Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education in Guatemala

Background: Dramatic changes have occurred in the educational system of Guatemala in the last 20 years.  Prior to 1996, formal education in rural areas was non-existent.  In December 1996, Peace Accords were signed in Guatemala, which included creating an inclusive educational system.  Although Guatemala has seen improvements in their educational system there are still youth who are not getting the education they need and the education system struggles to be inclusive. 

There has been limited research on the Ministry’s attitude towards implementing an inclusive education system.  This paper examines the Ministry’s attitude towards inclusive education by using the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) (Wilczenski, 1992).  Focus groups among key stakeholders were conducted to examine inclusive education in the Ministry. 

Methods: Data were collected using a mixed methods approach with focus groups and a cross-sectional survey design.  All Ministry employees were asked to participate in the study.  They survey was e-mailed to 760 Ministry employees and 266 completed the survey (35% response rate).  Respondents consisted of 155 females (58%) and 111 males (42%).  The average age for respondents was 40 years (SD = 9.2).  The majority of respondents had their bachelor’s degree and have been working at the Ministry for an average of 8 years (SD= 7 years).

ANOVA’s were conducted to evaluate the degree to which differences exist across the Ministry departments in regards to their scores on the ATIES. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically using NVivo qualitative software. Focus groups were analyzed using a grounded theory method.

Results: The overall group mean on the Attitude Towards Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) was 63.7 (SD= 17.9). The scale had a maximum score of 96 and a minimum score of 16.  Among respondents in the four departments in the Ministry we observed an average mean score of 73.1 (SD=19.2) in the technical departments, 58.9 (SD=16.8) in the administrative departments, 65.6  (SD=16.0) in the multicultural departments, and 70.1 (SD=16.7) in the quality and research Departments.  The ANOVA showed that scores on the Attitude Towards Inclusive Education Scale were associated with the respondent’s corresponding department (M=63.7, SD=17.9, F(2996.8, 290.4)=10.32, p<.0005).

The focus groups revealed that there were three definition of inclusive education being used in the Ministry.  One category described inclusive education using UNESCO’s education for all agenda.  A second category present in the data defined inclusive education as a system that met the needs of students with disabilities. The last category of definitions was those respondents who were unfamiliar with the topic or stated that the question did not apply to them.

Implications:   We observed that the attitude towards inclusive education varied among the different departments and that there were various definitions of the term “inclusive education”. Policies are best implemented when there is a clear definition; therefore, the Ministry should attempt to develop a unified definition of inclusive education.  Having a clearer definition could increase the Ministry’s overall attitude towards inclusive education and provide an education system that is inclusive.