Inclusion at Any Price? Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of the Contemporary Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator

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

The article deals with the issue of health protection of children with special educational needs in the context of the implementation of a hybrid learning format. It has been determined that the basis for ensuring an adequate level of the physical and psychological condition of children with special educational needs is specially organized motor activity. The purpose of this study is to identify the pedagogical conditions for the implementation of motor activity for children with special educational needs in hybrid learning. Research methods: theoretical analysis, systematization, comparison, generalization, methodological, and specialized literature. It is investigated that as pedagogical conditions it is advisable to consider those that ensure the formation and effectiveness of the developmental process of motor activity of children with special educational needs, are their organic component, provide the appropriate formation of forms, methods, means of implementing the process of motor activity of children with special educational needs in the process of hybrid learning and can significantly increase the effectiveness of their motor activity to achieve certain goals and implement tasks that will contribute to the preservation and improvement of The pedagogical conditions for the practical implementation of motor activity of children with special educational needs in the format of hybrid learning are presented as a system for the implementation of a holistic educational process that ensures the effectiveness of its organization in achieving the goals. The pedagogical conditions of motor activity for children with special educational needs in hybrid learning are highlighted: basic, corrective, variable, qualifying, and formative. The pedagogical conditions for the implementation of motor activity of children with special educational needs in the format of hybrid learning are substantiated: in terms of optimality in any pedagogical situation and positioned as a catalyst for significant changes in achieving the effectiveness of motor activity of children with special educational needs in hybrid learning. It has been established that the organizational and methodological support of each pedagogical condition primarily involves meeting the special educational needs of children in full motor activity.

The specific foundation of the content of physical education as a distinct and independent branch of culture is rational physical activity as a factor that prepares individuals for life by optimizing their physical state. Children with special educational needs have their own unique characteristics, which require attention and support in education. The main feature of educating children with special educational needs is an individualized approach. Every child is unique, and teachers must develop programs and strategies that take into account their needs and capabilities. The aim of the study is to explore the features of organizing physical education classes for younger school-age children with special educational needs. The object of the study is the process of physical education of younger school-age children with special educational needs. The subject of the study is the regularities of physical qualities development in children with educational needs. The hypothesis of the study suggests that the inclusion of special active games in physical education lessons will positively affect the physical development indicators of children with special educational needs. To achieve the set goal, theoretical research methods were used: anthropometric methods; methods of determining functional indicators of respiration and heart rate; methods of determining physical fitness using tests; methods of mathematical statistics. Study results: For children of younger school age with special educational needs, it is important to adapt physical education classes, which includes modifying games, exercises, and sports equipment, as well as providing additional support and an individual approach, contributing to the development of motor skills, coordination, and overall physical fitness of students. Participation in physical education classes significantly improves the socialization of children with special educational needs and contributes to the development of their self-esteem and emotional well-being. Conclusions: Under the influence of physical load, the dynamics of indicators were positive and had a characteristic tendency to improve the results of children in the experimental group, and the difference in results for all indicators is more significant, indicating the effectiveness of using active games in physical education lessons with children with special educational needs. The methodology of inclusive education of children with special educational needs in educational institutions, thanks to the optimal selection of exercises, intensity of classes, and consideration of individual developmental characteristics of children with intellectual disabilities, provided the best dynamics of physical development compared to the results of children in the control group. The obtained data indicate the effectiveness of using active games, as well as an increase in the physical preparedness of children, which is one of the main factors contributing to the development of their physical function.

The article substantiates the relevance of the study of the problem of personal and professional self-determination of high school students with special educational needs. The degree of elaboration of the problem is analyzed, the results of research of the problem of professional self – determination of senior pupils in the conditions of inclusive education are presented. The aim of the article is to study the psychological features of the choice of profession by high school students with special educational needs. Research methods: theoretical – analysis of psychological and pedagogical sources on the researched problems, generalization and systematization of data on the choice of profession of high school students with special educational needs; empirical – the method «Motives for choosing a profession», «Questionnaire to identify the readiness of students to choose a profession» (VB Uspensky) and the method «Readiness to choose a profession» (adaptation of AP Chernyavskaya). The study involved 25 high school students with special educational needs and 25 high school students who do not have health problems. The results of the study showed that high school students with special educational needs who study in an inclusive education have a well-developed need to choose a profession. Characteristically, most of them have a clear idea that they are going to realize their potential in the professional sphere. Professional self-determination of children with special educational needs should be carried out comprehensively, involving various specialists and parents in this process. It is necessary to adjust the professional plans of high school students with special educational needs according to their abilities throughout the career guidance period. The task of the career counselor is to establish the most appropriate for people with special educational needs types of work corresponding to their knowledge and skills. Career guidance should take into account the personal wishes of each person and be based on the most careful assessment of professional aptitudes and, of course, the medical diagnosis of the subject of professional choice.

INTERNET RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION

Background: Preterm infants with pre- or postnatal growth restriction may have an additional risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Whereas reduced cognitive ability and behavioral problems have consistently been associated with prematurity, a more comprehensive evaluation is necessary to identify those preterm infants who are at increased risk for difficulties in school performance. This study evaluated the association between extremely low birth weight (ELBW) and the need for special education and determined if there is an additional risk for the need for special education among small for gestational age (SGA) children.Methods: This is a single-center cohort study including singleton children born below 30 weeks' gestation between 1990 and 2011 and followed into 2019. ELBW + was defined as a birth weight below 1,000 g, which was compared to ELBW–. Within all ELBW+ children, SGA+ was defined as a birth weight <10th percentile according to Fenton, which was compared to SGA–. The dichotomous outcome measurement was the need for special education at 8 years of age or not, reflecting if the children required a special educational setting designed to accommodate educational, behavioral, and/or medical needs.Results: In total, 609 children were eligible for follow-up, of whom 390 (64%) children were assessed at 8 years. Of these, 56 (14%) children needed special education, most often determined by cognitive deficiency (43%), behavioral problems (29%), or both (16%). Among the 191 ELBW+ children, 35 (18%) attended special education, compared to 21 (11%) among ELBW– children (p-value 0.041). A decreasing risk for the need for special education was found from 25% in ELBW+/SGA+ children to 16% in ELBW+/SGA– children and 11% in ELBW–/SGA– children (p-value 0.025). Multivariable logistic regression showed an odds ratio of 2.88 (95% CI 1.20–6.78) for ELBW+/SGA+ children vs. ELBW–/SGA– children for the need for special education.Conclusions: This study showed that ELBW children are at increased risk for the need for special education compared to non-ELBW children. In addition, children that are both ELBW and SGA do have the highest risk for the need for special education. Classifying children as ELBW and SGA can be useful in follow-up for identifying preterm children with an additional risk for adverse long-term outcome.

Physical Education and Special Educational Needs in North-West EnglandThe paper examines the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream secondary schools from the perspective of physical education (PE) teachers. The findings of this case study, which used individual interviews and was undertaken in the North-West of England, suggest that team games are activities which teachers find particularly difficult to plan and deliver in an inclusive way. Specifically, many teachers suggested that there was limited opportunity for individual planning during team games and that they found it difficult to develop and implement rules and adapt games to make them more inclusive. Moreover, there was an expressed feeling among teachers that, first, their initial teacher training (ITT) had not prepared them adequately for their day-to-day endeavours to include pupils with SEN in PE; and, second, that the schools in which they work are not providing them with any inclusion training. Finally, there was a general feeling among PE teachers that they are not receiving enough support from special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and learning support assistants (LSAs) whose role is, lest we forget, to enable teachers to include pupils with SEN in the mainstream education system.

This research delved into the level of experience, challenges and opportunities in the used of assistive technology among learners with special educational needs in the SPED schools at a City in Capiz during the 2024-2025 academic year. One hundred twelve (112) learners participated in the study, which were selected to answer questions pertaining to the experience, challenges and opportunities in using assistive technology. Data were gathered by utilizing a researcher-made questionnaire, which is validated by a professor in special education. After validation, it was pilot-tested with thirty learners from Kalibo Integrated Special Education Center. Factor analysis, construct validation, and reliability testing were performed by utilizing Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software. The independent variable was the level of experience in using assistive technology, while the dependent variable was the level of challenges and opportunities in using assistive technology. In analyzation of data, Descriptive statistics, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Pearson correlation were employed with a significance level set at 0.05. The findings of this study are the following: The level of experience in using assistive technology for elementary and high school learners with special educational needs is “high”. The level of challenges in using assistive technology for elementary and high school learners with special educational needs is “moderate”. The level of opportunities in using assistive technology for elementary and high school learners with special educational needs is “high”. There is no significant difference in challenges among the levels of experience in using Assistive Technology of Elementary and High School Learners with Special Educational Needs. There is significant difference in opportunities among the levels of experience in using Assistive Technology of Elementary and High School Learners with Special Educational Needs. There are significant relationships among experience, challenges, and opportunities of Elementary and High School Learners with Special Educational Needs.

The paper examines the peculiarities of the adaptive and rehabilitation processes of children with special educational needs. It was found that one of the most significant issues of rehabilitation work with children with special educational needs is to create the conditions for their integration into society. This stipulates the determination of the state of their adaptive and rehabilitation potential formation suggesting identification of social characteristics and social relations of the children with special educational needs; definition of the levels of their learning opportunities, skills and abilities development; elucidation of the peculiarities of intra-family relations in families bringing up children with special educational needs; research of rehabilitation processes features being passed by children with special educational needs. For studying the state of adaptive and rehabilitation potential formation in working with children with special educational needs, we have conducted a diagnostic study among children with special educational needs who receive rehabilitation services at the Shepetivka City Center for Social Rehabilitation of Disabled Children of Khmelnytskyi region. The parents of the children took part in the study as well. The results of the diagnosis revealed that the children with special educational needs are dominated by medium and low levels of formation of self-concept and comprehention of their relations with the social environment; they are characterized by medium and low levels of general mental development; children with special educational needs suffer hostility and conflict in their families, while their parents experience feelings of guilt, anxiety, and mental stress; the difficulties being faced by the children with special educational needs during the rehabilitation process are mainly related to their focusing on their own illness. In this regard, we have developed and substantiated the forms and methods for regulating the adaptive and rehabilitation processes in working with children with special educational needs, which, in our opinion, should be applied by specialists at the centers for the social rehabilitation of children with disabilities.

Introduction: The socio-humanitarian space of any country is the centre of the formation, development and functioning of certain specific systems of ideas, values, myths and ideals that affect the consciousness and worldview of the adult and minor population. Violation of the system of ideas, values, myths and ideals not only affects the change of political orientations but also causes significant differences in emotional and behavioural reactions, in value systems, worldview, and in self-perception. Thus, the military invasion that began in Ukraine in 2022 has changed not just the course of history, but also the internal mechanisms of educational influence on the developing personality. Currently, transformations of the archetypes of Ukrainian education and Ukrainian psychology, including special psychology, are taking place. New areas of research are becoming a priority, in particular those that help preserve mental health of an individual. In modern scientific works of Ukrainian special psychology, a trend can be identified, highlighting the need to form emotional intelligence and the emotional-volitional sphere as the most important components of an individual with special educational needs. Method: The work used general scientific theoretical methods and empirical methods (observation, interviews, surveys, questionnaires, history taking) to ensure reliability of results and conclusions. The study involved 262 children with special educational needs: 73 preschool children (39 girls; 34 boys), 89 school-age children (51 girls; 38 boys) and 100 adolescents (52 girls; 48 boys). The group of children with special educational needs consisted of individuals with sensory and speech disorders, intellectual disabilities, and combined disorders of diverse origins. Psychodiagnostics was carried out in special preschool institutions, schools of I–III levels, boarding schools, rehabilitation centres in the cities of Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Lviv, Dnipro, Odessa, as well as in regional rehabilitation centres in the cities of Chernivtsi and Bila Tserkva. The purpose was to identify general trends that exist in modern pedagogical and psychological education of children with special educational needs. A survey was also conducted among educators – 129 people (pedagogues, psychologists, social workers, teachers). The results are presented in such scientific areas as: the state of development of emotional intelligence in children with special educational needs under war conditions (according to the nosological principle and age criterion); the level and state of basic life competencies, in particular emotional and social; priority archetypes according to the age criterion, problems of the emotional sphere in persons with special educational needs under conditions of social crisis in Ukraine. Conclusions: Diagnostics of emotional intelligence is a complex area in working with children with special educational needs. However, it is the study of the emotional and behavioural sphere that helps psychologists identify gaps in upbringing in the family, demonstrates the main archetypes represented by the family, society, and state. The research conducted makes it possible to follow the main trends in Ukrainian special psychology and implement high-quality psychological support, in accordance with the established social changes and the war that is currently taking place in Ukraine.

This article provides a response to some of the issues raised by Anne Pinney’s summary, published in the September issue of BJSE, of the Audit Commission’s report on statutory assessment and Statements of Special Educational Needs. In developing her critique, Lani Florian, lecturer in special and inclusive education at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education and Editor of the Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, asks a series of important and challenging questions. Can the broad notion of ‘special educational needs’ complement ideas about ‘areas of need’ or ‘categories of handicap’ and enable young people with severe, complex or long–term disabilities to have their needs met? Is SEN funding fairly distributed, among pupils with special educational needs in particular and across the education system in general? Should the relationship between the processes of formative and statutory assessment and Statements of Special Educational Needs be reconceptualised? Can the protection offered by the Statement be maintained in association with the development of good inclusive practices? And if there is to be a move away from provision designed to address children’s individual difficulties, what forms of thinking, procedure and practice will enable staff to develop new ways of meeting the needs of all learners? I hope that the questions raised by this article will stimulate other commentators to contribute to the debate about our responses to special educational needs in the pages of BJSE

Special education is a field dedicated to supporting and educating individuals with various disabilities. These individuals may include children from birth, school-aged children, or adolescents and young adults who are still in education. Its focus is on ensuring needs-based, individualized education for people with special educational needs or disabilities. The primary goals of special education are the optimal development of personality, the promotion of autonomy, and the facilitation of social integration and participation. Special education is an individualized instructional approach designed for individuals with special needs (e.g., intellectual, auditory, physical, visual impairments; autism; learning difficulties). A child or young person is considered to have a special educational need when it is determined that their development is significantly limited or at risk, or when they are unable to meet regular academic standards without additional support. Moreover, special education applies to children and adolescents who demonstrate substantial challenges in social competence, as well as in cognitive and performance-related abilities. In Switzerland, the responsibility for the education of children and young people with special educational needs lies with the individual cantons. On behalf of the EDK, the Foundation Swiss Center for Healing and Special Education supports the cantons in the implementation of their cantonal special education frameworks. The cantons are responsible for the education of children and young people with special educational needs. The design of special education services and measures is determined by each canton in accordance with its respective special education framework. In Basel, the Special Education and Hospital School Ordinance is the ordinance governing the education and support of students with special educational needs and hospital schooling. This ordinance regulates the provision of education and support for students with special educational needs during compulsory and post-compulsory schooling, up to a maximum age of 20, as well as for students with or without special educational needs in hospital schools. Various services are available both within and outside the school setting, depending on the child's needs in Basel-Stadt. Detailed information and links regarding these services can be found at https://www.bs.ch/ed/volksschulen/foerderung/verstaerkte-massnahmen

The interest in communicative problems on the part of representatives of various scientific fields is largely explained by the fact that communication can be considered a necessary and general condition of human life and one of the fundamental foundations of society’s existence.The purpose of the article is to study the communicative competence of older preschool children with special educational needs.When communicating with children with special educational needs, the educator must take into account their communicative capabilities, that is, what form of communication the child is capable of, and then gradually complicate the content and means of communication. A competent approach to the formation of communicative competence of older preschool children with special educational needs involves the task of developing dialogue skills. An important task is the formation of children’s interest in the world of people, a conscious attitude towards themselves as individuals. Ways of communication, or communicative skills, are considered as actions by which the child expresses his attitude towards peers in the process of playing and at the same time influences them. Communicative competence of older preschoolers with special educational needs is the ability to establish and maintain relationships with others, as well as to combine knowledge, abilities and skills for quality communication. The development of communicative competence of children with special educational needs should be aimed at meeting the needs of a specific child, and, accordingly, create an educational environment.Further research will concern the study of social and emotional development of older preschool children with special educational needs. Keywords: communicative competence; older preschool age; special educational needs; competence approach; speech development; educational environment; coherent speech; communication.

The article examines the theoretical and practical aspects of the organization of leisure activities of children with special educational needs in out-of-school education institutions. It was emphasized that one of the modern trends of humanitarian policy is the creation of a barrier-free space in Ukraine. The inclusive education model of the new Ukrainian school, an important component of which is extracurricular education, meets this goal. The uniqueness of out-of-school education lies in providing children with special educational needs access to basic educational services, which involves the creation of the necessary infrastructure, methodical and personnel support for the educational process. The attractiveness of extracurricular education is due to the small number of groups, territorial and socio-economic availability of educational services. In the conditions of martial law, an important function of out-of-school education institutions is the formation of general competencies and value orientations of students, in particular military-patriotic upbringing of children with special educational needs. Extracurricular education contributes to the psychological rehabilitation of such children. It was noted that the key position in the organization of leisure activities is the creative, proactive work of the teacher-organizer. The importance of game programs aimed at the development of the child's personality is indicated. It was found that physical activity is an effective means of stabilizing the mental health of children with special educational needs. It is shown that the practice of using online technologies in the organization of the educational process of children with special educational needs is controversial. The necessity of equipping out-of-school education institutions with comfortable shelters, the use of innovative and effective methods of working with children, in particular the methods of role harmonization and the golden mean, is emphasized. The main problems of the organization of leisure activities of children with special educational needs are highlighted, in particular, unsatisfactory material and technical and personnel support for the work of out-of-school education institutions. The need to train future teachers for the field of extracurricular education in institutions of higher education, increase the number of hours of pedagogical practice for students, improve the qualifications of teachers and managers of extracurricular education institutions in post-graduate education institutions, establish partnership cooperation between specialists of institutions in the field of education and health care, etc. was emphasized.

The development of inclusive education in Ukraine is gaining momentum. Mechanisms for organizing a comfortable educational environment in educational institutions are being actively developed in recent years. The issue of developing effective strategies, methods, techniques for inclusive education in educational institutions is acuted. New approaches to education and upbringing of children with different types of educational difficulties, activation of their potential, development of their individual capabilities, satisfaction of their needs and interests; technologies of successful integration of children with special educational needs into the educational space of secondary school, etc. are developed. It has been proved by foreign researchers that the properly organized preparation of children with special educational needs for schooling in preschool institutions facilitates the process of adaptation and improves the process of learning. Therefore, the article actualizes and characterizes the peculiarities of preparing a child with special educational needs to study in general secondary education. Based on the analysis of a number of scientific papers published in the public domain Google Scholar, it has been identified a number of features that should be considered when preparing a child with special needs for school studying. Among them: 1) the development and implementation in the institution of preschool education: the individual educational program of preparation of a child with special needs for schooling, taking into account the individual characteristics of each child; individual development program taking into account the recommendations proposed by the Inclusive Resource Center in the conclusion on the comprehensive assessment of child development; individual curriculum for working with a child with special educational needs, which contains information about the list of services need to be provided to the child, adaptations and/or modifications necessary for the child; 2) development of pedagogical workers’ professional competencies necessary for working with children with special educational needs; 3) ensuring the effectiveness of the process of psychological support of a child with special educational needs in preparation for school.