Special needs education crystallises in various shapes in different parts of the world, going from fully inclusive education through fully separate and specialized institutions. It is aimed at giving appropriate education to pupils with special educational needs, but remains a controversial practice everywhere (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980).
First of all, special education is costly to provide (Greene & Forster, 2002). For instance, in Flanders, the Dutch part of Belgium where the present study was conducted, the educational expenditure per pupil in special education is three times as big as the expenditure per pupil in mainstream education (Scheys, 2011). Intelligibly, most governments want to know whether the benefits in terms of student outcomes outweigh the extra costs, especially at a time where more and more pupils are diagnosed with a label making them a candidate for special education (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011).
Second, previous research has provided little convincing evidence that supports or rejects the effectiveness of special or mainstream school placement for pupils with special needs (Ainscow et al., 2006). Contradictory findings have been reported for different outcomes such as academic performance, social adjustment, and personality traits, as well as for different target groups such as pupils with emotional or behavioural problems, mild intellectual disability, or learning difficulties. Moreover, the existing literature is out-of-date. The complexity of special education as a field as well as the fact that most studies so far show methodological shortcomings (e.g., not accounting for selection bias and dependence among observations) might partly explain these inconsistencies (Odom et al., 2005).
In Flanders, separate special education schools cater for pupils with disabilities who cannot be accommodated within mainstream education. Besides, as in most countries, more and more proponents of integrated or inclusive education are found since the nineties, among policymakers as well as among researchers and practitioners. As a result, a part of the special-needs pupils today go to mainstream schools but receive extra support from special education (EACEA, 2010).
Randomly assigning pupils to special education (i.e., treatment group) versus mainstream education (i.e., control group) would not be very ethical. As a consequence, most previous studies have relied on simple contrasts between pupils who were referred to special education and those who were not. However, in such case, selection bias is particularly likely to occur (Graham & Kurlaender, 2011). We chose a quasi-experimental design (propensity score-matching) to meet these methodological shortcomings (Morgan, Frisco, Farkas, & Hibel, 2010).
We narrowed our focus to pupils with social, emotional, behavioural, or learning difficulties and thus excluded pupils with hearing, vision, physical, and severe intellectual impairment from our sample, since it is very difficult to find a match for these pupils.
Research question:
‘Do pupils who are referred to special education acquire greater or smaller math skills during the first two years of primary education than pupils with similar characteristics who go to mainstream education?’ In other words: ‘Is referral to special education at the age of six (after kindergarten) leading to higher or lower math scores in the following years?’