Schools with high and low proportion of special education

The main aim of this study is to investigate primary schools with high and low proportion of special education in order to find similarities and differences in their learning environment and pedagogical leadership. Furthermore, the study tries to identify why some schools succeed with an inclusive practice. Students from primary schools and their teachers have, by a survey, been asked about the everyday life in school.

This is a study from Norwegian primary schools, but dealing with special education and inclusion is a well- known international challenge as well.

Education in primary schools has two main objectives; the first is to give students necessary, adaptive academic knowledge and skills.  Education also contributes to students’ social and personal development and ensures that they receive the social support needed.  An overall positive school experience involves the mastery of social codes and academic requirements in school (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020). This means that all students, regardless of ability, has the same rights to an inclusive education.

Previous research find that students who receive special education services are less likely to report a positive experience with school than students who do not (Gaspar, Bilimória, Albergaria, & Matos, 2016; Nordahl & Hausstatter, 2010; Solli, 2005; Uusitalo-Malmivaara et al., 2012) This represents thousands of students all over the world who do not have a positive school experience, so for many reasons it`s important to discuss what a good and inclusive learning environment involves.

Both Marzano and Pickering (2003) and Hattie (2009) have in their studies shown that teachers’ most important pedagogical practice involves the relationship between teacher and student. Skilled teachers care, expect students to succeed, and vary their strategies depending on individual students’ needs (Danielsen, 2012; Drugli, 2012; Vieno, Santinello, Pastore, & Perkins, 2007). International research supports this assertion and shows that teachers’ understanding and fairness are of great importance for students’ experience in school (Hamre & Pianta, 2006; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008).

Students’ ability to cope with the school’s social context is an important component of the social and academic community (Malecki & Elliot, 2002; Wentzel, 1991). Social competence relates to having adequate knowledge of the skills required in different situations and being able to assess what skill is appropriate in any given situation. For some students, this is difficult and it seems like it`s more difficult for boys than girls to cope with some of the school-rules  For example, students with internalized or externalized problems will emerge differently, but what they have in common is how they, by their way of behaving, challenge their surroundings (Lund, 2012; Ogden, 2009). These students, often mostly boys with externalized problems, often experience difficulties coping with school life; they find establishing relationships challenging and have problems finding their place in school  (Drugli, 2012; Gjertsen, 2013; Nordahl, Sorli, Manger, & Tveit, 2005; Ogden, 2009) These students will in many schools receive special education, but in other schools they will be a part of a more inclusive, adapted training.

Furthermore, there are also of great interest the way schools` leadership are present and support their teachers. Pedagogical leadership is the way the school-leaders facilitate the employees and how the strategic and operational leadership are visible and present for the teachers and employees.

In this study, the focus is on the learning environment together with how  teachers experience support from their leaders. More specifically, the present study examines the following:

What characterize schools with high and low proportion of special education when it comes to learning environment and experienced pedagogical leadership?

Sample selection Data is gathered from a large survey in Norway containing 56 schools from 22 municipalities in a former county in Norway. Five schools which occurred with low amount of special education, and five schools with high occurrence were chosen to be examined. They had in common high or low proprtion of special education over the last six years on three measurements. In addition, to add more information to the research question, school leaders from both schools with high and low proportion of special education will be questionared. The interview will especially focus on pedagogical leadership and understanding of inclusion, and also how the schools organize and practice adapted training. The study has been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). Measurement instrument The survey has basically six groups of informants. This study makes use of three them, the students’, their tutors’ and teachers’. The scales in the survey are composed of 2 to 15 questions and statements and were answered by these respondent groups. There will be an overview of students’, tutors’ and teachers’ responses, references to scales, the number of questions, answer alternatives and reliability of the various factors after performing factor analysis (Cronbach's alpha). Analyses The study has a cross-sectional design, and descriptive data and effect sizes measured with Cohens d is used. Factor and reliability analyses were performed using SPSS 26 (IBM, 2019), to determine whether issues related to a factor belong together. The factor analysis results were consistent with previous use of the measurement instruments. The reliability analysis showed high reliability with an alpha of approximately .70, which is a level used to have good reliability in research (Cronbach, 1951; Nunally & Bernstein, 1978; Skaalvik,1992), Analysis of variance are shown to indicate mean, standard deviation, and differences measured in Cohen’s d. Correlations between the variables are tested. We find satisfactory correlations between all variables.

The main results from this study come from analysis in SPSS, comparing the differences between schools which over time, come out with high and low prportion of special education. Analysis of variance and Cohens d are used. Preliminary results revealed that there seems to be differences in how the students and their tutors experience the learning environment depending on which type of school they represent. We find a significant difference in e.g. how the pupils experienced relations to peers and their teachers, and in addition differences between boys and girls . We also find that the pupils in schools with low proportion of special education seems to have more adaptions to school-related norms and to social skills in general. Furthermore, we find a difference between how teachers experienced the school management, especially when it comes to how their leaders are involved in everyday work in school, such as observations in the classroom, support and guidance. More findings are expecting when the interviews with school leaders are completed, analysed and compared with data from the survey.

Danielsen, A. G. (2012). Hva henger sammen med skoletrivselen til norske ungdomsskoleelever? Nordic Studies in Education, 32(02), 115-125. Drugli, M. B. (2012). Relasjonen lærer og elev: Avgjørende for elevenes læring og trivsel: Oslo: Cappelen Damm Gaspar, T., Bilimória, H., Albergaria, F., & Matos, M. G. (2016). Children with special education needs and subjective well-being: Social and personal influence. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, (63)5, 500-513. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2016.1144873 Gjertsen, P. Å. (2013). De usynlige barna. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first‐grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949-967. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Lund, I. (2012). Det stille atferdsproblemet: Innagerende atferd i barnehage og skole. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1-23. Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. USA: ASCD. Nordahl, T., & Hausstätter, R. S. (2009). Spesialundervisningens forutsetninger, innsatser og resultater. (Høgskolen i Hedmark Rapport nr.9, 2009), Elverum: Høgskolen i Hedmark. Nordahl, T., Sørli, M. A., Manger, T., & Tveit, A. (2005). Atferdsproblemer blant barn og unge: Teoretiske og praktiske tilnærminger. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Ogden, T. (2009). Sosial kompetanse og problematferd i skolen. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk forlag. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4) 765-781. Solli, K. A. (2005). Kunnskapsstatus om spesialundervisningen i Norge. Retrieved from: https://www.udir.no/Upload/Rapporter/5/Kunnskapsstatus.pdf Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2020). Fagfornyelsen. Oslo:Utdanningsdirektoratet. Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L., Kankaanpää, P., Mäkinen, T., Raeluoto, T., Rauttu, K., Tarhala, V., & Lehto, J. E. (2012). Are special education students happy? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 419-437. Vieno, A., Santinello, M., Pastore, M., & Perkins, D. D. (2007). Social support, sense of community in school, and self‐efficacy as resources during early adolescence: An integrative model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1-2), 177-190. Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62(5), 1066-1078.