1.1 First "special school" = Thomas
Braidwood's Academy for the Deaf (1760)
1.2 Integration introduced in 1980s
1.3 1994: Inclusion recognised
as aspect of human rights
1.4 1983: 1.87% in segregated education.
2001: 1.3%. Around 1.2-1.3% mark since.
1.5 Movement for comprehensive schooling
1.6 Context of the civil
2.1 Mainstreaming = a one-off decision to
place the child in mainstream settings
2.2 Integration = making changes to child
and their support in fixed settings
2.3 Inclusion = making changes to the educational
setting to make it more accessible; maximising the
participation of all learners in mainstream schools
3 Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)
3.1 Behaviour towards disabled
peers influenced by attitudes,
subjective norm, and perceived
3.2 Roberts and Lindell (1997): 8-12 year olds attitudes
towards physically disabled peers strongly predicted
intentions for positive interaction. Attitudes correlated
significantly with those of their teachers and mothers.
3.3 Roberts and Smith (1999): attitudes towards physically
disabled peers and their perceived behavioural control for
interacting with those peers were significant predictors of
intentions to interact. Intentions predicted time children
reported spending with these peers.
4 Contact Theory (Allport, 1954)
4.1 Interactions between groups can change
attitudes and reduce
stereotyping/prejudice if criteria are met
4.1.1 Equal status between groups
4.1.2 Common goals
4.1.3 No inter-group competition
4.1.4 Authority's sanction of
4.2 Maras and Brown (1996): integration programme
between mainstream pupils + children with severe
learning difficulties. Mainstream children in the
programme showed more positive social orientation
towards disabled children over time, control group did
4.3 Maras and Brown (2000): attitudes
towards SEN children not
significantly more positive in schools
with integration than in schools
without integrated provision.
4.3.1 Large class sizes, limited cooperative
learning activities - did it meet
Allport's criteria for success?
4.3.2 Integration vs. inclusion.
4.4 Types of contact
4.4.1 Decategorisation model (Brewer + Miller,
1986): minimise salience of category
difference, maximise individual traits.
4.4.2 Intergroup contact model (Cameron et
al, 2011): maintain salience of in-group
and out-group boundaries,
emphasising 'typicality' of outgroup
members met to encourage
22.214.171.124 More sharply differentiated attitudes across groups,
relatively less positive attitudes to children with SEN, BUT
this did facilitate generalisation (Maras + Brown, 2000)
126.96.36.199 Caused change in attitudes as well as intended behaviour in extended contact (see Extended Contact node)
4.4.3 Extended contact
188.8.131.52 Cameron and Rutland (2006): "indirect cross friendship hypothesis" e.g. knowledge of
ingroup members being friends with outgroup members. 5-10y in British primary schools.
Stories read and discussed in small groups once a week for 6 weeks - some decategorised,
some intergroup. Positive changes in intended behaviour in both; positive change in
attitudes for intergroup model only.
4.4.4 Imagined contact
184.108.40.206 Cameron et al (2011): children 5-10y. 3 mins imagining being in a park
playing with disabled friend using photographs/pictures as prompts (park
setting, park-related objects, in-group/out-group members). Reduced
intergroup bias in general attitude and ratings of warmth. More positive
intended friendship behaviour in 5=6y, but not 7-10y (amount of outgroup
5 TPB/CT Combined
5.1 Marom (2007): intervention for children (10-12y) intended to improve disability
related attitudes + self-efficacy for interacting with disabled children. Phase 1 =
information (specific + general), Phase 2 = interaction meeting Allport's criteria.
Improvements in both aims, compared to control group.
6 Protective effect of labels?
6.1 "mentally ret*rded" had a protective effect when the child
reading in a video was socially withdrawn, but was much weaker
when they were aggressive (Bak + Sipenstein, 1986)
6.2 Labels such as "mentally
ret*rded" served as a
prophecy" (Dunn, 1968)
6.3 Videotapes of children engaging in positive or negative behaviours shown to 8-12yo.
Half told that the child was in a "special class for the ret*rded". Child's social behaviours
but not label had significant effect on viewers' attitudes. (Van Bourgondien, 1987)
6.4 Attitudes towards hypothetical peers with ADHD in vignettes found
to be mainly negative. Significant relationship between attitudes
and willingness to engage in social/academic/physical activities.
Diagnostic/psychiatric labels had no additional influence upon
attitudes or behavioural intentions. (Law et al, 2007)
7 Attribution theory (Weiner, 1985)
7.1 Perception of responsibility = key.
7.2 Sigelman + Begley (1987): peers in wheelchair/obese/learning
disabled/aggressive. Causal info or no causal info. 5-6yo and 8-9yo
responsive to causal information and assigned blame according to ascribed
responsibility. With no causal info, held all but wheelchair user accountable
(but increasing emphasis on external cause with age).
7.3 Juvonen (1991(: the more children perceived a classmate as different, the more likely they were to reject them. Perceptions
of responsibility for deviance in judgements of both hypothetical and actual classmates predicted interpersonal affect, and
how liked/disliked the 'deviant' child was. Those in turn predicted social consequences.
8 Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut + Kelley, 1959; Kelley + Thibaut, 1978)
8.1 Desire for affiliation with others relates to sum of perceived costs and benefits of
interacting with them, set against a minimum level of expectation. Comparison level
may be different for children with SEN.
8.2 Rejected abled children scored high on costly social behaviours, low on beneficial
social behaviours. Opposite for well-accepted chidren. (Newcomb et al, 1993)
8.3 Rejected SEN children scored low on beneficial behaviours, but not high on costly behaviours,
8.3.1 for children with SEN, beneficial behaviours are not characteristic of
good acceptance, only low levels of costly behaviours
8.3.2 Asymmetrical = communal relationship.
Responsiveness to SEN children's social
needs and application of asymmetrical
communal norms (Clark + Mills, 1993)
8.4 Can help to predict features of the environment
likely to affect intention to interact with
classmates with SEN
8.4.1 Costs higher in classes that are less cohesive (Frederickson and Furnham, 1998)
8.4.2 In classes where mainstream peers evaluate
their work as dfficult, perceived similarities
with SEN peers increased, relative costs of
working with them reduced (Frederickson +
9 School Ethos (McDougall et al, 2004)
9.1 Positive student relationships at school level and a school goal task structure promoting learning adn
understanding for all (rather than social comparison and competition among students) is significantly
associated with positive attitudes towards peers with SEN
9.2 "School-wide, ecologically based initiatives aimed at modifying the
environment to create a supportive school should be an important element
of any effort to enhance attitudes towards students with disabilities"