Mooij, T., & Smeets, E. (2005). Contextual learning theory, inclusive education and high-ability pupils. Paper presented at the ´European Conference on Educational Research´ in Dublin, Ireland, 7-10 September 2005. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen, ITS. (original) (raw)

Clusters: inter‐school collaboration in meeting special educational needs in ordinary schools

British Educational Research Journal, 1994

This article reports the findings and discusses the implications of a research project on school clusters, a system of inter-school collaboration to meet special educational needs (SEN) in ordinary schools. The project was in two stages. The first stage involved detailed qualitative case studies of four different kinds of cluster arrangement. These were analysed in terms of antecedents, processes and outcomes based on documentation and interviews with key participants as informants. The second stage surveyed a wider sample of cluster arrangements in three regional meetings using a group interview methodology. The overall findings are summarised in terms of the conditions and factors which promote SEN inter-school collaboration and the outcomes for schools, teachers, local education authorities (LEAs) and support services. The significance and implications of these forms of inter-school collaboration are finally discussed in terms of the current changes to the school system and the education of pupils with SEN.

Collaborating to meet special educational needs: Effective clusters

Support for Learning, 1994

Needs. Cassell: London. HARLAND, J . (1987) The TVEI Experience: Issues of control, response and the professional role of teachers. In D. Gleeson (ed.), TVEI and Secondary Education: A critical appraisal. Open University Press: Milton Keynes. INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY (1985) Educational Opporfunifies for All? (The Fish Report). ILEA: London. LUNT, I . , EVANS, J . , NORWICH, B. and WEDELL. K . (in press) Working Together: Inter-school collaborarion for special needs.

The Dutch policy of integration put to the test: differences in academic and psychosocial development of pupils in special and mainstream education

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 2001

After several failed attempts to rein in the growth of special education, the Dutch government made a start in 1991 with a policy to accommodate pupils with problems in regular education and to put a stop to the growth of special education. This paper examines a large-scale study conducted by our research group at the University of Amsterdam which attempted to answer the question whether pupils with problems are better off in special education where there are more resources and they can get more attention than in mainstream schools. It was expected that the pupils in special education would do better due to the specialist care and individual attention. However, with a few exceptions, few differences were found when comparable at-risk pupils in regular schools were compared with their counterparts in both types of special schools. There was a conspicuously large measure of variability in both regular and special education. All school types had both at-risk pupils who were doing well from an academic and/or psychosocial perspective and pupils whose progress left much to be desired. There is little evidence to support the idea that at-risk pupils make less progress, in either their academic or psychosocial development, in regular schools compared with pupils in special schools. The general assumption that at-risk pupils will do better in special education does not seem to account for its attractiveness. Contrary to the policy theory, the dual system, as it exists in The Netherlands, does not appear to be an obstacle to the provision of adequate care for pupils with special educational needs. However, the policy to equip regular schools to accommodate this category of pupils appears not to be realized as simply as that. It has not proved Eur.

The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers

Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 00131880701717222, 2008

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.