case study in special education

Special Education Resource Project

Explicit instruction case study part one.

What is a case study?  Heale and Twycross (2018) defined a case study as “research methodology, typically seen in social and life sciences. There is no one definition of case study research.  However, very simply… ‘a case study can be defined as an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units’.”  The case study we are about to explore for explicit teaching follows a teacher as she is restructuring her lesson plan for a phonics lesson.  We will explore who this teacher is, who her students are, how she adjusts her lesson plans and how she demonstrates this during her instruction.  So…let’s meet the teacher.

(Please note that this case study is not a real life example and the occurrence of names to real people is a coincidence. All materials you will see in this case study are original.)

Mrs. Adams is a resource special education teacher at a mid-sized elementary school.  The school is a Title 1 school and serves a large population of English as a Second Language Learners.  Mrs. Adam’s class is made up of three 1st grade students.  Joey whose diagnosis is AHDH, Jordyn whose diagnosis is specific learning disability (SLD) and Oscar whose diagnosis is specific learning disability and he is an English Language Learner.  Her students meet with her daily for 45 minutes for resource reading.

After attending a professional development at her school last week, Mrs. Adams wants to use the principles of explicit instruction in her lessons.  She starts by choosing a lesson on the digraph -sh.  This is the first time this skill will be introduced to students.  The lesson will examine the digraph -sh both at the beginning and the end of words.

If you would like a copy of the 16 Elements of Explicit Instruction, please click on the link below.  

Explicit Instruction – Chapter One (Archer and Hughes, 2011)

Mrs. Adams identifies the prerequisite skills that her students will need to help them with the digraph        -sh.  She decides to review letter sounds since digraphs are different from individual letter sounds.  Mrs. Adams has already established the term “everyone” for the signal word for verbal responses.  This is how she introduces the lesson:

Mrs. Adams Lesson Introduction:

“Today we are going to be learning about digraphs.  Digraphs are two letters put together to make one sound.  These sounds are different from our other letter sounds because those sounds only make one sound.  Let’s look at the letters “s” and “h.  Digraphs are an important part of being able to decode and read words.”

“We are going to be practicing with the digraph “sh.”  By the end of the lesson, you will be able to find the sound “sh” at the beginning of words.  Let’s start our lesson.”

“What sound does “s” make?  (Presents students with S letter card)

“Everyone – “ssss.”  Very good, “s” says “sss.”

“What sound does “h” make?  (Presents students with H letter card) Everyone – “huh.”  Good job, “h” says “huh.”

“Now let’s look at the letters “s” and “h” put together (presents students with SH letter card).

When these letters are put together, they no longer make the sounds “sss” and “huh.”  When together, “s” and “h” make the sound “sshh.  Watch me, I’m going to say the sound for “sh”…”ssshh.”

“Now it’s your turn.  What sound does “sh” make?  Everyone – “sshhh.”  That’s exactly right.  When “s” and “h” are together, they make the sound “sshh.”

“Let’s do some more practice.”

In the lesson, she focused her instruction on the critical content (Element #1) .  She decided that the digraph “sh” was going to be the focus of the instruction.  Digraphs are a central part to decoding words.

After identifying her critical content, she identified the prerequisite skills that her students would need to learn the digraph “sh” (Element #6) .  Students needed to be able to identify the letters “s” and “h” and to know their sounds.

To start her lesson, Mrs. Adams began her lesson with a clear statement of purpose (Element #5) .  Her students know exactly the skill they will be learning and what he expectations are for the end of the lesson.

During her introduction, she used clear and concise language.  She referred to “sh” a digraph.  This is the terminology used to describe the sounds sh, ch, th, wh, etc.  She also refers the letters as having sounds.  (Element #8)

Mrs. Adams provided opportunities for her students to respond to the letter sounds (Element #11) .

Let’s visit Case Study Part 2 to see how Mrs. Adams continues using the elements of explicit instruction in her lesson.  

Click on the image below to see Case Study Part 2.  

References:

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011).  Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching . New York: Guilford Press.

Join the Movement

Case studies, empowering minds: integrating stem into individualized education programs for special education students.

In this case study, we highlight the importance of incorporating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) into special education classrooms and explore successful implementation strategies.  

Making STEM a reality for all learners

All students deserve access to high-quality STEM education. That’s the message of Dr. Leena Bakshi McLean, 2022 EALA New Champion runner-up and executive director of STEM4Real. The organization focuses on providing access and equity for students with limited STEM exposure, including special education students.

To make STEM in special education classrooms and Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) a reality for all students, Dr. Bakshi and her team needed first to see what kind of conversations were happening in classrooms around STEM. Through these conversations, they discovered several areas of need and identified specific strategies to fill these gaps. Thus, the Special Education Toolkit was born.

What is the Special Education Toolkit?

The Special Education Toolkit is a multifaceted resource to support teachers in meeting diverse student needs. It includes labs and lessons with various accommodations, such as shortened lab directions with pictures, bite-sized information, and lessons segmented into shorter tasks. These accommodations allow students to spend less time trying to decode the readings and more time understanding the science and creating meaningful learning experiences.

The toolkit also includes language suggestions for IEPs related to STEM. “[We have found in our research that] A lot of students in Special Education classrooms did not have access to STEM,” Dr. Bakshi explains. “What if we could talk to parents and teachers about adding STEM language into IEPs?”

STEM4Real in action

STEM4Real has established a fruitful collaboration with the classrooms at Golden Gate Community School facilitated through the Contra Costa County Office of Education. With a dedicated focus on enhancing STEM education, STEM4Real has played a pivotal role in implementing STEMScopes, a comprehensive curriculum designed to foster inquiry-based learning.

The organization has gone above and beyond by providing tailored support to teachers, ensuring that the content aligns seamlessly with the unique cultural backgrounds of the students at Golden Gate Community School. Through workshops and ongoing assistance, STEM4Real has empowered educators to create content that is not only academically rigorous but also culturally responsive, fostering a learning environment that resonates with the students’ diverse experiences. This collaborative effort reflects a commitment to making STEM education inclusive and relevant, ultimately enriching the educational experience for Golden Gate Community School students.

The STEM4Real framework

The STEM4Real framework represents a holistic and effective pedagogical methodology grounded in the principles of Connect, Create, and Cultivate . This framework empowers teachers to establish meaningful connections with students, understand their individual needs and learning styles, and foster a deeper engagement with STEM education.

Connect – Building connections:

The Connect phase is at the heart of the framework. Teachers initiate a personalized connection with students by understanding their interests, backgrounds, and learning preferences. This understanding is the foundation for tailoring lessons to resonate deeply with each student.

Create – Immersive learning:

The Create component encourages the development of 3-dimensional and 5E lessons , leveraging phenomenon-based learning to engage students in a hands-on and immersive educational experience. This dynamic teaching strategy enhances conceptual understanding and promotes critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Cultivate – Inclusivity and anti biases:

The Cultivate phase emphasizes an ongoing commitment to fostering an inclusive and antibias culture within the learning environment. Lessons are crafted to address diversity, equity, and inclusion by incorporating content reflecting students’ cultural backgrounds and providing opportunities for collaborative, inclusive learning experiences. This phase extends throughout the academic year, emphasizing the continuous effort to create an environment that supports all students, including those with disabilities, from community schools.

Engagement through real-world context:

Lessons within the STEM4Real framework are designed to actively engage students by connecting theoretical concepts to real-world experiences. For instance, students learning about food deserts might conduct research and gather data on the geographical and socio-economic factors that contribute to food deserts in their community and analyze their impact on residents.

To connect this to photosynthesis, the lesson might delve into understanding the role of plants in addressing food deserts, emphasizing how photosynthesis is a crucial process for plant growth and food production. Hands-on activities, such as growing plants or designing solutions to address food deserts, would further engage students in applying scientific principles to real-world challenges.

Integrating STEMScopes and culturally responsive teaching

STEM4Real’s emphasis on connecting with students and cultivating an anti bias culture  enhances student engagement and promotes culturally responsive teaching . Combining STEM4Real’s pedagogical framework and existing curricula, such as STEMScopes, ensures that the curriculum content is presented in a way that is inclusive and respectful of all students.

Incorporating STEM language into IEPs

Teachers using STEM4Real’s Connect phase report a deeper understanding of their students’ backgrounds, interests, and learning styles. This enhanced connection fosters a more personalized approach to teaching, allowing educators to tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of their students.

Reflecting on her experience with STEM4Real, one educator highlighted the effectiveness of engaging “hooks” and exploring the “implications to society” in lesson planning. These tactics give teachers more ways to engage students and make learning science fun. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of addressing equity within STEM education,“What does it mean, and how do we implement it so that there are examples for other educators and schools to follow?”.

Accessing resources and partnership opportunities

Educators can access the Special Education Toolkit and resources for free at Stem4Real.org/lesson-planning-tools/. If you decide to use the Special Education Toolkit in your classroom, let us know your favorite way to incorporate it into your lessons by tagging us in a post on X, Instagram, or Facebook with the hashtags #EALA #STEM4RealInMyClassroom.

Currently, STEM4Real has partnered with the following districts: Contra Costa County Office of Education – Golden Gate Community Schools, Fontana Unified School District, Rialto Unified School District, Ravenswood City School District, Hayward Unified School District, Solano County Office of Education, San Mateo County Office of Education, and Halau Ku Mana Public Charter School. If you are interested in learning about how you can bring STEM4Real into your school or district contact: www.stem4real.org/partner [email protected]

Reflections

Big takeaway.

Every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, should be able to see themselves in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Though the STEM workforce has grown 20% between the years 2011 and 2021, only 3% of folks in the STEM workforce are reported to have disabilities ( Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities , 2023). With the high rate of growth of STEM in the workforce, it is more important than ever to ensure we are providing all learners with the right circumstances to access these opportunities.

What I would tell other eduxators/leaders

Educators and leaders must do the internal work to dismantle our biases and ensure that the learning environment is inclusive and respectful of all students. Applying the appropriate accommodations and modifications is crucial to every subject within students’ IEPs; this further advances Bakshi’s idea to add STEM language to students’ IEPs. 

Continue to advocate for your students’ needs within the STEM realm. IEPs should not stop at Math and Language Arts.

What we are still figuring out

There’s still a lot of work to ensure that all students have access to STEM education. How can we make the STEM curriculum universally accessible to all students? What can educators do to ensure they are creating a classroom that is both inclusive and rigorous? You can start by utilizing STEM4Real’s accessible curriculum within your classroom to make STEM more accessible for all learners.

About The Author

Leena Bakshi McLean, ED.D. —  STEM4Real  provides socially just and culturally relevant STEM teaching and standards-based teaching strategies through collaborative professional learning, culturally responsive instructional materials and diverse children’s literature. They focus on shifting teacher pedagogy by grounding their work with a justice centered lens that makes equity paramount in their vision.

• USF Research
• USF Libraries

Digital Commons @ USF > Theses and Dissertations

Special Education Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2023 2023.

Saudi Parents as Advocates for Their Young Children with Disabilities: Reflections on The Journey , Sadeem A. Alolayan

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Students with Disabilities in Higher Education , Yanlys De La Caridad Palacios

The Specifics of Specific Learning Disability: An Analysis of State-Level Eligibility Criteria and Response to Intervention Practices , Lora M. Williams

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Barriers to Reducing the Assistive Technology use for Students with Autism as Perceived by Special Education Teachers in Saudi Arabia , Othman Ahmed Alasmari

Saudi Teachers’ Perspectives on Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Specifically Designed for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder , Ahmad Saad Alghamdi

Perceptions of Preservice Teachers of Students with Intellectual Disabilities About their Preparation for Inclusive Education , Abdullah Aljudaya

Experiences of Saudi Arabian Mothers of Young Children with Disabilities: An Exploratory Study , Samirah Bahkali

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Perceptions of Preservice Teachers of Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities in their Teacher Preparation Programs in Saudi Arabia , Salman Almughyiri

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

The Use of Assistive Technology with Students with Severe Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Saudi Arabia: Teachers’ Perspectives , Khalid Mohammed Abu Alghayth

Saudi Special Education Preservice Teachers’ Perspective towards Inclusion , Sarah Binmahfooz

The Teacher Evaluation Conundrum: Examining the Perceptions of Special Education Teachers , Gordon Brobbey

Autism and Inclusion in England’s Multi Academy Trust: A Case Study of a Senior Leadership Team , Danielle Lane

Threats to Teaching: An Investigation Into the Constructs of Compassion Fatigue in the Classroom , April M. Steen

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Response to Intervention Implementation: A Qualitative Interview Study , Adhwaa Alahmari

Deaf Lesbian Identity , Noël E. Cherasaro

Beyond Replicative Technology: The Digital Practices of Students with Literacy-Related Learning Difficulties Engaged in Productive Technologies , Aimee Frier

Learning in the Margins: The Educational Experiences of an African American Male with Disabilities , Aisha Holmes

Including children with learning differences: Experiences of independent school teachers , Lisa M. Lockhart

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

Perceptions of Arab American Mothers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Exploratory Study , Haifa Alsayyari

It’s Not All Sunflowers and Roses at Home: A Narrative Inquiry of At-Risk Girls and Their Perceptions of Their Educational Experiences , Jessica Aggeles Curtis

Improving Reading Comprehension of Children with ASD: Implication of Anaphoric Reference Support with Computer Programming , Seda Karayazi Ozsayin

Collaboration with Families: Perceptions of Special Education Preservice Teachers and Teacher Preparation , Mehmet Emin Ozturk

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

The Role of Prep Schools in the Middle to High School Transition of Students in Southeastern Turkey , Mucahit Kocak

Use of a Game-Based App as a Learning Tool for Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities to Increase Fraction Knowledge/Skill , Orhan Simsek

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Examining Experiences of Early Intervention Providers Serving Culturally Diverse Families: A Multiple Case Study Analysis , Wendy Lea Bradshaw

Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors as Strengths, not Weaknesses: Evaluating the Use of Social Stories that Embed Restricted Interests on the Social Skills of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder , Maya Nasr

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

The Fight Within: Experiences of School District Employees Who Advocate for the Rights of Their Own Children with Disabilities Inside the Districts Where They Work, a Heuristic Case Study , Keri Haley

Constructing an "Appropriate" Education in Florida Special Education Due Process Final Orders , Michelle Henry

Interagency Collaboration for the Provision of Services to Migrant Children with Disabilities: An Exploratory Study , Georgina Rivera-Singletary

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Reading Assessment Practices of Elementary General Education Teachers: A Descriptive Study , Sarah Mirlenbrink Bombly

Making a Difference in the Lives of Students: Successful Teachers of Students of Color with Disabilities or who are At-Risk of Identification of Disabilities at a High-Performing High-Poverty School , Tristan L. Glenn

Teacher Perspectives on the Instructional Impact of the Florida Alternate Assessment , Katherine Hawley

Blending Worlds, Reforming Practice?: An Instrumental Case Study Of Collaborative Early Childhood Teacher Education , Ann Marie Mickelson

The Perspectives of Graduate Students with Visual Disabilities: A Heuristic Case Study , Luis Perez

Connective Capacity: The Importance and Influence of Dispositions in Special Education Teacher Education , Scot Mcgregor Rademaker

Examining School Capacity for Inclusion Using a Multi-Dimensional Framework: A Case Study , Amy Lenee-Monnier Toson

Becoming a Teacher in Multiple Voices: An Exploration of Teacher Identity Formation Among Teachers of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder , Mary E. Wilt

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

A Multi-Perspective Exploration of a Cross-Age Tutoring Initiative: An Analysis of the Responses of All Students , Ann Elizabeth Gillies

Examining Teacher Identity and Prospective Efficacy Beliefs Among Students Enrolled in a Precollegiate Urban Teaching Academy (UTA) , Marsha Simon

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of their Perspective Transformations: A Case Study , Victoria Caruana

The Development of The Personal Strengths Intervention (PSI) to Improve Self-Determination and Social-Emotional Levels in Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities and/or ADHD: A Multiple Baseline Study , Jennie L. Farmer

Kujichagalia! Self-Determination in Young African American Women With Disabilities during the Transition Process , La Tonya L. Gillis

Perspectives of Teachers of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders Regarding the Factors Related to Their Intent to Remain in the Profession , Glenda Esther Koshy

High Stakes Play: Early Childhood Special Educators' Perspectives of Play in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms , Joanne Scandling Manwaring

School-Wide PBS: The Link Between Action Planning and Outcomes , Stephanie Angelique Martinez

Guided by the Spirit: Understanding Student Behavior and Theological Philosophy Through the Lens of Secondary Catholic School Teachers , Angela Marie Mucci

It Takes More Than a Whistle: Perceived Characteristics of Effective School Based Coaches , Jenna Nicole Sage

Examining the Experiences of a Select Group of First Year Special Education Teachers: A Multiple Case Study Analysis , Roseanne Kaiser Vallice

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

A Canine Audience: The Effect of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Reading Progress Among Students Identified with Learning Disabilities , Julie Omodio Griess

The Lived School Experiences of a Select Group of Female Adolescents Labeled Emotionally/Behaviorally Disordered , Anna Robic

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

Lived Experience: Diverse Perspectives on Raising a Child with Autism , Heather J. Brace

An examination of the implementation of the Second step program in a public school system , Lynn Pedraza

Portraits of Online Teaching and Learning: The Experiences of an Instructor and Six Graduate Students in a Course Entitled Educating Students with Autism , Sarah R. Semon

Striving and Surviving: The Phenomenology of the First-Year Teaching Experience , Michael D. Smith

Theses/Dissertations from 2008 2008

Transition Experiences of Selected Emerging Adults With Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in Higher Education , Kathleen M. Fowler

A Qualitative Analysis of a Teacher Support Program for Educating Students with Emotional Disturbance in an Inclusive Setting , Crystal Williams Harmon

Evaluating the Efficacy of the Developing Algebraic Literacy Model: Preparing Special Educators to Implement Effective Mathematics Practices , Sharon N. E. Ray

Theses/Dissertations from 2007 2007

The Effects of Mentoring on the Elementary Special Education Mentor , Maria Angeliadis

Prevalence of Language Disorders Among Children with Severe Behavioral Problems Referred for a Psychiatric Evaluation by a Large Urban School District , Brenda J. Curtwright

Implementing differentiated instruction in urban, Title I schools:: Effects of facilitated support groups and program fidelity on student achievement , Deborah W. Hellman

Key stakeholder perceptions of the expulsion process for high school students identified as emotionally disturbed , Suzanne R. O'Neill

Theses/Dissertations from 2006 2006

An examination of the experiences of five African American male students with regard to school discipline practices , Simon Yohann Earle

Examining the characteristics of teachers in a Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program in varying exceptionalities: Responding to the "highly qualified" teacher mandate , Erica Djuan McCray

Theses/Dissertations from 2005 2005

"I've Got the Power!": Investigating Pre-service Special Educators' Perceptions and Abilities to Teach Reading to Students with Disabilities" , Tandria Milango Callins

Evaluating Positive Behavior Support Plan Implementation In The Home Environment Of Young Children With Challenging Behavior , Michelle A. Duda

Asperger Syndrome: A Case Study on One Family’s Understanding , Ben Graffam

An Examination Of The Relationship Between Urbanicity and Children With Emotional Disturbances Served In Restructuring Public Schools , Karen Monk Harris

Voices From a Marginalized Population: Life Histories of Individuals With Physical Impairments , James Peter Marsh

The Effects of Hand Fidgets on the On-Task Behaviors of A Middle School Student With Disabilities in an Inclusive Academic Setting , Karen S. Voytecki

Theses/Dissertations from 2004 2004

Speech-Language Pathologists’ Professional Efficacy Beliefs about Assessing the Language Skills of Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Students , Karen Patricia Harris

Advanced Search

• Email Notifications and RSS
• All Collections
• USF Faculty Publications
• Open Access Journals
• Conferences and Events
• Theses and Dissertations
• Textbooks Collection

Useful Links

• Rights Information
• SelectedWorks
• Submit Research

Home | About | Help | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Language and Diversity Statements

Privacy Copyright

NASET.org Home Page

Exceptional teachers teaching exceptional children.

• Overview of NASET
• NASET Leadership
• Directors' Message
• Books by the Executive Directors
• Mission Statement
• NASET Apps for iPhone and iPad
• NASET Store
• NASET Sponsors
• Marketing Opportunities
• Contact NASET
• Renew Your Membership
• Membership Benefits
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Membership Categories
• School / District Membership Information
• Gift Membership
• Membership Benefit for Professors Only
• NASET's Privacy Policy
• Forgot Your User Name or Password?
• Contact Membership Department
• Resources for Special Education Teachers
• Advocacy (Board Certification for Advocacy in Special Education) BCASE
• Board Certification in Special Education
• Inclusion - Board Certification in Inclusion in Special Education (BCISE) Program
• Paraprofessional Skills Preparation Program - PSPP
• Professional Development Program (PDP) Free to NASET Members
• Courses - Professional Development Courses (Free With Membership)
• Forms, Tables, Checklists, and Procedures for Special Education Teachers
• Video and Power Point Library
• IEP Development
• Exceptional Students and Disability Information
• Special Education and the Law
• Transition Services
• Literacy - Teaching Literacy in English to K-5 English Learners
• Facebook - Special Education Teacher Group
• NASET Sponsor's Products and Services
• ADHD Series
• Assessment in Special Education Series
• Autism Spectrum Disorders Series
• Back to School - Special Review
• Bullying of Children
• Classroom Management Series
• Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
• Treatment of Disabilities and Disorders for Students Receiving Special Education and Related Services
• Discipline of Students in Special Education Series
• Early Intervention Series
• Genetics in Special Education Series
• How To Series
• Inclusion Series
• IEP Components
• JAASEP - Research Based Journal in Special Education
• Lesser Known Disorders
• NASET NEWS ALERTS
• NASET Q & A Corner
• Parent Teacher Conference Handouts
• The Practical Teacher
• Resolving Disputes with Parents Series
• RTI Roundtable
• Severe Disabilities Series
• Special Educator e-Journal - Latest and Archived Issues
• Week in Review
• Working with Paraprofessionals in Your School
• Author Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts & Articles to NASET
• SCHOOLS of EXCELLENCE
• Exceptional Charter School in Special Education
• Outstanding Special Education Teacher Award
• Board Certification Programs
• Employers - Job Posting Information
• Latest Job Listings
• Professional Development Program (PDP)
• Employers-Post a Job on NASET
• PDP - Professional Development Courses
• Board Certification in Special Education (BCSE)
• Board Certification in IEP Development (BCIEP)
• NASET Continuing Education/Professional Development Courses
• HONOR SOCIETY - Omega Gamma Chi
• Other Resources for Special Education Teaching Positions
• Highly Qualified Teachers
• Special Education Career Advice
• Special Education Career Fact Sheets
• FAQs for Special Education Teachers
• Special Education Teacher Salaries by State
• State Licensure for Special Education Teachers
• IEP Goals and Objectives - Case Study

IEP Case Study

Naset’s iep goals and objectives with common core state standards.

An Example Case

John is a 6 th grade boy who was recently evaluated for special education. His evaluation results indicated deficits in the following areas:

1- John has difficulty in learning how to gather and organize information for a report or an assignment in a clear and coherent manner.

2- John has difficulty planning, revising, and rewriting his assignments.

3- John has difficulty applying division and multiplication facts in order to solve fractions.

4- John has great difficulty understanding and integrating information in areas like science when it comes to charts and diagrams.

5- John has great difficulty and gets confused when determining the meaning from multiple meaning words and phrases.

See how the latest update to NASET's IEP Goals and Objectives with Common Core State Standards application can be used with this case study!

See an impartial review of this app - click here, view or download this case study - click here, see video demonstrations of this app - click here.

Purchase on in the iTunes Store for only $9.99

To purchase and download this unique app, click on the apple image above or copy and paste this link: https://itunes.apple.com/webobjects/mzstore.woa/wa/viewsoftwareid=570070557&mt=8, impartial third party review.

Take a look at this unsolicited reviewer has to say about this app -  http://www.lessonplanet.com/professional-development/courses/ed-tech-iep-goals-and-objectives-with-ccss

• IEP Goals and Objectives with CCSS - Application Videos

©2024 National Association of Special Education Teachers. All rights reserved

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement

• V. B. Salas García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-3879 1 &
• José María Rentería   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-0032 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  521 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

375 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

This study explores the impact of inclusive education on the educational outcomes of students without Special Educational Needs (non-SEN) in Peru, utilizing official Ministry of Education data and implementing cross-sectional regression analyses. Inclusive education is a complex issue that, without appropriate adaptations and comprehensive understanding, can present substantial challenges to the educational community. While prior research from developed nations offers diverse perspectives on the effects of inclusive education on non-SEN students, limited evidence exists regarding its impact in developing countries. Our study addresses this gap by examining inclusive education in Peru and its influence on non-SEN students, thereby contributing to the existing literature. Our findings reveal that, on average, the presence of SEN students in regular classrooms does not significantly affect their non-SEN counterparts. However, we uncover heterogeneous results contingent on the specific type of SEN and students’ academic placement. These results emphasize the importance of targeted resources and parental involvement in facilitating successful inclusive education, particularly for specific SEN types. In summary, this study underscores the need for tailored strategies and additional resources to foster the success of inclusive education and calls for further research in this field to expand our understanding and enhance educational policy.

Similar content being viewed by others

The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities

Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education

Persistent association between family socioeconomic status and primary school performance in Britain over 95 years

Introduction.

Inclusive education has become a significant policy for improving access to and the quality of education for children with special educational needs (SEN), who often encounter physical and social barriers hindering their access to education and entry into the labor market, which in turn is detrimental to the economic and social progress of a country (Filmer, 2008 ; Mitra and Sambamoorthi, 2008 ). Thus, the United Nations has declared “inclusive and equitable quality education” as the fourth 2030 Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to reduce the disability gap in education. Likewise, there exist international declarations like the Salamanca Statement in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994 ) or the Declaration of the Decade of the Americas for the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities 2016–2026 (OAS, 2018 ) that incorporate the principle of inclusive education to guarantee education for all.

There are different education approaches Footnote 1 to ensure education for children with SEN, but the inclusive approach, unlike others, promotes equal participation of SEN students in regular schools by attending classes alongside same-aged non-SEN students (Dixon, 2005 ). Inclusive education goes beyond the placement of pupils; it refers to a unified system that receives all students regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Dixon, 2005 ). Under the inclusive approach, governments and schools should provide the means (i.e., physical and human resources) to reduce or eliminate physical, academic, and social hurdles faced by SEN students within regular schools (Dixon, 2005 ). Thus, inclusive education aims for social cohesion and a less discriminatory education approach that helps enhance the human capital acquisition of children with SEN (Kiuppis, 2014 ).

Despite the efforts for an inclusive education agenda worldwide, children with SEN remain behind in education indicators such as years of education, school attendance, or academic achievement (Filmer, 2008 ; Rangvid, 2022 ). This raises concerns about the impact that placement of children with SEN in regular schools may have on the educational achievement of children without SEN since these children are also involved in the inclusive education system (Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). In Peru, for instance, some teachers in regular schools as well as some leaders of deaf organizations, do not support inclusive education as they think it is detrimental for both SEN and non-SEN students (Goico, 2019 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2019 ). Nevertheless, there is little empirical literature focused on the effects of inclusive education not only on SEN students but also on non-SEN students, especially in developing countries that shelter a high percentage of people with disabilities (Olusanya et al., 2022 ). This paper, therefore, aims to fill that gap by using information from a developing country, namely Peru. It investigates the impact of inclusive education, quantified through the presence of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on the academic performance of their non-SEN counterparts. Analyzing the peer effects of inclusive education is of utmost interest for policymakers aiming to increase the presence of SEN students in regular schools, as policy implications should consider the effects on all children.

The present work provides three main contributions to the existing literature regarding peer effects in the context of inclusive education. First, we provide new evidence using unusual and rich data from a middle-income country. To our knowledge, there is only one study focusing on a developing country. Indeed, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) analyze the Chilean case and find that placement of children with SEN in regular classrooms negatively affects the standardized test scores in mathematics and reading of their non-SEN peers, but it is neutralized when schools receive additional resources and specialized professionals. Nevertheless, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) use panel data for students attending primary schools in two periods, 2007 and 2011, without including types of SEN. In contrast, we study children attending primary and secondary schools using cross-section data between 2011 and 2019 and disaggregate our analysis by types of SEN Footnote 2 .

Our second contribution is to disaggregate our analysis by type of SEN. We are aware of two studies that use an overall indicator to reflect the presence of SEN students and disaggregate it by type of SEN. On one hand, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) examine two types of special educational needs: learning or emotional and speech; while, Ruijs ( 2017 ) examines four types: visual, hearing, physical or intellectual, and behavioral. In our case, besides evaluating the consequences of placing children with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities in a regular classroom, we also evaluate the repercussions of placing children with autistic spectrum disorder in a regular classroom, which is a much less studied topic.

Finally, our third contribution is to explore the heterogeneous results of inclusive education on the non-SEN student population. Unlike previous studies, we explore the potential different impact of inclusive education between male and female non-SEN students. As most reproductive work has traditionally been done by women (cf. Razavi, 2012 ), it could be argued that female non-SEN students are more likely to take care of or help SEN students, which in turn may influence their educational achievement. Our heterogeneity analysis also takes into account school characteristics like classroom size as well as mother’s characteristics.

In our analysis, we take significant steps to mitigate potential biases stemming from endogenous classroom selection and the sorting of SEN students. We achieve this by focusing on schools with one class per grade level, which provides a more controlled setting for our study. Moreover, our dataset allows us to identify the class composition, which is vital for investigating educational peer effects. The classroom environment is particularly relevant, as classmates have a substantial impact on each other’s educational outcomes, given their shared classroom experience throughout the school day (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lazear, 2001 ).

Our findings suggest that the inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on average, exerts a neutral influence on their non-SEN peers. A nuanced examination reveals varied results contingent upon the specific categories of SEN. This variability is consistent with the fact that SEN encompasses a broad spectrum of support requirements arising from diverse degrees and types of individual abilities, spanning physical, psychological, cognitive, and sensory domains. Hence, the influence of inclusive education would vary according to the distinct profile of the SEN student integrated into a conventional classroom setting. Furthermore, our results underscore the importance of accounting for temporal dynamics and the particular educational phase in gauging the impact of SEN students on their non-SEN counterparts. This observation aligns with the differential results discerned across academic grades.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The literature review and institutional setting are presented in the next section, followed by a description of the data and empirical strategy. After that, we discuss our results, and finally, we conclude.

This section starts with a brief literature review and then describes the main features of the Peruvian educational system as well as its public policy approach to inclusive education.

Literature review

The inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools remains a subject of debate due to the mixed findings within the empirical literature. Proponents of inclusive education argue that attending regular schools is not only a fundamental human right for children with SEN (Ainscow and César, 2006 ; Rangvid, 2022 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ) but can also yield benefits for non-SEN students, particularly in terms of their learning development. This is attributed to the additional resources allocated to inclusive education (Keslair et al., 2012 ; Ruijs, 2017 ). Besides, inclusive education may help children without SEN to develop soft skills like kindness, tolerance, and patience, which are important to living in a diverse society (Contreras et al., 2020 ; Dixon, 2005 ). On the other hand, the main concerns regarding inclusive education are related to negative peer effects. The literature on class composition states that students’ performance is influenced by their peers’ characteristics (Ammermueller and Pischke, 2009 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ). Since children with SEN may require more teaching attention and show disruptive behaviors (Ahmed et al., 2021 ; Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs, 2017 ), they could be considered “bad” students who could interfere with the educational development of their classmates without SEN (Lavy et al., 2012 ; Lazear, 2001 ), especially for those who are at the bottom of the ability distribution (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ).

The quantitative studies that examine the peer effects of inclusive education mainly use data from developed countries. Most of them have found that inclusive education has a negative or null effect on non-SEN students’ outcomes. For instance, using data from Switzerland, Balestra et al. ( 2022 ) find that placing SEN students in regular classrooms harms not only educational outcomes but also labor market outcomes for non-SEN students. Similarly, studies from the United States (Fletcher, 2010 ) and Denmark (Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ; Rangvid, 2019 ) show that exposure to SEN students decreases reading test scores of non-SEN students. Also, for the United States, Gottfried ( 2014 ) and Gottfried et al. ( 2016 ) present evidence that inclusive education worsens the non-cognitive skills of non-SEN students. Fletcher ( 2010 ), however, points out that the negative effect of inclusive education in the United States disappears for reading when their lagged scores are considered in the analysis. Likewise, studies for Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ) also find that the presence of SEN students does not affect the academic performance of their non-SEN peers; but they point out that this result may be due to additional resources received by regular schools with SEN students. Conversely, other studies have found positive externalities of SEN students on the educational achievement of their non-SEN peers. For instance, Cole et al. ( 2004 ) point out that non-SEN students in the United States perform better at reading and mathematics tests since they may benefit from the additional resources allocated to inclusive education. Likewise, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) find that non-SEN students attending inclusive classrooms in the United States improve their mathematics test scores. Using data from the same country, Gottfried and McGene ( 2013 ) go beyond by showing that having a sibling with SEN helps to improve the schooling achievement of those siblings without SEN.

Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the effects of inclusive education on students with and without SEN. The coincidences lie in the varied impacts of inclusive education on non-SEN students, demonstrating a nuanced and context-dependent picture. While Dell’Anna et al. ( 2021 ) hint at positive peer attitudes in inclusive settings, the academic outcomes and the experience of non-SEN students diverge, with high achievers potentially benefiting more than low achievers (Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). Kart and Kart ( 2021 ) and Szumski et al. ( 2017 ) contribute to the discussion, highlighting mixed academic effects across different grade levels. The meta-analyses by Oh-Young and Filler ( 2015 ) and Krämer et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize the overall positive impact of inclusive settings for students with SEN while still acknowledging variations in outcomes. Finally, Van Mieghem et al. ( 2020 ) emphasize the pivotal role of teacher professional development in the successful implementation of inclusive education.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the conflicting results found in the literature may be explained by the differences in the criteria used to identify a SEN student. Most of the previous studies have used an aggregated measure to encompass all SEN students without considering the types of SEN (e.g., Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ). On the other hand, some studies have focused on one or two types of special needs; such as emotional disturbances and mental disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Fletcher, 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ; Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ), or learning and behavioral disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Friesen et al., 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ). The present paper addresses these limitations found in the literature by taking into account different types of SEN and also by exploring the potential heterogeneous results of inclusive education for non-SEN students.

Institutional setting: The educational system in Peru

Primary and secondary education in Peru is compulsory and provided by the government at no cost and by the private sector with a wide tuition range. Peruvian children between 6- and 11- years old attend primary school and start secondary school by the age of 12 for a period of 5 years. The last National Population Census in 2017 reports that roughly 5.4% and 7.0% of Peruvians who are primary-school and secondary-school-aged, respectively, have at least one disability. However, according to the School Census of the same year, <1% of children attending regular schools are categorized as SEN students, which suggests that inclusive education in Peru is not well developed. Despite this low enrollment rate, the percentage of SEN students grew from 0.26% in 2007 to 0.96% in 2019.

Since primary and secondary schools in Peru must comply with a mandatory national curriculum, the same courses are taken by children who attend the same grade level across different schools. Schools may have more than one class per grade level, which are called sections , which students are assigned when they start primary school, which makes it less likely that students are sorted in a non-random fashion. Besides, every section has a specific classroom where students are instructed in most of their courses; thus, students do not need to move among different classrooms throughout the school day. At the primary school, the teacher assigned to a section is usually responsible for the majority of the courses; whereas, at the secondary school, it is often the case that there is a different teacher for each course. Another characteristic of the Peruvian education system is that it allows parents to send their children to any school, public or private, even if that school is outside their district of residence.

According to the last National Population Census in 2017, Peru has achieved almost universal coverage of education, 94.9% of the population aged 12 or over have primary education, and 74.5% aged 17 or over have secondary education. These numbers, however, mask a disability gap. Among adults aged 17 or over, 14.1% of people with at least one disability report having no education, whereas only 3.9% of people with no disabilities report the same. There is also an educational disability gap of 11.9 percentage points (p.p.) among the female population, but it decreases to 7.1 p.p. among the male population. These figures suggest that having a disability poses a larger burden for females than for males.

In this context, the Peruvian National Education Law recognized in 2003 inclusive education as the main approach to providing education to students with SEN, which should be accompanied by supplementary one-to-one attention by specialists (Congreso de la República, 2003 ). Thus, the Peruvian legal framework advocates an inclusive approach to integrating children and youth with disabilities into society. Aligned with the national inclusive policy, the state, as per the 2012 General Law of Persons with Disabilities (Law 29973), ensures access to quality inclusive education that accommodates individual needs. This entails adjustments in infrastructure, furniture, materials, curriculum, and teaching processes, all aimed at facilitating quality learning and fostering the comprehensive development of each student. It is worth noting, however, that empirical evidence indicates that many regular schools lack the necessary infrastructure, materials, and human resources to accommodate students with disabilities (Cueto et al., 2018 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ).

The basic education system comprises three modalities: regular basic education (EBR), alternative basic education (EBA), and special basic education (EBE). EBR represents conventional formal education. EBA caters to students who lack access to EBR, emphasizing vocational and entrepreneurial skills. EBE is designated for students with SEN related to disability, talent, or giftedness. EBA and EBR schools, when admitting students with SEN, are termed inclusive schools . EBE operates in both inclusive schools and standalone EBE schools. In inclusive schools that accept students with mild disabilities and giftedness, EBE provides support and guidance through programs like Support and Advisory Services for Special Educational Needs (SAANEE). This includes personalized services and support to students, parents, teachers, and school principals through weekly visits of specialized professionals (Congreso de la República, 2006 ). Nevertheless, the evidence shows that inclusive education in Peru is far from successfully being implemented, and it is combined with an “integration approach” (Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ). On the other hand, dedicated EBE schools directly serve severe and multi-disabled students with needs beyond the scope of EBR or EBA schools. EBR and EBA schools are mandated to reserve at least two slots per classroom during the enrollment period for the inclusion of students with mild or moderate disabilities. However, in practice, this requirement is not systematically fulfilled (Cueto et al., 2018 ).

Data and methodology

In this study, we use three datasets that are collected by the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU). First, we utilized the Student Census Evaluation (ECE) as our primary data source, which encompasses the scores achieved by students in the national standardized tests of reading and mathematics Footnote 3 . To create our dependent variable, “learning achievement”, we transformed these scores into z -scores, standardizing them by grade level and by subject to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for use in our econometric analysis. Furthermore, the ECE dataset includes additional demographic information such as gender and the primary language spoken by the students. The ECE started in 2007, with annual assessments of students in the 2nd grade of primary (2P). Subsequently, it was expanded in 2015 to encompass students in the 2nd grade of secondary (2S). In 2017, however, the ECE was not conducted. Our second dataset is the National School Census (CE) which contains information regarding school characteristics and grade composition. The CE has been yearly collected since 2004, and it covers public and private schools. We use it to measure inclusive education by identifying the presence of SEN students at the section level. These two datasets are merged at the school level through a school identifier; thus, each student is linked to section characteristics in the school he or she is attending. The last dataset is the Information System to Support the Management of the Education Institution (SG), which was implemented in 2003 but has been mandatory only since 2011. The SG contains information that is uploaded every year by teachers or school principals. This includes students’ age, mothers’ age and education, and number of siblings. The SG is merged with the other datasets by using a student identifier.

For our analysis, we focus on students attending 2P in the period dating from 2011 to 2016 (excluding 2014) Footnote 4 and students attending 2S from 2015 to 2019 (excluding 2017). Footnote 5 For both grades, 2P and 2S, we account for potential grade advancement and delay. Footnote 6 Therefore, in the case of 2P where students are usually 7 years old, we include children aged between 6 and 8 years, and for 2S where students are usually 13 years old, we include children aged between 12 and 14 years. The final number of observations for 2P comprises 55,637 students who took the reading test and 55,614 students who took the mathematics test. And, for 2S, we have 47,491 students who took the reading test and 47,484 students who took the mathematics test.

To evaluate the influence of inclusive education on non-SEN students’ learning achievement, we use the CE where the school principal reports the number of SEN students placed in each grade level every year and per type of SEN. Footnote 7 This report is based on medical certificates, psycho-pedagogical certificates, and parents’ affidavits. Thus, we can identify the presence of SEN students per section to measure inclusive education. Footnote 8 Besides, we disaggregate the presence of SEN students per type. Specifically, we distinguish, for each section, the presence of students with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities, as well as those with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). In the case of intellectual or learning disabilities, the CE includes those students with Down syndrome, brain injury, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The other SEN types considered in the CE include students with speech impairment, deaf-blindness, and hospitalized. Although gifted students are identified as SEN students in the CE, we exclude them in our measure of SEN.

There are three main challenges to estimating peer effects, as stated by Manski ( 1993 ), that could hinder proper identification of the influence of SEN students on the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers. First, students in the same cohort could face similar environmental factors or have similar unobserved characteristics that may influence their academic outcomes rather than having classmates with SEN. To disentangle the environment from peer effects, we follow the literature by using a large number of observations and fixed effects (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ).

Second, there is a potential reflection problem as classmates may influence each other and determine their outcomes simultaneously. Since we focus on SEN characteristics related to physical disabilities, health issues, and injuries determined by specialists, it is less likely that the SEN status of students was determined by the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers.

The third problem is related to self-selection. In the Peruvian school system, parents may choose to send their children to any school regardless of their district of residence; thus, specific school characteristics may attract certain types of students. To address this problem, we restrict the analysis to schools with similar characteristics. We select schools located in urban areas providing mixed-sex education that operate on the main school campus only during the morning shift and with 10–30 students per section. In the case of primary education, we select full-grade schools. Footnote 9 Besides, to address a potential sorting problem that could make it difficult to identify whether the learning outcome is due to the presence of SEN students or one’s ability, we select schools with one section per grade level. In this way, we avoid the possibility for school administrators to group students into sections based on their characteristics or for parents to choose a section without SEN students. Finally, more than 90% of non-SEN students take the standardized national tests, which suggests that school principals do not select high-performance students to take these tests.

To test the validity of our identification strategy, we perform two balancing checks for 2P and 2S, presented in Tables 1 and 2 , respectively. To perform these balancing checks, we use only students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, rather than separating them by subject as we do for the econometric analyses. Panels A, B, and C show that the presence of at least one SEN student does not determine the gender, language, or age of non-SEN students, respectively. We observe that coefficients are statistically not significant, and their size is smaller in comparison to those from the main analysis, except for reading test scores in 2S. In addition, panel D shows that individual characteristics do not determine the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom. These results provide evidence against the likelihood of selection into classrooms.

To examine the impact of inclusive education on standardized test performance of non-SEN students, we estimate the following linear model:

Equation ( 1 ) is estimated separately for each grade level (2P or 2S) and subject (reading or mathematics) using a linear regression. \({{{\rm {EDC}}}}_{{i{\rm {s}}t}}\) is the learning achievement of student \(i\) in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) , measured by the z -score of the standardized test. \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{\rm {s}}}t}\) is a dichotomous variable capturing the presence of at least one SEN student in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) ; thus, \({\alpha }_{1}\) is our parameter of interest. In other specifications below, \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{s}t}}\) will be differentiated by type of SEN. \({{{\rm {STD}}}}_{{i{s}t}}\) is a vector of student-level control variables that include age in years and indicators for gender (1 = women) and spoken language (1 = indigenous). The vector \({{{\rm {SEC}}}}_{{st}}\) controls for section-level variables without student \(i\) . It includes mean age, proportion of male students, proportion of indigenous speakers, and number of students. The vector \({{{\rm {SCH}}}}_{t}\) includes number of students at the school level. \({{{\rm {HH}}}}_{{it}}\) includes the following household characteristics: mother’s age, mother’s education, and the number of siblings. We also include school-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{{s}}\right)\) Footnote 10 and year-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{t}\right)\) . Finally, \({\varepsilon }_{{i{s}t}}\) is an unobserved error term, and we cluster standard errors at the section level as this is the common environment shared by students (Balestra et al., 2022 ).

To assess potential heterogeneous influences, we follow recent literature Footnote 11 and estimate Eq. ( 1 ) using split samples by the characteristic of interest (Feigenberg et al., 2023 ). In particular, we evaluate the gender of the student \(i\) . For section characteristics, we evaluate the number of students. Finally, we assess the varying estimates based on the mother’s age and the mother’s education. In the case of characteristics that are represented by continuous or categorical variables, we convert them into dichotomous variables. For the number of students, we split the sample between sections that have 20 or fewer students and sections with 21 or more students. In the case of the mother’s age, we use the mean age to split the sample above and below the mean. The mean age is 41.5 for those mothers with children who attend 2P and 44.8 for those with children who attend 2S. Finally, for mothers’ education, we split the sample between those with and without tertiary education.

The descriptive statistics for our final cross-section subpopulations are presented in Table 3 . All descriptive and econometric analyses were conducted using Stata 18. In this case, we combine observations that include students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, as the characteristics of the separated subpopulations are similar to each other. According to Table 3 , students with SEN generally have lower reading and mathematics scores compared to their peers without SEN across both primary and secondary grades. This trend is more pronounced in 2S compared to 2P. We also observe in Table 3 that the proportions of women and indigenous language speakers are relatively consistent across SEN and non-SEN cohorts. Approximately 48% of the students are female, and the average age is 6.9 in 2P and 12.9 in 2S. However, it is interesting to note that the mean proportion of indigenous language speakers is higher in 2S (~22%) compared to 2P (~12%), indicating a potential demographic shift as students progress through the education system. A similar trend for indigenous language speakers is observed at the section level. Moreover, figures in Table 3 show that the mean age in a section is ~7.2 in 2P and 13.3 in 2S, the sample is balanced between male and female students at the section level, and there are around 20 students per section. Regarding household characteristics, the average age of mothers is 41.5 for those with children in 2P and 44.8 for those with children in 2S, around 6 out of 10 students have mothers with primary or secondary education, and the majority of students have more than two siblings. Finally, students enrolled in primary education typically attend larger schools, characterized by a pupil population exceeding 120, in contrast to those in secondary education, where schools typically accommodate fewer than 100 students.

Empirical results

Regression results from Eq. ( 1 ) are shown in Table 4 . Footnote 12 For column (1), we use ECE and CE datasets, which do not include students’ age or household characteristics. For columns (2) through (6), we add the SG dataset to incorporate students’ age and household characteristics. Columns (1) through (4) include the proportion of repeaters and the presence of at least one specialized teacher when students were 3 years old, and they were not attending school; thus, the presence of an SEN student should not influence the proportion of repeaters or presence of a specialized teacher. Columns (5) and (6) do not include those variables, and the results remain similar to those obtained in the previous columns. In addition, as a robustness check, we try different subpopulations based on students’ age (columns (2) through (4)) and schools with variation in SEN students (column (6)). For all the specifications, our results consistently show that the presence of at least one SEN student as a measure of inclusive education does not have a significant influence on the learning achievement of students who attend 2P or 2S. Our findings align with similar results from other countries such as Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ), indicating that inclusive education does not have a significant impact on the academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Nevertheless, we notice in Table 4 that, after including students’ age and household characteristics, the negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement (column 1) turned into a positive relationship (columns 2 through 6). Even in the case of students who attend 2S, the magnitude of the positive relationship between inclusive education and mathematics scores increased when student’s age and household characteristics were included in the regression. This suggests that the attributes of a student’s household, along with individual traits correlated with them, such as motivation, self-discipline, and parental support, may exert a positive influence on their learning environment. This influence could potentially counterbalance any adverse effects of inclusive education. An alternative explanation lies in the interaction effects between inclusive education and these supplementary factors. For instance, older students or those from more privileged households could potentially derive greater benefits from inclusive education due to their increased adaptability to the classroom environment. We further explore these issues in the Heterogeneity analysis section.

The main results, however, may mask different outcomes by type of SEN. Table 5 shows the results from Eq. ( 1 ) using the presence of at least one student with a certain type of SEN as a measure of inclusive education. Results Footnote 13 in Table 5 are estimated by gradually adding control variables in each column. Columns (1) and (6) do not include any control variable. Columns (2) and (7) add student controls. Cohort controls are added in columns (3) and (8), and school controls are added in columns (5) and (9). Finally, family controls are added in columns (5) and (10). As we can see in Table 5 , adding variables does not substantially change the estimates. We also notice that the sign of the relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement varies by type of SEN, and only vision disability (panel A) and mobility disability (panel B) have a significant positive relationship with the standardized test scores of students who attend 2P and 2S, respectively. As we can observe in Table 5 , even when we use the Romano-Wolf multiple hypothesis correction, the significance of our findings remains similar across different specifications (cf. Clarke, 2021 , Clarke et al., 2020 ). These findings confirm our main results that inclusive education would not harm the learning performance of non-SEN students, regardless of the type of SEN presented by their peers.

Results in Table 5 show that the impact of attending an inclusive classroom with at least one SEN student with a vision disability increases the reading and mathematics scores of students who attend 2P by 0.135 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 5) and by 0.154 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. In the case of students who attend 2S, the impact of the presence of at least one student with mobility disability increases the performance on reading and mathematics tests by 0.099 (adjusted p -value < 0.01) (column 5) and by 0.100 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. Similar to our results, Ruijs ( 2017 ) found that the presence of students with vision disabilities as well as physical and intellectual disabilities in the third level of pre-vocational secondary education in the Netherlands increases standardized test scores of non-SEN students. Moreover, previous studies pointed out that non-SEN students show more positive attitudes toward their peers with physical disabilities (de Boer et al., 2012 ), which may explain the positive influence of SEN students with vision and mobility disabilities that we have found on the learning achievement on non-SEN students.

Heterogeneity analysis

We further undertake several analyses to understand the differences in the impact of inclusive education. Footnote 14 Clogg’s z -test is implemented for testing the statistical significance of the difference between the coefficients estimated separately by splitting Eq. ( 1 ) (Clogg et al., 1995 ).

Estimates of inclusive education by gender of non-SEN students are presented in Table 6 . The results show that the influence of inclusive education on learning achievement is not statistically significant for men or women, and there is no statistical difference between them.

To explore the influence of inclusive education by usage of adequate resources, we analyze the influence of the total number of students at the section level. We find that inclusive education is associated with higher scores in reading and mathematics for non-SEN students who attend classrooms with 10–20 students and with lower scores for those who attend classrooms with 21–30 students, regardless the student attends 2P or 2S. This result may reflect that small groups foster a closer interaction between students and teacher which in turn may allow the teacher to develop better teaching strategies since they know each student better. The result of inclusive education by section size, however, is statistically different only for the reading score obtained by non-SEN students who attend 2S. This result underscores the complexity of inclusive education’s effects and the importance of context-specific considerations. Authorities should pay special attention to the number of students assigned to an inclusive classroom.

To analyze the household’s characteristics, we use the mother’s age and education. In the case of reading and mathematics in 2P, it seems that older mothers help to improve the scores of non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom; but there is not a clear pattern in the case of 2S. The differences in the test scores by mother’s age, however, are not statistically significant in any case, 2P or 2S. We have to take this result with caution as it is possible that other family characteristics rather than the mother’s age act as a moderator that could influence the effect of inclusive education on children’s outcomes in school (Leigh and Gong, 2010 ; López Turley, 2003 ).

We also present in Table 6 the estimates of inclusive education on test scores of non-SEN students by mother’s education. We observe that the difference in inclusive education’s influence on test scores in reading and mathematics is not statistically different regardless mother’s education. Although the difference is small and not significant, we observe that among non-SEN students in 2P and 2S with well-educated mothers (i.e., tertiary education), inclusive education is associated with lower scores in reading and mathematics. This finding may suggest that well-educated mothers may dedicate fewer hours to helping their children as they are more likely to work outside the home in comparison to less-educated mothers.

The current study focused on the learning achievement of non-SEN students in Peru who attend an inclusive classroom. We use three rich administrative datasets that allow us to measure inclusive education by the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom, which is the appropriate setting as students spend their school day mostly within the classroom. Thus, we are able to capture the influence of inclusive education on the test scores of non-SEN students on national standardized tests in reading and mathematics.

Inclusive strategies in regular classrooms are undeniably crucial, but without appropriate adaptations and a comprehensive understanding by all involved, inclusive education can pose considerable challenges for the entire educational community, including non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ; Nilsen, 2020 ). While some studies for developed countries show that the learning achievement of non-SEN students is improved by attending inclusive classrooms and others point to negative effects, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of inclusive education for developing countries. From this perspective, our study contributes to the literature by examining the case of inclusive education in Peru and its consequences on non-SEN students. To the best of our knowledge, this topic has not been previously analyzed in the Peruvian context. Further, we explore the influence of inclusive education by type of SEN and undertake a heterogeneity analysis.

Overall, this study has found that the inclusion of SEN students in regular classrooms, on average, yields no substantial implications for their non-SEN counterparts. Our results have shown consistency among the different model specifications estimated using several subpopulations with different age ranges as well as an additional sub-population restricted to schools with variation in the presence of SEN students. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there is a negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement of non-SEN students that turns into a positive relationship when the mother’s characteristics are included in the analysis. This may present an opportunity for school authorities to involve parents in the learning process of their kids to enhance inclusive education programs, as the literature suggests that the way inclusive education is implemented may lead to positive results on the academic performance of non-SEN students (Szumski et al., 2017 ).

We also found that the implications of inclusive education are contingent upon the specific type of SEN. In particular, non-SEN students benefit from attending classrooms with at least one student with a vision disability in 2P and a mobility disability in 2S. This finding underscores differential effects between lower and later grades, a phenomenon previously noted in the literature (Kart and Kart, 2021 ). Also, this result should draw attention from policymakers interested in inclusive education as schools may be more suitable to assist this type of SEN students, whereas the potential lack of resources to support other types of SEN might detrimentally affect SEN and non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ). In addition, we find that the influence of inclusive education is heterogeneous. We find that the small size of the classroom (20 or fewer students) helps to improve learning achievement in reading for non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom in 2S. Similar to previous literature (e.g., Szumski et al., 2017 ), this finding points to the need for educational policymakers to increase the budget for inclusive education, targeting to hire more and adequate resources. Finally, the mother’s characteristics are not relevant to explain differences in the estimates of inclusive education on academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Despite the contributions made by this study, some potential limitations could be addressed by future research. First, due to a lack of data, we are not able to incorporate a measure that reflects the diverse intensity of a disability (Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ) that could be associated with different costs (Nicoriciu and Elliot, 2023 ). Second, the datasets employed in this analysis are unavailable for certain years, precluding our use of data from ECE before 2011. Additionally, the variable indicating the language spoken in 2S was not present in the same dataset (CE) for the years 2018 and 2019. Finally, despite our efforts to mitigate concerns related to omitted variable bias, we concede the possibility of residual biases. Specifically, we omitted socioeconomic status from our analysis due to substantial rates of missing data.

Data availability

The datasets used in this study are available from the Peruvian Ministry of Education repository upon request.

In the literature, there are three main approaches: (i) segregation, (ii) integration, and (iii) inclusive (see e.g., Dixon, 2005 ; Kiuppis, 2014 ; Madhesh, 2023 ).

It is worth noting that results from countries like Peru are not directly comparable to those previously presented by Contreras et al. ( 2020 ). Indeed, academic performance in Peru is poorer relative to Chile, as reported by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and it does not receive monetary incentives to enroll children with SEN. Furthermore, Chile displays a particular institutional framework worldwide since state-subsidized private schools (voucher schools) have around 50% of total enrollment (CEM, 2019 ). Thus, insights from the Peruvian case are valuable for other comparable countries.

Although the ECE evaluates other subjects, only mathematics and reading were evaluated in every ECE. Students attending 2nd grade of primary were evaluated from 2007 to 2016 on mathematics and reading. In the case of students attending 2nd grade of secondary, they were evaluated on mathematics and reading from 2015 to 2019 (except 2017), social sciences in 2016 and 2018, and science and technology in 2018 and 2019.

Unfortunately, information for SG was not available before 2011, and the MINEDU did not provide information for 2014.

The ECE was not conducted in 2017.

Advancement and delay in 2P (2S) are determined based on the chronological age of the students as of March 31. If a student is one year younger than the standard age of 7 (13), it would be considered advancement. Conversely, if a student is one year older than the standard age, that is, age of 8 (14), it would be considered within a delay.

Since we only include schools with one section per grade, the number of SEN students reported by grade is used to account for the presence of SEN students at the section level.

A cohort refers to the students within the same section for each grade level and year.

Full-grade refers to primary schools where teachers do not teach more than one grade in the same classroom.

Since we work with schools that have only one section, school-fixed effects can also be understood as section-fixed effects.

Feigenberg et al. ( 2023 ) state that using a split-sample approach is equivalent to a fully interacted model but avoids losing statistical power. Likewise, they state that, unlike a model with only one interaction, the split-sample approach reduces bias due to omitted variables.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in the Supplementary Information. Tables S1 and S2 for reading and mathematics in 2P, respectively. Tables S3 and S4 for reading and mathematics in 2S, respectively.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information Table S5 .

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information from Table S6 to Table S10 .

Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M, Karlsson K (2021) Do schools discriminate against children with disabilities? A field experiment in Sweden. Educ Econ 29(1):3–16

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, César M (2006) Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: setting the agenda. Eur J Psychol Educ 21(3):231–238

Ammermueller A, Pischke J (2009) Peer effects in European primary schools: evidence from the progress in international reading literacy study. J Labor Econ27(3):315–348

Balestra S, Eugster B, Liebert H (2022) Peers with special needs: effects and policies. Rev Econ Stat 104(3):602–618

Burke M, Sass T (2013) Classroom peer effects and student achievement. J Labor Econ 31(1):51–82

CEM (2019) Estadísticas de la educación 2018. Publicación 2019. Centro de Estudios MINEDUC

Clarke D (2021) rwolf2 implementation and flexible syntax https://www.damianclarke.net/computation/rwolf2.pdf

Clarke D, Romano J, Wolf M (2020) The Romano-Wolf multiple-hypothesis correction in Stata. Stata J 20(4):812–843

Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol 100(5):1261–1293

Cole C, Waldron N, Majd M (2004) Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retard 42:136–144

Congreso de la República (2003) Ley General de Educación. Ley 28044. https://leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/28044.pdf

Congreso de la República (2006) Directiva No. 076-2006-VMGP/DINEBE https://www.minedu.gob.pe/normatividad/resoluciones/rd_0354-2006-ed.pdf

Contreras D, Brante M, Espinoza S, Zuñiga I (2020) The effect of the integration of students with special educational needs: evidence from Chile. Int J Educ Dev 74:102163

Cueto S, Rojas V, Dammer M, Felipe C (2018) Cobertura, oportunidades y percepciones sobre la educación inclusiva en el Perú. GRADE

de Boer A, Pijl S, Minnaert A (2012) Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of the literature. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 59(4):379–392

Dell’Anna S, Pellegrini M, Ianes D (2021) Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: a systematic review. Int J Incl Educ 25(8):944–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592248

Dixon S (2005) Inclusion—not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. J Educ Thought 39(1):33–53

Google Scholar  

Edwards B, Cameron D, King G, McPherson A (2019) How students without special needs perceive social inclusion of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: a scoping review. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 66(3):298–324

Feigenberg B, Ost B, Qureshi J (2023) Omitted variable bias in interacted models: a cautionary tale. Rev Econ Stat https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01361

Filmer D (2008) Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev 22(1):141–163

Fletcher J (2010) Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test scores in early elementary school. J Policy Anal Manag 29(1):69–83

Friesen J, Hickey R, Krauth B (2010) Disabled peers and academic achievement. Educ Financ Policy 5(3):317–348

Goico S (2019) The impact of “inclusive” education on the language of deaf youth in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Stud 19(3):348–374

Gottfried M (2014) Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educ Eval Policy Anal 36(1):20–43

Gottfried M, Egalite A, Kirksey J (2016) Does the presence of a classmate with emotional/behavioral disabilities link to other students’ absences in kindergarten? Early Child Res Q 36:506–520

Gottfried M, McGene J (2013) The spillover effects of having a sibling with special educational needs. J Educ Res 106(3):197–215

Hanushek J, Kain J, Rivkin S (2002) Inferring program effects for special populations: does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Rev Econ Stat 84(4):584–599

Kart A, Kart M (2021) Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: a review of the literature. Educ Sci 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016

Keslair F, Maurin E, McNally S (2012) Every child matters? An evaluation of “special educational needs” programmes in England. Econ Educ Rev 31(6):932–948

Kiuppis F (2014) Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the ‘Salamanca process. Int J Incl Educ 18(7):746–761

Krämer S, Möller J, Zimmermann F (2021) Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 91(3):432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072

Kristoffersen J, Krægpøth M, Nielsen H, Simonsen M (2015) Disruptive school peers and student outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 45:1–13

Lavy V, Silva O, Weinhardt F (2012) The good, the bad, and the average: evidence on ability peer effects in schools. J Labor Econ 30(2):367–414

Lazear E (2001) Educational production. Q J Econ 116(3):777–803

Leigh A, Gong X (2010) Does maternal age affect children’s test scores? Aust Econ Rev 43(1):12–27

López Turley R (2003) Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother’s age or family background? Child Dev 74(2):464–474

Madhesh A (2023) The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:278

Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60:531–542

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U (2008) Disability and the rural labor market in India: evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World Dev 36(5):934–952

Nicoriciu A, Elliot M (2023) Families of children with disabilities: income poverty, material deprivation, and unpaid care in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:519

Nilsen S (2020) Inside but still on the outside? Teachers’ experiences with the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in general education. Int J Incl Educ 24(9):980–996

OAS (2018) Program of action for the decade of the Americas for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. OAS, Washington, DC

Olusanya B, Kancherla V, Shaheen A, Ogbo F, Davis A (2022) Global and regional prevalence of disabilities among children and adolescents: analysis of findings from global health databases. Front Public Health 10:977453

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ombudsman P (2011) Los niños y niñas con discapacidad: Alcances y limitaciones en la implementación de la política de educación inclusiva en instituciones educativas del nivel primaria. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 155. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Ombudsman P (2019) El derecho a la educación inclusiva. Barreras en la implementación de los servicios educativos públicos y privados para estudiantes con discapacidad y con otras necesidades educativas. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 183. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Rangvid B (2019) Returning special education students to regular classrooms: externalities on peers’ reading scores. Econ Educ Rev 68:13–22

Rangvid B (2022) Special educational needs placement in lower secondary education: the impact of segregated vs. mainstream placement on post-16 outcomes. Educ Econ 30(4):399–425

Razavi S (2012) World development report 2012: gender equality and development—a commentary. Dev Change 43(1):423–437

Ruijs N (2017) The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Econ Educ Rev 58:15–31

Ruijs N, Peetsma T (2009) Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ Res Rev 4:67–79

Szumski G, Smogorzewska J, Karwowski M (2017) Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 21:33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Oh-Young C, Filler J (2015) A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 47:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

UNESCO (1994) T he Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality. UNESCO

Van Mieghem A, Verschueren K, Petry K, Struyf E (2020) An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review. Int J Incl Educ 24(6):675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Consortium (grant No. A1-PB03, CIES 2022). The authors express their gratitude to the participants of the XXXIV Annual Research Seminar 2023 hosted by the Economic and Social Research Consortium (CIES), as well as to two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback, which contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. Special thanks to Juan Castañeda and Jonatan Amaya for their outstanding research assistance in earlier versions of this study. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Piura, Av. Ramón Mugica 131, Urb. San Eduardo, Piura, Perú

V. B. Salas García

Departamento de Economía, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima, 15088, Perú

José María Rentería

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. B. Salas García .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Salas García, V.B., Rentería, J.M. Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Inside a School That Doesn’t Single Out Students With Special Needs

• Share article

When students walk into Ruby Bridges Elementary School to start their day, nobody is pulled aside or separated from their peers to receive special instruction.

There’s no need.

Everything at the school—from the seating to staffing—was designed to ensure students with disabilities can learn alongside their peers, transforming what has traditionally been a model of exclusion in U.S. public schools to one of inclusion and belonging.

Ruby Bridges opened in 2020 and the staff at the Woodinville, Wash., school have spent the past four years creating an environment that conveys to every child who walks in: “We thought of you when we made this place, and today could not happen if you weren’t a part of it,” said Principal Cathi Davis.

“So obviously we don’t want you to leave the classroom to do something else because, then, how could science [class] be the same?” she said. “It’s this idea for kids that they are so important that something would be missing in a unique way if they weren’t there.”

The K-5 elementary school about 20 miles northeast of Seattle serves just under 500 students. It’s one of 16 schools in Washington state that partner with the Haring Center for Inclusive Education at University of Washington with the goal of demonstrating that all students benefit when schools are deliberately crafted with the needs of students with disabilities in mind.

There’s no singling out students with special needs

At Ruby Bridges, staff have structured everything around the idea of keeping students with special needs in mainstream classrooms as much as possible.

Instead of pulling students with complex needs into separate classrooms for lessons specially tailored to their needs, they head to class with their peers.

There, everyone has access to supports traditionally outlined in students’ IEPs or 504 plans, like the ability to take breaks when feeling overwhelmed. Students may choose to wear lanyards around their necks with cards that display words and pictures so they can communicate with classmates who do not speak. Some students may choose to learn in a group with the teacher, while others might work independently on a tablet with headphones on.

Many students at Ruby Bridges—where about 16 percent of students are identified as having disabilities—can’t communicate verbally, so every student has access to assistive communication devices, like picture boards or computers that synthesize speech from text.

“Our responsibility is to have a school with classrooms that are ready for kids, not a school where kids are forced to be ready for classrooms,” Davis said.

In practice, this means that students with disabilities spend 80 to 100 percent of their academic time with grade-level peers.

There are resource rooms students can use when they need a break or for a specific, one-on-one activity with a paraprofessional, but they are all “flex spaces” with no set schedule. They are open to everyone, Davis said.

Instead of pulling students out of class for extra help with phonics or other skills, paraprofessionals come to them. The same goes for English learners.

And rather than having a designated paraprofessional assigned to each student who needs that level of extra support, paraprofessionals work with different students all the time. In the morning, they could be supporting an advanced math group and working with a different group on phonics in the afternoon.

What’s more, small group and intervention time is built into the calendar for everyone so that when paraprofessionals come in to work with specific students, nobody is singled out—everybody is working on something, and nobody is missing a whole-class lesson.

We thought of you when we made this place, and today could not happen if you weren’t a part of it.

The setup reduces stigma that students may feel when they’re singled out for extra help, Davis said.

“You see lots of adults everywhere, and it’s because no one’s working separately behind closed doors, and all of the adults in the school are communicating and collaborating to support all students,” Davis said. “Kids pick up on if one para only helps kids who are really struggling with one thing, so there’s a very specific effort to make a heterogeneous mix.”

Belonging can be ‘elusive for students with disabilities’

There is increasing evidence that work to create a full sense of belonging for students with disabilities, like what’s happening at Ruby Bridges, benefits all students’ achievement and social skills.

Students with special needs perform better when they spend significantly more time in mainstream classrooms than in special education rooms, according to researchers who, writing in the Journal of Special Education in 2022 , found that the students who spent more time in mainstream classrooms were exposed to more rigorous coursework. Researchers have also found that the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has resulted in students without disabilities learning how to respect others and gaining awareness and skills to help others. Several studies over the years examining these more inclusive practices have found either neutral or positive effects on all students’ performance in core subjects like math and reading.

“Belonging matters for kids with disabilities in the same ways it matters for any other student in our schools. The difference is that belonging can be much more elusive for students with disabilities,” said Erik Carter, the executive director of the Baylor Center for Developmental Disabilities at Baylor University who has conducted extensive research on the topic.

Only including students with disabilities in activities outside of class, such as recess and lunch—or including them in classes that aren’t set up to accommodate their needs—isn’t enough to foster a sense of real belonging and camaraderie, Davis said. The work has to be intentional, and it’s often uncomfortable because it requires challenging the setup that has been the status quo for decades in many places.

The payoff is incalculable, though, Davis said.

“The parents and families of students identified as having a disability are constantly going to meetings, being told how different their children are from an arbitrary set of norms and all of the services they need, that often mean having less community,” Davis said. “But we have a responsibility to create spaces where we don’t make deep, impactful lifelong decisions about the lives our students will have before they even have an opportunity to make decisions for themselves.”

Fostering belonging can give students ‘their dignity back’

The partnership between the University of Washington and schools including Ruby Bridges was made possible by a grant to support more inclusionary practices in the state—particularly to reach that threshold where students with disabilities spend at least 80 percent of their time in general education classrooms, a goal driven by federal policy that requires students be taught in the “least restrictive environment” appropriate for them. About two-thirds of students with disabilities met the goal in the fall of 2020, according to the National Center of Education Statistics , markedly higher than the 32 percent who did in 1989.

But Washington state has struggled to keep pace, with about 60 percent of students with disabilities spending 80 percent or more of their time with their peers in 2020. As of 2018, a report cited by state officials ranked Washington 44th out of 50 in inclusionary practices , which prompted state lawmakers to earmark $25 million to spur improvements through professional development statewide and more targeted support in pilot schools.

Ruby Bridges is considered a “demonstration site” for the partnership with the university, opening its doors over the past two years to more than 350 visitors and observers who want to learn about best practices in teaching students in the least restrictive learning environment.

The school models its work around the “10 dimensions of belonging” developed by Carter at Baylor, which begin with allowing students with disabilities to be present, then invited, and ultimately accepted, supported, befriended, needed, and loved.

“Belonging is more than just being included or present in a space,” Carter said. “People want to experience belonging, and that’s more than merely a location of classrooms or participation in clubs—it’s about what students experience and the relationships that develop in those places.”

Monroe High School, located about 30 miles northeast of Seattle, is also part of the partnership with the University of Washington, working to foster belonging in school for older students with disabilities.

Oftentimes, that means they arrive at the high school having spent their entire academic careers receiving much of their instruction apart from their peers in general education, said Principal Brett Wille. So, when students with disabilities spend most of their time in a mainstream classroom, they “get their dignity back,” he said.

“When you have a kid in an exclusionary classroom in the corner of a school building doing 1st grade math problems, that doesn’t give them a lot of hope or dignity,” Wille said. “But when you put these students with their peers, you’re telling them you value them and you believe in them. Kids pick up on that.”

Another upside: Employee retention

The model requires a shift in adult mindsets: Educators aren’t responsible only for their classroom or a specific group of assigned students. Instead, everybody is responsible for every student.

It can be a daunting perspective, Davis said, but once it becomes ingrained in the school culture, it can prove a rewarding environment for staff with an added benefit of less staff turnover, particularly among paraprofessionals who can be difficult to retain.

In fact, paraprofessionals who have completed teaching licensure programs have stayed on staff at Ruby Bridges waiting for a teaching position to open up, rather than leaving for open teaching jobs elsewhere.

“When you shift in those ways, you create deeper connections for students and staff, too, and when you’re set up around real belonging, then adults feel like something would be missing if they were gone, too,” Davis said. “You create systems that are less isolated in every way.”

Coverage of whole-child approaches to learning is supported in part by a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, at www.chanzuckerberg.com . Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage. A version of this article appeared in the April 24, 2024 edition of Education Week as Inside a School That Doesn’t Single Out Students With Special Needs

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Significant Special Education Cases

M.a. v. newark public schools.

In 2001, ELC with co-counsel Gibbons Del Deo, filed a class action lawsuit against Newark Public Schools and the New Jersey Department of Education, alleging that Newark and the State failed to identify, locate, refer and evaluate students with disabilities for special education services, failed to provide these students with appropriate special education services, and failed to provide “compensatory education” for the deprived services. The  complaint  also charged the State with failure to monitor school districts and failure to provide appropriate relief in response to special education complaint investigation requests. [Docket No. 01-cv-3389 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 02-1799 (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)] 

Status:  Plaintiffs obtained a  preliminary injunction  on behalf of two of the named plaintiffs, and withstood extensive  motions to dismiss  from both sets of defendants. In a  decision  from the Third Circuit, the Court affirmed both the preliminary injunction and the denial of the motions to dismiss. After a prolonged and unsuccessful attempt to settle the matter, the district court  certified the class in 2009  in response to the motion brought by ELC, Gibbons and newly-added co-counsel, Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice. The parties then conducted additional discovery and again commenced settlement discussions. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was endorsed by the Court in 2012. The  Settlement Agreement  calls for the provision of special education services on a timely basis, “compensatory education” for students who did not receive timely services, implementation of a comprehensive special education database, mandatory staff training, extensive reporting of compliance activities, guidelines for corrective action if warranted and independent monitoring of special education services. Newark has issued two Compliance Reports ( July 2012  and  February 2013 ), and the State has instituted one  Corrective Action Plan . ELC is monitoring NPS and State compliance with the Settlement Agreement and, together with Seton Hall, prepared parent training materials in  English ,  Spanish ,  Portuguese  and  Creole , and is training parents across the district.

A.R. v. Freehold Regional High School Board of Education

ELC, with the support of several  pro bono  attorneys, filed a motion on behalf of a group of disability advocacy organizations to appear as  amici curiae  in this case regarding who should bear the burden of proof in a due process hearing when a school district seeks to change a child’s special education Individualized Education Program (IEP). The  amicus  brief  argued that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case of  Schaffer v. Weast , the burden is on the district when it seeks to change the IEP, even where the parent files the hearing request to challenge the school district’s action. The brief additionally explained why placing the burden of proof on parents in such cases would be unfair, violate public policy and undermine the goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (United States District Court for the District of NJ Docket No. 06-cv-03849)

Status:  Shortly after ELC filed the  amicus  brief, the school district settled the case with the student and the matter was dismissed. Subsequently, ELC successfully spearheaded an advocacy effort, with other New Jersey special education practitioners, that resulted in the passage of legislation imposing the burden of proof at special education hearings on school districts in all cases.

A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools

ELC filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the failure of a school district, the state education department, and individual employees to identify and remediate A.W.’s dyslexia. The case reached the Third Circuit twice, with the Court holding in the  first decision  (2003), that the state defendants had waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal financial assistance and could therefore be sued under IDEA and Section 504 and, in the  second decision  (2007), that individual state defendants could not be held liable under Section 1983. A.W.’s claims against his school district and NJDOE were successfully resolved through settlement. [341 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2003), 486 F. 3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007)]

Baer v. Klagholz

In 2001, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on eight challenges to the State’s special education regulations brought by the Education Law Center and co-counsel. The Appellate Division ruling included the mandate that school districts provide parents with evaluation reports prior to eligibility determination meetings, that all students with disabilities receive assessments to determine appropriate post-secondary outcomes, that the pool of community rehabilitation programs for older students include those programs that serve students with the most severe disabilities, and that the scope of IDEA’s disciplinary rights and protections be broadened to comply with federal law. [Docket No. A-7451-97T3 (Superior Court of NJ, Appellate Division)] 

Status:  Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees.

Disability Rights New Jersey v. New Jersey Department of Education

In 2007, ELC, together with  pro bono  co-counsel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the New Jersey Department of Education’s failure to educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [Docket No. 07-cv-02978 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 08-8059 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)] 

Status:  In February 2014, the parties entered into a historic  Settlement Agreement  designed to improve New Jersey’s implementation of IDEA’s mandate that students with disabilities receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The Agreement’s requirements include: a needs assessment to be completed in the 75+ school districts with the worst track record in inclusion, heightened oversight of districts that segregate a disproportional number of students of color with disabilities, extensive training and technical assistance, specially designated state and local inclusion facilitators, parental input regarding district failures, and oversight by a stakeholder committee comprised of disability advocates.

P.N. v. Clementon Board of Education

ELC filed an  amicus  brief  in this case in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on its behalf and on behalf of numerous disability and education advocacy organizations. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing that “prevailing party” attorney’s fees are available to students with disabilities who resolve their educational disputes with districts via a stipulated settlement agreement entered into by an administrative law judge. Citing to ELC’s  amicus  brief, which detailed the important role the attorney’s fee provision plays for poor parents, the Third Circuit noted that it was “particularly troubl[ed]” by the District Court’s holding that reimbursement of a $425 psychologist fee was “de minimis” and did not support a prevailing party finding. ELC then represented the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court, where it successfully urged the Court to deny the Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari [Docket No. 04-4705 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) Docket No. 06-7 (US Supreme Court) Docket No. 02-1351 (District Court for the District of NJ)]. 

Status:  Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees before the District Court.

SPAN v. Hendricks

ELC represented SPAN in challenging the State’s failure to complete an  independent study  of the census-based funding methodology for special education by June 2010, as required by the School Funding Reform Act. While the litigation was pending, the State released its independent study of the special education census funding method in the State school aid formula. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-000852-10)