1.1 Madden + Slavin (1983): some
advantage to integration IF a suitable
educational programme was offered
1.1.1 Integration, not inclusion. Make the programme itself accessible?
1.2 Baker et al (1994-5): effect sizes of 3 studies
indicated small to moderate benefit of inclusion
for educational and social outcomes.
1.3 Difficulties in reaching a conclusion
1.3.1 Lindsay (2003): efficacy of a human right?
1.3.2 Different sets of rights conflicting (Farrell, 2000; Gallagher, 2001)
1.3.3 Hegarty (1993): difficult to justify segregation if it is no better than inclusion
1.4 Odom et al (2004): range of positive developmental and behavioural outcomes identified
for children in inclusive settings, but SEN children not as socially integrated as their
typically developing peers (3-5yo from 1990-2002)
1.5 Lindsay (2007): marginally positive overall, but problems
with very little efficacy research in the literature.
1.6 Poor social inclusion
1.6.1 Gresham + Miller (1997): compared with mainstream classmates, SEN
children poorly accepted, more often rejected, lower levels of social skills and
higher levels of problem behaviours. Mix of higher/lower self-concepts (due
to setting? Higher in segregated classroom than in mainstream classroom?)
1.6.2 Kosher et al (2010): comapred with students without SEN, students with SEN appeared less well
accepted and had more interactions with the teacher. But self-perception of both groups was
not significantly different, with no effect of category of disability.
1.6.3 Nowicki + Sandieson (2002): abled children
preferred to physically and intellectually disabled
children. Inclusive classrooms had medium-sized
effect on facilitating positive attitudes.
2 For the Classmates of Children with
SEN (as a group, not individuals)
2.1 Dyson et al (2004): no evidence for a relationship between
inclusivity and attainment at local authority or school level.
Other factors (SES, gender...) were much more significant.
2.2 Kalambouka et al (2005): 23% positive, 53%
neutral, 10% mixed, 15% negative. Outcomes
more positive on academic than on social factors.
2.3 Staub and Peck (1994): no negative effects.
Children did not 'pick up' undesirable
behaviour, teacher time was not reduced.
2.4 Ruijs and Peetsma (2009): Neutral to positive effects.
May be some differential effects for high and low
achieving pupils without SEN. Congruent with other
findings on social factors.
2.5 Manset and Semmel (1997):
3 Teacher Attitudes
3.1 Robertson et al (2003): the more negative a
teacher's relationship with a child with SEN, the
less likely that child is to be socially accepted
3.2 De Boer et al (2011): review of 26 international studies of
primary school teachers' attitudes. Majority neutral or
negative, none with clear positive results.
3.2.1 Teachers reported lacking competance/confidence
teaching children with SEN
3.2.2 Less overall teaching experience OR more
experience teaching children with SEN =
more positive attitudes towards inclusion
3.2.3 Most negative for learning/behavioural difficulties, more positive for physical/sensory
3.3 Killoran et al (2013): positive change in
attitudes as a result of a pre-service
inclusive education course