A inclusão escolar no contexto do Ensino Médio: análise das produções em periódico científico

This dissertation joins a conversation in the special education arena about the academic and vocational agenda for special education high school students. It explores the influence of enrollment in Career Technical Education (CTE) courses on the achievement of high school special education (SPED) students. The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement of special education (SPED) students enrolled in Career Technical Education (CTE) courses with special education (SPED) students who were not enrolled in Career Technical Education (CTE) courses. The study was designed to determine whether or not SPED students enrolled in CTE improved on the academic scores as measured by the Graduate Exit Exam (GEE) standardized test. The target population of this study was special education students enrolled in Louisiana public high schools. The sample for this study was made up of all 10th and 11th grade special education students who had taken part in the state mandated GEE during the 2008-2009 school year. The instrument used to collect data for this study was a computerized recording form. The variables of the investigation were copied directly from the archival data source, developed by the Louisiana State Department of Education’s Division of Student Standards and Assessments, into the study’s recording forms. To determine if relationships existed between CTE participation and achievement scores on standardized testing, ELA and Math scores were used as dependent variables. The other variables were treated as independent variables including the demographics of Age, Gender, Race, Socioeconomic Status (Full, Reduced and Free Lunch) and CTE program participation. The major findings were that the CTE students had significantly higher scores on the overall ELA measures than non-CTE students. All six of the Math standards for which data were available were found significantly higher for the CTE students than for the non-CTE students. Also according to the finding, the majority of SPED students did not participate in a CTE program. This researcher concluded that there was a positive academic outcome for those SPED students who participated in CTE. She recommended that SPED students be enrolled in CTE courses while participating in Louisiana public high school program.

Focused on 3,305 students who self-reported frequent bullying victimization, this study compared the use and effectiveness of responses to address bullying victimization among students in special education, as compared with students in general education. Students in special education were less likely to make a joke, but more likely to tell the aggressor how they felt, hit the aggressor, and tell an adult at school and home, according to self-report. Furthermore, students in special education were significantly more likely to report that “things got worse” after using each response. Implications for educational policy and future research are discussed. Correction notice for ‘Responding to Bullying Victimization: Comparative Analysis of Victimized Students in General and Special Education’ by Michael T. Hartley, Sheri Bauman, Charisse L. Nixon, and Stan Davis, published in the Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2017, Vol. 28(2) 77–89, DOI 10.1177/1044207317710700 This article reviews data from the Youth Voice Project national study of U.S. students in Grades 5 through 12 (Davis & Nixon, youthviolenceproject.com). The authors also referred to data from the Youth Voice Project in their article titled ‘Comparative Study of Bullying Victimization Among Students in General and Special Education’ by Hartley, Bauman, Nixon, and Davis, published in Exceptional Children, 2015, Vol. 81(2) 176–193, DOI: 10.1177/0014402914551741 (the “2015 Article”), which examined victimization of special education students and general education students by bullies. Accordingly, this article includes similar themes, scholarship, and methods as their 2015 Article. Several sections of the Article reproduce unattributed excerpts that were originally published in the 2015 Article, including portions of Table 1 and text in the sections with headings Introduction, Method, Results, and Limitations, particularly as the sections pertain to the demographic data reported and analyzed. Notwithstanding these similarities, the data analysis in this article differs from the analysis in the 2015 Article. Whereas the 2015 Article examines victimization variables, this article reports specific data about how students address bullying victimization.

Black students are disproportionately represented in special education, especially in categories that are subjectively determined by educators. Also, Black students with disabilities experience disproportionate rates of exclusionary discipline in schools and have disproportionately higher dropout rates and lower graduation rates. Research has identified various factors that contribute to these issues, including the lack of teacher training required by special education law, implicit bias of educators who identify and serve Black students with disabilities, and the lack of training in cultural responsiveness. However, there is limited research on the lived experiences of the teachers who work with Black students with disabilities and who are responsible for utilizing system-wide supports. The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore the lived experiences of special educators in supporting Black students with disabilities in middle and high schools. The following research questions guided the study: 1. How do special educators describe how district-level policies and practices affect their ability to support Black students with disabilities? 2. How do special educators describe how school-level policies and practices affect their ability to support Black students with disabilities? 3. How do special educators describe how their own classroom-level practices affect their ability to support Black students with disabilities? The researcher distributed a demographic questionnaire and conducted interviews and focus groups with 12 middle and high school special educators. A researcher's journal served as an additional data source to bracket researcher biases and capture field notes. Analysis revealed both themes and subthemes, including the prevalence of alternative teacher training, the prevalence of teachers teaching special education despite other career intentions, multiple perspectives on the causes of disproportionality of Black students in special education, lack of funding, overwhelming paperwork, lack of RtI and PBIS knowledge and support, limitations of professional development specific to special education, varied leadership support, shortages in special education teachers, parents as advocates for student needs, differentiation as key, and conflicting perspectives on culturally responsive teaching. Based on the findings, recommendations are offered for practice and future research. Keywords: Special education, Black students, students with disabilities, disproportionality

Research on bullying is an important avenue for understanding the social integration of students in special education. Focused on 3,305 students who self-reported victimization of two to three times per month or more, this study compared the pattern of verbal, relational, and physical bullying among students in general education and special education. Overall, students in special education reported more physical and emotional harm as well as more psychological distress as a result of their victimization. Self-reported rates of verbal and relational victimization were similar, but physical victimization was more often reported among students in special education. In addition, adult teachers and staff were more likely to verbally, relationally, and physically bully students in special education, according to student self-report.

We compared threats of violence made by K–12 students in special education (120 cases) or general education (136 cases) in schools that were implementing threat assessment guidelines for managing student threats of violence (Cornell, Sheras, Kaplan, McConville, Posey, Levy-Elkon, et al., 2004; Cornell & Sheras, in press). Students in special education made disproportionately more threats, as well as more severe threats, than peers in general education. Students classified as emotionally disturbed (ED) exhibited the highest threat rates. Nevertheless, use of school suspension as a disciplinary consequence for threats was consistent for students in special and general education, and few students were expelled. Our findings support the use of threat assessment to manage threats of violence by students in special education.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderIn the Limelight1 Apr 2011“Hang Time” and Other Innovations Kellie Rowden-Racette Kellie Rowden-Racette Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.LML.16042011.22 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110405/In-the-Limelight--Hang-Time-and-Other-Innovations.htm Name: Chistopher Spiel, CCC-SLP Title: SLP, Plainfield East High School Location: Plainfield, Ill. Plainfield East High School, right outside of Chicago, has a lot going on—1,800 students, a large number of students who are not English-speakers, and a sizable number of students in special education who need comprehensive speech-language services. What could be a recipe for frustration—too much work with too few resources—is saved by one other thing Plainfield has going on: Christopher Spiel. At age 30—young enough to have boundless energy but old enough to have some experience—this speech-language pathologist has implemented an ambitious peer communication group that focuses on building social skills. He recruits carefully vetted general education students and matches them with students in special education; the pairs meet twice a week to learn teenage social etiquette. Taking the program a step further, Spiel also has created “Hang Time,” an after-school social club where students gather to play kickball, make gingerbread houses, or do other activities that give the students an opportunity to practice their skills in a less-structured setting. “You can see right away that the students in special education would much rather take social pointers from their peers than adults,” Spiel said. “Some of the things adults tell them might be expected, but still are not done in certain circumstances, so having the peer helpers decipher the unwritten rules is such a blessing.” An equally notable aspect of the program is that it’s being run solely by Spiel, who also provides most of the program’s funding. Supplies, snacks, and most of all, energy and enthusiasm, come from him. But that’s just par for the course for this young SLP. Spiel’s mother was a big proponent of volunteering when he was growing up in Tinley Park, Ill., and he developed a taste for it early. In high school, for example, he spent more than 1,000 hours in community volunteer service. “It’s just so nice to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. “I’ve found that it doesn’t even need to be a big gesture to mean something. I love volunteering.” In fact, volunteering led Spiel to his career. He enjoyed helping an SLP when he volunteered at a local elementary school, and when he began a teaching internship program in high school, he asked to be paired with an SLP. That experience served as his launch pad. He graduated from Governors State University with a master’s degree in speech-language pathology and educational administration. In a subsequent internship at Homewood Flossmoor High School he first experienced a peer program in action. The SLP he worked with, Patty Boyd, and the school’s social worker, Tammy Green, had created a wildly successful peer intervention program that blended students in special education with typical peers. At Plainfield East, Spiel quickly realized the limitations of the traditional one-on-one model of speech-language treatment. Having seen the success of a peer program, he knew he had to make some changes—and fast. He approached the administration with his proposal, received approval, used his weekends and breaks to get it organized, and launched the program in the winter of 2010. “I can’t tell you how many parents I’ve talked to who were just beside themselves because their kids didn’t have an after-school program where they could practice social skills without being bullied,” Spiel said. “So many of them would go home, watch TV, and not interact with anybody. Now, with Hang Time, they have a place to go with their peers, and they’re learning and making progress. It’s a win for everybody.” And it’s not only the students in special education who are benefitting from Spiel’s tireless energy—the general education students are getting a taste of what working as a speech-language pathologist is all about. And that could be a good thing. “Right now some of my general education students who serve as peers are naturals when it comes to working with special education students, and have asked me about being a speech-language pathologist,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.” For more information about the original Peer Communication Program, contact Patty Boyd at [email protected] or Tammy Green at [email protected]. Contact Chris Spiel at [email protected]. Author Notes print and online editor for The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 4April 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2011 Metrics Downloaded 74 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

This study focused on differences in well-being and peer acceptance of three groups of low-achieving students in regular and special education in the Netherlands. Well-being was assessed by means of a self-image scale consisting of 39 statements and peer acceptance through sociometric nomination and rank-order procedures. Low-achieving students in regular education who received remedial help had a similar self-image and were equally accepted by their peers as the low-achieving students in regular education who did not receive remedial support. Students in special education, however, had a slightly better self-image and were also a little more accepted by their peers than the low-achieving students in regular education. Low-achieving students in regular education who received remedial support neither profited nor suffered from their “needy” status regarding peer acceptance.

Emotional/behavioral difficulties and mental health (MH) service contacts of 3 groups of youth were compared: students in special education for non-MH problems, students in special education for MH problems, and youth not in special education. Parents reported the characteristics, special education placement, emotional/behavioral difficulties, and MH service contacts of 25,122 youth aged 6-17 years in the National Health Interview Survey. Two thirds of students in special education received special education services for non-MH problems. Among students in special education for non-MH problems, 17% had serious emotional/behavioral difficulties compared with 51% of students in special education for MH problems and 4% of youth not in special education. MH service contacts were examined only for youth whose difficulties significantly interfered with their ability to function in or out of school. Among youth with serious difficulties, the percentage of youth without a recent MH service contact was greater for students in special education for non-MH problems (40%) and youth not in special education (47%) compared with students in special education for MH problems (13%). Compared with youth not in special education, students in special education for non-MH problems were 4 times more likely to have serious emotional/behavioral difficulties but were just as likely as youth not in special education to lack a recent MH service contact. Study findings provide a national context for considering the MH screening/evaluation needs of students receiving special education for non-MH problems.

To bend back, ... [to give] careful consideration to important matters and [to be] open to the voices, opinions, and advice of others (Valli, 1997, pp. 67-68). I am bending back my mind (and often, it seems, my soul) to reflect on high school programs for students with learning disabilities (LD). This is a painful process. My focus on secondary issues did not start until 1980 when I received a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to study forms of interagency collaboration (Single Portal Intake Project, 19801983). In our work related to this grant, we found that (a) interagency collaboration was logical when agencies had reason to collaborate; and (b) transition times (when a student moves from one agency to another) were one of the prime opportunities for collaboration. One of the transitions we studied in the early 1980s was the one from the public schools to adult life. The first big question was happens to special education youth after they graduate from high school? This question led to the beginning of the follow-up studies on special education graduates I have conducted, almost yearly, since 1983. These studies have produced data that have raised new questions, including what conditions could improve the post-school status of special education graduates, how can we keep more special education students in high school through graduation, and, finally, what is the purpose of public schools in a democracy? For some these questions might not seem sequential; for me they were a straight line to my present position on schooling and special education. The current condition of schools with regard to youth with LD is worse than it was 20 years ago. This is not because many good, well-intentioned people did not spend oodles of time and energy on the problem. Nor is it because we do not have good, competent people working on the issue today. Indeed, the quality of the people working on these issues today seems superior to those of 20 years ago. The decline in the quality of schooling stems from other factors, factors that are, in my mind, a clear indication of the failure of the P-20 public school system due to the loss of a moral compass of schooling. The post-school outcome data on graduates with LD has remained pretty stable over the past 20 years. Males with LD who graduate from high school are employed at more or less 70-80% levels, similar to males without disabilities (Murray, Goldstein, & Edgar, 1997). Although many of these students plan to go to college, few do (about 25%), and even fewer graduate from some form of postsecondary education program (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). Females do less well; their employment rates are 50-60%, primarily due to child bearing without partners (Murray et al., 1997). Additionally, about 40% of students with LD fail to complete schooling (Kortering & Braziel, 2002). For both graduates and dropouts, we have virtually no information on the quality of their lives or evidence of their overall citizenship. This is, sadly, also true of young adults without disabilities. Instead, we measure employment status and college attendance as keys to post-school success, rather than the more difficult analysis of quality of life and productive citizenship. This is, I am afraid, a cop-out to the pressure of the American worldview of free market economy and consumerism as a measure of goodness. It is an embarrassment. There are several major problems facing those of us who care about students labeled as LD. While there are technical problems that we as educators should be able to fix (definition of LD, best instructional practices for students so identified, powerful secondary programs that hold students and add value to their lives), these issues, while important, are not nearly as important as the shift of the aim of public schooling away from preparing democratic citizens and offering meaningful opportunities for all students. …

Increasing the post-secondary readiness of students is a critical focus for districts nationwide. Many schools offer college, career, and military readiness counseling (CCMR) for general education students; however, little attention to no attention is paid to the post-secondary needs of students in special education programming. Federal regulations outline parameters for transitioning students in Special Education programming beyond high school, yet standards for the post-secondary readiness of students with intellectual disabilities are inconsistent from one district to the next. Moreover, deficits in programming can also be linked to a lack of knowledge regarding community-based resources and how best to prepare transitioning students to access them. These interviews explore practitioner experiences with post-secondary readiness for students in special education based on their capacities in education and the urban community of a large city in Texas. Practitioners participated in one-on-one interviews with the researchers. All participants were asked five questions: (1) What do you do currently/what does your organization do? (2) What is your tenure in education? (3) Based on the capacity(es) you have served/are serving, how do you believe educators can better support students in navigating a multilayered system of post-secondary choices and directions (4) What post-secondary skills do you believe are critical for student success? (5) How do you believe education needs to change to prepare young people in special education for their futures? Practitioner responses to the interview questions shed light on deficits and areas of improvement for the post-secondary readiness of students in special education and recommendations for educators and families to better support students transitioning to adulthood.

BackgroundSchools play an important role in physical activity promotion for adolescents. The systematic review aimed to determine the proportion of secondary (middle and high) school physical education (PE) lesson time that students spend in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and to assess if MVPA was moderated by school level (middle and high school), type of physical activity measurement and type of PE activities.MethodsA systematic search of nine electronic databases was conducted (PROSPERO2014:CRD42014009649). Studies were eligible if they were published between 2005 and 2014; written in English; assessed MVPA in PE lessons of secondary (middle and high) school students; and used a quantitative MVPA measure (i.e., accelerometry, heart rate monitoring, pedometers or observational measures). Two reviewers examined the retrieved articles, assessed risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled estimate of the percent of PE lesson time spent in MVPA and to assess moderator effects where data allowed.ResultsThe search yielded 5,132 potentially relevant articles; 28 articles representing 25 studies (7 middle and 18 high school) from seven countries were included. Twelve studies measured MVPA through observational measures, seven used accelerometers, five used heart rate monitors and four used pedometers (including three studies using a mix of measures). Meta-analysis of 15 studies found that overall, students spent a mean (95% CI) of 40.5% (34.8–46.2%) of PE in MVPA. Middle school students spent 48.6% (41.3–55.9%) of the lesson in MVPA (n = 5 studies) and high school students 35.9% (28.3–43.6%) (n = 10 studies). Studies measuring MVPA using accelerometers (n = 5) showed that students spent 34.7% (25.1–44.4%) of the lesson in MVPA, while 44.4% (38.3–50.5%) was found for lessons assessed via observation (n = 9), 43.1% (24.3–61.9%) of the lesson for a heart rate based study, and 35.9% (31.0–40.8%) for a pedometer-measured study.ConclusionsThe proportion of PE spent in MVPA (40.5%) is below the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and the UK Associations for Physical Education recommendation of 50%. Findings differed according to the method of MVPA assessment. Additional strategies and intervention research are needed to build more active lesson time in PE.

The aims of this study was to investigate attitudes toward physical education and class preferences of Turkish secondary and high school students related to gender and age. The participants were 302 female (Mage = 13.11 ± 0.79) and 332 male (Mage = 13.14 ± 0.69) students from secondary school education aged 12 to 14 and 290 female (Mage = 16.48 ± 0.86) and 316 male (Mage = 16.42 ± 0.90) student from high school aged 15 to 17. A total of 1240 students voluntarily participated in this study. The Attitudes Toward Physical Education Scale (ATPES) was applied. ANOVA was used to determine differences in attitude toward PE between students from secondary and high schools and between girls and boys. In order to test differences in PE class preferences of students with regard to school context and gender, chi square analysis was conducted. Men scores of ATPES for secondary school and high school girl and boy students were determined 3.95 point, 4.01 point, 3.40 point and 3.77 point, respectively. Generally of secondary school students (%66.6) preferred coed physical education class, while generally of high school students (%69) preferred single-sex physical education class. This research verifies that attitudes towards physical education and PE class preferences change according to gender and age. SUMMARY Purpose and significance: The aims of this study was to investigate attitudes toward physical education and class preferences in Turkish secondary and high school students related to gender and age. In spite of the growth in the studies on the effectiveness of PE, sport science literature that have investigated students' attitudes toward PE and on PE class preferences according to age and gender are limited. Methods: The study was conducted during the 2006-2007 fall semester. Participants consisted of 1240 students from seven secondary and six high general schools of Bursa/Turkey. In this study, coeducational secondary and high schools were selected. The participants were 302 girls (Mage = 13.11 ± 0.79) and 332 boys (Mage = 13.14 ± 0.69) aged 12 to 14 from secondary education schools and 290 girls (Mage = 16.48 ± 0.86) and 316 boys (Mage = 16.42 ± 0.90) aged 15 to 17 from high schools. Two data collection instruments were administered. In the first section of the first personnel information, participants provide demographic related information such as age, grade, and gender. In the second section participants were asked: Which PE class do you prefer? Coed PE or Single sex The second instrument is the Attitude Toward PE Scale for Turkish students. Results: Findings of this study indicated a significant gender difference in high school students attitudes toward PE (F = 29.361; p 0.05 . The attitude scores of secondary school boys and girls respectively was (M = 4.01) and (M = 3.95). In addition, the attitude scores of secondary school boys (M = 4.01) were significantly higher (F = 26.245; p<0.05) than those of high school boys (M = 3.77), and the attitude scores of secondary school girls (M = 3.95) were significantly higher (F = 33.752; p<0.05) than those of high school girls (M = 3.40). In order to test differences in PE class preferences of students with regard to school context and gender, chi square analysis was conducted. Significant differences in PE class preferences were found between students from secondary and high schools (E 2 = 62.634; p <0.05). Most of the students from secondary schools (66.6%) preferred single-sex PE, whereas nearly most of the students from high schools (69%) preferred coed PE. Discussion and Conclusions: This research verifies that attitudes towards physical education and PE class preferences change according to gender and age. Secondary school students show more positive attitudes towards physical education than high school students. Boys show more positive attitudes than girls. In addition secondary school students preferred single-sex PE, whereas high school students preferred coed PE. In order to improve the attitudes of girls towards physical education, Ministry of National Education have to make some changes in physical education course curriculum. This change has to be from competitive physical education course model to a model that encompasses life-time sport, health, physical fitness, and well-being. Physical education course curriculums should be re-arranged to enable students to obtain necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for a healthy and happy daily life. Moreover, all students must have the confidence and skills to continue physical activities in their future lives.

The term children with special educational needs (SEN) refers to highly diverse populations of children with a wide range of physical, cognitive and socioemotional disabilities or difficulties as well as strengths and resources causing them to require varying degrees of special educational support and assistance (Squires, 2012; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002). Several studies document significant gender imbalances in the number of students who receive special educational support, and for most disability categories the prevalence is higher for boys (Skårbrevik, 2002). The reasons for these imbalances are likely complex, and it is beyond the scope of the present review to account for the hypotheses and findings associated with each disability category. However, a general hypothesis across different categories of special educational needs is the notion that special educational needs are more likely to remain undetected in girls as symptoms and problems in girls may be less visible to educators (Arms et al., 2008). Traditional special education consists of segregating students with special needs from mainstream students within separate and typically smaller classrooms or educational settings. However, as early as in the 1930s, a movement originally known as mainstreaming, and in more recent years as inclusion, has sought to bring an end to segregated placement as the preferred educational option for students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). In 1994, the idea of inclusive education became even more consolidated when the Salamanca Statement was adopted by representatives from 92 countries, resulting in an international shift in policy. This meant that far more students with special needs started entering general educational settings around the globe (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). The terms inclusion, mainstreaming, integrated placement, and cross-categorical instruction all refer to educational settings with a group composition consisting of a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. In the present review, we have chosen to use the term inclusion to refer to general educational settings in which there is a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. Ideally, inclusion and inclusive education should be based on an educational approach in which the goal is to continuously address and respond to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from education. Inclusion thus may involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. Inclusion emphasises the provision of opportunities for equal participation of children with disabilities (physical, social and/or emotional) whenever possible into general education, but leaves open the possibility of personal choice and options for special assistance and facilities for those who need it (UNESCO, 2005). Inclusion as an ideological and theoretical movement was built on a philosophical foundation but during the last 60 years, the number of empirical studies addressing inclusive education has grown tremendously. However, findings on the efficacy of inclusion on student outcomes are still far from unequivocal (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). This is where the present review will contribute, as the aim of the review is to summarise contemporary evidence on the effects of inclusive education when compared to a traditional segregated approach on students' learning, socioemotional adjustment and well-being. It is important to consider the types of students who might benefit most from inclusive education. As stated earlier, it is possible that the effects of inclusive education may be different for girls and boys. Further, a child's cognitive and socioemotional skills and needs develop throughout childhood and adolescence (Lightfoot et al., 2009) and thus, it is possible that the potential benefits of inclusive education may vary depending on the age of the children. We plan to to explore the impact of these student characteristics on student outcomes. At the core of inclusion is the principle that students with special or additional learning needs or disabilities belong in mainstream education. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should learn together, regardless of any difficulties or differences (UNESCO, 2005; Winter & O'Raw, 2010). However, operationally within the present review, we define inclusion as an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without special educational needs. In the present review, the intervention termed inclusion may thus be defined as any given group composition within a general educational setting which contains at least one child with an identified special educational need. Based on the core principles of inclusion there are many ways in which inclusion may be practised and adjusted, and thus there are a large number of characteristics within the inclusive setting, which may vary across the included studies. We will review studies of all kinds of inclusive education meaning that placement in the inclusive setting may be full time or part time. Special education students are a diverse group, as outlined in Section 4.1.2, and we will review studies regardless of the type of special educational needs of the student population and regardless of the ratio of students with and without special needs within the inclusive setting. We will include studies in which the general education teachers are provided with support and continuing professional development aimed at helping the teachers accommodate the needs of special education students and studies of inclusive settings in which no such support is offered to the teachers. It is often referred to as coteaching when two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within the same physical space (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001). In the present review, we will include studies, in which special education teachers and/or teaching assistants are present within the general education setting (coteaching) and studies in which they are not. For physically disabled students there may be adjustments made to the inclusive educational setting in order to accommodate aids such as wheelchairs, and for dyslexic students a number of computer programmes may be available. We will review studies in which students with special needs are provided with any kind of aid and technological support. This list of possible variations in student and classroom characteristics is not exhaustive, and in summary, within the present review we will include studies of all kinds of inclusive education as long as the studies are aimed at exploring the effects of inclusion in comparison to segregated special educational settings. We plan to conduct moderator analyses to explore the impact of specific characteristics of the inclusive educational setting and the characteristics of special educational needs on student outcomes. Considering the rapid global development towards inclusive educational placement for students with special educational needs, there is a rather surprising lack of pedagogical, psychological, or didactic theories regarding the specific ways in which inclusive education may affect students with special needs' academic and socioemotional development. Group composition within the educational setting may play a significant role in determining the academic achievement, socioemotional development and overall wellbeing of special needs students. Theoretically and ideologically, scholars favouring mainstreaming or inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept, social identity, and self-confidence of students with special educational needs (Dyssegaard & Larsen, 2013). Second, being placed in a general education classroom along with typically developing peers is proposed to benefit special needs students' academic growth through peer effects (Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Finally, it is hypothesised that social interaction with general education peers may provide developmental opportunities that are not present in smaller, specialised units (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). On the other hand, opponents of inclusive education for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects for special needs children especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation and differentiation are not aligned with student needs. In such cases, special needs students' learning opportunities and wellbeing may also suffer, resulting in damages to self-concept (Zeleke, 2004), social isolation or bullying (Monchy et al., 2004; Pijl et al., 2010), stress (Pitt & Curtin, 2004), negative self-perception, and lower self-confidence (Bakker et al., 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on inclusion and suggests that a number of factors are associated with positive student outcomes in inclusive settings. These are: (1) instruction based on student achievement needs, (2) materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace, (3) additional time for students who need it, (4) increased student responsibility for their own learning, (5) cooperation among students in achieving goals, (6) support teaching and (7) collaboration among special and general education teachers. In sum, the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and wellbeing of students with special needs may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is rather unclear, leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the impact of inclusion on students with special needs have been published (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1982; Wang & Baker, 1985; Hegarty, 1993). Results are equivocal, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within the included primary studies. In summary, most reviews suggest a neutral or small positive impact of inclusion on most outcomes. However, all reviews also point to the need to study the impact of potential moderators more thoroughly, as there may be several interaction effects between student and classroom characteristics, such as student disability category × proportion of students with disabilities within the classroom and disability category × presence of teaching assistants. Therefore, it is important to conduct the present review in order to explore the impact of potential moderators associated with student and classroom characteristics. In the following section we present the existing reviews and their main findings. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 50 primary studies exploring the effects of special versus regular class placement for children with special needs, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) concluded that for students with special needs consisting of below average IQs, special classes were significantly inferior to regular classes on all outcome measures (separate analyses were carried out for achievement, social/personal and other measures). However, for students with behavioural disorders, emotional disturbances and learning disabilities (LDs), special classes were superior to regular classes. Madden and Slavin (1983) conducted a narrative review of the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on students with mild academic disabilities. The review does not include a description of the search strategy for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. The review concludes that among methodologically adequate studies, findings indicate few benefits on academic and social outcomes of placement in full-time special education compared with part-time placement with resource support or full time regular class placement for students with mild academic disabilities. Ottenbacher and Cooper (1982) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 43 primary studies exploring the effects of class placement (special class, regular class and resource class defined as placement in regular education classroom with resource support and the possibility for part time segregated education) on the social adjustment of students with mild cognitive disabilities. The overall results suggest a very small effect in favour of special class placement over regular class placement. However, when special class placement was compared with resource class placement, results were insignificant but favouring resource class placement. Wang and Baker (1985) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 11 primary studies exploring the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on children with special educational needs. In order to be eligible for inclusion in this review, primary studies needed to provide information on the effects of mainstreaming on students with special needs placed in a regular education setting. The studies had to use a control group consisting of special needs students with comparable impairment classifications placed in a segregated learning environment. The final selection of studies included 11 studies published between 1975 and 1984. The included studies used a wide variety of outcomes, but within the meta-analysis, outcomes were synthesised into three categories: performance, attitudinal, and process effects, and separate analyses were carried out for each of the three outcome categories. The study found small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33. Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on integration (inclusion) of students with different disabilities. The narrative review is based on a literature review which was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and was conducted by researchers in five different countries. The review does not include a description of the search strategies for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for the selected primary studies. Within the review, a number of factors which are associated with effective integration programmes are identified. Baker et al. (1994/1995) describe a review and meta-analysis by Baker et al. (1994/1995), which included 13 primary studies exploring the effects of inclusive placement on academic and social outcomes for students with special needs. We have been unable to retrieve the original publication, but according to Baker et al. (1994/1995), this study found a very small effect in favour of inclusive placement on academic outcomes (0.08) and a small to moderate effect on social outcomes (0.28). Sebba and Sachdev (1997) provide a review as part of a research report on what works for whom in inclusive education. The review does not include a description of the search strategy or the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies for the review. Within the research report, the authors suggest an overall positive impact of inclusive education and list a number of potential moderators such as attitudes of teachers and parents as well as a number of recommendations for the implementation of inclusive education. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) provide a narrative review of studies of both the effects of inclusive schooling on student outcomes and studies focusing on issues related to the implementation of inclusion. The review includes both quantitative and qualitative studies including case studies. Results are difficult to synthesise, but suggest an overall positive impact of inclusion based on the main findings: (1) students with disabilities demonstrate high levels of social interaction in settings with typically developing peers, but placement alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes; (2) interactive small group contexts facilitate skill acquisition and social acceptance; (3) friendships develop between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Freeman and Alkin (2000) conducted a systematic narrative review in which it was concluded that on measures of academic achievement and social competence, children with mental retardation placed in general education perform better than children with mental retardation placed in special education classrooms. This review was only about children with mental retardation and did not include meta-analyses. Murawski and Lee Swanson (2001) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 6 studies exploring the effectiveness of coteaching on student outcomes of both general education students and students with special educational needs. Coteaching was defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within a shared/common physical space, and thus in this review coteaching is a form of inclusion. The outcomes within the included studies were grades, achievement scores, social and attitudinal outcomes. The review found coteaching to be effective (average total effect size of 0.40). It is unclear what the control conditions within the included studies were and two of the included studies did not have a control group, but used a pre-test/post-test research design. Lindsay (2007) provides a narrative review of the effectiveness of inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The review provides a historical overview of the vast literature prior to 2000 and a search of studies published 2001–2005 in eight journals on special education. The search identified 1373 studies and points to the fact that only 1% of the identified papers were comparative outcome studies. The review concludes that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion and argues that where evidence does exist, the balance is only marginally positive. Lindsay (2007) thus supports the need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of inclusion for students with special needs, with special attention to the potential impact of student and classroom moderators. In a systematic narrative review of the effects of inclusion on both learning and socioemotional outcomes of students with and without special needs, Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point to mixed findings regarding the effects of inclusion on student outcomes and suggest a number of potential moderators. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research. This review has not been updated since publication and does not include meta-analyses. In 2009, a systematic review of evidence comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in different educational settings was carried out by the Canadian Council on Learning. The review included 30 primary studies. The search strategy for identifying studies was not described. The included studies examined students with LDs, intellectual disabilities, language impairments and mixed disabilities. The quality of each study was rated as either "high", "medium", or "low" based on criteria related to transparency and research design, and effect sizes were retrieved. No meta-analyses were carried out, but the authors provide tables illustrating the number of effect sizes for each disability category favouring either inclusive or segregated settings along with the quality ratings of the studies from which they were retrieved. The authors point to mixed findings but conclude that the balance of evidence shows favourable academic outcomes for students with special educational needs educated in inclusive settings, however they also note that results are not homogenous and that effects are generally small in magnitude.11 The review was retrieved 2.10.2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519296.pdf. Dyssegaard and Larsen (2013) provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis on the effects of including children with special needs in mainstream teaching in primary and lower secondary school, and on which of the applied educational methods have proven to have a positive effect. The narrative synthesis is based on 43 studies of which 16 studies were deemed to have a "high level of evidence". The included studies consist of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and studies using a pre-test/post-test design. The systematic review included studies focusing on outcomes for both mainstream and special needs students and does not include a meta-analysis. The conclusion points to mixed findings regarding the overall effectiveness of inclusion on the academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment of special needs students and suggests that the effects may vary depending on the age of the child and the overall school and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Furthermore, the review suggests that the effectiveness of coteaching may depend on the educational background and continuous professional development of both special and general education teachers and of teaching assistants. Carroll et al. (2017) provide a rapid evidence assessment of studies focused on approaches, strategies, and interventions supporting children and young people with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The rapid evidence assessment is based on a systematic search in a single database (ERIC) as well as a strategy of consulting experts within the relevant fields. The initial search identified 1046 papers of which 505 were later excluded due to low quality of evidence. The rapid evidence assessment points to a number of implementation strategies, pedagogical and didactic approaches which have shown positive results. Furthermore, the study points to evidence gaps and suggests the need for further research. The rapid evidence assessment does not include a meta-analysis. In the present review, besides being up to date, we will conduct an extensive risk of bias assessment of all included studies, and we will provide separate meta-analyses for each conceptual outcome (academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing). Furthermore, we hope to be able to conduct moderator analyses based on the children's specific disability categories and the specific type of inclusion setting. This may shed further light on the initial differential findings from existing reviews. Traditional segregated special education is costly and in a time of increased interaction between special and general education systems and constraints on education spending, policymakers must consider the cost-efficiency of different special needs provisions. As more students with special educational needs enter general education settings, educators and policymakers must consider how the needs of these students are met in different settings and on what grounds placement in general or special educational settings should be determined. As previously noted, the current knowledge base is ambiguous with many findings suggesting a complex interplay between student and classroom characteristics (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Peetsma et al., 2001), leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision and highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of inclusion on student outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is firstly: To uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective is to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and coteaching) affect the outcomes. The moderator analysis will be performed as outlined in Section 4.3.11. In order to summarise what is known about the causal effects of inclusion on student's academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and wellbeing in special education, we will include all studies with a well-defined control group. Thus, the study designs eligible for inclusion are: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual level or cluster level, e.g., class/school/geographical area etc.). Non-randomised studies (inclusion has occurred in the course of usual decisions, the allocation to inclusive and segregated special educational placement is not controlled by the and there is a comparison of two or more of at least a group and a control using a single group research will not be eligible for inclusion in the review. Non-randomised studies using an approach will not be the of exclusion of studies using an for for studies of these In order to the risk of bias in cluster randomised studies, we will study designs in which only one was to the intervention or control group. there must be at least two units in the intervention group and two units in the control group, as there is a risk of effects with effects this likely be In order to the of findings from the present review to current and we will search to studies published The for studies is as a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesised the effects of inclusion based on studies published prior to Second, educational settings, pedagogical approaches and the development and of technological to support the educational needs of special needs children have changes throughout the two & and in order for the findings from the present review to be to the current within educational settings, we will review to the more recent findings. The review will include special needs children in to the in in special education in the defined as the countries. The reasons for focusing on the are we that the in which children with disabilities are within is which fundamental differences in the for children with disabilities around the globe et al., 2010; & 2013). Second, special education is costly and thus the resources for special educational support for children with special needs are often different between in the and the developing regarding the of what a special educational need Wilson, 2002). A used be found in the with in which special needs are into 13 different disability categories under which children are eligible for For more information on the disability of with These categories are: challenges related to a child's to or e.g., or impairment conditions a child's or e.g., e.g., and or language impairment difficulties with or e.g., language problems a child's to or impairment including and where a child most or all even with a impairment to a not by the of children from both and vision impairment when a child has problems with or as in the case of disability intellectual by or other kinds of physical disabilities with more than one by the However, the criteria are not to be as or as of what special educational needs but are rather as in the search for and of relevant studies. We that existing to define special educational needs, as in and are by a lack of which to be

TOKYO— On a hot and muggy evening this summer, a classroom at Shotoku Gakuen High School began to fill up with people carrying wires, tubes, and chunks of metal. They each took turns demonstrating simple experiments and discussing how to work them into classroom activities. One illustrated the

The purposes of this study were to examine secondary school special educators’ perspectives on (1) the relative importance of the academic, mental health, and behavioral elements of the emotional disturbance (ED) special education classification in relation to determining eligibility for students with suspected ED, and (2) factors that are relevant both to education placement decision making for students classified with ED and to decision making regarding the degree of restrictiveness of education placements, including highly restrictive, alternative placements. A national survey was conducted with 1,025 middle and high school special educators. Results indicated that aggression was the most important factor for considering ED eligibility, followed by psychiatric diagnoses and, lastly, academic factors such as grades and achievement scores. Effectiveness was rated as very important in determining a student’s education placement, whereas financial cost and logistical issues were rated as less important. Some differences emerged between middle school and high school participants on items related to determining education placement. Compared to middle school educators, high school educators indicated that students themselves play a more active role in determining education placement. High school educators also indicated that they are more likely to consider homebound instruction and computer/web-based programs and that they better meet the vocational needs of students classified with ED. Middle school special educators indicated that they better meet the behavioral and emotional needs of students classified with ED.