臺灣在融合教育工作的推動深受國際思潮的影響，然因非聯合國會員之故，在融合教育跨國比較研究與討論被動缺席。本研究以比較教育角度進行跨國融合教育之檢視與發展指標探究，第一階段以八項指標衡量各國普通教育發展水準，選取教育與經濟發展條件良好或地緣鄰近之十一個已發展國家做為融合教育比較之基礎；第二階段參考輸入－歷程－成果模型（Input-Process-Outcome Model, IPO）選取六項指標比較各國特殊教育及融合教育之發展現況，包含立法與政策、師培與專業發展、定義與分類、安置型態、特教服務接受率、特教學生融合率等。透過次級資料庫分析與文件分析法探討各國融合教育發展類型，歸納高融合國家核心特徵並檢視我國融合教育之定位與挑戰，以作為未來推動參考。結果顯示：一、臺灣特教學生在融合學校比率為諸國最高，但接受特教服務總人口的比率卻為諸國次低，屬高融合低鑑出之類型；二、融合教育法令仍限於特殊教育法，且轉譯之政策與在地論述與他國相較稍嫌不足；三、普特各項支持系統傾向分流，缺乏整合運作與當責機制；四、各教育單位間仍偏重行政思維為主的服務，以學生需求為主的彈性運作仍待提升。研究者於文末針對輸入、歷程、成果等面向提出若干建議，並提出研究限制。

Purpose: Since the second half of the twentieth century, the concept and ideology of inclusive education have considerably influenced global education systems to address educational rights and practices for students with disabilities or special educational needs. The Salamanca Statement, issued in 1994, is the first official international document to formally advocate the promotion of inclusive education and to provide a framework for action. The statement emphasizes that inclusion and full participation are fundamental rights for all learners and that students with disabilities should learn together with peers without disabilities in mainstream schools within the community. Consequently, inclusion has become a key concern in national educational policies worldwide. Taiwan has embraced global trends promoting inclusive education for more than two decades. However, because Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, it is absent from cross-national comparative studies on this topic. In 2017 and 2022, the Taiwanese government sanctioned international reviews of Taiwan's national reports on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the review committee expressed disapproval of Taiwan's progress toward inclusive education and recommended efforts toward integration. Specifically, the review committee indicated that Taiwan's implementation of inclusive education has primarily focused on special education and has made slow progress in general education. The committee indicated that Taiwan's dual education system persists and that the education system is unprepared to accommodate the educational needs of all learners. These reviews alerted government officials and scholars in Taiwan to these problems, stimulating interest in a cross-national comparison. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare the implementation of inclusive education in Taiwan with that in other countries that are economically and educationally equivalent to Taiwan by using the development indicators suggested by Anastasiou (2017) and the input-process-outcome (IPO) model proposed by Loreman et al. (2014). We examined the implementation of inclusive education in Taiwan and provide insights and suggestions for future policy and research. Methods: This study adopted a comparative education research design. We conducted a literature review to identify internationally recognized indicators of inclusive education development and performed cross-national comparative analyses. Initially, eight indicators were used to measure the level of general education. Subsequently, six indicators were used along with the IPO model to compare the development of special and inclusive education: legislation and policies, teacher training and professional development, definitions and classifications, placement types, special education service acceptance rates, and special education student inclusion rates. For the cross-national comparative analyses, 11 developed countries with comparable educational and economic conditions to Taiwan were selected; these countries comprised those with a favorable implementation of inclusive education, as reported in the literature, and those in East Asia with similar cultural traditions related to education. With assistance from the overseas units of the Ministry of Education, we obtained relevant data and documents from these countries for comparative analysis. We conducted a secondary database analysis and documentary analysis to assess data pertaining to the IPO indicators and identified the developmental types and core characteristics of highly inclusive countries, thus determining current conditions and challenges for Taiwan. Results: (a) Taiwan has the highest rate of special education students in inclusive settings but has the second-lowest identification rate among all countries, characterizing its developmental type. (b) The implementation of inclusive education remains limited to special education legislation, and policy translation and discourse are insufficient relative to those in other developed countries. (c) The various support systems within general and special education tend to be separated, and the two education systems remain unintegrated. (d) Special education services are restricted to delivery by educational authorities, and the lack of governmental flexibility causes students' needs to be unmet. The education systems in the United States, Finland, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan are classified as highly inclusive, the primary characteristics of which are as follows: (a) alignment with international values of inclusive education and following and promoting the core principles outlined in the Salamanca Statement and CRPD; (b) strong legal and policy foundations through legislation related to general, special, or inclusive education that serve as a legal basis for implementation; (c) well-developed systems of teacher professional development, including teacher education, teacher certification, and in-service professional development; (d) establishment of diverse and continuous educational placement options to meet the specific needs of all learners; and (e) gradual expansion of responsibilities for inclusive education into general education. Although approaches may vary internationally, responsibility is gradually shifted through the establishment of support systems within general education. Conclusions: The international trend toward inclusive education emphasizes human rights, shifting the responsibility for special education to the general education system. It advocates collaboration between special and general education systems and the provision of continuous educational placement services or systematic multilevel support systems to flexibly address the diverse needs of all learners. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of incorporating performance accountability and outcome monitoring through the use of indicators to promote and improve inclusion. Considering the IPO dimensions, we propose several recommendations for Taiwan and for future research. (a) Input: The responsibility to promote inclusion within general education should be reinforced through legal amendments that emphasize collaboration between general and special education and promote the merging of these systems. (b) Process: The number of special education services, which indicates the quality of service delivery, and identification rates should be monitored. (c) Outcome: Data included in the current annual statistical report on special education should be augmented through cross-national comparative analyses and literature reviews in order to provide data-driven recommendations for the improvement of inclusion. (d) Future research: Longitudinal research on inclusion should be conducted to more comprehensively explore exemplary implementation processes or models in other countries. Lastly, the researcher addressed the limitations of the study pertaining to research methodology, data sources, selection of indicators, and differences in research perspectives.