THE EFFECT OF SIGNIFICATION, RESOURCE DOMINATION, AND LEGITIMACY AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LEGITIMACY ON INCLUSIVITY OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SURAKARTA CITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/umran2017.4n1-1.197Keywords:
Signification, Resource Domination, Legitimacy, Inclusivity, StructureAbstract
Abstract
Inclusive education is still new and faces many problems in education service in Indonesia. This research aimed to find out the effect of signification, resource domination, and legitimacy on inclusivity of education and to find out the forms of signification, resourcedomination, and legitimacy in inclusive education in fiteen Elementary Schools organizing inclusive education in Surakarta This research employed a combined quantitative and qualitative method with embedded concurrent strategy. Data collection was carried out using questionnaire, interview, and observation. The subject of research was teacher with confidence level of 95%, and quantitative sample consisted of 246 respondents. The informant for qualitative data consisted of 17 persons taken purposively, using maximum variation sampling technique. The analysis of data was conducted using simple and multiple linear regressions equipped with description of qualitative data using Anthony Giddens’ structuring theory.The result of research show that education inclusivity belonged to low category. The result of linear regression calculation showed that the relationship between signification and education inclusiveness was fairly strong and positive (59.2%). The relationship between resource domination and education inclusiveness was fairly strong and positive (77.3%). The relationship between legitimacy and education inclusiveness was fairly strong and positive (66.6%). The result of multiple regression showed that the relationship between signification, resource domination and legitimacy was simultaneously strong and positive (81%). The forms of signification, domination and legitimacy of incusive education were includeimmaterials, such as work culture and religious belief values affecting the diversity of education inclusivity.Considering the analysis conducted show that the implementation of inclusive education is still far from its ideal indicators. Many requirements should be met to organize the inclusive education to make this city fasible to be called inclusice city.
References
Booth, Tony & Ainscow, Mel.(2002). Index for Inclusion. Center for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Cresswell, John W. (2012). Research Design Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan Mixed. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar .
Giddens, Anthony. (2010). Teori Strukturasi Dasar-dasar Pembentukan Struktur Sosial Masyarakat. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Karsidi, Ravik. (2008). Sosiologi Pendidikan. Surakarta: UNS Press.
Permendiknas Nomor 70 Tahun 2009 tentang PendidikanInklusif (Pensif) Bagi PesertaDidik yang Memiliki Kelainan dan Memiliki Potensi Kecerdasan dan/atau Bakat Istimewa.
Pernyataan Salamanca dan Kerangka Aksi Pendidikan Kebutuhan Khusus, (1994).
Sutopo, H.B. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. UNS Press: Surakarta.
Slamet, Y. (2006). Metode Penelitian Sosial. Surakarta: LPP UNS dan UNS Press.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
Yusuf, Munawir. (2014). Model ManajemenPendidikanInklusif. Disertasi, Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in UMRAN - International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions or any other reproductions of similar a nature.