The source of our research is the "How to help children from families of ethnic minorities in the adaptation to school in V4 countries" international project which was organized by the University of Zielona Góra with the maintenance of Visegrad Fund. There are significant differences in the questions and practice of the ethnic, cultural minorities and students’ with disabilities integration into school (Eurobarometer, 2011, EADSNE, 2010; 2011; Word Report on Disabilities, 2011). To improve the institutional practice of inclusion is the most important tool of integration (Berényi, Berkovics, Erőss, 2008). The aim of our research, on the one hand, is to reveal the Children with Special Educational Needs (hereafter SEN) students’ teaching and learning problems with the help of writing case-studies. On the other hand we would like to observe and disclose the role of school managers in teaching disadvantaged and roma students. It will be possible to analyze the cross-sectional view about the institutional practices dealing with integrating disadvantaged and roma students. The research, far beyond the regulation and the study of the organizational operation, tries to study the inclusion and subjective experience of the students’ own position in corporation with the intellectuality of the international cooperation (Liberska et al. 2014). The purpose is to work out a so-called tool which can be a sensitive measuring instrument of inclusion, social integration, welfare (Kahneman, 1999; Liberska, 2008), and exclusion (Heatherton, 2008). We can elaborate a so-called measuring instrument with revealing the significance, relationship and roles of the indicators and background variables, which can contribute to the self-control and self-improvement of schools besides the existing implementation practices (Booth, Ainscow, 2009). The theoretical background of the research is based on the inclusive educational conception (British Psychological Society, 2002). The concept of integration is spread to the whole social operation besides the narrow interpretation in education by several authors (Florian, 2005), and it is defined as the principal of realizing the human rights. According to Ainscow and his colleagues (2006) the holistic interpretation of integration includes the inclusion of SEN students, through transforming the relationship among social groups, till schools with available education for everybody and the inclusive society. The implementation of  inclusive society and education demands continuous improvement through the whole system with continuous self-control and feedback (Booth, Ainscow, 2002). During our research the international definition of SEN students (OECD) was considered to be significant. We try to study, using the UNICEF concept, that how we can form a so-called friendly school practice for children which can guarantee the possibility of success apart from the social background and skills. The decrease of the negative indexes (exclusion, prejudices, early school leaving) and the increase of the positive ones (welfare, successfulness, school results) can be considered to be the result of inclusion. We use Bronfenbrenner’s macro economy model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995) during the difficult interpretation of the correlation between the input and output results and background variables. Its central point is the students’ improvement embedded into the complex environmental conditions. The social and emotional welfare indexes worked out by Hamilton and Redmon (2010) are based on their framework considering our own international experiences (Cummis (2006) Personal Wellbeing Index –. School Children, PWI-SC). In our research we cannot ignore the studies about children from minorities, disadvantaged and SEN students’ relationship because the research results confirm that these problems appear in higher rate in their lives than in other social groups (Andor, 2001; Kertesi, Kézdi, 2004). The relationship between school results and social differences in Hungary is revealed in detail  (Kertesi, Kézdi, 2012).

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A., and Smith. R. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge Andor M. (szerk.) (2001): Romák és oktatás. Iskolakultúra, Pécs Berényi, E. Berkovits, B. Erőss G. (2008, szerk.): Iskolarend. Kiváltság és különbségtétel a közoktatásban. Gondolat, Budapest. Booth T. Ainscow, M. (2009): Inklúziós Index Útmutató az inkluziv iskolák fejlesztéséhez. CSIE Mozgáskorlátozottak Békés Megyei Egyesülete http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/translations/IndexHungarian.pdf Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995): Developmental ecology through space and time: a future perspective. In: Moen P, Elder G. Luscher K. (eds). Examining lives in context: perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Cohen, J. (1988): Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. EADSNE (2011): Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs anddisability.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/cm%208027 Utolsó látogatás: 2013. december 29. Farnicka, M., Kosikova, V., Liberska, H., Mnihova, (2013): Questionnaire of Social Life at school. Manuscript. Florian, L. (2005). Inclusive practice: What, why and how? In K. Topping and S. Maloney (Eds.), The Routledge Falmer reader in inclusive education. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 29-40. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. Hamilton, M. Redmond, G. (2010): Conceptualisation of social and emotional wellbeing for children and young people, and policy implications. Canberra: ARACY & AIHW Kertesi G. Kézdi G. (2004): Általános iskolai szegregáció – okok és következmények. MTA Közgazdaságtudományi Intézet, Budapest. Kertesi G. Kézdi G (2012):A roma és nem roma tanulók teszteredményei közti különbségekről és e különbségek okairól Közga zdasági Szemle , LI X. 798–853. o. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16(1), 103–121. Lau, A.L.D. Cummins, R. A., McPherson, W. (2005): An Investigation into The Cross-Cultural Equivalence of The Personal Wellbeing index Social Indicator Research 72. 403-430 Springer Liberska, H. Farnicka, M (ed) (2014): A Child of Many Worlds: Focus on the Ethnic Minority Problem. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.pp. ISBN: 978-3-631-65687-7 OECD (2012): Education at a Glance 2012. Highlights, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag_highlights-2012-en Utolsó látogatás: 2013. december 19. Sántha Kálmán (2009): Bevezetés a kvalitatív pedagógiai kutatás módszertanába, Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest. Seidman I. (2002): Az interjú, mint kvalitatív kutatási módszer. Kutatásmódszertani kiskönyvtár. Műszaki Könyvkiadó, Budapest. UNICEF (2010). Assessing child-friendly schools: A guide for programme managers in East Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from: http://www.unicef.org/eapro/Assessing_CFS.pdf Word Report on Disabilities, 2011.http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/