Thesis Done Final Copy For Printing and Binding - Chapter 1-5

CITY OF MALABON UNIVERSITY Page
GRADUATE STUDIES & APPLIED RESEARCH 0

Chapter I
The Problem and Its Background
Introduction
Inclusive program is a process of strengthening the capacity of the
education system to reach out to all learners and can thus be understood as a key
strategy to achieve Education for All. As an overall principle, it should guide all
education policies and practices, starting from the fact that education is a basic
human right and the foundation for a more just and equal society. (UNESCO,
2010)
The DepEd’s SPED program provides a complete approach in catering the
needs of learners with special needs. According to Dep Ed Order, entitled
“Institutionalizing of SPED Programs in all Schools, this program ensures that
learners with exceptionalities will have access to quality education by giving them
their individual and unique learning needs.” This initiative caters to learners with
visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, learning disability,
autism spectrum disorder, communication disorder, physical disability, emotional
and behavioral disorder, multiple disability with visual impairment, and to those
who are orthopedically handicapped, chronically ill, and gifted and talented.
In India, the Right to Education Act of 2011, which makes elementary
education a fundamental right of every child, is of great significance to the
government as well as private schools. Schools and classrooms need to reflect this
social, constitutional and legal right of every child to be included in the educational
processes and practices. Teachers, now more so than before, need to be ready to
include pupils from different backgrounds, with differing needs and abilities.
According to Gupta (2014), inclusive education means education of all students,
where all students are equal participants in the learning process.
According to Rief (2015), educating pupils with special needs can be a real
challenge to everyone. Teachers are constantly searching for practical guidance on
how to manage learners who find it difficult to concentrate and stay on task for
any length of time, sometimes presenting challenging behavior in the classroom
and disrupting learning for other pupils.
In the Philippines, definition of inclusion is described as the process by
which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals by reconsidering its
curricular organizations and provisions. By this process, the school builds capacity
to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to attend and, in so doing,
reduces the need to exclude pupils. Inclusive education is based on a flexible and
individualized support system for children and young people with special
educational needs. (DepEd Policy Guidelines in Inclusive Education, 2009).
Almeda (2014), stated that through education, channels are set up to equal
opportunities: formal, non-formal, or special education is treated in the same
footing. Inclusive education promotes the welfare and development of all various
sectors in the society.
Teachers need to ensure quality education even with the challenge of
having pupils with special needs. They are expected to provide activities that will
cater to their needs. The government started the initial steps and supported them
with programs to help achieve the goals of all pupils in class with different
academic capabilities and behavior. Furthermore, SPED teachers have undergone
special educational programs and trainings to handle pupils with special needs but
the struggle is with the regular teachers who do not specialize in special
education.
This study aims to find out the level of readiness of teachers in inclusive
education in selected elementary public schools in the Division of Malabon to their
profile and other factors such as competence, curriculum, classroom management,
and assessment.
It is hoped that through this study, concerned authorities will be able to
identify programs and plans for teachers, administrators, and schools that will
escalate their level of readiness of teachers who catered special education
programs in inclusive setting.
Statement of the Problem
Specifically, this study intends to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of the following:

1.1 age,
1.2 gender,
1.3 years in teaching service,
1.4 grade level taught, and
1.5 number of SEN pupils included in class?
2. How may the respondents’ assessment on their level of readiness as
regards the inclusion programs in terms of:

2.1 competencies,
2.2 classroom management,
2.3 instructional materials, and
2.4 assessment?
3. What is the academic performance of the special education children in the
result in the periodic exam?

4. How significant is the difference in the teachers’ level of readiness on
inclusive program based on the profile of the respondents?

5. How significant is the relationship between the level of readiness of
teacher-respondents and the academic performance of the SPED pupils?

6. How can the result of the study be utilized in preparing an action plan to
increase the level of readiness of teachers for inclusive education?
Hypotheses
There is no significant difference in the teachers’ level of readiness on
inclusive program based on the profile of the respondents.
There is no significant relationship between the level of readiness in
inclusive education of teacher-respondents and the academic performance of
SPED pupils in the selected elementary schools in the Division of Malabon.
•Profile of the
teacher-
Conceptual Framework
respondents • Gathering of
data and
•respondents’
The on
assessment of this study illustrates the• paradigm
statistics
conceptual framework An action presented
plan
for teachers to
the readiness and • Administration
through the Input-Process-Output model. increase their
in the inclusive of questionnaires level of readiness
education in and surveys
INPUT PROCESS in inclusive
OUTPUT
terms of
•Analysis and education
competencies,
classroom mngt., interpretation of
instructional data
materials, and
assessment
•Academic
performance of
pupils under
inclusive
education
Figure 1: Research Paradigm
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this research is to determine the level of readiness of
selected teachers in inclusive education. This study, which supports research,
reviews the readiness of the teachers for inclusive education in selected
elementary schools in the Division of Malabon and this will be beneficial to the
following:
Regular Teachers– The findings of this study aims to help the regular-classroom
teachers to distinguish their strengths and weaknesses in terms of encountering
and handling pupils with special needs.
SPED Teachers– Through this study, the SPED teachers can identify the
weaknesses and problems encountered by the regular teachers and help them in
handling pupils with special needs.
Children with special needs – The result of this study hopes to help the pupils
by providing enhanced school-based guidelines that can be used to improve in-
depth learning and to develop basic skills of SPED pupils under inclusive
education. Moreover, this study hopes to benefit the pupils by giving them quality
service of education by the teachers with enough knowledge in encountering and
handling children with special needs.
Parents – Through the study, the parents of children with special needs may be
provided with additional knowledge in modifying pupils’ learning with special
needs placed in a regular classroom setting.
School Administrator – the result of this study will serve as an eye opener to
the school administration concerning the readiness of the teachers for inclusive
education in selected elementary school in the Division of Malabon. Also, this may
serve as a guide to equip the teachers to become more ready and prepared for
the inclusion education in elementary schools.
Curriculum Makers – the findings of this study will be useful and relevant to the
curriculum makers in terms of enriching a curriculum that focuses more on how to
address the needs of children with special needs by reinforcing the teachers to
become more ready and prepared for the inclusion education in selected
elementary schools in the Division of Malabon.
Policy Makers – The result of the study will help the policy makers in
formulating and strengthening guidelines for a more effective implementation of
inclusive program.
Non-Government Organizations – The result of the study will help the NGO in
making and supporting some projects that may enhance the readiness of teachers
in inclusion program.
Future Researchers – The outcome of the study aims to help other researcher
by giving insights and guidelines who may apt to conduct the same study utilizing
other variables.
Scope and Delimitation
This research is limited to the study of the level of readiness of selected 34
teachers and its relationship to the academic performance of the pupils with
special needs under inclusive education in three public elementary schools with
special education programs namely, Malabon Elementary School, Tonsuya
Elementary School and Ninoy Aquino Elementary School in the Division City
Schools of Malabon during school year 2017-2018.
Definition of Terms
For a common frame interest, the following terms are defined in the context
of the study. Considerable terms used in this study are defined in context of this
study.
Assessment refers to strategies and means is designed to confirm what pupils
know, demonstrate whether or not they have met curriculum outcomes or the
goals of their individualized programs (ex. inclusion program), or to certify
proficiency and make decisions about students' future programs or placements.
Classroom Management is a term teachers use to describe the process of
ensuring that classroom lessons run smoothly despite disruptive behavior by
students. It also implies the prevention of disruptive behavior. It is a difficult
aspect of teaching for many teachers
Competency refers to the knowledge, skills and potentials of teachers to handle
and teach in inclusive education setting.
Inclusion refers to special program in which the special education pupils are
mixed and included together with the regular-class pupils in a regular classroom
set up. It is an approach to educate students with special educational needs.
Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms to separate students
with disabilities from students without disabilities.
Inclusive education is educating all students in age-appropriate general
education classes in their neighborhood schools, with high quality instruction,
interventions and supports so all pupils can be successful in the core curriculum. It
means different and diverse students learning side by side in the same classroom.
Under the inclusion program, students with special needs spend most or all of
their time with non-special needs students. Inclusive schools have a collaborative
and respectful school culture where pupils with disabilities are presumed to be
competent, develop positive social relationships with peers, and are fully
participating members of the school community.
Instructional Materials refers to the educational resources used to improve
pupil’s knowledge, skills, abilities, in teaching and learning.
Mainstreaming in the context of education, is the practice of educating pupils
with special needs in regular classes during specific time periods based on their
skills. It is the integration of children with special educational problems, as a
physical handicap, into conventional classes and school activities. This means
regular education classes are combined with special education classes. Schools
that practice mainstreaming believe that students with special needs who cannot
function in a regular classroom to a certain extent belong in the special education
environment.
Readiness is the state of being prepared though people, systems and
organizations to meet a situation and carry out the proper sequence of actions. It
is based on thorough planning and training. It is the ability of teachers to

anticipate and respond effectively to the impact of events or conditions in the
classroom in inclusive education.
Regular classroom teachers refer to the professional personnel education
teachers; and other teachers who work with students as a whole class in a
classroom, in small groups in a resource room, or one-on-one inside or outside a
regular classroom.
Special Children are those pupils who have been determined and diagnosed to
require special education attention and specific necessities that other children do
not.
Special Education Programs are designed for those students who are mentally,
physically, socially and/or emotionally delayed. Special Education programs and
services adapt content, teaching methodology and delivery instruction to meet the
appropriate needs of each child.
Special Education Teacher is someone who works with children and youths
who have a variety of disabilities and exceptionalities. Children with special needs
require unique instruction by specially trained professionals to help them achieve
their highest potential and strive to progress beyond their limitations. Special
education teachers are patient, understanding educators dedicated to giving each
individual student the tools and guidance needed to help them maximize success.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies to gain
insight and a thorough understanding of the study being undertaken.
Local Literature
The SPED program of Department of Education provides a holistic approach
in catering to the needs of learners with various exceptionalities. According to
DECS Order No. 26, s. 1997 - Institutionalizing of SPED Programs in all Schools,
this program ensures that learners with exceptionalities will have access to quality
education by giving them their individual and unique learning needs. This initiative
caters to learners with visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual
disability, learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, communication disorder,
physical disability, emotional and behavioral disorder, multiple disability with visual
impairment, and to those who are orthopedically handicapped, chronically ill, and
gifted and talented.
In the Philippine constitution particularly in Batas Pambansa no. 232, it is
stated that education should be for all. It means that what every school child must
learn and why it must be learned, regardless of his or her abilities or lack thereof,
are issues that have yet to undergo intense debate.

That is why Department Education (DepEd), in line with the Department’s
thrust in providing quality and inclusive basic education for all, continues to
provide the necessary educational interventions for learners with certain
exceptionalities through its Special Education (SPED) program.
Up to date, based on DepEd online database (2016), it has recognized a
total of 648 SPED Centers and regular schools offering the program— 471 of
which are catering to Elementary students and 177 are catering to High School
students. The Education Department has recorded around 250,000 enrollees with
certain exceptionalities at the elementary level and around 100,000 at the high
school level in School Year (SY) 2015-2016.
Beside all these Dep Ed SPED programs, rich and sustained argumentative
discussions surrounding Inclusive Education (IE) and special education in the
Philippines must be encouraged to discern what is best for all Filipino school
children. Whether the Philippines should adopt the inclusion policy and specific
approaches to IE practiced in other countries and which adjustments to make
according to the demands of the country’s own cultural, economic, and social
realities—these are serious matters that need immediate attention, for high-quality
education is an entitlement all school-aged Filipino children must enjoy, regardless
of what they have or lack.
At this point, teachers in the Philippines, whether trained or otherwise, will
have to accept that they will be spread too thinly in an inclusionary setting
because the presence of students with special needs in an oversized group of
students, if taken seriously, requires the preparation of more than one lesson
plan. Since 2006, training workshops and other initiatives for Inclusive Education
have been conducted in the Philippines. The required services for children with
special needs in general education, however, remain unavailable in nearly all
public schools.
According to Dizon (2011), in her studies, she pointed out that tooling up
for comprehensive IE requires meticulous planning. Workshop-seminars conducted
over a weekend, a week, or even a month are insufficient and will not enable
inclusive schoolteachers, school administrators, or parents of children with special
needs (CSN) to meet the standards of high-level IE. To fully satisfy the needs of
diverse learners, especially those with developmental disorders or learning
disabilities, a government needs to require that high standards of inclusion be met
in schools. Inadequate preparation for IE may actually stand in the way of high
quality inclusion.
Furthermore, Dizon, (2011), mentioned that at present, the entire
Philippine education system is lacking in the knowledge and resources required for
high-quality inclusion. This research presents an evidence-based picture of how IE
is practiced and to give stakeholders in IE an idea of how inclusion is
conceptualized and practiced in the Philippines. Since this study identifies
important challenges to IE as practiced, having knowledge of such problems can
help IE stakeholders, especially in similar developing countries, to decide where to
begin and which specific practices to promote and make available if they wish to
facilitate the development of a just and durable IE.
Also, Dizon (2011), in her research answered the following problems. (1)
What is the participants’ concept on Inclusive Education in the Philippines of IE?;
(2) Is there a significant difference among the responses of the parents of CSN,
inclusive classroom schoolteachers, and inclusive school administrators in terms of
their knowledge of inclusion?; (3) How are the participants involved in IE?; (4) Is
there a significant difference among the responses of the parents of CSN, inclusive
classroom schoolteachers, and inclusive school administrators in terms of their
involvement in IE?; and (5) How is IE viewed and practiced? Research problems
were addressed using a modified survey questionnaire, where the participants
were instructed to explain, elaborate, concretize, and/or justify their choice of

answers. The themes that emerged from this part of the study are the following:
(a) IE equals extra effort to succeed; (b) diversity and education that is responsive
to students’ individual needs; (c) lack of basic knowledge; (d) trying to adapt
according to the demands of IE; (e) collaborate and communicate; (f) doubts
about one’s work; and (g) practice IE regardless of what and how much we know.
It is found out in her studies that there is no significant difference among the
mean scores in the survey of the three groups of participants. This suggests that
what has been found in response to problems are most likely true.
Instructional programs
According to Bureau of Elementary Education, Special Education Division
(2009), the parents or guardians of learners with certain exceptionalities may
reach out to principals or guidance counselors of schools where they wish to enroll
their children to determine the necessary instructional program that their children
need best. The instructional programs that the SPED teachers shall implement the
following:
a. Self-contained/Special Class – a separate class for only one type of
exceptionality which serves moderate to severe types of disabilities;

b. Itinerant Teaching – a traveling teacher reaches out to children with special
needs in other schools or at home to provide direct and consultative services;
c. Resource Room – a designated place where the child with special needs
enrolled in the regular school program goes to in order to make use of the
specialized equipment, either in a tutorial situation or in a small group session
handled by a SPED teacher;
d. Pull-out – a kind of program where the child enrolled in the regular class
reports to the resource room for a period of time for special instructions by the
SPED teacher;
e. Integration/Mainstreaming – refers to the enrolment of a child with special
needs in a regular class with support services. There are two degrees of
integration: Partial Integration and Full Integration. In Partial
Integration/Mainstreaming, a child with special needs enrolled in a special class is
integrated with regular children in non-academic activities like work education,
physical education, arts, school programs, etc, then gradually integrated in the
academic subjects if qualified. Meanwhile, in Full Integration/Mainstreaming, a

child with special needs sits in the regular class in all academic and non-academic
subjects; and
f. Inclusion – all children with disabilities, regardless of the nature and severity
of their disability and need for related services, receive their total education within
the regular education classroom.
Strengthening teachers’ capabilities
In line with DECS Order No. 5, s. 1998 - Reclassification of Regular Teacher
and Principal Items to Special Education Teacher and Special School Principal
Items, in school year 2015-2016, DepEd has provided capability trainings to 345
teachers and 45 administrators and supervisors involved in delivering quality
education to learners with certain exceptionalities. Among the partners of DepEd
in enhancing the capabilities of teachers handling learners with exceptionalities
and in promoting the SPED advocacy are the Resources for the Blind Inc., Autism
Society of the Philippines, Leonard Cheshire for the Disabled Foundation (LCDF),
and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Society (ADHD Society).
Moreover, the other partner organizations of DepEd for the SPED program
are the Learning Disabilities Association (LDA), Philippine Association for the
Intellectually Disabled (PAFID), National Association for the Gifted (NAG),
Philippine Federation for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled (PFRD), Parents
Advocate for the Visually Impaired Children (PAVIC), and National Council on
Disability Affairs (NCDA).
This only shows that Dep Ed is continuously improving the Special
Education Programs here in the Philippines that caters the needs of special
learners.
Local Studies
There are some local studies that are related to this study. Nepomuceno
(2011), in her study entitled “Status of the Special Education Program in the Public
Schools of the Division of Malabon” assess the status of the SPED centers in
Malabon. She found out that there are different programs offered in the public
schools for different exceptionalities such as programs for hearing impaired,
visually impaired, gifted, with learning disabilities, attention deficit and hyperactive
disorders, mentally challenged and those with physical disabilities.
Another local research related to this topic is the study of Sabiono (2009).
He stressed in his study that every special education teacher should be equipped
with different teaching strategies and some counseling techniques so that she can
handle children of different needs. He also recommended that every special school
should be opened in the public schools in the community to accommodate these
physically handicapped children.
Moreover, De Guzman (2008) studied about the characteristics of
emotionally unstable intermediate pupils in the Division of Bataan. She
recommended that teachers, guidance counselors, and parents should be made
aware of the causes of specific conditions because these can help them
understand the disturbances and deficiencies these children are experiencing.
Another parallel study is made by Fernandez (2007) as he studied the
special education program for hearing impaired and visually impaired. His study
revealed that hearing impaired were enrolled in special classes while visually
impaired were fully integrated in regular classes. The administrators and teachers
of the SPED program were fully qualified. The SPED program was satisfactory.
Foreign Literature
According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2013),
students with special needs have the right to receive necessary and individualized
curricular adaptations. More so, adaptations include accommodations and
modifications. Students who receive accommodations are held to the same
academic expectations as their general education classmates. On the other hand,
modifications entail making changes that lower these expectations. Curricular
adaptations vary based upon each learner’s individual needs. Just like what Walsh,
(2013), in her article, “Special Education Trends”, she says that “Inclusion is
important because diversity certainly add to creativity. This means that if one
doesn’t have a diverse classroom or a diverse world, one doesn’t have the same
creative levels and the strength lies in diversity.”
Reindal, (2016), in European Journal of Special Needs Education, states
that inclusive education emerged as an idea within United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization's Special Education Unit and was presented as
a new way ahead at the "World Conference on Special Needs Education" in
Salamanca in 2004. Since then, it has been on the global agenda as the overriding
political objective within education. In spite of this, the international agreement,
on an ideological basis, was not initially founded on a common interpretation of
the meaning of "inclusive education". However, the "Salamanca Statement"

reflected clearly the idea of overcoming the division between regular and special
education. After 15 years, a vast amount of research and numerous reports and
national strategies for implementing inclusive education, there are in these a lack
of agreement over a common interpretation of inclusive education. Since 2004,
the concept inclusive education has explored the world, so to say, without having
landed, and the effort of giving it a clear working definition has thus far been
elusive. In order to create a possible common ground for the mutual interpretation
of inclusive education, it is important to see inclusion as an ethical issue. It is
crucial to ask again what the purpose of inclusion is. Further, it is vital to see
inclusive education not just as a social and structural matter about how various
aspects of a school are organized to meet diverse children's needs in terms of
personnel, pedagogical methods, materials and cultural structures, but also to see
inclusive education as an ethical issue. Inclusion impinges on ethical questions
because it is for the purpose of something. It conveys something that is valuable
to the field of special education in inclusive setting.
Further, Mc Leskey, et.al., (2007), mentioned that since the
institutionalization of inclusive education in different countries, nearly all public
schools have been morally or legally stripped of their option to turn away
exceptional children whose parents or guardians seek for them to be schooled in a

general education setting. This development was further facilitated by many
organizations’ aggressive call for a satisfactory implementation of inclusive
education. However, it would later be found in various parts of the world;
however, the pursuit of high-quality inclusive education poses many challenges.
Many school systems are unable to quickly evolve according to the ideals of
inclusive education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of
United States of America, schools must provide an appropriate education for all
children, including those diagnosed with different special needs. Federal law also
has specific regulations about discipline of special learners. Schools and teachers
must assess a special child's troubling behavior and develop positive interventions
to address the behavior. Educators must also determine whether the behavior is a
manifestation of the child's disorder. In connection, United States, special
education programs were made mandatory when the United States Congress
passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in response to
discriminatory treatment by public educational agencies against students with
disabilities." The EAHCA was later modified to strengthen protections to students
with disabilities and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). IDEA requires states to provide special education and related services
consistent with federal standards as a condition of receiving federal funds. IDEA

entitles every student to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the
least restrictive environment (LRE). To ensure a FAPE, a team of professionals
from the local educational agency and the student's parents to identify the
student's unique educational needs, develop annual goals for the student and
determine the placement, program modification, testing accommodations,
counseling, and other special services which meets the student's needs. Parents
are supposed to be equal participants in this process as well as others that are
knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the data collected through the
evaluation, and all placement options. The student's plan are recorded in a written
Individualized Education Program (IEP). The child's placement is typically
determined by annual assessment, based on the child's IEP, and as close in
proximity of the child's home as possible. The school is required to develop and
implement an IEP that meets the standards of federal and state educational
agencies. Parents have the option of refusing Special Education services for their
child.
Foreign Studies
In view of other foreign countries offering inclusive education, in South
Africa, in July 2011, institutionalized inclusive education with the publication of the
policy document called, Education White Paper 6 on Special Needs Education:
Building an Inclusive Education and Training System. Naicker (2006) conduct a
study about this and he acknowledges that the first four years of its
implementation proved that it is far from perfect in form and substance. A
favorable change in the educational system largely depends on the construction of
a strong theoretical framework. Naicker further states that to build one,
stakeholders should introduce reforms in the area of epistemology, special
education theory and practices, curriculum, ideology, and politics. This means that
inclusion policy should require that teachers be informed appropriately and
equipped with skills that will enable them to pave the way for high-level inclusive
education.
Another parallel study on the in inclusive education is the research of Will,
(2006). He states in his research that inclusion brings to the forefront when the
regular education Initiative (REI) was first presented. The researcher of REI
placed most students with mild disabilities in general classrooms to be taught by
general educators. The special educator changed from primary educator to
consultant teacher. In his studies, he found out that one of the major problems
with this initiative was its lack of a clear definition of inclusion program (Jenkins,
et. al. 2009). “It [REI] is now part of jargon for some teachers handling special
learners in the inclusive setting with little consideration of its meaning and the
assumptions it embraces” (Pugach & Johnson, 2009).
Gersten and Woodward, et.al., (2009) in their study entitled “ Attitude,
Expectations of Teachers in Inclusive Education” believe the intent is to place the
responsibility for educating all students on general classroom teacher. To do that
requires major changes in teachers’ attitudes and expectations. However, all
parties are not necessarily accepting the trend enthusiastically. Loucks-Hosley
(2008), state, “Teachers may feel challenged, hopefully, and desirous of what can
be accomplished, but they may also feel frustration, burden, fear, lack of support,
and inadequacies about their ability to teach children with different kinds of
problem”.
Another study parallel to inclusion program for special learners is the model
created by Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles (2007). They described five evidence-
based models for co-teaching in inclusive classes for regular and special learners.
One such model is described as, “One Teach, One Assist”. In this model one
teacher is responsible for instructing all students (regular class teacher) while the
second provides additional support for those who need it including the pupils with
special needs (SPED teacher). A benefit in using this model is that not only
students with special needs benefit but all students who need additional support
are provided with extra instruction in the general education environment in a
regular classroom setting. Station teaching is another model for co-teaching in
inclusive classes. Students are divided into three separate groups in this model.
During a block period, each group works with one of the two teachers in addition
to having an independent work time. All students are able to benefit from this
model by being able to receive small group instruction and the pupils with special
needs are paired with those pupils in regular class. In another model, Parallel
Teaching, SPED teacher and regular class teachers are required to plan lessons
together before splitting students in two groups. The teachers then teach the
same lesson to these two small groups. In this model not only do students get the
benefits of working in small groups, teachers also benefit by learning from each
other’s expertise. Alternative Teaching is a co-teaching model where one teacher
(regular class teacher) is responsible for teaching and the other (SPED teacher) is
responsible for pre-teaching and re-teaching concepts to students who need

additional support in inclusive class setting. Finally, in a Team Teaching model
SPED teachers and regular classroom teachers provide instruction together in the
same classroom. Both the SPED and the regular class teachers may take turns
leading instruction or may model pupils with special needs’ behavior while the
other teacher is instructing. These models are essential in teaching special
learners in inclusive setting.
Consequently, Shade and Stewart (2010), mentioned in their study that the
philosophy and practice of inclusion of pupils with disabilities into general
education classrooms have been reinforced for the last 30 years by litigation by
legislation (e.g. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act and it’s
amendments); The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and by the
advocacy movement. Although Federal Law does not mandate full inclusion, its
practice is influenced by (a) state commissioners of education, who interpret
trends, (b) school district administrators who apply state regulations, and (c)
general and special education teachers who implement inclusion programs at the
local level on a daily basis. Each year more schools adopt inclusion models in
which students with disabilities receive special education services in general
education classrooms.
In Guyana (2007), supporters of inclusion are confronting the same
challenges that other developing nations are facing to establish a just and durable
inclusive education system. It has been observed that the inappropriate attitude of
many toward persons with disabilities remains a major obstacle to inclusive
education in Guyana. According to Andrews et.al., (2007), agents of change or
educational leaders, however, could work together in order to reconfigure
Guyanese society’s negative views and attitudes toward people with disabilities
and their educational potentials. Andrews as mentioned in the study of Naicker,
(2006) also said that having sufficient knowledge of inclusive education enables
teachers and school administrators to become more flexible and productive.
Likewise, Naiker found out that one of the most neglected components of inclusive
education, however, is the laying of its conceptual foundations to ensure that
general education teachers, administrators, and parents fully understand and
appreciate the ground upon which inclusive education is built.
As cited in Khan, (2011), many researchers—including S. Vaughn, J.S.
Schumm, J.S. Jallad, B. Slusher, and L. Samuell (2006) and M.M. Ali, R. Mustapha,
and M.Z. Jelas (2006)—have established that when inclusive teaching is not
standing on solid knowledge about inclusive education, many teachers are wont to
think that inclusion policies are oppressive since they have to operate in a
landscape unfamiliar to them. Needless to say, having the right amount of
relevant knowledge and skills to get CSN where they ought to be is a necessary
condition for the practitioners of IE to succeed in the tricky terrain of inclusion.
According to Johnson, et.al., (2003), heterogeneous and cooperative group
arrangements of special learners in the inclusive education are used because they
are more effective for learning. The call for restructuring of American education to
establish meaningful educational standards (i.e., student outcomes) and to hold
schools accountable for accomplishing those outcomes with every student requires
great individual and collective commitment and effort. All restructuring efforts in
schools require, at the minimum, a belief that each student can and will learn and
succeed. Students at-risk can overcome the risk for failure through involvement in
a thoughtful and caring community of learners. Services and supports should not
be relegated to one setting (e.g., special classes or schools). Effective learning
results from the collaborative efforts of everyone working to ensure each student's
success.
Harris et.al., (2000) in their study entitled “Assessment of Multiple Approaches to
Inclusive Education” revealed that systems change initiatives in special education
are paralleling systems change efforts in general education. Special learners are
provided with individualized approaches to curriculum, assessment in the inclusive
education setting.
Synthesis of Literature and Studies to Present Study
The foregoing readings from different literature and studies, both foreign
and local, and the studies bear similarities with this present study. Inclusive
education as part of Special Education program is now accepted both
internationally and locally. It is because it is not the students’ fault to have a
special case. But importantly, local and international government supports the
program in helping special children to grow and learn things that normal children
can learn.
Teachers of special learners as viewed in both foreign and local studies felt
that their abilities were inadequate to teach children with different kinds of needs
and exceptionalities. They are both challenged in a situation that can change a life
of a person. As teachers, they are preparing lessons every day to help these
special children learn while having fun with the aim that all of them will receive
suited educational needs fitted to their exceptionalities or disabilities while
achieving all of their dreams in the future.
The study also supports the findings of the aforementioned researches
stated in this chapter. The only difference is that the foreign country has a lot of
facilities for the program and trainings for teachers handling inclusion program. On
the other hand, Philippines lacks programs for exceptional and for learners with
special needs. That is the reason why Department Education through Center for
Special Education would find ways to help teachers to be ready and to be
prepared in the program. This research can be used to help the department in
knowing what the current state of the teachers handling inclusion program are in
such a way that the researchers have a clearer view of their present study with
the help of previous literature and studies.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
This chapter discussed the research design, respondents of the study,
research instruments, sampling technique, data gathering procedures, research
instruments, validation, and statistical treatment of the data.
Research Design
Descriptive Design, particularly, descriptive survey was used in this study.
Descriptive survey is a method of gathering information from a subset (sample) of
a particular population of interest. Aday and Cornelius (2011).

Descriptive survey is most appropriate in this study because surveys are
commonly used to ask questions about things such as behaviors, opinions,
attitudes, beliefs, symptoms, and demographic characteristics. Fowler Jr., (2013).
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the elementary public school teachers
and principals of Inclusion Programs. The subjects were taken from the three
existing public elementary schools in the Division of Malabon City which offered
inclusive education program for Special Education pupils/ SEN.
The respondents of this study had a total of thirty-four (34) public school
teachers of Inclusion Programs and three (3) school heads of the respective
schools in the Division of Malabon City. They come from three public elementary
schools in the said division which offers SPED programs and inclusive education
namely 15 teachers from Ninoy Aquino Elementary School in Maya-Maya St,
Longos, Malabon, Metro Manila; 10 teachers from Tonsuya Elementary School in
Sanciangco St, Malabon, Metro Manila; and 9 teachers from Malabon Elementary
School in Naval Extension, Hulong Dagat, Malabon City, Metro Manila.
Schools in Malabon Frequency Percent

Ninoy Aquino Elementary School 15 45%
Maya-Maya St, Longos, Malabon, Metro

Manila
Tonsuya Elementary School 10 29%
Sanciangco St, Malabon, Metro Manila
Malabon Elementary School 9 26%
Naval Extension, Hulong Dagat,
Malabon City, Metro Manila.
Total 34 100%
Research Instruments
The researchers used the questionnaire for gathering data in determining
the level of readiness of teachers in the Division of Malabon City in the inclusion
program. The questionnaire, as designed by the researchers, included items from
Dep Ed IRR, books, civil service directives, unpublished and published thesis and
dissertations, informal interviews and observations.
The said instrument was divided into three parts. Part 1 was about the
profile of the teacher-respondents which includes the age, gender, educational
background, years in teaching, grade level taught and number of SPED pupils
included in the class.
Part 2 was about the statements pertaining to the readiness of teachers in
the inclusion program which tackled the dimensions of competency, classroom
management, instructional materials and assessment procedures.
Part 3 of the survey questionnaire was about the academic performance of
SPED pupils in First Periodic examination under inclusive education.

74.49-below = did not meet expectation 84.5-89.49 =very satisfactory
74.5-79.49 =fairly satisfactory 89.5-100=outstanding
79.5-84.49 =satisfactory
Moreover, this survey questionnaire was designed to assess the level of
readiness and of teachers using the rating in the Likert scale:
4 – Well Ready/Prepared = 3.50 – 4.00
3 – Ready/Prepared = 2.50 – 3.49
2 – Almost Ready/Prepared = 1.50 – 2.49
1 – Not Ready/Prepared = 1.00 – 1.49
Moreover, this survey questionnaire was designed to assess the level of
readiness of teachers in inclusive program and its relation using the interpretation
rating:
±1.00 Perfect Relationship ±0.20-±0.39 Low Relationship
±0.91-±0.99 Very High Relationship ±0.01-±0.19 Negligible Relationship
±0.70-±.90 High Relationship 0 No Relationship.
±0.40-±0.69 Moderate Relationship
Data Gathering Procedures

After rigorous validation and try-out testing the questionnaire’s validity and
reliability, the researcher followed the procedures in gathering data. As preliminary
activity, the researchers asked permission to the school locale through the
respective principals to conduct a research on their school and by giving them the
request letter addressed to the school head to conduct the said research. After
which, the researchers went to the Division Office of Malabon City Schools for the
approval of the conduct of research.
After the approval, the researcher administered the questionnaire to the
thirty-four (34) teachers and three (3) school heads as subjects of the study by
the second week of September, 2017. The researcher retrieved all the
questionnaires.
After the retrieval of the questionnaire, the researcher tabulated and
processed the data by machine. The data gathered were organized and analyzed.
The researchers made an assessment on the readiness of teachers in the inclusion
program. The responses were categorized first as a whole; second by age; third
by gender; fourth by educational background; fifth by years in teaching; sixth by
grade level taught; and lastly by the number of SPED pupils included in the class.
Sampling Techniques
In this research, sample of descriptive research on the readiness and of
teachers and school heads in the Division of Malabon City in the inclusion
program, non-scientific sampling design or non-probability sampling design was
the sampling design used.
The respondents had a total number of thirty four (34) permanent public
elementary school teachers. The researchers of the study used the consensus
sampling technique which all of the respondents answered the survey
questionnaire.
Validation of the Instruments
The first draft of the questionnaire was submitted to research experts
including the research professor for validation, corrections and suggestions.
Several changes and revisions were made. Some items were changed according to
the IRR of the inclusion program. A dry-run of the survey material was also
conducted as part of instrument validation before the actual conduct of the survey
in the schools subjected to this study. Each item of the questionnaire had options
3, retain; 2, needs improvement; and 1, delete. Based on the responses of the

teachers, the weighted mean for every item ranged form 2.5 to 3.0. Luckily, all
the items were retained. Hence, the questionnaire was valid.
In order to check the reliability of the questionnaire, the researchers used
Cronbach Alpha. Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal
consistency "reliability.” It is most commonly used when you have multiple Likert
questions in a survey/questionnaire that form a scale and you wish to determine if
the scale is reliable (anonymous, 2013). The answers in the readiness of the
teachers were collated and tabulated and the researchers obtained a reliability
coefficient of 0.75. This means the questionnaire was reliable.
Distribution and Retrieval of Instruments
The survey-questionnaire were distributed by the researchers among the
thirty-four (34) teacher-respondents and three (3) school heads of the three
respective elementary schools in Malabon. Then, after answering the
questionnaire, the researchers gathered and retrieved all of these survey forms
and tabulated the result.

Statistical Treatment
The statistical technique used in analyzing and interpreting the data
and testing the null hypotheses of the study includes the cumulative
percentage, weighted arithmetic mean, mean, one-way analysis of variance
(one-way ANOVA), and Pearson product moment correlation coefficient.
Problem 1
Cumulative percentage was used to determine each interval, much as
relative frequency distribution calculates the percentage of frequency of the
profile of the respondents. Cumulative percentage is another way of
expressing frequency distribution. The formula is as follows (anonymous,
2013):
cumulative percentage = (cumulative frequency ÷ total
number of population) x 100
Problem 2
Weighted Arithmetic Mean was used to determine the readiness of
teachers in the Division of Malabon City in the inclusion program. The
formula is as follows (Calmorin and Calmorin, 2007):

Where:
Σfx is the sum of frequency multiply by weight of each
option
Σf is the sum frequency of the subject
x̄ is the weighted mean
Problem 3
Mean was used to determine the academic performance of the SPED
children during the 1st quarter. To calculate (Sevilla 2014): Just add up all
the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are.
Problem 4
One-way ANNOVA was used to determine the significant difference
between the readiness of teachers in inclusion program. The researcher
used SPSS to assess the result.
Problem 5
Pearson Relation was used to determine the significant relationship
between the level of readiness of teacher-respondents to the academic
performance of the SPED children. The researcher used SPSS to assess the
result.
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter of the research study provided the researchers’ analysis and
interpretations on the data. Results in this chapter were presented using tables
and text presentations.

Table. 1.1
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile According to Age:
AGE Frequency Percentage
21-30 7 21%
31-40 14 41%
41-50 9 26%
51-60 4 12%
Total 34 100%
Table 1.1 presented the frequency distribution of the respondents’ profile
according to age. It showed that majority of the respondents were aged
31-40 years old as evidenced by its percentage at 41%. The remaining
59% was distributed to the other age groups.
Moreover, the table showed that most of the teachers who
were handling special learners under inclusion program are in the middle
adulthood age bracket.
Table 1.2
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile According to Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 8 24%
Female 26 76%
Total 34 100%
Similarly, table 1.2 represented the frequency distribution of the
respondents’ profile according to gender. Female got 76% or a frequency
of 26 and the remaining 24% or a frequency of 8 were male. Majority of
the respondents belonged to female group.
Table 1.3
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile According to Years of
Teaching
Years of teaching Frequency Percentage
1-3 6 18%
4-6 7 21%
7-10 4 11%
11-13 3 9%
14-16 6 18%
17-20 8 23%
Total 34 100%
Table 1.3 indicated that the 8 (23%) of the respondents has
a 17-20 years of teaching experience, 7 (21%) has 4-6 years of teaching
experience, the remaining 19 (56%) were distributed to the other group.
The result further explained that the years of teaching experiences of the
respondents who were handling special learners under inclusion program
in the selected schools were not the same length of tenure since it has
widespread distribution of percentage.
Table 1.4
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile According to Grade
Level Handled
Profile Frequency Percentage
Grade 1 8 23%
Grade 2 4 12%
Grade 3 5 15%
Grade 4 7 21%
Grade 6 10 29%
Total 34 100%
Table 1.4 showed that the following grade level handled of
the respondents. For grade 1, there were 8 (23%) respondents who
handled that grade level. For the grade 2, there were 4 (12%)
respondents, in grade 3, there were 5 (15%). While the 7 (21%) of the
respondents handled grade 4, and the remaining 10 (29%) handled
grade 6. Majority of the respondents handled grade 6. On the contrary,
there were no teachers in grade 5 who were handling inclusion program.
Further, the result showed that in 5 out of the 6 different
grade levels, there were special children who are in the regular class
under the inclusion program.
Table 1.5
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile According to Number

of Differently Abled Students Included in the Class
Number of Differently
Abled Students Frequency Percentage
1-2 31 91%
3-4 1 3%
5-6 0 0%
7-8 2 6%
Total 34 100%
Table 1.5 showed the number of SEN/ SPED pupils included in a regular
class. 31 or (91%) of the respondents answered that their teaching 1-2 SPED
pupils in their regular class every day. 1 (3%) answered 3-4 SPED pupils were
included in their class, while the remaining 2 (6%) answered 7-8 SPED pupils
were included in their regular class every day.
With this result, the table indicated tha most of the teacher-respondents
handled 1-2 differently abled pupils in their class, thus, the teacher gave more
attention to pupil with special needs to successfully achieved their daily activities
or tasks.
Table 2.1
Respondents’ Level of Readiness in the
Inclusion Program as to Competencies
The teacher is ready and prepared in handling Weighted Description

differently abled pupils because he/she : Mean
1. Have attended INSET courses and other events Almost Ready/

relevant to SENs (Special Educational Needs) for Prepared
continual professional growth. 2.47
2.35 Almost Ready/

2. Have identify strengths and weaknesses related Prepared
to their professional role with SEN pupils.
2.41 Almost Ready/
3. Maintain cooperative consultative relationships Prepared
with other professionals in Special Education.
2.29 Almost Ready/

4. Is able to identify potential SENs; sensory, Prepared
physical, intellectual or behavioral.
5. Have knowledge of, and be able to access 2.12 Almost Ready/
agencies relative to SENs. Prepared
Almost
Average 2.33 Ready/
Prepared
Table 2.1 presented the level of readiness of teachers based on their
competencies as regards with the inclusion program. As presented in the table,
“Attend INSET courses and other events relevant to SENs (Special Educational
Needs) for continual professional growth.” got the highest weighted mean of 2.47
with a description “almost ready/ prepared.” It can be deduced that most of the
respondents attended INSET courses to gain knowledge about Special Educational
Needs to help the children.
On the other hand, “Have knowledge of, and be able to access agencies
relative to SENs.” got the lowest weighted mean of 2.12 with has a description of
“almost ready/ prepared.” With this result, the table denoted that teacher –
respondents do not have knowledge on how to access agencies relative to Special
Educational Needs.
The level of readiness on the competencies got an overall weighted mean
of 2.33 with a description of “almost ready/ prepared”. This implied that teachers
were almost ready to handle inclusion program based on their competencies.
Hence, the results implied that the teacher-respondents were almost
ready/prepared in the required skills and ability in handling classes with inclusive
program.
Table 2.2
Inclusion Program as to Classroom Management

differently abled students because he/she : Mean
1. Have exhibits and communicate positive, but 2.50 Ready/

realistic attitudes to pupils with Special Prepared
Educational Needs.
2. Have demonstrate an ability to provide 2.35 Almost

appropriate positive reinforcements to motivate Ready/
SEN pupils Prepared
3. Undertakes effective and appropriate 2.32 Almost

classroom organization for pupils with SEN. Ready/
Prepared
4. Have monitor and facilitate group interaction 2.35 Almost

involving pupils with SEN. Ready/
Prepared
5. Demonstrate the ability to develop two-way 2.41 Almost

communication with pupils with SEN, on their Ready/
performance. Prepared
Average 2.39 Almost

Ready/
Prepared
Table 2.2 presented the level of readiness of teachers on their classroom
management as regards with the inclusion program. Based on the table, “Exhibits
and communicate positive, but realistic attitudes to pupils with Special Educational
Needs.” got the highest weighted mean of 2.50 with a description “ready/
prepared.” The table showed that most of the respondents communicated positive
attitude on their pupils most especially the children with Special Educational
Needs.
In contrast, “Undertakes effective and appropriate classroom organization
for pupils with SEN.” got the lowest weighted mean of 2.32 with a description of
“almost ready/ prepared.” In this regard, it indicated that teacher –respondents
give less importance in this area. Maybe, teachers wanted to give fairness to every
child that he/she is teaching.
Meanwhile, the level of readiness in classroom management got overall
weighted mean of 2.39 with a description of “almost ready/ prepared”. This
implied that they were almost ready/prepared in handling SENs based on their
classroom management. Thus, the results further implied that the teacher-
respondents were almost ready/prepared in the required process of ensuring the
classroom lessons run smoothly may be because of the behavior of the students.
Table 2.3
Inclusion Program as to Instructional Materials

1.Have demonstrate a knowledge of, and the 2.25 Almost Ready/

ability to acquire and use specialized and Prepared
adapted materials and equipment for pupils with
SEN.
2. Has able to devise and implement a planned 2.29 Almost Ready/
introduction, for pupils with SEN, into Prepared
mainstream school activities and classes.
3. Have develop and sequencing instructional 2.30 Almost Ready/

activities and material for the SEN pupils to learn Prepared
more.
4. Engage the SEN pupils in problem solving, 2.26 Almost Ready/
critical thinking, and other activities that make Prepared
subject matter meaningful.
5. Demonstrate an ability to provide appropriate 2.26 Almost Ready/

positive reinforcements to motivate SEN pupils. Prepared
Average 2.27 Almost

Ready/
Prepared
Table 2.3 presented the level of readiness of teachers based on their
instructional material as regard with the inclusion program. As shown in the table,
“Develops and sequence instructional activities and material for the SEN pupils to
learn more” got the highest weighted mean of 2.30 with a description “almost
ready/ prepared.” It can be inferred that most of the respondents are prepared in
sequencing their instructional materials with SEN pupils.
Alternatively, “Demonstrate a knowledge of, and the ability to acquire and
use specialized and adapted materials and equipment for pupils with SEN.” got the
lowest weighted mean of 2.25 with a description of “almost ready/ prepared.” In
its behalf, it is understood that teacher –respondents give less importance in this
area because teachers should not think about the SEN pupil only but instead he/
she should think of the whole class.
The level of readiness in instructional material got overall weighted mean of
2.27 with a description of “almost ready/ prepared”. This implied that teachers
were almost ready/ prepared in presenting their instructional materials in front of
the whole class with a SEN pupil included.
Hence, the results further implied that the teacher-respondents were
almost ready/prepared in having the best educational resources used to improve
the pupil’s knowledge, skills, and abilities in learning.
Table 2.4
Inclusion Program as to Assessment


1. Uses assessment material and gather relevant 2.23

information to develop an individualized Almost Ready/
programmed plan for children with SEN. Prepared
2. Demonstrate a working knowledge of 2.16 Almost Ready/

assessment and screening schedules and Prepared
instruments for use with SEN pupils
3. Knowledge of alternative assessment 2.21 Almost Ready/
techniques for SEN pupils. Prepared
4. Ability to select, adapt, and use assessment 2.03 Almost Ready/

information when tests are not validated on SEN Prepared
pupils.
5. Collects and uses multiple sources of 2.18 Almost Ready/
information to assess SEN pupils’ learning. Prepared
Average 2.16 Almost

Ready/
Prepared
Table 2.4 presented the level of readiness of teachers on their assessment
as regards with the inclusion program. As shown in the table, “Uses assessment
material and gather relevant information to develop an individualized programmed
plan for children with SEN” got the highest weighted mean of 2.23 with a
description “almost ready/ prepared.” It can be said that most of the respondents
used assessment material and gather relevant information to assess the SEN
pupil.
Meanwhile, the statement, “Ability to select, adapt, and use assessment
information when tests are not validated on SEN pupils” got the lowest weighted
mean of 2.03 with a description of “almost ready/ prepared.” In this matter, it was
understood that teacher –respondents give less importance in this area because
the ability to assess the pupil by using a invalidated test questionnaire didn’t prove
that the information are reliable on assessing the SEN pupil.
An overall weighted mean of 2.16 with a description of “almost ready/
prepared” was rated in the area of assessment. This implies that level of
readiness of teachers in assessing the SEN pupils are almost ready/ prepared. In
other words, the results further implied that the teacher-respondents were almost
ready/prepared in the required strategies to confirm the pupil’s knowledge or the
required program to demonstrate that they’ve met the curriculum outcomes for
the inclusion program.
Table 3.1
Academic performance of the SPED children during the 1 st quarter
Ninoy Aquino Elementary School
Grade Level No. of Pupils in No. of Test

Inclusive Program Items Mastery Level
1 4 30 75.69
2 5 30 75.40
3 3 40 76.23
4 1 40 76.42
6 2 50 77.43
Total 16 76.23
Table 3.1 showed the Academic Performance’ Mean of the SPED
children handled by the teacher-respondents in Ninoy Aquino Elementary School
based on their mastery level results during first quarter examination. It showed
that they have an average of 76.23 percent mastery level in their exam results.
With this, it showed that differently abled pupils got an average of a fairly
satisfactory grade based on their mastery level. This implied that the pupils have
the ability to follow directions with a minimal guidance from the teacher, and the
ability of read, and analyzed things.
Table 3.2
Tonsuya Elementary School
Grade Level No. of Pupils in No. of Test

Inclusive Program Items Mastery Level
1 2 30 75.16
2 2 30 76.31
3 3 40 75.22
4 3 40 77.20
6 2 50 76.91
Total 12 76.16
Table 3.2 showed the Academic Performance’ Mean of the SPED children
handled by the teacher-respondents in Tonsuya Elementary School based on their
mastery level results during first quarter examination. It showed that they have an
average of 76.16 percent mastery level in their exam results. With this, it showed
that differently abled pupils got an average of a fairly satisfactory grade based on
their mastery level. This implied that the pupils have the ability to follow directions
with a minimal guidance from the teacher, and the ability of read, and analyzed
things as based on the observation and interview conducted to the teachers of
these special learners.
Table 3.3
Malabon Elementary School

No. of Pupils in No. of Test

Grade Level Inclusive Program Items Mastery Level
1 5 30 76.62
2 4 30 75.38
3 3 40 77.32
4 4 40 75.29
6 5 50 78.82
Total 21 76.67
Table 3.3 showed the Academic Performance’ Mean of the SPED children
handled by the teacher-respondents in Malabon Elementary School based on their
mastery level results during first quarter examination. It showed that they have an
average of 76.67 percent mastery level in their exam results. With this, it showed
that differently abled pupils got an average of a fairly satisfactory grade based on
their mastery level. This further implied that the pupils with special needs under
inclusion program were performing fairly satisfactory in the examination.
Table 4.1
Significant Difference on the Level of readiness of the Respondents in the

Inclusion Program as to Competencies
P-
Profile Value Decision Remarks
Age 0.808 Accept Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Gender 0.140 Accept Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Years in teaching 0.636 Accept Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Grade level taught 0.616 Accept Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Number of students 0.630 Accept Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Table 4.1 presented the test of significant difference on the readiness of
teachers in terms of their competencies when profile was considered. In terms of
age, since the computed P-value of 0.808 was greater than the 5% level of
significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there was no significant
difference in the readiness on the teachers’ competencies in terms of age. With
this result, it showed a greater probability that the 5 age groups of respondents
were ready in the inclusion program.
In gender, since the computed P-value of 0.140 was greater than the 5%
level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there was no
significant difference in the readiness based on competencies of the respondents
in terms of gender. With this result, it showed a greater probability that the 2
gender groups, such as male and female, of respondents were ready in the
inclusion program.
In terms of years in teaching, since the computed P-value of 0.636 was
greater than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Hence, there was no significant difference in the readiness of teachers in the
inclusion program in terms of year in teaching experience. With this result, it
showed a greater probability that the 7 groups on years of teaching criteria were
ready in the inclusion program.
In the grade level taught, since the computed P-value of 0.616 was greater
than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore,
there was no significant difference in the readiness of teacher-respondents in the
inclusion program in terms of grade level taught. With this result, it showed a
greater probability that the respondents were ready in the inclusion program
regardless of their grade level taught.
In terms of number of SPED pupils, since the computed P-value of 0.63
was greater than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Therefore, there was no significant difference in readiness of teacher-respondents
in the inclusion program based on the number of SPED pupil included. With this
result, it showed a greater probability that the teacher respondents were ready in
The result showed that regardless of age, gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, and number of differently abled pupils in the class,
the teacher-respondents’ practiced the same procedures of assessment.

Table 4.2
Significant Difference on the Level of Readiness of the Respondents in the
Inclusion Program as to Classroom Management
P-
Age 0.101 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant

Gender 0.451 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Years in teaching 0.090 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Grade level taught 0.827 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant
Number of students 0.004 Rejected Null Hypothesis Significant
teachers on their classroom management when profile was considered. In age,
since the computed P-value of 0.101 was greater than the 5% level of
difference in the readiness on the teachers’ classroom management in terms of
age. With this result, it showed a greater probability that the 5 age group of
respondents were ready in the inclusion program.
In terms of gender, since the computed P-value of 0.451 was greater than
the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there
was no significant difference in the readiness based on classroom management of
the respondents in terms of gender. With this result, it showed that the 2 gender
groups, such as male and female, of respondents were ready in the inclusion
program.
inclusion program based on their classroom management in terms of year in
teaching experience. With this result, the data presented showed a greater
probability that the 7 groups in terms of years in teaching criteria were ready in
there was no significant difference in the readiness of teacher-respondents’
classroom management in the inclusion program in terms of grade level taught.
With this result, it showed a greater probability that the grade level taught were
ready in the inclusion program.
In terms of number of SPED pupils, since the computed P-value of 0.004
ws greater than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, the data showed that there was a significant difference in
readiness of teacher-respondents’ classroom management in the inclusion

program based on the number of SPED pupils included. With this result, it showed
a greater probability that the teacher respondents were ready in the inclusion
program.
It showed that regardless of age, gender, years of teaching experience, and
grade level taught in the class, the teacher-respondents’ practiced the same
procedures of assessment.
Furthermore, based on the number of special education pupils, it showed
that teachers changed their classroom management style when the number of
students was concerned.
Table 4.3
Significant Difference on the Level of Readiness of the Respondents in the

Inclusion Program as to Instructional Materials
Profile P-Value Decision Remarks

Number of students 0.721 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant
teachers on their classroom management when profile was considered. In terms
of age, since the computed P-value of 0.860 was greater than the 5% level of
difference in the readiness on the teachers’ instructional materials in terms of age.
With this result, it showed a greater probability that the 5 age groups of
respondents were ready in the inclusion program.
With regards to gender, since the computed P-value of 0.121 was greater
there was no significant difference in the readiness base on instructional materials
of the respondents in terms of gender. With this result, it showed a greater
probability that the 2 gender groups, such as male and female, of respondents
were ready in the inclusion program.
inclusion program based on the instructional materials and in terms of year in
teaching experience. With this result, it showed a greater probability that the 7
groups were ready in the inclusion program as regards to their years in teaching
criteria.
In terms of the grade level taught, since the computed P-value of 0.461
was greater than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Therefore, there was no significant difference in the readiness of the teacher-
respondents’ as regards to instructional materials and grade level taught. With this
result on, the table further showed that teacher-respondents were ready in the
inclusion program regardless of their grade level taught.
In number of SPED students, since the computed P-value of 0.721 was
Therefore, there was no significant difference in the readiness of teacher-
respondents’ in terms of instructional materials in the inclusion program based on
the number of SPED pupil included in the class. With this result, it showed that the
teacher respondents were ready in the inclusion program.
Moreover, the table showed that regardless of age, gender, year of
teaching experience, grade level taught, and number of differently abled pupils in
the class the teacher-respondents’ practiced the same assessment.

Table 4.4
Significant Difference on the Level of readiness of the Respondents in the

Inclusion Program as to Assessment
P-

Number of students 0.700 Accepted Null Hypothesis Not Significant
teachers on their assessment when profile was considered. In terms of age, since
the computed P-value of 0.117 was greater than the 5% level of significance, the
null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference in the
readiness on the teachers’ assessment in terms of age. The result showed that the
5 age groups of respondents were ready in the inclusion program.
In terms of gender, since the computed P-value of 0.880 was greater than
the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. For that reason,
there was no significant difference in the readiness based on assessment of the
respondents in terms of gender. With this outcome, it showed that the 2 gender
groups, such as male and female, of respondents were ready in the inclusion
program.
inclusion program based on their assessment in terms of number years in
teaching. With this result, it indicated that the 7 groups in terms of years in
teaching criteria were ready in the inclusion program.
than the 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted. And so, there
was no significant difference in the readiness of teacher-respondents’ assessment
in the inclusion program in terms of grade level taught. With this result, the data
showed that the teachers were ready in the inclusion program regardless of the
grade level taught.
In terms of number of SPED pupils under the inclusion program, since the
computed P-value of 0.700 is greater than the 5% level of significance, the null
hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference in

readiness of teacher-respondents’ assessment in the inclusion program based on
the number of SPED pupils included in regular class. With this result, the data
indicated that the teacher respondents were almost ready in the inclusion
program.
Further, according to the interview to the teachers who were teaching the
SPED pupils under inclusion program, they stated that regardless of age, gender,
years of teaching experiences, grade level taught, and number of SPED pupils
included in the regular class, they still practiced the same assessment procedures.
Table 5.0
Significant Relationship on the Level readiness of Respondents and Academic

Performance of SPED Pupils
Readiness Academic Performance
R Description P-Value Description Remark

Negligible Accepted Null Not
Competencies -0.066 Relationship 0.709 Hypothesis Significant
Classroom Negligible Accepted Null Not
Management -0.032 Relationship 0.858 Hypothesis Significant
Instructional Negligible Accepted Null Not
Materials -0.034 Relationship 0.848 Hypothesis Significant
Low Accepted Null Not
Assessment 0.256 Relationship 0.143 Hypothesis Significant
Table 5.0 was about the significant relationship between academic
performance and competencies. The table showed that the computed r of -0.066
with a description of negligible relationship was proven to be not significant since
the computed P-value 0.709 was greater than 0.05 level of significance. Given this
result, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, there was no significant
relationship between the students’ academic performance and teachers’ readiness
as to competencies.
Also, the result showed that, the academic performance of the pupils did
not depend on the readiness of the teachers as to competencies, classroom
management, instructional materials and assessment. This implied that the
readiness of teachers did not affect the grade of the pupils who under inclusion
program.
This further implied that there may be other factor other than the readiness
teacher that may affect the academic performance of differently abled pupils such
as parental involvement, school facilities, school programs/ activities, and the
readiness of the pupils to be included in the inclusion program.
However, based on the interview conducted with SPED coordinators of the
three schools, they said that teachers in regular classes undergone training on
how to handle “differently able pupils” or the SPED pupils to successfully
enhanced/improved their proficiency in handling and teaching children with special
needs under inclusive education.
ACTION PLAN TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF READINESS OF

TEACHERS ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
IN THE DIVISION CITY SCHOOLS OF MALABON
Rationale of the Program:
The Philippine educational system is experiencing a serious shortage of the
SPED teachers and specialists who teaches pupils with special needs who are
included in a regular classroom under the inclusive education program. Moreover,
it does not possess a sufficient number of appropriately qualified teachers,
psychologists and speech therapists. The existing situation is caused by a
combination of factors, the most significant of which is the generally low social
status and insufficient remuneration for the profession of teachers. The majority
of the schools are in quite grave conditions, in terms of both material technical
and methodological development.
General Objective:
To create a strong school of professional staff of inclusive and special
education in the Division City Schools of Malabon and to establish professional
standards of SPED teacher in inclusive education. In order to introduce humane
approaches of inclusive and special education, it is necessary to develop long-term
programs for preparation of the specialists of the implementation of inclusion
program in public schools.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion and
recommendations of the study.
Summary of Findings
The statement of the problem served as a frame of reference in presenting
the salient findings of this research. The following were the summary of the
findings of the study:
1. Majority of the respondents belonged to age 31-40, female, having 17-20
years in teaching, handling grade 6 pupils, and having 1-2 SPED pupils in
the regular class.

2. In the level of readiness of teachers in the inclusion program, an average
weighted mean has been rated on competencies (2.33), classroom
management (2.39), instructional materials (2.27), and assessment (2.16)
which showed that in all aspects of their readiness they were just almost
ready in handling inclusion program.

3. The average grade of a differently abled pupil included in the inclusion
program was 76.23 in Ninoy Aquino Elementary School, 76.16 in Tonsuya
Elementary School and 76.67 in Malabon Elementary School respectively.
This showed that pupils under inclusion program performed fairly
satisfactory in the first quester exam result based on their average mastery
level.
4. There was no significant difference on the level of readiness in all aspect of
the profile except on the classroom management and number of differently
abled students in class because it showed that teachers managed their

classroom based on the number of students and not to the ability of the
students.
5. The academic performance of the pupils did not depend on the readiness of
the teachers as to competencies, classroom management, instructional
materials and assessment. This means that readiness of teachers did not
affect the grade of pupil under inclusion program.

6. Teachers need to be trained and to gain more knowledge on the inclusion
program because it showed that they were just almost ready on the
inclusion program.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this research study, the following conclusions were
arrived at by this research pertinent to the readiness of teachers for inclusive
education program in selected elementary schools in the Division of Malabon City.
1. Teachers were not well prepared for the inclusion program of the
Department of Education. They needed more knowledge about the

program and they needed to be trained to handle the pupils who have
special needs properly.

2. The level of readiness of teachers did not affect the academic
performance of the differently abled pupils.

3. Different groups of respondents based on age, gender, years in
teaching experience, grade level handled, and number of differently
abled students included in the class were having different level of
readiness for the inclusive education program.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were
offered:
1. Teachers of Inclusive Programs
1.1 Undergo series of trainings, workshops and seminars on Special
Education and Inclusive Education that may enhance their level of
readiness in inclusion program.

1.2 Equip themselves with more knowledge about special education
programs by pursuing a specialization degree, or enrolling in a

graduate studies program on SPED that may increase their teaching
competencies.
1.3 Coordinate/seek for help to a SPED teacher, guidance counselor,
psychologists, and other professionals in handling such learners so
that it will not affect the way he/she teaches the other pupils in class
and thus may contribute in enhancing their classroom management
skills in inclusive classes.

2. SPED Teachers and Coordinators
2.1 Assist the classroom teacher and the parents of the SPED pupil in
creating and evaluating the needs, activities, background of the pupil
and other related information about the SPED pupil which may be
needed in conducting a proper assessment of the SPED learner.

3. Parents/Family of the SPED Learners
3.1 The family of the differently abled pupils should support and
coordinate to the teachers in guiding and teaching their children with
special needs.
3.2 Parents should be properly educated and well-informed about their
child’s needs and problems by closely coordinating with the
classroom teacher as to status of their child in school and by
involving themselves in the planning for individualized educational
program of their child.

3.3 They may be encouraged to attend seminars and workshops to
address the problems relevant to teaching and caring for their child
with special needs that will help set their homes as an extension of
learning.
4. DepEd Officials and School Administrators
4.1 Provide the individualized needs of the SPED children under the
inclusion program by giving priority programs and attention which
would be beneficial to both teachers and their special learner pupils.

4.2 They should find ways and means to have child-friendly school
physical facilities which has provisions for special learners and
disabled pupils.
4.3 Enhance school SPED programs in inclusive setting by creating
activities for special learners that will encourage them to expose
their abilities and talents.

4.4 Solicit assistance from the local government, sponsors and
stakeholders to increase the number of schools offering inclusive
education.
4.5 Support and suggest activities that will improve the readiness of
teachers in inclusive education through creating and sponsoring
teacher trainings.
5. Curriculum makers
5.1 Design a definite and structured curriculum for special learners in
inclusive setting that may be used by teachers in preparing their
lessons for their respective classes.

5.2 Formulate and strengthen some curriculum guidelines which may be
followed and applied by teachers of inclusion program and thus, may

lead in helping these SPED pupils understand the lesson the way
that other children does.

6. Local Government Units / Policy Makers
6.1 They must be given feedback with regards to the status of inclusion
program and the level of readiness of teachers in inclusive
education in the Division City Schools so that appropriate action and
support must be taken to improve the inclusive education of a
certain area or district.

7. Future researchers
7.1 Conduct a study that will test if there are changes in the level of
readiness when the action plan is submitted.

7.2 Conduct parallel study as they may look into the implementation of
inclusion programs in secondary level or in other school divisions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS:
 Richard A. Shade and Roger Stewart. “General Education and Special
Education Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion”. Published
Online, April 2010.

 Camera, Stephanie. “Teaching Tips and Strategies in Special Education”.
Manila, Meriam and Webster Bookstore, 2006.

 Aune, Beth Burt and Peter Gennaro “ Behavior Solutions for the
Inclussive Classroom”. Canada, Future Horizons Inc. 2010.

 Daugherty, Richard. “ Special Education: A summary of Legal
Requirements, Terms and Trends”. California. Beverly Hills Publishing
House, 2008.
 Hollis, Adrian. “ Understanding Special Children”. New York. Vintage
Books, 2007.
 Ilg, Maz Justin Dan. “ A Handbook on Salamanca Statement on Special
Education”. New York. Buccaneer Books, 2000.

 Marquez, Jovelyn. “ Direct Teaching for Students with Special Needs”.
Quezon City. Aspen Publishing House, 2006.

 Mendoza, Virginia. “ Promoting Learning for LD Students”. Manila,
Phoenix Publication, 2004

 Perez, Yolanda. “Special Education Teacher Training Tips”. Manila, Rex
Bookstore, 2007
 Richardson, Friedrich. “ Rethinking Professional Issues in Special
Education”. Chattanooga, TN. Brooklyn Publishing House, 2006.

 Skinner, Jean B. “The Least Restrictive Environment: Its Origin and
Interpretation in Special Education”. California. Shalom Publishing
House 2008.
 Thompson, Charles. “ Inclusion: Policy and Practices”, West Virginia.
Lincoln Publishing House, 2007.
B. JOURNALS, MAGAZINES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS:

 Abad, Philip Matthew “A Case Study on Special Education in the
Philippines”. Journal on Special Education. February 2000.

 Banion, Deborah. “Manifestation Determination of Special Children”.
Education Magazine, March, 2011.

 Mauro, Terri. “Special Needs of Children” Elite Gazette. November 2008.
 Morada, Cherry. “ DepEd: More Sectors are getting involved in the cause of
Special Education”. DepEd Education News. Volume XIV. October 12, 2007.
 Neas, Albert. “ The Exceptionally Gifted Children” New York Magazine,
August 2010.
 Ponder, Walden. “Special Children in the Philippines” Ponder Magazine.
January 11, 2008.

 Smith, Margarette. “National Curriculum of Special Children in UK” United
Kingdom Gazette. January 2011.

 Suarez, Elenita. “ Country’s Profile on Persons with Disabilities” The Manila
Bulletin. November 17, 2001.

 Swanson, Chistropher B. “ Status of the Special Education in America”
America News Today. October 2009.

 Tan, Tiffany. “ Consolidated Education Act” Autism Society of the
Philippines. April 15, 2010.

 Villamayor, Catherine. “ Educating Children with Disabilities and
Exceptionalities”. Manila Bulletin. March 2000.
C. THESIS AND DISSERTSTIONS

 Nepomuceno, “Status of the Special Education Program in the Public
Schools of the Division of Malabon”. Published Master’s Thesis. City of
Malabon University. 2011

 Moreover, De Guzman. “The characteristics of emotionally unstable
intermediate pupils in the Division of Bataan”. Published Master’s Thesis.
2008
 Gersten and Woodward, “ Attitude, Expectations of Teachers in Inclusive
Education”. Published 2009.

 Harris et.al.,“Assessment of Multiple Approaches to Inclusive Education”
Published 2000.
D. INTERNET WEBSITES:
 http://deped.gov.ph/orders/do-72-s-2009
 http://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=percentage
 http://www.academia.edu/7550613/Policy_Guidelines_on_Inclusion_of_Chil
dren_with_Special_Needs_Drawbacks_and_Challenges_in_the_Philippines_
and_New_Zealand
 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/173037/deped-widens-reach-of-special-
education-program
 http://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1476&context=dissertations
 https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=s5N0loPDRj4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=
0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 https://www.google.com.ph/search?sa=X&q=Inclusive+Education:
+International+Policy+%26+Practice&stick
 https://www.google.com.ph/search?sa=X&q=Teaching+in+Today
%27s+Inclusive+Classrooms:
+A+Universal+Design+for+Learning+Approach&stick
+Supporting+Diversity+in+the+Classroom&stick
+A+Casebook+and+Readings+for+Prospective+and+Practicing+Teachers
&stick
APPENDICES
RESEARCH TIME TABLE
ACTIVITIES DATE
1 Formulating Research Titles June 26-30, 2017
2 Submission of Proposed Research Titles July 1, 2017
3 Formulating the Statement of the Problem July 10-14, 2017
4 Submission of Proposed Statement of the July 15, 2017

Problem
5 Gathering of Related Literature (Raw Data) July 10-14, 2017
6 Initial Assessment of the Research Local (SPED July 19, 2017

Schools)
7 Preparation of Chapter 1 July 17-21, 2017
8 Submission of Chapter 1 July 22, 2017
9 Revision and editing of Chapter 1 July 24-28, 2017
10 Preparation of Chapter 2 July 31- August 4, 2017
11 Submission of Chapter 2 1st week, August 2017
12 Revision and editing of Chapter 2 2nd week, August 2017
13 Assessment of the Research Locale and Approval 3rd week, August 2017
for the conduct of research
14 Preparation of Chapter 3 3rd week, August 2017
15 Submission of Chapter 3 3rd week, August 2017
16 Revision and editing of Chapter 3 4th week, August 2017
17 Conduct of the Research Survey to Respondents 4th week, August 2017

18 Analysis of Data Collected 1st week, September 2017
19 Preparation of Chapter 4 1st week, September 2017
20 Submission of Chapter 4 2nd week, September 2017
21 Revision and editing of Chapter 4 3rd week, September 2017
22 Preparation of Chapter 5 3rd week, September 2017
23 Submission of Chapter 5 4th week, September 2017
24 Revision and editing of Chapter 5 1st week, October 2017
25 Research Defense 1st week, October 2017
26 Final Revision and Editing of Research 1st week, October 2017
27 Submission of Research Hard Bound Copies 2nd week, October 2017


Thesis Done Final Copy For Printing and Binding - Chapter 1-5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Done Final Copy For Printing and Binding - Chapter 1-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF MALABON UNIVERSITY Page

GRADUATE STUDIES & APPLIED RESEARCH 0

The Problem and Its Background

Inclusive program is a process of strengthening the capacity of the

The DepEd’s SPED program provides a complete approach in catering the

needs of learners with special needs. According to Dep Ed Order, entitled

“Institutionalizing of SPED Programs in all Schools, this program ensures that

visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, learning disability,

autism spectrum disorder, communication disorder, physical disability, emotional

In India, the Right to Education Act of 2011, which makes elementary

education a fundamental right of every child, is of great significance to the

According to Gupta (2014), inclusive education means education of all students,

where all students are equal participants in the learning process.

challenge to everyone. Teachers are constantly searching for practical guidance on

any length of time, sometimes presenting challenging behavior in the classroom

and disrupting learning for other pupils.

In the Philippines, definition of inclusion is described as the process by

which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals by reconsidering its

educational needs. (DepEd Policy Guidelines in Inclusive Education, 2009).

opportunities: formal, non-formal, or special education is treated in the same

sectors in the society.

Teachers need to ensure quality education even with the challenge of

academic capabilities and behavior. Furthermore, SPED teachers have undergone

education in selected elementary public schools in the Division of Malabon to their

profile and other factors such as competence, curriculum, classroom management,

It is hoped that through this study, concerned authorities will be able to

escalate their level of readiness of teachers who catered special education

programs in inclusive setting.

Statement of the Problem

Specifically, this study intends to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of the following:

regards the inclusion programs in terms of:

result in the periodic exam?

inclusive program based on the profile of the respondents?

teacher-respondents and the academic performance of the SPED pupils?

increase the level of readiness of teachers for inclusive education?

There is no significant difference in the teachers’ level of readiness on

inclusive program based on the profile of the respondents.

There is no significant relationship between the level of readiness in

inclusive education of teacher-respondents and the academic performance of

SPED pupils in the selected elementary schools in the Division of Malabon.

Figure 1: Research Paradigm

Significance of the Study

The purpose of this research is to determine the level of readiness of

selected teachers in inclusive education. This study, which supports research,

reviews the readiness of the teachers for inclusive education in selected

teachers to distinguish their strengths and weaknesses in terms of encountering

and handling pupils with special needs.

handling pupils with special needs.

by providing enhanced school-based guidelines that can be used to improve in-

service of education by the teachers with enough knowledge in encountering and

handling children with special needs.

provided with additional knowledge in modifying pupils’ learning with special

needs placed in a regular classroom setting.

the inclusion education in elementary schools.

curriculum makers in terms of enriching a curriculum that focuses more on how to

elementary schools in the Division of Malabon.

formulating and strengthening guidelines for a more effective implementation of

Scope and Delimitation

This research is limited to the study of the level of readiness of selected 34

special education programs namely, Malabon Elementary School, Tonsuya

Schools of Malabon during school year 2017-2018.

Assessment refers to strategies and means is designed to confirm what pupils