The need for professional development and concerns about academic standards

A recurring theme that occurred during the data analysis was the concern about the professional development of teachers. When looking at the total teaching

population of Bhutan, 70 % of teachers have at least a college degree in education. When looking specifically at only those teachers who teach students with SEN, 90 % of those teachers have at least a college degree in education (Ministry of Education, 2013). It is evident from the findings of the current study that teachers teaching in inclusive and special schools in Bhutan have sound education qualifications. Interestingly, the majority of the teachers in the current study recognized that all staff needed to be trained in order to promote and support inclusive practices in their schools which was similar to the outcome of Waldron’s (2007) study. Waldron reported that about 70% of the general teachers lacked the expertise to teach students with SEN in inclusive schools.

Ensuring that all children are supported and catered for in curriculum delivery should be the key focus of professional development for teachers. This study has identified the need for retraining of the teachers teaching in schools in inclusive education pedagogies. Such training courses and workshops would provide teachers and practitioners with the necessary knowledge about effective inclusive education practices and management strategies when dealing with students with SEN.

Furthermore, the findings which emerged from the study illustrated that teachers held the view that new teachers were not adequately prepared during the initial teacher training courses to teach in inclusive classrooms. These findings support Campbell and Gilmore’s (2003) claim that new teachers initially hold unfavourable attitudes children with SEN. However, with some exposure and experience in working with these children, teachers can change their attitudes and be more comfortable in accepting the nature of disability. Most of the teachers established that teacher preparation by the colleges needed to be strengthened. Bhutan is investing in teacher development in this area. In 2014, staff from the Paro Teachers College in Bhutan participated in an Australian Aid funded program at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane. This program focused on enhancing the ability of teacher educators to teach pre-service teachers about the principles and practices of inclusive education.

Previous research has shown that scholars, educators, administrators as well as planners have paid limited attention to addressing the quality of education for

students with SEN, particularly for students attending the inclusive schools (Warnock, 2005; Pirrie & Head, 2007). As discussed in chapter 2 (section 2.3) Warnock (2005) was highly critical and considered inclusion a disputable approach. She argues that in the process of trying to conform to various international declarations on inclusive education, the essence of academic learning had weakened. Likewise, the current study found that teachers in Bhutan were less concerned about the academic standards of their students with SEN. One teacher expressed her experience of concern towards this via responding to an open-ended question;

There are a few students with SEN in my school, but I am not able to cope with them and they have never improved in the last three years. (Female

teacher, aged 44-54, inclusive school).

The above finding indicates that the teacher has an inclusive mindset. But her inability to support students with SEN did not link to effectiveness of inclusion. This is seen as a difference frequently observed (Lindsay, 2007). According to Phillips, Alfred, Brulli, and Shank (as cited in McDonald & Tufue-Dolgoy, 2013), the best way to resolve such disconnect was through training and knowledge which was lacking among the Bhutanese teachers.

There was minimal mention about the relationship between academic standards of their students with SEN and their performance in teaching. This finding supports Barton’s (1997) claim that inclusion is not merely about placing students with SEN in schools with other students, “rather it is about how, where and why, and with what consequences, we educate all pupils” (p. 234). Hence, there is a need to reinforce the focus of inclusive education towards academic standards of students with SEN.

The current study also found that teacher performance can have a direct bearing on the academic standards of inclusive schools. Subban and Sharma’s, (2006) discussion regarding mandatory course in special/inclusive education enforced in New South Wales and Queensland in Australia can be a point of discussion among the colleges of education in Bhutan. This study found that teachers expressed that pre-service teacher education needs to strengthened.

Another important area identified in this study was the usage of ICT in classrooms to support and enhance learning for children with SEN. Teachers need to be trained for this. Teachers in this study were able to identify the need for using ICT in classrooms which Starcic (2010) described as being inadequate in many countries. This is a new strategy that can make teaching effective and at the same time enable the learners to feel that they are being included.

In Bhutan, teacher performance is evaluated using three different strategies endorsed by the Bhutan Civil Service Rules (Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 46-48): (a) performance appraisal: schools ensure that the performance outputs of the teachers are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time- bound) and relevant; (b) evaluation rating: done on a scale of 1-4 (1: Outstanding, 2: Very Good, 3: Good, and 4: Needs Improvement) to facilitate planning for improvement, incentives and rewards; and

(c) performance based incentives: out-of-turn and fast track promotions to outstanding performing teachers in line with Bhutan Civil Service Rules.

However, in the absence of any reliable data on the overall performance of teachers teaching children with SEN in Bhutan, it is difficult to comment on their performance. In other words, this could mean that teachers have no reliable and objective way to evaluate their own performance in educating children with SEN. Therefore, it is not clear how teachers’ performance is measured or assessed in this area.