Sense of Relatedness (Resiliency), Perceived Relationships with Parents and Teachers and Depression in students with and without Special Educational Needs (SEN)

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

INTERNET RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION

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.

The report of the Special Educational Needs Training Consortium – Professional Development to Meet Special Educational Needs – was submitted to the Secretary of State for Education. It also reaffirmed the role of parents as partners in this process as well as recognising the expectation held by parents that children with special educational needs (SEN) should have appropriate support from teachers appropriately skilled and knowledgeable in this area. Even in the early 1990s no nationally recognised programmes of training existed for special needs coordinators (SENCos) in mainstream schools, and opportunities varied widely between LEAs. Thus it was that in 1993 they agreed to form a consortium, under the aegis of the Council for Disabled Children, which is itself an umbrella body for parents, professionals and others working on behalf of children with SEN. They were concerned not only with the numbers of trainees, but also with monitoring the quality of specialist courses nationally and trying to ensure their consistency.

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.

With today’s increasingly challenging and growing transformation and technology within the world of education, the impact on the education system among students with special educational needs (SEN) with learning problems is no less great. Various initiatives have been set by the ministry for the benefit of students with special educational need's future, such as the expansion of students with special educational need's Career Transition Program. This study aims to discuss the application of entrepreneurial skills in Career Transition Program among students with special educational needs (SEN). This study uses a qualitative approach, which is a method of structured interviews, observations and document analysis. The study sample is a total of four special educational teachers who teach vocational subjects. The findings of this study show that there are four elements of entrepreneurial skills that are applied to students with special educational need, especially with learning disabilities, which are the skills to produce products, the skills to market products, the skills to do business and communicate and the skills to calculate costs. Most individuals with special needs can perform productively if given the knowledge and skills through an appropriate educational program.

The charity/tragedy discourse of disability and traditional versions of femininity bear some striking resemblances. Both are associated with dependence and helplessness, and with resultant practices that are implicated in the enduring reproduction of social and material inequalities. This article looks at the 'identity work' of a group of girls, all of whom had been identified as having 'special educational needs', in a mainstream school in the UK. Using findings from an ethnographic study, the article explores how the girls position themselves in relation to the subject 'special needs student'. The findings suggest that historical meanings associated with femininity and disability combine with contemporary schooling practices to produce a constrained range of subject positions around which the girls have limited room for manoeuvre.

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

This qualitative research, which adopted a pairing of social constructionism and participatory paradigms, posed the question of how Educational Psychologists and Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators view the role of the Educational Psychologist in supporting mental health and psychological wellbeing in schools. The views of four Educational Psychologists and three Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators were explored through semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis of the interviews led to two thematic maps being created. Educational Psychologists wished to support the mental health and wellbeing of both children and young people and staff and viewed it as part of their role. However, they were aware of the barriers to engaging in his type of work, which could have wide-reaching implications for practice. The Educational Psychologists gave examples of mental health and wellbeing support that they had given to schools at an individual, group and whole school level. The Educational Psychologists identified a focus on emotional wellbeing that was threaded through all their duties, but acknowledged that this focus was not always recognised or understood by other professionals or service users. The Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators had not previously considered the Educational Psychology role to include mental health and wellbeing within schools but rather carrying out assessment. The Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators called for clarity around the Educational Psychology role and the activities that the Educational Psychology service can offer. The Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators expressed that they would value more support from Educational Psychologists to deliver therapeutic interventions and set up supervision for staff in schools. A working party comprising the principal researcher and the three Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators co-researchers explored the thematic maps and worked collaboratively to agree next steps, including ways in which the role of the Educational Psychologist in supporting mental health and wellbeing could be communicated more clearly with other professionals within the local authority where the research took place.

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

The research reported here forms part of the research program, The Assessment and Incidence of Special Educational Needs, located at the University of Leicester and funded by the Department of Education and Science. This research is concerned with the ways in which teachers in ordinary junior schools come to view pupils as having special educational needs and the incidence of special educational needs, which arises consequent upon these assessments. The results of the first stages of this research show that class teachers in a large sample of junior schools in England regard just under one in five of the pupils in their classes as having special educational needs of some kind, a figure very close to the estimate contained in the report of the Warnock Committee, “The Education of Handicapped Children and Young People”(Department of Education and Science, 1978). Learning difficulties dominated the teachers perceptions of special educational needs; about four fifths of children identified had learning difficulties of some kind. About four out of ten of the pupils identified as having special needs had behavioral problems and nearly a quarter had physical handicaps or health problems or sensory defects. Many children fell into more than one category of special needs.

The relevance of the topic is due to modern trends in the development of the educational sphere not only in our country, but also in the world as a whole, in particular, reform processes that should ensure unhindered access to education for every child, regardless of their characteristics and needs. In domestic conditions, inclusive measures are actively being implemented, which create the need to develop modern approaches to the educational process for children with special educational needs. Regulatory and legal changes in the system of regulation of educational activities require teachers and educational institutions to provide an inclusive space that would take into account the special needs of students, which, in turn, requires continuous improvement of methodological and organizational methods of work. At the same time, taking into account modern problems, in particular, the lack of trained teachers to work in inclusive conditions, it is worth developing measures that would contribute to improving the qualifications of teachers and specialists who work with children with special educational needs. Also, the practice of foreign countries confirms the importance of introducing effective models and strategies for adapting them to domestic educational conditions. Therefore, this study is extremely relevant, as it requires a comprehensive approach to optimizing educational services for children with special educational needs, taking into account modern trends in the field of education in Ukraine. The purpose of the study is to reveal the importance of providing psychological assistance in the process of adapting children with special educational needs in institutions with inclusive education. In the process of writing this article, the following methods were used: analysis and synthesis, generalization, system method, logical, dialectical, generalization method. It was found that psychological assistance should be based not only on the internal capabilities of the child, the purpose of which is to determine specific areas of its development, but also on support in the manifestations of independence, the fight against problems in personal development, solving current tasks of learning and socialization, and should also include the development of psychological literacy of the subject of psychological assistance. It was determined that the effectiveness of psychological assistance to children with special educational needs lies in the fact that in the process of developing a theoretical scheme of assistance it is necessary to: perform a psychological examination and analyze the dynamics of the child's development; clearly establish the factors that influenced the emergence of problems in learning and socialization of the child; overcome the identified problems in the psychosocial development of children, reduce the risks of problems of adaptation to learning; ensure the timeliness of prevention of deviations in development; form active cooperation in educational activities aimed at improving the child's personality; develop the social skills of all participants in psychological assistance.

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.

@text:Providing an engaging and complete overview Special Educational Needs: The Basics examines the fundamental principles of the subject from policy to practice. This book covers: Concepts of special educational needs The historical development of special provision and key legislation Identification and assessment of young people’s special learning and behaviour needs Working with a wide range of individual difficulties in practice The personal experiences of individuals with special needs Special needs provision and the children’s workforce This book is an ideal starting point for all those with questions about what constitutes special educational needs and how individuals can be supported in practice. It is also essential reading for trainees, teachers and all others working with young people who experience difficulties in learning and behaviour, or who have special sensory or physical needs. .

BackgroundIf the window of opportunity presented by the early years is missed, it becomes increasingly difficult to create a successful life-course. A biopsychosocial model of special educational need with an emphasis on participation and functioning moves the frame of reference from the clinic to the school and the focus from specific conditions to creating supportive environments cognisant of the needs of all children. However, evidence suggests that an emphasis on diagnosed conditions persists and that the needs of children who do not meet these criteria are not identified.The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a well-validated, teacher-completed population-level measure of five domains of child development. It is uniquely placed, at the interface between health and education, to explore the developmental status of children with additional challenges within a typically developing population. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the special educational needs of children in their first year of formal education have been identified.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in Ireland in 2011. EDI (teacher completed) scores were calculated for 1344 children. Data were also collected on special needs and on children identified by the teacher as needing assessment. Mean developmental scores were compared using one-way ANOVA.ResultsEighty-three children in the sample population (6.2%) had identified special educational needs. A further 132 children were judged by the teacher as needing assessment. Children with special needs had lower mean scores than typically developing children, in all five developmental domains. Children considered by the teacher as needing assessment also had lower scores, which were not significantly different from those of children with special needs. Speech, emotional or behavioural difficulties were the most commonly reported problems among children needing further assessment. There was also a social gradient among this group.ConclusionsA small but significant number of children have not had their needs adequately assessed. Teacher observation is an effective means of identifying children with a level of impairment which prevents them from fully participating in their educational environment and could be integrated into a multi-disciplinary approach to meeting the needs of all children.