Inclusive education in the Russian Federation. Inclusion as the main principle of modern educational policy Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”

The state educational policy of the Russian Federation in recent years has seriously changed the guidelines regarding the organization of the educational process and options for obtaining general education for students with disabilities. A number of facts indicate that priorities are given to inclusive forms of education.

An article has appeared in the Federal Law that directly indicates the obligation of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments to create the necessary conditions “for receiving, without discrimination, quality education by persons with disabilities,” including through the organization of inclusive education.

Over the past five years, the number of special educational organizations providing training in adapted educational programs for children with disabilities (formerly special correctional educational institutions) in our country has decreased significantly. With a constant increase in the total number of students with disabilities and the preservation of the average occupancy of educational organizations implementing adapted educational programs, the number of these educational institutions has decreased since 2010, according to various sources, by 5-8%. Thus, at a meeting of the Council of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science in June 2015, D.V. Livanov. the following figures were given: “The number of correctional schools in Russia has decreased by 3.9% over the last three years. The number of children with disabilities and disabilities studying inclusively increased by 15.5% - from 137,673 children in the 2012/2013 academic year to 159,125 in the 2014/2015 academic year.At the same time, 481,587 children with disabilities are currently studying in general education organizations, of which 212,167 children are in 1,660 separate educational organizations, 110,295 are in general education organizations in separate classes with adapted general education programs, and 159,125 children in inclusive classes of general education organizations."

There is every reason to believe that the increase in the number of children with disabilities studying inclusively will continue in the coming years. This will most likely be due to three main factors.

The first is a wide public outcry caused by the legislatively established requirement for the introduction of special educational standards into the practice of all schools without exception, and the unprecedented expansion of the rights to receive an affordable quality education for persons with disabilities by Federal Law. Doors have opened for parents (legal representatives) of students with disabilities, which for many years only the most persistent could try to knock on, and then with relative success, since before the adoption of the Federal Law, educational organizations were not fully responsible for creating special conditions for organizing the educational process according to adapted educational programs. With the adoption of the Federal Law and special educational standards, almost all educational rights are transferred to parents of children with disabilities, while general education organizations acquire many previously unusual responsibilities, the main of which is the creation of all groups of conditions in accordance with the special educational option recommended to the student. standard Thus, there are practically no administrative obstacles to teaching a child with disabilities in an inclusive format.

The second factor contributing to the growth in the number of inclusive students with disabilities is the lack of awareness of parents (legal representatives) about the boundaries of qualified and non-qualified education for children with disabilities in the inclusion format.

It should be noted that the concept of “educational qualification” is not spelled out in detail in the Federal Law, although the existing levels of general education received are indicated: basic general and secondary complete education. “Persons with disabilities (with various forms of mental retardation) who do not have a basic general or secondary general education and have studied in adapted basic general education programs are issued a certificate of training according to the model and in the manner established by the federal executive body exercising the functions of development of state policy and legal regulation in the field of education." In the text of special educational standards, much attention is paid to various options for adapted educational programs, on which the level of education received within a particular adapted educational program depends, since for students with mental retardation (intellectual disability) it is the non-qualifying level that is assumed, but the distinction between the concepts of “qualified” " and there is no "non-licensed" education.

Thus, there is an information deficit, which largely determines the misunderstanding on the part of parents about what document on education (training) their child will receive while studying in adapted educational programs. Most parents, when deciding on choosing an educational institution for their child, are guided by the consideration that in a mass (general education) school their child will receive the same education document as all other students, regardless of what program (and what option) special educational standard) will be trained. We conducted a study of the awareness of parents (legal representatives) regarding this aspect. 60 parents (legal representatives) of students with disabilities were interviewed, who, according to the recommendations of the PMPC, were asked to change the basic general education program of primary general education (hereinafter referred to as GEP) to adapted educational programs of different training options. The contents of the survey are presented in Appendix A. The following results were obtained from the survey. Out of 60 parents (legal representatives), 40 believe that when studying in a public school (regardless of the conclusion of the PMPK and the version of the adapted educational program recommended for the child), children with disabilities receive the same education as their classmates, and the same document on education according to completion of training. Another five parents believe that transfer from a public school to a special educational organization (institution) implementing adapted educational programs (regardless of the conclusion of the PMPC and the type of adapted educational program recommended for the child) deprives the child of the opportunity to receive a qualified education. And only 15 parents (legal representatives) showed an understanding that the level of education does not depend on the place where the child is studying, but on the educational program recommended in accordance with the conclusion of the PMPC.

Thus, in this example we see that about 75% of parents (legal representatives) of students with disabilities are not fully aware of the level of education their child will receive in various forms of organizing the educational process according to adapted educational programs.

Obviously, it will take more than one year and serious educational work for parents to understand that the level of education and the educational document obtained as a result of education do not depend on the choice of place of education.

The third factor that can seriously affect the predominance of an inclusive form of organizing the educational process according to adapted educational programs is the economic factor. The very high level of requirements for special conditions, laid down in special educational standards for almost all educational options, is not immediately (by September 1, 2016) fully achievable in all subjects of the Russian Federation, especially in the context of a growing economic crisis. Since the most obvious failure to meet the requirements for the conditions for organizing the educational process in accordance with special educational standards can be noted in places of mass education of children with disabilities, the scenario of a continued reduction in the number of such schools in a number of regions that do not have sufficient financial resources to provide material, technical and financial conditions for implementing the standard in full. As a result, parents (legal representatives) of children with disabilities, especially those with mild pathologies (mental retardation, severe speech impairments), will simply be forced to go to public secondary schools.

These assumptions are confirmed by the data of the report of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, in which among the urgent tasks of providing educational conditions for students with disabilities was the creation in 2015 of another 3,150 schools providing inclusive education for children with disabilities, in addition to the 5,945 already created in 2011-2014 in constituent entities of the Russian Federation and 9,111 currently operating inclusive educational institutions. According to the same report, today only about 13% of general education organizations implement inclusive forms of education. However, there is no documentary evidence that all designated schools have created conditions that meet the requirements of special educational standards.

Thus, we can conclude that state policy in the field of special education in recent years has been consistently focused on expanding the coverage of children with disabilities in predominantly inclusive forms of general education. The low level of readiness of mass schools to organize inclusive education, significant discrepancies in terms of what can and should be considered the conditions for accessibility of education for children with disabilities, required maximum specification of the conditions that are necessary for educating children with disabilities, which is reflected in special educational standards .

There is also reason to believe that conditions have developed in which the number of children with disabilities studying inclusively will increase in the coming years.

• Ignatenko Anna Vladimirovna, master
• Altai State University

• SECONDARY EDUCATION
• EDUCATIONAL POLICY
• INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
• INCLUSION

The article presents the results of an empirical sociological study of the implementation of inclusive education at the level of general secondary education in the Altai Territory, highlighting the difficulties and prospects for the further implementation of the principle of inclusion as a leading principle in modern educational policy of the Russian Federation.

• Sociological survey of male patients after endoscopic examination of the stomach
• Features of the development of the sphere of consumer services in the municipal formation “Ekaterinburg city”
• Interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of the concept of social adaptation

In the modern state educational policy of the Russian Federation, increasing attention is paid to the principle of inclusion. Educational institutions are called upon to become the basis for the introduction and effective implementation of inclusive education at all levels.

The right to education for children with disabilities, including disabilities, is enshrined in UN legal documents. In the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the Russian Federation on May 3, 2012, in Art. 24 discusses the right to education of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

In the federal law of December 29, 2012 N 273-FZ “On Education” in Art. 2, for the first time in Russia, the concept of inclusive education was introduced, which is defined as ensuring equal access to education for all students, taking into account the diversity of special educational needs and individual capabilities.

In 2015, we conducted a study of the implementation of inclusive education in the Altai Territory. Heads and specialists of educational institutions of the Altai Territory took part in the expert survey.

Describing the main changes that have occurred in the life of an educational institution in connection with the introduction of inclusive education, experts highlighted that schools began to educate children with various developmental disabilities in regular classes. It was also noted that the introduction of inclusive education “has led to an increase in the number of reports.”

A necessary component of accessible education is the creation of a barrier-free environment in educational organizations. To our question “Is the institution equipped for the characteristics of such children?” respondents responded that in some institutions “the process of re-equipment has begun”; in others, “there are ramps, toilets, and handrails along the walls.”

Regarding the adaptability of the curricula, the experts explained that “individual programs, home-based education programs, additional consultations and classes have been adapted,” “the curricula have been compiled on the basis of model programs of correctional schools, and modules have been developed.”

When asked whether teachers undergo special training, respondents answered that teachers “undergo advanced training at the Institute of Additional Education of the Altai State Pedagogical Academy, and attend seminars and meetings at correctional schools.” A small percentage said no, but it is planned. Educational institutions receive methodological assistance.

Assessing the attitude of parents of children with and without disabilities, respondents noted that the attitude is “different, some parents are against inclusive education.” At the same time, some respondents answered that “the relationship between parents is friendly.”

To our question “Is the educational institution ready to implement inclusive education?” experts responded that not all institutions are ready due to material difficulties (lack of funds to equip the institution) and personnel (“there is no possibility of hiring a speech therapist, social teacher, or psychologist in rural areas”).

Assessing the prospects for inclusive education in an educational institution, many respondents responded that cooperative education is necessary, but should not completely replace special education.

Among the main problems of implementing inclusive education in their institutions, respondents noted the following: teachers do not have specialized technologies for teaching this category of children; large class sizes (in urban areas); absence of special education teachers on the staff; insufficiently formed tolerant attitude towards children with disabilities; workload of teaching staff.

Thus, experts noted both the prospects and difficulties of implementing the principle of inclusion in educational policy at the level of general secondary education. It should be noted that the success of inclusive education at the school level facilitates the implementation of the principle of inclusion in professional educational institutions, where, according to research, students themselves identify attitudinal barriers as the main obstacle to the inclusion of children with disabilities.

Bibliography

1. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Electronic resource] – Access mode: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/disability.shtml.
2. Federal Law of December 29, 2012 N 273-FZ (as amended on December 14, 2015) “On Education in the Russian Federation” [Electronic resource] – Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_166143.
3. Sirotina, T.V. Educational inclusion as a mechanism of social integration / T.V. Sirotina // Social integration and development of ethnocultures in the Eurasian space. - 2015. - No. 3-1. - pp. 161-167.
4. Sirotina, T.V. Students' ideas about integrative education of people with disabilities in higher education in Barnaul / T.V. Sirotina, M.A. Tsybizova // Lomonosov readings in Altai: fundamental problems of science and education. Collection of scientific articles of the international conference. Altai State University. – Barnaul, 2014. – pp. 2626-2633.

Implementation of the principles of inclusive learning in the modern educational environment.

One of the priority tasks of our country’s modern educational policy is to ensure state guarantees of access to quality education throughout life (lifelong education) and equal opportunities to receive it. Among the conditions that ensure the effectiveness of lifelong education, the leading place is occupied by the implementation of the principles of inclusive education.

“Education of children with special needs is one of the main tasks for the country. This is a necessary condition for creating a truly inclusive society, where everyone can feel involved and relevant for their actions. We are obliged to give every child, regardless of his needs and other circumstances, the opportunity to fully realize his potential, benefit society and become a full member of it.”

David Blanket

Inclusive education (or included) is a term used to describe the process of teaching children with special needs in mainstream schools. Inclusive education is based on an ideology that excludes any discrimination against children, which ensures equal treatment of all people, but creates special conditions for children with special educational needs.

Education of children with special needs in educational institutions allows healthy children to develop tolerance and responsibility.

The principle of inclusive educationmeans: all children should be included from the very beginning in the educational and social life of the school in their place of residence; the task of an inclusive school is to build a system that meets the needs of everyone; In inclusive schools, all children, not just those with disabilities, are provided with support that allows them to achieve success, feel safe, and feel the value of being together in a team. Inclusive schools aim in many ways at different educational achievements than those most often recognized as mainstream education.The purpose of such a school– to give all students the opportunity to have the most fulfilling social life, the most active participation in the team, the local community, thereby ensuring the most complete interaction and assistance to each other as members of the community.

Principles of inclusive education:

1. accept students with disabilities like any other child in the classroom;
2. include them in the same types of activities, but set different tasks;
3. involve students in collective forms of learning and group problem solving;
4. use other strategies for collective participation - games, joint projects, laboratory, field research, etc.

Children with disabilities include:

1. disabled children;
2. children diagnosed with mental retardation;
3. children with hearing impairment, vision impairment, speech underdevelopment;
4. children with autism;
5. children with combined developmental disorders.

The bill “On the education of persons with disabilities (special education)”, submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, establishes the possibility of educating disabled children in a public school, and in the report of the State Council of the Russian Federation “Educational Policy of Russia at the Present Stage” (2001) emphasizes: “children with health problems should be provided by the state with medical and psychological support and special conditions for education, primarily in a comprehensive school at their place of residence and only in exceptional cases - in special boarding schools.”

Inclusive education today can rightfully be considered one of the priorities of the state educational policy of Russia. The transition to it is predetermined by the fact that our country has ratified the UN conventions in the field of children's rights and the rights of people with disabilities. It is no coincidence that 2009 was declared the Year of Equal Opportunities.

The State Education Standard provides for a program of correctional work, which should be aimed at ensuring deficiencies in physical and mental development and helping children master the basic educational program.

To develop the potential of students with disabilities, individual educational plans are developed together with parents. The implementation of plans is carried out with the support of tutors, psychologists, and pediatricians.

For each student, you need to create a situation of success every day, celebrate each achievement, based on his individual level of development.

The knowledge gained helps the child feel confident and strong. Which means being happy.

Objective: to ensure that every child receives knowledge.

Techniques for working with disabled children:

1.– (therapeutic pedagogy of A. A. Dubrovsky) distracting the child from going into illness;

Gymnastics classes, movements;

Involvement in work - care, work - joy (planting trees, growing flowers);

Entering the game;

Help with creative activities;

Psychotherapy classes

2. Orthodox conversations.

3. Taking into account age-related psychological characteristics

4. Diagnosis of individual characteristics.

5. Reflection. Individual achievement cards. Portfolio

6. Interesting, accessible, personal and practice-oriented content of the training program.

7. Technical training aids.

8. Use of various types of visualization, support diagrams, manuals.

9. Physical education and exercises for the development of finger motor skills.

World practice of inclusive education

Abroad, since the 1970s, a package of regulations has been being developed and implemented to promote the expansion of educational opportunities for people with disabilities. In modern educational policy in the USA and Europe, several approaches have been developed, including: widening participation, mainstreaming, integration, inclusion, i.e. inclusion. Mainstreaming assumes that students with disabilities communicate with peers on holidays and in various leisure programs. Integration means bringing the needs of children with mental and physical disabilities into line with an education system that remains largely unchanged and is not tailored to them. Inclusion, or inclusion, is the reform of schools and the redesign of classrooms so that they meet the needs and requirements of all children without exception.

In the 1990s. In the USA and European countries, a number of publications were published on the problem of self-organization of parents of disabled children, social activism of adults with disabilities and defenders of their rights, which contributed to the popularization of the ideas of inclusive education.

Studies on the cost-effectiveness of inclusive education conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. and demonstrate the benefits of integrated education in terms of benefits, benefits, achievements.

Today, in most Western countries, there is some consensus regarding the importance of the inclusion of children with disabilities. State and municipal schools receive budget funding for children with special needs, and, accordingly, are interested in increasing the number of students officially registered as disabled.

Provisions on inclusive education are included in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006.

The situation with inclusive education in Russia

The first inclusive educational institutions appeared in our country at the turn of 1980 - 1990. In Moscow in 1991, on the initiative of the Moscow Center for Curative Pedagogy and the parent public organization, the school of inclusive education "Ark" (No. 1321) appeared.

Since the fall of 1992, the implementation of the project “Integration of Persons with Disabilities” began in Russia. As a result, experimental sites for integrated education of children with disabilities were created in 11 regions. Based on the results of the experiment, two international conferences were held (1995, 1998). On January 31, 2001, the participants of the International Scientific and Practical Conference on the Problems of Integrated Education adopted the Concept of Integrated Education for Persons with Disabilities, which was sent to the educational authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation on April 16, 2001. In order to prepare teachers to work with children with disabilities, the board of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation decided to introduce into the curricula of pedagogical universities from September 1, 1996 the courses “Fundamentals of Special (Correctional) Pedagogy” and “Peculiarities of the Psychology of Children with Disabilities.” Recommendations immediately appeared for institutions of additional professional education for teachers to introduce these courses into plans for advanced training of teachers in secondary schools.

Today, inclusive education on the territory of the Russian Federation is regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the federal law “On Education”, the federal law “On Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities in the Russian Federation”, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2008, Russia signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article Twenty-four of the Convention states that in order to realize the right to education, States Parties must ensure inclusive education at all levels and lifelong learning.

Other educational options for children with disabilities

In addition to inclusive education, in Russia there are other options for educating children with disabilities:

Special schools and boarding schools are educational institutions with round-the-clock attendance of students, created to assist families in raising children, developing independent living skills, social protection and the full development of children’s creative abilities.

Correctional classes in general education schools are a form of differentiation of education that allows solving the problems of timely active assistance to children with disabilities. A positive factor in this case is that children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in many school activities on an equal basis with their peers from other classes, as well as the fact that children study closer to home and are raised in a family.

Home schooling is an option for educating disabled children, in which teachers from an educational institution visit the child in an organized manner and conduct classes with him directly at his place of residence. In this case, as a rule, training is carried out by teachers of the nearest educational institution, but in Russia there are also specialized schools for home education of disabled children. Home schooling can be carried out according to a general or auxiliary program, built taking into account the student’s capabilities. Upon completion of training, the child is issued a general school leaving certificate indicating the program in which he was trained.

Distance learning is a set of educational services provided to disabled children using a specialized information and educational environment based on means of exchanging educational information at a distance (satellite television, radio, computer communications, etc.). To implement distance learning, you need multimedia equipment (computer, printer, scanner, webcam, etc.), which will help maintain the child’s connection with the distance learning center. During the educational process, both the teacher communicates with the child online and the student completes assignments sent to him electronically, followed by sending the results to the distance learning center.

At the present stage of development of Western and domestic social pedagogy, a new social and pedagogical meaning of the process of integration of children with disabilities is beginning to emerge - inclusion, i.e. social acceptance of special children, their inclusion at all stages in the life of society. The concept of “inclusion” is opposed to the concept of “exclusion”, i.e. exclusion from society.

The terms “integrated education” and “inclusive education” are often used interchangeably by teachers and specialists. However, in philosophy there is a huge difference between these concepts. Understanding the differences between them will allow teaching staff to determine the purpose of educational institutions and their goals in teaching children with disabilities.

In integrated education, children with disabilities attend a general education school and the issue of attendance is at the center. A child with special educational needs becomes a problem for the traditionally organized educational process. Therefore, the child needs to be changed, rehabilitated so that he fits into school or society.

Inclusive education involves changing the educational system, the school, and not the child himself. When including children with disabilities in a single educational space of a lesson, activity, or event, the attention of teachers is focused on the opportunities and strengths in the development of the child.

All people need each other. True learning can only take place in the context of real relationships. All people need the support and friendship of peers. For all learners, making progress is more about what they can do than what they can't do. Diversity enhances all aspects of a person's life. All learners should be successful.

The teacher's attention is focused on the child's capabilities and strengths.

During the design work, a model of an educational space was developed that ensures the successful inclusion of primary schoolchildren with disabilities in the conditions of mass education.

It is assumed that the tasks of the inclusion process can be solved by ensuring the movement of children with disabilities along individual educational routes, which will allow them to master the Standard of Primary General Education, will contribute to their socialization and the realization of their individual abilities. To do this, they propose to build the educational space accordingly.

The personal-activity approach is the basis for organizing the educational space. And all the principles, techniques and methods of the student-centered approach, with which everyone is familiar, work when organizing inclusive education.

It is also necessary to provide:

• individual educational routes;
• grade-free assessment for all 4 years;
• a combination of the zone of proximal and actual development of the child;
• interpenetration of environments (teaching, training, socialization) in the educational space;

Forms of inclusive education:

• school for future first-graders;
• full integration class (out of 20 students, 3-4 children with disabilities);
• special (correctional) class of partial integration;
• homeschooling school;
• family education, external studies;

Pedagogical means of including children with different abilities in the educational space of the lesson include creating conditions for organizing the processes of reflection, planning, children's cooperation, observation, modeling, and including children in various types of activities accompanied by defectologists and psychologists. The techniques of the Elkonin-Davydov developmental education system and the theory of the formation of educational action by P.Ya. Galperin are used.

Thus, it should be noted that, unfortunately, inclusive education is no cheaper than special (differentiated) education, since it still requires the creation of special conditions for a special child.

According to N.N. Malofeeva (Nikolai Nikolaevich Malofeev - corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education, professor, director of the Institute of Correctional Pedagogy of the Russian Academy of Education), the integration of “problem” children into general education institutions is a natural stage in the development of the special education system in any country in the world, a process in which all highly developed countries are involved, including Russia.

The basic principle of inclusive education is the education of children with special educational needs in regular educational institutions, provided that these educational institutions create all the conditions to meet the special educational needs of such persons.

The need to create classes for children with mental retardation

We consider the main goal of organizing correction classes in a general education institution to be the creation of an integral system that provides optimal pedagogical conditions for children with mental retardation in accordance with their age and individual psychological characteristics, the state of somatic and neuropsychic health.

Goals of correctional work.

In the system of functions performed by the school, the most important role belongs to the correctional one, which involves paying special attention to the work of overcoming the backlog of students, poor performance, as well as deviations in behavior and eliminating defects and anomalies.

The goal of this work is to create optimal psychological and pedagogical conditions for the development and self-realization of the individual abilities of each student.

The result of such work should be the complete elimination of the detected difficulties.

Goals of educational and correctional work:

Optimization of the emotional and personal sphere of the child.

Development of the cognitive sphere, formation of higher mental functions.

Adaptation of the child to the world around him and his integration into school society.

Objectives of educational and correctional work:

When working with children:

Diagnostics and correction of the cognitive sphere;

Diagnostics and correction of the child’s personal characteristics;

Correction of shortcomings in the emotional-volitional, moral sphere;

Involving the child in active activities based on the use of his positive interests and inclinations;

Organizing the child's success;

Formation of communication skills;

When working with parents:

Improving the pedagogical literacy of parents, the culture of relationships;

Active inclusion of parents in the educational process;

Helping parents raise their children;

Monitoring the organization of the child’s normal daily routine, eliminating his neglect;

Optimization of the communication process in the family;

Restoring family potential;

The organization of educational work in regular general education classes for children with mental retardation is carried out in the following main areas:

Management activities;

Psychological and speech therapy support;

Medical support;

Social adaptation;

Working with parents.

The family is the first institution of human interaction with society. From early childhood she directs his consciousness, will and feelings. The place a child with disabilities occupies in it determines his life experience, basic knowledge and ideas about the world around him, and his abilities to interact with society. Therefore, it is important that the family has a positive influence on his social development, and that parents understand the importance of proper raising a child. Based on this, the main task of family socialization is to develop in the child the ability of joint, collective activities and to prepare the child with disabilities for future life in various groups and teams.

Therefore, in the context of inclusive education, the relationship between the family and the educational institution plays an important role. The scientific, methodological, experimental, and educational activities of educational institutions contribute to solving problems related to the quality and accessibility of lifelong education for children with disabilities.

Inclusive education, the purpose of which is to ensure equal rights and access to education for children with disabilities, experiences all the contradictory influences of liberalization processes in the social sphere and in the field of education, as its integral part. The article analyzes the impact of liberalization processes on the development of inclusive education in countries with a liberal model of welfare, as well as the process of development of integrated education in Russia and the problems that exist along its path.

Introduction

Social development in many countries in recent decades is closely connected with the processes of liberalization of social policy and ensuring social rights. Inclusive education, aimed at expanding the accessibility of education for all groups of society, inevitably faces liberalization processes in the education system as a whole. The contradictory influence of these processes is intended to be clarified in this work, especially since the Russian experience of inclusive education is formed largely on the basis of international experience, acquiring, of course, its own specific features.

Inclusive education as an integral part of social policy

Policy in the field of inclusive education is undoubtedly part of a more general educational policy, which, in turn, correlates with the main directions of social development of the state. The vector of social development of a state is determined by the type or model of social policy, which is usually viewed as “embedded in a complete, internally coherent national welfare state system [Manning, 2001].
The welfare state “manifests itself” through employment policy, interaction between the state and the family, the nature of social security and such social guarantees, which include, among other things, education.
Esping-Andersen identifies three models of capitalist regime, or welfare state: conservative (corporatist); liberal; social democratic.
At the heart of this typology, as defined by Menning [Menning, 2001. P. 8], are such attributes as the nature of government intervention, the stratification of social groups and the nature of the relationship between the market and bureaucratic distribution in the process of decommodification. Let us note that Esping-Andersen did not consider educational policy as part of social policy. According to Günter Hegi and Karl Hockenmayer, this is due to the fact that education (especially secondary and higher education) in any welfare state reduces the individual’s dependence on the market, is a source of social mobility and long-term social stability, that is, it is, in fact, a social program of the state any model. Nevertheless, the mentioned authors established a relationship between the type of social insurance policy pursued by the state (as a significant “typological” factor for determining membership in a particular model) and the type of educational policy. Thus, educational policy, being part of the social policy pursued by the state, inevitably takes on its features, internal logic and direction of development.
Inclusive education, being part of the general social policy in the field of education, is not identical to it and has its own specifics, characteristic of each type of welfare state. Thus, inclusive education is dual in nature: on the one hand, it correlates with educational policy and social development of the state; on the other hand, it solves its own specific problems, without direct connection with the context of general educational policy. The origins of this duality lie, in our opinion, in the fact that the ideology of inclusion is part of the movement for civil rights of social minorities, ensuring equal rights and access to education and, thus, is essentially a political process that is embedded in the educational process. And at the same time, it is part of the educational process - with goals, objectives, technologies and learning outcomes, methods and problems of financing inclusive programs in secondary schools.
Let us consider the correspondence of the state typology in relation to educational policy and the nature of inclusive education:
A conservative welfare state regime is defined as having a high level of stratification by income level and social status. Direct government provision in countries with such a regime is insignificant and is not associated with the processes of redistribution and equalization of income. Ensuring social rights is quite strictly tied to the employer. The conservative regime of the welfare state is recorded in those countries where the influence of religious (Catholic) parties, the Catholic Church in general, is strong, and in countries with a historical experience of absolutism and authoritarianism. According to the Esping-Andersen classification, this type of state includes Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy.
The relationship between social policy and educational policy in states of this type can be presented as follows.
In states with a conservative model of social policy, inclusive education is often seen as access to education in general, without the widespread deployment of inclusion policies for people with special needs. In Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, a network of specialized schools for children with special needs is widely developed, but legislation does not limit the possibilities of integrated education, and it develops in conditions of intensive interaction between special and general schools (Netherlands). In Italy, on the contrary, the processes of inclusive education for children with special needs in general education schools are very actively developing, and this has been legally ensured since 1971. Italy is considered a kind of “laboratory” of inclusive education; according to some data, in Italy, from 80% to 95% of children with special needs study in integrated schools (for comparison, in Greece less than 1%, in the USA - 45%, in the UK the situation varies greatly from county to county; the number of children with special needs integrated into mainstream schools in different parts of the country can differ by six times) [Groznaya, 2004]. Thus, in countries with a conservative model of social policy, integrated education may take on a form characteristic of countries with other welfare models.
A liberal welfare state regime is characterized by the dependence of social insurance on the market, with the state regulating the market rather than directly providing direct social security. This regime is characterized by a fairly high level of social stratification and differentiation in society; social benefits are quite limited and stigmatized, since it is believed that increasing the level of benefits reduces the incentive to work and enter the market. Examples of this model include countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK.
The relationship between liberal social policy and its corresponding educational policy is as follows.
If we compare the nature of inclusive education and the model of social policy, then in countries with a liberal model, inclusive education is mainly aimed at integrating children with developmental disabilities into the environment of healthy peers; for children with behavioral problems, special programs are implemented to prevent school departure or temporary placement in special educational institutions that provide specialized behavior correction programs, after which the child returns to mainstream school.
The social democratic regime, unlike the previous ones, is characterized by the principles of universalism and equality. The state takes upon itself the solution of many problems traditionally related to the “family sphere” (for example, caring for children and the elderly). Countries with such a regime include Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. The relationship between social policy and educational policy in this case can be presented as follows.
In countries with a social democratic model of social security, inclusive education is successfully provided for all children at risk; children with special needs are mostly included in the learning process in public secondary schools.
It is undeniable that each welfare state may have features different from those identified by Esping-Andersen as typical for each model, or combine elements of all three regimes. The author himself pointed out this, saying that in reality there is not a single regime in its “pure form”. And yet, the type of social policy pursued by the state very clearly correlates with the strategy and main direction in “its” educational policy. It is obvious that state policy in the field of social insurance is directly related to the strategy in educational policy: in countries with a conservative regime, education should prepare a worker whose social rights are closely related to the workplace and the fact that they need to be “earned”. In countries with a liberal regime, education is a kind of “individual insurance” against life risks; In states with a social democratic regime, education ensures decommodification in ensuring social rights.
Inclusive education is provided in all types of welfare states and has features both common to education policy and specific. Moreover, this own specificity can manifest itself within one model (as happens in countries with a conservative regime), and we will try to identify the nature of these differences in countries with a liberal model in the next section.

The liberal model of educational policy and its impact on the process of inclusive education in the USA and Great Britain

Liberalization of the social sphere is not the prerogative of the social policy of two or several countries; in most developed countries this process occurs with varying degrees of intensity and duration. In a broad sense, privatization is the delegation of government functions to the private sector. In addition, liberal ideology is based on the ideas of “free choice”, “market freedom” and “individual rights”, and thus provides ideological support for the processes of privatization and the creation of quasi-markets not only in the economic, but also in the social and educational spheres.
Liberalization of education in the USA and its impact on inclusive education
According to researchers Margaret Gilberman and Vicki Lance, the driving force behind the privatization of education in the United States was: distrust and hostility towards government programs; a preference for “results-oriented” private markets; growing dissatisfaction with the education reform strategy.
In the US education sector, the main mechanism of liberalization was the system of educational vouchers. A voucher is a government financial instrument for a specified amount that a private individual can use to pay for social services (housing, health care, social services, food), and it is a mechanism for "transferring public funds directly to the consumer for the purchase of educational services on the free market." This program provides the child’s parents with the opportunity to freely choose a school, including a private one, which, in their opinion, better solves educational problems. The voucher covers a significant (but not all) part of the cost of education in a private school, in addition, it facilitates the opportunity to change the location of the school - to choose a public school located in a more “prosperous” area for education if it participates in the voucher program. The voucher program began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Cleveland, Ohio, 13 years ago; in Maine and Vermont about 100 years ago, and now spans 11 states.
The program is aimed primarily at low-income ethnic minority families and provides children from these families with the opportunity to receive what is considered a better quality education in private schools. The system of using vouchers in education, however, differs from the use of similar mechanisms in other social services. The differences are that in the case of an education voucher, public funds are transferred directly to the consumer for school choice, while the purchased social and health services are provided through a contract with an “intermediate” management company (Medicare/Medicaid) or a non-profit organization.
Nevertheless, the introduction of a voucher system is not perceived unambiguously in society; there are both active supporters and opponents of this system. Among the most important arguments of defenders of the educational voucher system is that with their help they can solve the problem of the quality of education. This problem is very relevant for many public schools in the United States, especially for those located in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities (inner-city schools). According to the results of a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin [cit. from: CER Report, 2005. P. 9], African-American students who chose the voucher program in the cities of Dayton (Ohio), New York and Washington showed significantly better test scores after two years of study in a private school compared to public students schools. Opponents argue that these studies did not take into account family backgrounds, the overall “family mindset” toward learning, the students’ own motivation to learn, and their previous school performance. Another argument of opponents of the voucher program is that it will leave the poorest in the poorest schools, that is, it will have the effect of “poaching” students. And this argument is very closely related to the problem of the impact of the introduced voucher system on inclusive education.
Vouchers and inclusion
The US legislation on the education of persons with disabilities “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” - IDEA (as amended in 2004), without directly using the term “inclusion”, provides for the necessary funding for special education in the local school system, the use of individualized educational plans and the provision, as needed, of students with disabilities. special educational needs special additional assistance in mainstream schools. However, parents can choose a special public or private school, where tuition is largely paid for at public expense. Such schools were intended mainly for children with severe and multiple developmental problems and behavioral disorders. Accordingly, parents of children with special educational needs studying in local comprehensive schools were given the opportunity, with the help of a basic and additional (special) voucher, to transfer their child to a private (non-special) school that provides better education and service.
Thus, the introduction of the voucher system stimulated the promotion of inclusive education in private schools, which were previously inaccessible to most children with developmental disabilities due to special admission standards and testing barriers.
However, according to Gilberman and Lens, “private schools, while opening their doors to children with special educational needs that were previously handled by public schools, did not have the experience to cope with them.” According to the authors, in 1997, only 24% of private schools provided special needs for students with special needs - compared with 90% of public schools.
The data obtained, on the one hand, indicate that the processes of liberalization of education have a significant impact on the promotion of inclusive education and the expansion of the network of schools that include children with special needs in society. On the other hand, liberalization does not automatically solve the problem of quality of education, and the “choice” provided may have little correlation with the expected “quality” result. In addition, it can be assumed that public schools participating in the voucher program may over time attract students from poor families and children with disabilities - such schools interested in the influx of vouchers are most often located in poor ethnic minority areas.
Liberalization and reforms of education in Great Britain,
their impact on the development of inclusive education
Reform of the national education system has been one of the main directions of social policy of the governments of both the Conservative and Labor parties in Great Britain over the past decades. The Education Act of 1988, adopted by Thatcher’s cabinet, largely reflected the general strategy of the Conservatives in reforming the social sphere, which “was determined primarily through the nature of the relationship between central and local authorities.” Another important aspect of the educational reform was the search for ways to increase the “efficiency” of education, solved in a completely liberal manner.
The reform of the traditional education system, according to this legislation, was carried out in four main directions:

1. establishing national educational standards;
2. decentralization of the administrative structure of education and reducing the dependence of schools on local educational authorities;
3. increased competition between schools in the fight for funds that were directly linked to the effectiveness of the school (through the establishment of school ratings based on student testing results);
4. establishing a procedure for assessing school activities every four years by special teams of independent inspectors.

The ability to choose a school, given to parents by this legislation, was intended to be an assessment tool and, therefore, a way to improve efficiency - the choice was made on the basis of the school's test rating of students aged seven, eleven and fourteen. M. Hill determines that this combination of “the possibility of choosing the social and educational appearance of the school and the possibility of schools ‘moving away’ from the influence of the local education committee creates the effect of recreating the selective system, which was previously greatly undermined by the development of general schools.”
Liberalization of the educational sphere is closely related to such principles of market relations as marketization and the managerialist approach. Schools are seen as “small enterprises (businesses)” competing with each other for student clients: “The new managerialism in education emphasizes an instrumental approach to schools - assessing quality by test scores, attendance and graduation rates. The most characteristic terms for this direction are initiative, excellence, quality and efficiency." Of course, with this approach, teachers, the school administration and board of trustees will be concerned about the performance of “their” school in order to receive additional allocations and rewards for their successes. In conditions of market relations, instead of the principles of cooperation and fairness, the principles of efficiency and competition begin to actively operate. And this cannot but have a serious impact on the processes of inclusion in education.

Liberalization of education and inclusion

Inclusive education in the UK exists in interaction with special education, which has a long history and tradition in this country. And although inclusive education is legally enshrined and is developing, special separate schools continue to function and are considered as part of the educational space for those children whose parents have chosen this path of education for them. The number of special schools in the country during the period 1986-1996 decreased by 15% (from 1,405 to 1,191 schools). The situation changes dramatically from one area to another. Thus, in the Newham district of London, where we were able to attend a seminar for Russian specialists on inclusive education in 2004, literally all special schools are closed; in England and Wales, only 1.2% of all school-age children attend special schools, but the difference between territories fluctuates between 0.32 and 2.6%. The decision to close a special school and transfer children to a mainstream school is made by the County Education Authority (LEA), and this process of closing special schools is the most sensitive to the overall process of liberalization of education.
Felicity Armstrong explored this process using an ethnographic case study method; she was directly involved in meetings, consultations and pedagogical meetings between teachers and local education officials following the decision to close one of the special schools and transfer all pupils to a mainstream school. This process, according to the author, revealed the contradictions of the new managerialist approach and inclusion, when the school must generate income and be effective, and in order to receive additional allocations, it must present evidence of its success. And then “the temptation to leave behind or scare away unproductive students is extremely strong. Excerpts from meetings of pedagogical councils are replete with arguments like: students with disabilities will lower the bar of standards, will not be able to keep up with normal ones, and will become a burden for teachers who are forced to spend extra time on them, cutting it off from other children. Education department officials and secondary school administrators used in their arguments for and against terms that relate only to the financial sphere of school activities, leaving aside the cultural and social context of inclusion.”
Armstrong sees the contradiction in the fact that inclusion, being a broader cultural change, comes to be seen only in terms of economic rationality, as something “deserving”, “non-destructive” and consistent with the “efficient use of resources”. The promotion of inclusion is counteracted not so much by the “direct” presence of social groups (politicians, professionals) interested in maintaining a segregated system of institutions, but by the values, attitudes and practices that create the segregated structure of education.
Thus, the influence of liberal processes in educational policy on the development of inclusive education in the UK increases the importance of the issue of professional self-determination of teachers participating in this process; teachers and school administrators ultimately become the direct implementers of any educational policy. The emerging contradiction between the demands to raise the bar of standards and the moral demand for cultural changes in education significantly complicates the process of democratization of education, and social integration as its integral part.

Inclusive education in Russia

Conclusion

The analysis showed that in countries where similar models of social policy have been adopted, the impact of liberalization on the development of inclusive education occurs differently, although its main vector remains the same. We are talking about the key concepts of “choice”, “market” and “efficiency” for the liberal model, which in the process of liberalization become decisive for education. Social inclusion as part of the educational process also comes into play in this field with the key concepts of “choice” and “market”, subject to their contradictory influences. This influence is determined by the chosen liberalization strategy.
In one case, in the USA, this is the direct provision of “choice” through the voucher system; they should contribute, according to reformers, to ensuring the availability of quality education through school choice, while two main players will participate in the competition: public and private educational institutions institutions. The results of this struggle will be an improvement in the quality of educational services on each “side”, and, accordingly, the efficiency of using public funds and the level of education will increase.
The impact of liberalization on the process of inclusive education has its strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, liberalization, by providing parents with the right to “choose a school,” helps promote social integration, create new educational spaces and expand opportunities for access to education, both public and private. On the other hand, these processes strengthen the tendencies of exclusion of students with special educational needs - inclusive schools in such conditions can acquire features of a combination of poverty and disability, thereby increasing inequality.
In the UK, liberalization, while moving in the same direction of ensuring "choice", "market" and "efficiency", has a slightly different strategy. Although parents also make “school choice,” it is not defined as a choice between “public and private.” In these conditions, every public school becomes a market player - a sharp increase in the number of private schools in these new market conditions in the UK seems very unlikely. And then the use of market mechanisms in an effort to “raise the bar” and make education more effective comes into conflict with the requirement of social integration, if it is understood as a cultural change in the educational space, and here a special policy is needed, including legislation, which would minimize the impact of liberalization to finance and organize this process.
Russian realities are such that inclusive education is developing here, and for this purpose, strategies of international, in particular, American experience of social integration are actively used. These are UNESCO programs for the development of inclusive education in Russia and the CIS countries, and programs of the US Agency for International Development, and broad interregional projects of the Russian Educational Institution “Perspective” (“Education is a right for all”, “Ensuring accessibility in education”), supported by the World Institute Disability (USA). American organizations in this case are very influential in determining the priorities and directions of this activity not only on a Russian, but also on an international scale.
These strategies are based on liberal ideology, which is gradually beginning to dominate in this direction. Promotion of social inclusion is carried out through ensuring access to education for children with disabilities, in line with the fight for the civil rights of people with disabilities, through updating activities to change legislation, with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization, in combination with activities to change public opinion. In this, by the way, one can see the difference in the strategy for promoting social integration, which is carried out by Russian regional projects supported by donor organizations of countries with a social democratic and conservative model (including charitable organizations of the Evangelical Church of Germany, the French international humanitarian organization Handicap Internasional). In these projects, the main task, as a rule, is to create a specific service (the cities of St. Petersburg, Pskov, the Republic of Karelia), to directly train specialists and parents through the transfer of their own pedagogical experience and technologies.
And here the main task of Russian specialists is to learn to see in the promotion of social integration a broad civil, cultural and ethical process, without reducing everything only to the “effective” and “rational” use of resources, especially since the legislative mechanism for the redistribution of resources for inclusive education in Russia is still so and not created. The strengthening of liberalization processes in Russian education without the formation of legislative mechanisms that ensure the process of social integration not only economically, but also “politically” makes the prospects for the development of inclusive education in Russia in the coming years very unclear.

Bibliography

Analytical reviews: UK education system: Educational reforms in industrialized countries.
Boyko O. Directly from the West: Foreign images of Russian social reform // Journal of Eurasian Research. Vol. 2. Spring 2003. No. 2
Vygotsky L. S. Principles of education of physically handicapped children // Collection. Op. in 6 volumes. T. 5. Fundamentals of defectology / Ed. T. A. Vlasova. M.: Pedagogika, 1983. pp. 34-49.
Grishin I. The Swedish model of social development: the market-politics dichotomy // World Economy and International Relations. 2005. No. 11. P. 86-95. Groznaya N. Development of inclusive education: international experience. 2004 // Access to the resource 12/29/2006. Dimenshtein R.P. School is becoming less and less integrative // ​​School Review. 2004. No. 1 // http//res.fromru.com/sedlzip/DIMENS09.zip. Access to the resource 02/09/2006.
Zaitsev D.V. Integrated education of children with disabilities // Sociological studies. 2004. No. 7. P. 127-132.
Malofeev N. N. Special education in Russia and abroad. 1996 // Almanac IKP RAO
Manning N. Russia in trouble // World of Russia. 2001. No. 1
Education of children with developmental problems in different countries of the world / Ed. L. M. Shipitsyna. St. Petersburg: Didactics Plus, 1997.
Experience in an integration school. M.: Kovcheg, 2004.
Tarasenko E. Social policy in the field of disability: cross-cultural analysis and search for an optimal concept for Russia // Journal of Social Policy Research. 2004. Volume 2. No. 1. P. 7-28.
Shipitsyna L. M. Integration is the leading direction of special education in Russia at the turn of the 21st century // Interuniversity collection “Current problems of integration and correctional education of children with developmental disorders.” SPb.: Leningrad State University named after. A.S. Pushkina, 2000.
Yarskaya-Smirnova E. R., Naberushkina E. K. Social work with disabled people. 2nd edition, add. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.
Yarskaya-Smirnova E. R., Loshakova I. I. Inclusive education of disabled children // Sociological Research. 2003. No. 5. P. 100-106.
Yarskaya-Smirnova E. R. Social construction of disability // Sociological studies. 1999. No. 4. P. 38-45.
Ainscow M. Inclusive Education: A Global Agenda. London: Routledge, 1997.
Armstrong F. Difference, discourse and democracy: the making and breaking of policy in the market place // Inclusive Education. Vol. 7. 2003. No. 3. P. 241-257
Center for Education Reform Report: Nine Lies About School Choice, 2005
Comparing welfare states. Britain in International Context / Ed. by Allan Cochrane and
John Clarke. London: Sage Publications, 1994.
Daniels H. Garner F. Inclusive Education. London: KoganPage, 1999
Dominelli L. Women across Continents: feminist comparative social policy. London:
Hemmel Hempsted Harwester Wheatsheaf, 1991.
Esping-Andersen G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
Gewirtz S., Ball S. From “Welfarism” to new “managerialism”: shifting discourses of school headship in the education marketplace // Studies in the Politics of Education. 2003. No. 21. P. 253-268.
Gilberman M., Lens V. Entering the debate about school vouchers: A social work perspective // ​​Children & Schools. Washington: Oct. 2002. Vol. 24
Hega G., Hokenmaier K. The welfare state and education: a comparison of social and educational policy in Advanced industrial societies// Politicfelganalyse/German Policy Studies. Vol. 2. 2002. No. 1.
Hill M. The Welfare State in Britain. London: Edward Edgar, 1993.
Miller P. Building bridges between special and mainstream services. 2003
Natalya Vladimirovna Borisova Deputy Director of School with integrated education No. 1321 “Ark”, Moscow, student of the Faculty of Social Management and Social Work of the Moscow Higher School of Economics and Social Sciences

Inclusive education is part of the state educational policy of the Russian Federation

• “The main task is, as part of the modernization of Russian education as a whole, to create an educational environment that ensures the availability of quality education for all, without exception, persons with disabilities and people with disabilities, taking into account the characteristics of their psychophysical development and health status”

• YES. Medvedev

Contains:

• Contains:

• Appeal to all governments: adopt the principle of inclusive education in the form of a law or political declaration

• call to the international community:

• endorse the approach of teaching in inclusive schools

• On December 13, 2006, the UN General Assembly unanimously approved a document aimed at protecting and promoting the rights and dignity of people with disabilities

• Entered into force on May 3, 2008.

• By 2011, 147 UN member states had signed

• By 2011, 99 states had ratified the document

• The Russian Federation signed the Convention on September 24, 2008, ratification – July 2013.

• The result of the historical development of international law in the field of education is recorded: from 1948 to 2006: from the statement in the World Declaration on the Right of Every Person to Education - to the obligations of states and UN members to realize this right through inclusive education

• In Article 24 “Education”

• fixed concept “inclusive education” and the obligations of participating states provide “inclusive education at all levels and lifelong education”

Guarantees of the rights of children with disabilities to receive education in the Russian Federation are enshrined in:

• in the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

• In the Law of the Russian Federation of July 10, 1992 No. 3266 “On Education”,

• as well as in Federal laws:

• dated August 22, 1996 No. 125-FZ “On higher and postgraduate professional education”;

• dated November 24, 1995 No. 181-FZ “On social protection of disabled people in the Russian Federation”;

• dated June 24, 1999 No. 120-FZ “On the fundamentals of the system for preventing neglect and juvenile delinquency”;

• dated July 24, 1998 No. 124-FZ “On the basic guarantees of the rights of the child in the Russian Federation”;

• dated 06.10.1999 No. 184-FZ “On the general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation”;

• dated 06.10.2003 No. 131-FZ “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation.”

1. Citizens of the Russian Federation are guaranteed the opportunity to receive an education regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public organizations (associations), age, health status, social, property and official status, having a criminal record.

• 2. The state guarantees citizens universal access and free preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary (complete) general education

• 3. The state creates conditions for citizens with disabilities, that is, those with deficiencies in physical and (or) mental development (hereinafter referred to as “disabled health”), for them to receive education, correct developmental disorders and social adaptation on the basis of special pedagogical approaches.

• Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”,

• Article 5.

»:

• 1992 – Russian Federation Law “On Education”»:

• Art. 52, paragraph 1, parents have the “right to choose forms of education and educational institutions”

• Article 50, paragraph 10 states that referral to special (correctional) institutions is carried out “only with the consent of the parents (legal representatives) of the child”

• 2008 (04/18) Methodological recommendations of the RF Ministry of Defense:“Current legislation currently allows for the organization of training and education of children with disabilities in regular educational institutions that are not correctional institutions in the same class with children who do not have developmental disabilities”

• 2010 - The State Duma began practical work to amend Russian legislation in order to bring it into line with Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – in preparation for ratification of the document

• The dates for the adoption of the necessary amendments to a number of Federal Laws of the Russian Federation have been set - July 1, 2013.

• Children learn and are brought up together (not next to each other!) in a regular school and kindergarten

• Regular kindergartens and schools are changing.

• Specialists help children.

• Attention to the child's capabilities and strengths.

• Everyone accepts human differences as normal.

• Children get the opportunity to live with their parents.

• Children receive a full and effective education in order to live a full life.

Every child has the right to education.

• Every child has the right to education.

• All children can study.

• Every child may encounter educational difficulties in certain areas or at certain times.

• Every child needs help in the learning process.

• School, family and society are responsible for education.

• Differences are natural, are valuable and enrich society.

• Discrimination must be criticized. People should live in a tolerant society.

• Teachers need in constant support.

• Education begins in early childhood and continues throughout life.

The population is increasing

• The population is increasing a group of children with an unfavorable, problematic course of mental development in ontogenesis.

• Increases sharply and even quantitatively the predominant group of children attributed according to neuropsychological indicators to borderline between normal and pathological (clinical disorders, borderline states, subnormative development options).

• In the group of children with disabilities, up to 22.5% of children have general mental underdevelopment (GM), up to 26.5% of children with psychopathy.

• Increases category of children with different types of giftedness

• From 50 to 55% of preschoolers in large cities have an IQ score of 115 points or higher

• Based on materials from D.I. Feldstein,

• VP No. 3, 2010

• What mental barriers need to be overcome?

• What barriers to treatment of children with disabilities are still persistent?

• What barriers exist for a child in the educational environment: social, psychological, spatial, cognitive?

:

• In a regular educational institution (DOU):

• in a regular group;

• in the correctional group;

• In a specialized educational institution(DOW of compensating and combined type)

• At home

New value system

• New value system (personality, individuality, development, socialization)

• Special training for teachers and the entire staff (training, retraining, advanced training and skills)

• Special MTB, NPB, PMB (accessible environment, IEP, didactic tools)

• Teamwork of specialists (educators, doctor, psychologist, speech therapist)

• Reliable PPMS support system teachers, parents, children

An inclusive school and kindergarten is…

• Inclusive culture(system of values ​​and relationships)

• Inclusive policy(system of internal laws and bodies providing them)

• Inclusive practice(adequate inclusion forms, technologies, methods, PPMS assistance, special means)