Comparative Analysis of the Development of Inclusive Teacher Education System on the Example of the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the study is conditioned by the growing number of children with special educational needs, which necessitates forming a proper Ukrainian system of inclusive education and training of future teachers in accordance with international standards. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of the development of the teacher education system for improving inclusion in the United States and Canada in the context of a historical retrospective. To obtain new knowledge, the author applied methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, and generalisation. The article describes in a chronological context the development of teacher education in the United States and Canada to improve teachers’ readiness to provide high-quality education to all children in a mainstream school environment. Attention is focused on the importance of the “general education initiative”, which prohibited the distinction between general and special education in the United States and regulated the mandatory special training of “inclusive teachers”. It was discovered that the US Federal Government expects teachers of a general education school to be responsible for teaching children with disabilities, and requires constant revision of the qualification characteristics of a teacher of a general education mainstream school. The differences in the development of the Canadian teacher education system are described on the example of the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, which are generated by the recommendatory form of state initiatives of the provinces of Canada to develop inclusive education. The practical value of the study is to determine the key characteristics of the development and establishment of pedagogical inclusive education in the USA and Canada, based on which further methodological and practical improvement of the Ukrainian education system is possible
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".