Abstract inclusive education. Social policy of the state: on the issue of inclusive education in Russia Every child may encounter difficulties in education in certain areas or at certain times

Implementation of the principles of inclusive education in the conditions of modern educational space.

One of the priority tasks of the modern educational policy of our country is to provide state guarantees of the availability of quality education throughout life (lifelong education) and equal opportunities for its receipt. Among the conditions that ensure the effectiveness of lifelong education, the leading place is occupied by the implementation of the principles of inclusive education.

“The 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 the involvement and relevance of their actions. We have an obligation to enable every child, regardless of their needs and other circumstances, to reach their full potential, contribute to 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 must be included from the very beginning in the educational and social life of the school in which they live; 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, value being together in a team. Inclusive schools aim for many different educational achievements than those most often recognized as mainstream education.The purpose of this school- to give all students the opportunity for the most fulfilling social life, the most active participation in the team, the local community, thereby ensuring the most complete interaction, helping each other as members of the community.

Principles of inclusive education:

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

Children with disabilities include:

1. children with disabilities;
2. children diagnosed with mental retardation;
3. children with impaired hearing, vision, underdevelopment of speech;
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 teaching children with disabilities in a public school, and in the report of the State Council of the Russian Federation "The educational policy of Russia at the present stage" (2001) It is emphasized: “Children with health problems should be provided by the state with medical and psychological support and special conditions for studying mainly in a general education school at the place of residence and only in exceptional cases in special boarding schools.”

Inclusive education today can rightly be considered one of the priorities of the state educational policy in 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 persons with disabilities. It is no coincidence that 2009 was declared the Year of Equal Opportunities.

The State Education Standard provides for a program of corrective work, which should be aimed at ensuring deficiencies in physical and mental development and assisting children in mastering the main educational program.

To develop the potential of students with disabilities, individual curricula are developed together with parents. Implementation of plans is carried out with the support of tutors, psychologists, pediatricians.

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

The knowledge gained helps the child to feel confident and strong. And that means being happy.

Objective: to ensure that every child receives knowledge.

How to work with children with disabilities:

1.– (therapeutic pedagogy of A. A. Dubrovsky) distraction of the child from leaving the disease;

Gymnastics, movements;

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

Entering the game;

Assistance in creative work;

Psychotherapy classes

2. Orthodox conversations.

3. Accounting for 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 teaching aids.

8. The use of various types of visualization, reference schemes, 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 developed and implemented to help expand the educational opportunities for people with disabilities. In the modern educational policy of the United States and Europe, several approaches have been developed, including: widening participation in education, mainstreaming, integration, inclusion, i.e. inclusion. Mainstreaming suggests that students with disabilities communicate with their peers on holidays, 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, not adapted for them. Inclusion, or inclusion, reforming schools and redesigning classrooms to meet the needs and requirements of all children without exception.

In the 1990s in the United States and European countries, a number of publications were published on the problem of self-organization of parents of disabled children, social activity of adult disabled people and defenders of their rights, which contributed to the popularization of the ideas of inclusive education.

Studies of the economic efficiency of inclusive education conducted in the 1980s - 1990s. and demonstrate the benefits of integrated education in terms of benefits, benefits, achievements.

To date, there has been some consensus in most Western countries on the importance of integrating children with disabilities. State, municipal schools receive budget funding for children with special needs, and, accordingly, are interested in increasing the number of students officially registered as disabled.

The 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, at the initiative of the Moscow Center for Curative Pedagogics and a parent public organization, the school of inclusive education "Ark" (No. 1321) appeared.

Since the autumn of 1992, the implementation of the project "Integration of Persons with Disabilities" began in Russia. As a result, pilot sites for the integrated education of disabled children 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 subjects 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 collegium of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation decided to introduce the courses “Fundamentals of special (correctional) pedagogy” and “Peculiarities of the psychology of children with disabilities” into the curricula of pedagogical universities from September 1, 1996. Immediately there were recommendations to institutions of additional vocational education of teachers to include these courses in the plans for advanced training of teachers in general education schools.

Today, inclusive education in the territory of the Russian Federation is regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the federal law "On Education", the federal law "On the 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 education options for children with disabilities

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

Special schools and boarding schools are educational institutions with round-the-clock stay of students, created in order to assist the family in raising children, developing their independent living skills, social protection and comprehensive disclosure of children's creative abilities.

Correctional classes of general education schools are a form of education differentiation 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 brought up in a family.

Home schooling is a variant of education for disabled children, in which teachers of 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, education is carried out by teachers of the nearest educational institution, however, in Russia there are also specialized schools for home-based education of children with disabilities. Homeschooling can be conducted according to the general or auxiliary program, built taking into account the abilities of the student. Upon completion of training, the child is issued a school leaving certificate of a general form indicating the program in which he was trained.

Distance learning - a set of educational services provided to disabled children with the help of a specialized information and educational environment based on the means of exchanging educational information at a distance (satellite television, radio, computer communications, etc.). To implement distance learning, multimedia equipment (computer, printer, scanner, webcam, etc.) is required, with the help of which the child will be connected to the distance learning center. During the educational process, both the teacher and the child communicate online, and the student completes tasks sent to him in electronic form, followed by sending the results to the distance learning center.

At the present stage of development of Western and domestic social pedagogy, a new socio-pedagogical meaning of the process of integrating children with disabilities begins to appear - 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 educators 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 focus is on the issue of attendance. A child with special educational needs becomes a problem for the traditionally organized educational process. Therefore, the child must be changed, rehabilitated so that he fits the school or society.

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

All people need each other. Genuine education can only take place in the context of real relationships. All people need the support and friendship of their peers. For all learners, progress may be more about what they can do than what they cannot do. Diversity enhances every aspect of human life. All learners must be successful.

The attention of the teacher focuses on the capabilities and strengths of the child.

In the course of the design work, a model of an educational space was developed that ensures the successful inclusion of younger students 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. For this, it is proposed to build the educational space accordingly.

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

It is also necessary to provide:

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

Forms of inclusive education:

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

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

Thus, it should be noted that, unfortunately, inclusive education is not cheaper than special (differentiated) education, since it still requires the creation of special conditions for a special child.

According to N.N. Malofeev (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 system of special education 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 ordinary educational institutions, provided that these educational institutions are provided with all 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.

Correctional goals.

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

The purpose 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.

The goals of educational and correctional work:

Optimization of the emotional and personal sphere of the child.

The development of the cognitive sphere, the formation of higher mental functions.

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

Tasks of educational and correctional work:

Working with children:

Diagnostics and correction of the cognitive sphere;

Diagnosis and correction of the personality characteristics of the child;

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

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

Organization of the success of the child;

Formation of communication skills;

Working with parents:

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

Active involvement of parents in the educational process;

Assistance to parents in the upbringing of the child;

Control over the organization of the normal regime of the day of the child, the elimination of his neglect;

Optimization of the process of communication in the family;

Restoring the potential of the family;

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

Management activities;

Psychological and logopedic support;

Medical support;

Social adaptation;

Working with parents.

The family is the first institution of human interaction with society. She directs his consciousness, will and feelings from early childhood. From what place a child with disabilities occupies in it, so his life experience, elementary knowledge and ideas about the world around him, skills and abilities of interaction with society develop. Therefore, it is important that the family positively influences his social development, and parents understand the importance of the right 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 a child with disabilities for a future life in various groups and collectives.

Therefore, in the context of inclusive education, the relationship between the family and the educational institution plays an important role.

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

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 supposed 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

The 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 the social development of the state. The vector of the social development of the state is determined by the type or model of social policy, which is usually seen as “embedded in a complete, internally coherent national system of the welfare state [Menning, 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 distinguishes three models of the regime of capitalism, or the welfare state: conservative (corporatist); liberal; social democratic.
This typology, as defined by Manning [Menning, 2001. p. 8], is based on such attributes as the nature of state intervention, the stratification of social groups, and the nature of the relationship between the market and bureaucratic distribution in the process of decommodification. Note that Esping-Andersen did not consider educational policy as part of social policy. According to Günter Hegi and Karl Hockenmeier, 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, the 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 belonging to 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 the educational policy and social development of the state; on the other hand, it solves its own specific tasks, out of direct connection with the context of the 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 the civil rights of social minorities, ensuring equal rights and access to education and, thus, is essentially a political process that is built into 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.
Consider the correspondence of the typology of the state in relation to the educational policy and the nature of inclusive education:
A conservative welfare state regime is defined as having a high level of income and social status stratification. Direct state provision in countries with such a regime is insignificant and is not connected 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 fixed 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 states includes Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy.
The relationship between social policy and educational policy in states of this type can be represented as follows.
In states with a conservative model of social policy, inclusive education is often seen as access to education in general, without a wide deployment of integration policies for people with developmental disabilities. In Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, a network of specialized schools for children with special needs is widely developed, but the 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 developing very actively, and this has been provided by law since 1971. Italy is considered a kind of "laboratory" of inclusive education, according to some data, in Italy, 80% to 95% of children with developmental disabilities study in integration 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 developmental disabilities integrated into a general education school may differ six times in different parts of the country) [Groznaya, 2004]. Thus, in countries with a conservative model of social policy, integrated education can take on the form characteristic of countries with other welfare models.
The liberal regime of the welfare state 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 an increase in the level of benefits reduces the incentive to work and enter the market. Examples of this model include countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.
The ratio of liberal social policy and the 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 an environment of healthy peers; special educational institutions that provide specialized behavior correction programs, after which the child returns to a comprehensive school.
The social democratic regime, unlike the previous ones, is characterized by the principles of universalism and equality. The state takes over the solution of many problems traditionally related to the “family sphere” (for example, care for children and the elderly). Countries with such a regime include Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. The ratio of social policy and educational policy in this case can be represented as follows.
In countries with a social-democratic model of social security, inclusive education is successfully provided for all children at risk, children with developmental disabilities are mostly included in the learning process in public general education schools.
It is indisputable that each welfare state may have features that are different from those identified by Esping-Andersen for each model as typical, or combine elements of all three regimes. The author himself pointed to 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 is very clearly correlated with the strategy and the main direction in "their" educational policy. It is obvious that the policy of the state 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's 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 in common with education policy and specific. Moreover, this specificity can manifest itself within one model (as it happens in countries with a conservative regime), and we will try to reveal 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 US and the UK

The liberalization of the social sphere is not the prerogative of the social policy of two or more countries; in most developed countries, this process proceeds with varying degrees of intensity and duration. In a broad sense, privatization is the delegation of state functions to the private sector. In addition, the liberal ideology is based on the ideas of "free choice", "freedom of the market" 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.
The liberalization of education in the United States 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 rejection of government programs; preference for a "results-oriented" private market; growing dissatisfaction with the education reform strategy.
In the field of education in the United States, the system of educational vouchers has become the main mechanism for liberalization. A voucher is a public financial document for a certain amount that an individual can use to pay for social services (housing, medical services, social services, food), and is a mechanism for "transferring public funds directly to the consumer to purchase educational services on the free market" . This program provides the child's parents with the opportunity to freely choose such a school, including a private one, which, in their opinion, solves educational problems better. The voucher covers a significant (but not all) part of the cost of studying in a private school, in addition, it contributes to the opportunity to change the place of the "deployment" of the school - to choose a public school located in a more "prosperous" area for training, if it participates in the voucher program. The voucher program began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Cleveland, Ohio 13 years ago; in the states of Maine and Vermont about 100 years ago, and currently covers 11 states.
The program is primarily targeted at low-income ethnic minority families and provides children from these families with the opportunity to receive what is believed to be better education in private schools. The system for 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 educational voucher, public funds are transferred directly to the consumer for school choice, while the purchased social and medical services are provided through a contract with an “intermediate” management company (Medicare / Medicaid) or a non-profit organization.
Nevertheless, the introduction of the voucher system is not perceived unambiguously in society; there are both active supporters and opponents of this system. Among the most important arguments of the advocates of the system of educational vouchers is that they can be used to solve the problem of the quality of education. This problem is very relevant for many US public schools, especially for those located in ethnic minority areas (inner-city schools). According to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin [cit. by: CER Report, 2005. P. 9], African-American students who chose the voucher program in the cities of Dayton, Ohio, New York, and Washington performed significantly better on tests after two years of private schooling compared to public school students. schools. Opponents argue that these studies did not take into account family background, the general "family attitude" to learning, the motivation of the students themselves to learn, and their previous school success. Another argument of the opponents of the voucher program is that it will leave the poorest in the worst schools, that is, the effect of "poaching" students will work. 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 United States Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as amended in 2004), without explicitly using the term "inclusion", provides for the necessary funding of special education in the local school system, the use of individual curricula and the provision, as necessary, to students with special educational needs special additional assistance in a comprehensive school. At the same time, parents can choose a special public or private school, education in which is largely paid for by the state. 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 general education schools were given the opportunity, with the help of a basic and additional (special) voucher, to transfer their child to a private school (not special) that provides the best 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 test barriers.
However, according to Gilberman and Lance, "private schools, having opened the doors to children with special educational needs, whose problems were previously dealt with by public schools, did not have the experience to cope with them." According to the authors, in 1997 only 24% of private schools catered for the special needs of 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, 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 problems of education quality, 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 eventually condense students from poor families and children with disabilities - such schools, interested in an influx of vouchers, are most often located in poor ethnic minority areas.
Liberalization and education reforms in the UK,
their impact on the development of inclusive education
The reform of the national education system has been one of the main directions of the social policy of the governments of both the Conservative and Labor parties in Great Britain over the past decades. The Educational Act of 1988, adopted by the Cabinet of M. Thatcher, to a large extent 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, decided in a completely liberal way.
The reform of the traditional education system, according to this legislation, was carried out in four main directions:

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

The ability to choose a school, provided by this legislation to parents, was supposed to be an assessment tool and, therefore, a way to increase efficiency - the choice was made on the basis of the school's rating on the results of testing students of seven, eleven and fourteen years. M. Hill defines that such a combination of "the possibility of choosing the social and educational image of the school and the possibility of schools" leaving "under the influence of the local committee of education creates the effect of recreating the selective system, which had previously been severely undermined by the development of public schools" .
The liberalization of the educational sphere is closely connected with such principles of market relations as marketization and a managerial approach. Schools are seen as "small enterprises (businesses)" competing for student clients: "The new managerialism in education emphasizes an instrumental approach to schools - assessing the quality of test results, attendance and percentage of graduates enrolled. The most characteristic terms for this direction are initiative, superiority, quality and efficiency. Of course, with this approach of the teacher, the administration and the board of trustees of the school will worry about the performance of "their" school in order to receive additional appropriations and rewards for their success. In the conditions of market relations, instead of the principles of cooperation and justice, the principles of efficiency and rivalry begin to actively operate. And this cannot but have a serious impact on the processes of inclusion in education.

Education liberalization and inclusion

Inclusive education in the UK exists in conjunction with special education, which has a long history and tradition in this country. And although inclusive education is legally fixed and develops, special separate schools continue to function and are considered as part of the educational space for those children whose parents have chosen this way 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 managed 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 the 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 District Education Authority (LEA), and this process of closing special schools is the most painful response to the overall process of educational liberalization.
Felicity Armstrong explored this process using the ethnographic case study method; she directly participated in meetings, consultations and pedagogical meetings of teachers and officials of the local education department after the decision was made to close one of the special schools and transfer all students to a general education school. This process, according to the author, revealed the contradictions of the new managerial approach and inclusion, when the school must generate income and be effective, and in order to receive additional funding, it must show evidence of its success. And then “the temptation to leave behind or scare away unproductive students is extremely great. Excerpts from meetings of pedagogical councils are full of arguments like: students with disabilities will lower the bar of standards, will not be able to keep up with normal ones, will become a burden for teachers who are forced to spend their extra time on them, cutting it off from other children. The officials of the Department of Education and the administration of the general education school used in their arguments “for” and “against” terms related only to the financial sphere of the activities of schools, leaving aside the cultural and social context of inclusion” .
Armstrong sees a contradiction in the fact that inclusion, being a broader cultural change, in this approach comes to be seen only in terms of economic rationality, as something "deserving", "non-destructive" and consistent with "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 the segregation system of institutions, but by the values, attitudes and practices that create a 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 involved in this process; teachers and school administrators ultimately become the direct conductors of any educational policy. The emerging contradiction between the requirements to raise the bar of standards and the moral demand for cultural changes in education greatly complicates the process of democratization of education, and social integration as its component.

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 in different ways, although its main vector is preserved. We are talking about the key concepts for the liberal model of “choice”, “market” and “efficiency”, which, in the process of liberalization, become decisive for education as well. Social integration 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 influence. This impact is determined by the chosen liberalization strategy.
In one case, in the United States, this is a direct provision of a “choice” through a system of vouchers, which, according to the reformers, should contribute to ensuring the availability of quality education through the choice of a school, while two main players will participate in the competition: public and private educational institutions. institutions. The results of this struggle will be to improve the quality of educational services for each “side”, and, accordingly, the efficiency of the use of 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”, promotes social integration, the creation of new educational spaces and the expansion of access to education, both public and private. On the other hand, these processes reinforce the trend 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, moving in the same direction of providing "choice", "market" and "efficiency", has a slightly different strategy. Although parents also make a "choice of school", it is not defined as a choice between "public and private". Every public school becomes a market player in these conditions - 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 efficient conflicts 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 legislative, that 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, the strategies of international, in particular, American experience of social integration are actively involved. These are the UNESCO programs for the development of inclusive education in Russia and the CIS countries, and the programs of the US Agency for International Development, and the wide interregional projects of the ROOI "Perspektiva" ("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 in Russia, but also on an international scale.
These strategies are based on liberal ideology, which gradually begins to dominate in this direction. The promotion of social integration is carried out through ensuring the availability of education for children with disabilities, in line with the struggle for the civil rights of the disabled, through the actualization of activities to change legislation, with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization, combined with activities to change public opinion. This, by the way, can be seen as a difference in the strategy of promoting social integration, which is carried out by Russian regional projects supported by donor organizations in 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 the promotion of social integration as a broad civic, cultural and ethical process, not reducing everything only to the “efficient” and “rational” use of resources, especially since the legislative mechanism for redistributing resources for inclusive education in Russia is still and not created. Strengthening the processes of liberalization 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: The 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. op. in 6 vols. T. 5. Fundamentals of defectology / Ed. T. A. Vlasova. M.: Pedagogy, 1983. S. 34-49.
Grishin I. The Swedish model of social development: market-policy dichotomy // Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2005. No. 11. S. 86-95. Groznaya N. Development of inclusive education: international experience. 2004 // Access to the resource 12/29/2006. Dimenshtein R.P. The school is becoming less and less integrative // ​​School Review. 2004. No. 1 // http//res.fromru.com/sedlzip/DIMENS09.zip. Access to the resource 09.02.2006.
Zaitsev DV Integrated education of children with disabilities. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2004. No. 7. S. 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: Didaktika Plus, 1997.
Experience of the integration school. M.: Ark, 2004.
Tarasenko E. Social policy in the field of disability: cross-cultural analysis and the search for an optimal concept for Russia // Journal of Social Policy Research. 2004. Volume 2. No. 1. S. 7-28.
Shipitsyna L. M. Integration - the leading direction of special education in Russia at the turn of the XXI century // Interuniversity collection "Actual problems of integration and correctional education of children with developmental disorders." St. Petersburg: Leningrad State Educational Institution im. A.S. Pushkin, 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. S. 100-106.
Yarskaya-Smirnova E.R. Social construction of disability // Sociological research. 1999. No. 4. S. 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 Choise, 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: Kogan Page, 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 No. 1321 "Kovcheg" with integrated education, Moscow, student of the Faculty of Social Management and Social Work of the Moscow Higher School of Economics

LVII International scientific and practical conference "Actual issues of social sciences: sociology, political science, philosophy, history" (Russia, Novosibirsk, January 25, 2016)

Collection output:

"Actual issues of social sciences: sociology, political science, philosophy, history": a collection of articles based on the materials of the LVII international scientific and practical conference. (January 25, 2016)

SOCIAL POLICY OF THE STATE: ON THE QUESTION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN RUSSIA

Korotkova Maria Nikolaevna

cand. polit. Sciences,

Assoc. Perm State Medical University. ak. E.A. Wagner

Russian Federation, Perm

E- mail: korotkova _ mariya @ mail . en

Potapova Irina Alexandrovna

student of the Perm State Medical University. ak. E. BUT. Wagner,

RF, G. Permian

Email :

SOCIAL POLICY: ON THE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN RUSSIA

Maria Korotkova

candidate of political sciences, assistant professor

Perm State Medical University

Russia, Perm

Irina Potapova

student Perm State Medical University of a name of the academician E.A. wagner,

Russia, Perm

ANNOTATION

The authors of the article summarize the results of the study, which was conducted on the basis of a rehabilitation center for children and adolescents with disabilities: find out the attitude of respondents to inclusive education in Russia; note differences in the perception of inclusion by specialists and parents.

ABSTRACT

The authors summarize the results of the survey, which was conducted on the basis of a rehabilitation center for children and adolescents with disabilities: find out respondents" attitudes towards inclusive education in Russia; note the differences in the perception of inclusion specialists and parents.

Keywords: Social policy of the state, healthcare, inclusive education, children with disabilities, sociological survey.

keywords: Social policy, health care, inclusive education, children with disabilities, a sociological survey.

According to the Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation", state policy and legal regulation of relations in the field of education are based on a number of principles, one of which is "ensuring the right of every person to education" . Special conditions are created for persons with disabilities, “including through the organization of inclusive education” . The latter "implies the provision of equal access to education for all students, taking into account the diversity of special educational needs and individual opportunities" . The legal foundations for inclusive education in Russia were laid down in 2010-2012 in the Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation", the National Strategy for Action in the Interests of Children for 2012-2017, the National Educational Initiative "Our New School", the state program "Accessible Environment » for 2011-2015 .

From the point of view of the Chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation V. Matvienko, inclusive education today is a way of “social injustice against children with disabilities in physical and mental health. For decades, such children in all countries of the world were limited in the possibilities of their socialization, the formation of themselves as individuals capable of quite actively participating in the life of society, realizing themselves in it. And these restrictions were laid already at the stage of education, since such children were actually denied access to an ordinary general education school. Russian society, however, is not so optimistic in assessing the prospects for inclusive education. According to a large-scale sociological survey conducted by the FOM in 2012, every third inhabitant of the country opposed inclusion, that is, joint education of healthy children and children with disabilities.

Such polls, as a rule, take into account the opinion of only one side. By default, inclusion is presented as an indisputable benefit for children with disabilities, which implies the unconditional acceptance of this policy by both children and their parents. But is it really so? In 2015, the department of "History of the Fatherland, History of Medicine, Political Science and Sociology" of the Perm State Medical University named after Academician E.A. Wagner of the Ministry of Health of Russia acted as the organizer of the survey, which was conducted on the basis of the budgetary institution of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra "Rehabilitation Center for Children and Adolescents with Disabilities" Anastasia "Langepas". The survey involved 50 people: specialists of the center and parents of children with disabilities (Table 1, Table 2).

Table 1.

Parents (number of people)

Education

activities

Age

Unfinished higher

Specialized secondary

Lower secondary

Servant

Domo-master

Table 2.

Specialists (number of people)

First, it should be noted the high degree of awareness of respondents in the issues of inclusion. Secondly, the parents' almost unconditional welcome of inclusion in Russia.

For parents, the most important aspect of inclusion is the possibility of socialization of their children: communication with peers - 78%; development of adaptive skills - 68%; independence, self-determination - 54%; participation in conferences, olympiads and other school-wide events along with other children - 42%.

Joint learning, from the point of view of parents, will allow their children to get rid of the feeling of "inferiority", isolation - 48%. It will also contribute to the education of "tolerance, kindness, responsibility" - 100%; development of a humane attitude of healthy children to children with disabilities - 58%.

Almost one in two parents believe that inclusion will lead to higher levels of education – 48%. However, the "comfort" of co-education is questionable. And although parents are sure that “healthy children are obliged to adequately respond to children with disabilities”, many of them are afraid to face “negative attitudes of classmates and their parents” during the adaptation period - 48%. The solution of this issue, from the point of view of parents, will depend "on the upbringing of [healthy] children and the attitude of the class teacher." And the upbringing of children, in turn, from conducting a special course that precedes joint education.

It must be said that experts are more critical in relation to many issues. For example, only 44% of respondents support inclusion. They are also skeptical about raising the level of education - 33%.

And if parents are more concerned about the possible negative attitude towards their children on the part of future classmates, then the arguments “against” inclusion on the part of specialists, as a rule, come down to practical aspects, for example, the absence or insufficiency of comfortable material conditions (ramps, specially equipped training places and etc.) - 85%.

Almost every second specialist worries about the educational and methodological aspects of co-education: the formal passage of the program for the “troika”, difficulties in combining programs for healthy children and children with disabilities, the lack of flexibility in educational standards, the need to take the Unified State Examination, the “emphasis” of the teacher on the average student in the classroom (this is especially exciting for young professionals - 100%).

Both parents and specialists are almost equally concerned about the lack of an individual tutor (or defectologist, or mentor) with a special education - 54%. For our part, we can say that the lack of qualified personnel is also recognized by the official authorities.

The majority of respondents - 76% - are in favor of maintaining the diversity of education (the parallel existence of correctional and ordinary schools). This is not surprising, because a regular school can only accept "trained and socialized" children. In cases of severe disability, the existence of correctional schools is vital, which, unfortunately, is not understood by all local officials.

And finally, about the most important. Only 12% of respondents are not satisfied with the state policy in this area, which allows us to speak of a neutral-positive reaction of parents and specialists in general.

Summing up the article, the following points should be noted. First, the attitude towards inclusion, as a rule, rarely depends on the education, age, and occupation of the parents; positions and qualifications of specialists. Secondly, there is a significant difference in the perception of inclusion by specialists and parents: specialists are more critical. This fact can be explained by the fact that parents think in terms of the future, evaluating mainly the prospects for inclusion. Experts live in the present, pointing out the flaws in the practical implementation of inclusion in Russia today.

Bibliography:

1. Ivoilova I. About salary, USE and education // Rossiyskaya Gazeta [website]. URL: http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/23/obrazovanie.html (Date of access: 07/27/2015).
2. Ivoilova I. The chance of the Markelov family // Rossiyskaya Gazeta [website]. URL: http://www.rg.ru/2013/01/22/semia.html (Date of access: 07/27/2015).
3. Laskina N.V., Novikova N.A., Lezhneva N.S. and others. Commentary on the Federal Law of December 29, 2012 N 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation" (item-by-article) // ATP ConsultantPlus.
4. Matvienko V. School of Equal Opportunities // Rossiyskaya Gazeta [website]. URL: http://www.rg.ru/2014/08/14/invalidy.html (Date of access: 07/27/2015).
5. Education without borders: children with disabilities in regular schools // FOM: [website]. URL: http://fom.ru/Nauka-i-obrazovanie/10588 (Date of access: 07/28/2015).
6. Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ “On Education in the Russian Federation” // SPS ConsultantPlus.

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 testify to the fact that priorities are given to inclusive forms of education.

An article has appeared in the Federal Law that directly indicates the obligation of the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments to create the necessary conditions "for receiving, without discrimination, high-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 significantly decreased. With a constant increase in the total number of students with disabilities and maintaining the average occupancy of educational institutions implementing adapted educational programs, the number of these educational institutions has decreased since 2010, according to various sources, by 5-8%. So, at a meeting of the Council of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia in June 2015, Livanov D.V. the following figures were given: "The number of correctional schools in Russia has decreased by 3.9% over the past three years. The number of children with disabilities and disabilities studying inclusively has increased by 15.5% - from 137,673 children in the 159,125 in the 2014/2015 academic year.At the same time, 481,587 children with disabilities are studying in general educational organizations, of which 212,167 children are in 1,660 separate educational organizations, 110,295 are in general educational organizations in separate classes with an adapted general education programs, and 159,125 children in inclusive classes of general education organizations."

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

The first is a wide public outcry caused by the legislatively established requirement to introduce special educational standards into the practice of all schools without exception, and the unprecedented expansion of the rights to receive affordable quality education for persons with disabilities by the Federal Law. For parents (legal representatives) of students with disabilities, doors were opened that for many years only the most persistent could try to knock, 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 the adapted educational programs. With the adoption of the Federal Law and special educational standards, almost all educational rights are transferred to the parents of children with disabilities, while general educational organizations acquire many duties that were previously unusual for them, 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 format of inclusion.

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 basic general and secondary general education and who studied according to adapted basic general education programs, are issued a certificate of education according to the model and in the manner established by the federal executive body that performs functions for 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 the framework of a particular adapted educational program depends, since for students with mental retardation (intellectual insufficiency) it is assumed that the non-qualification level is assumed, but the distinction between the concepts of "qualified "and there is no" non-qualified "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 when studying according to adapted educational programs. Most parents, when deciding on the choice of an educational institution for their child, are guided by the consideration that in a mass (general education) school their child will receive the same document on education as all other students, regardless of which program (and which 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 PMPK, were asked to change the main general education program of primary general education (hereinafter - BEP IEO) to adapted educational programs of different learning options. The content of the survey is presented in Appendix A. As a result of the survey, the following results were obtained. Out of 60 parents (legal representatives), 40 believe that when studying in a mass 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 classmates, and the same document on education according to graduation. Another five parents believe that the transfer from a mass school to a special educational organization (institution) that implements adapted educational programs (regardless of the conclusion of the PMPK and the type of adapted educational program recommended to 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 studies, but on the training program recommended in accordance with the conclusion of the PMPK.

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 with different forms of organizing the educational process according to adapted educational programs.

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

The third factor that can seriously affect the prevalence of the inclusive form of organizing the educational process according to adapted educational programs is the economic factor. A very high bar of requirements for special conditions, laid down in special educational standards for almost all training options, is not fully feasible at one time (by September 1, 2016) in all regions of the Russian Federation, especially in the context of the growing economic crisis. Since the most obvious non-compliance with 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, it is quite possible that the number of such schools will continue to decrease in a number of regions that do not have sufficient financial resources to provide material, technical and financial conditions for the implementation of the standard in full. As a result, parents (legal representatives) of children with disabilities, especially those with mild pathology (with mental retardation, with severe speech disorders), will simply be forced to go to mass general education 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 ensuring the conditions for the education of students with disabilities was the creation in 2015 of another 3,150 schools that implement inclusive education for children with disabilities, in addition to 5,945 already created in 2011-2014 in constituent entities of the Russian Federation and 9,111 currently functioning inclusive educational institutions. According to the same report, today only about 13% of general education organizations implement inclusive forms of education. At the same time, there is no documentary evidence that all the designated schools have created conditions that meet the requirements of special educational standards.

Thus, we can conclude that the state policy in the field of special education in recent years has been steadily focused on expanding the coverage of children with disabilities with predominantly inclusive forms of general education. The low level of readiness of public schools to organize inclusive education, significant discrepancies in terms of what can and should be considered the conditions for the accessibility of education for children with disabilities, required the maximum specification of the conditions that are necessary for teaching 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 who study inclusively will increase in the coming years.