Students’ wellbeing can be considered a major output indicator of quality of education.      Research describes wellbeing at school   as a dynamic concept that refers to the fit between contextual factors as well as personal needs and expectations of students (e.g. Van Petegem, 2008). The wellbeing of students increases when students are interested and motivated to learn, as well as when students perceive the interpersonal behavior of their teacher as cooperative (Fraser & Walberg, 2005).   According to Fraser, positive teacher-student relationships and a positive classroom environment are worthwhile process goals of education, too. The perception of students’ wellbeing is a particularly important indicator of the quality of inclusive education as well (Estyn, 2010; Thijs et al., 2009), especially in respect of whether differences between children from vulnerable groups and their mainstream peers would arise.

Considering the importance of the abovementioned concepts , they have been embedded in a comprehensive Framework for Monitoring Inclusive Education in Serbia (Institute for psychology, 2014). The Framework represent a response to the need to monitor the educational transition towards inclusive practices and also as a meaningful development tool for implementation of inclusive policies introduced in Serbia in 2010 and is based based on a) a comparative analysis of the quality assurance system and external evaluation in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales (e.g. Estyn, 2010; HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006; Thijs et al., 2009); b) a detailed review of  research on inclusive education in Serbia, c)  measures derived from the legal Framework for inclusive education in Serbia; d) consultations with  members of the Inclusive Education Support Network and other experts in this field in Serbia.  The Framework encompasses multiple indicators (referring to input, process and output ) at all three levels of educational governance (school, municipal and national), that  are paired with respective short instruments for different respondents (e.g. schools, teachers, parents, students etc.). Three indicators from this Framework of particular importance for this research are Students’ integration, satisfaction and wellbeing (psychosocial evaluation of classroom and school context, thus encompassing both contextual and personal factors),High expectations and motivation – focus on achievement (evaluation of teachers’ interpersonal relationship focusing articulation of expectations, teachers’ recognition and appraisal of non-cognitive factors that contribute to achievement; evaluation of support provided to students and parents in coping with academic progress) and Quality of teaching (evaluation of active engagement of students within a class in relevant and meaningful way; evaluation of cooperation between students and between teachers and students).

As students are being active participants in the school environment, we were especially interested in examining students’ perceptions of their wellbeing at school as compared to the assessment of students well being by parents and teachers, and students’ perceptions of teaching quality and of interpersonal teacher behavior.   

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between students’ perception of their wellbeing, students’ perception of teaching quality and students’ perceptions of interpersonal teachers’ behavior (demonstrating high expectations), in the context of developing inclusive practices in the education system in Serbia. We also discuss differences between students’ perceived wellbeing reported by teachers, parents and students themselves, and perception of wellbeing of students from vulnerable groups included in regular classes compared to their peers.  

Estyn (2010). Common Inspection Framework, Cardiff Fraser, J. B., Walberg, J. H. (2005). Research on teacher–student relationships and learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.001 HM Inspectorate of Education (2006). How good is our school? Inclusion and Equality- Part 4: Evaluating educational provision for bilingual learners, Livingston Institute of Psychology (2014). Framework for Monitoring Inclusive Education in Serbia. Belgrade: Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction and UNICEF. Thijs, A., Van Leeuwen, B., Zandbergen, M. (2009). Inslusive education in The Netherlands. SLO – The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. Van Petegem, K. (2008). Relationship between student, teacher, classroom characteristics and students’ school wellbeing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen, Universiteit of Gent, Gent.