The Analysis of the Existence of Special Education Teacher in
Inclusive School in Indonesia
Munawir Yusuf, Erma Kumala Sari and Priyono Priyono
University of Sebelas Maret, Jl. Ir. Sutami no 36A, Surakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: Employment Status, Inclusive School, Recruitment, Regulation, Special Education Teacher, Work
Guideline.
Abstract: The aim of this study is to map the special education teachers’ (SET) problems in inclusive school. This
study used a mixed method research involving 265 SETs as respondents. The variables examined included:
(1) SET regulation, (2) SET recruitment process, (3) SET employment status, (4) SET work guidelines, and
(5) SET competence. Data were collected using a semi-open questionnaire and a competence scale. The data
was analyzed by quantitative and qualitative technique. The results of the study concluded that the existence
of SET in inclusive schools still faced problems in terms of regulation, recruitment, employment status, and
work guidelines. In addition, the ministerial regulation No. 70 / 2009 about inclusive education has not been
implemented optimally in inclusive schools. However, the teachers’ competence (pedagogy, professional,
personality, social, and special education competence) of SETs in inclusive schools in Indonesia are mostly
in good and adequate category. This study suggests that the government immediately organize the
regulation of SET to guarantee the existence of SET in the future.
1 INTRODUCTION
Inclusive education is now becoming an important
topic in education research’s in various countries
(India, Nepal, Pacific region, Canada, South Africa,
Arab, Madrid) around the world (Tilak, 2015;
Maudslay, 2014; Miles and Merumeru, 2014;
McCrimmon, 2014; Ntombela, 2011; Crabtree and
Williams, 2011; Bermejo et al., 2009). Inclusive
education also become the topic of education
researchs in all levels of education (Yusuf et al.,
2017; Mackey, 2014; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013). Many
studies show that implementation of inclusive
education in schools has a positive effect on
students, both students in general and those with
special needs (Waldron and McLesky, 2009; Salend
and Duhaney, 1999). Thus, inclusive education is
believed to be one of the solutions in expanding the
access and improving the quality of education in
schools (Waldron and McLesky, 2009; Salend and
Duhaney, 1999). Many previous researches above
about inclusive education show the importance of
inclusive education and inclusive school as the
topics of education researches.
One important aspect of the inclusive school is
the existence of special education teachers (SET).
Many researches have been done by previous
researchers associated with special education
teachers (Douglas et al., 2016; Vernon-Dotson et al.,
2014; Gehrke and Cocchiarella, 2013; Sindelar,
Brownell, and Billingsley, 2010; Takala et al., 2009;
Waldron, McLeskey, and Pacciano, 2009; Van
Laarhoven et al., 2007). Several studies have
focused on the preparation as SET in inclusive
school (Walker, 2016; McCrimmon, 2014; Vernon-
Dotson et al., 2014; Oyler, 2011; Van Laarhoven et
al., 2009), the role of SET in inclusive school
(Takala et al., 2009), the evaluation of SET in
inclusive school (Woolf, 2014), and the knowledge
of SET in inclusive education (Gehrke and
Cocchiarella, 2013). There is also a research that
discusses the status and future direction of the SET
(Sindelar et al., 2010). This study also discusses the
future direction of the SET. However, this research
is more focused on the analysis of the problems of
SETs (regulation, recruitment process, employment
status, and work guideline) and the competence of
SETs in inclusive schools in Indonesia.
The existence of SETs in regular schools is one
key to make the inclusive education better success.
Legislation in Indonesia explained that each of the
inclusive school is required to have at least one SET
Yusuf, M., Sari, E. and Priyono, P.
The Analysis of the Existence of Special Education Teacher in Inclusive School in Indonesia.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 2, pages 503-507
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
503

(Ministry of Education Act No. 70/ 2009). However,
the existence of SETs in inclusive schools has not
been completely protected, both in the employment
status and the career development. There is no
specific regulation governing the existence of SET
clearly. The existing regulation only explains about
the existence of class teachers, subject teachers, and
counseling teachers (Ministry of Empowerment and
Bureacratic Reformation No. 16/2009). In short, the
SET employment status in Indonesia has not been
protected.
Thus, it is necessary to do the assessment and
analysis relating to the existence of the SET in
inclusive schools in Indonesia in terms of the
problems faced and the competence of SET, so the
best solution could be found. Therefore, the study
aims to map the problems of SETs in Indonesia in
five perspectives, namely (1) SET regulations in
inclusive school, (2) SET recruitment process in
inclusive school, (3) SET employment status in
inclusive school, (4) SET work guidelines in
performing their duties in inclusive school, and (5)
SET competence.
2 METHODS
This study employed a mixed methods research
(Creswell, 2009) conducted in May until October
2016. The subjects were 265 SET in inclusive
schools in four districts/cities in Central Java
Indonesia (Surakarta, Boyolali, Salatiga, and
Wonogiri) obtained by purposive random sampling
technique. The research variables examined included
(1) SET regulations; (2) SET recruitment process;
(3) SET employment status; (4) SET work guideline,
and (5) SET competence.
The data were collected by a semi-open
questionnaire (9 quantitative and qualitative
questions) to measure the SET problems in inclusive
schools (regulation, recruitment process,
employment status, and work guideline) and a
competence scale (95 statements) to measure the
SET competencies in inclusive schools
(professional, pedagogic, social, personality, and
special education competence). Validity test results
(range from 0,422 – 0,765) indicated that the scale
was valid, while the reliability test results with
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha formulation
= 0,751) indicated that the scale was reliable.
Furthermore, the collected data were analyzed using
quantitative and qualitative analysis using trend
analysis and percentage of each of the variables
studied. Qualitative data was used to complete and
explain the quantitative data.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Regulation of Inclusive Education
and SET in Inclusive School
The result showed that there are still 36.1% inclusive
schools which have not had a regulation of inclusive
education, while 63.9% inclusive schools have had
it. However, the legislation in Indonesia regulation
stated that each of the inclusive school is required to
have at least one SET (Ministry of Education Act
No. 70/ 2009). It can be concluded that the existence
of inclusive education in inclusive schools has not
had a strong legislation. Thus, not all of the inclusive
schools get the same service fostering from
government.
Furthermore, 66.0% inclusive schools have not
had a regulation of SET, while only 34.0% inclusive
schools have had the regulation. It can be concluded
that the legislation of inclusive education in
Indonesia which explained that each of the inclusive
school is required to have at least one SET (Ministry
of Education Act No. 70/ 2009) has not been
implemented by all-inclusive schools in Indonesia.
Without a regulation of SET, the existence of SET
will become unclear.
3.2 SET Recruitment Process in
Inclusive School
Table 1 showed that most of the SETs (64.9%)
stated that the recruitment process was through the
formation by school (honorary teacher). Meanwhile,
some other SETs stated that the recruitment process
was through the formation by district/city/province
government (9.4%) and through aide-teacher from
special school (2.3%). Some teachers (23.4%) also
added that the recruitment process was through the
additional teaching hours and additional task as SET
(class teacher with additional task). These results
show that the numbers of SET in inclusive schools
who have government employee status are very few.
These findings indicate that the Ministerial
Regulation No 70/ 2009, particularly article 10
which obligates the district/city government to
provide at least one SET in every inclusive school,
has not been implemented optimally.
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
504

Table 1: SET Recruitment Process.
SET Recruitment Process
Sum
Percent
Formation by district/city/province
government
25
9.4%
Formation by school
(apprentice/part-time teacher)
172
64.9%
Aide-teacher from other schools
6
2.3%
Class teacher with additional task
62
23.4%
In terms of the requirement of SET, the results
show that 78.5% SETs reported had no requirements
demanded to be a SET, while only 21.5% SETs
stated there were some requirements to be a SET.
The requirements as a SET include: (1) graduating
from Special Education Department, (2) having
comprehension and experience of special education,
(3) having a professional background (Occupational
Therapist, Speech Therapy, Physical Therapy, and
Psychology), (4) having experience and being able
to handle children with special needs. In terms of the
SET selection process, the results showed that most
of the SETs (94.0%) stated there was not any a
certain selection process to be a SET, while 6.0%
SETs stated that there was a certain selection
process to be a SET. Thus, most of the SETs in
inclusive schools do not have the qualifications and
competency standards required. This condition is
certainly contrary to the legislation which states that
each teacher is required to have a minimum
qualification of undergraduate degree to meet the
pedagogical, personality, social and professional
competence (Act No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and
Lecturers).
To be a SET requires specialized professional
education and skills. In the states of the USA like in
Arlington, a bachelor is a minimal qualification of
SET, with specialized skills and sufficient field
experience in dealing with disabilities. License as
SET obtained only from the special education
program accredited by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In
developing countries like Vietnam, there are two
categories for the preparation of SET, (1) minimal
undergraduate (S1) or third diploma (D3) of
specialized professional education, or (2) taking
inclusive education program courses with a special
material. Today most of the teacher training colleges
in Vietnam have been offering inclusive education
curriculum at all levels (Nguyet and Thu, 2010).
3.3 SET Employment Status in
Inclusive School
Table 2 shows that the majority of SETs (44.2%) are
civil servant teachers with additional duties as SET;
50.1% SETs are apprentice/part-time teachers; and
5.7% SETs are permanent foundation employees.
Table 2: SET Employment Status.
SET Employment Status
Sum
Percent
Civil servants (with additional
duties as SET)
117
44.2%
Permanent foundation employees
15
5.7%
Apprentice/part-time teachers
134
50.1%
Based on the results, it can be concluded that the
SET employment status is largely the
apprentice/part-time teachers, so they do not get an
adequate salary standards and clear guidance career
as teachers in general. This condition is not
appropriate because the SET has important tasks and
jobs in dealing with special needs children in
inclusive schools (Takala et al., 2009: Pierangelo,
2004; The NCPSE, 2002).
3.4 SET Work Guidelines in Inclusive
School
SET is a special profession which requires certain
qualifications and competence (Act No. 14 of 2005).
As professional, SETs should run their duties based
on standard operating procedure (SOP) according to
the legislation of process standard (Ministry of
Education Act No.22/2016). The results showed that
most of the SETs (51.7%) work with a written
guideline, while 48.3% SETs work without a written
guideline. Most of the SETs who claim to have a
written guideline (81.5%) stated that the guideline
does not meet the requirement of work standard of
SET.
According to Takala et al (2009), SET work
includes three things (1) teaching, (2) consulting
services, and (3) the background work. It is also
explained by Pierangelo (2004) that SET is not only
a direct teaching, but also as paper working and
performing collaboration and consultation. It can be
concluded that SETs have various tasks (Pierangelo,
2004; NCPSE, 2002). Thus, the SET working
guideline in inclusive schools in Indonesia needs to
be clarified with a written guideline, so the SETs can
do their tasks professionally.
The Analysis of the Existence of Special Education Teacher in Inclusive School in Indonesia
505

3.5 SET Competence in Inclusive
School
Table 3 showed the descriptive statistic of the SET
competence in inclusive schools. The mean score of
SET competence is 293.95, with minimum score
149.00 and maximum score 419.00. Based on
analysis of categorization refers to the normal curve,
the score can be divided into five categories,
excellent, good, adequate, less and very less.
Table 3: The Descriptive Statistic of SET Competence.
N
Minimum
score
Maximum
score
Mean
Competence
265
149.00
419.00
293.95
Table 4: SET Competence Category.
SET Competence
Category
Range
Score
Sum
Percent (%)
Least
95 – 114
0
0.0
Less
115 – 200
7
2.6
Adequate
201 – 275
85
32.1
Good
276 – 351
143
54.0
Excellent
352 – 475
30
11.3
Table 4 showed that most of the SETs (54%) had
good competence; 32.1% SETs had adequate
competence, 11.3% respondents had excellent
competence, and only 2.6% respondents had less
competence. It can be concluded that the
competence SET (professional competence,
pedagogy, personality, social, and special education
competence) in inclusive schools in Indonesia are
mostly in good categories. The result of this research
has progressed slightly as compared to previous
studies (Martika et al., 2016; Gunarhadi et al., 2016;
Gunarhadi et al., 2012). Gunarhadi et al. (2016)
found that the level of knowledge and pedagogical
skills of SETs in 3 districts of Central Java are in
average and good category. The SET competence in
this study is still better than the regular teacher
competence, especially in special education
competence (Martika et al., 2016).
According to the act (Teacher Act No. 14/ 2005),
teacher should have 4 kinds of basic competencies
(pedagogical, personality, social and professional
competence). These results indicated that although
the employment status of SETs was still unclear, but
they still showed professional performances.
Therefore, their status must be recognized and
protected. They hope that their career in the future
will be recognized as well as teachers in general.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study concluded that (1) the
existence of SET in inclusive schools still faced with
problems in terms of regulation, recruitment,
employment status, and work guideline, (2) the
ministerial regulation No. 70/2009 about inclusive
education has not been implemented optimally in
inclusive schools, (3) the competence (pedagogy,
professional, personality, social, and special
education competence) of SETs in inclusive schools
in Indonesia are mostly in good and adequate
category. Therefore, special regulations of SET in
Indonesia must be drafted, so the existence and the
future of SET in inclusive schools in Indonesia can
be more protected as well as teachers in general and
the SET are able to work more professionally in
inclusive schools.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors acknowledge Program Unggulan Perguruan
Tinggi Negeri (PUPT) from RISTEK DIKTI.
REFERENCES
Bermejo, V. S., Castro, F. V., Martínez, F. M., Góngora,
D. P., 2009. Inclusive education in Spain: Developing
characteristics in Madrid, Extremadura and Andalusia.
Research in Comparative and International
Education. 4(3), 321-333.
Crabtree, S. A., Williams, R., 2013. Ethical implications
for research into inclusive education in Arab societies:
Reflections on the politicization of the personalized
research experience. International Social Work. 56(2),
148-161.
Creswell, J. W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, Sage
Publication. USA,
3rd
edition.
Douglas, S. N., Chapin, S. E., Nolan, J. F., 2016. Special
Education Teachers, Experiences Supporting and
Supervising Paraeducators, Implication for Special
and General Eucation Settings. The Journal of
Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceeptional Children. 39(1), 60 – 70.
Gehrke, R. S., Cocchiarella, M., 2013. Preservice special
and general educators’ knowledge of inclusion.
Teacher Education and Special Education: The
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
506

Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children. 36(3), 204-216.
Gunarhadi, Sugini, Andayani, T. R., 2012. Teachers’
Performance in Inclusive Education. Procedia-Asean
Academic Community International Conference. HS-
36-PF, 48-51.
Gunarhadi, Sunardi, Andayani, T. R., Anwar, M., 2016.
Pedagogic mapping of teacher competence in
inclusive schools. Procedia International Conference
of Teacher Training Education. 1(1), 389-394.
Mackey, M., 2014. Inclusive Education in the United
States: Middle School General Education Teachers’
Approaches to Inclusion. International Journal of
Instruction. 7(2), 5-21.
Martika, T., Salim, A., Yusuf, M., 2016. Understanding
Level of Regular Teachers’ Competency
Understanding to Children with Special Needs in
Inclusive School. European Journal of Special
Education Research. 1(3), 30-38.
Maudslay, L., 2014. Inclusive education in Nepal:
Assumptions and reality. Childhood. 21(3), 418-424.
McCrimmon, A. W., 2014. Inclusive Education in Canada:
Issues in Teacher Preparation. Intervention in School
and Clinic. 50(4), 234-237.
Miles, S., Lene, D., Merumeru, L., 2014. Making sense of
inclusive education in the Pacific region: Networking
as a way forward. Childhood. 21(3). 339-353.
Nguyet, D. T., Thu, H. L., 2010. How to Guide Preparing
Teachers for Inclusive Education, Chatolic Relief
Services. Vietnam.
Ntombela, S., 2011. The progress of inclusive education in
South Africa: Teachers’ experiences in a selected
district, KwaZulu-Natal. Improving Schools. 14(1), 5-
14.
Oyler, C., 2011. Teacher preparation for inclusive and
critical (special) education. Teacher Education and
Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children. 34(3), 201-218.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional (Permendiknas)
Nomor 70, 2009. tentang Penyelenggaraan
Pendidikan Inklusif.
Permenpan dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia
Nomor 16, 2009. tentang Jabatan Fungsional Guru
dan Angka Kreditnya.
Pierangelo, R., 2004. The Special Educator’s Survival
Guide, Jossey-Bass. San Fransisco.
Salend, S. J., Dunhaney, L. M. G., 1999. The Impact of
Inclusion on Students With and Without Disabilities
and Their Educator. Journal of Remedial and Special
Education. 20(2), 114 – 126.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., Billingsley, B., 2010.
Special education teacher education research: Current
status and future directions. Teacher Education and
Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children. 33(1), 8-24.
Sucuoğlu, B., Bakkaloğlu, H., Karasu, F. İ., Demir, Ş.,
Akalın, S., 2013. Inclusive preschool teachers: Their
attitudes and knowledge about inclusion. International
Journal of Early Childhood Special Education. 5(2),
107-128.
Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R., Törmänen, M., 2009.
RESEARCH SECTION: Inclusive special education:
the role of special education teachers in Finland.
British Journal of Special Education. 36(3), 162-173.
The NCPSE (National Clearinghouse for Professions
Sspecial Education), 2002. Special Education
Teacher, Making a Difference in the Lives of Students
with Special Needs, Council for Exceptional Children.
Arlington.
Tilak, J. B., 2015. How Inclusive Is Higher Education in
India? Social Change. 45(2), 185-223.
Undang – Undang Nomor 14, 2005. tentang Guru dan
Dosen.
Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J.,
Rouse, J., 2007. A model for preparing special and
general education preservice teachers for inclusive
education. Journal of Teacher Education. 58(5), 440-
455.
Vernon-Dotson, L. J., Floyd, L. O., Dukes, C., Darling, S.
M., 2014. Course delivery: Keystones of effective
special education teacher preparation. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children. 37(1), 34-50.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., Pacchiano, D., 2009.
Giving teachers a voice: Teachers' perspectives
regarding elementary inclusive school programs (ISP).
Teacher Education and Special Education: The
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children. 22(3), 141-153.
Walker, Z., 2016. Special Education Teacher Preparation
in Singapore’s Dual Education System. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children. 39(3), 178-190.
Woolf, S. B., 2014. Special Education Professional
Standards How Important Are They in the Context of
Teacher Performance Evaluation?. Teacher Education
and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children. 38(4), 276-290.
Yusuf, M., Sugini, Choiri, S., Rejeki, D. S., 2017.
Development of inclusive education course at the
faculty of teacher training and education Universitas
Sebelas Maret. International Journal for Studies on
Children, Women, Elderly, and Disabled. 1, 121-126.
The Analysis of the Existence of Special Education Teacher in Inclusive School in Indonesia
507