Recently, the interaction of mass education and the education of people with disabilities has been widely discussed in Russia. This is positive aspect because for a long time these systems were isolated from the other. There are a lot of reasons for such isolation including the political processes in Russia, the peculiarities of the educational system, and the education and training of general and special education staff.
Lately, some positive tendencies in the development of special education have developed; however, it still needs to be accelerated. For example, recently, a series of legal documents defining the fundamental rights of people with disabilities have occurred as well as the adoption of a state regulatory policy in relation to them. The new law on education, which clearly defines the concepts that had not been fixed in any normative act earlier, has come into force and has improved the opportunities for people with disabilities not only to provide secondary education but also to expand the opportunities for vocational education for them. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.
This chapter will present the system of special education in Russia as it has been shaped throughout the years and will describe the prospects for continued development and existing problems. It should be noted that the Russia’s disability system involves persons with physical and mental impairments for which it has been difficult or impossible to provide education in general education classes.
In Russia, as in other countries, the historical development of a national system of special education was closely associated with (a) the socio-economic conditions in the country, (b) the level of cultural development of society, and (c) the legislation related to education. It is also important to note that the basis for the development of a national special education system in Russia and in the world is a reflection of the attitude of the state and the society of people with disabilities. On the basis of the above, the author describes five periods of special education evolution that cover a time span of two and a half millennia.
The first period of evolution moved from aggression and intolerance to understanding of the necessity to care for persons with disabilities. A close examination of the history and culture of Kievan Rus’ indicates that the pagan Slavs did not show aggression and hostility toward people with disabilities which occurred in Western European societies, but rather treated them with compassion and tolerance. Furthermore, the Kievan princes treated orphans and the poor with mercy and persons with disabilities were cared for by the church and they were given some income. This treatment was connected to the Byzantine system of monastic charity that had been prepared by the national cultural traditions. Therefore, the hallmark of this period is that in Russia, unlike in Western Europe, the period of aggression and intolerance toward people with disabilities was replaced with understanding, charity, and care.
This environment of charity was greatly enhanced by Peter I. He was responsible for creating a secular system of charity (Malofeev, 2010a, 2010b). His reign occurred during a period of forced and radical Europeanization of Russia. During this period, however, Russia lacked a broad network of church shelters and there was a lack of city governments. The lack of city governments stalled the European introduction of rest homes for the disabled. During this period there were no civil rights institutions or specialists to administer and supervise rest homes and secular and religious authorities stayed inactive. Positively, the above flaws were offset by a compassionate attitude of all social groups toward people with impairments.
Domestic zakonoulozhenie was the prevailing legal status. However, unlike Roman law and the subsequent European legislation, it did not address the status of people with severe disabilities until almost the 16th century. In fact, the first regulation of life for disabled people was introduced by “Stoglavy Sudebnik” (1551). It prescribed legislation aimed at protecting the “unblemished majority” from the “defective minority” by placing the deaf (believed to be bound by demons) in monasteries.
The second period of evolution covered the Russian society’s awareness for the need to care for the disabled as well the understanding to provide opportunities to teach deaf and blind children. This period saw the movement of persons with disabilities from living in community shelters to having individual learning experiences in special schools. The first educational schools (Deaf –1806, Blind – 1807) were established in Petersburg when Alexander I invited the French visual specialist Valentine Hauy to Russia. While this movement began later in Russia than in Europe, it quickly ended in the national precedent for opening of the first special schools across Russia. Because there was a serfdom system in Russia at that time, it was almost impossible to discuss the social status of people with disabilities (Ermakov & Yakunin, 1990).
Peter I did not find much support in matters of charity for the disabled and budding innovations in the matters of state social policy withered during the reign of Anna Ivanovna. Unfortunately, everything conceived by the reformer remained on paper and the government forgot about it. After Peter, charity was not popular, and the charity traditions weakened, and the new ideas about care and creating learning opportunities could not take root.
With the arrival of Catherine the Great, the Russia government acquired all types of charitable institutions similar to those in Protestant countries. However, a genuine development of secular charity was difficult due to the vast territory of the Russian Empire and the absence of preconditions in the country.
The focuses of the third period of evolution involved an awareness of teaching opportunities for children with sensory impairments, the recognition of the right to education for children with abnormalities and the development of a special education system. These focuses started at the beginning of the 19th century. During this period, positive attitudes of the public toward people with disabilities occurred and the first specialized institutions for the blind and deaf children were opened (Ermakov & Yakunin, 1990; Golovchits, 2001). Funding for these institutions was through charity and was beyond the scope of the domain of the government. Positively, Alexander’s I liberal reforms led to a surge in charity. However, during the reign of Nicholas’, the network of charitable institutions slowed considerably due to restrictions of freedom and persecution for dissenters. The situation improved considerably with the reign of Alexander’s II and his reforms which included the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of municipal government, and the judicial reform. His reign created the development of philanthropy. Unfortunately, the development of special education was not under state control as such there was no regulatory framework.
At the turn of the 19th century, Russia experienced a growth in the number of hearing and visual impairment specialists’. Because of the success by these specialists in working with hearing and visually impaired students, physicians, teachers, and community leaders decided to teach people with cognitive impairments (Zhigoreva, 2006). This state of affairs was considered to be the beginning of a special education system in Russia. Once this occurred, legislation on universal compulsory primary education was passed. Furthermore, this universal conscription led to the inevitable reflection by the government and society of the presence of children and adults with cognitive impairments. The organization of a network of educational institutions for children with cognitive impairments began shortly after the above legislation (Baryaeva & Zarin, 2001). Prior to this organization of institutions, no attempts by teachers were made to educate individuals with cognitive impairments in Russia and any teaching that was carried out was by physicians. Positively, from this movement, the Russian Society of Psychiatrists organized a network of institutions for children with mental illness in 1908 (Aksenov, Arkhipov, & Whites, 2004).
Special education in Russia changed dramatically after the revolution of 1917. The revolution led to a change in the political system and Russia was in a crisis due to the civil war. The institutions which were established for children with mental illness were taken over by governmental agencies. All charity and philanthropy was strictly prohibited by the government. The new government saw the purpose of education of children with disabilities as an important political goal to develop them as socially useful citizens. Thus, the formation of Russian special education developed into a monarchical socialist state with totally different values, goals and ethical standards.
The fourth period of special education evolution was concerned with its movement away from the awareness of the necessity of special education for certain categories of children with impairments to the understanding of the need of special education for all who needed it. This period, as well as the previous ones, is full of contradictions in the development and establishment of special education. The main contradiction is that the Soviet Union announced the care for defective children a priority, but did not constrain the expansion of the network of special institutions.
This period is characterized by the widespread development and differentiation of the system of special education, the introduction of new types of educational institutions for children with disabilities, and the extension of the age range of special education up to preschool and after school. Unfortunately, the development of special education was interrupted twice by world wars. During this period, a national law on special education was not adopted in the USSR. Further, special education specialists were not evenly distributed across the country. For example, in some large regions, there are no special education institutions or speech pathologists. Also, there was a political tendency to keep a close secret on the state of special education system from the media.
However, the development of the special education field continued to grow against the backdrop of social and economic growth. For instance, research on the methods to diagnosis and remediate impairments was undertaken, the need for education of children with all disabilities was recognized, and special educational institutions for children with disorders of the musculoskeletal system, emotional, and behavioral disorders were added across the USSR.
During this period, a classification evolved from the historically shaped system of educational institutions for children with disabilities. Classification focuses on a system of special education categories related to the specific characteristics exhibited. The classification includes the following disabilities categories: deaf; hard of hearing; late hard of hearing; blind; visually impaired; impaired function of the musculoskeletal system; emotional-volitional impairments; intellectual disabilities; cognitive impairments (learning difficulties); severe speech disorders; and complex developmental disabilities. Also, there is a more generalized classification, which is based on the grouping of the above categories of defects in accordance with the localization of them in a particular system of the body: physical (somatic) disorders (musculoskeletal system, chronic diseases); sensory impairments (hearing, vision); disorders of the brain (mental retardation, movement disorders, mental and speech disorders) (Aksenov et al., 2004).
Medical and social assessments determine the level of disability in accordance with which the individual rehabilitation program is built upon. Persons assigned to group one are considered disabled with persistent and significantly expressed body defects. They have deficits in the ability for self-care, movement, orientation in the surrounding environment, and the ability to control their actions may be impaired. Persons assigned to group two are disabled due to expressed and persistent health problems that lead to learning, employment, and self-care disabilities. Persons assigned to group three are disabled due to persistent but not significant or moderately expressed body impairments.
Beginning in the 1950s, the special education schools in Russia have been differentiated within five types, namely, deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, visually impaired, and cognitively impaired. Since 1954, the number of special schools has doubled because of new types of education and training methods. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, special elementary classrooms for children with cognitive impairments began to appear in regular schools. At the end of the 1980s, the first experimental classroom for children with severe cognitive impairments appeared in regular schools. By 1990, the total number of special schools was 2,789 (approximately 575 thousand students) and the network of preschools developed rapidly and there are more than 300,000 children with developmental disabilities in these programs (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).
The fifth stage of special education evolution involved moving from equal rights to equal opportunities and from the “institutionalization” of students with disabilities to the integration of students with disabilities. The main focus during this period focused on the integration of the people with disabilities into social life. The onset of the fifth period was not a logical continuation of the development of Russia society, but the result of one more reorganization of the government and a rethinking of the countries values. The government wanted to develop a special education model specially designed for Russia. This was due in part because in the previous period the system of special educational institutions and enrollment of children into special classes in regular schools, which was to a large extent modeled after the European model, was not achieved. From that endeavor, it became clear that Russia needed to develop its own model, which would promote integration but not result in a haphazard reduction of special educational institutions.
In developing its domestic education pedagogy model, the scientific activities of Vygotsky (1896–1934) were considered. Vygotsky had laid the foundations of modern special education His fundamental theoretical principles included: (a) the concept of the structure of a defect (the basic defect and related disorders); (b) biological and social unity (at the prevailing social role) in the concept of “defect”; (c) the defect and the possibility of its compensation; (d) the idea of the unity of the laws of development of normal and abnormal children; (e) the conception of qualitative uniqueness in the development of an abnormal child; (f) the postulation of the unevenness and selectivity in intelligence impairments (in mental retardation); and (g) the unity of intelligence impairments and affect (in mental retardation) (Malofeev, 2010a, 2010b). These important theoretical conceptions were utilized by Russian researchers to establish: (a) the important principles of special education and diagnosis of abnormal development, (b) the principle of using detours in teaching and development, (c) collective education, (d) structural and dynamic study of mental activity, and (e) the all-around, comprehensive study of the abnormal child’s psychic state. Currently, these principles are applied in Russia’s era of change and reform. This applies to the education of nondisabled children and those with disabilities.
The variety of classifications to some extent hinders the statistical treatment of data of people with disabilities. Problematic is the fact that the term “children with disabilities” is applied to a sufficiently large number of students with various physical and psychological disabilities. Previously, reported data on persons with disabilities was carried out by describing a category of children with terms such as “mentally retarded children,” “emotionally disturbed children,” and “behaviorally abnormal children.” Nowadays, for ethical reasons these terms are not used because they undermine the dignity of these children.
The prevalence of people with disabilities is important and interesting. Here are some statistics provided by the Ministry of Labor Decree for the last 5 years: the number of people with disabilities of Type I and III groups has been steadily increasing; and the number of people with disabilities in Group II has been reducing. From the data, one can assume that the reduction in Group II is a positive tendency, however, one may need to consider the fact that in recent years the criteria of disability assessment has changed, and this could have led to a redistribution of people over Groups I and III (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).
The Ministry’s data relating to children less than 18 years of age arouses ones attention. The data shows that in 2012 the number of children with congenital disorders is the most. While among children with behavior disorders it remains unchanged possibly due to the government’s greater emphasis of attention on early diagnosis and prevention of defects.
In 2012, 1.6 million Russian children (4.5% of the total number of children), belonged to the category of people with disabilities and need special education appropriate to their special educational needs. Of these, 352,900 children attend Groups (I, II, and III) and preschool educational institutions of compensating types. Moreover, 63.6% of these students with disabilities regularly communicate and interact with nonhandicapped children who are in preschool institutions. In total, 277,700 school age children with special educational needs go to special educational establishments for children with hearing, vision, musculoskeletal, speech impairments, and cognitive impairments. A total of 203,000 students go to special schools, 2,500 students are taught in comprehensive schools, 2,500 students needing long-term care are taught in 145 health educational sanatoriums, and 34,000 students are taught at home and in schools with individual instruction. Only 38% of children with developmental disabilities are integrated into the regular education environment. Data provided by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation indicates that there is a growth of children attending regular educational institutions over time (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).
Today in Russia, the problem of educating children with disabilities is becoming increasingly more relevant because legislation acts mandate that a child with a disability has the right to be educated in special and comprehensive schools or at home by their parents. A comprehensive school can offer a student with disability opportunities that include education in: (a) a regular class, (b) a class for remedial developmental training, (c) a class for children in need of special education, and (d) their home. There is considerable education debate among Russian special education professionals regarding the best practice to educate students with special needs. Some experts say that there is a need for education in special environments while some would argue the opposite, defending the idea of educating them in conjunction with normally developing peers. Currently across the globe, the idea of integrating children with special needs into mainstream schools is widely implemented. Positively, various forms of integration (combined, partial, temporary, and full) have been developed in Russia as well. The positive evidence for integration as an approach to teach children with developmental delays, social deficits, and psychological and pedagogical conditions comes from a number of studies (Aksenov, Arkhipov, & Belyakova, 2001).
Currently in Russia, the most important philosophy in general and special education in particular, is humanization. This philosophy can be valuable in overcoming the anonymity of special education. The philosophy stresses that schools make the student with a disability the center of attention and incorporate educational strategies to meet needs and interests. Based on the requirements of modern life in Russia and the challenges of integrated education, the interests and needs of the students with special needs and their parents becomes paramount to their future success in the community. Accepting this philosophy and emphasis, necessitates that teachers in Russia significantly upgrade the instructional intervention and adopt curriculum geared toward the students’ needs and interests. Knowing the current state of special education in Russia today, it is obvious that Russia needs to development of a new teaching ideology in the field of special education as well as redesigning the standard curriculum for children with disabilities.
The fact that the government’s attitude toward people with disabilities has changed is of special significance. Across the globe, the rights of children with disabilities are governed by domestic legislation, international conventions and United Nations agreements. The legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education is in accordance with international standards that guarantees equal rights to education for people with disabilities and disabled people. As evidence of Russia’s compliance with these standards, Table 1 describes three approaches to teaching children with special educational needs.
Table 1. Approaches to Teaching Children with Disabilities in Russia.
1. Differentiated instruction for children with speech, hearing, vision, musculoskeletal, intellect impairments, and with cognitive disabilities in special institutions. |
| There are eight types of special schools for different categories of children with developmental disabilities: |
• Special educational institution Type I (boarding school) for deaf children. |
• Special educational institution Type II (boarding school) for hard-of-hearing children. |
• Special educational institution Type III (boarding school) for blind children. |
• Special educational establishments Type IV (boarding school) for visually impaired children. |
• Special educational institution Type V (boarding school) for children with severe speech disorders. |
• Special educational institution Type VI (boarding school) for children with disorders of the musculoskeletal system. |
• Special educational establishments Type VII (boarding school) for children with cognitive impairments. |
• Special (remedial) educational establishments Type VIII (boarding school) for children and adolescents that are cognitively impaired. |
Children with moderate cognitive impairments are organized in Type VIII schools while children with lower intelligence are organized in schools Types I–IV. |
2. Integrated education of children with disabilities in comprehensive schools. |
3. Conjoined education when children with special educational needs are taught in the classroom with normal children (Kaliagin, Matasov, & Ovchinnikova, 2005). |
Today, the Russian system of education for children with special educational needs is on the verge of inevitable change. The educational integration of students with special needs, for more than a decade, has been mainly put into practice in Russia through experimental transfer and adaption to domestic conditions and modification of some well-established and proven forms of educational integration from other countries. However, now the organization of special education for children with disabilities in regular preschool institutions, comprehensive and other educational institutions, together with other children is considered to be a priority.
Today, Russia has more than 2 million children with disabilities (8% of all children). About 90,000 children have physical impairments, which makes their travel and access to social and educational resources difficult (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). To expand the access to education for children with disabilities who need to be taught at home, distance education of children with disabilities is being intensively developed in Russia. The systematic implementation of inclusive (conjoined) education is being introduced in Russia very slowly and irregularly. In some regions (Moscow, Samara, and Arkhangelsk), these processes have been well advanced while in other regions they are only beginning to emerge.
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation reported that from 2008 through 2010, inclusive education models were implemented on a trial basis in the educational institutions of various types in several Russian regions, including Moscow, Arkhangelsk, Samara region, the capital of the Republic of Buryatia, Ukhta (Komi Republic), the Republic of Karelia (Petrozavodsk, Sortavala), Tomsk, Voronezh, St. Petersburg, Khabarovsk, and the North Caucasus republics (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). The development of inclusive education in Russia is mostly carried out in partnerships between government agencies and non-governmental organizations. The initiators of including children with disabilities in the learning process in regular educational institutions were associations of parents of children with disabilities, organizations advocating for the rights and interests of people with disabilities, and professional societies and educational institutions.
Reforming of any social system, including special education, involves the development of the necessary legal framework for this process. Nowadays, the inclusive education in Russia is regulated by (1) the Constitution of the Russian Federation, (2) the Federal Law “On Education,” (3) the Federal Law “On Social Protection of Disabled People in the Russian Federation,” and (4) the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In 2008, Russia signed the United Nations Convention “On the Rights of People with Disabilities.” In addition, the Russian Health Ministry has developed a draft concept of the federal target program “Accessible Environment” for years 2011–2015. The concept of “accessible environment” includes not only the adaptation of the physical environment, but a number of other issues including teachers training, the change in the system of additional support, and support to the individual.
An examination of the state of higher education for people with disabilities in the Russian Federation reveals profound changes in its organization and content. These changes were caused by some sustained trends in social policy and the emergence of a new holistic and semantic vocational education endeavors. In Russia, only a small number of universities focus on teaching individuals with disabilities. The focus is mainly for students with sensory impairments or movement disorders. More than 24,000 people with disabilities are enrolled in state universities and more than 34,000 thousand are taught in special secondary schools (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). The question of university involvement in the professional self-determination of people with intellectual disabilities is being asked.
There is still a big problem with the employment of people with disabilities. According to governmental statistics, the Russian Federation is home to about 10 million people with disabilities yet only 13–15% of them have permanent jobs. Moreover, the number of persons with disabilities, who have completed program of higher professional integrated education, that have employment does not exceed 60%.
There still remains the problematic issue of dilution of the concepts of “integration” and “inclusion.” Some experts state that these concepts are identical, but more and more practitioners are inclined to the position that they are different concepts, especially in the areas of focus. The classification of defects is one of the challenging issues in special education and psychology in Russia. Mental impairments or lack of mental development may occur at any point in a person’s life, and can develop and grow over time. The defect can be eliminated or decreased (in whole or in part) with the help of medicine or educational intervention. Further related to this issue is the lack of statistical treatment data with children with disabilities. No absolutely clear and comprehensive statistics in Russia’s public records has yet been presented.
Social rehabilitation of people with disabilities is one of the most important and difficult tasks for the modern special education assistance system developed in Russia. Unfortunately, even with the positive trends in the development of special education, the public awareness of the problems people with disabilities have is limited. One of the critical problems is working with the family of persons with disabilities. This problem is complicated due to the lack of special education specialists and the poor communication with the family by educational and health services providers. Therefore, parents, being in the situation of having a child born with special needs are often left to solve problems all by themselves. New service trends and models of care that are occurring in global societies are increasingly requiring us to deal with these issues. Unfortunately, the existing system shows that teachers very often become involved with a child with special needs only when he/she is enrolled or is enrolling in the special educational institution. This practice often results in wasted educational time. Another important issue is when individuals with disabilities turn 18 years old. Under the current legislation anything done prior to the age of 18 years to help the student cannot be implemented after the child turns 18.
Today, there are a lot of citizens who were born and raised in the era of 1990s in Russia. We know it was not the easiest time for nonhandicapped citizens due to changes in the social system, values, lifestyles, mentalities, and education. For persons with disabilities it was even more difficult as they experienced a lack of concern by others, a lack of opportunities to enroll in educational institutions, or engage family members and others about work opportunities.
Children with intellectual disabilities especially those with severe cognitive impairments are the most vulnerable in matters of socialization. Today, these children are at a disadvantage because some comprehensive schools are not fully staffed with specialist such as psychologists and the majority of them dismissed social workers years ago. Therefore, a problem arises in how to organize the systematical work that needs to be carried out with the family when they are placed into a seemingly dire situation of caring for a child with a disability. Russia’s rehabilitation system does provide a significant set of services not only for children but also their parents, the family as a whole, and the wider environment. All the services are coordinated in such a way as to assist the individual and the family development and protect the rights of all family members. Help is provided at every opportunity in the natural environment, namely, in the home with the family. However, this does not extend to families with children in institutions.
The rehabilitation system provides a comprehensive plan aimed at the development of the child and the whole family. The plan is developed together with parents, a team of experts, physicians, social workers, teachers, psychologists, and speech pathologists, when possible. For the successful implementation of the plan, a system of activities is worked out for each individual child and family. The activities consider both the health and development of the particular child and the family needs and opportunities. The plan is typically developed six months or for shorter periods, depending on the age and the conditions of the development of the child.
At the end of the plan period, the specialist, who coordinates services for the child and family, meets with parents to discuss the achievements, successes, and what was not achieved. After this meeting, the parents together with the specialist or specialists, design a plan for the next six-month period. Sometimes, parents do not express any desire to cooperate and do not ask for help or advice. Some parents consider rehabilitation services primarily as an opportunity to get a break for themselves as it relieves them from the responsibility of caring for their child and gives this responsibility to the school or rehabilitation institutions.
In the context of working with families, as well as child support, the question of the child’s psychological and medical well-being occurs. Such special care matters are evaluated by the psychological-medical-pedagogical committees (PMPC). Special care as a new educational technology in Russia was developed by Kazakova (2009). She identified several sources for domestic special care system, namely, (1) the experience of comprehensive care and support for children in need of special education, (2) the experience of the special services providing psychological and educational various medical and social support to children (e.g., advisory services, remedial centers, diagnostic centers, service “Trust,” and crisis services), (3) the long-term work of psychological, medical, and educational guidance and commissions for children with developmental problems, (4) the experience of coordinating, scientific and methodological expert boards to ensure appropriate development of the child in educational institutions, (5) the communication of studies of various major research universities and research centers, (6) the implementation of international programs to create a system of tracking students’ progress in the country, and (7) need for experimental and innovative work of groups of educators, psychologists, and special teachers (Kazakova, 2009).
The establishments of psychological-medical-pedagogical commissions (PMPC) are priority goals and objectives in Russia’s modernization of education. The accomplishment of effective PMPC requires the construction of an adequate system of comprehensive psycho-pedagogical, medical, social and legal support for children with problems in development and learning. Under the system of PMPC it is understood there is a three-level organizational structure, which consists of: (1) at the regional level – State Regional psychological-medical-pedagogical consultation within the State educational institution for children in need of psychological, educational, medical and social assistance, which is central with respect to municipal PMPC; (2) at the municipal (district) level – municipal psycho-medical-pedagogical commissions, which are the principal in relation to the psychological, pedagogical consultation of educational institutions; and (3) at the primary level (the level of educational institution) – psychological and pedagogical boards (Kazakova, 2009).
To qualify for the right to define the educational route for children with disabilities, the PMPC passes mandatory examination procedures that are established by the Department of Education. According to the results of the examination, PMPC receives a permit. The activities of the PMPC and its individual units are financed by the budget of the education system of the certain region, municipal (district) educational formations, as well as through the targeted payments on establishment and operation of PMPC. PMPC works in close contact with agencies and organizations of education, health, guardianship authorities, social security, internal affairs agencies and prosecutors, community organizations, and educational institutions providing assistance in the education and development of students and pupils. The main purpose of PMPC is to provide help to children with developmental disabilities on the basis of a comprehensive diagnostic examination and evaluation of the special provisions for their education and adequate health care. Table 2 describes the activities and related tasks of PMPC.
Table 2. Tasks Focused on by Activities of PMPC.
1. Timely detection, prevention, and dynamic monitoring of children with developmental disabilities from 0 to 18 years of age. |
2. Counseling the children and adolescents attending a PMPC; parents (legal representatives), educational, health and social workers, directly representing the interests of the child in the family and the educational institution on matters within the competence of PMPC. |
3. Methodological support at the municipal level – PMP Consilium of educational institutions at the regional level – municipal PMPC. |
4. The coordination of interaction of PMPC specialists with special care services of educational institutions, parents (legal representatives) to achieve continuity of rehabilitation. |
5. Overseeing the implementation of the PMPC recommendations and monitoring the dynamics of children’s development who have been screened under the PMPC. |
6. The analysis of its own activities and the activities of PMPC and PMPC of educational institutions at the municipal level and municipal PMPC activities at the regional level (by order/request of the Office/district Department of Education/region). |
7. To collect the data about the children and adolescents with developmental disorders. |
8. To establish an information database of the institutions, to which parents (legal representatives) may appeal for help when difficulties arise in diagnostic or the aid is inefficient. |
9. Participation in educational activities aimed at improving the psycho-pedagogical and medico-social and legal culture (Kazakova, 2009). |
Source: http://www.gks.ru/ (Federal Service of Governmental Statistics).
The examination of children by PMPC is done at the municipal level by the recommendation of PMPC of educational institutions. However, it should be noted, in all cases, the consent of parents or legal guardians of the child, who are present during the examination of the child, is necessary. The examination is performed by specialists, individually or collectively. According to the results, a compiled collegial conclusion of PMPC together with the recommendations is issued, taking into account the opinions of each expert. The collegial conclusion consists of conclusions and recommendations. The conclusion is a document confirming the right of children and pupils with developmental disabilities to ensure optimal conditions for their education. PMPC commission’s conclusion is the basis for the enrollment of the child (only with the consent of the parents or legal representatives) in a special educational institution.
The major components of the process of medical, social and pedagogical patronage are early diagnosis and early comprehensive care. Early diagnosis and early educational assistance are pressing problems for Russia at the moment. Despite the attention of researchers to these problems, the development of the science of special education in general is in its infancy.
Russia also has a number of domestic scientists (e.g., Matyukova, Strebeleva, Pechora, Pantyukhina, and Frucht) who have made a number of methodological recommendations for the development of the science of special education. Their recommendations have focused on programs of early diagnosis and psychological educational assistance to children with developmental disabilities. These scientists have stressed the practical application in psychological, medical and social centers, psychological, medical, and pedagogical consultations (PMPC) (Levchenko & Prihodko, 2001; Strebeleva, Wenger, & Ekzhanova, 2002).
Unfortunately, there are very few institutions providing programs for early diagnosis and early intervention for children with developmental disabilities operating in Russia today. Positively, there is a wide enough differentiated network of preschools for special purposes that include the following: nursery-gardens, kindergartens, preschool children’s homes, preschool groups in nursery-gardens, kindergartens and orphanages, as well as in special schools and boarding schools. During the formation and development of special preschools, scholars, and practitioners adopted traditional special education preschool structures, polices, and curriculum. The organizational principles of the special education preschool education are discussed in the next section.
Children are recruited for the special education preschools based on their primary impairment. The special education preschools employ specialists such as special teachers (e.g., blind, deaf, and cognitive impairment), pedagogues for children with oligophrenia, speech therapists, and other health professionals (Mozgovoy, Yakovleva, & Eremina, 2006). The educational process in the special education preschools is carried out in accordance with the special integrated training and education programs designed for each category of preschool children with developmental disabilities and approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation. Best practice special education standards are implemented in all special educational establishments (Boryakova, 2000; Golovchits, 2001; Smirnov, 2003).
The educational institution designs and implements the curriculum and educational programs which are based on the characteristics of individual developmental needs and abilities of children, taking into consideration the special educational standards. In recent years, special educational institutions for other categories of children with disabilities (e.g., Autistic spectrum disorder traits, and Down’s syndrome) have been introduced. The graduates of special educational institutions (except school Type VIII) can receive a state sample of completion which confirms their level of education or a state certificate indicating they have meet the standards of the special educational institutions which they attended (Boryakova & Kasitsyna, 2004; Mamaychuk & Ilina, 2004; Nicholskaya et al., 2003).
By analyzing remedial developmental work with all categories of children, it should be noted that all educational institutions are trying to help all participants’ progress in their educational, social, and self-determinate goals. Also, the educational institutions work endlessly in solving the problems of the child and family with the help of various experts. However, the amount of progress that can be made and the number of problems solved is highly correlated with how well the staff has been trained (Shevchenko, 1999; Ulenkova & Lebedeva, 2002; Vodovatov & Bumagina, 2000). Russia is making a serious effort to improve the higher education training of special and general education teachers and specialists. In fact, the entire Russian higher education system is being reformed and rebuilt. This process started after Russia joined the Bologna process. Prior to joining the Bolonga process, there existed a specialist degree in higher education. When a candidate completed this degree, the graduate received a diploma of a specialist. The graduate had the option of continuing their education at the postgraduate level where the graduate could enroll in doctoral studies. Doctoral studies require the candidate to complete a thesis that is submitted to the Scientific Council which recognizes the right of the candidate to have a degree or a doctorate. Now, Russia has a multi-level system of higher education where a candidate can earn an undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate degree. The doctoral level of education has disappeared and its status is not fixed in Russia’s higher education regulations. With this change, the postgraduate school is now regarded as a stage of higher education. Also, students can earn either an academic bachelor degree or an applied bachelor degree. The applied degree is considered to be more practically oriented. It should be noted that this transition to the new system of higher education has led to a reduction of hours for a number of academic subjects, including compulsory ones, while other subjects simply disappeared from the curriculum.
The system of staff specialist (remedial) training in special education evolved over a long period of time and has had difficult developmental periods. Specialists training exist in several forms and as such there are several ways of getting qualifications as a special education specialist, namely, full-time (or day), evening and part-time training, or earning a qualification through upgrading courses and retraining.
It should be noted, that despite the fact that Russia has quite a number of ways of earning special education certifications, staff recruiting on the periphery is considered to be rather topical. For example, universities and institutes that are far from the center of the country don’t train all the necessary specialists. Therefore, experts working in the regions are retrained for special education. Positively, in Russia, all special education professionals need to improve their qualifications at least once every 5 years.
In general, special education in Russia has progressed a long way the past few decades, but it is still in its infancy. Some of the problems of special education in Russia are already being solved, but many still remain. For example, while education is becoming more accessible to people with disabilities there are many tasks that are not completed due to the introduction of inclusive education. Also, full educational coverage for students with disabilities in rural regions remains problematic. Lastly, a shortage of special education specialists continues to exist and retraining of professionals to be specialists remains difficult.
It is also clear that Russia does not have enough progressive-minded, academically proficient, culturally developed teachers and professors. Part of this is due to inadequate funding of education. Another aspect is the absence of a moral and spiritual stimulus. Being a special education professional requires enormous commitment from those who have taken up these careers and not many people are able to perform such noble deeds every day. There is a need for the Russian government leadership to take ownership of these aspects and help move special education forward.
There is also a need for: (1) a broad public support of special education policy, (2) the restoration of governmental responsibility and a more active role of the government in this area, (3) the state to financially support programs that are comprehensive, and (4) a more efficient use and coordination of available resources. In addition, all Russian citizens need to develop ethical and moral responsibility for education in general as well as promote laws aimed at improving education. Positively, the recent documents defining the development strategy of general education in Russia (“New School” national project “Education”) arouse a certain hope, as the intended objectives correspond to the needs of our society. Hopefully, the Russian modernization of education, in our case, special education, will not be in vain and soon everyone who works in this field or are its consumers will feel these improvements.
Aksenov, L. I., Arkhipov, B. A., & Belyakova, L. I. (2001). Integration as an approach to teach students with disabilities. In and N. M. Nazarova (Ed.), Special pedagogy: Textbook for teacher training university students (2nd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Aksenov, L. I., Arkhipov, B. A., & Whites, L. I. (2004). Educating individuals with cognitive impairments. In and N. M. Nazarova (Ed.), Special pedagogy: Textbook for teacher training university students (3rd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Baryaeva, L. B., & Zarin, A. (2001). Teaching children with intellectual impairments subject-role-play: Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia.
Boryakova, N. Y. (2000). A step in development. Children’s early diagnosis and correction of mental retardation: Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Gnom-Press.
Boryakova, N. Y., & Kasitsyna, M. A. (2004). Correctional and pedagogical work in the kindergarten for children with mental retardation (Organizational aspect). Moscow, Russia: Tvorcheskiy Tsentr Sfera.
Ermakov, V. P., & Yakunin, G. A. (1990). Development, training and education of children with visual impairments: Reference handbook for teachers. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.
Golovchits, L. A. (2001). Preschool surdopedagogy: Education and training of preschool children with hearing impairment: Guidance notes for university students (pp. 252–261). Moscow, Russia: Humanity Publishing Center VLADOS.
Kaliagin, V. A., Matasov, U. T., & Ovchinnikova, T. S. (2005). How to organize psychological support in educational institutions. St. Petersburg, Russia: LOIRO.
Kazakova, E. I. (2009). Basic techniques and technology in the work of the tutor. Samara, Russia: The Academy.
Levchenko, I. Y., & Prihodko, O. G. (2001). Technology training and education of children with disorders of the musculoskeletal system: Textbook for secondary teacher training institutions. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Malofeev, N. N. (2010a). Special education in a changing world (Vol. 1). Textbook for teacher training university students. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.
Malofeev, N. N. (2010b). Special education in a changing world (Vol. 2). Textbook for teacher training university students. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.
Mamaychuk, I. I., & Ilina, M. N. (2004). Psychologist’s help to a child with mental retardation. Scientific and practical guidance. St. Petersburg, Russia: Rech.
Mozgovoy, V. M., Yakovleva, I. M., & Eremina, A. A. (2006). Basics of oligophrenopedagogics. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Nicholskaya, O. S., Baenskaya, E. R., Liebling, M. M., Costin, I. A., Vedenina, M. Y., Arshatsky, A. V., … Arshatkaya, O. S. (2003). Autism: Age, characteristics and psychological assistance. Moscow, Russia: Terevinf.
Russian Ministry of Labor. (2013). Russian military of labor data. Moscow, Russia: Russian Ministry of Labor.
Shevchenko, S. G. (1999). Correction and development: Organizational and pedagogical aspects: Guidance notes for teachers working in remedial developmental teaching. Moscow, Russia: Humanity Publishing Center VLADOS.
Smirnov, I. A. (2003). Special education preschool children with cerebral palsy. Textbook– Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Detstvo-Press.
Strebeleva, E. A., Wenger, A. L., & Ekzhanova, E. A. (2002). Special preschool pedagogy: Textbook. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Ulenkova, U. V., & Lebedeva, O. V. (2002). Organization of special psychological care for children with developmental problems: Textbook for teacher training university students. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Vodovatov, F. F., & Bumagina, L. V. (2000). Organization of activities of remedial educational institutions: Textbook for secondary and university teacher training institutions. St. Petersburg, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.
Zhigoreva, M. V. (2006). Children with complex developmental disorders: Pedagogical assistance: Textbook for university students. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.