Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings has gained momentum worldwide since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). In the US, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) was reauthorized and, most recently, amended through the ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’ (ESSA, 2015). Due to these policy changes the number of students with disabilities, defined as those with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), in general education settings has constantly been increasing. As more and more students with IEPs are being included in general education classrooms, it is important to examine their social participation opportunities and identify if they are at risk of social isolation or exclusion within their classrooms.

The main purpose of the study is to compare the friendship networks of students with and without disabilities (defined as with IEPs). Particular attention is drawn to the question of whether students with IEPs maintain a lower social participation status than their peers. The focus of the social network survey was therefore on assessing students’ friendship networks and whether students with IEPs are nominated less often as friends (Friendship In-degree Centrality) and also, from their perspective, nominate fewer fellow students (Friendship Out-degree Centrality). In general, high in-degree centrality may show popularity (Frostad & Pijl, 2007) of a student whereas high out-degree may show increased social activity within a social network (Borgatti et al., 2018). In-degree is the sum of friendship nominations/ties received by each student and out-degree represents the sum of friendship nominations/ties sent out by each student. Furthermore, it was examined whether the two groups of students (with and without IEPs) differ systematically with regard to possible context variables (e.g. school performance, family background). Subsequently, to predict the friendship In- and Out-degrees of the students, regression models were calculated taking into account the hierarchical data structure.

Based on theory and the current state of research, the following hypotheses are examined:

1)     Students with IEPs nominate on average less friends (out-degree) than their peers without IEPs.

2)     Students with IEPs are less often nominated as friends (in-degree) compared to their peers without IEPs.

3)     Hypotheses 1) and 2) still apply for regression analyses when controlling for confounding variables.

Social participation is a pressing issue in education since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) which called for full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings (Florian, 2008). Koster et al. (2009) defined social participation as the presence of positive social contact/interaction between students with disabilities and their classmates; acceptance of them by their classmates; social relationships/friendships between them and their classmates, and the students’ perception that they are accepted by their classmates. In the context of this study, the specific focus lies on one key theme related to social participation, which is the friendships of students with disabilities as compared to their peers.

In addressing social participation at the secondary school level, this study is driven by a social network perspective (Scott, 2017) and social capital theory (Putnam, 2001). The term social capital has been used to describe norms and certain resources that emerge from social networks (Ferlander, 2007). Scott (2017) argues that social networks are a particular form of social capital that individuals can employ to enhance their advantages or opportunities. A notion of social capital is that social relationships provide access to resources that can be exchanged, borrowed and leveraged to facilitate achieving goals (Moolenaar, et al., 2012). Therefore, classroom social networks built up through friendship ties or other relational ties may provide or impede access to social capital and social participation (Author et al., 2019).

The sample comprises a total of 189 students (47.6% girls) across six classrooms in a highly diverse middle school in Southern California. A total of 40 (21.3%) students have an IEP. The largest group of these students has been identified as having a SLD (n = 23). A total of ten students have a SLI and seven have OD (e.g. Autism). On average, 57.8% of the students are of Hispanic or Latino origin, 25.7% are White Americans, 8% Asian Americans and 5.4% Black Americans. The remaining 3.1% of the students belong to a different racial/ethnic group. To approximate the socio-economic background of the students, the number of students receiving free or reduced-priced lunch was used. It turns out that 46% of the sample is not eligible for free or reduced lunch, 10.7% receive reduced-priced lunch and a total of 43.4% get free lunch. The descriptive results underline that this is a sample with an above-average proportion of students from underserved contexts. The proportion of students with a disability also appears to be higher than the state-wide average which is about 10%. To assess the social participation of the students, we employed whole social network analysis (Author, 2019; Borgatti et al., 2018) to examine the friendship networks of the students. In a paper-pencil survey students were asked to check the names of as many classmates that are their friends. Based on this information, the two dependent variables ‘Friendship In-degree” (number of received nominations) and ‘Friendship Out-degree” (number of sent nominations) were included (Borgatti et al., 2018). With the consent of the parents, the school provided various context variables about the students, including their race/ethnicity, their IEP status and, if applicable, the type of disability (‘No Disability”, ‘SLD”, “SLI”, ‘OD”). Also, it was indicated which students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, their latest GPA scores and their level of English language fluency (‘English Only’, ‘English Learner’, ‘Fluent upon entry’, ‘Redesignated’). Also the parental educational level was provided (‘Not High School graduate”, ‘High School graduate”, ‘Some college”, ‘College graduate”, ‘Grad School - Post Grad Training”).

Descriptive results show that – on average – students with disabilities nominate 6 classmates as friends and are nominated themselves 7.25 times as friends of others. Nevertheless, they show lower scores compared to their peers without disabilities. Students without disabilities name 9.7 classmates as friends and are named as friends 9.5 times on average. The mean difference for the Friendship In-degree is statistically significant (t(42) = 3.27, p<0.05) whereas for the Out-degree it is not (t(40) = 2.93, n.s.). To examine the influence of IEPs on the friendship in-degree, an OLS regression with robust standard errors was calculated with the friendship in-degree as a dependent variable and the type of disability as an independent variable. At the students’ level, further control variables have been included in the model: highest educational attainment of parents, free and reduced lunch, gender, GPA scores, race/ethnicity and the English Language Fluency. In order to control for differences at class level, e.g. the class size and other unobservable differences, a dummy variable for the class was modelled. Preliminary results show significant effects for the disability categories ‘SLD’ and ‘OD’ on the friendship in-degree. Compared to students without disabilities, students with SLD have on average 2 friends less than their peers without disabilities. Students with OD have an average of 3.2 friends less than students without disabilities. The effect is also significant, although the group consists of 7 students only. The calculated model explains a total of 44.6% of the variance of the friendship in-degree of friendship networks. This study contributes to the gap in research at the secondary school level with regards to the social participation of students with disabilities in general education settings. The results may not be generalizable but offer significant insights into the social participation of highly diverse middle school students with disabilities.

Author (2013). Author et al., (2019). Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Public Law No. 114-95, S.1177, 114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress. gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf Ferlander, S. (2007). The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta sociologica, 50(2), 115-128. Florian, L. (2008). Inclusion: special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202-208. Frostad, P., & Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(1), 15-30. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., & Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of students with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(1), 59-75. Koster, M., Timmerman, M. E., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. J. (2009). Evaluating social participation of pupils with special needs in regular primary schools: Examination of a teacher questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 213-222. Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and teacher education, 28(2), 251-262. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June. U. (2014).