Russian Scientists’ Contribution In Early 20th Century Towards Inclusive Education Development

Anthropologic and humanistic concept of abnormal childhood of Troshin

Troshin (1874-1938) can be regarded as one of the pioneers of inclusive education. He was a doctor, psychologist and teacher, and the author of the anthropologic and humanistic concept of abnormal childhood. The main concepts were outlined in his great work, "The anthropological foundations of education" (1915). The concept of medical and pedagogical anthropology of Troshin is built on changing the angle of consideration of the problems of the child with disabilities: it is necessary to study the child, but not the disease. This approach has formed the basis for studying both "normal" children, and children with disabilities and, ultimately, make the crucial conclusion that development in all children goes according to the same laws. Troshin was sure that “The only difference is in the way of development” (Troshin, 1915, p. XIII). So, the attention of the anthropologist Troshin was turned to the search of pedagogical tools and, therefore, to the school system. As a result, the inevitable criticism of mass school by Troshin was rather traditional: insufficient attention is paid to the children with educational problems; the school focuses on the most adaptive children; refuses admission or excludes children with disabilities as well as difficult children. The last group of children were forced to fall into the lowest social strata of society, up to the criminal circle. Thus, Troshin did not divide education on special and general, but foresaw the possibility of pedagogical integration. Critiquing the existing school system Troshin offered his own vision of school integration and created a school hospital, which existed from 1906 to 1917. It was for children who could not attend regular school because of any reason. The idea of the opening of such schools was the result of Troshin’s concept “that children's abnormality in a vast majority of cases is the product of abnormal social conditions” (Troshin, 1915, p. XV).

Thus, the role of Troshin in the development of inclusive education is related to the fact that it is based on a comparative study of the psychology of children. He was one of the first who proved the social nature of the defect and proceeded to the theoretical elaboration of the future concept of inclusion. He grounded the principles of established medical and pedagogical institution. Later they became the general principles of inclusive education. The most important of them are the strong connection of medical, psychological, and pedagogical support; intersubject links; the positive potential of the child as the basis of education; the individualization of learning process; the fundamental role of manual labour; and the creative autonomy of the child (Belenkova, 2000).

Thus, the idea of an integrated training and education, being the base of the further conceptual framework of inclusion, were developed in research work of Troshin.

Kashchenko's school for “exclusive children”

The concept and practical experience of Kashchenko (1870-1943) were of great importance for the development of the idea of inclusion. Being a doctor, psychologist and teacher Kashchenko, as well as his predecessor Troshin, considered the role of the social environment as fundamental in the development of the child. In his work «Upbringing and educating of difficult children» (1914) he emphasized that “the abnormal, ugly environment cripples the child, and healthy environment, adapted for features of the child is capable to bring him up” (Kashchenko & Kryukov, 1913, p. 10). Kashchenko has claimed the absence of such kind of environment in the traditional school of his time. Although his position was more profound than Troshin’s, Kashchenko criticized the system of education for the fact that the mass school create a kind of environment; that is aimed only at the average pupils, eliminating the others. Therefore, not only weak but also gifted children suffer from a lack of attention to their needs. There also should be noted that gifted children's learning problems in connection with the development of inclusion ideas which were raised by Kashchenko, are comparatively rarely examined by the other researchers. Kashchenko formulates one of the main thesis of future inclusive education: the child does not have to adapt to educational system, but the school should take into account specific features of each child.

In 1908 Kashchenko founded a sanatorium school which had educational, medical, and research purposes. After Troshin, Kashchenko confirmed the commitment to the basic principles of such inclusive activities as:

• The cooperation of doctors and teachers who had special training in how to work in the conditions of integration.

• The importance of intersubject approach in teaching that foregoes a stand-alone teaching of individual subjects.

• The strong connection of life and education, which means the opportunity to see, compare, comprehend the utility functions of abstract knowledge.

• A thesis about a support on presentation and manual skills that is closely connected with verbalism criticism in usual schools, and an idea of the role of touch experience as bases of abstract thinking.

• The importance of visibility and manual labour that is closely linked to the criticism of verbalism in mass schools, and the perception of the great role of sensory experience as the basis of abstract thinking: in terms of verbalisation "student remains to be a passive listener, but his personality is asleep, not awaken by science” (Kashchenko & Kryukov, 1913, p. 9).

• The individualization of learning, as Kashchenko requires not to impose knowledge and tasks on children, but focus on their interests, deepening it through related areas of knowledge.

These principles of pedagogical activity of Kashchenko suggest that his position largely coincides with the ideas of Troshin, as well with the more recent ideas on the requirements for inclusive education.

Kashchenko's sanatorium school existed until the 1930s, and was a medical and pedagogical centre that conducted research, and social and pedagogical work. In the 1920s the scientific school of Kashchenko became a state school and was named Medical and pedagogical sanatorium being at the same time the educational subdivision of Ministry of Education. By that time, the sanatorium included the following subdivisions:

• Educational unit “for exceptional children, but with character shortcomings, and for not gifted children”.

• Consultancy centre concerning education of exclusive children.

• Museum of the exclusive childhood pedology and pedagogics.

• Workshop for retraining teachers of special and mass school (Kashchenko & Murashev, 1929).

Apparently, the structure and principal fundamentals of that Centre had no equivalent in Europe at that time. The similar complex was founded in Germany only in the 1960s (Hellbruegge, 1977).

The structure of the school showed the inclusive character of Kashchenko’s activity. Combining efforts of doctors, psychologists and teachers within school activities Kashchenko has become the basis for the creation of so-called corrective (“corrective”) pedagogy – pedagogy oriented towards children, whose “exceptionalism” is a secondary symptom, and their education takes place in a mass school. So, the development of the concept of corrective pedagogy according to Kashchenko could be understood as the extension of the ideas of Troshin, and more than that, as the next step in the development of the concept of integrative education and inclusion.

As to the term “exceptional children” which is used in Kashchenko's works, it was borrowed from the American literature, and according to the scientist, has no negative emotional shade and includes not only children with physical and mental health disabilities, but also difficult children, and gifted children. Following Troshin, Kashchenko saw in children's "exclusivity" not only the biological causes, but the "defective social influence”. The problems all “exclusive children” face “are, first of all, social defects, the defect of the society in general. Subsequently, the fight against them has to be based, by all means, on social actions" (Kashchenko & Murashev, 1929, p. 5). In other words, Kashchenko advocated a healthy climate in children's society, standing on the positions of inclusive education. This approach Kashchenko called "reasonable education": "Reasonable education can fix a disabled child, but the bad, unreasonable education may distort the mind and character of a completely normal child. (Kashchenko & Murashev, 1929, p. 16).

Realizing that the society, the scientific and practical basis are not yet ready to deal with that problem, Kashchenko offered a kind of compromise: he urged to create an opportunity for such children to spend the rest of the day with a group of healthy children after studying in a special school. That is, the proposed solution was a step towards the social inclusion.

The idea of social value as the aim of upbringing and education in the works of Vygotsky

The complex medical, psychological and pedagogical nature of Kashchenko’s school originates in the principles and methods of pedology – the science based on an integrated approach to studying of the child from the standpoint of medicine, psychology, pedagogics, and social knowledge. Pedology arose at the turn of 19^th to 20^th centuries and gave a powerful impetus to the development of child and educational psychology, genetic psychology, educational sociology, and social pedagogy. Pedology reached its peak in from the 1920s to the 1930s, and played a great role in the development of the ideas of inclusive education. In Russia, pedology was connected with names such as Blonsky, Vygotsky, Zalkind, Kashchenko, Lazursky, Luriya, and others.

Within our research, the theoretical developments of the Russian psychologist and the leader of pedology, we have a particular interest in Vygotsky (1896-1934). His contribution to the development of inclusive education ideas is associated, among other things, with the fact that he strongly criticized the special education system, which was widely introduced in the early twentieth century. In contrast to methods of isolating special education, he put forward the thesis of the need to create a system that would be able to link the special pedagogy with pedagogy of normal childhood. Thus, Vygotsky stood at the origins of the concept of inclusive education. In the same way as Troshin and Kashchenko, Vygotsky believed that the greatest difficulties in the life of disabled children are caused not by biological reasons of his violation, but by their social consequences. The system of special schools based on isolation exacerbates these social violations, as it breaks communication and builds barriers to knowledge and skills. The idea of the social nature of the defect was not only supported by Vygotsky. The scientist discovered new aspects of the problem, having advanced in the understanding of phenomena such as the social consequences of disability. Vygotsky also noted that the solution of this problem lies not only in the reformation of school, but also in working with families. He drew attention to the fact that the isolation of children with disabilities begins already in the family. So, already in the family, “the blind and deaf child is first of all the special child”. The scientist spoke about excessive doses of attention and pity, which become heavy burden for the child and separate him from other children (Vygotsky, 1983, p. 62). Thus, Vygotsky pointed out the need to start an inclusive work in the early stages of education in the family.

Explaining the idea of social responsibility, Vygotsky specifies that violation in development itself does not cause much trouble to the child, because the child does not feel the problem but the difficulties it causes. The main problem is the secondary effect of the defect that is associated with a reduction in the social position of the child. In this regard, the idea of inclusion has become vital, because it means full integration of the person into society. Limited opportunities do not make the child a “disabled person”. The degree of his “disability” or “normality” depends directly on the outcome of social compensation, i.e. societal relations. Thus, Vygotsky formulated the universal purpose of any education: “Social value is the ultimate target point of education” (Vygotsky, 1983, p. 41).

It is impossible to achieve such an objective in conditions of special schools, as it is inherently anti-social. Special schools focus on the earliest isolation of the child instead of his earliest inclusion in life of society. Vygotsky emphasized the necessity of not thinking about how to isolate and "highlight the blind out of life," but how to introduce them to life at an earlier stage. Vygotsky saw the exit from the current situation in overcoming the anti-social character of special schools and carrying out scientific experiment on joint education of children with various educational opportunities and creation of such pedagogical system, which would link special pedagogics with pedagogics of normal childhood. Thereby, Vygotsky anticipated the whole complex of scientific theoretical and practical researches in the field of integration and inclusion.

The results of the comparative historical analysis of pedagogical views of Troshin, Kashchenko and Vygotsky presented in this research represent a special view of the achievements of these famous Russian scientists. Their names are widely known, and their scientific heritage still raises enormous interest in the medical, psychological and pedagogical fields. However, as a rule, their works and ideas are studied separately (Belenkova, 2000; Uljenkova, 1997; Mikhailova, 1998). In this research, the attention is focused on the perspective of an inclusive approach to education and the core idea in the theories of these three scientists presenting the social nature of violations as the impetus for the development of the theory of inclusion. From these positions, the original contribution of every scientist is used in the development of the concept of integrated inclusive education.