Open Access
6- https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1170
PROTOCOL: The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs
Translate Article 
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
- Research Article
- 1
- 10.15861/kjse.2024.58.4.19
- Mar 30, 2024
- Korean Journal of Special Education
The purpose of this study is to explore the school life of middle school students with special needs, focusing on general classes, special classes, and peer relationships, using the photovoice research method. Based on this, the study aims to examine the educational needs and supports needed by students with special educational need in middle school. To achieve this, five students from a special education class in the second year of middle school were selected as the research subjects. They participated in the photovoice study for four months from March to June 2023. Participants took part in orientation once, nine interviews on the topics of general education, special education, and peer relationships, photovoice exhibition once. Eleven individual and group interviews were conducted over a period of about four months, and the collected qualitative data were analyzed according to Wang & Burris’s the three steps of photovoice analysis. The analyzed data were categorized into four major categories, 11 sub categories, and 40 semantic units: “Half-hearted school life”, “My lonely day at school”, “Moments when I'm happy to have a friend”, and “the future I dream of”. The names of each category are based on the words, sentences, or parts of sentences expressed by the research participants themselves. The research process yielded the following findings: First, students with special educational need in middle school were experiencing both difficulties and pleasures in their academic performance during school. Second, students with special educational need in middle school had difficulty forming peer relationships and social interactions in the general classroom. Third, students with special educational need in middle school were experiencing intimacy through positive social interactions at school. Fourth, students with special educational need in middle school had expectations for those around them in school and dreams of what they wanted to be in adulthood.
- Conference Article
- 1
- 10.12753/2066-026x-12-062
- Apr 26, 2012
- eLearning and Software for Education
INTERNET RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION
- Research Article
- 2
- 10.15823/p.2015.017
- Jun 10, 2015
- Pedagogika
Changes in society, democratization of education enable to shift towards persons with disabilities, in order to integrate them into society without causing discomfort neither the person, nor those around him. Categorization of disabilities and disorders according to medical criteria does not meet the educational objectives of pupils with special educational needs, as both developmental disorders and learning difficulties create the variety of abilities, needs and interests of pupils in the class. Such variety refers to school for all pupils, to involving (inclusive) education. According to the results of surveys, although the pupils with special educational needs are involved in general education, the teacher still remains alone with his philosophy and methods, without being offered an opportunity for cooperation, consultancy support, which is one of conditions for success in the involving (inclusive) education. Lack of systematic research is still observed, which brings out the didactics issues of art education of pupils with special educational needs, therefore, the analyzed scientific problem is relevant. The objectives of special art education are focused not only on the pupils having special educational needs, but also to the surrounding people – teachers, classmates, family, society, and even more, to their mutual interactions. Such change of didactic goals reveals the new art education principles. The subjects of the article are the didactic goals and principles, educating the pupils with special needs by art. Applying the method of analysis of the scientific literature, the article reveals the research of the world and Lithuanian scientists in the field of special art pedagogy and theoretically justifies six principles of art education: art education focused on the emotionally positive interaction between the learner and teacher, directed to the learner’s family and society; art education is of moral aspect; content of art education is integral and perceived; educational methods are applied in complex; in the process of art education the verbal and nonverbal reflections predominate; art education is personally and socially meaningful for the pupils with special educational needs.
- Research Article
- 1
- 10.29333/iji.2025.1830a
- Jul 1, 2025
- International Journal of Instruction
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
- Front Matter
- 10
- 10.1080/01596306.2015.1073011
- Jun 24, 2016
- Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
Over the past 30 years, inclusive education has become the dominant discourse in the field of special educational needs (SEN) across the developed and developing world, reflected in the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Educational Needs (UNESCO, 1994), the Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All (UNESCO, 2000) and the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Convention includes a commitment to promote inclusive practices for disabled adults and children across all fields of social policy, including education, training and employment. The focus on inclusion has tended to deflect attention away from changes within the special sector (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2010; OECD, 2007) and the use of official and unofficial forms of school exclusion. The papers in this Special Issue of Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education have been written by members of an international research network funded by the Leverhulme Foundation entitled Special Education and Policy Change: A Study of Six Jurisdictions (IN-089) which conducted a range of research and knowledge exchange activities from 2012 to 2014. Network partners analysed (i) the nature and extent of variation across developed countries in the use of special schools and classes; (ii) the permeability of the boundary between mainstream and special settings and (iii) the discourses underpinning the use of special and inclusive settings in different contexts. The network developed an analysis and critique of official statistics on the use of mainstream and special settings and their underpinning discourses reflected in policy and legislation. Of particular interest was the discursive use of official statistics within a globalised context. Special educational needs policy, with its emphasis on inclusive education, may be seen as a manifestation of travelling policy, with an overall homogenising tendency. At the same time, SEN policy is embedded within particular national and local contexts histories and cultures, thus adopting distinctive vernacular forms (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).
- Single Book
- 10
- 10.4324/9780203409770
- Nov 1, 2002
Part 1: Management and Schools 1. Effective Schools and Pupil Needs Tim Brighouse, Chief Education Officer, Oxfordshire 2. Welfare and Needs in Secondary Schools Neville Jones 3. Whole-school Policies: A Question of Rights? Caroline Roaf, Peers School, Oxford 4. Guidance, Counselling and Special Educational Needs: Management and Curriculum Issues David Galloway, School of Education, Lancaster University Part 2: Integration and Learning 5. Integrating Children with Physical Impairments: The Ormerod Experience Tim Southgate 6. Integrating Pupils with Behavioural Difficulties into Mainstream Schools Jackie Sunderland, Oxford University Department of Educational Studies 7. Integration and Special Educational Needs 14-19 Howard Brayton, Advisor for Special Educational Needs, Oxfordshire Part 3: Learning and the Curriculum 8. The Oxfordshire Skills Programme John Hanson, Senior Advisor for Curriculum Studies, Oxfordshire 9. Open and Interactive Learning: the LAP Programme Patrick Leeson, Advisor for Communication and Language Development, Croydon 10. Teaching Approaches and Student Needs Nigel Collins, General Advisor for 14-18 Education, East Sussex 11. Able Pupils in Oxfordshire Schools Keith Postlethwaite, Reading University, Mike Deans, Advisor for Special Educational Needs, Oxfordshire, and Cliff Denton, Oxford University Department of Educational Studies Part 4: In-service, Microelectronics, the Community 12. In-service Education and Special Needs Frank Hodgson and Alan Trotter, both Leeds Polytechnic 13. Microtechnology and the Assessment of Communication Difficulties Pru Fuller, Director of ACE Centre, Oxford, and Tim Southgate 14. Special Needs: The Community Response Rhys Evans, Groby Community College, Leicester.
- Book Chapter
- 3
- 10.1108/s0270-40132015000030a003
- Oct 19, 2015
We have witnessed, over the past century, an evolution in the manner in which students with disabilities are educated. Indeed, the quality of education students with special needs receive, in many ways, may be more aptly termed a revolution – from a legal and pedagogical perspective. The tremendous strides special education has made during this period of time has resulted in the current situation in which students with special needs are placed in the least restrictive environment, which often is an inclusive classroom in which general education and special education teachers work together in a collaborative, co-teaching environment. This chapter traces the events, legislation, and court cases that provide the historical context for this situation. In addition, models and essential components of co-teaching are examined, as well as the roles and requisite skills of general education and special education co-teachers. Of critical importance, in the success of co-teaching, is the need for special education and general education teachers to approach the curriculum planning and instructional processes in a collaborative and cooperative manner in order to achieve optimum results from the resulting co-teaching partnership. Finally, the assessment of special education and general education co-teaching efficacy is discussed, specifically through the use of three assessment rubrics used to evaluate co-teaching, co-planning, and co-assessment.
- Research Article
- 6
- 10.1080/02607476.2021.1928481
- May 20, 2021
- Journal of Education for Teaching
A growing number of countries have implemented the role of Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo) as a strategy for providing quality inclusive education. While studies have examined general education teachers and/or special education teachers’ identities in inclusive educational settings, little research has investigated SENCos’ identities. Even fewer studies have examined SENCo identity through the lens of emotion. Hence, the aim of this study was to develop an in-depth understanding of how emotions contribute to SENCo identity construction. Adopting a qualitative multiple case study approach, data were collected from five primary school SENCos in Auckland, New Zealand, via semi-structured interviews, work shadowing and school documents. The findings showed that SENCos, despite dealing with a range of emotions from passion to frustration, all saw themselves as being advocates, problem solvers, learners, collaborators and fighters for children with special educational needs. Drawing on the findings, it is argued that emotions form an indispensable part of SENCo identity and also act as a vital means through which SENCo identity is constructed and enacted. Implications for policy and practice are suggested to inform the recruitment of SENCos and provide SENCos emotional support.
- Research Article
- 1
- 10.17977/um005v8i2p327
- Jul 13, 2024
- Journal of ICSAR
A nationally aligned education is expected to help impaired pupils attain their full potential. In recent years, there has been an increase in global awareness and recognition of vocational education and training for disabled learners. This includes regulatory changes in special needs education, creating specific curriculum curricula for fast-paced businesses, incorporating technology into lessons, constructing new vocational special needs education facilities, and reorganizing existing facilities to match current demands. These vocational education programs necessitate the creation of new vocational special needs education teaching positions. Teachers contribute to the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2012-2025 goal and vision by developing talent in special needs education. The competencies of this new educational function and other quality indicators in Malaysia have yet to be identified. This study looks at special education and vocational teacher competencies. A systematic literature evaluation revealed competencies for special education vocational teachers. Professional competency conceptions encompass technical, non-technical, personal, mental, and physical traits, motivations, and self-concept. These findings could be utilized to prepare special education vocational teachers. The findings will influence vocational special needs secondary school vocational teachers' professional growth. Identifying crucial competency features will give baseline data for enhancing our understanding of critical components for quality vocational teachers, critical to effective teaching and learning for learners with special educational needs.
- Research Article
- 10.33086/ehdj.v9i3.6604
- May 7, 2025
- Education and Human Development Journal
General education teachers are professionals equipped to teach learners in general education classrooms. However, due to the insufficient number of qualified special education teachers and the rising number of students with disabilities, these teachers are compelled to handle learners with special needs. This study aimed to explore and understand the lived experiences of general education teachers in handling learners with special educational needs. The researcher employed qualitative research, particularly phenomenological design. Seventeen teachers were purposively chosen and interviewed through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, using a validated interview guide. Thematic analysis was employed to identify patterns of themes in the interview data. The results showed that teachers collectively experienced challenges in instructional skills, negative attitudes toward work, uncooperative parents, behavioral issues, and the responsibilities of teaching learners with special educational needs. An analysis of participants' responses revealed that teachers overcame challenges by self-up-skilling through internet resources, demonstrating adaptability, utilizing support systems, and maintaining strong faith in God. The participants shared insights on the belief that teaching is a noble profession and the need for special education training and seminars for non-special education teachers.
- Research Article
- 10.54536/ajet.v4i4.5811
- Dec 15, 2025
- American Journal of Education and Technology
This study explored the mainstreaming strategies, outcomes, and interventions in education for students with special educational needs (SEN) in certain Public Schools, Prince George's County, Maryland, United States of America (USA) during school year 2023-2024. This research had used qualitative phenomenological design. There were 15 participants (10 general education and 5 special education teachers) selected through purposive sampling technique who were interviewed using the researcher-made semi-structured questionnaire that contained five (5) open-ended questions, in English language, about the teacher participants perceptions of their collaboration in mainstreaming strategies, outcomes, and interventions in education for students with special educational needs (SEN). Data gathered were subjected to thematic analysis. The participants identified the following primary mainstreaming strategies for learners with special needs: (1) Collaborative Teaching Approaches, (2) Individualized Instruction Plans, (3) Use of Assistive Technologies, and (4) Peer Support Systems. These strategies were seen to result in: (1) Improved Academic Performance, (2) Enhanced Social Integration and Peer Relationships, and (3) Greater Self-Confidence and Independence. Key challenges in implementation included: (1) Insufficient Resources and Support, (2) Lack of Professional Development, and (3) Collaboration and Communication Barriers. Suggested interventions were: (1) Increased Resource Allocation, (2) Enhanced Professional Development, and (3) Structured Collaborative Planning. Parental involvement was also emphasized through: (1) Enhanced Communication and Collaboration, (2) Reinforcement of Educational Practices at Home, and (3) Social and Emotional Support. It is concluded that collaboration among educators, parents, and support systems is crucial for fostering an environment in which SEN learners can excel academically and socially.
- Research Article
- 10.47772/ijriss.2024.806040
- Jan 1, 2024
- International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science
Background: Zambia, like any other country that is concerned with the rights to education of all learners, has prioritized inclusive education. Inclusive education is a fundamental right recognized by national and international policies. For example, Article 69 of the United Nations (2016) General Comment CRPD/C/GC/4 stresses the need for inclusive teacher education across all educational levels. In this context, our study investigated secondary school science teachers’ sources of knowledge about inclusion and explored the lived experiences of learners with special education needs in an inclusive setup in Kitwe district, Zambia. Specifically, the study explored secondary school science teachers’ sources of knowledge about inclusion and the lived experiences of some learners with Special Education Needs (SEN) in expanding their capabilities in an inclusive setup in Kitwe district, Zambia. Methods: A qualitative case study design was employed, involving 12 participants: six science teachers and six learners with special education needs. These participants were purposively selected from three secondary schools recognized as successful inclusive schools in Kitwe district, located in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the collected data. Findings: The study indicates that teachers’ main sources of knowledge about inclusive education include pre-service training and in-service training through Continuous Professional Development (CPDs), seminars and workshops, literature, internet, and knowledge from other people through research. Further, the study indicated that most learners with Special Educational Needs (SEN) were determined, strong, full of self-esteem and resilient because of some positive attitudes and help they were receiving from some teachers and fellow pupils. However, they were constrained by their families’ economic and financial status and the school environments, among them. As such, learners were not availed with complete freedom to make meaningful choices due to the above structural challenges which would not help to boost their capabilities. These findings underscore the need for deliberate programs to enhance the practical application of inclusive education principles both at school and the entire community. Conclusion: Drawing from the study’s insights, the following conclusions can be drawn; secondary school science teachers’ main sources of knowledge about inclusive education include pre-service training and in-service training through CPDs, seminars and workshops, including literature, internet, and knowledge from other people through research. Economic and financial status and the school environment are among the constraints that make it difficult for learners with special education needs to realise their full potential in an inclusive setting. Our findings highlight the importance of deliberate programs to apply inclusive education principles both at home and in schools. The study, therefore, recommends collaborations between the schools and stakeholders, including the communities as being crucial to realizing the full potential of learners with special educational needs in inclusive settings.
- Research Article
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1679823
- Jan 13, 2026
- Frontiers in Psychology
IntroductionWith the comprehensive advancement of inclusive education in China, the proportion of children with special educational needs (CSEN) enrolled in mainstream schools has continued to increase. The identification and intervention of behavioral problems among these students have become core challenges in the implementation of inclusive education. This study aims to develop the Attribution Scale for Behavioral Problems in Children with Special Educational Needs, tailored to the Chinese cultural context, and to examine its reliability and validity.MethodsA multi-stage sampling approach was adopted, involving teachers from both mainstream and special schools in Sichuan Province. First, in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 teachers (15 from mainstream schools and 15 from special schools) to generate the initial item pool. Second, a pilot test was administered to 32 teachers for item discrimination analysis and preliminary assessment of internal consistency reliability. Third, a formal questionnaire survey was conducted among teachers from 14 schools, yielding 195 valid responses (10 special education teachers, 185 mainstream teachers) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Fourth, a larger-scale survey was distributed to teachers from 31 schools, with 328 valid responses collected (35 special education teachers, 293 mainstream teachers) for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and further reliability testing. A comprehensive analytic strategy was employed, including critical ratio (CR) analysis, item-total correlation, EFA, CFA, and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.ResultsThe finalized Attribution Scale for Behavioral Problems in Children with Special Educational Needs consists of 36 items. EFA identified five distinct factors: neurophysiological drivers, environmental-task adaptation, motivation-rule cognition, emotional–social interaction, and support system deficiencies. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total scale and each subscale ranged from 0.887 to 0.908, indicating high internal consistency. Correlations between the subscales and the total score ranged from 0.705 to 0.786 (p < 0.001). CFA demonstrated excellent model fit (CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.012), with all factor loadings reaching statistical significance.ConclusionThe newly developed Attribution Scale for Behavioral Problems in Children with Special Educational Needs demonstrates a clear structure and robust reliability and validity. It offers a scientifically sound tool for the assessment and intervention of behavioral problems in CSEN within the context of inclusive education in China.
- Research Article
- 10.51706/2707-3076-2023-8-7
- May 25, 2023
- Scientific journal of Khortytsia National Academy
Education of children with special educational needs (SEN) in Ukraine continues to find the ways of its realization under the conditions of the deficit of different supportive factors, among them – provision of the specialists. There is no position in Ukrainian schools, which would deal with the issues of inclusive education on the competent basis. At the same time there are several similar positions in the US schools (special education teacher, case-manager) as well as there is a position, which is directly related to coordination activities – Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO). We believe that existence of the position of coordinator in the support team is one of the main conditions of coordinated work of the support team, which would provide continuity in the process of education, upbringing and socialization of the person with special educational needs. The article provides generalization of the main directions of activities of such a coordinator according to the professional profile and offers the assumption regarding the possible coordination role, which could be conducted by one of the members of the support team in Ukrainian schools. The article provides analysis of the existing legal and scientific-methodological materials, focused on the issue of the support team as well as the issue of coordinator of such a support. The lack of Ukrainian educators` awareness on the content of the team interactions and the role of the coordinator is defined, which became a condition to formulate a need to withdraw from the formalism and to look for the real coordinator, who would deal not only with the issues of learning of persons with special educational needs, but will be capable of introducing the culture of inclusive educational environment development, which would be barriers-free, supportive and developmental for all participants of educational process. In this process professional profile of Special Educational Needs Coordinator became the main guide regarding the defining process of the content of activities of this coordinator. According to this profile the specialist has to influence the school policy towards inclusive education, to assess the needs of children with SEN, to monitor their development, to train teachers and to coordinate their activities, and to support families of children with SEN. We analyzed how some of these coordinator`s functions can be realized in Ukraine, and we emphasized that these functions can be brought to life by other team members in the process of providing support to children with SEN. However, we hope that the special teacher – the new profession, which was introduced into Ukrainian classificatory of professions recently, would be the best option for this role.
- Research Article
- 42
- 10.1353/etc.0.0018
- Jan 1, 2008
- Education and Treatment of Children
The purpose of this study was to examine classroom placement, inclusive versus non-inclusive, relative to the academic performance of students with specific learning disabilities in secondary content area classrooms. Fifty-seven high school students with learning disabilities were assessed using the Grade Level Short Form of the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST). Their reading and math scores were examined relative to each student's grade level, number of general and special education classes attended, and types of placement (i.e., inclusive or non-inclusive setting). The results revealed no statistically significant evidence to indicate that students' academic achievement varied based on inclusive versus non-inclusive placement. The only statistically significant differences observed regarded participants enrolled in a general education literature class compared to those participants placed in a special education setting for literature. Implications for practice, limitations of the study, and considerations for future research are discussed. ********** Recent trends reveal that students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) are increasingly educated in general education classrooms, while the number receiving instruction in resource rooms or separate classes has decreased substantially (Holloway, 2001). Despite the increase in students with disabilities placed in general education settings there is limited research, particularly at the secondary level, to suggest where students with SLD achieve more academically. Of the many issues related to the integration or inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms, there is none more important than the effects of placement on students' learning and social relations with classmates (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995). The research literature reviewed for this study was mixed regarding whether academic outcomes for students with disabilities are improved in inclusive classroom settings. Previous research suggested that students with SLD in elementary schools achieve more academically in inclusive programs versus non-inclusive programs (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Other studies suggested that middle school students achieve more academically in inclusive programs (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). For example, Rea et al. (2002) reported that students with disabilities had higher grades, fewer behavioral infractions, and attended school more often than students educated in non-inclusive programs. In contrast, a number of other studies concluded that students with disabilities achieved more in inclusive classroom settings (Baker, et al., 1995; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). The only certainty regarding the effects of class placement is that there is no consensus. Researchers have drawn vastly different conclusions (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980) such as: (a) Students with severe learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders may achieve more in special classrooms (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); (b) Students with disabilities may achieve more academically in programs that combine the inclusive model with the resource model as opposed to either model on its own (Holloway, 2001); and (c) Inclusive versus non-inclusive placements produce no differences in the academic achievement of students with disabilities (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lavenbraun, 1988; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Another perspective voiced is that the frequently posed question of class placement is the wrong question to consider (Leinhardt & Palloy, 1982; Zigmond, 2003; Hocutt, 1996). Researchers taking this position point out that the evidence is inconclusive on whether students with disabilities achieve more in one instructional setting as opposed to another, and contend that questions regarding class placement for students with disabilities are at odds with a focus on individualized educational planning. …
Save Important notes in documents
Highlight text to save as a note, or write notes directly
You can also access these Documents in Paperpal, our AI writing tool
Powered by our AI Writing Assistant
