Strategiya 1: Inklyuziv ta’lim

Aralash natijalar
 Birinchi meta-tahlillardan biri nogiron o'quvchilarni umumiy (ya'ni inklyuziv) va maxsus sinflarga kiritish natijalarini taqqoslagan 50 ta tadqiqotni o'z ichiga olgan. Oddiy sinfga qo'shilish engil aqliy nogironligi bo'lgan o'quvchilarda yaxshi natijalarga olib keldi, ammo o'rganish qiyinligi va xulq-atvori/hissiy buzilishi bo'lgan o'quvchilarda yomonroq natijalarga olib keldi.[19]
 Autizmli o'quvchilarni o'z ichiga olgan inklyuziv ta'lim bo'yicha tadqiqotlarni har tomonlama ko'rib chiqish ham aralash natijalarni ko'rsatdi. Bir tadqiqot to'plamida autizmli bolalar to'liq kiritilgan: (a) maktab hayoti va ijtimoiy o'zaro munosabatlarda yuqori darajadagi ishtirokni ko'rsatdi, (b) ko'proq ijtimoiy yordam oldi va ko'rsatdi va (c) ko'proq do'stlari bor edi. Ushbu natijalar boshqa tadqiqotlar bilan muvozanatlashtirildi, natijada autizmli talabalar ijtimoiy o'zaro munosabatlarda berganlaridan ko'ra ko'proq foyda olishdi. Sharh shuningdek, inklyuziv va maxsus ta'limning nutq funktsiyalariga ta'sirini taqqoslagan tadqiqotni taqdim etadi. Tadqiqotchilar farqning yo'qligini inklyuziv ta'lim foydasiga talqin qilishdi, chunki maxsus maktablar/sinflarda o'qitishning hech qanday foydasi yo'q edi.[20]
Ba'zi tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatdiki, ta'lim sifati kabi inklyuziya emas, balki akademik ko'rsatkichlarni yaxshilashning bashoratli omili. Masalan, eshitish qobiliyati past bo'lgan o'quvchilarning matematikada erishgan yutuqlari bo'yicha o'tkazilgan bir tadqiqotda oddiy yoki maxsus sinfga qo'shilishdan farq yo'q edi. Inklyuziya sifatining o'ziga xos xususiyatlari: malakali yordam ko'rsatishga tayyor o'qituvchining mavjudligi, materialni muntazam va chuqur takrorlash, "to'g'ridan-to'g'ri o'rganish" va sinfda qulay muhit.[21]

Salbiy qarashlar
Inklyuziv ta'limda tanqidchilar ham bor, ular quyidagi dalillarni keltiradilar: (a) inklyuziyani asoslash uchun ilmiy asoslangan faktlar etarli emas; (b) inklyuziyani qo'llab-quvvatlash mafkuraviy asosda amalga oshiriladi va ritorika bilan birga keladi; (C) umumta'lim maktablarining maxsus ta'lim ehtiyojlari bo'lgan o'quvchilarga sifatli ta'lim berish qobiliyati haddan tashqari oshirib yuborilgan va (D) inklyuziv ta'limni hamma joyda qo'llash va barcha nogironligi bo'lgan talabalar uchun bu haqiqiy emas (masalan, o'qish qiyinligi va umuman karligi bo'lgan talabalar uchun). [22] ushbu asarda men ushbu dalillarni batafsil sharhlash imkoniyatiga ega emasman; shuni aytamanki, ular asosli tashvish bildirishlariga qaramay, men ta'riflagan mezonlarga javob beradigan inklyuziv ta'lim mafkuraviy va empirik jihatdan asosli ekanligiga ishonaman.


Xatarlarni boshqarish
Ikki xavfga e'tibor berish kerak:
* Inklyuziv ta'limning asosiy xavfi uni qisman amalga oshirishdir. Yuqorida ta'kidlaganimdek, ta'limda inklyuziv yondashuvning muvaffaqiyati uchun oddiy sinfga maxsus ta'lim ehtiyojlari bo'lgan bolani aniqlash va muvaffaqiyatga erishish umidi etarli emas.
* Ikkinchi xavf shundaki, u savolga javob bermasdan amalga oshirilishi mumkin: "ma'lum bir vaqtda ma'lum bir joyda maxsus ta'lim ehtiyojlari bilan ma'lum bir talaba qanday eng yaxshi ta'lim olishi mumkin?». Va nihoyat, biz inklyuziv ta'lim barcha o'quvchilarga eng yuqori hayot sifatini taqdim etishiga ishonch hosil qilishimiz kerak. Shaxsan men inklyuziv ta'limni eng yaxshi va istiqbolli model deb bilaman, lekin ba'zi hollarda inklyuziv ta'lim eng yaxshi alternativa emasligini tan olaman.

Xulosa
Inklyuziv ta'lim-bu alohida ta'lim ehtiyojlari bo'lgan bolalarni o'qitishda murakkab va qarama-qarshi yondashuv. Agar u tegishli tarzda amalga oshirilsa, unda barcha bolalar o'qish va ijtimoiy hayot nuqtai nazaridan afzalliklarga ega bo'ladilar.
Adabiyotlar

1. 
   Nirje, B. (1969). ‘The normalization principle and its human management implications’. In R. Kugel and W. Wolfensberger (eds) Changing patterns in residential services for the men- tally retarded. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Mental Retardation.
   
2. 
   UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
   
3. 
   The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations.
   
4. 
   Mitchell, D.R. and Chen, Y. (1996). ‘Special Education in Asia’. In R. Brown, A. Neufeld and D. Baine (eds) Beyond basic care: Special education and community rehabilitation in low–income countries (pp. 8–42). North York, ONT: Captus Press.
   
5. 
   Jonsson, T. (1993). Toward an inclusive school. Geneva: UNDP.
   
6. 
   Department of Education (2005). Guidelines for inclusive learning programmes. Pretoria: Education Department, Re- public of South Africa
   
7. 
   Katz, J. and Mirenda, P. (2002). ‘Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: social benefits’. International Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 25–35.
   
8. 
   Wang, M.C. and Baker, E.T. (1986). ‘Mainstreaming pro- grams: Design features and effects’. Journal of Special Educa- tion, 19, 503–526.
   
9. 
   Saint–Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, E., Simard,
   

C. and Pierard, B. (1998). ‘Academic achievement effects of an in–class service model on students with and without dis- abilities’. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 239–253.

10. 
    Waldron, N.L. and McLeskey, J. (1998). ‘The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities’. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 395–405.
    
11. 
    Fryxell, D. and Kennedy, C. (1995). ‘Placement along a con- tinuum of services and its impact on students’ social relation- ships’. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(4), 259–269.
    
12. 
    Fisher, M. and Meyer, L.H. (2002). ‘Development of social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive
    

and self–contained educational programs’. Research and Prac- tice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(3), 165–174.

13. 
    Karsten, S., Peetsma, T., Roeleveld, J. and Vergeer, M. (2001). ‘The Dutch policy of integration put to the test: Dif- ferences in academic and psychosocial development of pupils in special and mainstream education’. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(3), 193–205.
    
14. 
    Buckley, S. (2006). ‘Reflection on twenty years of scientific research’. Portsmouth: The Down Syndrome Educational Trust. http://downsed.org/research/history/20 years/(ac- cessed 20 September 2006).
    
15. 
    Dyson, D.A., Farrell, P., Polat, F. and Hutcheson, G. (2004). Inclusion and pupil achievement. Research Report No. RR578. London: DfES.
    
16. 
    Rouse, M. and Florian, L. (2006). ‘Inclusion and achievement: students achievement in secondary schools with higher and lower proportions of pupils designated as having special edu- cational needs’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481–493.
    
17. 
    Sharpe, M.N., York, J.L. and Knight, J. (1994). ‘Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities: A preliminary study’. Remedial and Special Educa- tion, 15(5), 15(5), 281–287.
    
18. 
    Engelbrecht, P., Oswald, M. and Florin, C. (2006). ‘Promoting the implementation of inclusive education in primary schools in South Africa’. British Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 121–129.
    
19. 
    Carlberg, C. and Kavale, K. (1980). ‘The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A me- ta–analysis’. Journal of Special Education, 14(3) 295–309
    
20. 
    Harrower, J.K. and Dunlap, G. (2001).’Including children with autism in general education classrooms: A review of effective strategies’. Behavior Modification, 25(5), 762–784.
    
21. 
    Kluwin, T.N. and Moores, D.F. (1989). ‘Mathematics achieve- ment of hearing impaired adolescents in different placement’. Exceptional Children, 55(4), 327–335.
    
22. 
    Sasso, G.M. (2001). ‘The retreat from inquiry and knowl- edge in special education’. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 178–193 and Kavale, K.A. and Mostert, M.P. (2003). ‘River of ideology, islands of evidence’. Exceptionality, 11(4), 191–208.