• The authors:
    Elena V. Grunt
  • Issue: July 24-26th, 2019
  • Pages: 143-150
  • URL: http://conference-ifl.rudn.ru/143-150/
  • DOI:

Abstract. In modern world as well as in modern Russia there is an increase
in the number of children with special needs. For these reasons special
needs education has always been of importance both in developed and in
developing countries. In 1950s in these institutions special conditions have
been created for the education of children with disabilities. Psychologists,
doctors, special educators work with such children. Meanwhile, the
experience of teaching children with disabilities in special educational
institutions has shown a number of shortcomings: firstly, in many respects
these children were isolated from the society, their socialization took place
in an artificial environment specially created for them where there was a
lack of communication with healthy children. Secondly, this led to a lack of
competitiveness of children with disabilities in comparison with healthy
children in the educational market. Thirdly, it was believed that children
with disabilities were indifferent to education and were not able to learn as
successfully as others. Fourthly, there was the lack of tolerance towards
disabled people in many countries, including Russia, that led to the division
of society into healthy and disabled people, and to the segregation of the
latter. To eliminate these shortcomings in the 1990s, inclusive education
was implemented in the education systems of Western countries. In the
Russian education system, inclusive education began to be implemented in
The purpose of the research is to study the factors affecting the
implementation of inclusive education in secondary schools of one of the
largest regions of Russia – the Sverdlovsk region.
The research methodology combined both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. The primary data was collected using questionnaires and focusgroups. 2800 respondents took part in the questionnaire survey (1000
schoolchildren’ parents and 1,800 teachers of regional schools). 5 focus
groups were conducted with teachers involved in the process of inclusive
The methodological basis of the study was the structural-functional
approach to the analysis of inclusive education and factor analysis.
DOI: 10.22363/09669-2019-143-150
Implementation of inclusive education in the majority of the region school is
quite difficult. Meanwhile, the study has shown that 53.0% of the teachers
work in classes where children with special needs and children with
disabilities study together with healthy children \ children without HIA
(Health Impact Assessment) and, therefore, face issues in implementing it in
regular education settings. 47.7% of them approve of the inclusive
education implementation. 40.0% of respondents are indifferent to this
situation, 5.9% of teachers give a negative assessment of this situation, 6.2%
find it difficult to assess it. The majority of healthy children’s parents
(74.8%) give a negative assessment of inclusive education. They see only
the disadvantages of such an education for their children. 30.0% parents of
children with special needs see the benefits of inclusive education for their
The study has revealed territorial differences in the attitudes of respondents
towards inclusive education. Teachers working in rural schools (58.5%) and
parents of children living in rural areas (60.0%) are more loyal to the
inclusive education.
The study has determined the key group of objective (zero tolerance of the
society in relation to children with disabilities; unavailability of the school
to introduce inclusive education; mass media) and subjective (teachers’
unavailability to introduce inclusive education; parents’ unavailability to coeducate healthy children and children with disabilities; zero tolerance of
healthy children to children with HIA) factors affecting the implementation
of inclusive education in schools in the region.
The study has led to the conclusion that the key factor affecting the
successful implementation of inclusive education in schools in the region is
the need to organize professional training for most teachers in implementing
inclusive education.
Keywords: inclusive education, factors, teachers, parents, healthy children,
children with disabilities, Russia

Elena V. Grunt
Ural Federal University named after the first president of Russia
B.N. Eltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia,
e-mail: helengrunt2002@yandex.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2284-543X

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., and Burden, R. 2000. A survey into mainstream
teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational
needs in the ordinary school in one local authority. Educational Psychology,
2000, 20 (2): 191-211.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 397 pp.
Barton L., and Armstrong, F. 2007. Policy, experience and change: Crosscultural reflections on inclusive education, the Netherlands, Dordrecht,
357 pp.
Borodkina, O. 2014. Problems of the Inclusive Professional Education in
Russia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences140: 542-546.
Booth, T. 1998. From “special education” to “inclusion and exclusion in
education”. Theoretical Perspectives on Special Education., in P. Haug and
J.Tøssebro (eds. Norway, Kristiansand Høyskole Forlaget: Norwegian
Academic Press, 198 pp.
Denivarova, N. V., Abdresheva, M. K. 2015. Some Peculiarities of
Inclusive Education in Kazakhstan Questions of modern science and
practice5: 162-167.
Federal Law No. 419-FZ of December 1, 2014, this Federal Law is
supplemented by Article 3.1, which enters into force on January 1, 2016]
URL: http://base.garant.ru/10164504/1/#friends#ixzz4aCEXY41I [Accessed
February 20 2018].
Florian, L. 2008. Towards an inclusive pedagogy. In Psychology for
Inclusive Education: new directions in theory and practice. London:
Routledge, pp.14 -31.
Forlin, C. 2001. Inclusion: identifying potential stressors for regular class
teachers, Educational Research43(3): 235 – 245.
Grunt, E. 2018. Barriers on the way of inclusive education in modern
Russia. 12th international technology, education and development
conference (inted). Chova, LG., Martinez, AL. & Torres, IC. International
Academy of Technology, Education and Development, pp. 299-304.
Guskey, R.T. 2013. Defining Student’s Achievement. In International
Guide to Student Achievement (3-5). London: Routledge, pp. 3-24.
Romanov, P. V., Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. R. 2005. Invalids’ access issue to
higher education. Sociological researches(10): 48‒56.
Smith, J.D. 1998. Inclusion: Schools for All Students. USA, Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 435 pp.
UN, 2006, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Article 2.
USA, New York: United Nations. URL:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rightsof-persons-with-disabilities.html[Accessed March 15 2019].
UN, 1993, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for
Persons with Disabilities. USA, New York, United Nations. URL:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/standard-rules-on-theequalization-of-opportunities-for-persons-with-disabilities.html [Accessed
March 18 2019]
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education, UNESCO, France, Paris. URL:
www.sciepub.com/reference/276220[Accessed March 18 2019].
Vincett., K., Cremin, H.,and Thomas, G. 2005. Teachers and Assistants
Working Together. USA, Maidenhead: Open University Press, 348 pp.