Pedagogical sciences

UDC 373.2:376:37.091.12.011.3-051

Chornii Mariia

Methodologist-Preschool Teacher

Faculty of Preschool Education Organization

Kremenets Regional Humanitarian and Pedagogical Academy

 named after Taras Shevchenko

ORCID: 0009-0003-9143-8779 

https://www.doi.org/10.25313/2524-2695-2026-7-02-55

THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER IN CREATING AN INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT IN PRESCHOOL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RESULTS

Summary. This article examines the role of preschool teachers in creating an inclusive learning environment for children with special educational needs. The analysis covers the theoretical foundations of inclusive preschool education, practical experience working with children on the autism spectrum, methods for developing individualized educational pathways, and strategies for adapting teaching methods. The empirical basis consists of materials from pedagogical observations conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 involving 28 children of early preschool age (3–4 years), as well as the author’s 18 years of teaching experience. The results suggest positive trends across most key indicators. The proportion of children experiencing adaptation difficulties decreased from 25-30% to 5-7%. Adult intervention in conflict situations decreased from 80% to 35% of cases, while children’s independent conflict resolution increased from 40% to 90%. Active participation in the morning circle increased from 35% to 75%. The article argues that within early preschool settings, the quality of inclusive education appears to be shaped primarily by the teacher’s pedagogical competence and values, rather than merely by the administrative expansion of the network of inclusive groups.

Key words: inclusive preschool education, special educational needs, individual educational pathway, adaptation of teaching methods, teacher, autism spectrum disorders, socialization of children, folklore in preschool education, teacher’s inclusive competence.

Introduction. Ensuring quality education for children with special educational needs is one of those pedagogical challenges where theoretical progress and practical reality still diverge. Over the past decade, the Ukrainian preschool education system has made significant strides in the regulatory framework for inclusion: the number of inclusive groups in preschool institutions rose from 578 in 2017 to 7,102 by the end of 2023, with total enrollment exceeding 13,000 children [10]. Law No. 3788-IX “On Preschool Education,” adopted in June 2024 and effective as of January 1, 2025, established inclusion as a systemic component of preschool education rather than an exception to it [1]. In June of that same year, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the National Strategy for the Development of Inclusive Education through 2029, among whose priorities is the methodological training of educators to work with children with special needs [3].

Despite this, the statistical increase in the number of inclusive groups does not in itself answer the key question: what is actually happening in each of them? Does the presence of a child with special educational needs in the group become a meaningful educational and social experience, or does it remain a mere formality? The answer depends primarily on the teacher. Nicolaescu I. O., Mykhalchuk O. O., and Nikitska Y. M. (2023) note that a teacher’s level of inclusive competence – their ability to adapt methodologies, build a supportive environment, and collaborate with the team – is a decisive factor in the success of inclusion at the level of a specific institution [5]. Researchers Florian L. (2019) and Odom S. L. et al. (2011) emphasize the same point: an inclusive environment is born from pedagogical decisions, not administrative orders [13, 14].

Most studies provide general guidance, with few detailed descriptions of practice. This analysis uses experience from inclusive preschool settings and focuses on teaching adaptations, educator competencies, and early inclusion in group settings.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework. The international recognition of the right of children with special needs to an education in an inclusive setting is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), which Ukraine ratified in 2009 [2]. The Convention obligates signatory states to develop inclusive education at all levels and to ensure reasonable accommodations for every child. This document served as a starting point for rethinking special and general education in most countries.

In theoretical terms, the concept of inclusive education has come a long way from the idea of integration to the idea of full inclusion. D’Alessio S., Watkins A., and Donnelly V. (2020) describe this transition as follows: integration required a child with special needs to “fit into” the existing system, whereas inclusion changes the system itself to accommodate the diversity of participants [16]. This is a fundamental difference that defines the entire pedagogical logic: it is not the child who adapts to a standard environment, but the environment that is shaped to meet the real needs of each individual. Kolupaeva A. and Taranchenko O. in their monograph “Inclusive Education: From Fundamentals to Practice” (2016) emphasize the same point: true inclusion involves the meaningful engagement of the child in a shared educational space with all necessary adaptations, rather than merely their physical presence in the group [17].

Florian L. (2019) analyzes the role of the educator in this process and concludes: an effective inclusive educator is someone who builds the educational process on principles that are both acceptable and developmental for different children. This does not mean working in parallel with a “special” child while the rest of the group is engaged in other activities, but rather designing educational situations where differences among children become a natural pedagogical resource [13]. Odom S. L. et al. (2011) identifies three interrelated conditions for an educator’s effective work in an inclusive group: a deep understanding of the child’s individual characteristics, methodological flexibility in choosing approaches, and the ability to build trust in team collaboration. The absence of any of these conditions, according to the author’s observations, significantly reduces the overall outcome [14].

In domestic scholarship, Nikolaescu I. O., Mikhalchuk O. O., and Nikitska Y. M. (2023) view the educator’s inclusive competence as an integrative construct that combines knowledge of children’s developmental characteristics, operational skills to adapt methodologies, and a value-based stance toward each child [5]. The authors emphasize: without the latter component, a technically competent educator will still remain ineffective in an inclusive environment.

Drozhik L., Kononko O., and Tishchenko D. (2023) studied the social development of older preschool-aged children with special educational needs and found that a culturally rich educational environment positively influences their ability to establish contact with peers and integrate into the group [6]. Shagan N. (2024) confirms that the development of emotional intelligence in preschool-aged children with special needs is an important predictor of their future social adaptation and notes the effectiveness of methods that combine emotional engagement with rhythmic and motor elements [7]. This observation provides a theoretical basis for the use of folklore forms in remedial and developmental work with children with special needs.

UNESCO, in its Global Education Monitoring Report (2020), concludes: early inclusive education is the most effective tool for reducing inequality associated with special needs, and at the same time instills in all children values that cannot be fostered in a segregated environment [15].

Materials and Methods. The study was carried out by Maria Chornii, a teacher-methodologist at Preschool Educational Institution No. 8 in Lviv. It draws on classroom observations conducted between November 2021 and January 2022. The group included 28 children aged 3–4 (14 boys and 14 girls). Of these, 18 had prior experience attending a preschool, while 10 had no experience with group interaction among peers. For comparative analysis, two naturally formed groups of 14 children each were observed for comparative purposes.

Observations were conducted over several weeks (2–3 times per week; 30–40 minutes per session). Data were collected in November, December, and January. Everyday situations were observed: free play, structured activities, conflicts between children, and routine parts of the day.

The analysis considered how children adapted to the group, how they handled conflicts, and how they expressed emotions in speech, along with their level of participation in group activities. Parents (22–25 respondents) were also surveyed to complement the observational data.

The study is based on pedagogical observations, not standardized diagnostic tools; measurement precision is lower and generalization is limited.

This study is based on naturalistic pedagogical observations conducted within the author’s own preschool setting as part of routine professional practice. Prior to the observation period, written institutional approval was obtained from the administration of Preschool Educational Institution No. 8 (Lviv). Parents or legal guardians of all participating children provided informed consent for the use of anonymized observational data for research purposes. No personally identifiable information about individual children is disclosed in this article. All results are reported at group level only. The study did not involve experimental interventions, diagnostic procedures, or data collection beyond standard pedagogical monitoring.

Results. At the beginning of the study in November 2021, about a quarter of the children had difficulty adjusting to the group. They showed signs of anxiety, limited engagement in play, and difficulty separating from their parents. Over the following weeks, most of these children gradually became more comfortable in the group setting. By the second month, 70–75% of the children had adapted. By January, only 2–3 children continued to experience noticeable difficulties.

By this time, most children were able to play independently, follow basic group rules, and interact with peers with minimal adult assistance.

The nature of conflictual interactions changed significantly. At the beginning of the study, 80% of conflict situations required direct intervention by the teacher. By the end of the observation period, this figure dropped to 35%, while the proportion of conflicts resolved independently increased from 40% to 90%. Notably, after just four to five weeks of systematic work, the children began to propose compromises on their own, without prompting from the teacher. This indicates internal changes in their ability to regulate their own behavior rather than merely adopting external models.

In terms of speech, at the start of the observation, 60–70% of the children lacked the words to express their own emotions and conveyed their state through behavior – crying, aggression, or withdrawal. By the end, 70–80% of the children were able to verbalize their feelings. Most children progressed from one-word answers to simple sentences. The rate of active participation in the morning circle increased from 35% to 75% over 2–3 months.

Participation in group games also changed significantly: while at the beginning 57% of children avoided group activities or had difficulty joining them, by the end only 18% of children remained in this category. The ability to negotiate in small groups without adult assistance increased from 30% to 70%. The positive reinforcement system was applied daily, covered about 85% of the children, and yielded the first noticeable results within 2–4 weeks.

Fig. 1. Dynamics of key indicators of children’s adaptation and social interaction in an inclusive preschool group 

80% of parents noted positive changes in their children’s behavior at home – improved communication, reduced conflict, and the ability to express emotions in words. About 90% of parents expressed a willingness to actively cooperate with the educational institution. Among children with special educational needs, a gradual positive trend was observed: improved social interactions, reduced anxiety, and the development of communication skills. Each group included no more than three children with SEN profiles (primarily autism spectrum disorder), reflecting standard inclusive group composition in Ukrainian preschool settings. Peers spontaneously engaged with them and often offered assistance on their own initiative.

4.1. The Concept of Inclusive Education in the Preschool System. Inclusive education is often equated with integration or used as a general label for work with children with special needs (table 1). This use blurs the distinction between the two approaches. In integration, the system remains unchanged, and the child is expected to adapt to it. In inclusion, the question is posed differently: what exactly needs to be changed in the environment, methods, and approaches so that this specific child can thrive here? D’Alessio S., Watkins A., and Donnelly V. (2020) describe this shift as a rethinking of the educator’s role from a transmitter of knowledge to an organizer of the environment [16].

Table 1

Differences Between Integration and Inclusion in Preschool Education

For preschool education, this distinction matters. Basic cognitive, language, emotional, and social skills are formed in early childhood. A child with special educational needs who receives appropriate support alongside peers during this time has significantly higher chances of successful school learning and social adaptation later on. Delaying inclusion until older school age or replacing it with education in segregated institutions means missing a window of opportunity that will never return. UNESCO (2020) confirms: early inclusive education is the most effective tool for reducing inequality associated with special needs [15].

Preschool years influence children’s attitudes toward diversity. Daily interaction with peers who have different needs and exposure to respectful communication support the development of acceptance. Attitudes formed in this period show greater stability than those formed later.

Legislative developments in Ukraine reflect the gradual adoption of this logic. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) [2], the Law “On Education” (2017), the Law “On Preschool Education” No. 3788-IX (2024) [1], and the National Strategy for the Development of Inclusive Education through 2029 [3] form a regulatory chain that consistently enshrines the child’s right to education in a general setting. The increase in the number of inclusive groups from 578 to 7,102 over six years [10] indicates that this regulatory momentum is translating into practical changes. However, quantitative growth is not a sufficient indicator of quality. Opening an inclusive group and building a truly inclusive environment within it are two different tasks, and the latter is significantly more complex. That is precisely why the issue of educators’ pedagogical readiness is not a secondary organizational matter, but central to the entire system.

4.2. The Role of the Teacher in Working with Children with Special Educational Needs. In an inclusive classroom, the teacher works with a wider range of tasks than in a traditional setting (table 2).

Table 2

Key Areas of Teacher Activity in Inclusive Preschool Settings

The environment is organized with regard to different needs, and interaction between children is supported in everyday situations. Work with psychologists, speech therapists, and assistants is ongoing and based on regular exchange of information. Parents are involved in communication, planning, and decision-making.

In the practice described in this article, the bulk of the experience working with children with special educational needs involves children with autism spectrum disorders. This category places high demands on the educator: the behavior of such children is often unpredictable to those who do not understand its internal logic, whereas for the child themselves, it is completely understandable and justified. The educator’s work in such cases begins with careful observation and refraining from hasty explanations. Key areas include the development of communication skills and social interaction, the cultivation of self-regulation abilities, and the development of emotional recognition. In a group of 25–30 children, where 2–3 have special needs, the educator must find a way to organize the educational process so that it is developmental for everyone – and does not turn into a constant switching between “typical” and “special” children.

One of the main pedagogical tools in such a situation is systematic observation (table 3).

Table 3

Types of Pedagogical Observation in Inclusive Groups

In the study conducted, this was carried out in four types of situations: free play, organized activities, conflict interactions, and routine moments of the daily schedule. This is important because a child with special needs may exhibit significantly different behavior depending on the context. What they are unable to do in a structured lesson may occur spontaneously during free play – and vice versa. An educator who observes only in one setting risks obtaining an incomplete picture of the child’s capabilities and challenges.

Interaction with a teaching assistant, as provided for by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 530 [4], significantly expands the teacher’s capabilities. But its effectiveness depends on how clearly and specifically the teacher conveys to the assistant an understanding of a particular child’s needs: what situations might destabilize them, what techniques help, what is a sign of fatigue, and what is a sign of mounting excitement. Having an assistant in the group is a necessary but insufficient condition – without a common language between the teacher and the assistant, this support remains fragmented.

A separate function of the teacher is fostering a group culture of acceptance. Peers in the study groups spontaneously engaged with children with special needs and often offered help on their own initiative. This environment doesn’t appear on its own. It depends on how the teacher responds to children’s impatience or confusion, how differences are explained, and how group work is organized so everyone can take part. When communication is open and respectful, parents are more likely to get involved.

4.3. Adapting Educational Methods to a Child’s Individual Abilities. In educational literature, the adaptation of educational methods is often described in terms of “lowered expectations” or “simplifying the material.” This is a misconception. True adaptation involves changing the forms, pace, and methods of presentation, while ensuring that the content and pedagogical goals remain appropriate for the group’s level, and the child with special needs is given the opportunity to reach them in their own way. Florian L. (2019) emphasizes: high-quality adaptation is imperceptible to the rest of the group – it is integrated into the overall logic of the lesson and does not single out the child with special needs as someone who “does things differently” [13].

The central document of individualization is the individual educational pathway. In the practice under analysis, it was developed for each child with special educational needs and covered specific developmental goals across several areas, methods and forms of work, ways of interacting with the assistant and specialists, as well as an algorithm for monitoring progress. Regular review and adjustment of the pathway is a fundamental requirement: a document developed at the beginning of the year and never reviewed again ceases to reflect the child’s actual needs and becomes a mere formality. An analytical report by the Institute of Special Education and Psychology of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (2023) notes that the formalization of an individual educational roadmap without its actual implementation is one of the most common problems in the practice of inclusive groups [8].

A predictable environment was maintained for children with autism spectrum disorders. Visual supports (cards, pictograms, schedules) were used to structure the daily routine and reduce verbal prompts. Lower anxiety and more stable engagement were observed. Materials were placed in the shared classroom space and used by all children.

Time and space were structured in a stable way. Daily routines, transitions, and group rituals followed a clear pattern. Activity length varied by age (15–20 minutes; 25–40 minutes). Children worked at their own pace and could take breaks.

A distinct and pedagogically valuable approach to adaptation was the use of elements of Ukrainian folklore for sensory stabilization. Folk songs, rhythmic games, counting rhymes, and movement exercises possess a quality that the teacher utilized purposefully: their rhythmic and melodic predictability provides gentle sensory stimulation without overwhelming the child. For children with autism spectrum disorders, this means the opportunity to participate in group activities without the stress of unexpected auditory or motor stimuli. Drozhik L. et al. (2023) confirm that a culturally rich environment positively influences the social development of children with special needs [6], while Shagan N. (2024) notes the effectiveness of methods that combine rhythmic elements with emotional engagement [7]. These approaches benefit both children with special needs and the group as a whole and are therefore applicable in inclusive settings.

The general principle uniting the described approaches is that adaptation is always personalized. Two children with the same diagnosis may have significantly different needs and respond differently to the same techniques. Pedagogical adaptation is not the application of a protocol, but a constant dialogue between what the teacher plans and what the child demonstrates in response.

4.4. Professional Competencies of Educators in an Inclusive Environment. Determining which competencies an educator needs to work in an inclusive group is a question that has not yet received a definitive answer in educational science. Nicolaescu I. O. et al. (2023) describe inclusive competence as an integrative construct encompassing cognitive, operational-technological, and value-based dimensions [5]. Researchers agree that technical skills to adapt methodologies are insufficient: an educator who internally views a child with special needs as a “problem” or a “burden” will not be able to create a truly inclusive environment, no matter how methodologically competent they may be.

The first and most fundamental dimension of competence is the ability to observe attentively and record changes. In the study, observations were conducted weekly at three checkpoints, providing a dynamic picture of progress. The skill of structured pedagogical observation is not intuitive – it must be purposefully developed. The young teachers with whom the author had worked as a methodologist most often recognized “problematic behavior” in general terms but struggled to describe specific situational triggers and to distinguish exhaustion from disinterest, or aggression from a defensive reaction.

The second aspect is methodological flexibility. This does not mean abandoning planning; on the contrary, it involves such a deep familiarity with the methodological toolkit that the teacher can quickly switch between approaches without losing sight of the pedagogical goal. In the author’s practice, this manifested in the fact that a lesson planned in one format could be restructured right in the middle of the session if a child showed signs of fatigue or anxiety.

The key competency areas are summarized in Figure 2.

Fig. 2. Key professional competencies of teachers in an inclusive preschool environment

Teamwork is essential in working with children with special needs. A teacher alone cannot cover all aspects of support, so psychologists, speech therapists, and assistants are involved as part of the same working process. How consistently they coordinate their actions with each other and with the teacher shapes the overall effectiveness of support. Research confirms: the implementation of effective models of team collaboration is one of the key conditions for quality inclusion in a preschool setting [9].

The fourth dimension is personal resilience. Progress in working with children with special needs can be slow, and results are unpredictable. Odom S. L. et al. (2011) describes an important trait of a successful inclusive educator as “pedagogical optimism” – a well-founded, rather than naive, belief that every child is capable of development [14]. In the author’s practice, this optimism was reinforced by real, albeit gradual, changes: a child who had not interacted with peers for a month would one day begin to respond to their attempts to engage – and this became the basis for continuing work in the same direction.

Methodological leadership was included in the work. The author mentored more than 20 early-career educators. Open classes, joint planning, and consultations aligned teaching practices and established a shared approach to individualized work.

Based on these observations, beginning teachers most often had difficulty applying adapted methods in practice and communicating with parents of children with special needs. These areas became the focus of further methodological support.

4.5. The Social and Educational Value of Inclusive Preschool Education. Most studies describe individual cases. In this study, the results were not limited to single children.

Children with special educational needs were included in regular peer groups, where they experienced a wider range of social situations. Over time, their interaction, emotional stability, and communication improved through everyday group activities, not separate remedial work.

For children without special needs, an inclusive environment holds its own developmental potential. The presence of a peer with different needs naturally prompts questions that might never arise in a typical group: Why does he react differently? How can we help them? Why does their interaction with the teacher look different? Research data show that peers spontaneously demonstrated help and interest – behavior that the teacher did not directly initiate but created favorable conditions for. UNESCO (2020) links early inclusion to the formation of stable attitudes toward diversity based on direct experience [15].

For educators, inclusive practice serves as a powerful catalyst for professional growth. Every child with special needs presents the educator with new challenges that have no ready-made solutions, thereby encouraging them to seek their own answers, test them in practice, and analyze the results. Florian L. (2019) describes inclusive practice as an experience that transforms the entire style of pedagogical work, not just individual techniques [13]. The author’s own practice confirms this: the methodological thinking developed while working with children with special needs changed the approach to the entire group, making lessons more flexible and attentive to each child’s individual pace.

For families of children with special needs, an inclusive institution’s role is not limited to educational provision. The quality of interactions with staff, the child’s participation in mixed-age groups, and the opportunity to participate in planning are important for parental well-being.

Finally, the societal dimension. A child who, from early childhood, has had the experience of learning and playing alongside peers with different needs in a supportive environment gains from this experience something that no later educational conversation can replace: an intuitive understanding that diversity is the norm, not an exception. In the long term, it is precisely this – the shift in societal attitudes at the childhood level – that constitutes one of the most important arguments in favor of inclusive early childhood education.

Conclusions. The study’s findings confirm that a teacher’s systematic pedagogical work – based on the individualization of the educational process, the adaptation of methods, teamwork, and partnership with parents – brings about measurable changes in the social, communicative, and emotional development of young preschool-aged children. A decrease in the proportion of children with adjustment difficulties from 25–30% to 5–7%, a decrease in adult intervention in conflict situations from 80% to 35%, with a corresponding increase in children’s independent resolution, and an increase in active participation in the morning circle from 35% to 75% – these appear to reflect genuine developmental progress, though caution is warranted in generalizing beyond this early preschool context.

Inclusive preschool education has dual value: it ensures the development of children with special needs in a natural social environment and, at the same time, fosters in all children in the group the experience of interacting with diversity – an experience that is established in early childhood and stays with a person for a long time. Within the observed early preschool context, the central figure in this process is the teacher with their knowledge, methodologies, and, no less importantly, their values regarding each child.

The use of elements of Ukrainian folklore as a tool for sensory support and social adaptation of children with special needs is a pedagogical approach that combines corrective-developmental and cultural-educational potentials. This practice deserves further scientific research.

Future research may focus on better ways to assess inclusive environments, the long-term effects of early inclusion, and how different teaching approaches work for children with autism spectrum disorders.

References

1. Law of Ukraine “On Preschool Education” No. 3788-IX dated June 6, 2024. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2024. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3788-20#Text
2. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated December 13, 2006. Ratified by Ukraine on December 16, 2009. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_g71
3. On the Approval of the National Strategy for the Development of Inclusive Education for the Period until 2029 and the Adoption of the Operational Plan of Measures for Its Implementation for 2024–2026: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 527-r dated June 7, 2024. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/527-2024-%D1%80
4. On the Approval of the Procedure for the Organization of Inclusive Education in Preschool Education Institutions: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 530 dated 31.10.2025. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/530-2019-%D0%BF#Text
5. Nicolaescu I. O., Mykhalchuk O. O., Nikitska Y. M. Developing the inclusive competence of preschool educators. Image of the Modern Educator. 2023. No. 3 (204). Pp. 87–90. DOI: 10.33272/2522-9729-2022-3(204)-87-90. URL: http://isp.poippo.pl.ua/article/view/258542
6. Drozyk L., Kononko O., Tishchenko D. Features of the social development of older preschool-aged children with special educational needs. Special Education. 2023. No. 4. Pp. 62–70.
7. Shagan N. Development of emotional intelligence in older preschool-aged children with special educational needs. Bulletin of Cherkasy University. 2024. No. 1. Pp. 98–105.
8. Institute of Special Education and Psychology of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine. Organization of the Educational Process for Children with Special Educational Needs in Preschool Institutions: Analytical Report. Kyiv: National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 2023. 198 pp.
9. Organizational and Methodological Conditions for the Effective Work of Teachers and Teacher Assistants in Inclusive Groups of Preschool Institutions. Pedagogical Academy: Scientific Notes. 2025. URL: https://pedagogical-academy.com/index.php/journal/article/view/816
10. Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Inclusive Education in Preschool. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. 2024. URL: https://mon.gov.ua/news/realizatsiia-natsionalnoi-stratehii-rozvytku-inkliuzyvnoho-navchannia-v-doshkilli
11. Recommendations on the Organization of the Educational Process in Preschool Education Institutions for the 2024/2025 Academic Year. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. 2024. URL: https://mon.gov.ua/static-objects/mon/sites/1/news/2024/08/28/rekomendatsiyi-shchodo-orhanizatsiyi-osvitnoho-protsesu-doshkilna-osvita-2024.pdf
12. Inclusive Education in Preschool Institutions: Regulatory Changes and Prospects for Implementation. Pedagogical Innovation: Present and Future. 2025. URL: https://journals.uzhnu.uz.ua/index.php/ped/article/view/1171
13. Florian L. On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2019. Vol. 23 (7–8). Pp. 691–704. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801.
14. Odom S. L., Buysse V., Soukakou E. Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention. 2011. Vol. 33 (4). Pp. 344–356. DOI: 10.1177/1053815111430094.
15. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education – All Means All. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2020. 480 p. URL: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/2020
16. D’Alessio S., Watkins A., Donnelly V. Inclusive education across Europe: the shift in thinking from integration to inclusion. Revista de Psicología y Educación. 2020. Vol. 1 (5). P. 109–126.
17. Kolupaieva A. A., Taranchenko O. M. Inclusive Education: From Fundamentals to Practice: Monograph. Kyiv: ATOPOL, 2016. 152 p. URL: https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/708170/1/%D0%86%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B4%20%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8.pdf