COMPARISON OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION SYSTEMS USING A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL MODEL: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Abstract

The article examines and compares the inclusive education systems of Finland, Sweden, Austria, Czechia, the Netherlands, Israel, and Ukraine using a comprehensive analytical model that encompasses contextual, ecosystem, and outcome dimensions. The aim of this study is to conduct a systemic, multidimensional analysis of inclusive educational models in different countries based on the analytical framework developed by L. Prokhorenko and O. Orlov, in order to identify effective approaches, institutional solutions, and practices that can be adapted to modernize Ukraine’s inclusive education system.

The article demonstrates the influence of geopolitical conditions, social policy, the level of digitalization, and European integration processes on the development of inclusive practices, as well as the role of universities, municipal structures, mobile multidisciplinary teams, and “funding following the child” mechanisms. It highlights key trends shaping inclusive practices, including early intervention, universal design for learning, extensive use of assistive technologies, strong parental partnerships, and interagency coordination. It is shown that the Ukrainian model is evolving under conditions of war, internal displacement, staff shortages, and resource inequality, yet it possesses considerable potential for modernization.

The study establishes that the most effective global models are characterized by the combination of a stable socio-political context, a well-developed support ecosystem, and positive socio-economic outcomes. Although Ukraine currently faces extraordinary challenges, international experience provides valuable benchmarks such as multidisciplinarity, innovation, early intervention, digitalization, and active parental involvement. The article outlines directions for adapting international practices by strengthening early support systems, developing regional networks and research-methodological centers, implementing flexible funding mechanisms, and integrating psychosocial support into the educational process for children with special educational needs.