Principals' systems thinking and student outcomes: the intervening role of school structure

Relying on the social cognitive theory, which postulates that human behaviour is due to social experiences and cognitive interpretation, the current study seeks to investigate the mediating role of collective teacher efficacy (CTE) in the relationship between principals’ systems thinking (PST) and school effectiveness in terms of academic emphasis and student academic achievement after accounting for students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. A three-source survey design with self-report and non-self-report data was used, from a sample of 423 participants from 71 elementary schools in Israel. The sample included school management team (SMT) members and teachers who were not SMT members. Data were aggregated at the school level of analysis. The results from structural equation modelling and bootstrapping analysis indicated that CTE partially mediates the relationship between PST and academic emphasis, irrespective of the students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Relying on the contingency theory, the present study examines the influence of school characteristics and principal–teacher gender (dis)similarity on the relationship between principals’ systems thinking (PST) and teacher withdrawal behaviours of absenteeism and intent to leave. Data were collected from two sources: 111 school management team members and 109 teachers (220 participants in total) randomly chosen from elementary schools in Israel. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that principal–teacher dissimilarity and a bureaucratic school structure moderate the relationship between PST and teachers’ withdrawal behaviours. These findings indicate that the organisational conditions under which principals practise systems thinking can affect teachers’ withdrawal behaviours. Therefore, this study may advance theory and practise regarding the implications of PST on withdrawal behaviours, which are an important determinant of teachers’ performance and a school's success.

The current study seeks to investigate the mediating role of senior management team learning in the relationship between principals’ systems thinking and school effectiveness in terms of collective teacher efficacy and student academic achievement. A three-source survey design with self-report and non-self-report data was used, from a sample of 423 participants from 71 elementary schools in Israel. The sample included senior management members and teachers. Data were aggregated at the school level of analysis. The results from structural equation modeling and bootstrapping analysis indicated that senior management team learning partially mediates the relationship between principals’ systems thinking and collective teacher efficacy. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

This research investigated Education for Sustainability (EfS) at an independent Montessori primary school, located in the Perth metropolitan area of Western Australia. A longitudinal case study involving analysis of data from a 20-year period was conducted to determine the effectiveness of EfS. Historical information about EfS at the school from 1990 to 2005 was examined, with the main focus of the study being on the impact of the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) between 2005 and 2009. AuSSI promotes a whole school, whole systems thinking approach to EfS.Three school-based issues in EfS were studied. First, the research aimed to determine what elements of EfS were in operation in the school prior to involvement in AuSSI. Second, student outcomes including engagement with whole systems thinking, attitudes and values, knowledge and understandings, and skills and behaviours related to EfS, were investigated during the first 5 years of participation in AuSSI. Third, teacher perceptions of the EfS program, including engagement with whole systems thinking, were examined during this same time period.A case study approach was employed to enable in-depth investigation of EfS in the life of the school prior to, during and post implementation of AuSSI. This approach facilitated revelation of participants’ lived experiences, their perceptions and understandings of EfS, as well as detailed information about student outcomes in EfS. Case study methodology was also compatible with the culture and processes of the participating school and provided an opportunity for utilising a whole systems thinking approach. Data was gathered from a range of sources, through surveys, interviews, observation and document analysis over a 5-year period. The total participants included 11 teachers and 75 students.The research identified particular antecedents of EfS in the Montessori method of education that existed in the school prior to AuSSI, including the whole child approach, together with the Montessori learning environment, curriculum and values. Following participation in AuSSI, student attitudes and values, knowledge and understandings, and skills and behaviours related to EfS were enhanced for all year levels. However, after 3 years, when specific EfS actions and projects ceased, student EfS outcomes were limited. Furthermore, students’ thinking and behaviour indicated a ‘silo’, rather than whole systems thinking approach to EfS. Teachers perceived the EfS program as highly effective in the initial 3 years after joining AuSSI. Key elements that enhanced EfS included EfS staff champions who had access to EfS networks, leadership support, and active school community involvement in all EfS processes. However, after 3 years of being an AuSSI school, the culmination of reduced leadership support for EfS, lack of staff training, vague designation of staff with EfS responsibilities and inadequate community involvement, resulted in cessation of the EfS program. Teacher perceptions on whole systems thinking revealed alignment between Montessori philosophy, EfS and whole system thinking was more in theory than in practice.Through an in-depth longitudinal case study of a school this research highlighted the importance of whole school EfS professional learning, embedding EfS and whole systems thinking across the curriculum at all year levels, whole school support, and the usefulness of a sustainability continuum that recognises the complex, dynamic interplay of issues involved in a school's EfS journey. It is strongly recommended that improvements to pre-service teacher education in EfS are implemented, and a review of the AuSSI toolkit is conducted to refine EfS evaluation processes and to target the specific EfS needs of teachers at different stages of schooling, as well as to enhance understanding and implementation of the whole systems thinking approach. Finally, EfS professional learning for all school staff in all schools is warranted to enhance depth of EfS engagement.

For many societies violence has become a major problem to be immediately dealt with and overcome. Schools, for reasons ranging from their framework, structure, client population and lack of appropriate educational tools suffer from manifestations of this phenomenon no less than other societal institutions and much more than some. This state of affairs leaves teachers, in general, and Arab teachers in Israel in particular, utterly frustrated and in many cases extremely helpless and bewildered. The situation calls for fast intervention in order to find suitable educational solutions for the reality of Arab teachers and Arab schools that function as a minority with its own set of values, standards and distinguishing features within general Israeli society. The objective of this study is to examine the effect of group bibliotherapy on violence among Arab elementary school children in Israeli society. The study hypothesis is that group bibliotherapy diminishes violence among aggressive children. The study sample included 60 pupils from grades one to six in one Arab elementary school in Israel. The results show a decline in the level of violence among aggressive children that went through bibliotherapy, in comparison with aggressive children that did not receive bibliotherapy. Results suggest that school violence can be mitigated significantly by use of appropriate teacher training programs. Lack of such training and the experience it furnishes may encourage a violent and dangerous environment for the pupils. The program furnished teachers with a tool for successful handling of the violence.

PurposeThe role of leadership through senior management teams (SMT) has received increasing attention over the past several decades. Such leadership requires principals to play a key role in promoting SMT effectiveness. Therefore, according to the input–mediator–outcome model (Ilgen et al., 2005), this study's purpose is to investigate the mediating role of school SMT learning in the relationship between principal systems thinking (PST) and SMT effectiveness after accounting for students' socioeconomic backgrounds and SMT members' tenure.Design/methodology/approachA three-source survey design with self-reported and non-self-reported data was used, from a sample of 282 participants from 71 elementary schools in Israel. The sample included principals and SMTs. Data were aggregated at the school level of analysis.Findings The results from structural equation modeling and bootstrapping analysis indicated that SMT learning fully mediates the relationship between PST and SMT effectiveness, irrespective of the students' socioeconomic backgrounds.Originality/value This study provides important insights into the role of SMT learning as a mediator in the relationship between PST and SMT effectiveness. In addition, the study responds to the call of previous studies to examine the effects of PST on characteristics and outcomes at the group level. Moreover, the proposed integrative model highlights the importance of SMT learning and suggests new ways to encourage it.

Background: Rates of physical inactivity and obesity among children, including those in Israel, continue to rise. While childhood is recognised as a crucial stage for developing lifelong physical activity (PA) habits, the extent to which the school environment and individual pupil characteristics are associated with leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) is not yet well understood. Objective: This study aimed to explore which characteristics of pupils and elementary schools in Israel were associated with the frequency of pupils’ LTPA. Methods: This cross-sectional survey included 1,398 pupils (aged 10–12 years) and 134 parents across 29 schools. Fourteen of them were Health Promoting Schools (HPS), representing Jewish secular, Jewish religious and Arab populations across Israel. The survey questionnaire examined pupils’ LTPA and potential related factors, including school population group, school climate, school health policies, parental involvement and the integration of PA into school routines. Data were also collected on pupils’ socioeconomic background, gender and school’s recognition as an HPS. Results: LTPA was significantly associated with pupils’ engagement in school sports activities ( p < .001) and a positive school climate ( p < .001). Boys engaged in significantly more LTPA than girls ( p < .001). However, socioeconomic status, school affiliation with the HPS initiative and population group were not significantly associated with LTPA. Conclusion: Integrating sports activities into everyday school routines, fostering positive school climates and considering gender differences are essential factors for enhancing LTPA among elementary school pupils. Furthermore, being an HPS, having high socioeconomic status and implementing health-promotion policies in the school do not necessarily guarantee higher frequency of LTPA among pupils.

This study determined the difference in the level of academic potential/achievement across five populations of freshmen during an academic school year at Iowa State University. It examined students whose parents' highest education was: (1) high school diploma, (2) one or two years of college, (3) two-year associate or technical degree, (4) four-year degree, and (5) graduate or professional degree. Other factors that might impinge on student academic achievement are: poverty, socioeconomic status, and family structure/or marital status. The study investigated whether students whose parents attained higher levels of education beyond the high school diploma were more successful academically than students whose parents did not.;Eleven factors were used to analyze the relationship between parent educational level, and student academic achievement and performance. The findings of the study indicated that parent educational level, family structure/marital status, and income range have a positive influence on their student's academic potential and achievement. Students whose parents had higher educational levels performed higher on standardized tests than parents with lower educational levels. The results from this research showed that socioeconomic factors weigh heavily on the potential and academic achievement of first-time freshmen at Iowa State University.

A learning unit in earth science was taught to high school students, using a jigsaw‐group mastery learning approach. The sample consisted of 73 students in the experimental group and 47 students who learned the topic in an individualized mastery learning approach. The study lasted 5 weeks. Pretests and posttests on academic achievement and affective outcomes were administered. Data were treated with an analysis of covariance. The results show that students of the experimental group achieved significantly higher on academic outcomes, both normative and objective scores. On the creative essay test, the differences in number of ideas and total essay score were not significant between the groups, although the mean scores for number of words were higher for the individualized mastery learning group. On the affective domain, jigsaw‐group mastery learning students scored significantly higher on self‐esteem, number of friends, and involvement in the classroom. No differences were found in cohesiveness, cooperation, competition, and attitudes toward the subject learned. The results are discussed through the evaluation and comparison of the two methods of instruction used in this study. The cooperative learning movement began in junior high schools as part of the desegregation process, aiming at facilitating positive ethnic relations and increasing academic achievement and social skills among diverse students (Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978; Sharan & Hertz‐Lazarowitz, 1980; Slavin, 1980). However, elementary teachers quickly recognized the potential of cooperative methods, and such methods were adopted freely in elementary schools before becoming widespread on the junior and senior high level. It has only been during the past few years that application of cooperative learning has been studied extensively with these older students. Cooperative learning methods generally involve heterogeneous groups working together on tasks that are deliberately structured to provide specific assignments and individual contributions from each group member. Cognitive as well as social benefits are expected, as students clarify their own understanding and share their insights and ideas with each other as they interact within the group (Deutsch, 1949). Experiments in the science laboratory have always required students to work in groups of two to four, due to the constraints of experimental processes and limited equipment and sup‐ plies. Thus, science courses are a natural curriculum area for examining cooperative learning practices. Now that cooperative methods are being refined to develop particular capabilities in the students, science teachers need to examine ways of structuring specific tasks to achieve the academic, affective, and socialization goals for their students. Although most of the studies of cooperative learning in the high school science classroom have centered around the cognitive outcomes of achievement testing and process skills, affective and social outcomes are also significant with students of this age. But few studies in science classes have attempted to assess such aspects of students' progress. As part of a previous revision, the science faculty at the high school where this study was conducted developed an exemplary individualized mastery learning (1ML) program for teaching science. This program seemed to alleviate the severe motivational problems and the extreme individual differences among the students in this rural/bhe‐collar community. Students learned to work independently on their science studies. They had almost no lectures and few large group activities. As they worked through their assignments, however, they were free to interdct with other students. Looking in on a typical class, one would see several clusters of two or three students working together, sometimes tutoring each other, sometimes just talking through an assignment. Yet at least half of the class members would be working all alone. The importance of the overall social setting in the classroom as it relates to learning (Bruner, 1986, p. 86) and the central function of social interaction as learning occurs (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 106) seemed to have been ignored. Therefore, group mastery learning (GML), a cooperative learning tech‐ nique, was suggested as an antithesis to IML for teaching science over short periods. The cooperative mode of instruction considers learning as a cognitive as well as a social process, where students interact with each other as well as the teacher. To bring the social dimension back to science classrooms, the researchers chose to imple‐ ment GML in Grades 1 I and 12. The goal of the study was to investigate the GML's impact of the method on the individual student's academic achievement, creativity, self‐esteem, and number of friends and on the overall learning environment of the classrooms. The researchers were also concerned with the students' attitudes toward earth science, the course being taught at the time of the experiment. Both cognitive and affective outcomes for students who participated in the cooperative GML approach were compared with outcomes for students who studied the same topic in an IML approach. The study addressed a number of questions related to academic and nonacademic outcomes of the two methods of study. First, it sought to determine whether academic achievement of the students taught in the cooperative GML mode would be different from the achievement of students who learned in an individualized method. Second, it sought to determine whether gains or losses would be seen in nonacademic outcomes, such as classroom learning environment, social relations, and students' self‐esteem experienced by the students. The results of this study may support more use of cooperative learning in high school science.

Student academic achievement is not only determined by learning factors in the classroom. Gender, family socioeconomic, and cultural capital of students affected academic achievement. Studies on these variables still need to be carried out in Islamic College (PTKI) context. Therefore, this study aims to verify gender relations, family economic background, parents' education level, students' cultural capital, and academic achievement. This research is field research with quantitative-comparative and correlational approaches. The study participants amounted to 174 students of Antasari State Islamic University. Participants were assigned convenience and snowballing sampling. Data was collected using questionnaires disseminated online through Whats App messages. Data analysis of research results using the Mann-Whitney you Test and Spearman Rank-Order Correlation with the help of SPSS version 27. Research findings prove that female and male academic achievement differences are statistically significant (Asymp. Sig. <0.05). This study indicates that gender significantly affects student academic achievement at PTKI. In addition, correlational statistical analysis proved that pocket money, Single Tuition Fee (UKT), and the education level of fathers and mothers were not related to student academic achievement (Asymp. Sig.>0.05). In contrast, students' cultural capital has a significant relationship with students' academic achievement (Asymp. Sig.<0.05). However, the correlation between the two variables is either very weak or negligible (ρ = 0.210). The results of this study indicate that high cultural capital will significantly increase student academic achievement. This research makes a conceptual contribution to the influence of gender and the relationship between socioeconomic background, family and cultural capital on student academic achievement in the field of Islamic Studies in the context of PTKI.

Background It is widely agreed among educational researchers and practitioners that schools with positive climates can effectively mitigate the influence of students’ and schools’ socioeconomic status (SES) on academic achievement. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. Objective This study aimed to fill that gap, examining student perceptions of school climate, student academic achievement, and student and school SES in Israel to develop a reliable and comprehensive assessment of the role of school climate in the relationship between student and school SES and achievement. Specifically, the study tested whether school climate has an additive contribution to academics beyond students’ and schools’ SES (compensation model), whether the school's SES influences its social climate, which in turn influences academic achievement (mediation model); or whether the relationship between SES and academics changes across schools with different climates (moderation model). Research Design Secondary analysis of a large-scale, nationally representative sample of fifth- and eighth-grade Hebrew-speaking students in public schools in Israel (N = 53,946). Data Analysis Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to examine models with variables both on the student and the school levels. Linear regressions were used to examine student level and school level only models. Results School climate had an additive compensation contribution to academic achievements, both on the student and the school levels. School climate moderated the relationship between students’ SES and academic achievements. However, findings did not support the hypothesis that school climate mediated the relationship between SES background and academic achievement, both at the student and school levels. Conclusions School climate plays an important role in accounting for achievements, beyond students’ and schools’ SES. Results highlight the need to improve school climate, especially in schools serving communities of low SES, to enhance social mobility and equality of opportunity.

This study explores the impact of workload on teachers' efficiency and their students' academic achievement at the public sector university in Lahore, Pakistan. The research design was a qualitative case study approach, which allows for an in-depth exploration of the experiences and perceptions of teachers and students about affiliation between workload and academic achievement. Total of 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 teachers and 15 students, and qualitative content analysis was used to analyze data. Themes were generated by using the NVivo-14 software. The findings reveal that teacher workload has a significant impact on student academic achievement, and teacher efficiency and effectiveness. Heavy workloads can lead to stress, burnout, and decreased engagement, which negatively impact student learning outcomes. The teachers who effectively manage their workload are better able to provide support and guidance to their students, resulting in improved the academic achievement. The study concludes that reducing the teachers’ workload and providing support to manage workload effectively can have positive impact upon both teacher and student outcomes.

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

Per Pupil And School Safety Spending: An Empirical Perspective

abstract: In response to growing concerns over school violence, crime, and safety, schools continue to implement school crime prevention and reduction policies and programs. Aside from the increased demands on school budgets imposed by new and enhanced school safety programs, two additional factors further complicate matters. First, just as schools vary in terms of their violence and crime prevention programmatic needs, schools (and districts) also vary in terms of their financial needs and health. Second, schools similarly vary in the magnitude of financial tradeoffs incident to school administrators’ reconciling competing claims for school crime prevention programs and other demands on an exhaustible supply of school funds. Exploiting the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017–18 School Survey on Crime and Safety (“SSOCS”), supplemented by district-level current per pupil spending data, we explore variation in school administrators’ views about the nature of the compromise between school safety and other budgetary claims. Our core findings imply that variation in student per pupil spending as well as perceived litigation exposure persistently informed administrators’ reports about the inadequacy of school funding and how it limits school crime prevention and reduction efforts. That school finance trade-offs implicate school crime prevention programs reinforce the broader point that school finance issues implicate a suite of factors that extend beyond student academic achievement and other traditional outcomes and into school crime, violence, and safety domains.