Although the development of policy towards inclusive education in the UK is well-advanced, very little is known about the social outcomes of existing inclusive arrangements in primary settings (Frederickson et al, 2007). A recent project sought to fill this gap by systematically investigating the social impacts of inclusion on children accredited with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and their mainstream peers, while also identifying those educational practices contributing to increased social interaction and the development of friendships. The study upon which this paper draws investigated the social position of pupils with significant SEN in mainstream settings and their perceived self-concept. The two main theoretical understandings that informed the design of our study were the “homophily” and “contact” hypotheses. The homophily hypothesis (McPherson, et al., 2001) concerns the commonly reported tendency in research on students’ social relations, for students to prefer to associate with ‘similar’ peers. Homophily is likely to be based on different dimensions of identity, such as age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, values, interests, and beliefs. It has been argued that because pupils attributed with significant SEN often lack certain qualities on one or more of the dimensions for homophily, they tend to be excluded by pupils without SEN who in turn flock together (Guralnick et al, 1995). By contrast, the ‘contact hypothesis’ refers to the effect of increased interaction on the mainstream pupils’ attitudes towards pupils they perceive as having SEN. According to the contact hypothesis (Yuker, 1988), as mainstream pupils in schools implementing inclusion programmes get closer to their (formally) marginalised peers their attitudes become more positive. Indeed, several researchers have suggested that the attitude of typically developing peers can be influenced (Capper and Pickett, 1994; Scheepstra et al, 1999) thus giving empirical support to the contact hypothesis. Moreover, research has also shown that co-operative learning arrangements foster cooperation between children with and without SEN and have considerable strength in promoting attitudinal changes in both groups of pupils (Gartin et al, 1992). However, as Pijl et al (2008) remind us, including pupils with special needs does not automatically lead to an increase of friendships between themselves and their typical counterparts. Testing the homophily and contact hypotheses in primary settings at different stages of inclusive development was, therefore, an attempt to advance our understanding of the complex processes involved, thus contributing to the refinement of theory and ultimately the change of existing school practices.

Fieldwork was conducted in six primary schools resulting in a sample of 540 grade 5 and 6 pupils. The study adopted a multimethod research design consisting of a classic sociometric technique (peer-nomination) ascertaining the social position of pupils with SEN and detecting the predominant patterns of friendship and social interaction in their classrooms; and a psychometric assessment of pupils’ self-concepts through Harter’s (1985) multidimensional Self Perception Profile for Children (SPPC). To avoid potential ethical problems inherent in sociometric research, the process of ‘nomination’ formed a small part of a much broader interview addressing a wide range of issues including pupils’ attitudes to schooling. Moreover, because of the ethical complications of negatively nominating peers, the study only sought to elicit pupils’ positive nominations. In addition the research involved in-depth interviewing of 24 teachers in the six participating schools with a view of examining individual (teacher) and institutional approaches to inclusion.

Pupils with SEN were found to have lower perceptions of self-concept, to be less popular and to have fewer friends than their typically developing peers. However, statistically significant differences were only detected in three out of six schools. There were no differences between pupils with moderate and severe special needs. Following Pijl et al (2008) our participants’ participation in their classrooms was assessed through three indexes for social inclusion: peer acceptance, friendships and membership of a cohesive subgroup. Pupils were categorised as socially included if they were accepted by their peers, had at least one mutual relationship, and belonged to a coherent subgroup. The analysis revealed similar percentages of ‘excluded’ SEN and non-SEN pupils indicating that despite their generally low social status, pupils with SEN had managed to form some positive relationships and were part of a social network. The ‘homophily’ hypothesis with regard to SEN status was not confirmed.