# data[].attributes.headline
Separate Special Needs Classrooms and Total Inclusion - Cordell & Claire 

# data[].attributes.subject
Separate Special Needs Classrooms and Total Inclusion - Cordell & Claire 

# data[].attributes.body
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=bac811d0-f2d7-4cdc-9f3f-944d09ca6d96%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=142890670&db=eue

Question: How do separate special education classrooms effect peer relationships?

Type of source: Journal

Credibility: The author has participated in a study to systematically review all text related to the impact of special needs classrooms on peer relationships.

Usefulness:
This excerpt from the journal sheds light on the negative impacts that separate special needs classrooms can have on students, and emphasizes the importance of minimizing their use when compared to being fully included in classes with the rest of their peers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) often experience difficulties in their peer relationships at school. Although a broad knowledge base on peer relationships in inclusive classrooms exists, much less is known about peer relationships in special needs classrooms. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on peer relationships in special needs classrooms for students with ID. Studies that provided information on social status, social interactions, friendships, or the classroom networks of students with ID in special needs classrooms were included. Findings from 36 studies suggest that students with ID in special needs classrooms develop and maintain differentiated peer relationships. The characteristics of these peer relationships vary depending on student (e.g., cognitive skills) and classroom factors (e.g., type of special needs classroom). Results are discussed in terms of their relevance for supporting peer relationships between students with ID. Future directions for studying peer relationships in special needs classrooms are proposed.

Keywords: Intellectual disabilities; peer relationships; social networks; social status; special needs classrooms

Children and adolescents spend a large part of their day at school. In addition to learning from academic instruction, students gain social experience when interacting with their schoolmates. Students' involvement in peer networks at school has important implications for their social and academic development (for an overview see, e.g., Bukowski, Laursen and Rubin, [12]). For example, students' social status among their peers is related to their future social adjustment and school achievement (Austin and Draper, [ 2]). Moreover, students' development of academic achievement and problem behaviours is influenced by classmate characteristics (e.g., Müller and Zurbriggen, [56]).

Given the importance of developing and maintaining peer relationships, it is crucial to note that students with intellectual disabilities (ID) face specific challenges in this regard. Difficulties can arise from impairments in intellectual functioning (i.e., IQ < 70) and adaptive behaviours (World Health Organization, [73]). For example, a lack of social skills can make it harder for students with ID to form friendships (Tipton, Christensen and Blacher, [70]). However, successful peer relationships do not depend solely on personal factors but also on the school peer context (Carter, [13]). For children and adolescents with ID these peer contexts vary considerably, as they can attend various types of schools. Although many students with ID currently attend inclusive classrooms together with non‐disabled peers in regular schools, a large number of these students, especially those with more severe forms of ID, attend specialized classrooms for students with ID. Such special needs classrooms are attended only by students with ID and can be placed either within special needs schools for students with ID or within regular schools. Reports suggest the percentage of students with ID who attend a classroom within a special needs school varies across countries: in the US this figure is 6.1% of all students with ID and 18.9% of all students with multiple disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, [58]), in the UK 17.3% (Department for Education, [23]; calculations by authors based on provided numbers), and in Germany 89.7% (Kultusministerkonferenz, [43]). In the US 49.4% of students with ID attend a special needs class in a regular school for more than 60% of the day (National Center for Education Statistics, [58]).

These figures indicate the importance of having insights into the peer relationships of students with ID in special needs classrooms. As previous research syntheses have primarily focused on peer relationships in inclusive classrooms (see e.g., reviews by Lindsay, [48], or Ruijs and Peetsma, [63]), we conducted a systematic review on the peer relationships of children and adolescents with ID in special needs classrooms.

For children and adolescents, school is the primary context for forming peer relationships and interacting with others who are the same age. The complex social situation of students among their school peers can be considered across different dimensions (Rubin, Bowker, McDonald, et al., [62]). One important aspect of students' social life at school is their social status, which relates to how members of a peer group feel about an individual member of their group (Cillessen and Bukowski, [16]). Typically, social status is assessed using peer nominations that ask students to name who they like most and who they like least. Other methods include peer ratings, and self‐, parents‐, or teacher reports. Different types of social status can be considered. Social acceptance relates to students' likeability. Higher acceptance of students is associated with positive outcomes such as more prosocial behaviour and higher academic achievement (Austin and Draper, [ 2]; Coie, Dodge and Coppotelli, [18]). Socially rejected students in contrast, are typically disliked by many peers. Rejection is often linked with higher levels of problem behaviours and lower classroom participation (Ladd, Herald‐Brown and Reiser, [45]; Miller‐Johnson, Coie, Maumary‐Gremaud, et al., [53]). Students who are neglected are neither specifically liked or disliked and often have a low social impact in their classroom (Cillessen and Bukowski, [16]). Another aspect of students' social status at school is their perceived popularity, which is typically assessed using peer nominations that ask students to name who they consider to be popular in class. Popularity is associated with prestige and visibility, but popular students are not necessarily well liked by all peers and often exhibit socially dominant behaviours (Cillessen, Schwartz and Mayeus, [17]).

Given that an individual student's social status depends on the feelings of their surrounding peers towards them, social status is thus closely connected to the social interactions students have with each other. Depending on the quality and quantity of interactions, students can develop friendships. Friendships indicate close, voluntary and reciprocal relationships characterized by mutual affection (Rubin, Bowker, McDonald, et al., [62]). When choosing their friends and allies, students tend to select peers that are similar to themselves in terms of behaviours and attitudes (i.e., homophily), but they also adapt their behaviours to each other (for a review see, e.g., Brechwald and Prinstein, [10]). Friendships can be thought of as being embedded in social networks (Gifford‐Smith and Brownell, [30]). Features of social networks, such as their size, density, group cohesion (or solidarity) and the prevailing norms within the network can influence individual development and the relationships between single individuals (Borgatti, Everett and Johnson, [ 7]; Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, et al., [69]).

Students with ID face specific challenges in their peer relationships. Social skills deficits, such as hampered detection of emotions and intentions, adequate conflict solving abilities, as well as low conceptual skills and challenging behaviours, can hinder children and adolescents with ID from developing positive peer relationships (Carter, [13]). However, peer relationships also depend on the school peer context. Research on inclusive classrooms suggests that individuals with ID are often less well accepted, interact less with others and have fewer friends compared to their typically developing classmates (Avramidis, Avgeri and Strogilos, [ 3]; Tipton et al., [70]). However, not all students with ID attend inclusive classrooms; a substantial number attend special needs classrooms where all peers in the classrooms exhibit difficulties in intellect and adaptive behaviours. The more pronounced the intellectual, behavioural and communicative difficulties, the higher the probability of being taught in special needs classrooms (Kleinert, Towles‐Reeves, Quenemoen, et al., [42]; Kurth, Morningstar and Kozleski, [44]). These types of classrooms typically have low student numbers and are characterized by great heterogeneity of student ability levels (i.e., mild to profound ID) and behavioural problems (National Center for Education Statistics, [58]). Students are typically instructed by special needs teachers and additional professionals (e.g., assistant teachers, therapists), following an individual educational plan.

Special needs classrooms as a social context may affect students' peer relationships in different ways. The heterogeneity of students attending these settings might result in large classroom differences regarding the quantity and quality of peer relationships and prevailing behaviour norms in the classroom. These classroom differences imply that students' social status and relationships may vary significantly depending on the classroom attended. Due to the fact that most students in special needs classrooms have social skills difficulties, fewer friendships and cliques may generally be expected. It further can be assumed that in small and heterogeneously composed classes it is more difficult for students to find similar peers with whom to form friendships. Consequently, students may be more likely to rely on the entire school peer context when building peer relationships (e.g., during school breaks) than on their classroom alone.

Several methodological challenges to examining peer relationships in special needs classrooms exist. The standard procedure in regular classrooms is typically the application of peer nominations or ratings (Cillessen, [15]). Due to the difficulties students with ID experience filling in such questionnaires, these methods can often only be used in adapted ways; other options include alternative assessments such as observations or adult ratings (for a discussion see, e.g., Coons and Watson, [21]). Some researchers may also seek to compare peer relationships in special needs classrooms with other school settings. However, valid results can be difficult to obtain as students in different school settings typically also differ in their individual characteristics (Kurth et al., [44]). Researchers may deal with this issue by controlling for student characteristics relevant for peer relationship formation (e.g., cognitive factors, social competences, levels of challenging behaviours) in their analyses (Blackford, [ 6]).

To our knowledge, no systematic literature synthesis on the peer relationships in special needs classrooms exists. Previous reviews have tended to focus specifically on students with ID in inclusive settings and/or just one specific group of students (e.g., Freeman and Alkin, [28]; Lindsay, [48]; Nakken and Pijl, [57]; Nijs and Maes, [59]; Webster and Carter, [71]; Wiener, [72]). In our review we sought to address this gap by investigating two questions:

What is known about the social status of students with ID in special needs classrooms and how is status affected by individual and contextual factors?

What is known about the social networks of students with ID in special needs classrooms and how are these networks affected by individual and contextual factors?

We conducted a systematic review of the literature focused on the peer relationships of children and adolescents with ID in special needs classrooms. Of interest were studies that investigated special needs classrooms for students with ID that were placed either in special needs schools for students with ID or in regular schools. Inclusive classrooms in which single students with ID were instructed together with typically developing peers were not included in the review (but note that some studies on special needs classrooms used inclusive classrooms as comparisons). Studies were included if they had been published in English, peer‐reviewed and referred to social status and/or the social networks of students with ID at school age (including kindergarten) who were full‐time attendees of special needs classrooms. Studies using quantitative or a qualitative analyses of data, as well as studies using a mixed‐method approach (quantitative and qualitative approach combined) were included. The literature search was firstly carried out with the database PsycINFO using the keywords and subject headings depicted in Table. The ERIC database was then consulted. In addition, we checked previous reviews and references provided in published papers for relevant research.

Keywords used for the online literature search in PsycINFO

intellectual disabilities OR intellectual development disorder OR learning disabilities OR learning disorders OR developmental disabilities OR delayed development

AND

peer relations OR social status OR popularity OR social acceptance OR social networks OR social interaction OR interpersonal interaction OR friendship OR reciprocity OR social groups OR sociograms OR sociometry

AND

special needs school OR special needs class OR special education OR special education students OR special education teachers

The literature search using PsycINFO identified 362 studies. We excluded 339 studies that failed to meet the criteria mentioned above, so that 23 studies were included in this review. In ERIC we found 89 additional studies, of which one study met the criteria. Six additional studies were found in previous reviews and six were identified in the reference lists of relevant papers. These 36 studies were thematically assigned to those examining social status (i.e., acceptance, rejection, neglect, popularity) and those exploring social networks (i.e., social interactions, friendships, classroom networks). Descriptions of the studies are presented in Table (classified by publication year). In the following, the methodological approaches used in the studies are described, after which the results on social status and social networks are presented. In order to save space, we refer to study numbers as given in Table. Where papers use other terms to reference ID (e.g., mental retardation), in this review we use the term ID for ease of understanding.

Identified studies included in the review

Age

Disability

N

Special needs school

Special needs class

Inclusive/regular class

Social status

Social network

Examined associated factors

Peer relationships

Control variables/selection criteria

1 Note

2 Means ( M) and standard deviations ( SD) reported if specified in the paper.

3 ID = intellectual disability, LD = learning disability, TD = typically developing, CD = communication disorder, PD = physical disability, DS = Down syndrome, AU = autism, SS = Sotos syndrome, ID+ = students with intellectual disabilities and other disabilities.

4 special needs classroom in special needs school; special needs class = special needs classroom in regular school; inclusive/regular class = classroom attended by students with and without ID (inclusive) or only by students without ID (regular) within a regular school. An asterisk indicates which setting the investigated sample attended.

5 Only reported for studies comparing settings.

There were 14 quantitative studies ( 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29) that examined social status, from which two were longitudinal ( 2, 3). Two studies used a mixed‐methods methodology ( 28, 29). To assess social status, most studies conducted peer nominations, peer ratings, or both. These methods were often used in modified ways, such as reading the questions and answers aloud, using smiling faces as response alternatives, or conducting student interviews. Sometimes students with ID rated their own social status, or parents and teachers provided this information. Several studies compared the social status of students with ID between different types of special needs classrooms or between special needs and inclusive classrooms. In these analyses, some studies controlled for certain individual student characteristics (e.g., IQ, adaptive behaviours, age) or contextual factors (e.g., family demographics, educational program).

Results generally suggest that sociometric structures exist in special needs classrooms. For example, in Study 1 students differed in their received nominations when their peers could choose with whom they liked to play and work with or whom they wanted to sit near. Depending on the study and class, 0-43% of students with ID were rated as accepted ( 1, 3, 29; calculations by authors based on provided numbers). The studies suggest that certain individual factors, such as older age ( 11, 22), less loneliness ( 21), greater physical attractiveness ( 29, not tested using inferential statistics), better cognitive skills and more appropriate behaviours ( 5, 8, 20, 29 but see 7) are associated with more social acceptance of students with ID in special needs classrooms. In contrast, there was no evidence of differences in social acceptance between students with different types of disabilities ( 25). Results regarding the role of gender in social acceptance were inconclusive, with some results finding more positive self‐perceived acceptance in girls ( 22) and others finding no gender differences when peer nominations were used ( 21). Generally, results on gender differences were difficult to interpret as they appeared to be strongly related to gender ratios in classrooms ( 11, 28, 29, but see 3).

Some studies also considered the effects of contextual factors on social acceptance. Studies 5, 7 and 8 found that teachers' perceptions of students' cognition and attending behaviour predicted students' perceptions of their peers, that in turn, were associated with social acceptance. Students with ID thus seem to at least partially refer to their teacher's judgment when assessing their peers. Moreover, interventions (e.g., group activities that combine students with ID who have high and low acceptance) led to higher acceptance among low‐accepted students ( 2). Further, Study 21 found that individuals with ID in special needs schools achieved higher peer acceptance scores than students with ID in special needs classes in regular schools, but there are also contradictory findings ( 22).

Results suggest that social rejection exists in special needs classrooms and differs between students. Across the classrooms investigated, 0-37.5% of the students were considered to be rejected ( 3, 11, 29; calculations by authors based on provided numbers). Certain individual factors, such as greater levels of misbehaviour and lower cognitive skills seem to be linked to higher social rejection of students with ID in special needs classrooms ( 5, 8, 29, but see 7).

We identified three studies that explicitly dealt with the question of social neglect in students with ID in special needs classrooms ( 1, 3, 29). Students in the considered studies were categorized as neglected if they had received only few positive and negative peer nominations. The prevalence of students considered to be neglected in special needs classrooms was between 0 and 19% (calculations by authors based on provided numbers).

We found no studies that investigated the perceived popularity of students with ID in special needs classrooms.

Students with ID in special needs classrooms appear to vary in their social status and different status groups seem to exist. Older age and greater cognitive abilities, as well as more adaptive and less problem behaviour, less loneliness and a positive view from teachers on the student appear to be related to higher status. Regarding the role of other individual and contextual factors, evidence is still very limited or inconclusive.

Social interactions between students in special needs classrooms were investigated in 13 quantitative studies ( 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 31) and in two studies using a mixed‐methods approach ( 24, 28). Four of these studies ( 4, 9, 10, 13) were longitudinal. To investigate social interactions, researchers conducted student observations, interviews, or used parent or teacher questionnaires. Student friendships were examined in 19 studies ( 1, 3, 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36), of which three were longitudinal ( 3, 23, 33). Overall 14 studies used quantitative, two qualitative ( 23, 34) and three a mixed‐methods approach ( 28, 33, 35). Friendships were assessed using observations, peer nominations, student self‐reports, student or parent interviews, or teacher or parent questionnaires. Classroom networks were investigated in two quantitative studies ( 1, 3) using peer nomination procedures. Study 3 was longitudinal. When comparing different school settings, authors sometimes controlled for single or multiple individual factors, such as age, cognitive skills, or adaptive behaviour components. When students with ID were compared with typically developing students, in some instances groups were matched by school grade, sample size, household income, or staff‐to‐student ratio.

Students with ID in special needs classrooms differ from each other in the amount of social interactions among peers they have. An individual factor associated with the frequency of social interactions appears to be the type and severity of disability ( 15, 25, but see 17, 18). For example, Study 25 found that students with non‐specific ID initiated more social interactions than students with autism and as many as students with Down syndrome. Moreover, older mental and verbal age (in line with 9) was found to be significantly correlated with higher levels of social play in students with ID. In contrast, early cognitive and language skills as well as chronological age (but see 18) did not predict the frequency of social interactions of students with ID in special needs classrooms. Study 9 showed that students' social interactions correlated positively with adaptive behaviour (but see 25) and negatively with personal maladaptive behaviour. No differences between boys' and girls' frequencies of social interactions were found ( 9) but Study 28 found that students with ID in special needs schools spent much time with students of the opposite gender.

In terms of the role of contextual factors in students' social interactions, several studies suggest that students with ID in special needs classrooms interact less often with classmates than those in inclusive classrooms ( 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 24, 31, but see 14, 18, 25). These differences may partly be explained by the differing activities performed in these settings ( 12, 24, 31). For example, Study 12 found that higher rates of pre‐academic activities and lower levels of play in preschool special needs classes for students with ID than in regular classes may have played a role in explaining lower levels of social interactions in special needs classrooms. Other explanations may relate to differing peer characteristics, as students with ID were found to show less social play when their attempts to contact their peers were rejected frequently. Compared to students without ID in regular schools, the rejection of contact attempts may be more likely among classmates with ID in special needs classrooms ( 25). Yet other studies examined the quality of interactions in different school settings. They found a tendency for the interactions of students with ID in special needs classrooms to be less social in nature and more task‐related than the ones of students with ID in inclusive classes ( 15) and to include more aggression and less positive behaviours ( 4).

Generally, students with ID in special needs schools appear to have poorer peer relations than students without ID ( 36). Nevertheless, students with ID in special needs classrooms are selective in choosing their friends and many are rather precise in identifying them (i.e., as indicated by reciprocated friendship nominations; see 1, 3, 11, 28). Notable is the relatively large number of friendship elections outside the classroom ( 3, 11) and the naming of adults as friends ( 11).

Still, the friendship situation of students with ID in special needs classrooms differs across students. Study 11 found a tendency for older students with ID to be more likely to mutually nominate each other as friends than younger students with ID (but see 6). Also, students with ID appear to choose friends of similar age ( 17, 18) and of similar cognitive skills ( 17, 18, 23). Higher cognitive skills were found to be associated with more reciprocal friendship choices ( 11) and greater communicative skills were positively related to the mean number of friendship themes mentioned in interviews ( 33). Students with Down syndrome were found to be most likely to have a best friend, while students with autism were least likely. Students with non‐specific ID were in between ( 25).

The school setting appears to contribute as a contextual factor to the friendship situation of students with ID ( 6, 16, 19, 26, 27, but see 17, 18, 30, 32). For example, Study 27 found that 60% of students with ID in special needs schools reported having only one friend, while only 7.7% of students with ID in special needs classes in regular schools and 6% of typically developing students reported having only one friend. Fewer students with ID in special needs schools than those in special needs classes in regular schools or students without ID had five or more friends. Part of an explanation of these findings may be different school facilities ( 34, 35). Although many students perceived special needs classrooms in special needs schools to be a protective environment to make friends, certain aspects, such as a fence around the schoolyard ( 35), were perceived as barriers to forming friendships, especially by students who had previously attended inclusive classes.

The characteristics of the social network structure of special needs classrooms have received scant attention. There are two early studies that examined group solidarity respectively group cohesion in special needs classrooms ( 1, 3). Based on a definition that used high rates of reciprocated peer nominations to characterize group solidarity, the authors of Study 1 found evidence of solidarity in all of the examined classrooms. Similarly, Study 3 reported intact group cohesion in most of the investigated classes.

Students with ID in special needs classrooms differ in the social networks they have. Certain types of disabilities, older mental age, more adaptive behaviours and less maladaptive behaviours were found to be associated with more social interactions. Furthermore, fewer social interactions appear to take place in special needs classrooms than in inclusive and regular classrooms, which may partly be explained by different activities within these settings and by peer characteristics. However, studies on institutional differences remain difficult to interpret, given that the individual characteristics of students were not always controlled for.

Results also show that students with ID in special needs classrooms maintain friendships. Older age, greater cognitive and social skills, type of disability and similarity between peers appear to contribute to more friendships. Keeping in mind the methodological limitations just mentioned, in general fewer friendships were reported in special needs schools than in special needs classrooms in regular schools.

Regarding classroom network characteristics in special needs classrooms, in our view, too little research has been conducted to allow for clear conclusions.

After reviewing the existing studies on the peer relationships of students with ID in special needs classrooms, one main result is that even using a relatively broad set of criteria only produced 36 studies for inclusion. These studies provide evidence that researchers are able to describe and evaluate peer relationships in special needs classrooms and each investigation allows valuable insights into the subject. It has to be noted, however, that many studies had small sample sizes, most used cross‐sectional analyses, and in general comparisons across studies were difficult due to large differences in assessment methodology. Although such challenges are not uncommon in special education research (see also Armstrong, [ 1]), a specific problem met here was that interpretation of the results on the comparisons between special needs and other types of classrooms was often hampered by the fact that relevant individual‐level variables were seldomly controlled for when investigating peer relationships. Despite these challenges for interpreting the global state of research, preliminary conclusions on the peer relationships of students with ID in special needs classrooms can be drawn.

The first important conclusion of this review is that differentiated peer relationships exist in special needs classrooms for students with ID, including sociometric structures and various forms of social interactions. Given that ID can include profound disabilities and extremely challenging behaviours, this finding is not trivial and points to the importance of taking peer relationships into account in these settings. Although students have fewer friends than typically developing individuals, students appear to join with similar others, even if this means reaching out beyond their classroom to the entire school. Second, and in line with general peer relationships research (Bukowski, Laursen and Rubin, [12]), the quantity and quality of peer relationships in special needs classrooms appear to be associated with specific individual and contextual factors. Individual characteristics found to benefit peer relationships in multiple studies include students' higher cognitive abilities, more adaptive behaviours, and fewer maladaptive behaviours. In terms of contextual factors, certain activities and school facilities appear to have the potential to foster social interactions and positive peer relationships in special needs classrooms.

Despite these insights from existing studies, large research gaps remain. In terms of methodology, more longitudinal studies with large sample sizes and statistical models including detailed information on student and peer relationship characteristics are needed. Such studies would improve understanding of the processes mediating and moderating the development of peer relationships in special needs classrooms. Additionally, relatively new developments in social networks analysis that use stochastic‐actor‐based modelling, may increase understanding of the peer selection and socialization processes taking place in these settings (e.g., Snijders, van de Bunt and Steglich, [68]).

Other research desiderata include more knowledge on social rejection and perceived popularity, as both concepts were little studied in special needs classrooms. Given the severe consequences of social rejection (Miller‐Johnson, Coie, Maumary‐Gremaud, et al., [53]) and the individual risks associated with popularity (Cillessen, Schwartz and Mayeus, [17]), more research in this field is warranted. Our review also shows that no studies exist on the role of classroom norms in shaping peer relationships in special needs classrooms. Evidence from regular classrooms suggests that the level of behavioural problems in classrooms can moderate the relation between individual characteristics and social status (Stormshak et al., [69]). More knowledge is also needed regarding the quality of friendships in special needs classrooms and the level of heterogeneity in students' social and cognitive competences within a classroom that is most advantageous for students' opportunities to interact and form relationships. As access to peers without disabilities varies between school settings, it will also be important to further examine differences between peer relationships of students attending special needs classrooms within special needs schools and those attending special needs classrooms within regular schools.

Given the major importance of using research data to inform practice (Armstrong, [ 1]; Cook and Odom, [20]), the present review suggests that peer interactions in special needs classrooms should be actively fostered and that this is specifically important for certain groups of students. Although research is still limited, students with more cognitive problems and behavioural difficulties appear to be less well‐accepted by their peers in special needs classrooms. One possible intervention approach may be to build up the social skills of these individuals (e.g., O'Handley, Ford, Radley, et al., [61]). Another approach is to target low status using classroom‐level interventions. For example, van den Berg and Stoltz ([ 5]) showed that seating arrangements in the classroom can be a useful tool to increase peer liking. Also, a teacher's general classroom organization and management style can provide opportunities for positive peer relationships, an approach sometimes described as a teacher's 'invisible hand' (Farmer, Dawes, Hamm, et al., [25]). Accordingly, the reduced levels of social interactions between peers in special needs classrooms may be targeted through active observation of peer relationships, followed by systematically providing opportunities for positive peer interactions in class.

In sum, this systematic review sought to fill a gap in the literature by providing an overview of the peer relationships of students with ID in special needs classrooms. In doing so, we decided to integrate a broad set of studies that used a heterogeneous set of methodologies and assessment procedures. Although this approach complicated comparisons across studies, a broad review was possible. These results can serve as a starting point for investigating more specific questions related to a basic understanding of peer relationships in special needs classrooms and the development of adequate support systems for students with ID in these settings.

This research was supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
References 1 Armstrong, D. (2017) ' Wicked problems in special and inclusive education.' Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17, pp. 229 - 36. 3 Avramidis, E., Avgeri, G. & Strogilos, V. (2018) ' Social participation and friendship quality of students with special educational needs in regular Greek primary schools.' Journal of Special Needs Education, 33, pp. 221 - 34. 5 van den Berg, Y. H. M. & Stoltz, S. (2018) ' Enhancing social inclusion of children with externalizing problems through classroom seating arrangements: a randomized controlled trial.' Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26, pp. 31 - 41. Brechwald, W. A. & Prinstein, M. J. (2011) ' Beyond homophily: a decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes.' Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, pp. 166 - 79. Buckley, S., Bird, G., Sacks, B. & Archer, T. (2006) ' A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: implications for parents and teachers.' Down Syndrome, Research and Practice, 9 (3), pp. 54 - 67. Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B. & Rubin, K. H. (eds) (2018) Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. (2nd edn). New York : Guilford Publications. Carter, E. W. (2018) ' Supporting the social lives of secondary students with severe disabilities: considerations for effective intervention.' Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26, pp. 52 - 61. Chennault, M. (1967) ' Improving the social acceptance of unpopular educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes.' Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (3), pp. 455 - 8. Cillessen, A. H. N. (2011) ' Sociometric methods.' In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski & B. P. Laursen (eds), Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups, pp. 82 - 99. New York : Guilford Press. Cillessen, A. H. N. & Bukowski, W. M. (2018) ' Sociometric perspectives.' In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (eds), Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups, pp. 64 - 83. (2nd edn). New York : Guilford Publications. Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D. & Mayeux, L. (eds) (2011) Popularity in the Peer System. New York : Guilford Press. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982) ' Dimensions and types of social status: a cross‐age perspective.' Developmental Psychology, 18, pp. 557 - 70. Cole, D. A. & Meyer, L. H. (1991) ' Social integration and severe disabilities.' Journal of Special Education, 25, pp. 340 - 51. Cook, B. G. & Odom, S. L. (2013) ' Evidence‐based practices and implementation science in special education.' Exceptional Children, 79, pp. 135 - 44. Coons, K. D. & Watson, S. L. (2013) ' Conducting research with individuals who have intellectual disabilities: ethical and practical implications for qualitative research.' Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 19 (2), pp. 14 - 24. Day, M. & Harry, B. (1999) ' "Best friends": the construction of a teenage friendship.' Mental Retardation, 37, pp. 221 - 31. Department for Education (2018) Special educational needs in England: January 2018. < https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england-january-2018 > (accessed 27 February 2019). Dew‐Hughes, D. & Blandford, S. (1999) ' The social development of children with severe learning difficulties: a case study of an inclusive educational initiative between two primary schools in Oxfordshire, UK.' Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 6, pp. 1 - 11. Farmer, T. W., Dawes, M., Hamm, J. V., Lee, D., Mehtaji, M., Hoffman, A. S. & Brooks, D. S. (2018) ' Classroom social dynamics management: why the invisible hand of the teacher matters for special education.' Remedial and Special Education, 39, pp. 177 - 92. Foreman, P., Arthur‐Kelly, M., Pascoe, S. & King, B. S. (2004) ' Evaluating the educational experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and segregated classroom settings: an Australian perspective.' Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, pp. 183 - 93. Forness, S. R. & Nihira, K. (1984) ' Relationship between classroom behavior and adaptive behavior of institutionalized retarded children.' Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19 (3), pp. 222 - 7. Freeman, S. F. N. & Alkin, M. C. (2000) ' Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education settings.' Remedial and Special Education, 21, pp. 3 - 26. Fryxell, D. & Kennedy, C. H. (1995) ' Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students' social relationships.' Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, pp. 259 - 69. Gifford‐Smith, M. E. & Brownell, C. A. (2003) ' Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks.' Journal of School Psychology, 41, pp. 235 - 84. Guralnick, M. J. (1997) ' Peer social networks of young boys with developmental delays.' Journal on Mental Retardation, 101 (6), pp. 595 - 612. Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T. & Hammond, M. (1995) ' Parent perspectives of peer relationships and friendships in integrated and specialized programs.' Journal on Mental Retardation, 99 (5), pp. 457 - 76. Hall, L. J. & Strickett, T. (2002) ' Peer relationships of preadolescent students with disabilities who attend a separate school.' Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 (4), pp. 399 - 409. Hall, A.‐M. & Theron, L. (2016) ' How school ecologies facilitate resilience among adolescents with intellectual disability: guidelines for teachers.' South African Journal of Education, 36, pp. 1 - 13. Heiman, T. (2000a) ' Friendship quality among children in three educational settings.' Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25, pp. 1 - 12. Heiman, T. (2000b) ' Quality and quantity of friendship.' School Psychology International, 21, pp. 265 - 80. Heiman, T. & Margalit, M. (1998) ' Loneliness, depression, and social skills among students with mild mental retardation in different educational settings.' The Journal of Special Education; Bensalem, 32, pp. 154 - 63. Hunt, P., Farron‐Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D. & Goetz, L. (1994) ' Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes.' Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, pp. 200 - 14. Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S. L. & Speltz, M. L. (1989) ' Effects of social integration on preschool children with handicaps.' Exceptional Children, 55 (5), pp. 420 - 8. Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S. & Fryxell, D. (1997) ' Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities.' Exceptional Children, 64, pp. 31 - 47. Kingsley, R. F., Viggiano, R. A. & Tout, L. (1981) ' Social perception of friendship, leadership, and game playing among EMR special and regular class boys.' Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16 (3), pp. 201 - 6. Kleinert, H., Towles‐Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L. & Kerbel, A. (2015) ' Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: implications for general curriculum access.' Exceptional Children, 81, pp. 312 - 28. Kultusministerkonferenz (2018). Sonderpädagogigsche Förderung in Förderschulen (Sonderschulen). 2017/2018 [Special‐pedagogical promotion in special needs schools. 2017/2018]. < https://www.kmk.org/dokumentation-statistik/statistik/schulstatistik/sonderpaedagogische-foerderung-an-schulen.html > (accessed 1 March 2019). Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E. & Kozleski, E. B. (2014) ' The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low‐incidence disabilities.' Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, pp. 227 - 39. Ladd, G. W., Herald‐Brown, S. L. & Reiser, M. (2008) ' Does chronic classroom peer rejection predict the development of childrens classroom participation during the grade school years? ' Child Development, 79, pp. 1001 - 15. Laing, A. F. (1972) ' Group structures in retarded adolescents.' American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76 (4), pp. 481 - 90. Laing, A. F. & Chazan, M. (1966) ' Sociometric groupings among educationally subnormal children.' American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 71 (1), pp. 73 - 77. Lindsay, G. (2007) ' Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming.' British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, pp. 1 - 24. MacMillan, D. L. & Morrison, G. M. (1980) ' Correlates of social status among mildly handicapped learners in self‐contained special classes.' Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 437 - 44. Male, D. B. (2002) ' Peer nominations among adolescents experiencing severe learning difficulties: an exploratory study using sociometric techniques.' Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2, pp. 1 - 14. Martlew, M. & Hodson, J. (1991) ' Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in a special school: comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers' attitudes.' The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, pp. 355 - 69. Matheson, C., Olsen, R. J. & Weisner, T. (2007) ' A good friend is hard to find: friendship among adolescents with disabilities.' Journal on Mental Retardation, 112, pp. 319 - 29. Miller‐Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary‐Gremaud, A. & Bierman, K. (2002) ' Peer rejection and aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder.' Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30 (3), pp. 217 - 30. Morrison, G. M. & Borthwick, S. (1983) ' Patterns of behavior, cognitive competence, and social status for educable mentally retarded children.' The Journal of Special Education, 17, pp. 441 - 52. Morrison, G. M., Forness, S. R. & MacMillan, D. L. (1983) ' Influences on the sociometric ratings of mildly handicapped children: a path analysis.' Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 63 - 74. Müller, C. M. & Zurbriggen, C. L. A. (2016) ' An overview of classroom composition research on social‐emotional outcomes: introduction to the special issue.' Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15 (2), pp. 163 - 84. Nakken, H. & Pijl, S. J. (2002) ' Getting along with classmates in regular schools: a review of the effects of integration on the development of social relationships.' Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, pp. 47 - 61. National Center for Education Statistics (2017) Children and youth with disabilities. < https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe%5fcgg.pdf > (accessed 20 February 2019). Nijs, S. & Maes, B. (2014) ' Social peer interactions in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: a literature review.' Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49 (1), pp. 153 - 65. Odom, S. L., Peterson, C., McConnell, S. & Ostrosky, M. (1990) ' Ecobehavioral analysis of early education/specialized classroom settings and peer social interaction.' Education and Treatment of Children, 13 (4), pp. 316 - 30. O'Handley, R. D., Ford, W. B., Radley, K. C., Helbig, K. A. & Wimberly, J. K. (2016) ' Social skills training for adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a school‐based evaluation.' Behavior Modification, 40, pp. 541 - 67. Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J. C., McDonald, K. & Menzer, M. (2013) ' Peer relationships in childhood.' In P. D. Zelazo (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 242 - 75. New York : Oxford University Press. Ruijs, N. M. & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009) ' Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed.' Educational Research Review, 4, pp. 67 - 79. Santich, M. & Kavanagh, D. J. (1997) ' Social adaptation of children with mild intellectual disability: effects of partial integration within primary school classes.' Australian Psychologist, 32, pp. 126 - 30. Sarimski, K. (2003) ' Behavioural and emotional characteristics in children with Sotos syndrome and learning disabilities.' Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 45, pp. 172 - 8. Sigman, M., Ruskin, E., Arbeile, S., Corona, R., Dissanayake, C., Espinosa, M., Kim, N., López, A. & Zierhut, C. (1999) ' Continuity and change in the social competence of children with Autism, Down syndrome, and developmental delays.' Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64 (1), pp. 1 - 114. Siperstein, G. N. & Bak, J. J. (1989) ' Social relationships of adolescents with moderate mental retardation.' Mental Retardation, 27 (1), pp. 5 - 10. Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G. & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010) ' Introduction to stochastic actor‐based models for network dynamics.' Social Networks, 32, pp. 44 - 60. Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A. & Coie, J. D. (1999) ' The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts.' Child Development, 70 (1), pp. 169 - 82. Tipton, L. A., Christensen, L. & Blacher, J. (2013) ' Friendship quality in adolescents with and without an intellectual disability.' Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 26, pp. 522 - 32. Webster, A. A. & Carter, M. (2007) ' Social relationships and friendships of children with developmental disabilities: implications for inclusive settings. A systematic review.' Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32, pp. 200 - 13. Wiener, J. (2004) ' Do peer relationships foster behavioral adjustment in children with learning disabilities? ' Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, pp. 21 - 30. World Health Organization (2016) International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision (ICD‐10)‐WHO: Chapter V. Mental and behavioural disorders (F00-F99). < https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en#/V > (accessed 15 February 2019). Ziegler, S. & Hambleton, D. (1976) ' Integration of young TMR children into a regular elementary school.' Exceptional Children, 42 (8), pp. 459 - 61.
~~~~~~~~

By Noemi Schoop‐Kasteler and Christoph M. Müller

Reported by Author; Author

Source: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Apr2020, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p130, 16p
Item: 142890670

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peer relationships of students with intellectual disabilities in special ne...: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) often experience difficulties in their peer relationships at school. Although a broad knowledge base on peer relationships in inclusive classrooms exists, much less is known about peer relationships in special needs classrooms. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on peer relationships in special needs classrooms for students with ID.

# data[].attributes.headline
Perception of ability- Vivian, Grant, Cami

# data[].attributes.subject
Perception of ability- Vivian, Grant, Cami

# data[].attributes.body
Question: How do differing perceptions of disabilities impact a more inclusive society?

Type of Source: Educational

Title of Source: Improving Perceptions
of Individuals With Disabilities Through a Wheelchair Basketball Tournament: A Quantitative Analysis

Rationale: This source is credible as each author specializes in something related to the content of their research presented. For example, Anthony Rosselli studies sport and recreation management and Elizabeth Wachira specializes in social injustices and how they relate to public health and wellness. This source will help to answer our question in providing us with data on both perceptions of disabled people, but also how we can improve them through quantitative research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence on inclusion and support for learners with disabilities in mainstream schools in South Africa: off the policy radar?

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence on inclusion and support for learners with disabilities in mainstream schools in South Africa: off the policy radar?

# data[].attributes.body
Question: How do you promote inclusion while not limiting learners with disabilities to one lifestyle?

Type of source: Education with research and personal interviews

Source: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=e03e3e91-f0c9-46f7-8397-fc6f5e086009%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ949285

Usefulness: We want to compare personal experience to the scientific recommendation for the education of learners with disabilities. This article observes learners with disabilities and includes personal anecdotes which allows the reader to understand the learners' experience and how to approach a classroom of diverse learners.

Meagan and Alexis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Detailed Record

Title:

Author(s):

Pather, Sulochini

Source:

International Journal of Inclusive Education, v15 n10 p1103-1117 2011.

Availability:

Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.555075

Peer Reviewed:

Y

ISSN:

1360-3116

Descriptors:

Educational Policy, Equal Education, Access to Education, Educational Research, Interviews, Student Attitudes, Blacks, Secondary Schools, Observation, Teacher Attitudes, Rural Schools, Inclusion, Mainstreaming, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Physical Disabilities, Foreign Countries, Barriers, Student Placement, Academic Accommodations (Disabilities), Transportation, Curriculum Development, Teacher Role, Knowledge Level, Special Schools, Peer Relationship

Location Identifiers:

South Africa

Abstract:

Since the move towards inclusion in line with international trends and South Africa's attempts to address issues of marginalisation and discrimination amongst all learners, including those with special needs and disabilities, it has become evident on perusal of various research studies and reviews that there is an obsession with how far we have come since the introduction of an inclusive education policy in 2001 which formalises a strategy to ensure increased access and support for all learners within the system, including those with special needs and disabilities. There is an inherent assumption that we have not arrived as yet, and research suggests a continuing scepticism and lack of confidence amongst educators in mainstream settings to support children with disabilities in their schools and classrooms. This article focuses on research which shows that learners with disabilities are in fact being successfully included within one of these mainstream schools, by default and with a range of available support, despite not being designated as a "full-service school". The study is based on interviews with students with physical disabilities in a Black rural secondary school, as well as observations and interviews with staff and non-disabled students. Findings reveal an existence of teacher, peer and community support, including from a neighbouring special school, suggesting a notion of inclusion which was about naturally putting values into action. Such practice, I argue, remains obscure and off the policy radar in South Africa. (Contains 5 notes and 1 figure.)

Abstractor:

As Provided

Language:

English

Education Level:

Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 8; Grade 9; Secondary Education

Publication Type:

Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Entry Date:

2012

Accession Number:

EJ949285

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence on Inclusion and Support for Learners with Disabilities in Mainstr...: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title: Author(s): Pather, Sulochini Source: International Journal of Inclusive Education, v15 n10 p1103-1117 2011. Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating an individualized learning plan for students with disabilities- Josie and Lexcel

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating an individualized learning plan for students with disabilities- Josie and Lexcel

# data[].attributes.body
Question: What's the best strategy to help a student with a disability succeed in a classroom?

Type of source: Educational with research

Title of source:
"Effective Individualized Educational Plans: Do Something Special with Learning Styles!"

Source: Wamba, N., & Dunn, K. J. (2009). Effective Individualized Educational Plans: Do Something Special with Learning Styles! Insights into Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 1–11.

Usefulness: This article analyzes mistakes that are often made when forming an IEP for a student and offers research-tested, learning-style strategies for perfecting the process for at-risk students.

SCORE: 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please enter your Trinity University credentials to access EZproxy Cloud.

# data[].attributes.body
Question:
How does media portrayals of people with disabilities affect peoples perceptions of people who have a disability?

Type of source: education

Title of Source: The impact of media representation of disabilities on teachers' perceptions.
Link: https://trinity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=93641068&site=ehost-live

Usefulness: This source will help me expand my knowledge on media portrayals on disabilities' and it's impact on people specifically some teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extracurriculars for kids with Disabilities- Caelia Marshall and Ed

# data[].attributes.subject
Extracurriculars for kids with Disabilities- Caelia Marshall and Ed

# data[].attributes.body
Question: What types of sports or activities could yield the most inclusivity?

Type of Source: Educational

Title of Source:
ADAPTIVE EXERCISES FOR PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES.

Rationale: This source is useful in guiding the discussion around physical education that compliments both abled and disabled bodies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disability's Impact on Other Family Members - Jacob Newell & Kiara Garcia

# data[].attributes.subject
Disability's Impact on Other Family Members - Jacob Newell & Kiara Garcia

# data[].attributes.body
Question:
What effect does having a disabled family member have on other family members?
Link to source:
https://trinity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2019-07537-006&site=ehost-live
Type:
medical/scientific
Title of source:
A valuable burden? The impact of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities on family life.
Rationale:
This source informs the reader on the type of impact a disabled family member has on the familial unit as a whole, especially in terms of the mother and father. Specifically, this source conducts an experiment determining if a disabled child has a postive or negative impact on the parents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disability and Family Dynamics - Michael Antonelli and Natalie Reiff

# data[].attributes.subject
Disability and Family Dynamics - Michael Antonelli and Natalie Reiff

# data[].attributes.body
Question: How does disability influence the relationship between a disabled person and their parents and siblings at different stages of their life?

Citation + Link: DeMarle, D. J., & Le Roux, P. (2001). The life cycle and disability: Experiences of discontinuity in child and family development. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 6(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/108114401753197459

Type of Source: Medical/Scientific

Usefulness: This source will help further our understanding of our topic by detailing some of the most common stressors associated with having a child with a disability, and what information is appropriate for parents and children to have at different stages of development. Although the source's recommendations are primarily for care professionals, many of the scenarios could be reworked into parent-child interactions to help strengthen their relationship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clinicians are often asked to work with parents who have one or more children with specific disabilities. Disability within the family can have a dramatic impact on family interactions and functioning across the course of the family life cycle. The authors review the potential role of disability within a family system and make specific suggestions for working with a family or the child with the disability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE LIFE CYCLE AND DISABILITY: EXPERIENCES OF DISCONTINUITY IN CHILD AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clinicians are often asked to work with parents who have one or more children with specific disabilities. Disability within the family can have a dramatic impact on family interactions and functioning across the course of the family life cycle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extracurriculars for Students with Disabilities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Extracurriculars for Students with Disabilities 

# data[].attributes.body
Questions:
Are children with disabilities typically separated from other children during extra curricular activities? Why or why not?

Type of Source:
Educational.

Title of Source: MAJOR FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING SPECIAL EDUCATION

Source: https://inclusiveschools.org/major-federal-laws-affecting-special-education/

Usefulness:
This source serves to inform us about certain federal laws which affect special education on a daily basis. Furthermore, this article provides infromation regarding The Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004). Through this legislation, students with disabilities are supposed to be provided with supplementary aids and services "provided in regular classes or other education-related settings and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable each child to be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1974, federal legislation has provided the right for children with disabilities to receive an appropriate public education. The Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) reaffirmed these rights. Under the federal law, special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of individuals with exceptional needs, including related services and transition services for youth ages 16 and above.

IDEIA also guarantees four basic rights to all children with disabilities. In order to guarantee these rights, the Law also includes two protections.

Rights Under IDEA

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) - Children with disabilities (from birth until 22 years old) who meet special education eligibility criteria are entitled to a public education, appropriate to their needs, at no cost to their families.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) - Each public agency must ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with students who do not have disabilities. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of a child with a disability from the regular educational environment should occur only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The LEAs also strive to serve their students with disabilities as close to their home school as possible with appropriate support and services provided therein.

Supplementary Aids and Services (Related Services) - Children with disabilities must be provided aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular classes or other education-related settings and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable each child to be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.

Assessment - An assessment must be completed to determine the needs of the child in all areas related to his or her suspected disabilities. This may be done only with the parent's/guardian's informed consent. After initial assessment and determination of eligibility for special education, the child must be reassessed at least every three years to determine continued eligibility and need for services.

Due Process - Due process is described in the legal procedural safeguards. They are designed to ensure that parents provide informed consent regarding special education programs offered. Further, due process provides a mechanism for the resolution of disagreements.

Individualized Education Program (IEP) - The IEP must be prepared at least annually for each child with a disability. It is developed by a team comprised of one or both of the child's parents or a guardian, special education teacher or provider, a general education teacher, personnel who assessed the child (if applicable), and a person who is knowledgeable about general curriculum and the availability of resources (Administrator). Whenever appropriate, the pupil is encouraged to attend. Other persons who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the pupil may also attend at the discretion of the LEA or parent/guardian. If more than one general education teacher is providing instructional services to the pupil, one teacher may be designated to represent the others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Major Federal Laws Affecting Special Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 1974, federal legislation has provided the right for children with disabilities to receive an appropriate public education. The Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) reaffirmed these rights. Under the federal law, special education means specially designed instruction, at no

# data[].attributes.headline
Peer Influence - Mackenzie Dupré and Alyndra Plagge

# data[].attributes.subject
Peer Influence - Mackenzie Dupré and Alyndra Plagge

# data[].attributes.body
Question: To what extent does peer support help a disabled individual gain independence?

Source URL/Citation: Trausch, K. J., Brock, M. E., & Anderson, E. J. (2022). Efficacy of Paraeducators Facilitating Peer Support Arrangements for Elementary Students With Multiple Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 43(6), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063607

Type of Source: Medical/Scientific

Title of Source: Efficacy of Paraeducators Facilitating Peer Support Arrangements for Elementary Students with Multiple Disabilities

Usefulness to us: We already know that social interaction is imperative for young children (and frankly, people of any age), but we wanted to know just how important healthy relationships with peers are for disabled students. This article supports the idea that when students with disabilities are provided with peer support, they can become less reliable on paraeducators and more able to work with peers.

# data[].attributes.headline
UDL Implementation- Emery Boettcher and Cierra Cadena

# data[].attributes.subject
UDL Implementation- Emery Boettcher and Cierra Cadena

# data[].attributes.body
Question:
What specific techniques are used by teachers to help students with disabilities be successful in their classrooms?

Type of Source:
Educational

Title of Source:
About Universal Design for Learning from CAST

Usefulness to us:
This source provides an extensive outline of UDL and ideas for implementation in classrooms. UDL is learning designed for all and can help us determine what specific techniques teachers use to create learning environments to support all their students.

Source Score: 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Home

2. Our Impact

3. About Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn.

UDL at a Glance

Find out how the UDL framework guides the design of instructional goals, assessments, methods, and materials that can be customized and adjusted to meet individual needs.

UDL to Change the World

CAST created the Universal Design for Learning framework, and it remains one of our core levers of change to help make learning inclusive and transformative for everyone.

Universal Design for Learning Guidelines

The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Visit the UDL Guidelines

Engagement

For purposeful, motivated learners, stimulate interest and motivation for learning.

Explore Engagement

Representation

For resourceful, knowledgeable learners, present information and content in different ways.

Explore Representation

Action & Expression

For strategic, goal-directed learners, differentiate the ways that students can express what they know.

Explore Action & Expression

Top of Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About Universal Design for Learning - CAST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Home Our Impact About Universal Design for Learning Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Find out how the UDL framework guides the design of instructional goals, assessments, methods, and materials that can be customized and adjusted to meet individual needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Playground accessibility in schools - Juliana Aviles and Christina Garcia

# data[].attributes.subject
Playground accessibility in schools - Juliana Aviles and Christina Garcia

# data[].attributes.body
Question:
What should be the standard of playground equipment for all schools and their disabled students?

Type of source:
Educational

Title of source:
Boundless Playgrounds in Southeast Michigan: Safety, Accessibility, and Sensory Elements.

Link:
https://web-p-ebscohost-com.trinity.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=7ef176d9-9ac1-46bc-821d-7310158279f5%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=103607470&db=eue

Usefulness to us:
This source explains the ways in which different economic areas can affect the equipment that schools have on playgrounds for disabled students, most likely due to a lack of funds. The researchers study different schools in Southeast Michigan and how more affluent areas had equipment for disabled students, but still lacked accessibility for all types of disabilities that children had. For example, many of the schools with more money had wheelchair-friendly playground equipment, but very few activities with braille or sensory-rich gardens. Although not every playground can have every single type of equipment for all types of disabilities, this source could help us establish the smaller pieces of equipment that could be incorporated into more playgrounds across the country and beyond.