Inclusion and education

FIGURE 6.3: 
Teachers are more likely to express need for professional development in teaching students with special needs
Percentage of lower secondary school teachers reporting that particular topics were included in their professional development, 2018
a. In four inclusion-related areas, 2018
0
10
20
30
40
%
Teaching students
with special needs
Teaching in a multicultural
or multilingual setting
Approaches to
individualized learning
Communicating with people
from different cultures or countries
Georgia
Kazakhstan Russian Fed. Czech Rep.
Turkey Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary Slovenia Estonia Slovakia Bulgaria Romania Croatia
Hungary
Czech Rep.
Slovakia Lithuania Estonia
Latvia
Georgia
Kazakhstan Russian Fed.
Croatia Slovenia Bulgaria Turkey Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia Turkey
Czech Rep.
Estonia Hungary
Russian Fed.
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Latvia
Georgia Romania Croatia
Latvia
Czech Rep.
Slovenia Slovakia Estonia Hungary Lithuania
Kazakhstan Russian Fed.
Croatia Georgia Bulgaria Turkey Romania
EU 21%
EU 13%
EU 13%
EU 10%
A larger percentage of 
Romanian
teachers expressed high demand 
for training in four inclusion-related areas than the EU average
b. In teaching students with special needs, 2008, 2013 and 2018
0
10
15
5
20
25
30
35
40
45
2008
2013
2018
Slovenia
Hungary
Lithuania
Croatia
Romania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Slovakia
Latvia
Georgia
Czech Rep.
Russia
Turkey
2008
2013
2018
2008
2013
2018
%
Note: 
Students ‘with special needs’ are defined as those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, 
physically or emotionally disadvantaged.
Source: 
OECD (2019).
109
C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E , C A U C A S U S A N D C E N T R A L A S I A

---

One area in which professional skills need to be developed 
is inclusive assessment: making sure teachers can identify 
learning needs and understand the challenges students 
may face in the learning process. Teachers need support 
in collecting data regularly and using them to develop 
individualized education plans and set targets (European 
Agency, 2007). Guidance on the use of curriculum-based 
assessment is particularly important to ensure alignment 
between learning goals and objectives, on the one hand, 
and formative and summative assessments on the other. 
Such alignment can help clear up ambiguities, difficulties 
and complications observed in teaching and learning 
practices. However, only Azerbaijan and Hungary reported 
such training.
Very few in-service teacher education programmes focus 
on teaching ethnic minority or immigrant students 
whose home language is not the language of instruction. 
In Estonia, 14% of all students in basic education are 
instructed in Russian, but only one institution offers 
training for Russian-language teachers. In Serbia, a 
programme of teaching Serbian as a second language 
was developed only after significant immigrant inflows, 
although the need existed long before. In Poland, regional 
in-service teacher training institutions guide teachers in 
schools where the language of instruction is an ethnic 
minority or regional language.
Some in-service education and training systems do 
not prioritize inclusion at all. In the Russian Federation, 
144 hours of in-service training is mandatory once every 
three years for every school staff member, and the training 
certificate is required for attestation. The 2018 TALIS and 
2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science 
Study confirmed that, among participating countries, 
Russian teachers spent the most time in professional 
development (OECD, 2019; IEA and UNESCO, 2020). 
However, the type, area and content of in-service training 
is determined by whether the course is obligatory or 
elective. If inclusion-related courses are available at an 
in-service training centre, they are usually provided by 
trainers from specialized research institutes or defectology 
departments of teacher training institutions. The very 
concept of inclusion is seldom discussed or defined during 
such training.