Theoretical framework

Contextual factors of student's home and family background characteristics on educational achievement are well researched. Since the Coleman’s report in 1966 (Hanushek, 2010) out of school determinants of students’ achievement have been extensively researched.   Hattie (2008) in his synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement, reports the effect size associated with socioeconomic status (SES) of d=0.57. This fairly large effect size serves as a warning that any valid interpretations about students’ achievement should account for student’s background. This is also evident in research surrounding Programme for international student assessment (PISA), where contextual factors are routinely applied to research equity and quality of education (OECD, 2013).

Students with special education needs are a category that’s very useful for school practice but it includes different subgroups that should be researched separately to get better insight. We are relying on broad definitions, proposed by Bouch & CERI (2004) who define three categories: A students whose disabilities have clear biological origin; B - students whose learning and behaviour difficulties are likely to have more of an acquired nature; and C - students who have difficulties arising from disadvantages (immigrants, low-SES students, …).

Research explores relationship of socio economic status (SES) with achievement of special education needs (SEN) students in Slovenia. It will examine different aspects of equity that SEN students in Slovenia face: gender differences, trends over time and effects of SES through achievement scores and through transition to upper secondary education.

Overview of literature suggests that SEN students often risk inequity. In Ireland, significantly higher rates of SEN students are reported (Williams at al., 2016, 158-160) for children in the lowest income quintile. Analysis of the identification of additional support needs in Scotland (Riddell et al., 2010) shows that children living in areas of social deprivation are much more likely to have additional support needs identified than those living in more affluent areas.

Gender is another important factor beside SES: Kivirauma et al. (2006) note that in one Finnish city three out of four students in classroom-based special education are boys. Boys outnumber girls in all types of difficulties, but the discrepancy is most marked in categories such as learning difficulty and social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, where there are also strong associations with social deprivation. Cultural factors are probably much more important than organic factors for the disproportionate diagnosis of those conditions amongst boys. (NESSE, 2012, 37).

In past years we demonstrated the validity and reliability of Socio Economic Index, constructed from national census databases (Cankar, Bren & Zupanc, 2017). By demonstrating interplay between SES and other factors in education of SEN students we are arguing that further actions to promote equity in this field should rely on evaluation of evidence and focused research.

Objectives

While there is strong and continual effort to support inclusion of SEN students in Slovenian schools, activities are not guided by thorough evaluations of implemented programmes and system-wide data about effects.

Our research questions strive to address this through following:

-          What is happening to proportion of SEN students over time?

-          What is the interplay between identified educational needs of children and their socio economic status?

-          What is happening during transition to next level of education – where are SEN students?

-          Are there any patterns of achievement between SEN students in different categories?

-          What is the role of gender as risk factor for identification as SEN student?

This research will be conducted through a research contract of National Examinations Centre with Slovenian national statistics agency (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia - SORS), where we will join the data from national assessments at the end of 9th Grade (and data about selection of upper secondary schools) with the national register of households. Through this we will link students with their parents living in same household and through further connections with databases of income (year 2016), real-estate (2017), working population data (2017) and general census data (2017) for all their parents. This multi database link will be established to calculate socio economic index (SEI) as established in previous research (Cankar, Bren & Zupanc, 2017). Special education needs of students will be identified through adjustments and accommodations provided to those students during national assessment. Methodology will specifically include quantitative data analyses like multi level modelling and PCA.

Expected results and conclusions Classifying a child as different from others may be beneficial if this leads to reasonable adjustments and additional resources as a means of promoting more equal outcomes (NESSE, 2012, 33). It seems that this is not happening in Slovenian primary schools. Results from research will show proportional rise of SEN students in general students’ population over time. It will also give insight about interplay of different categories of SEN with special highlight on socio economic background of students. Despite the inclusion in mainstream classes and additional resources, the gap in achievements of SEN students with main population is widening. Authors will also present results on transition of SEN students into higher levels of education and involvement of specific factors. Research on equity is still hindered due to lack of detailed data which limits incentives for action. As UNICEF’s report on inequalities in children’s education (UNICEF, 2018) points out: “What gets measured gets done.” In case of Slovenian SEN students we should measure more.

References Cankar, G., Bren, M. in Zupanc, D. (2017). Za večjo pravičnost šolskega sistema v Sloveniji [Promoting greater equity in Slovenian educational system], Ljubljana: Državni izpitni center. Hanushek, E. A. (2010). How well do we understand achievement gaps? Focus, 27(2), 5–12. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning : a synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London : New York: Routledge. Bouch, J., & Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2004). Equity in education: students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: statistics and indicators. Paris: OECD. Kivirauma, J., Klemelä, K and Rinnie, R. (2006) Segregation, integration, inclusion – the ideology and reality in Finland European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, 2, 117-133. NESSE (2012). Education and Disability/Special Needs. European Commission, DG Education and Culture. Retrieved from: http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/activities/reports/disability-special-needs-1. OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity: Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed (Volume II), PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en Riddell, S, Edward, S., Weedon, E. and Ahlgren, L. (2010) Disability, Skills and Employment: A Review of Recent Statistics and Literature Research report 59 Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. UNICEF, O. of R. (2018). An unfair start: inequality in children’s education in rich countries. (M. Drohan, Ur.). Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research. Pridobljeno od https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/995-an-unfair-start-education-inequality-children.html Williams, J., Nixon, E., Smyth, E., & Watson, D. (2016). Cherishing All the Children Equally? Ireland 100 years on from the Easter Rising. OAK TREE PRESS Cork, Ireland. Zupanc, D, Urank, M. & Bren, M. (2009). Variability analysis for effectiveness and improvement in classrooms and schools in upper secondary education in Slovenia: assessment of/for learning analytic tool. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1): 89–122.