Historical Development of the System of Inclusive Education in Russia and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article is devoted to the historical problem of development of the system of inclusive education in Russia. On the basis of in-depth multi-dimensional analysis of historical and genetic and socio-cultural bases of formation and development of the system of inclusive education as a state institution we consider five periods in the evolution of the relationship between society, state and children with disabilities and three stages of formation of the national systems of inclusive education. First period is the period when aggression and intolerance has transformed into the need to take care children with disabilities. Second period: the transition from the need to take care of children with disabilities to the possibilities of education at least part of children with disabilities. The starting point of this period can be considered as the opening special schools for the deaf (1770) and for the blind (1784) in Paris. Third period is the transition from the possibilities of education at least part of children with disabilities to understanding of the feasibility of inclusive education of three groups of children: children with hearing disabilities, children with seeing disabilities and children with mental disabilities. The turning point can be considered as the last quarter of the XIX century. The fourth period is the transition from the understanding of the feasibility of inclusive education of three groups of children to the understanding of the need for inclusive education all children with disabilities. In Western Europe, this period started from the beginning of the twentieth century and finished in the end of the 1970s. Fifth period is the transition from exclusion to inclusion. Integration of the children with disabilities into society of normal children in Western Europe is the leading trend of this period of evolution, based on their full civil equality. The period is characterized by restructuring organizational principles of inclusive education in Western Europe during 1980 - 1990-ies. The results of our historical research show that the integration is the natural stage of the development of inclusive education, connected in any country of the world, including Russia, with the rethinking by society and the state their relationship with disabled people, with the recognition of their rights in different areas of life, including education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".