Specialusis ugdymas / Special Education ISSN 2424-3299 (Online)

2024, 47, pp. 36–56 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/se.2024.47.2

A Self-Evaluation of Pre-School Education Institutions with an Emphasis on the Level of Their Inclusivity

Viera Šilonová
Prešov University in Prešov, Faculty of Education,
17. Novembra 15, 080 01 Prešov, Slovak Republic,
e-mail: viera.silonova@unipo.sk
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3347-925X

Vladimír Klein
Prešov University in Prešov, Faculty of Education,
17. Novembra 15, 080 01 Prešov,
Slovak Republic, e-mail: vladimir.klein@unipo.sk
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8895-0750

Ivana Rochovská
Faculty of Education Matej Bel University Banská Bystrica,
Ružová 13, 974 11 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic,
e-mail: ikrupova@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9346-7993

Abstract. The research is focused on the self-evaluation of pre-school education institutions with an emphasis on the level of their inclusivity. The aim of the research was to verify the degree of inclusive direction of pre-school education institutions in the context of the Index for Inclusion within selected localities through their self-evaluation. A questionnaire was created for pedagogical and professional staff to measure the level of inclusion of pre-school education institutions. As part of the research, a self-evaluation tool was verified with a focus on measuring the level of inclusivity in selected pre-school education institutions within the Slovak Republic. After processing the input and output self-evaluation of pre-school education institutions, it was confirmed that the results from the output self-evaluation of pre-school education institutions were statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of pre-school education institutions only in one region.
Keywords: self-evaluation, pre-school education, pre-school education institutions, inclusive education, Index for Inclusion.

___________

Acknowledgements. The research is published as part of VEGA project No. 1/0114/23 “Possibilities of inclusive education of students with special educational needs”.

Received: 22/09/2024. Accepted: 10/12/2024
Copyright © Viera Šilonová, Vladimír Klein, Ivana Rochovská, 2024. Published by Vilnius University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

The issue of inclusive education, on the theoretical and empirical level currently within pedagogy (and not only within it), belongs to an extremely topical and discussed theme. In a humanistic oriented society, it is necessary to promote a philosophy of education that emphasises education for everyone without distinction and without exclusion, so that diversity becomes the norm. Subsequently, it is possible to divide children not institutionally but in terms of content, i.e. to manage processes in a direction away from segregated special schools towards inclusive kindergartens and primary schools and to strive for the personal growth of each child without any comparison with other children.

Kindergartens play an important role in the process of education of children at the pre-primary level of the school system, in which quality inclusive education will be ensured not only for socially disadvantaged children, but also for children with disabilities, and intact or gifted children.

In recent years, the attention of experts (“theorists” and “practitioners”) has focused on finding and experimentally validating new approaches in the education of socially and medically disadvantaged children, and it seems that one of the effective solutions is to also monitor the level of school inclusivity. A self-evaluation of kindergartens with an emphasis on the level of their inclusivity can be considered as an important tool in creating the inclusive environment of a kindergarten.

The Index for Inclusion was defined by a British organisation called the Centre for Research on Inclusive Education and the Inclusivity Index published within it, which defines inclusive education in the form of the steps needed to better translate it into practice (Booth et al., 2004, 2006). In its essence, it is a self-assessment tool designed for schools, but also for public institutions.

The Index for Inclusion consists of four basic pillars: Inclusion is a process – it is a never-ending process of finding individual and systemic answers to the ever-changing diversity within society and in schools. Inclusion is related to the identification and removal of barriers – the ability to identify barriers requires the collection, compilation and evaluation of comprehensive data from a variety of sources to improve policy and praxis. Inclusion means the presence, participation, success and happiness of all children – success is associated with the outcomes of the educational process, which go beyond the framework of the testing of knowledge. Inclusion includes special attention to those target groups which face the threat of the marginalisation, exclusion and achievement of the below average in education (Booth & Ainscow, 2016).

The degree of inclusion and exclusion can be examined using three interconnected areas which are part of school development: building an inclusive culture, inclusive policy making, and developing inclusive praxis. These areas serve to guide deliberation on changes. From experience with their application, it can be stated that these are important parts of the systematic planning of school development. These three areas are essential for the development of inclusion in schools and must be taken into account in any planning for change.

In the area of evaluation and self-evaluation of kindergartens, it is recommended to use four effective tools to assess the degree of inclusiveness of a kindergarten: (1) A four-level scale for assessing an inclusive environment in a kindergarten, according to Clifford and Drdulová, published within the methodological material for kindergarten teachers Inclusion of children with disabilities into the kindergarten environment (Clifford et al., 2005; Drdulová, 2014); (2) A set of evaluation and self-evaluation criteria, indicators and tools of an inclusive model of education at a pre-primary level of the school system, according to Klein and Sobinkovičová (2014); (3) A questionnaire for evaluating the degree of inclusion in a kindergarten, according to Booth and Ainscow (2017); (4) The questionnaire “Readiness of the School for Inclusive Education” – Final evaluation report of the national project, Project of Inclusive Education PRINED (Klein & Šilonová, 2015).

Based on many years of praxis and experience, the authors Šilonová and Klein (2015, 2020) developed a procedure for the self-evaluation of kindergartens, in the context of the Index for Inclusion. Pedagogical and professional¹ staff of kindergartens can work with the aforementioned tools. The set of tools is based upon an individual analysis and evaluation, it requires a subsequent consultation and confrontation of opinions, and the search for consensus, which promotes mutual communication in areas that require further improvement and development.

The first authors concerned with the problematic of measuring the level of inclusion in a school environment were Booth and Ainscow, who in 2002 created the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). In 2004, Booth et al. published a scientific monograph aimed, among other things, at pre-school education and early childhood care. The authors emphasised a calm and healthy environment for children and highlighted the importance of play (Booth et al., 2004, 2006, 2016). An effective research tool for assessing the quality of inclusive education is also the standardised questionnaire, Quality criteria for integrative schools (Qualitäts kriterien fur integrative Schulen) by Kummer-Wyss (2007).  An important tool for measuring inclusivity is also the Sandwell Inclusion Quality Mark (2010) – a two-tier model of the self-assessment tool developed in Sandwell, aimed at promoting and developing educational and social inclusion, in order to improve lives for everyone. Specifically focused on preschool education is the program, ICP – The Inclusive Classroom Profile, which measures the quality and level of inclusion in kindergarten classes (2021). Similarly focused is also the Index for Inclusion in kindergartens The SpeciaLink Early Childhood Inclusion Quality Scale, according to P. Irvin (2009). In connection with the given issue, we can mention the research of certain authors, e.g. Gladush (2020), Sahin and Kilic (2018), Chand Dayal and Alpana (2020).

Research problem

The research is focused on the creation of a self-evaluation tool for determining the level of inclusivity of kindergartens and its verification in praxis. The purpose of self-assessment is to raise existing standards for a more effective upbringing and education. Effective kindergartens should constantly re-evaluate their own praxis and look for ways which will contribute towards improving the quality of the kindergarten, with an emphasis on its inclusivity. It is necessary to realise that there is a direct relationship between professional development and the self-evaluation of the school. The self-evaluation of pedagogical and professional employees of kindergartens contributes to their self-knowledge, self-reflection and self-criticism, based on their own performance and professional development. In this context, the research focuses on creating a model of school self-assessment which will allow kindergartens to evaluate their own inclusive educational practices. The self-evaluation questionnaire is part of the Methodical Manual of Inclusive Pre-primary Education (Šilonová & Klein, 2020) and is based on an individual analysis and evaluation, requires subsequent consultation and confrontation of opinions, and a search for consensus, thus promoting mutual communication in areas requiring further improvement and development. It is necessary to discuss proposals and plans on how to improve education in these areas.

In the intentions of the presented knowledge and possible starting points relevant to the given research, a research problem was formulated: Will the application of the developed self-evaluation tool contribute towards increasing the inclusivity of kindergartens in the areas of culture, policy and praxis?

The Aim and Hypotheses of the Research

The aim of the research was to verify the Index for Inclusion of kindergartens within selected localities through their self-evaluation. It was structured into objectives:

1. To analyse the current level of the Index for Inclusion of kindergartens in the areas of culture, policy and praxis.

2. To create a questionnaire for the pedagogical and professional staff to measure the level of inclusion of kindergartens.

3. To verify a self-evaluation tool aimed at measuring the level of inclusivity in selected kindergartens within the Slovak Republic.

4. To formulate the conclusions and recommendations for pedagogical theory and praxis in the area of inclusive approaches at the pre-primary stage of the school system.

On the basis of the theoretical background, the research problem and research objectives as well as three hypotheses have been formulated:

H1: The results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of pre kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region.

H2: The results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region.

H3: The results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region.

Research Methodology

General Background

The research was carried out as part of a national project entitled “The creation of an inclusive environment in a kindergarten and inclusive approaches in the diagnostics and development stimulation of socially disadvantaged children”.

Instruments and Procedures

The self-evaluation of kindergartens was carried out according to the following timetable over two periods: October/November 2019 – input self-evaluation and June/July 2020 – output self-evaluation. The self-evaluation tool for kindergartens was carried out once in the form of the “input self-evaluation” at the beginning of the school year. Flowingly, the kindergartens received feedback on the Index of Inclusion. The self-evaluation tool for kindergartens was carried out twice in the form of the “output self-evaluation” at the end of the school year.

The self-evaluation tool for kindergartens consists of three main areas of the Index for Inclusion: culture, policy and praxis.

In the area of culture, the following items were monitored:

1. Kindergarten Climate.

2. Cooperation of the Kindergarten with Parents, the School Authority and the Community.

3. Internal and External Communication.

In the area of policy, the following items were monitored:

1. Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten.

2. Decision Making Processes.

3. Personal Development.

4. Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions.

5. School Education Program.

In the field of praxis, the following items were monitored:

1. Achieved Results within an Inclusive Education.

2. Education.

3. Learning.

4. Education of Children with Special Educational Needs.

The process of evaluating the results of the input and output self-evaluation took place as follows:

• the specification, design and development of a research tool to evaluate the results of the input and output self-evaluation,

• content analysis of outputs (results from the input and output self-evaluation of kindergartens),

• capturing and recording research data from the pedagogical field (from the pedagogical and professional staff of the pre-school education institutions),

• specification of statistical methods for processing the data obtained,

• an analysis, graphical representation and interpretation of the results,

• discussion and presentation of the conclusions.

After the processing and sending of the results of the input self-evaluation to all of the respondents, a discussion took place between the members of the inclusive team. The results sent to each kindergarten included rating scales from 1 to 5 with the following explanation:

• 1.00 - 1.80 – unsatisfactory level, the kindergarten does not act in the given matter, it is necessary to start solving the given area and pay attention to it.

• 1.81 - 2.60 – satisfactory level, in the kindergarten some respondents record activities in a certain area, but the area is not systematically addressed, the employees (respondents) do not know much about it.

• 2.61 - 3.40 – average level, in the kindergarten the respondents mostly evaluate the area or the item as averagely managed, it is necessary to plan steps to improve it to a higher level.

• 3.41 - 4.20 – very good level, the respondents evaluate the item as very well managed, other (lower) evaluations appear, agreement among the staff is not present, it is necessary to find out the causes of other perspectives and start working on improving the identified causes.

• 4.21 - 5.00 – excellent level, many respondents rate the item or the area as very well managed, there is nothing to improve (at first glance), in the case where there were ratings lower than 5, find out the reasons (causes) and work in the context of a constantly evolving organisation or a learning organisation to improve the situation.

Sample Selection

Each member of the inclusive team of pedagogical employees of the kindergarten (respondent) was assigned an anonymous code, under which he/she signed in to fill in the Questionnaire (self-evaluation tool), “Self-evaluation for the level of inclusivity of a kindergarten” (Šilonová & Klein, 2020), in a Google form. In addition, they had the opportunity to discuss with the authors-experts of the self-evaluation tool.

115 kindergartens (762 respondents) participated in the input self-evaluation within the framework of the National PRIM project and 96 kindergartens (559 respondents) participated in the output self-evaluation.

From the total number of 115 kindergartens involved, 42 kindergartens from three areas of the Slovak Republic were selected by proportional stratified selection (according to the criterion of the number of pedagogical and professional employees):

1. Košice Region (KE) – 14 kindergartens.

2. Prešov Region (PO) – 14 kindergartens.

3. Rest of Slovakia (RS) – 14 kindergartens (Žilina region, Banská Bystrica region, Trenčín region and Nitra region).

Data Analysis

To verify the hypotheses for items where there was more than a binary scoring, a paired t-test was used, as the two groups of measurements were based upon the same sample of respondents who were tested twice (input and output measurements) and these were compared to each other. By subtracting the second measurement from the first for each subject, pairwise differences were obtained and entered into the analysis.

Research Results

Results of the self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Rest of Slovakia (RS) region

In the first hypothesis, it was assumed that the results of the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the RS region are statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the RS region. The results are shown in Table 1.

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-3.505) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation.

In the input measurement (4.27), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten than in the output measurement (4.60).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-4.076) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.25), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Decision-Making Processes and the Delegation of Competencies than in the output measurement (4.62).

The difference between the calculated t-statistic (-3.230) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, indicated a statistically significant difference between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.40), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Personal Development than in the output measurement (4.68).

Table 1

Comparison of the “Rest of Slovakia” region between the years of - input 2019 - output 2020

Explanatory notes: statistical significance = *.05 significance level, **.01 significance level, ***.001 significance level

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-4.739) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.12), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area Achieved Results within an Inclusive Education than in the output measurement (4.55).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-4.983) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.08), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Internal and External Communication than in the output measurement (4.56).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-3.892) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.41), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Education than in the output measurement (4.73).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-5.185) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.10), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Learning than in the output measurement (4.53).

The difference between the calculated t-statistic (-3.135) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .01, indicated a statistically significant difference between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.16), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Personal Conditions than in the output measurement (4.45).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-4.284) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.12), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions than in the output measurement (4.57).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-5.066) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.38), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area Kindergarten Climate than in the output measurement (4.75).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-3.790) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.35), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Education of Children with SUEB than in the output measurement (4.67).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-4.618) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.12), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Cooperation of Kindergartens with Parents, the School Authority and the Community than in the output measurement (4.55).

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-3.615) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.36), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of School Education Program than in the output measurement (4.69).

Within the Rest of Slovakia region, there was a statistically significant increase in all of the areas between the input and output measurements of the level of inclusivity of kindergartens. To verify the hypothesis, a paired t-test was used, based on the differences between the two measurements of each subject. By subtracting the second measurement from the first for each subject, pairwise differences were obtained and entered into the analysis.

Hypothesis H1 was adopted.

Results of the self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region (PO)

In the second hypothesis, it was assumed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region are statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

A comparison of the Prešov region between the years of - input 2019 - output 2020

Explanatory notes: statistical significance = *.05 significance level, **.01 significance level, ***.001 significance level

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-2.273) and the critical value (1.972), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.42), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten than in the output measurement (4.61).

Within the PO region, one area increased statistically significantly, all the others increased, but it was not a statistically significant increase.

To verify the hypothesis, a paired t-test was used, based on the differences between the two measurements of each subject. By subtracting the second measurement from the first for each subject, pairwise differences were obtained and entered into the analysis.

Hypothesis H2 was not adopted.

Results of the self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region (KE)

In the third hypothesis, it was assumed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region are statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region. The results are shown in Table 3.

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-2.023) and the critical value (1.972), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.20), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area of Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions than in the output measurement (4.39).

Table 3

A comparison of the Košice region between the years of - input 2019 - output 2020

Explanatory notes: statistical significance = *.05 significance level, **.01 significance level, ***.001 significance level

By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-2.158) and the critical value (1.972), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the input self-evaluation and the results of the output self-evaluation. In the input measurement (4.46), a statistically lower number of points was achieved in the area Kindergarten Climate than in the output measurement (4.61).

Within the Košice region, two areas had a statistically significant increase, the others, with the exception of “Internal and External Communication”, a (statistically insignificant) increase, and the aforementioned area decreased by 0.01, so we can say that it is at the same level.

To verify the hypothesis, a paired t-test was used, based on the differences between the two measurements of each subject. By subtracting the second measurement from the first for each subject, pairwise differences were obtained and entered into the analysis. Hypothesis H3 was not adopted.

Other findings

By comparing the results of the input and output self-evaluation of kindergartens, in the area of individual regions, there was a statistical significance in the “Rest of Slovakia” region and the Prešov region in the item Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten. This item contains four sub-items and, within the framework of the Index for Inclusion, belongs to the area of Policy. Out of the four parts of the item Objectives and Plans, an accordance occurred in two of them: 1. Strategic goals of the kindergarten set on the basis of feedback from school employees and 2. The concept of kindergarten development is being continuously evaluated.

Between the results of the input and output self-evaluation compared within the framework of the individual regions, we state the consistency in statistical significance in the “Rest of Slovakia” region and the Košice region in two items of the tool focused on measuring the inclusivity of kindergartens. The first is the item Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions (7 sub-items), which belongs to the area of Policy within the framework of the Index for Inclusion. From the 7 sub-items, a statistical significance was recorded in two:

1. The premises of the kindergarten are effectively used to satisfy the educational needs of the children.

2. The material and technical equipment of the classrooms enables the fulfilment of the goals of the school education program.

The second is the item, Kindergarten Climate (22 sub-items). Within the framework of the Index for Inclusion, this is the area of Culture, from which 6 sub-items were statistically significant:

1. Children co-decide on the appearance and equipment of their classroom.

2. Parents are regularly provided with professional consultations about their child.

3. The professional staff do not label the children.

4. The creation of a positive climate is given the same attention as education results.

5. The professional staff support the children’s independence.

6. The teaching staff avoid stereotypes (e.g. when assigning tasks).

To illustrate the research results, further data processing can be mentioned (Table 4), through which the complexity of processing the research findings can be emphasised.

Table 4

Comparison within the framework of the year 2019 - individual regions

Explanatory notes: statistical significance = *.05 significance level, **.01 significance level, ***.001 significance level

t - t-statistic

tc - t-statistic critical value

As part of the input measurement in the year 2019, the individual regions were compared with each other. The results are as follows:

1. By comparing the calculated t-statistic (-2.021) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions only in the area of Internal and External Communication. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.08) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.27).

2. By comparing the results of the input self-evaluation of kindergartens within the RS and PO regions, there was a statistically significant difference in 8 areas:

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.047) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Decision-Making Processes and the Delegation of Competencies. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.25) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.51).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.773) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Internal and External Communication. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.08) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.43).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.377) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Upbringing and Education. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.41) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.66).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.025) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Personnel Conditions. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.16) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.42).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.990) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.12) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.40).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.517) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Kindergarten Climate. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.38) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.62).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.403) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Cooperation of the Kindergarten with Parents, the School Authority and the Community. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.12) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.42).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.657) and the critical value (1.969), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of the School Education Program. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a lower number of points (4.36) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.59).

3. By comparing the results of the input self-evaluation of kindergartens within the KE and PO regions, there was a statistically significant difference in 7 areas:

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.027) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.42) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.61).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.477) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Decision-Making Processes and the Delegation of Competencies. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.44) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.61).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.358) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Education. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.56) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.74).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.367) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.39) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.52).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.516) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Kindergarten Climate. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.61) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.67).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.637) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of Education of Children with SUEN. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.26) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.45).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.533) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the KE and PO regions in the area of the School Education Program. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.50) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.72).

By comparing the results of the output self-evaluation of kindergartens between the regions RS-KE, RS-PO and KE-PO, an observable statistical significance was found within the monitored areas between the regions RS and PO.

Table 5 presents an analysis of the results of the output self-evaluation between the individual regions.

Table 5

Comparison within the framework of the year 2020 - individual regions

Explanatory notes: statistical significance = *.05 significance level, **.01 significance level, ***.001 significance level

t - t-statistic

tc - t-statistic critical value

In the output measurement in 2020, the individual regions were compared to each other. The results are as follows:

1. By comparing the results of the input self-evaluation of kindergartens within the RS and KE regions, there was a statistically significant difference in 11 areas:

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.063) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.60) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.42).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.099) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Decision-Making Processes and the Delegation of Competencies. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.62) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.44).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.884) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant deviation was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Area of Achieved Results within an Inclusive Education. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.55) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.30).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.947) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of .01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Internal and External Communication. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.56) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.26).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.444) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of .05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Upbringing and Education. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.73) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.56).

• By comparing the t-statistic (4.493) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Learning. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.53) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.16).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.022) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.57) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.39).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.229) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Kindergarten Climate. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.75) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.61).

• By comparing the t-statistic (3.080) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Education of Children with SUEN. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.67) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.42).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.636) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of Cooperation of the Kindergarten with Parents, the School Authority and the Community. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.55) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.31).

• By comparing the t-statistic (2.310) and the critical value (1.973), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and KE regions in the area of the School Education Program. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.69) than kindergartens of the KE region (4.50).

2. By comparing the results of the input self-evaluation of kindergartens within the RS and PO regions, there was a statistically significant difference only in 1 area:

• By comparing the t-statistic (3.749) and the critical value (1.970), at a significance level of 0.001, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Learning. Kindergartens of the RS region achieved a higher number of points (4.53) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.21).

3. By comparing the results of the input self-evaluation of kindergartens within the KE and PO regions, there was a statistically significant difference in 6 areas:

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.547) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.42) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.61).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-3.228) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Internal and External Communication. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.26) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.58).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.771) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Upbringing and Education. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.56) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.74).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.516) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Personnel Conditions. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.36) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.56).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.045) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.05, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of Cooperation of the Kindergarten with Parents, the School Authority and the Community. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.31) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.50).

• By comparing the t-statistic (-2.877) and the critical value (1.975), at a significance level of 0.01, a statistically significant difference was found between the results of the RS and PO regions in the area of the School Education Program. Kindergartens of the KE region achieved a lower number of points (4.50) than kindergartens of the PO region (4.72).

By comparing the results of the output self-evaluation of kindergartens between the RS-KE, RS-PO and KE-PO regions, an observable statistical significance was found within the monitored areas between the RS and KE regions.

Discussion and conclusion

A search of online research databases indicated that very little studies or large-scale surveys had been conducted with the issue of pedagogical and professional staff focused on the self-evaluation of pre-school education institutions with an emphasis on the level of their inclusivity. There is limited research focused on documenting what is the degree of inclusion and exclusion of the concrete pre-school education institution.

For example, the aim of the study Secondary Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflections on Their Microteaching: Feedback and Self-Evaluation (Chand Dayal & Alpana, 2020), was to integrate different evaluation techniques (peer evaluation, tutor evaluation and self-assessment) into a ‘microteaching’ setting. The authors found that pre-service teachers found feedback from teachers and tutors useful in terms of identifying their strengths and weaknesses and providing incentives for improvement. Research has confirmed that when teachers engage in self-evaluation, they tend to focus more on self-knowledge.

The authors of Solid Foundations: Leading Change in a Kindergarten (Shoval & Sharir, 2019) conducted six years of field research, analyzing documents and interviews with kindergarten teachers, which allowed them to identify seven practical principles that underlie change: (1) taking personal responsibility for each child; (2) showing self-control and providing rational solutions; (3) providing children with opportunities for mindful activities; (4) building a learning framework; (5) instilling children with the skills of independent choice; (6) facilitating learning in stages; and (7) guiding children to acquire skills related to learning.

The specific of the presented research is that it developed a procedure for the self-evaluation of kindergartens, in the context of the Index for Inclusion. Other specific of the Slovak Republic, where the research took place, was the focus on the work of a professional staff (school special pedagogue, school psychologist, social pedagogue, and speech therapist).

After processing the input and output self-evaluation of kindergartens, it can be confirmed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens were statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens only in the RS region.

The respondents of the kindergartens from the PO and KE regions awarded almost the highest number of points to the individual evaluated areas right at the beginning of the measurement – in the initial self-evaluation. It follows that they were less critical compared to the respondents of the kindergartens of the RS region. The problem with kindergarten self-evaluation may be related to the fact that pedagogical and professional staff: (1) have no experience with self-evaluation; (2) it can be assumed that some items of the questionnaire scales provided the respondents with the opportunity to answer in terms of a socially desirable answer; (3) have a problem with a critical evaluation of the kindergarten; (4) are worried about failure, about school management, about the school authority and so on.

The created questionnaire can be a valuable and effective tool for measuring the Index for Inclusion in the environment of kindergartens. Its application will make it possible to obtain useful feedback from the entire school community, which will contribute to the development of the upbringing and education of all children.

An inclusive school develops mainly through functional self-evaluation, taking into account its own quality criteria as well as the context in which it is located. We see the self-evaluation of a kindergarten as a process of continuous improvement and a search for opportunities even where there are seemingly none. From this perspective, it is an open process of planning, formulating, implementing, evaluating and re-formulating measures in terms of the school’s level of inclusion.

References

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2007). Ukazovatel inkluze [Inclusion indicator]. Prague: Rytmus.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). Index inklúzie: príručka na rozvoj škôl s dôrazom na inkluzívne hodnoty [Index for Inclusion: A Guide to School Development with an Emphasis on Inclusive Values]. Bratislava: Foundation for Children of Slovakia.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M, & Kingston, D. (2004). Index for Inclusion: Developing play, learning and participation in early years and childcare. Bristol: CSIE.

Chand Dayal, H., & Alpana, R. (2020). Secondary pre-service teachers’ reflections on their microteaching: Feedback and self-evaluation. Waikato Journal of Education, 1(25), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v25i0.686

Clifford, R., Cryer, D., & Harms, T. (2005). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. Teacher´s College Press.

Drdulová, T. (2014). Inclusion of Children with Health Disabilities in the Kindergarten Environment “YOU are also Welcome among Us.” Bratislava: Methodological and Pedagogical Centre.

Gladush, V. (2020). Forms and Methods of evaluation of the future teacher training results. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 7(29), 2165–2170.

IPC - The Inklusive Clasroom Profile. (2021). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257266884_Measuring_quality_in_inclusive_preschool_classrooms_Development_and_validation_of_the_Inclusive_Classroom_Profile_ICP

Irvin, P. (2009). The SpeciaLink Early Childhood Inclusion Quality Scale. https://specialinkcanada.org/about/rating%20scales.html.

Klein, V., & Sobinkovičová, E. (eds.) (2014). Podpora inkluzívneho modelu vzdelávania pre potreby predprimárneho stupňa školskej sústavy [Support for an inclusive model of education for the needs of the pre-primary level of the school system]. Bratislava: Methodological and Pedagogical Centre.

Klein, V., & Šilonová, V. (edit.). 2015. Evalvačná správa z implementácie inkluzívneho modelu vzdelávania v materských a základných školách na Slovensku [Evaluation report on the implementation of an inclusive model of education in kindergartens and primary schools in Slovakia]. Bratislava: Methodological and Pedagogical Centre.

Kummer-Wyss, A. (2007). Aufdem wegzurintegrativen schule. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 7-8, 27–34.

Şahin, S., & Kilic, A.,. (2018). School self evaluation model suggestion. International Journal of Instruction 3(2011), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11314a

Sandwell Inclusion Quality Mark. (2010). http://www.oldparkprimary.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/09/SIQm-Old-Park-July-2016.pdf

Shoval, E., & Sharir, T. (2019). Solid Foundations: Leading Change in a Kindergarten. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 10(2), 41–71.

Šilonová, V., & Klein, V. (2020). Metodická príručka inkluzívneho predprimárneho vzdelávania [Methodical handbook of an inclusive pre-primary education]. Bratislava: Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic - Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic Government for Roma Communities.

Šilonová, V., & Klein, V. (2020). “Self-evaluation of the level of inclusivity of the kindergarten” Questionnaire. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScjpuXcRC2LaENC0BNOLLFRtS71_AniVpREp1HsoGQXUrNS8Q/viewform?usp=sf_link

A Self-Evaluation of Pre-School Education Institutions with an Emphasis on the Level of Their Inclusivity

Viera Šilonová
Prešov University in Prešov, Faculty of Education,
17. Novembra 15, 080 01 Prešov, Slovak Republic,
e-mail: viera.silonova@unipo.sk

Vladimír Klein
Prešov University in Prešov, Faculty of Education,
17. Novembra 15, 080 01 Prešov, Slovak Republic,
e-mail: vladimir.klein@unipo.sk

Ivana Rochovská
Faculty of Education Matej Bel University Banská Bystrica,
Ružová 13, 974 11 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic,
e-mail: ikrupova@gmail.com

Summary

The issue of inclusive education, on the theoretical and empirical level currently within pedagogy (and not only within it), belongs to an extremely topical and discussed theme. In a humanistic oriented society, it is necessary to promote a philosophy of education that emphasises education for everyone without distinction and without exclusion, so that diversity becomes the norm. Subsequently, it is possible to divide children not institutionally but in terms of content, i.e. to manage processes in a direction away from segregated special schools towards inclusive kindergartens and primary schools and to strive for the personal growth of each child without any comparison with other children.

The Index for Inclusion was defined by a British organisation called the Centre for Research on Inclusive Education and the Inclusivity Index published within it, which defines inclusive education in the form of the steps needed to better translate it into practice (Booth et al., 2004, 2006). In its essence, it is a self-assessment tool designed for schools, but also for public institutions.

The Index for Inclusion consists of four basic pillars: Inclusion is a process – it is a never-ending process of finding individual and systemic answers to the ever-changing diversity within society and in schools. Inclusion is related to the identification and removal of barriers – the ability to identify barriers requires the collection, compilation and evaluation of comprehensive data from a variety of sources to improve policy and praxis. Inclusion means the presence, participation, success and happiness of all children – success is associated with the outcomes of the educational process, which go beyond the framework of the testing of knowledge. Inclusion includes special attention to those target groups which face the threat of the marginalisation, exclusion and achievement of the below average in education (Booth & Ainscow, 2016).

The research is focused on the creation of a self-evaluation tool for determining the level of inclusivity of kindergartens and its verification in praxis. The purpose of self-assessment is to raise existing standards for a more effective upbringing and education. Effective kindergartens should constantly re-evaluate their own praxis and look for ways which will contribute towards improving the quality of the kindergarten, with an emphasis on its inclusivity. It is necessary to realise that there is a direct relationship between professional development and the self-evaluation of the school. The self-evaluation of pedagogical and professional employees of kindergartens contributes to their self-knowledge, self-reflection and self-criticism, based on their own performance and professional development. In this context, the research focuses on creating a model of school self-assessment which will allow kindergartens to evaluate their own inclusive educational practices. The self-evaluation questionnaire is part of the Methodical Manual of Inclusive Pre-primary Education (Šilonová & Klein, 2020) and is based on an individual analysis and evaluation, requires subsequent consultation and confrontation of opinions, and a search for consensus, thus promoting mutual communication in areas requiring further improvement and development. It is necessary to discuss proposals and plans on how to improve education in these areas.

In the intentions of the presented knowledge and possible starting points relevant to the given research, a research problem was formulated: Will the application of the developed self-evaluation tool contribute towards increasing the inclusivity of kindergartens in the areas of culture, policy and praxis?

The aim of the research was to verify the Index for Inclusion of kindergartens within selected localities through their self-evaluation. It can be assumed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of pre kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region. It can also be assumed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region. It can also be assumed that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region will be statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region.

The self-evaluation tool for kindergartens consists of three main areas of the Index for Inclusion: culture, policy and praxis. In the area of culture, the following items were monitored: Kindergarten Climate, Cooperation of the Kindergarten with Parents, the School Authority and the Community, Internal and External Communication. In the area of policy, the following items were monitored: Objectives and Plans of the Kindergarten, Decision Making Processes, Personal Development, Spatial and Material-Technical Conditions., School Education Program. In the field of praxis, the following items were monitored: Achieved Results within an Inclusive Education, Education, Learning, Education of Children with Special Educational Needs.

In total, 115 kindergartens (762 respondents) participated in the input self-evaluation within the framework of the National PRIM project and 96 kindergartens (559 respondents) participated in the output self-evaluation. From the total number of 115 kindergartens involved, 42 kindergartens from three areas of the Slovak Republic were selected by proportional stratified selection (according to the criterion of the number of pedagogical and professional employees): (1) Košice Region (KE) – 14 kindergartens; (2) Prešov Region (PO) – 14 kindergartens; (3) Rest of Slovakia (RS) – 14 kindergartens (Žilina region, Banská Bystrica region, Trenčín region and Nitra region).

To verify the hypotheses for items where there was more than a binary scoring, a paired t-test was used, as the two groups of measurements were based upon the same sample of respondents who were tested twice (input and output measurements) and these were compared to each other. By subtracting the second measurement from the first for each subject, pairwise differences were obtained and entered into the analysis.

Based on the research findings, it can be stated that the results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region were statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of pre kindergartens from the “Rest of Slovakia” region. The results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region were not statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Prešov region. The results from the output self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region were not statistically significantly better than the results from the input self-evaluation of kindergartens from the Košice region.

The created questionnaire can be a valuable and effective tool for measuring the Index for Inclusion in the environment of kindergartens. Its application will make it possible to obtain useful feedback from the entire school community, which will contribute to the development of the upbringing and education of all children.

The research is published as part of VEGA project No. 1/0114/23 “Possibilities of inclusive education of students with special educational needs”.

Ikimokyklinio ugdymo įstaigų įtraukties lygio įsivertinimas

Viera Šilonová, Vladimír Klein
Prešovo universitetas, Slovakija

Ivana Rochovská
Matej Bel universitetas, Slovakija

Santrauka

Įtraukiojo ugdymo tematika teoriniu ir empiriniu lygmeniu yra itin aktuali ir diskutuotina tema pedagogikoje šiuo metu. Į humanizmą orientuotoje visuomenėje būtina propaguoti ugdymo filosofiją, kurioje akcentuojamas ugdymas visiems be skirtumo ir be atskirties, kad įvairovė taptų norma. Tuo pačiu svarbu procesus nuo segreguotų specialiųjų mokyklų link įtraukiančių darželių ir pradinių mokyklų ir siekti kiekvieno vaiko asmeninio augimo nelyginant jo su kitais vaikais.

Įtraukties indeksą apibrėžė Įtraukiojo ugdymo tyrimų centras Didžiojoje Britanijoje. Indeksas apibrėžia, kas yra įtraukusis ugdymas, nurodo žingsnius, kurie yra reikalingi, kad įtraukties procesai būtų geriau įgyvendinami praktikoje (Booth et al., 2004, 2006). Savo esme tai yra savęs vertinimo priemonė, skirta ne tik mokykloms, bet ir valstybinėms institucijoms.

Įtraukties indeksą sudaro keturi pagrindiniai ramsčiai: Įtrauktis yra procesas - tai nesibaigiantis procesas, kurio metu ieškoma individualių ir sisteminių atsakymų į nuolat kintančią visuomenės ir mokyklų įvairovę. Įtrauktis yra susijusi su kliūčių nustatymu ir šalinimu - norint nustatyti kliūtis, reikia rinkti, kaupti ir vertinti išsamius duomenis iš įvairių šaltinių, kad būtų galima tobulinti politiką ir praktiką. Įtrauktis reiškia visų vaikų buvimą, dalyvavimą, sėkmę ir laimę - sėkmė siejama su ugdymo proceso rezultatais, kurie peržengia žinių patikrinimo rėmus. Įtrauktis apima ypatingą dėmesį toms tikslinėms grupėms, kurioms gresia marginalizacija, atskirtis ir žemesni nei vidutiniai pasiekimai švietimo srityje (Booth & Ainscow, 2016).

Tyrimas orientuotas į savęs vertinimo įrankio, skirto ikimokyklinių ugdymo įstaigų įtraukties lygiui nustatyti, sukūrimą ir jo patikrinimą praktikoje. Savęs vertinimo tikslas - patobulinti esamus standartus, siekiant efektyvesnio auklėjimo ir ugdymo. Efektyviai veikiančios ikimokyklinio ugdymo įstaigos turėtų nuolat iš naujo vertinti savo praktiką ir ieškoti būdų, kurie prisidėtų prie darželio kokybės gerinimo, akcentuojant jo įtraukumą. Būtina suvokti, kad tarp profesinio tobulėjimo ir mokyklos savęs vertinimo yra tiesioginis ryšys. Ikimokyklinio ugdymo įstaigų pedagoginių ir profesinių darbuotojų savęs vertinimas prisideda prie jų savęs pažinimo, savirefleksijos ir savikritikos, grindžiamos jų pačių veiklos rezultatais ir profesiniu tobulėjimu. Atsižvelgiant į tai, tyrime daugiausia dėmesio skiriama ugdymo įstaigos savęs vertinimo modeliui kurti, kuris leistų pačioms įsivertinti savo įtraukiojo ugdymo praktiką. Savęs vertinimo klausimynas yra įtraukiojo ikimokyklinio ugdymo metodinio vadovo (Šilonová ir Klein, 2020) dalis, kuris grindžiamas individualia analize ir vertinimu, reikalauja tolesnio konsultavimosi ir nuomonių konfrontacijos bei konsensuso paieškos, taip skatinant abipusį bendravimą srityse, kuriose reikia tolesnio tobulėjimo ir plėtros. Būtina aptarti pasiūlymus ir planus, kaip tobulinti švietimą šiose srityse.

Atsižvelgiant į teorinius ir praktinius aspektus, susijusius su šiuo tyrimu, buvo suformuluota tyrimo prob­lema: Ar sukurtos savęs vertinimo priemonės taikymas prisidės prie ikimokyklinių ugdymo įstaigų įtraukties didinimo kultūros, politikos ir praktikos srityse?

Tyrimo tikslas - patikrinti atrinktų vietovių ikimokyklinių ugdymo įstaigų įtraukties indeksą, atliekant jų savęs vertinimą. Ikimokyklinių ugdymo įstaigų savęs vertinimo priemonę sudaro trys pagrindinės įtraukties indekso sritys: kultūra, politika ir praktika. Kultūros srityje buvo stebimi šie aspekati: ugdymo įstaigos klimatas, bendradarbiavimas su tėvais, mokyklos administracija ir bendruomene, vidinis ir išorinis bendravimas. Politikos srityje buvo stebimi ugdymo įstaigos tikslai ir planai, sprendimų priėmimo procesai, asmenybės ugdymas, erdvinės ir materialinės-techninės sąlygos, mokyklos ugdymo programa. Praktikos srityje buvo stebimi pasiekti rezultatai pagal inkliuzinį ugdymą, ugdymas, mokymasis, vaikų, turinčių specialiųjų ugdymosi poreikių, ugdymas.

Iš viso 115 darželių (762 respondentai) dalyvavo pagal nacionalinį PRIM projektą, o 96 darželiai (559 respondentai) dalyvavo išorės savianalizėje. Iš visų 115 dalyvavusių darželių proporcingos stratifikuotos atrankos būdu (pagal pedagoginių ir profesionalių darbuotojų skaičiaus kriterijų) buvo atrinkti 42 darželiai iš trijų Slovakijos Respublikos vietovių: (1) Košicės regionas (KE) - 14 darželių; (2) Prešovo regionas (PO) - 14 darželių; (3) likusi Slovakijos dalis (RS) - 14 darželių (Žilinos regionas, Banska Bystricos regionas, Trenčino regionas ir Nitros regionas).

Norint patikrinti hipotezes dėl kintamųjų, kurių didžiausias vertinimas buvo 2, buvo naudojamas porinis t-testas, nes abi matavimų grupės buvo pagrįstos ta pačia respondentų imtimi, kuri buvo tikrinama du kartus, ir jie buvo lyginami tarpusavyje. Atėmus kiekvieno tiriamojo antrąjį matavimą iš pirmojo, buvo gauti poriniai skirtumai, kurie buvo įtraukti į analizę.

Sukurtas klausimynas gali būti vertinga ir veiksminga priemonė, skirta įvertinti įtraukties indeksą ikimokyklinių ugdymo įstaigų aplinkoje. Jo taikymas leis gauti naudingą grįžtamąjį ryšį iš visos mokyklos bendruomenės, o tai prisidės prie visų vaikų ugdymo ir švietimo plėtros.

Tyrimas skelbiamas vykdant VEGA projektą Nr. 1/0114/23 „Vaikų, turinčių specialiuosius ugdymosi poreikius, inkliuzinio ugdymo galimybės“.