The present study investigated (1) how social relationships with teachers and peers and self-esteem of students with social–emotional and behavioral difficulties (SEBD) in inclusive regular education (regular schools) and students with SEBD in exclusive special education (special schools) develop over time in comparison with each other and in comparison with their typically developing peers and (2) whether factors—present before students with SEBD received special education services—predicted social–emotional development in either educational setting. Thirty-six students with SEBD in regular schools, 15 students with SEBD in special schools, and 1,270 typically developing peers participated. We collected data when students with SEBD resided in regular education without additional support, and we followed the development of students with SEBD for 1.5 years with three additional measurements in either school setting. Data of typically developing peers were collected when they resided in a classroom of a participating student with SEBD. Using Bayesian statistics, we found that students with SEBD in special schools had more conflictual relationships with their teachers than typically developing peers, but these relationships improved over time. Students with SEBD in regular schools were less accepted among peers than typically developing students and peer acceptance was stable over time for all three groups. Self-esteem and development in self-esteem over time did not differ between groups. The current study shows that students with SEBD show different developmental trajectories in regular or special schools and that it is difficult to predict their social–emotional development by factors present before students with SEBD received special education services.

No abstract

The present study tested three conflicting hypotheses as to how students with social/emotional/behavioural difficulties (SEBD), who showed similar socialemotional, behavioural and academic functioning prior to placement, function socially and academically after they have received additional support either in inclusive regular education or in exclusive special education. Thirty-six included and 15 excluded students with SEBD participated. We collected data from students and teachers with classroom surveys, individual testing sessions with students with SEBD, and from application files. Using Bayesian statistics, our results suggest that excluded students are better socially embedded in exclusive special education and that they perform better academically than comparable included students with SEBD. Special education services in exclusive settings may thus afford certain benefits to some students with SEBD, not typically found in regular education, which can be considered a first indication that there may be valid counterarguments against the 'inclusion for all' perspective on educational needs.

No abstract

This study examined which factors were related to placement choices for inclusive regular education or exclusive special education for Dutch students with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties (SEBD). Students aged 6-11 in three subgroups participated: 45 included and 17 excluded students with SEBD (i.e., educated in regular education classrooms and in a separate setting exclusively for students with SEBD, respectively) and 772 typically developing peers. Before placement choices had been made, we collected data from students and teachers during classroom surveys and individual testing sessions with students with SEBD and from application files. Using Bayesian statistics, we found that included and excluded students with SEBD were similar in student functioning prior to placement, whereas teachers of included students had lower self-efficacy and more positive attitudes toward inclusion than teachers of excluded students. Furthermore, included and excluded students perceived their socialemotional functioning more negatively than typically developing peers. Hence, although considered essential by existing policies, placement choices may not depend on student functioning, but teacher factors may play a role.