‘Stretched… like butter scraped over too much bread ’—The SENCo role in Sweden, England, Ireland and Austria: An ecosystemic analysis in evolving inclusive and special education policy landscapes

Internationally, promotion of inclusive education agendas has brought about changes to policy and practice. This paper explores the implications of such agendas for the management and leadership of provision for students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Specifically, the role of the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) is spotlighted. While such a role exists in other jurisdictions, it is not defined in Ireland. Framed by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, this research reports on findings from a national survey (n = 371) aimed at exploring the profile and leadership status of SENCOs in Irish primary schools and the facilitators and barriers experienced by these SENCOs. Unlike in other jurisdictions, findings indicate that SENCOs are senior leaders. Role facilitators include collaboration and support from staff, teacher professional learning and experience. Barriers include lack of time, having multiple roles, inadequate external supports, and ambiguous and limited policy guidance. Analysis of the role through a systemic lens spotlights the interacting and interdependent systems influencing role enactment, and considers how SENCOs’ collaborative practice can be brokered to influence others to enhance inclusive practice while occupying a place of tension. Conclusions, framed by EST, contribute to an international problematising of the SENCO role in developing inclusive education systems.

The importance of resilience in young children is paramount as it helps them adjust to their life difficulties. Whilst extensive empirical studies have focused on students and adults’ resilience, there has been relatively little attention to the development of children’s resilience during their early years. Although the concept of resilience and most of the protective and risk factors have primarily been investigated in Western literature, little is known about the understanding of resilience in non-Western cultures. Ungar (2008, 2012) has constantly emphasised the important influence of cultures and contexts on resilience research. There has also been a lack of knowledge surrounding the concept of developing resilience in theory and practice in Taiwan. This study sought to narrow these gaps in the knowledge of resilience. This study focuses on the power of storytelling as an effective preschool pedagogy in order to facilitate the development of children’s resilience. The purpose of this narrative study is to explore preschoolers’ lived experience of resilience in the public preschools in Taiwan, through the engagement of teachers’ storytelling in relation to resilience-orientated stories. In order to fully understand these lived experiences, this study uses Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory as a theoretical framework to analyse the potentially reflexive influence of social and contextual elements on individual preschoolers’ experiences of developing resilience. This study was undertaken in a narrative approach as a methodology to capture preschoolers’ lived experiences in relation to resilience. There were five preschoolers selected from three public preschools in Taiwan. Two analytical frameworks were adopted to analyse the multiple methods of data collection that included classroom observations; children, teachers and parents’ interviews; children’s documents; and my own research field notes. Firstly, to explore preschoolers’ narratives of resilience, the analytical framework was developed from Riessman’s dialogical/performance narrative analysis (2008). Secondly, to explore influential elements and the children’s interactions with these on the development of their resilience in the five ecological systems, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory provided a theoretically thematic framework. The findings of this study were presented in accordance with these two analytical frameworks. In children’s narratives of resilience, there were four themes identified: 1. The process of children’s resonance with, and teachers’ storytelling in relation to, the resilience-orientated story as the premise of promoting children’s resilience. 2. A collaborative narrative as a resilience facilitator. 3. The complementary relationship between children’s resilience and emergent identities shaped by the daily interactions with some unique social and cultural elements in the Taiwanese context. 4. Multimodality of preschoolers’ narratives as a means of obtaining insight into children’s lived experiences of resilience. The findings surrounding sources of resilience provided insights into the understandings of an emerging construct of resilience, and of influential elements and their interactions with individual children on their resilience in the Taiwanese social and cultural context. These influential elements and interactions encompass the values of extended families as an element of a cultural heritage, cram schools playing a unique educational culture, and multiple religious traditions as the Taiwanese way of practicing their folk beliefs and religions. This study also contributes to the resilience literature from the Taiwanese social and cultural perspective, and also demonstrates the limitation of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory in understanding the importance of cultural influences on an individual’s development of resilience. Findings recommend and reinforce the effective use of storytelling pedagogy for professional practice in early childhood education for promoting the development of children’s resilience in the early years. The findings also provide evidence to education policy makers in Taiwan by minimizing the influence of uncertain education reform on children’s resilience, and by recognizing and prioritizing the importance of children’s resilience development in early childhood education.

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.

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.

This study aims to explore the professional learning and development needs of Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) as strategic leaders in primary schools in Ireland. With the SENCO role lacking formal recognition in Irish policy, this research is important to identify the support structures necessary to enhance their effectiveness in leading inclusive education. Employing a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, theoretically framed by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Wenger’s Community of Practice model, the study first surveyed 371 SENCOs to assess their professional learning experiences and needs. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with nine school leaders, including SENCOs, SENCO principals, and principals, to gather in-depth insights into the role’s dynamics. The Department of Education’s school database was used to contact participants. Data analysis utilised descriptive statistics for the survey and reflexive thematic analysis for the interview data. Key findings indicate a significant demand for formal SENCO-specific professional learning programmes, with a focus on leadership, evidence-informed practices, and community engagement. The study concludes that professional learning for SENCOs should be structured around transformative social learning models and should include postgraduate courses and communities of practice. The research calls for policy development to formally recognise the SENCO role, and provide a coherent framework for their professional learning and development to ensure inclusive educational practices are effectively led and implemented in Irish schools.

This research study explored barriers and facilitators to collaboration between National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) psychologists, Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs), and Senior Leadership Teams (SLT) in Irish post-primary schools (students aged between 12 and 18 years). NEPS’ role in facilitating collaboration is uncertain, exacerbated by the absence of policy outlining the SENCO role and tensions between special and inclusive education. It is unclear what the experiences of collaboration between NEPS psychologists and post-primary schools might be within this nebulous policy context. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was used, framed by Dynamic Systems Theory. Participants were NEPS psychologists, SENCOs, and SLT. Phase 1 involved an online survey (n = 278), which identified barriers and facilitators to collaboration and informed Phase 2. This paper presents Phase 2, comprising semi-structured interviews (n = 9). Interviews were analysed using multi-perspectival interpretative phenomenological analysis, facilitating experiential exploration of collaboration between NEPS, SLT, and SENCOs. Participants described the experience of transitioning from working in silos to collaborative hubs. Systemic and interpersonal factors facilitated deliberate construction of evolving, dynamic, collaborative spaces between post-primary schools and NEPS. Policy gaps arise regarding consultation, collaboration, special education, and inclusion. This research begins to clarify the varied ways in which practice occurs in these gaps and indicates ways in which NEPS psychologists can collaborate with SENCOs and SLT to create active, effective hubs of knowledge to support students.

This study explores participants’ interpretations of their experiences and perceptions of what it means to be a SENCo as they engage with the demands of their role within an ever-changing educational climate. It highlights the continued complexities of the execution of the role, the implication of austerity cuts and the challenges encountered through the implementation of government policy. The enquiry is a small-scale qualitative study, conducted within an interpretivist paradigm using a narrative approach for data collection with a thematic approach to the analysis. It draws on the experiences and perceptions of six primary Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCos) who completed the Post Graduate Certificate in Special Educational Needs Coordination, at a Northern University. The narrative approach enabled the SENCos to share their experiences and the use of drawings gave some immediate insight into their perceptions of the role. The study highlights the perceived impact on the SENCo role of a myriad of constituent elements and makes use of the metaphor of plate spinner to illustrate the complexity of the role. Data reveals tensions in managing government policy in relation to inclusion, special educational needs and performance with additional tensions arising from providing services that government policy has severely cut. Findings reveal that SENCos see a need to take a strategic lead on inclusion and to upskill staff to enable a greater share of the responsibility for the teaching of children with the label of ‘needs’. The study indicates that SENCos are keenly aware of their role to empower parents, staff and children, but within limits. The data reveals that the SENCo role has taken on a new dimension of supporting children and families through a social work mode. My contribution to new knowledge is in presenting new insights informing the role of the SENCo by providing a wider understanding of the continued challenges and frustrations of the role. The findings have a wider application for the contribution of knowledge towards a greater understanding of the concept of empowerment and identity. New knowledge in relation to the SENCos’ perception of empowerment and the emergence of a social role due to the blurring of boundaries between education and social work will lead to a greater understanding of the role. In particular, to those who appoint SENCos, those who inhabit the role, those with whom SENCos work, those who train SENCos and will in turn impact on the teaching and learning of children with the label of needs.

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

An early childhood child is an individual who actively interacts with individuals around them. From these direct interactions, children learn social norms and ethics that shape and develop their character. This study focused on the process of early childhood learning from the environment in developing their character from Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems theory framework. Eleven interviewees participated in this qualitative research. The findings revealed that at the mesosytem level, a learning environment in the community that is safe and supportive of children's growth and development will develop children's positive character. These results corroborated that positive interactions within the environmental layers in Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory will contribute positively to children's development. Parents and RuPin Coordinators unanimously stated that education contributes positively to children's growth and development. Even the smallest knowledge gained by children will affect their mindset and behavior, so a commitment to providing a safe and positively stimulating learning environment is important. From the perspective of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, an adequate learning environment for young children should involve positive interactions between various environmental systems: family, school, peers and community.

ABSTRACTThis paper explores factors influencing leadership for inclusive and special education in secondary schools (for students aged between 12–18 years) in Ireland. Specifically, it spotlights the role of the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO), the teacher often tasked with leading provision. A qualitative study involving interviews with principals and SENCOs in six schools was undertaken. The complexity of the SENCO role is revealed in findings which capture inherent tensions associated with attempts to formalise it in a system promoting a universal response to inclusive education, while also providing special education. Hornby's model of Inclusive Special Education (2015) is used to interrogate findings and provide a framework for further conceptualisation of the role in a system where inclusive and special education co-exist. Notwithstanding tensions, this study argues strongly for formal recognition of the SENCO role and advocates the development of SENCOs’ leadership capacity within an integrated system promoting a collective approach to inclusive special education. It presents a conceptual model of the SENCO role which serves as a framework for further debate, refinement and discussion about the SENCO role.

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.

Childhood is a critical stage in human life, during which an individual's cognitive, emotional, social, and physical development progresses rapidly. Early development is not only essential for children's future achievements but also plays a significant role in societal structure, economic growth, and cultural transmission. Promoting the holistic development of children is the responsibility not only of families and educational systems but also of society as a whole. This study, grounded in Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, aims to analyze how various ecological system levels influence children's cognitive, emotional, and social development, and explores the impact of these systems' interactions on overall child growth. The research encompasses the microsystem (e.g., family and school), mesosystem (e.g., family-school interactions), exosystem (e.g., parental socioeconomic status and work environment), macrosystem (e.g., cultural background and social policies), and chronosystem (e.g., significant life events and historical context). The findings reveal that the interactions between these ecological systems play a pivotal role in children's development and influence their holistic development.

In an increasing number of countries, the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo) plays a key role in implementing inclusive provision for students with special educational needs. Existing literature on SENCos mainly focuses on the nature and enactment of the role, with few investigating SENCo identities. Hence, the study presented in this article aimed to navigate how personal and contextual factors influence SENCo identity. Utilising a qualitative interpretive case study approach, multiple sources of data were gathered from five primary school SENCos in Auckland, New Zealand, through semi-structured interviews, work shadowing and school documents. The findings revealed how SENCo identity was shaped by personal factors, including motivation/commitment and expertise/experience; and contextual factors such as the organisation of the SENCo role, support from senior leaders and other stakeholders, and national policies regarding the SENCo role. Drawing on the findings, we argue that formal recognition and targeted funding of the SENCo role by the government are vital for constructing and maintaining a strong SENCo identity. At the same time, it is important to sustain individual school autonomy and flexibility regarding the structural organisation of the SENCo role.

The influx of multicultural and multiethnic immigrants to the United States following the liberalization of immigration law in 1965 has resulted in a high representation of children who reside with immigrant families. As these children are approaching early adulthood, their encounter with various ecological systems is likely to be shaped by their cultural differences and the diversity of family settings. Drawing on the insights of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, this article highlights the critical function that family social ecology plays in how children of immigrants will fare over their adolescent life course. By providing a comprehensive picture of how immigrant family process takes place, this article suggests how understanding the ecology of immigrant families can help strengthen social work service delivery.

INTERNET RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION