Misión

Policy barriers are frequently related to either a lack of awareness or enforcement of existing policies and regulations that were developed to protect disabled people (Cushing et al., 2005). In line with this, MP5 pointed out that “I am sure that many teachers and principals of mainstream schools have no idea about the DRRSEIP policy. I am sure that some of them might not even have heard of it” (p. 4). Besides MP5, many interviewees stated their frustration regarding the barriers created by the lack of awareness or enforcement of existing Saudi laws and regulations concerning disabled pupils. Under this theme, two sub-themes generated from the data concern how the policy of the self-contained class-size was violated in schools where they teach and how the policy of a special education bonus (i.e. monetary reward) creates conflict, disagreement and a lack of collaboration and coordination among teachers. I will now present data relevant to the two emergent sub-themes in individualised form below.

Twelve teachers expressed concern and frustration regarding their schools’ violation of articles concerning self-contained class-size set out in the DRRSEIP policy. MP1 pointed out that each self-contained classroom in the school where he teaches has more than 15 pupils. MP5 expressed the same concern, saying that “The DRRSEIP policy stated that the number of pupils in a self-contained classroom should be between 5-8, but in the real world, self- contained classrooms in our schools contain between 15-20 pupils” (p. 4). MP15 shared MP5s view, commenting that

“The DRRSEIP policy clearly stated the number of pupils should not exceed eight in a self-contained classroom. However, in reality, the number is much more. My classroom has 15 pupils and my friends in other schools teach between 15-20 in one self-contained classroom” (p. 10).

MP3 expanded on this when he acknowledged that Saudi schools violate not only the class- size articles but many other articles set out in the DRRSEIP policy, which demonstrates the disrespect towards the policy and regulations concerning disabled pupils.

MP11 and FP15 elaborated by explaining that self-contained classrooms are not only over- crowded and taught by just one teacher, but that the school administration also places students of different ages and educational levels together in one self-contained classroom. MP11 provided support for this when he explained that “My classroom houses second graders, third graders and fifth graders… It is a second-grade class but due to the lack of classrooms they [school administration] combined all [disabled pupils] together which makes it impossible for me to teach effectively” (p. 4). MP13 expressed a similar concern when he said, “I teach 21 mildly intellectually disabled pupils in a self-contained classroom… It is a big challenge because of the large number of pupils and I am the only teacher” (p. 12). Further, FP6 noted that “Saudi schools have no teaching assistants [TAs]” (p. 12). TAs are considered vital for inclusive schools because they support the main teachers’ meeting the requirements of all pupils (see for example, Rose, 2001; Alston & Kilham, 2004; Symes &

Humphrey, 2012). A disabled teacher (DFP4) shared the same concern, stating that “If you inspect the field you will find a self-contained classroom with 65 pupils, taught by one teacher. In fact, the teacher becomes a guard instead of a teacher”. Then she angrily concluded, “They don’t really care about the experience and feelings of disabled pupils” (p. 6). The key theme/finding of this section is that “self-contained class-size is an issue that must be addressed” (FP10, p. 12 & FP13, p. 14). This call is shared by many of the participant teachers, as shown in sections 7.6 and 8.1.3.

6.1.3.2 The Special Education Bonus Barrier

Eight teachers shared the view that the ‘special education bonus’ (i.e. a monetary reward for teachers and principals who teach or interact with students labeled as disabled) is a barrier to constructing an inclusive education. They believed that the bonus contributes to sustaining conflict among school professionals and perpetuates negative attitudes and practices towards disabled pupils. As MP10 carefully opined:

“The bonus contributes to perpetuating negative attitudes and rejection of disabled pupils from teachers who don’t get it… some teachers deny doing anything related to disabled pupils, arguing that they don’t receive the bonus. This significantly contributes to slowing the movement towards more inclusive opportunities for disabled pupils. In sum, it is a fundamental barrier which must be addressed” (p. 8- 9).

MP5 described the bonus as “a problem-maker”. He stated that the bonus gives teachers who teach disabled pupils an additional 30% above their salary, in addition to providing principals with an additional 20% above their salary. MP5, however, noted that “Once inclusion is implemented in the school and they get the bonus, the majority do not really care about disabled pupils’ experiences, whether good or bad” (p. 2). FP5 and FP13 concurred with this. They believed that the majority of their schools’ cadres were against the inclusion of disabled

pupils in schools where they teach but that the bonus acted as a motivation for them to accept inclusion.

MP6 expressed a similar view in which he perceived the bonus as a focal factor for disabled pupils’ unpleasant educational experiences, stating that “I deem it [bonus] as a focal factor for disabled pupils’ academic underachievement because it attracts teachers to teach disabled pupils even if they aren’t qualified, have negative beliefs, and don’t have the internal motivation to do this job” (p. 8). MP7 viewed it as a conflict-creator when he said:

“The bonus policy creates conflicts among teachers who receive it and those who don’t. This affected their teaching collaboration, coordination and disabled pupils’ inclusive experience more widely. Those who don’t receive it reject disabled pupils being in their classrooms or to doing anything that is related to disabled pupils” (p. 7).

Drawing on this, DMP2, MP5, MP11, FP8, FP10 and FP15 reported that the lack of collaboration and coordination of teachers among themselves and other school personnel affected the enforcement of an inclusive milieu in schools where they teach. MP11 confirmed this when he said that the “School administration doesn’t encourage teachers to collaborate and coordinate with each other when it comes to disabled pupils. They want the teachers to be guardians in the classroom…as long as they receive the bonus every month” (p. 4). Deci and Ryan (1992), Kohn (1999) and Palardy (1988) (as cited in Witzel, Mercer & Cecil, 2003) support the above criticism of the monetary reward by arguing that the use of long-term extrinsic rewards might significantly affect receivers’ inner motivation and commitment to their job.

To conclude, MP13 stated a critical viewpoint which explains how dis/ableism is enhanced by maintaining the special education bonus. He said, “Teachers who receive the bonus are being discriminated against, labeled with inappropriate terminology such as ‘teachers of

fools’ or ‘teachers of abnormal pupils’ and are seen as inferior because they teach disabled pupils” (p. 12). Vygotsky warned of such consequences when arguing for the importance of treating all students in the same manner, as well as standing against the labelling and exclusion of disabled children because this not only affected the feelings and social status of disabled children but also their teachers, for example, by being labelled as ‘a teacher of fools’ (Rieber & Robinson, 2004).