|
...disabilities (GLD) were studied, in regular as well as in special education. A total of 1,300 students participated, 861 in general and 439 in (separate) special education schools. Students with GLD were more often rejected and had a lower self-image than students with SLD. These results seemed to hold mainly for girls and for students with GLD in general education. No argument in favor of or against inclusive education can be advanced based on the results of this study, but the findings highlight the potential role of low achievement in peers' dislike of girls. Moreover, the results suggest the importance of investigating subgroups of students with LD in future research.
**********
Fifteen years ago the Dutch government released the publication Going to School Together Again (Weer samen naar school; Ministerie van Onderwijs & Wetenschappen, 1990), which constituted the first step toward inclusive education in the Netherlands. The direct inspiration for this policy change was increasing costs due to growing numbers of students referred to special education (Ministerie van Onderwijs & Wetenschappen, 1990). The goal of the new policy was twofold: (a) to make an effort to refer as few students as possible to (expensive) special education services by transferring available expertise from special to general education; and (b) to encourage the integration of as many students as possible from special education back into general education through effective intervention (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur & Wetenschappen, 2003; Smeets, 2003).
Although the main motivation behind this policy was to stabilize or even reduce the number of students in special education (cf. Meijer, Peschar, & Scheerens, 1995; Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, 2000), it was also in line with new developments recommended by international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1986) and UNESCO (1988, 1990), which had already taken place in the early 1980s in countries such as the United States (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999), Italy (Fillipini-Gaudiano, 1991), Australia and New Zeeland (Forlin & Forlin, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). According to a number of international conventions (e.g., Rights of the Child; United Nations, 1989), placement of children in (separate) special education schools began to be viewed as an infringement on the right to equal educational opportunities (Alston, Parker, & Seymour, 1992; Baehr & Gordenker, 1992).
The right to inclusive education was inspired by research based on the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Maras & Brown, 2000). This hypothesis states that children who experience difficulties in learning will benefit both cognitively and social-emotionally by receiving their education among functionally unimpaired peers, because contact per se between able and disabled children has positive effects on their attitudes toward and opinions of each other.
With regard to cognitive development, several studies support this view (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Peetsma, Vergeer, Roeleveld, & Karsten, 2001). However, with regard to social-emotional well-being (as indicated by sociometric status and self-image), a number of studies have raised questions concerning the benefits of inclusive education for children with learning disabilities (LD). Since the landmark sociometric study of Bryan (1974), it has repeatedly been shown that children with LD in general education are not well liked by their peers. For example, when children are asked to categorize their classmates as either rejected, ignored, or popular, children with LD are overrepresented in the ignored and rejected groups and underrepresented in the popular group (Bakker & Bosman, 2003; Bakker & van de Griendt, 1999; Frederickson & Furnham, 1998; Kuhne & Wiener, 2000; Le Mare & De la Ronde, 2000; Ochoa & Olivarez, 1995; Stone & La Greca, 1990; Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990). Thus, results from sociometric studies contradict the contact hypothesis.
It remains unclear what causes this limited level of acceptance. Two assumptions have been tested: (a) the students' level of academic achievement, and (b) status as "a child with LD" contributing to a lower level of acceptance. Bakker and Bosman (2003) found evidence that supported the former assumption, whereas Wiener et al. (1990) provided evidence for the latter. Bakker and Bosman (2003) also showed that the sociometric status and self-image of Dutch children with LD was remarkably more positive in special education schools than in general education settings. These findings suggest that with regard to social well-being, students with LD might be better off in separate schools for special education. One must be careful not to draw conclusions too quickly, however, because the study did not investigate whether sociometric status of students in special education (with a diagnostic label) was also related to academic achievement. Moreover, the status of the LD of the Dutch students was not assessed.
In the Netherlands a distinction is made between students with specific LD (SLD) and students with general LD (GLD), based on the IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion. Specifically, students with SLD lag behind (usually in one domain: reading, spelling, or arithmetic) despite normal IQ (> 85), whereas students with GLD have low academic performance in more than one domain, accompanied by a below-normal IQ. GLD in the Netherlands is similar to the group that used to be referred to in the United States as students with mild mental retardation, and in the UK as students with mild and moderate learning difficulties. SLD in the Netherlands is similar to the group that is referred to in the United States as students with LD, and in the UK as students with specific learning difficulties. Labeling conventions in the UK and the Netherlands are more similar than those between the UK and the United States, and between the United States and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, a diagnostic label is more or less identical to classification by disability. Researchers use the generic term SLD, but practitioners refer to a child as having, for example, dyslexia or dyscalculia. A diagnostic label is necessary for a student to become eligible for services. However, it does not guarantee remedial help, because this depends on the availability of remedial resources.
Referral to a special school in the Netherlands is the responsibility of a professional committee, which makes the decision based on a paper dossier of the student provided by a special education pedagogue (a remedial specialist with an academic degree) or a child psychologist. Whether or not a student (SLD and GLD alike) is referred to a special school does not just depend on the student's difficulties. A number of additional factors are also at play: Is the regular school sufficiently equipped to provide additional or remedial help? Is the regular school prepared to invest in students who require more help (schools in the Netherlands are entitled to refuse students on many grounds)? Is there a waiting list for the special school? What is the parents' opinion with respect to referral? However, perhaps the biggest deciding factor is the attitude of the committee with respect to referral.
The prediction is that in the future, schools for special education will include only students with GLD, whereas the needs of students with SLD will be cared for in general education (Peetsma et al., 2001). However, we are far from this situation. Presently the majority of students with LD are educated in special schools (the results of this study clearly confirm this picture), which mimics the situation in the UK.
To conclude this description of the Dutch situation, the severity of students' learning disabilities in special and regular schools is similar, and teachers in special education do not necessarily have additional training (only 30%). By comparison, hardly any teacher in general education has completed specialized training. However, the fact that the entire population in special education schools has a problem indicates that the teaching load is a great deal more complicated and heavier than in regular education. In sum, the above suggests that type of education (i.e., general vs. special), level of academic achievement, and disability status (general vs. specific) all may affect students' sociometric status and social well-being in the Netherlands.
As noted earlier, the results of the vast amount of sociometric research point consistently toward the general position of vulnerability of children with LD in general education. However, when social-emotional well-being is defined as the self-perception or self-image of the student, the results are less clear-cut. Some studies show that the self-image of children with LD in general education is more negative than that of their typically achieving peers (Bakker & Bosman, 2003; La Greca & Stone, 1990), whereas others seem to contradict these findings. Various researchers have observed that children with LD in general education have a realistic, and thus negative, perception of their own academic performance, but that this did not necessarily impact their feelings of self-worth or their perception of their relationship with classmates. These children judge their self-image as highly as that of their typically or average-achieving peers (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Bear, Minke, Griffin, & Deemer, 1998; Gans, Kenny, & Ghany, 2003; Stiehr Smith & Nagel, 1995). It is possible that these results can be explained by the nature of inclusive education in the United States, where the bulk of this research was done.
Approximately 99% of children with LD in the United States receive their education within the walls of a regular school and 60% of them receive a form of special education, in either a resource room or in a special class...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Learning Disability Quarterly
Learning disabilities and young children: identification and intervent..., January 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
