Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
185
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.19
How to Cite:
Konstantinovich, E.V., Mikhailovna, T.L., Dormidontov, R.A., & Dolmatova, V.N. (2021). Assessment of the quality of inclusive
education in general education organizations of Russia. Amazonia Investiga, 10(45), 185-197.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.19
Assessment of the quality of inclusive education in general education
organizations of Russia
Оценка качества инклюзивного образования в общеобразовательных
организациях России
Received: August 12, 2021 Accepted: September 20, 2021
Written by:
Eliseev Vladimir Konstantinovich
74
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7607-911X
E-Library ID: 317980
Lilia Mikhailovna Tafintseva
75
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-7656
E-Library ID: 828916
Roman Alexandrovich Dormidontov
76
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3464-7086
E-Library ID: 839226
Vera Nikolaevna Dolmatova
77
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9590-0826
E-Library ID: 828388
Abstract
The purpose of this work was an empirical study
of assessing the quality of inclusive education in
the regions of the Russian Federation. The article
presents the results of monitoring the quality of
the implementation of inclusive education in
general educational organizations of the regions
of the Russian Federation. The criteria for a
comprehensive assessment of the quality of
inclusive education are highlighted.
Discrepancies in assessments of the quality of
individual parameters of inclusive education in
the regions were revealed, ways of increasing its
effectiveness were outlined.
Key words: monitoring the quality of inclusive
education, structural and psychological and
pedagogical components of the quality of
inclusive education, quality criteria.
The study was carried out with the financial support of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as part of the execution
of the state task for research, scientific project: "Psychology and Pedagogy of Inclusive Education: Assessment of the Quality of
Inclusive Education in General Educational Organizations of Russia".
Agreement No. 073-03-2021-017 / 2 dated July 21, 2021
74
Doctor of Sciences in Pedagogy, Professor Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky Lipetsk,
Russia.
75
D.Sc. in Pedagogic Science, Associate Professor Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky
Lipetsk, Russia.
76
D.Sc. in Pedagogic Science, Associate Professor University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky Lipetsk, Russia.
77
D.Sc. in Pedagogic Science, Associate Professor University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky Lipetsk, Russia.
186
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Introduction
Despite a sufficient number of publications
devoted to the problems of inclusive education in
the Russian Federation, conferences held at the
international and all-Russian level on this topic,
the problem of assessing the quality of the
inclusive process in general education schools is
still relevant. On the one hand, it is worth noting
the scarcity of fundamental scientific research in
this area of education. The content of the
overwhelming majority of articles in scientific
journals in the field of assessing the quality of
inclusive education is superficial and descriptive.
On the other hand, some experience has already
been accumulated in monitoring and assessing
the quality of inclusive education, both at the
level of educational organizations and at the
regional level. The generalization of this
experience is a necessary condition for the
formation of a comprehensive system for
assessing the quality of the implementation of
inclusive education, both in individual
constituent entities of the Federation and at the
federal level. Scientific research published by
Russian scientists devoted to the problem of
monitoring and assessing the quality of
conditions for students with special needs and
disabilities can be conditionally divided into two
large groups: assessing the quality of the
provided conditions for the implementation of
inclusive education and analyzing the dynamics
of indicators of the quality of inclusion. At the
local level, in the conditions of the municipal
educational system, the criteria and indicators of
the effectiveness of the implementation of
inclusive education can be: consultative,
organizational and methodological support of
inclusive education; the presence of a two-tier
system with a base institution as a resource
center, preparing teachers for work in inclusive
education through the organization of advanced
training and retraining courses for faculty and
school teachers, meeting the educational needs of
children with special needs and their parents,
variability of education, increasing the inclusive
competence of educators. The research problem
consists, in our opinion, in the presence of
contradictions between the quality indicators of
the organizational, technological and
methodological components of support for the
implementation of inclusive education and the
components of the educational process:
personnel, material and technical and
information education. However, the most
obvious contradiction lies in the sphere of
differences between qualitative indicators
(indicators) of organizational, technological and
methodological components of the infrastructure
of inclusive education and its psychological and
pedagogical components. Thus, the purpose of
this work was an empirical study of a
comprehensive assessment of the quality of
inclusive education in the regions of the Russian
Federation. The hypothesis of the study was the
assumption that when assessing the quality of
implementation of inclusive education in the
regions of the Russian Federation, more attention
is paid to such infrastructural components as:
organizational, technological and
methodological and, to a lesser extent, personnel,
material, technical and informational
psychological and pedagogical components of
the quality of inclusive education even less often
become an object of qualitative assessment in its
structure. To test the hypothesis, the following
research tasks were defined: summarize
domestic and foreign research in the field of
assessing the quality of the implementation of
inclusive education and highlight its main
criteria; conduct a monitoring study to assess the
quality of implementation of inclusive education
in the regions of the Russian Federation, based
on the selected criteria; to summarize the data
obtained based on the results of assessing the
quality of inclusive education based on the
selected criteria and to rank them; make a rating
of regions based on an assessment of the quality
of implementation of inclusive education.
Literature review
Scientific research of Russian scientists devoted
to the problem of monitoring and assessing the
quality of conditions for students with disabilities
and disabilities can be conditionally divided into
two large groups: assessment of the quality of the
provided conditions for the implementation of
inclusive education (Bogdanova & Nazarova,
2020; Ilyina, 2019; Sheveleva, 2019) and
analysis of dynamics indicators of the quality of
inclusion (Alekhina, Melnik, Samsonova,
Shemanov, 2019; Medova, 2013; Nizova,
Danilova, 2017; Petrovich, 2020; Farman, 2012;
Shemanov & Samsonova, 2019). In most works
devoted to the problem of assessing the quality
of inclusive education, monitoring is most often
indicated as a tool for assessing quality. In
modern pedagogical conditions, monitoring is
considered as one of the most effective tools for
assessing the quality of inclusive education, with
the help of which it is possible to identify and
analyze changes in the inclusive process at all
levels of education, taking into account various
categories of children with special abilities and
children with disabilities, forms of inclusions. In
Konstantinovich, E.V., Tafintseva, L.M., Dormidontov, R.A., Dolmatova, V.N. / Volume 10 - Issue 45: 185-197 / September, 2021
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
187
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
the list of criteria for assessing the quality of
education of students of general secondary
education institutions, they usually call resource
(material and technical, educational,
methodological, personnel and psychological
support and socio-cultural environment),
procedural (organization of the educational
process, its content, methods, technology, means
of teaching and upbringing) and productive (“the
level of training and learning of the individual,
the level of his upbringing and development,
social adaptation and health status”) groups of
properties (Simaeva & Khitryuk, 2014; Eliseev,
Eliseeva, Korobova, Romanova, 2021). In the
conditions of the municipal educational system,
the criteria and indicators of the effectiveness of
the implementation of the proposed model of
inclusive education can be: consultative,
organizational and methodological support of
inclusive education; a two-tier system with a base
institution as a resource center; preparing
teachers to work in inclusive education through
the organization of refresher courses and
retraining for faculty and school teachers;
meeting the educational needs of children with
special needs and their parents; variability of
education, increasing the inclusive competence
of educators (Medova, 2013). The objects of
monitoring are often the quality of the
infrastructure components of inclusive
education, such as the regulatory framework and
special software and methodological support
aimed at the most effective integration of
children with special needs into the educational
and socio-cultural space of a comprehensive
school. Another qualitative component is the
content of the activities of all specialists involved
in the process of inclusion. Finally, it is
impossible to achieve the most optimal
qualitative results without the presence of a
system of diagnostic and control-assessment
measures that allow timely identification of the
difficulties of students with disabilities and
teachers working with them, as well as to trace
the positive dynamics of the inclusive process in
the educational organization.
The system for assessing the quality of the
inclusive process in an educational organization,
according to many Russian scientists: (Alekhina,
Melnik, Samsonova, Shemanov, 2020;
Bogdanova & Nazarova, 2020; Petrovich, 2020;
Ilyina,2019; Sheveleva, 2019; Vakorina, 2019)
is aimed at identifying the levels of effectiveness
of achieving goals when planning the results of
integrating children with special needs into a
mass school: how diverse are the forms of their
implementation using modern psychological and
pedagogical technologies, how high is the
professional level of all participants in the
educational process.
In some constituent entities of the Russian
Federation, a procedure for assessing the quality
of adapted basic educational programs (ABEP)
has been introduced in accordance with the
requirements of federal state educational
standards for primary general education of
students with special needs (Nizova & Danilova,
2017). So, in the general educational
organizations of the Chelyabinsk region,
monitoring of the assessment of the quality of
inclusive education was carried out, taking into
account all categories of students’ health
disorders. As a result, the quality of the resource,
personnel, financial and material-technical
support of the ABEP was revealed and an
invariant evaluation mechanism was developed,
which makes it possible to most effectively track
and evaluate the conditions for their
implementation (Ilyina, 2019). The experience of
the Novosibirsk region deserves attention, in
which the emphasis in the implementation of
inclusive education in the region is made
precisely on the assessment of its quality. The
purpose of the work of the international scientific
school "Monitoring the effectiveness of inclusive
practice" created at the Novosibirsk State
Pedagogical University was to develop a
methodological and criterial apparatus for
monitoring the effectiveness of the educational
process in conditions of inclusion. In the study
conducted within the framework of the above
school, emphasis was placed on the complex
nature of assessing the quality of the results of an
inclusive process, which implies an independent
external assessment in the form of state final
attestation (state final examination), and internal
assessment (current control and intermediate
attestation), which makes it possible to include
consumers of educational services in the
assessment process (Ryapisov & Ryapisova,
2016; Farman, 2012).
In foreign scientific studies, the main attention is
paid mainly to psycho-logical and pedagogical
indicators not so much of the quality of inclusive
education, as to the criteria of its organization.
However, when assessing the quality of
inclusion, the criteria (indicators) of the
infrastructure of inclusive education are
practically not applied. Nevertheless, in the
monograph "Quality Indicators for Inclusive
Education" (Mishra, Priyadarshi & Jangira &
Kapoor, Satish, 2018), indicators for assessing
the quality of inclusive education are presented
as the quintessence of specific practices that are
summarized as a result of research and school
188
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
experience in order to contribute to the
development of inclusive learning for all
students, including students with special needs.
Indicators of this kind are called quality
indicators. Quality indicators are conditionally
divided into the following spheres (areas, factors)
of activity, among which: the school
management committee; school environment;
responsibility and authority; admission policy for
children; meeting (Council) on joint planning;
inclusive curriculum; training practice;
assessment and evaluation; individual student
support; parent and family support; staff
development; health and safety; medical service;
food. In some foreign studies, the criteria
(indicators) of the quality of the implementation
of inclusive education are practically identified
with the principles of inclusion. For children with
special needs, the principle of inclusive
education means that the educational
environment must correspond to the diversity of
the needs of students with disabilities (National
Professional Development Center on Inclusion,
2011).
Assessment of the quality of inclusive education
in some Spanish schools has a multi-dimensional
structure. Quality inclusive education is defined
by a combination of elements that must act
simultaneously. These elements relate to two
areas: school policy and practice on the one hand,
and the human and physical resources available
to them on the other hand. The most important
and irreplaceable element (quality criterion) in
the processes of inclusive education is building a
culture of inclusiveness in the school (Calero &
Benasco, 2016). In some European educational
institutions, special attention is paid to measuring
the audience indicators of inclusive education
based on cooperation, differentiation of
curricula, teachers' sense of self-efficacy when
working with students with special needs (Early
Childhood Technical Assistance Center, &
National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations,
2020). In some European preschool institutions,
for example in Finland, such criteria of inclusion
are practiced as: emotional support and general
emotional tone in the class; communication
between teacher and students; sensitivity and
responsiveness of the teacher to the needs of
children, etc. (Pakarine, Lerkkanen &
Suchodoletz, 2020).
In the materials on the inclusion of British
researchers, one can find the synthetic concept of
"Index", which, apparently, can be correlated
with a generalized analogue of the indicator of
the quality of inclusive education. Key
components of the Index are concepts such as
“inclusiveness”, “barriers to learning and
participation”, “resources to support learning and
participation” and “support for diversity” (Jones,
1996; Booth & Ainsco, 2002). Sometimes in the
English-language scientific literature on the
practical implementation of inclusive education,
you can find such a concept as "Assessment of
the quality of inclusive experience". This
assessment includes the following components:
staff support, accessibility of the physical
environment, individualization, participation and
involvement of children, contacts and
relationships between adults and children,
contacts and interactions between children
(Wolery et al., 1995). To assess the quality of the
educational process in inclusive education, it is
often useful to use scales for assessing the quality
of classes in inclusive preschool programs. One
such instrument for assessing the quality of a
teacher's work was the “Inclusive Class Profile”
– a rating scale that can be used to assess the
systematic practical work of a teacher in
inclusive classrooms (Soucacou, 2010). The
Canadian SpeciaLink Inclusion Principles Scale
assesses the degree to which early learning
programs have consciously adopted a set of
principles reflecting a commitment to include all
children in an inclusive education “community”.
This scale includes such parameters as the
physical, accessible environment, equipment and
materials, the role of the director, personnel
support, etc. (Lero, 2010; Cate, Diefendorf,
McCullough, Peters, & Whaley, 2010; Irwin,
2009). Often, general or specific principles are
presented as indicators of the quality of inclusive
education: restructuring culture, policies and
practices in schools so that they respond to the
diversity of students in a given area; reducing
barriers to learning and participation for all
students, etc. The development of quality
indicators for inclusive special education is
linked to the provision of vision and guidelines
for policies, procedures and learning strategies
that will contribute to the provision of effective
education for all children with special
educational needs and disabilities (Sánchez,
Rodriguez & Sandoval, 2019). Sometimes there
are scales for assessing the comfort zone of
childcare providers when serving young children
with disabilities in inclusive conditions of early
childhood (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, Bailey,
1996).
In the practice of some preschool educational
institutions in the United States, implementing
inclusive education, indicators of the quality of
academic and social growth of students with and
without special needs are being introduced, as
well as mixed assessment methods are used that
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
189
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
combine quantitative measurements of student
development with a qualitative analysis of the
views of parents, teachers and other school staff
about child development within the program
(Warren, Martinez & Sortino, 2016). Often,
schools that carry out inclusive education use
self-assessment questionnaires of the quality of
the educational process, which are necessary for
the reflection of the teaching staff (Sulzberger,
2015).
Noteworthy is the Maine Quality Rating System
(QRS) of the United States of America, called
Quality for Me, which includes global
programmatic metrics that define and improve
quality in healthcare and education settings. This
checklist expands on the current document with
clear indicators that focus on evidence-based
practices that promote inclusion of children with
disabilities and different cultural and linguistic
populations (Loreman, Forlin & Sharmа, 2014).
In addition to inclusive education, the USA
implements inclusive recreation programs. In the
state of North Carolina, qualitative indicators
(indicators) of such re-creative inclusive
programs have been introduced: administrative
support; the nature of the programs; Nature of
activity; environmental / logistic considerations;
programming methods.
Materials and methods
In the present study, monitoring was used as the
main methodology for assessing the quality of
implementation of inclusive education. In
modern scientific research, including
psychological and pedagogical, monitoring is
considered as one of the most effective tools for
assessing the quality of the infrastructure of the
educational process (Sheveleva, 2019). The
assessment of the quality of inclusive education
was carried out according to 14 selected criteria
during the monitoring of the official websites of
educational institutions. The monitoring assessed
the quality of implementation of inclusive
education in 547 educational institutions of 12
constituent entities of the Russian Federation
(from 40 to 50 for each constituent entity of the
Russian Federation). The monitoring made it
possible to assess the quality of the infrastructure
components of inclusive education in the regions
of the Russian Federation, i.e. how well the
general educational organizations of the
republics, territories and regions of Russia are
equipped with a regulatory, material and
technical, methodological base and special
software and methodological support aimed at
the most effective integration of children with
special needs into the educational and socio-
cultural space of a general education school, as
well as identify the presence of an inclusive
culture of teachers, students and their parents.
The monitoring results made it possible to obtain
an objective picture of the quality of the
organization of the inclusive process in the
educational institutions of the regions of the
Russian Federation.
State Hypotheses and Their Correspondence
to Research Design
The analysis of scientific literature on this issue
allows us to emphasize the importance of the
problem of assessing the quality of inclusive
education. Research by Russian scientists is most
often focused on the quality of the infrastructure
components of inclusive education: the
regulatory framework, special software and
methodological support aimed at the most
effective integration of children with special
needs into the educational and socio-cultural
space of a general education school. In foreign
studies, one can observe a fairly wide range of
indicators of the quality of inclusion, from
"inclusive culture" to all kinds of "Indexes" of
quality. On the other hand, an important
component of assessing the quality of inclusive
education for both Russian and foreign scientists
is the content of the activities of all specialists
involved in the process of inclusion. And, finally,
the focus of research interests of both Russian
and foreign scientists includes the quality of the
system of diagnostic and control-assessment
measures that allow timely identification of the
difficulties of students with disabilities and
teachers working with them, as well as to track
positive dynamics of the inclusive process in the
educational organization. It should be noted that
the psychological and pedagogical component of
assessing the quality of inclusive education in
foreign studies is presented somewhat broader
than in Russian, although it is more formalized.
Thus, the most obvious contradiction, in our
opinion, is in the sphere of differences between
the qualitative indicators of the organizational,
technological and methodological components of
the infrastructure of inclusive education and its
psychological and pedagogical components,
which is the main scientific problem of our
research. The hypothesis of the study was the
assumption that when assessing the quality of
implementation of inclusive education in the
regions of the Russian Federation, more attention
is paid to organizational, technological and
methodological and, to a lesser extent, to
personnel, material, technical and information
infrastructure components. Psychological and
190
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
pedagogical components of the quality of
inclusive education even less often become an
object of qualitative assessment in its structure.
Consequently, it is relevant to study a
comprehensive assessment of the quality of
inclusive education in the regions of the Russian
Federation in order to obtain versatile
information in order to qualitatively analyze the
implementation of the principles and criteria for
assessing this area in education.
In the light of the objectives of our research, we
asked ourselves a research question: can the
indicators of organizational, technological,
methodological and other components of the
infrastructure of inclusive education fully reflect
its quality without taking into account the
psychological and pedagogical component?
Results
The assessment of the quality of inclusive
education was carried out according to 14
selected criteria in the course of monitoring the
official websites of educational institutions.
During the monitoring, the quality of
implementation of inclusive education was
assessed in 547 educational institutions of 12
constituent entities of the Russian Federation
(from 40 to 50 for each constituent entity of the
Russian Federation). The monitoring results are
presented in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1.
Results of monitoring the quality of inclusive education in the regions of the Russian Federation, according
to the selected criteria (in%)
№
criterion
Arkhangelsk
region
Belgorodsk
onegir
Vologda
region
Irkutsk
region
Krasnoyarsk
region
Lipetsk
region
Nizhny Novgorod
region
Orenburg
region
Stavropol
region
Chita
region
Republic of North
Ossetia (Alania)
The Republic of
Buryatia
1.
100
100
01
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
42
100
2.
100
97
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
33
100
3.
81
64
82
75
87
86
81
54
93
46
46
78
4.
60
73
68
74
87
100
99
62
77
62
33
100
5.
67
66
83
25
25
80
67
44
57
67
25
64
6.
8
52
54
38
90
100
95
62
14
79
0,08
80
7.
25
14
58
11
4
90
91
29
50
70
6
83
8.
70
58
62
62
45
96
82
38
40
73
32
88
9.
50
63
39
61
61
100
76
48
54
75
20
81
10.
21
11
51
9
22
67
82
56
42
71
0,1
77
11.
31
79
47
78
87
99
88
42
68
85
75
94
12.
22
27
43
26
8
97
33
7
5
67
12
64
13.
33
43
53
30
8
99
3
0,1
7
87
0,1
95
14.
91
49
90
67
54
77
83
44
53
71
53
52
Source: own authorship.
Quality criteria for inclusive education
1. Compliance of the adapted educational
programs of inclusive education with the
requirements of the Federal State
Educational Standard for children with
special needs.
2. Quality criteria for inclusive education.
3. Availability of pedagogical technology
for the implementation of inclusive
education.
4. Methodological support of inclusive
education.
5. The system of special support for the
development of the basic educational
program by children in inclusive
education.
6. Qualification of the staff of an educational
organization participating in the
implementation of inclusive education.
7. The quality of the staff of the educational
organization involved in the
implementation of inclusive education.
8. Material and technical support for the
implementation of inclusive education
and its levels.
9. Information support for the
implementation of inclusive education.
10. Educational outcomes of students with
special needs mastering an adapted
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
191
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
educational program of inclusive
education.
11. Psychological and pedagogical readiness
of teaching staff for inclusive education.
12. Psychological and pedagogical readiness
of parents of children with special needs
to implement inclusive education.
13. Psychological readiness of ordinary
children for the conditions of inclusive
education.
14. Staffing that implements the correctional
orientation of training and an integrated
approach to accompanying students from
among persons with special needs and
disabilities
According to the criterion "Compliance of
adapted educational programs of inclusive
education with the requirements of the Federal
State Educational Standard for Children with
Disabilities", only one constituent entity of the
Russian Federation, namely the Republic of
North Ossetia (Alania), recorded very low results
compared to other regions (42%), while in almost
all other regions this result is 100%.
According to the criterion "Organizational
aspects of the implementation of inclusive
education", this Republic is also in last place
(33%). In other constituent entities of the Russian
Federation, high results of monitoring the quality
of inclusive education were noted (100%), with
the exception of the Chita region (75%).
Indicators of the criterion "Availability of
pedagogical technology for the implementation
of inclusive education" are also below the
average in the Republic of North Ossetia (Alania)
– 46%. The same indicator is in the Chita region
(46%). For the rest of the RF subjects, the
indicators are above average and high – in the
range from 54% to 87%.
North Ossetia (Alania) showed low indicators
according to the criterion "Methodological
support of inclusive education". The rest of the
constituent entities of the Russian Federation
showed higher indicators according to this
criterion, in general, above the average level.
Subjects such as the Republic of Buryatia and the
Lipetsk region demonstrated 100% quality, the
Nizhny Novgorod region – 99% quality, and the
Krasnoyarsk region – 87% quality.
The lowest rates (25%) according to the criterion
"System of special support for mastering the
basic educational program by children with
inclusive education" were noted in the Irkutsk
and Krasnoyarsk regions and the Republic of
North Ossetia (Alania). A low indicator was also
noted in the Orenburg region. In the rest of the
regions, this figure does not exceed 60%, in the
Lipetsk region it is higher – 80%.
The lowest indicators according to the criterion
"Qualification of the staff of the educational
organization participating in the implementation
of inclusive education" were noted in the
Arkhangelsk region (8%), Stavropol Territory
(14%), the Republic of North Ossetia (Alania)
(0.08%). The indicator is below average in the
Irkutsk region (38%). High rates were noted in
Lipetsk region (100%), Nizhny Novgorod region
(95%), Krasnoyarsk region (90%). In other
constituent entities of the Russian Federation,
this indicator is higher than the average in the
range from 52% to 78%.
The regions showed rather low indicators
according to the criterion "The quality of the staff
of the educational organization participating in
the implementation of inclusive education": The
Republic of North Ossetia (Alania) -6%,
Krasnoyarsk Territory – 4%, Irkutsk region 11%,
Arkhangelsk region – 25%, Nizhny Novgorod
and Lipetsk regions – 90% each, other regions
have indicators above average.
Low indicators according to the criterion
"Material and technical support for the
implementation of inclusive education and its
levels" were noted in the Republic of North
Ossetia (Alania) – 32%, Stavropol Territory –
40%, Krasnoyarsk Territory – 45%. High rates
were noted in the Lipetsk region (96%), the
Republic of Buryatia (88%), the Nizhny
Novgorod region (82%).
High indicators according to the criterion
"Information support for the implementation of
inclusive education" were noted in the Lipetsk
region (100%), Buryatia (81%), Nizhny
Novgorod (76%), Chita region (73%). The
Republic of North Ossetia (Alania) – 20%, the
Vologda region – 39%, the Orenburg region –
48% demonstrated rather low indicators for this
criterion.
Relatively high indicators according to the
criterion "The results of education of students
with disabilities mastering an adapted
educational program of inclusive education"
were shown by the Nizhny Novgorod region –
82%, Buryatia -77%, Chita region – 71%. Very
low rates were noted in the Republic of North
Ossetia (Alania) – 0.1, Irkutsk region – 9%,
Belgorod region.
192
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
High indicators according to the criterion
"Psychological and pedagogical readiness of
teaching staff for inclusive education" were
recorded in the Lipetsk region (99%), Buryatia
(94%), indicators below the average level – in the
Arkhangelsk region – 31 %), Oren-burg region –
42%, Vologda region – 47%.
Sufficiently high indicators according to the
criterion "Psychological and pedagogical
readiness of parents of children with disabilities
to implement inclusive education" were recorded
in Lipetsk region (97%), Buryatia (64%), Chita
region (67%). Very low rates were noted in the
Orenburg region (7%), Stavropol Territory (5%),
Krasnoyarsk Territory (8%). In general, many
regions showed low indicators for this criterion.
Low indicators according to the criterion
"Psychological readiness of ordinary children to
the conditions of inclusive education" were
recorded in the Orenburg region (0.1%), the
Republic of Ossetia (0.1%), Nizhny Novgorod
region (3%). A high rate was noted only in the
Lipetsk region (99%) and in Buryatia (95%). In
general, the indicators for this criterion are
extremely low.
High indicators according to the criterion
"Staffing that implements the correctional
orientation of training and an integrated approach
to accompanying students from among people
with disabilities and disabilities" were noted in
the Vologda region (90%), Arkhangelsk region
(91%), Nizhny Novgorod region (83%).
Indicators below the average level were recorded
in the Belgorod region (49%), the Orenburg
region (44%).
Source: own authorship
Figure 1. Assessment of the quality of implementation of inclusive education in the regions of the Russian
Federation.
Quality criteria for inclusive education
15. Compliance of the adapted educational
programs of inclusive education with the
requirements of the Federal State
Educational Standard for children with
special needs.
16. Organizational aspects of the
implementation of inclusive education.
17. Availability of pedagogical technology
for the implementation of inclusive
education
18. Methodological support of inclusive
education
19. The system of special support for the
development of the basic educational
program for children in inclusive
education
20. Qualification of the staff of the
educational organization participating in
the implementation of inclusive education
21. The quality of the staff of the educational
organization involved in the
implementation of inclusive education
22. Material and technical support for the
implementation of inclusive education
and its levels
23. Information support for the
implementation of inclusive education
24. Educational outcomes of students with
special needs mastering an adapted
educational program of inclusive
education
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Quality criteria for inclusive education
Arkhangelsk region
Belgorod region
Vologda region
Irkutsk region
Krasnoyarsk region
Lipetsk region
Nizhny Novgorod region
Orenburg region
Stavropol region
Chita region
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
193
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
25. Psychological and pedagogical readiness
of teaching staff for inclusive education
26. Psychological and pedagogical readiness
of parents of children with special needs
to implement inclusive education
27. Psychological readiness of ordinary
children for the conditions of inclusive
education
28. Staffing that implements the correctional
orientation of training and an integrated
approach to accompanying students from
among persons with special needs and
disabilities
Table 2.
Rating of regions of the Russian Federation based on the results of monitoring the quality of inclusive
education (average numbers in%)
№
п/п
Region name
Average value of the overall indicator of
the quality of inclusive education
1.
Lipetsk region
92, 22 %
2.
Rep. Buryatia
82,57 %
3.
Nizhny Novgorod region
77 %
4.
Zabaykalsky Krai
72,72 %
5.
Vologda region
64,29 %
6.
Belgorod region
56,86 %
7.
Krasnoyarsk region
55,57 %
8.
Stavropol region
54,29 %
9.
Arhangelsk region
54,22 %
10.
Irkutsk region
54 %
11.
Orenburg region
49 %
12.
Rep. North Ossetia (Alania)
26,94 %
Source: own authorship
Discussion
The data obtained as a result of monitoring the
assessment of the quality of inclusive education
in the regions of the Russian Federation (table 3)
allow us to interpret them as follows.
In general, according to the monitoring results,
the quality assessment of the main parameters of
the implementation of inclusive education
(material and technical, informational,
personnel) is above the average level, which
indicates a sufficient level of quality of the main
infrastructural components necessary for the
implementation of high-quality inclusive
education in the regions of the Russian
Federation. Nevertheless, there are significant
discrepancies in assessments of the quality of
individual parameters of inclusive education in
the regions of Russia. In particular, the
monitoring recorded significant differences in
the results of assessing the quality of the
psychological and pedagogical readiness of
teaching staff for inclusive education (72.75%)
and the psychological readiness of parents of
children with special needs (43.08%) and
ordinary children to inclusive education
(38.18%). The indicators of staffing,
implementing the correctional orientation of
training (65.53%), its qualifications (53.51%)
and quality (44.25%) differ. Significant
differences were recorded between a high
assessment of the quality of the organizational,
technological and methodological components of
supporting inclusive education (on average 80%)
and a low assessment of the quality of
educational results of students with special needs
who master an adapted educational program of
inclusive education (42.43%). An extremely low
level of psychological readiness of ordinary
children to the conditions of inclusive education
(38.18%) was noted, which indicates the
unwillingness of most children to receive
education in the same class and in the same
educational environment together with children
with special needs.
194
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 3.
Ranking indicators of the quality of inclusive education, based on the monitoring carried out in the regions
of the Russian Federation according to the selected criteria (average values in%)
Source: own authorship.
Conclusions
Analysis of research materials obtained in the
course of monitoring the quality of
implementation of inclusive education in the
regions of the Russian Federation allows us to
draw the following conclusions:
✓ The study summarizes data from the analysis
of Russian and foreign studies related to the
development of criteria for assessing the
quality of implementation of inclusive
education. The differences in approaches to
the selection of criteria (indicators) of the
quality of inclusive education are revealed.
In Russian studies, researchers' attention is
focused mainly on the quality criteria of the
infrastructural components of the
implementation of inclusive education:
organizational, technological and
methodological and, to a lesser extent,
personnel, material, technical and
informational. The psychological and
pedagogical components of supporting
inclusive education are not given due
attention. Foreign scientific research uses
criteria (indicators) for assessing the quality
of inclusive education that differ in
methodology and content: sociocultural,
psychological and pedagogical, classroom
criteria based on cooperation between
teachers and children, differentiation of
curricula, teachers' sense of self-efficacy
when working with students with special
needs and so on. Quality criteria for the
infrastructure components of the
implementation of inclusive education are
used quite rarely.
✓ It is stated that there are differences between
the indicators of the quality of
Rank
The name of the criteria for the quality of inclusive education
Average value
of quality
assessment by
criterion in%
1
Compliance of adapted educational programs of inclusive education with
the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard for children
with special needs
94,33 %
2
Organizational aspects of the implementation of inclusive education.
92,08 %
3
Methodological support of inclusive education
74,58 %
4
Availability of pedagogical technology for the implementation of inclusive
education.
72,75 %
5
Psychological and pedagogical readiness of teaching staff for inclusive
education
72,75 %
6
Staffing that implements the correctional orientation of training and an
integrated approach to accompanying students from among persons with
special needs and disabilities
65,33 %
7
Material and technical support for the implementation of inclusive
education and its levels
62,17 %
8
Material and technical support for the implementation of inclusive
education and its levels
60,67 %
9
The system of special support for the development of the basic educational
program by children in inclusive education
55,83 %
10
Qualification of the staff of the educational organization participating in
the implementation of inclusive education
53,51 %
11
The quality of the staff of the educational organization taking part in the
implementation of inclusive education
44,25 %
12
Educational outcomes of students with special needs mastering an adapted
educational program of inclusive education
42,43 %
13
Psychological readiness of ordinary children for the conditions of
inclusive education
38,18 %
14
Psychological and pedagogical readiness of parents of children with
special needs to implement inclusive education
34,08 %
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
195
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
implementation of the organizational,
technological and methodological
components of supporting inclusive
education in general educational
organizations of the regions of the Russian
Federation and indicators of the quality of
the implementation of the components of
ensuring the educational process: personnel,
material, technical and information.
However, the most significant differences
are observed between the indicators for
assessing the quality of implementation of
the organizational, technological and
methodological components of the
infrastructure of inclusive education and
indicators of the psychological readiness of
parents of children with special needs and
ordinary children to the conditions of
inclusive education.
✓ Monitoring research of a comprehensive
assessment of the quality of inclusive
education in the Russian Federation has
shown that in Russian regions much more
attention is paid to the quality of
implementation of the organizational,
technological and methodological and, to a
lesser extent, personnel, material, technical
and information infrastructure components
of inclusive education. Much less attention
is paid to the psychological and pedagogical
components of the quality of
implementation of inclusive education.
Bibliographic references
Alekhina S.V., Melnik, Yu.V., Samsonova, E.V.,
& Shevmanov, A. Yu. (2020). Expert
assessment of the parameters of the inclusive
process in education. Clinical and special
psychology, 9(2), (pp. 62-78):
https://psyjournals.ru/psyclin/2020/n2/Alehi
na_et_al_full.shtml
Alekhina, S.V., Melnik, Yu.V.,
Samsonova, E.V., & Shevmanov, A. Yu.
(2019). On the issue of assessing the inclusive
process in an educational organization: a pilot
study. Psychological and pedagogical
research, 11(4). (pp. 121-132):
https://psyjournals.ru/files/111073/psyedu_2
019_n4_Alekhina_Melnik_Samsonova_She
manov.pdf
Bogdanova, T.G., & Nazarova, N.M (2020).
Evolution as a tool for managing the quality
of inclusive processes in education. Special
education, № 3, (pp. 24-39):
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evalyuatsiya
-kak-instrument-upravleniya-kachestvom-
inklyuzivnyh-protsessov-v-obrazovanii
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for
Inclusion. Developing Learning and
Participation in Schools. CSIE.
https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Ind
ex%20English.pdf
Buysse, V., Wesley, P. W., Keyes, L., &
Bailey, D. B. (1996). Assessing the comfort
zone of child care teachers in serving young
children with disabilities. Journal of Early
Intervention, 20, 189-204.
https://www.rti.org/publication/assessing-
comfort-zone-child-care-teachers-serving-
young-children-disabilities
Calero, J., & Benasco, X (2016). “2 Quality
factors of inclusive education in Europe: an
exploration WORK TEAM”. Quality factors
of inclusive education in Europe: an
exploration: https://includ
ed.eu/sites/default/files/documents/quality_f
actors_of_inclusive_education_final_en.pdf
Cate, D., Diefendorf, M., McCullough, K.,
Peters, M. L., & Whaley, K. (Eds.). (2010).
Quality indicators of inclusive early
childhood programs/practices: A compilation
of selected resources. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina, FPG Child
Development Institute, National Early
Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
https://ru.scribd.com/document/436168801/q
ualityindicatorsinclusion-pdf
Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, &
National Center for Pyramid Model
Innovations (2020). Indicators of High-
Quality Inclusion. Retrieved from
https://ectacenter.org/topics/inclusion/indicat
ors.asp
Eliseev, V., Eliseeva, I., Korobova, M., &
Romanova, Ju. (2021) Assessing social
cognitive functions in elementary school
children: or problems of motor activity
disorders. Revista Amazonia Investiga,
10(37), 125-134, DOI:
10.34069/AI/2021.37.01.13
Farman, I.P. (2012) Monitoring as a method of
research and data presentation [Electronic
resource] / I.P. Farman: – Access mode:
http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/monitoring-
kak-metod-issledovaniya-i-predstavleniya-
znaniy
Ilyina, D.S. (2019) Monitoring of the Federal
State Educational Standard of SPECIAL
HEALTH NEEDS as an Assessment
Procedure of Resource Support for the
Implementation of Adapted Educational
Programs. Scientific and methodological
support for assessing the quality of education,
№ 3 (8), (pp. 28–32):
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/monitoring-
fgos-ovz-kak-otsenochnaya-protsedura-
196
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
resursnogo-obespecheniya-realizatsii-
adaptirovannyh-obrazovatelnyh-programm
Irwin, S. H. (2009). SpeciaLink Early Childhood
Inclusion Quality Scale. Wreck Cove, NS:
Breton Books.
https://www.specialinkcanada.org/about/rati
ng%20scales.html
Jones, S.R. (1996) Toward Inclusive Theory,
NASPA Journal, 33(4), 347-354, DOI:
10.1080/00220973.1996.11072421
Lero, D. S. (2010). Assessing inclusion quality in
early learning and child care in Canada with
the SpeciaLink Child Care Inclusion
Practices Profile and Principles Scale.
Retrieved from
https://www.specialinkcanada.org/about/pdf/
SpeciaLink%20Research%20Report%20on
%20Inclusion%20Quality%20Rating%20Sc
ale.pdf
Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2014).
Measuring indicators of inclusive education:
A systematic review of the literature. In
Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (Eds.), Measuring
inclusive education (pp.165-187). West
Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28
6806003_Measuring_Indicators_of_Inclusiv
e_Education_A_Systematic_Review_of_the
_Literature
Medova, N.A. (2013). Model of inclusive
education in the conditions of the municipal
educational system. 13.00.01 – General
Pedagogy, History of Pedagogy and
Education: Dissertation for the degree of
candidate of pedagogical science. Tomsk,
Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 285 p:
https://viewer.rusneb.ru/ru/rsl01005541733?
page=1&rotate=0&theme=white
Mishra, P. & Jangira, N & Kapoor, S. (2018).
Quality Indicators for Inclusive Education
[PDF file]. Retrieve from
https://www.academia.edu/35259816/Qualit
y_Indicators_for_Inclusive_Education_pdf
National Professional Development Center on
Inclusion. (2011). Research synthesis points
on quality inclusive practices. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, FPG Child
Development Institute, National Professional
Development Center on Inclusion. Retrieved
from
http://npdci.fpg.unc.edu/sites/npdci.fpg.unc.
edu/files/resources/NPDCI-
ResearchSynthesisPointsInclusivePractices-
2011_0.pdf
Nizova, L.M., & Danilova M.I. (2017). Inclusive
education as a form of socialization of
disabled people (on the example of the
Republic of Mari El). Educational policy, №
1 (75), (pp. 102-109):
https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_41442
546_56864602.pdf
Pakarine, E., Lerkkanen M.K. & Suchodoletz, A.
(2020). Teacher emotional support in relation
to social competence in preschool
classrooms, International Journal of Research
& Method in Education, 43(4), pp. 444-460.
DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1791815
Petrovich, O.G. (2020). The system of
monitoring studies of the learning conditions
for persons with special health needs and
disabilities: the experience of the Institute for
the Development of Education. Bulletin of
the Saratov Regional Institute of Education
Development, № 1 (21), (pp. 33-41):
https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=425652
58
Rojas-Bahamón, M.J., Aguilar-Cruz, P.J., &
Arbeláez-Campillo, D.F. (2020). Curricular
integration as a strategy to strengthen the
educational process in public institutions in
COVID-19 times. Revista Inclusiones,
7(num Especial), pp. 233-241.
Ryapisov, N.A., & Ryapisova, A.G. (2016).
Monitoring the effectiveness of inclusive
practice. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State
Pedagogical University, № 1 (29), (pp. 7-19)
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/monitoring-
effektivnosti-inklyuzivnoy-praktiki
Sánchez, S., Rodríguez, H., & Sandoval, M.
(2019). Descriptive and comparative analysis
of School Inclusion through Index for
Inclusion. Psychology, Society, & Education,
11(1), 1-13
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33
2639467_Descriptive_and_comparative_ana
lysis_of_School_Inclusion_through_Index_f
or_Inclusion
Shemanov, A.Yu., & Samsonova, E.V. (2019).
Special education as a resource of inclusive
educational process. Psychological Science
and Education, 24(6), (pp. 38-46):
https://psyjournals.ru/psyedu/2019/n6/Shem
anov_Samsonova.shtml
Sheveleva, D.E. (2019). The quality of inclusive
education: how the activity of the mass
school in different countries is assessed.
School technologies, № 4, (pp. 38-44):
http://narodnoe.org/journals/shkolnie-
tehnologii/2019-4/kachestvo-inklyuzivnogo-
obrazovaniya-kak-ocenivaetsya-deyatelnost-
massovoiy-shkoli-v-raznih-stranah
Simaeva, I. N., & Khitryuk, V. V. (2014).
Inclusive educational space: SWOT-analysis.
Bulletin of the Baltic Federal University, №
5, (pp. 31–39):
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/inklyuzivno
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
197
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
e-obrazovatelnoe-prostranstvo-swot-
analiz/viewer
Soucacou, E. P., & Sylva, K. (2010). Developing
observation instruments and arriving at inter-
rater reliability for a range of contexts and
raters: The early childhood environment
rating scales. In Walford, G., Tucker, E.,
Viswanathan, M. (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of measurement (pp. 61-85).
London, England: SAGE.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29
2696338_Developing_observation_instrume
nts_and_arriving_at_inter-
rater_reliability_for_a_range_of_contexts_a
nd_raters_The_early_childhood_environmen
t_rating_scales
Sulzberger, L.A., (2015) Quality Indicators for
Inclusive Practices: How Are We Doing?
Virginia Department of Education's.
Retrieved from
http://ttacwm.blogs.wm.edu/quality-
indicators-for-inclusive-practices-how-are-
we-doing/
Warren, S., Martinez, R. & Sortino, L. (2016)
Exploring the Quality Indicators of a
Successful Full-Inclusion Preschool
Program. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 30(4), 540-553, DOI:
10.1080/02568543.2016.1214651
Vakorina, L.Yu. (2019). Inclusive education in
Russia: mechanisms of management and
efficiency improvement: (dissertation. ...
PhD. in sociological) М., Peoples 'Friendship
University of Russia, 221 p.
https://www.dissercat.com/content/inklyuziv
noe-obrazovanie-v-rossii-mekhanizmy-
upravleniya-i-povysheniya-effektivnosti
Wolery, M., Gessler Werts, M., Lisowski, L., K.
Caldwell, N., Snyder, E. (1995). Experienced
Teachers’ Perceptions of Resources and
Supports for Inclusion. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities. Division on
Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
30(1), (pp. 15-26):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879136