An inclusive school system provides equal opportunities for education and satisfaction of individual learning needs to all pupils. While inclusion has in general positive effects for pupils with special education needs, it remains unclear whether they benefit from the integrative school measures they are provided. Therefore, based on a prospective longitudinal study among pupils in the canton of Bern, Switzerland, the present study investigated the effect of various integrative school measures such as curriculum modifications (CM), accommodations (ACC), and support of special education teachers (SSET) on pupils with special educational needs.    

The few high-quality studies on integrative school measures question whether their desired effect is achieved. Kvande et al. (2019) found that integrative school measures in mainstream schools do overall not have a significantly positive effect on the academic performance in reading, writing and mathematics of students with special needs. These results are in line with previous findings (Morgan et al., 2010; Sullivan and Field, 2013; Dempsey and Valentine, 2017; Dempsey et al., 2016; Keslair et al., 2012; Lekhal, 2017). 

However, none of the aforementioned studies differentiated between the various types of integrative school measures even though they might have different effects. In Switzerland, ACC, CM, and SSET are such measures. While the target group of CM are pupils with generally low cognitive abilities who are not able to achieve the regular learning objectives, the target group of ACC are pupils with an at least average cognitive ability but with a specific disadvantage (e.g., Dyslexia or ADHD) which is compensated by special aids (e.g., spell checker program, extra time at exams) to enable them to achieve the regular learning objectives. SSET is aimed at students with all kinds of special education needs, regardless of their cognitive abilities. Students with SSET get additional support from a special education teacher, either in small groups or individually outside of or within the classroom.

While integrative school measures aim to support pupils with special educational needs in mainstream classes and promote equality of opportunities, they bear the risk of negative side effects or of reproducing or enhancing educational inequalities, for example when the likelihood of receiving certain measures also depends on student characteristics other than cognitive ability or academic performance. It was demonstrated that receiving CM introduced a negative labelling bias (Fox & Stinnett, 1996): teacher’s expectancy of cognitive ability (prediction of IQ) of children receiving this measure was negatively biassed in that IQ-scores of the children were systematically underestimated (Greber et al., 2017). Furthermore, when it comes to the allocation of less vs. more favourable integrative measures (e.g., CM vs. ACC) a study found that pupils with a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive a ACC than pupils with a low socioeconomic background, even when controlling for ability and academic performance (Sahli Lozano & Wüthrich, 2019). The authors explain this inequality in the allocation of integrative school measures, with theories otherwise used to explain inequalities in the allocation to certain tracks and educational success (Becker & Becker, 2012): the labelling effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Greber et al., 2017) and sociological theories that address the influence of social status on educational success (Boudon, 1974; Bourdieu, 1983). 

The present study aimed to overcome two areas of limitations in the existing literature. First, different integrative school measures (CM, ACC, SSET) are analysed separately. Second, the focus of possible outcomes is widened and besides the academic performance in maths and language also the pupils’ academic self-concept, the emotional well-being in school, the social inclusion in class and the willingness for endeavour is considered. 

Sample Our analytic data came from a prospective longitudinal study among pupils in the canton of Bern, Switzerland. The baseline assessment was performed during fifth or sixth grade of primary school (mean age: 12.4 years) and the follow-up during the second or third year of lower secondary school (mean age: 15.3 years). A total of 66 classes and 1126 pupils participated in the baseline study, 579 of those pupils also participated in the follow-up. As the focus of the follow-up was on recapturing pupils who received integrative school measures at baseline, the retention rate (overall=51.4%) differed by type of measure (CM=69.0%, ACC=65.2%, SSET=56.7%). Additionally, the teachers and the parents of the pupils were also invited to answer questionnaires. Measures Integrative School Measures. At baseline the teachers indicated for each pupil in the class, whether they received integrative school measures (CM, ACC, SSET). Outcome variables. All outcome variables were assessed among pupils both at baseline and at follow-up. The academic performance in maths and language (German) was assessed with Stellwerk, a standardised test. Additionally, the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ) and the Willingness for Endeavour (WFE) were used. Potential confounders. To consider potential confounders at baseline the pupils’ grade, gender, age, migration background, socioeconomic status (highest international socioeconomic index of occupational status, HISEI), integrative support, intelligence (Culture Fair Intelligence Test 20-R) were used based on responses by the teachers, pupils and/or their parents. Auxiliary variables for missing value imputation. Additionally, several auxiliary variables such as the maths performance as estimated by the teacher were used for the purpose of missing value imputation. Statistical Analysis Propensity score matching based on potential confounders was used to estimate relative change in the outcome variables (academic performance in maths and language, academic self-concept, emotional well-being in school, social inclusion in class and willingness for endeavour) among pupils receiving an integrative school measure (CM, ACC, or SSET) compared similar pupils who did not receive this measure. The main analyses were based on 50 imputed datasets using multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE); as a sensitivity analysis the models were re-estimated based on the complete cases only.

At baseline 6.3% (n=71) of pupils received CM, 4.1% (n=46) received ACC, and 13.8% (n=155) received SSET. Preliminary results concerning the academic achievement found that having received CM in maths in primary school led to a relative, detrimental outcome three years later: pupils with CM performed significantly worse than the matched controls without CM in the standardised maths performance test at secondary school. However, the pattern of results were different for ACC and SSET. In view of the increasing integration of pupils with disabilities in regular school classes, integrative school measures are very important. One risk here is that such measures can give rise to new mechanisms for educational inequalities. School policy should ensure that pupils from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds have equal chances to receive a ACC, that pupils, teachers, and parents are well informed about potential risks of measures like CM and that teachers give care to avoid stigmatisation and lowered achievement expectancy of pupils receiving CM in one or more subject areas. How to best ensure fair allocation of such measures will be interesting and relevant for an international audience, as similar measures exist in other countries as well.

Becker, R., & Beck, M. (2012). Herkunftseffekte oder statistische Diskriminierung von Migrantenkindern in der Primarstufe? In R. Becker & H. Solga (Hrsg.), Soziologische Bildungsforschung (S. 137–163). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality : changing prospects in Western society. New York: Wiley. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Hrsg.), Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 2 (S. 183–198). Göttingen: O. Schwartz. Dempsey, I., & Valentine, M. (2017). Special Education Outcomes and Young Australian School Students: A Propensity Score Analysis Replication. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 68-86. Dempsey, I., Valentine, M., & Colyvas, K. (2016). The effects of special education support on young Australian school students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(3), 271-292. Fox, J. D., & Stinnett, T. A. (1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 143–152. Greber, L., Sahli Lozano, C., & Steiner, F. (2017). Lehrpersoneneinschätzungen von Kindern mit integrativen schulischen Massnahmen. Empirische Pädagogik, 31(3), 303–322. Keslair, F., Maurin, E., & McNally, S. (2012). Every child matters? An evaluation of “Special Educational Needs” programmes in England. Economics of education review, 31(6), 932-948. Kvande, M. N., Bjørklund, O., Lydersen, S., Belsky, J., & Wichstrøm, L. (2019). Effects of special education on academic achievement and task motivation: a propensity-score and fixed-effects approach. European journal of special needs education, 34(4), 409-423. Lekhal, R. (2018). Does special education predict students’ math and language skills?. European journal of special needs education, 33(4), 525-540. Morgan, P. L., Frisco, M. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. The Journal of special education, 43(4), 236-254. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Sahli Lozano, C., & Wüthrich, S. (2019, September). Social inequalities in the allocation of integrative school measures. Beitrag präsentiert am ECER-Kongress, Hamburg, Deutschland. Sullivan, A. L., & Field, S. (2013). Do preschool special education services make a difference in kindergarten reading and mathematics skills?: A propensity score weighting analysis. Journal of school psychology, 51(2), 243-260.