The Implementation of Inclusive Education for Students with Special Needs in Indonesia

Over the last decade, inclusion has become a world trend in special education. In response to that trend, the Indonesian government has adopted a progressive policy to implement inclusive education. The aim of this research is to describe the implementation process by focusing on the institutional management, student admission/identification/assessment, curriculum, instruction, evaluation, and external supports. The sample consisted of 186 schools with a total student body of 24,412, 12 percent of which (3,419) were students with special needs. In those schools, there were also 34 gifted students (0.1 percent). Of all the students with special education needs (SEN) students, 56 percent were males and 44 percent were females. The results showed, in terms of institutional management, that the majority of inclusive schools had developed strategic plans (for inclusion), legally appointed coordinators, involved related and relevant parties, and conducted regular coordination meetings. However, there were still many schools that had not restructured their school organizations. In terms of student admission/identification/assessment, 54 percent of schools set a quota for SEN students. Only 19 percent applied a selection process in student admission, half of which used different procedures for SEN candidates. Approximately 50 percent of inclusive schools had modified their curriculum, including a variety of standards. In terms of instruction, 68 percent of inclusive schools reported that they modified their instructional process. Only a few schools, however, provided special equipment for students with visual impairment, physical impairment, speech and hearing problems, and autism and gifted and talented students. In a student evaluation, more than 50 percent reported that test items, administration, time allocations, and students’ reports were modified. For the national exam, this number decreased dramatically. Finally, external supports in the forms of funding, coaching, and facilities were mostly provided by provincial governments and by the Directorate of Special Education