vlllibrary/DLWe1come/Publications/paper/india04.htm
Salend. J. S. (1990). Effective mainstreaming. New York: Macmillan.
Scotch, R. K. (2001). From good will to civil rights: Transforming.federal disability
policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/
inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
Seery, M. E., Davis, P.M., & Johnson, L.J. (2000). Seeing eye-to eye: Are parents and
professionals in agreement about the benefits ofpreschool inclusion? Remedial
and Special Education, 21,268-278.
Shimman, P. (1990). The impact of special needs students at a further education college:
a report on a questionnaire, Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, 14, 83-91.
Smith, B. J. & Rose, D. F. (1993). Administrators' policy handbookfor preschool
mainstreaming. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Special Education Department, Malaysia (1999). Introduction to the special education
department: special education in Malaysia. Retrieved December 14, 2007, from
http://www2.moe.gov.my~jpklintro.htm
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Distributed Leadership: What's All the Hoopla? Retrieved
September 29,2008 from Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research,
School of Education and Social Policy Web site:
www.northwestern.edulipr/publications/papers/Spillane_DistribLead.pdf
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E., Lewis, G., Stitziel-Pareja, A. (2006, April). Taking a
Distributedperspective in studying school leadership and management:
Epistemology and methodological trade-offs. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive
classrooms: Facilitating learningfor all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
240
Staub, D., & Peck, c.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students?,
Educational leadership, 52,36-40.
Suvanus, S. (1981). Special education in Thailand: B. C. Journal ofSpecial Education,S,
158-163.
Thai National Statistical office, (n.d.) Report an overview ofThailand Retrieved August
18, 2008, from http://service.nso.go.thlnso/data/02/pop2000/prelim.html
The National Association for the Education of Young Children: NAEYC (1996).
Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhoodprograms serving
children from birth through age 8. Retrieved September 29,2007, from
http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/PSDAP98.PDF
The National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1994). National survey
on inclusive education (Number 1). City University ofNew York, Graduate
School and University Center.
The office of Evaluation Regional 3rd. (2001). The inclusion administrationfor Thai pilot
project schools. Retrieved December 16, 2007 from
http://gotknow.org/blog/region3/1501516
The office of Evaluation Regional 4th. (2005). The administration ofinclusion in basic
education institutes regionallh. Bangkok,Thailand: Thai Government Printing
Office.
The Office of Education, Religion, and Cultural Development Regional 11th. (2001).
Inclusion for elementary schools in Nakornrajchasrima Province. Bangkok,
Thailand: Thai Government Printing Office.
The United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights ofthe child Retrieved June 29,
2007, from http://www.ohchr.org/englishllaw/pdf/crc.pdf
The United Nations (1993). The UN standard rules on the equalization ofopportunities
for persons with disabilities. Retrieved November 10,2007, from
http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/un-stdd
Umpanroung, C. (2004). The administration ofinclusive schools in Aangthong Province.
Master' thesis, Rajapat Pranakornsriayuthaya University, Pranakornsriayuthaya,
Thailand.
241
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement andframework on Special Needs
Education.Paris: UNESCO.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual with to Congress on the
implementation ojthe individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning
disabilities. Journal ojLeaning disabilities, 28, 264-270.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator
perceptions of heterogeneous education, Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45.
Villa, R. A., Tac, L.V., Muc, P. M., Ryan, S., Thuy, N.T.M., Weill, C., & Thousand, J.S.
(2003). Inclusion in Viet Nam: More than a decade of implementation. Research
& Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 28, 23-32.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Philips, D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and
the quality ojcare in America. Final Report of the National Child Care Staffing
Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
Winter, S. (1999). The early childhood inclusion model: Aprogramjor all children.
Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Worery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., Schroeder, c., Martin, C.,
Venn, M., Werts, M., & Fleming, L. (1993). The extent and nature of preschool
mainstreaming: A survey of general early educators. The Journal ojSpecial
Education, 27, 222-234.
Wolery, M., Huffinan, K., Holcombe A., Martin, C., Brookfield, J., Schroeder, C., &
Venn, M. L. (1994). Preschool mainstreaming: perceptions of barriers and
benefits by faculty in general early childhood education. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 17, 1-9.
Yatvin, J. (1995). Flawed assumptions. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 482-484.