Main Article Content
Background: Education for children with autism in Thailand has three basic options; inclusive classroom, segregated classroom, and no school at all. Since children with autism is one of many types of disabilities that mandated in the law to have basic education that provided by the local schools, however, it seemed that children with autism is one group of disabilities that was mostly excluded from appropriate education.
Objective: The purpose of this multiple-participant case study was to explore the factors that impetus parents and/or caregivers of children with autism in choosing the right education approach for their children.
Methods: Using a qualitative approach, two types of data were collected. The open-ended interviews with focus groups with parents whose children attend each type of schools was conducted. The interview questions and topics used during the focus groups are designed to provide insight into what the parents and/or caregiver think about their choice of the school selected. Second, the formal and informal observation note that took in schools. Finally, the data were analyzed by using Nvivo program which was designed to organize and manage unstructured of qualitative data.
Results: The results were lead to understand the question about educating children with autism in four main area: 1) educational historical determinism which referred to agendas that related to educating children with autism; but still had not yet fully implemented; 2) government marginalization of the need of education for children with autism which referred to unclear legislation about how to make the law related in educating these children plausible; 3) parental and societal: lack of understanding of educating children with special needs which referred to the misconception about these children learning ability; and 4) educational: unbalanced and unequipped special education professionals and the crucial reality consideration which referred to the questionable skills of teachers in teaching these specific group of children.
Conclusions: This study provided information with a reasonably good understanding of the indication of the academic and behavioral expectations for children with autism who attend the school which leaded to the conclusion of the appropriate school for these children with autism.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
2. Heflin LJ, Alaimo DF. Students with autism spectrum disorders: effective instructional practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall; 2007.
3. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Data and Statistics, 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html. Accessed June 5, 2018.
4. The National Autistic Society. Autism and education in England 2017. https://www.autism.org.uk/~/media/nas/documents/get-involved/held-back/appga-autism-and-education-report.ashx?la=en-gb. Accessed June 5, 2018.
5. Limsila P. Autism in Thailand: From Textbook into Experience. In the Document of International Academic Conference titled “Teachers, Physicians, Parents: Dimensions for Autistic Person’s Potentiality Development. Bangkok, Thailand: Kasetsat University; 2002.
6. Hanbury M. Educating Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Practical Guide. London, New Delhi: Paul Chapman; 2005.
7. Jonsson T, Wiman R. Education, poverty and disability in developing countries, 2001. https://www4.congreso.gob.pe/comisiones/2006/discapacidad/tematico/educacion/Poverty-Education-Disability.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2018.
8. Evans P. Educating Students with Special Needs: A comparison of Inclusion Practice in OECD Countries. Education Canada. 2004;44(1):32-35. https://www.edcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/EdCan-2004-v44-n1-Evans.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2018.
9. Stough LM. Special educational and severe disabilities in Costa Rica: developing inclusion in a developing country. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabl. 2003;28(1):7-15. doi:10.2511/rpsd.28.1.7.
10. Ferri B, Connor DJ. Tools of exclusion: race, disability, and (re)segregated education. Teacher College Record. 2005;17(3):453-474.
11. UNESCO. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education, 1994. https://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF. Retrieved October 20, 2006. Accessed June 5, 2018.
12. Arayawinyu P, Lertsilp W. Inclusion. Bangkok, Thailand: JNT Publishing; 2008.
13. Thomas G, Loxley A. Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press; 2001.
14. Brown JL. Observing Dimensions of Learning in Classrooms and Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1995.
14. Bogdan RC, Biklen SK. Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1992.
16. Taylor SJ, Bogdan R. Introduction to qualitative research methods: the search for meanings. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1984.
17. Dykens EM, Hodapp RM. Research in mental retardation: toward an etiologic approach. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(1):49-71. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00702.
18. Dixon S. Inclusion - not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. Journal of Educational Thought (JET). 2005;39(1):33-53.
19. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
20. United Nations. Asian and pacific decade of disabled persons: mid-point-country perspectives. New York: United Nations Publication; 1999.
21. Price P, Takamine Y. The Asian and Pacific decade of disabled persons 1993-2002: what have we learned? Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal (APDRJ). 2003;14(2):115-127.
https://english.aifo.it/disability/apdrj/apdrj203/ap-decade.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2018.
22. OHCHR. Convention on the rights of the child, 1989. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm. Retrieved April 20, 2008. Accessed May 30, 2018.
23. UNESCO. Strong foundations: early childhood care and education. EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris: UNESCO; 2007. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147794e.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2018.
24. UNESCO. Inclusion of children and disabilities: the early childhood imperative. UNESCO Policy Brief on Early Childhood, Paris: UNESCO; 2009. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001831/183156e.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2018.
25. Bureau of the Budget. The budget Act of the annual expenditure budget. Bangkok, Thailand: The Parliamentary Budget Office; 2018. https://www.parliament.go.th/ewtadmin/ewt/parbudget/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=357. Accessed June 5, 2018.
26. ONEC. National Education Act of B.E. 2542. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of the Prime Minister; 1999. https://asean.org/storage/2016/08/Thailand184.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2018.
27. United Nations. Pathfinders: towards full participation and equality of persons with disabilities in the ESCAP region. Geneva, NY: United Nations; 2001.
28. Moberg S, Savolainen H. Struggling for inclusive education in the North and South: educators’ perceptions on inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(1):21-31. doi:10.1097/01.mrr.0000054970.12822.d6.