Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

The social position of special needs pupils in the classroom

Participants:
Chair: Dr S.J. Pijl, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Presenters:
Dr Per Frostad, University of Trondheim, Norway  -  Drs Marloes Koster, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
                 Prof dr Johannes Mand, Evangelische Fachhochschule Bochum, Germany

Discussant:
Prof dr Alan Dyson, University of Mnachester, UK

General Introduction
Dr S.J. Pijl, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Social relationships of special needs children are an important aspect of studying inclusion in regular education (Flem and Keller, 2000). Parents often report it as being their main motive for sending their special needs child to a regular school (Strayhorn and Strain, 1986; Sloper and Tyler, 1992; Scheepstra, 1998). Parents prefer to have their child attend the same school as their siblings; they prefer a neighbourhood school and value their child being educated with other non-SEN children.

Physical integration, the lowest level of integration Kobi (1983) distinguishes, is thus an important first step. After all, if special needs pupils cannot attend regular classes, their opportunities for contacts, relationships and friendships are seriously hampered. However, physical integration is only a very basic condition: it takes much more to become part of the group.

Research has shown that inclusion does not automatically lead to more social contacts and friendships with children without special needs, since these pupils prefer to associate with other pupils without disabilities (Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman and Kinnish, 1995) and the same applies to special needs pupils (Minnett, Clark and Wilson, 1995). At present, the research on effects in terms of social inclusion of special needs pupils participating in regular education settings seems rather limited (Nakken and Pijl, 2002).

Sociometric techniques can be used to describe the social position of pupils in class. In the sociometric test pupils are asked for example: Which three pupils they like best and which three they do not like. Based on these scores the pupils generally are divided into 5 groups: popular, rejected, ignored, controversial and average.

It is obvious that pupils with special needs scoring ‘average’ or ‘popular’ in a sociometric test seem to have found an acceptable position in the group. However, if special needs pupils become socially isolated in the regular classroom and are labelled in the test as ‘ignored’ or even ‘rejected’, it may harm their social–emotional development. This could result in low self-esteem, fear of failure, low self-confidence, fear to attend school, deviant behaviour, lack of motivation, low performances on school tasks and result in negative effects like being bullied, drop-out and eventually possible referral to special settings.

   Next to the possible effects of having a certain social position in the group there are a number of conditions possibly influencing the social position of a pupil with special needs in a regular group. It seems worthwhile to study the relation between of e.g. -social skills of the SEN pupil, characteristics of the peer group, -the type of impairment, -teacher competencies, and -teacher attitude towards inclusion on the social position of SEN pupils.  

The first aim of the seminar is to describe the social position of SEN pupils in regular education classes compared to the social position of their peers in the same classes. The seminar further aims at establishing the relation between a number of possibly relevant conditions for social position and to gather data on the effects of social position in class.

The relation between social position and social skills

Dr Per Frostad, University of Trondheim, Norway

Introduction

Most children have no problems in making contacts and building relations with peers and other people (Powless & Elliott, 1993). Relations with peers of equal status are of great value in the development of children (Schaffer, 1996). An important condition for developing positive relations with peers is having the age-group appropriate social skills. Social skills can be defined as socially acceptable learned behaviours that enable a person to interact effectively with others and to avoid socially unacceptable responses (Gresham & Elliot, 1990). Examples of that are helping, initiating relationships, requesting help, giving compliments and saying “please” or “thank you”.

Research has made clear that children insufficiently mastering these skills have indeed difficulty in communicating and relating to others. They experience problems in playing, working and learning with other children which may well result in a certain degree of isolation. In school settings they typically run the risk of being ignored or rejected, of not acquiring membership of a group and of having no friends.

The effects of such an isolated position have been described extensively. Rejection by peers takes away a sense of belonging at school, it hinders access to social experiences and it is devastating in terms of self-image, self-confidence, motivation and school performances (Asher & Coie, 1990). It is far from easy to change such an isolated position. The lack of contacts with other peers results in limited practice with social skills and the required new skills for following age groups are therefore not learned. This results obviously in an even less appropriate set of social skills (Schaffer, 1996).

The social skills of pupils with special needs

Pupils with special needs can have difficulties in building relations with peers without special needs. They have been described as pupils particularly at risk in acquiring insufficient sets of social skills (Greenspan & Granfield, 1992; Garrison-Harrell & Kamps, 1997; Pfiffner en McBurnett; 1997; Scheepstra, et al., 1999; Soresi & Nota, 2000; Monchy, et al., 2004). Some of them do not have the physical, sensorial or intellectual capacities to learn the social skills needed (King, et al, 1997). Others show forms of deviant behaviour which keeps peers from interacting and relating. It has been pointed out that it is difficult to segregate cause from effect (Spence, et al, 1999). Lacking the appropriate skills will cause difficulty in establishing social relations, but students experiencing a decreasing number and quality of social experiences will finally end up with an underdeveloped set of social skills.

Even if pupils with special needs have the capabilities to learn the age appropriate social skills, their opportunities for learning these skills may be restricted. Research on students’ social relations shows students’ preference to associate with similar peers. This has been named homophily (McPherson, et al., 2001). Homophily can be based on different dimensions, e.g.: age, gender, race, educational attainment, values, interests and/or beliefs. It seems that they lack the proper qualifications on one or more of the dimensions for homophily. The effect is that pupils without special needs flock together and tend to exclude pupils with special needs (Guralnick et al, 1995). It is not clear which dimension is relevant here. It could be their behaviour, their looks and/or their intellectual level. Whatever motive, the effect is that pupils without special needs prefer to pull together and the same holds though for the students with special needs. They also like to be amongst ‘equals’ (Minnett, et al, 1995).

The number of pupils with special needs in inclusive classrooms is generally small and it is not likely that they can relate much to other students with special needs. In order to have a sense of belonging it is therefore essential that they too have positive relations with the other pupils in class. After all, that is what inclusion ultimately is about. The available studies address the (training of) social skills of pupils with special needs, but do not link their social skills to their social position in inclusive classrooms. This issue is the focus of the study reported here.

Method

Sample

The sample consist regular schools for elementary and lower secondary schools (Grundskoler) in and around Trondheim (Norway).   Norway has a full inclusion policy and has nowadays hardly any segregated provision for students with special needs left. The vast majority of all pupils with special needs (‘spesielle behov’) participate in regular schools. The study is based on a sample of 1000 pupils of third and sixth grade, aged 9 and 12 year.

Instruments

The social position of pupils with special needs in regular schools was described using sociometric techniques based on peer nomination. Pupils were asked the following: 1. Which pupils in class they considered to be their friends. 2. Which pupils in class they would choose to perform a school task. 3. Which pupils in class they would choose to spend the breaks at school? Negative nominations were not asked because these would be regarded unethical by the teachers involved in the study. The nomination procedure was based on free recall from the pupils in the same classroom or the same grade (and age). The nominations were limited to a semi-fixed-choice (a maximum of five nominations). It is rather usual in peer research to work with a fixed number of nominations (often 3). This introduces error because it is quite unlikely that all pupils have exactly three best friends (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). We therefore decided to work with a maximum of five nominations and explained clearly that pupils could very well nominate less than five. This seems an option restricting the freedom of choice for the respondents minimally.    

The nominations on the positively phrased questions received from group members, the ‘indegrees’ in social network analysis, were taken as indexes for peer acceptance. Next to peer acceptance we were interested in friendships pupils had in the group. In line with Cullinan, et al. (1992) friendship was elaborated as having one or more mutual relations with other peers in class. Mutuality in relations requires a reciprocal choice, which means that two pupils choose each other as best friend. Even if pupils do not have high scores in peer acceptance and friendships, they can be part of a cohesive subgroup in class (Farmer & Farmer, 1996). With the term cohesive subgroup we refer to a subgroup that has more relations (‘ties’) to pupils within than to pupils outside the subgroup (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

Next to establishing the social position of pupils we also described their social skills using the elementary form of the student form of the Social Skills Rating System developed by   Gresham and Elliot (1990). The student form of the scales consist four subscales addressing respectively cooperation, assertion, empathy and self-control. The subscale cooperation addresses behaviours as helping others, sharing materials and complying with rules and directions. Assertion has to do with initiating behaviours, such as asking others for information, introducing oneself and responding to e.g. peer pressure or insults. Empathy focuses on behaviours that show concern and respect for others’ feelings and points of view. The subscale self-control covers behaviours that emerge in situations that require taking turns and compromising (Gresham and Elliot, 1990, p. 2). The scale consist 34 items. In total 6 items are counted in two subscales, resulting in subscale raw scores ranging from 0 to 10 and a maximum scale raw score of 40. The age range of the elementary form fitted the age range in 3 th and 6 th grade in Norwegian schools.

Ogden (1995) translated the elementary form of the student form of the Social Skills Rating System into Norwegian and tested this (Ogden, 1995). The overall reliability of the Norwegian version was comparable to the reliability reported by Gresham and Elliot (1990) (overall reliability of the student form: .83), but factor-analysis failed to reproduce the subtest structure reported by Gresham and Elliot (1990). Ogden concluded that 28 out of the 34 testitems contributed to the same factor and that the test should be interpreted as one overall measure of social skills.

For all pupils each of the scale items were read aloud by the testleader. The test data were gathered by three students working on their master thesis in pedagogy and the authors.  

Analyses

The sociometric data were analysed using the UCINET software (Borgatti, et al, 1999). Pupils were invited to nominate their best friends, the peers they liked to perform a school task with and the peers they liked to spend the breaks with. For these analyses the mean indegree and standard deviation were calculated per class and used to transform each pupils’ indegree-score into a peer acceptance z-score (following Monchy, et al, 2004). The absolute number of reciprocal choices was counted for each pupil and the index based on having a mutual friendship was corrected for the theoretical maximum number of friendships in class. Finally the index based on belonging to an in-class network was corrected for the total number of peers belonging to one of the networks in class.

The student form of the Social Skills Rating System gives an overall social skills score. Research by Ogden (1995) showed that the Norwegian version can not be interpreted in terms of four subtests. Factor analysis will show if this holds as well for our dataset.

The raw testscores were used in further analyses. The indexes for social inclusion were correlated with the overall social skills score and –based on factoranalyses– eventually also subtest scores. Since the indexes for social inclusion are based on ordinal data and likely to be skewed, non-parametric correlations were applied. The analyses of the relation between social inclusion and social skills are based on the whole study sample. The second phase of the analyses focuses on pupils with special needs. Because of the restriction of range effects (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005) it is expected that analysis of the relation between social inclusion and social skills yields no significant findings. The social inclusion and social skills of pupils with special needs is therefore addressed using a more qualitative analysis.

The presentation at the ISEC conference will report on the project’s findings.

References:

Asher, S.R. & Coie, J.D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borgatti, S.P., Everet, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (1999). UCINETT for Windows . Natick: Analytic Technologoes.

Cullinan, D., Sabornie E.J., and Crossland, C.L. (1992) Social mainstreaming of mildly

handicapped students, The Elementary School Journal, 92(3), 339-351.

Farmer, T.W. & Farmer, E.M.Z. (1996). Social relationships of students with exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: social networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 5, 431-450.

Garrison-Harrell, L. & Kamps, D. (1997). The effects of peer networks on social-communicative behaviors for students with autism. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 4, 241-254.

Greenspan, S. & Granfield, J.R. (1992). Reconsidering the construct of mental retardation: Implication of a model of social competence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 442-453.

Gresham, F.M. & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System . Circle Pines: American Guidance Service

Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J.M. & Kinnish, K. (1995). Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings on social interactions and social integration of preschool children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 4, 359-377.

King, G.A., Specht, J.A., Schultz, I., Warr-Leeper, G., Redekop, W. & Risebrough, N. (1997). Social skills training for withdrawn unpopular children with physical disabilities: a preliminary evaluation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 42, 1, 47-60.

McPherson, M., Smith.-Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415 – 444.

Minnett, A., Clark, K. & G. Wilson (1995). Play behavior and communication between deaf and hard of hearing children and their hearing peers in an integrated preschool, American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 4, 420-429.

Monchy, M. de, Pijl, S.J. & Zandberg, T. (2004) Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19, 3, 317 – 330.

Murphy, K.M. & Davidshofer, C.O. (2005). Psychological testing. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Ogden, T. (1995). Kompetanse i kontekst. Oslo: Barnevernets Utviklingssenter.

Pfiffner, L.J. & McBurnett, K. (1997). Social skills training with parent generalization: treatment effects for children with attention deficit disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 5, 749-757.

Powless, D.L. & Elliott, S.N. (1993). Assessment of social skills of native American preschooolers: Teachers’ and parents’ ratings. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 293-307.

Schaffer, H.R. (1996). Social development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Scheepstra, A.J.M., Nakken, H. and Pijl, S.J. (1999) Contacts with classmates: the social position of pupils with Down’s syndrome in Dutch mainstream education, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14(3), 212-220.

Soresi, S. & Nota, L. (2000). A social skill training for persons with Down’s syndrome. European Psychologist, 5, 1, 34-43.

Spence, S.H., Donovan, C. & Brechman-Toussaint, M. (1999). Social skills, social outcomes, and cognitive features of childhood social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 2, 211-221.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The social position and development of pupils with a pupil-bound budget in regular Dutch primary schools

Drs Marloes Koster, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Introduction

In the Netherlands, since august 2003, pupils with auditory, communicative, motor, mental or multiple disabilities, and/or severe behaviour / emotional problems have been entitled to receive a pupil-bound budget when they go to a regular school. With this budget, personnel and material aids can be fund.

This study focuses on the first experiences with the pupil-bound budget in regular Dutch primary schools. The research question in this study is twofold: ‘Which social position do Special Educational Needs (SEN) pupils have in regular Dutch primary school classes?’ and ‘How do SEN pupils, in particular rejected SEN pupils,   develop in social, social-emotional and   cognitive domains in regular Dutch primary school classes?’

Method

Introduction

The study focuses on twenty SEN pupils with a pupil-bound budget in regular Dutch primary schools. The social position of these pupils is characterized by the teacher, the parent/parents, the peripatetic teacher and the classmates of the SEN pupil. The study also addresses the cognitive development, the social-emotional development and the social development of the SEN pupils, as considered by the teacher, the parent/parents and the peripatetic teacher. Furthermore, a panel consisting of five independent assessors gave an assessment on these three developmental domains.

Subjects

The twenty SEN pupils were chosen from a wider sample of 115 pupils with a pupil-bound budget who were placed at regular primary schools in the school year 2003/2004.   This wider sample was drawn from the files of a national institute (CFI) directly linked to the Ministry of Education.

The total sample consisted of the twenty SEN pupils and their peers without special needs in 19 classes in 18 schools. The average age of the SEN pupils was 5.7 years. Thirteen were in grade 1, three were in grade 3, two were in grade 4 and the remaining two were in grade 6. Each of the twenty pupils had the Dutch version of a statement of special needs. Four of these pupils had various communication impairments (hard of hearing, speech/language problems), seven pupils had Down’s Syndrome, six were described as having motor impairments and/or intellectual impairments and the remaining three had severe behavioural disorders and/or PDD-nos. The SEN pupils had been in the regular class for on average seven months. Therefore, all pupils knew their peers well. The average class in the study had 21.4 pupils. The total number of pupils in the 19 classes was 406.  

Interviews and questionnaires

Data collection took place in different ways. A questionnaire for pupils and three interview protocols were composed for successively teachers, parents and peripatetic teachers. In addition, a questionnaire was drawn up for members of an independent panel of assessors.

The questionnaire for all pupils (including the SEN pupils and their classmates) in the sample comprised a sociometric test. Following Coie, Dodge and Coppotelli (1982), pupils were asked which three pupils they liked to play with best and which three pupils they disliked playing with. The teacher interview, the parent interview and the peripatetic teacher interview focused at the cognitive development, the social-emotional development and social development of the pupil.

Finally, an independent panel consisting of five independent peripatetic teachers were asked to evaluate SEN pupils’ dossiers. The available data on pupils consisted of information derived from the interviews with the parents, the teachers and the peripatetic teachers and also from the results of the sociometric questionnaire.

Data analyses

The sociometric data about the twenty SEN pupils   and 386 pupils without special needs were analysed using the UCINET software (Borgatti, Everett & Freeman, 1999). Per class the mean and standard deviation were calculated for the number of times pupils were chosen as preferred to play with and for the number times they were chosen as disliked to play with. Based on the social preference and social influence scores the pupils were divided into five groups: popular, average, controversial, ignored and rejected. In the interviews teachers, parents and peripatetic teachers were asked to characterise their SEN pupil using the same five labels.

A ll the available raw data on each SEN pupil was transformed into a dossier. In total twenty pupil dossiers were drawn up based on twenty pupils. The dossiers were sent to the panel of independent assessors. All of the assessors were peripatetic teachers with experience in supporting special needs pupils and their teachers in regular education settings. Each of the dossiers was assessed independently by two assessors. The assessors were asked to read carefully the dossiers of the pupils and to give a judgment on the pupil’s emotional functioning, development of social relations and learning performances.   These three assessments consisted of scores on a five–point scale, ranging from 1: very negative and dissatisfying situation, to 5: very positive and satisfying situation. Gower’s coefficient (Gower, 1971) was used as an index for agreement between the assessments.

Results

Social position according to teacher, parents, peripatetic teacher and classmates

The data show that   the differences between the social position of the special needs group are limited compared to the social position of the non-SEN peers. The SEN pupils are a bit less popular, less often belong to the controversial group and are more often regarded as average. The differences between the SEN pupils and the non-SEN peers were minimal with respect to the percentages categorised as ignored or rejected.

The teachers and parents, and in a lesser degree the peripatetic teachers, had a more positive view on the social position of the SEN pupils than the classmates.

Number of friends

Despite the discrepancies in views on the social position of the SEN pupils between teachers and classmates, a reasonable agreement exists between the teachers’ and classmates’ opinion about the number of friends of the SEN pupil. To a certain extent, the number of friends, as named by the teacher and the number of friends as derived from the sociometric questionnaire show similarity.

Assessment of development by teachers, parents and peripatetic teachers

Most of the teachers, the parents and to al lesser degree the peripatetic teachers in the research, are satisfied about the development of the SEN pupils. More specific, they show satisfaction about the social development, the social-emotional development and the cognitive development of the pupils.

Independent assessors’ judgements

The assessors came to comparable assessments on the learning performances, the development of social relations and the social–emotional functioning of the SEN pupils (Gower’s coefficients are 0.84, 0.75 and 0.75 respectively).

For 35 % of the pupils the panel of independent peripatetic teachers has worries about the social relations, the social-emotional development and/or the learning performances, which is in contrast to the more positive vision of the teachers, parents and peripatetic teachers. Nevertheless, the panel is (very) positive about the development of another 35% of the SEN pupils. An expected relation between the social position of the SEN pupils and the satisfaction of the panel about the development of the SEN pupils was not found.

Discussion

The research results emphasize the importance of research into the development and position of pupils with disabilities in regular schools. It would be desirable to follow SEN pupils with a pupil-bound budget for a longer period. Furthermore, considering the emphasis people lay on the social position of pupils with disabilities and the adverse side effects of a negative social position, it is important to devote research to this topic. Further research into the assessment and influencing of the social position of pupils with disabilities in regular classes is therefore recommendable.  

References

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (1999). UCINET 5.0 for Windows, software for social network analysis. User Guide . Natick: Analytic Technologies.   

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). ‘Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective.’ Developmental Psychology, 18,4, 557-570.

Gower, J.C. (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties, Biometrics, 27, 857-871.

Ministerie van OCW (2003). Wet op de Expertise Centra(Law on Expertise Centres) Den Haag.

Social position of special needs pupils in the classroom – a comparison between German special schools for pupils with learning difficulties and integrated primary school classes

Prof. Johannes Mand, Evangelische Fachhochschule Bochum, Germany

Contact details:

Evangelische Fachhochschule Bochum / Department Special Education
Immanuel-Kant-Str. 18-20
D-44802 Bochum
E-Mail@Johannes-Mand.de
Tel.   0049/2346871782   Fax 0049/23436901100

Introduction

Over the last few years, a number of empirical studies on the social integration of SEN pupils in integrative German schools have been published. In the earliest studies, positive assessments were the rule. Preuss-Lausitz (1990, 117 f.) reports for instance that only in a few cases were SEN pupils in the Uckermark elementary school in Berlin described as “especially popular” or “especially unpopular” pupils. Their rejection status is average, and their assessment for being liked is slightly lower than average. In the study by Reiser et.al (1994, 290) 84% of the parents and 70% of the elementary school and SEN teachers judge the development of social contacts by the integration pupils to be positive.

However, there has also been some evidence that findings such as these are not true for all children with disabilities. Children with learning difficulties apparently belong to the group of less popular SEN pupils (for further details see Hildeschmidt/Sander 1996). Children with behaviour problems seem to be rejected even more rigorously (Wocken 1993, Preuss-Lausitz 1997). An extensive new longitudinal study (Preuss-Lausitz/Textor 2005) in Berlin also shows that children with behavioural problems have a hard time in integration classes. The first results from this study indicate that these problems persist through all the years of primary education; there is some evidence, however, that for the majority of the SEN children some gains in their social inclusion status occur.

The study presented here surveys children with behaviour problems in integration classes and in special education schools. The main focus is the extent to which behaviour problems influence social relations within the classes.   In integration classes, children with behaviour problems are very much in the minority. After being transferred to a special education school (this is normally a school focussing on children with behaviour problems), the same children suddenly represent the majority. This is a serious problem for a comparative study. It cannot be expected that all the children who were previously seen to be outsiders can take up this position within the class in a group made up exclusively of outsiders. It is therefore not relevant to maintain that most children with behaviour problems who are put into special education will no longer be seen by the class to be outsiders. While it is obvious that children who are taken out of a group where they were outsiders, a minority, and put together with other children with the same problems in numerical terms no longer make up a minority group, this cannot be seen to be a positive feature of the learning context in itself. Any pedagogical system that has the smallest possible proportion of outsiders must be seen to be positive; this is true for both special education and integrative settings alike. Comparative studies have to investigate the way institutions produce outsider status themselves.

The point of departure for this study are more recent empirical findings that indicate that in the German school for pupils with learning difficulties (Schule für Lernbehinderte), i.e. a special education institution, that was originally conceived for children with problems in reading, writing and arithmetical skills (IQ approximately 70 – 80), there is a significant minority of children who in addition to learning difficulties also have behaviour problems. The proportion of pupils with severe behaviour problems is approximately one third (Mand 2004). These findings allow a much more meaningful comparison between the systems of special education and integrative education. A comparison which focuses on the way primary school education and special education respond to pupils with behaviour problems underlines the respective approaches of these systems to a little-loved and little-respected minority.

Method

The study is based on a survey carried out in schools in two towns in Germany. In one of the towns all special education classes (Schule für Lernbehinderte) with a majority of fourth-year pupils took part, and in the other town all fourth-grade classes with at least one SEN pupil with behaviour problems (five classes in five schools). At time of publication it was not clear whether further pupils in other towns would be included.

The most important instrument for the survey was a students’ questionnaire. Here the pupils participating were asked to write down the names of three classmates they “especially liked” (“besonders nett”) and three they “most disliked” (“am wenigsten mögen”). In addition, the class teacher completed a questionnaire containing a number of variables, such as migration background, birth order, and number of siblings of the pupils. In a third questionnaire the class teachers provided information about personnel resources available for the class in question and about the teachers themselves (age, sex, number of years in the teaching service etc). The fourth instrument used was the Teacher’s Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist; the use of this questionnaire was restricted to the pupils who according to their teachers had behaviour problems.

All of the six special education schools approached agreed to take part in the study. One school with integrated schooling did not take part, as the headmaster was worried that the class teacher concerned would not have time.

Results

Altogether 188 pupils were included in the study: 95 pupils in integrated school classes, and 96 in special education school classes. Mean age was 10 years. There were approximately equal numbers of girls and boys (95 boys, 96 girls). The special education classes have an average of 14.3 pupils and are considerably smaller than the integrated primary school classes with an average of 24.3 pupils.   The proportion of pupils with behaviour problems in special education classes – 37% - was therefore almost three times higher than in the integrated primary school classes (12.77%). This difference is highly significant (p < 0.000).

The raw data for “liked” and “disliked” were transformed into standard scores, as was done in the by de Monchy/Pijl (2005). The study found no significant differences for these scores between special education school pupils and primary school pupils from the classes selected.

A comparison of pupils with behaviour problems with those who do not have behaviour problems shows that a child who has behaviour problems is more frequently classified as “rejected” and less frequently as “controversial”. The differences are highly significant (“rejected”) / significant (“controversial”).

Discussion

There is clear evidence in this study that pupils with behaviour problems are not well liked.

The comparison of special education classes and integrated primary school classes also shows however that this is not solely a feature of integrated classes. Pupils with behaviour problems are disliked in both systems, and to a comparable degree. While it can be safely assumed that pupils with behaviour problems who are subjected to a moderate degree of criticism from their classmates are indeed able to respond by developing appropriate behaviour strategies, pupils who are constantly shown in very unambiguous terms that they are unwelcome in the group will almost never be able to develop positively. There is no difference here between special education classes and integrative primary school classes.

The similar findings in both systems possibly mean that the rejection of pupils with behaviour problems is not so much a specific problem of integrated primary school classes as a very general phenomenon. Children obviously seem to find it hard to accept children who are difficult. In other words: this study shows again that children with behaviour problems need help. In their review article, Klicpera/Gasteiger-Klicpera (2003) present many different ways of successfully responding to problems in social relations. Implementing these procedures is an essential part of the professional work of all teachers.

References

Hildeschmidt, A./Sander, A.: Zur Effizienz der Beschulung sogenannter Lernbehinderter in Sonderschulen. In: Eberwein, H.: Handbuch Lernen und Lern-Behinderungen. Weinheim 1996, 115-134

Klicpera, C./Gasteiger Klicpera, B.:Förderung der sozialen Integration von Schülern mit Behinderungen.. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 53 (2003) 7, S. 278-285

Monchy, M. de, Pijl, S.J. & Zandberg, T. (2004) Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19, 3, 317 – 330.

Reiser, H. u.a.: Soziale Integration von SchülerInnen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf- In: Behindertenpädagogik 33 (1994), 289-312

Preuss-Lausitz, U.: Integration und Toleranz. In: Heyer, P. u.a.: Behinderte Kinder sind doch wie wir. Berlin 1997

Preuss-Lausitz, U.:Soziale Beziehungen in Schule und Wohnumfeld. In: Heyer. P. u.a. (Hrsg.):Wohnortnahe Integration. Weinheim 1990, 95-128

Preuss-Lausitz, U./Textor, A.: Integration von Schüler/innen und Schülern mit emotional-sozialem Förderbedarf an Berliner Grundschulen der Klasse 1-6. Forschungsbericht im Rahmen der 19. IntegrationsforscherInnentagung Köln/Bonn. 16-19.2.2005

Wocken, H.:Bewältigung von Andersartigkeit. In: Gehrmann, P./Hüwe, B. (Hrsg.): Forschungsprofile der Integration von Behinderten. Essen 1993, 86-106

Postscript: The German research project could not have been carried out without the dedicated work of Eva Cäsar, Christine Kraft, Mareike Merz, Hanna Meyer, Susanne Schuck and Sabine Schulte-Nitsch. The English translation was provided by Douglas Ross.   My thanks to all for their generous assistance.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact