This study focused on differences in well-being and peer acceptance of three groups of low-achieving students in regular and special education in the Netherlands. Well-being was assessed by means of a self-image scale consisting of 39 statements and peer acceptance through sociometric nomination and rank-order procedures. Low-achieving students in regular education who received remedial help had a similar self-image and were equally accepted by their peers as the low-achieving students in regular education who did not receive remedial support. Students in special education, however, had a slightly better self-image and were also a little more accepted by their peers than the low-achieving students in regular education. Low-achieving students in regular education who received remedial support neither profited nor suffered from their “needy” status regarding peer acceptance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgardJ.A.VeldmanD.J.KaufmanM.J.SemmelM.I. (1978). How I feel toward others: An instrument of the PRIME instrument battery. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
2.
AsherS.R.TaylorA.R. (1982). Social skill training with children: Evaluating processes and outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 237–245.
3.
BakkerJ.T.A.KrijgerM. (2002). Well-being of children with learning disabilities in regular and special education. Manuscript in preparation.
4.
BakkerJ.T.A.van AlemV.BroereS. (2002). Children with learning disabilities in regular education. Manuscript in preparation.
5.
BanerjiM.DaileyR.A. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion model on students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 511–522.
6.
BolkesteinG.DuindamS.J.G.MenkveldH. (1990). Ontwikkelingslijnen naar speciaal onderwijs ([Developmental traces to special education]). Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Intro.
7.
BrantlingerE.A.GuskinS.L. (1987). Ethnocultural and social psychological effects on learning characteristics of handicapped children. In WangM.C.ReynoldsM.G.WalbergH.J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Vol. 1. Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp. 7–34). New York: Pergamon Press.
8.
CobenS.S.ZigmondN. (1986). The social integration of learning-disabled students from self-contained to mainstream elementary school settings. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 614–618.
9.
CrockettJ.B.KauffmanJ.M. (1999). The least restrictive environment. Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
DoornbosK. (1991). Onderwijs in Nederland: Apartheid als credo? [Education in the Netherlands: Apartheid, the creed?] In DoornbosK.BergmanJ.W. (Eds.), Samen naar school: aangepast onderwijs in gewone scholen (pp. 31–65). Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Intro.
11.
Filippini-GaudianoM.L. (1991). Handicappati nella scuola del'obbligio in provincia di Pesaro-Urbino: Presenza e integratione. Italian Journal of Intellective Impairment, 4, 123–128.
12.
FrenchD.C.WaasG.A.Tarver-BehringS.A. (1986). Nomination and rating scale sociometrics: Convergent validity and clinical utility. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 331–340.
13.
HarrisA.J.SipayE.R. (1990). How to increase reading ability. New York: Longman.
14.
HarterS. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.
15.
JohnsonJ.C.IronsmithM.PoteatG.M. (1994). Assessing children's sociometric status: Issues and the application of social network analysis. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 47, 36–48.
16.
KuhneM.WienerJ. (2000). Stability of social status of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 64–75.
17.
LarriveeB.HorneM.D. (1991). Social status: A comparison of mainstreamed students with peers of different ability levels. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 90–101.
18.
Le MareL.de la RondeM. (2000). Links among social status, service delivery mode, and service delivery preference in LD, low-achieving, and normally achieving elementary-aged children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 52–62.
19.
LeondariA. (1993) Comparability of self-concept among normal achievers, low achievers and children with learning difficulties. Educational Studies, 19, 357–371.
20.
MaddenN.A.SlavinR.E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519–569.
21.
MeijerC.J.W. (1996). Weer Samen Naar School in cijfers ['Together to School Again' in numbers]. Pedagogische Studiën, 73, 406–410.
22.
MeijerC.J.W.PijlS.J.HegartyS. (1997). Inclusion: Implementation and approaches. In PijlS.J.MeijerC.J. W.HegartyS. (Eds.), Inclusive education: A global agenda (pp. 150–161). London, UK: Routledge.
23.
MinisterieO&W. (1990). Weer samen naar school. Hoofdlijnennotitie ([Together to school again. Sketch of the outlines]). Den Haag, The Netherlands: SDU.
OchoaS.V.OlivarezA. (1995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometric studies of pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, 1–19.
27.
ParsonsT. (1970). Social structure and personality. London, UK: Collier-Macmillan.
28.
PeetsmaT.VergeerM.RoeleveldJ.KarstenS. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils' development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53, 125–135.
29.
PescharJ.L. (1997). Weer Samen Naar School: een passende structuur voor sociale integratie [Together to School Again: An appropriate structure for social integration]?Pedagogische Studien, 74, 195–205
30.
PijlY.J. (1997). Stabilisatie deelname aan LOM en MLK onafhankelijk van WSNS-beleid [Stabilisation in participation of LOM and MLK is independent of ‘Togther to School Again’ policy]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 36, 131–139.
31.
RobertsR.MatherN. (1995). Legal protections for individuals with learning disabilities: The IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 160–168.
32.
RuijssenaarsA.J.J.M. (1996). Inclusief onderwijs [Inclusive education]. In: de GrootR.RuijsenaarsA.J.J.M.KapingaH. (Eds.), Inclusief Onderwijs (pp. 23–35). Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
33.
RuijssenaarsA.J.J.M.van der AalsvoortD.G.M. (1997). WSNS, beleid en statistiek [Together to School Again, policy and statistics]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 36, 275–278.
34.
ScheffT.J. (1966). Being mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine.
35.
ShesselI.ReiffH.B. (1999). Experiences of adults with learning disabilities: Positive and negative impacts and outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 305–316.
36.
SmithD.D. (2001). Introduction to special education. Teaching in an age of opportunity. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
37.
SmithD.S.NagleR.J. (1995). Self-perceptions and social comparisons among children with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 364–371.
38.
SmitsJ.A.E.VorstH.C. M. (1991). Schoolvragenlijst ([School questionnaire]). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Berkhout.
39.
SpeeceD.L.KeoghB.K. (1996). Classroom ecologies and learning disabilities: What we learned and what we need to know. In SpeeceD.L.KeoghB.K. (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies (pp. 261–265). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
StainbackS.StainbackW. (1992). Schools as inclusive communities. In StainbackW.StainbackS. (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (pp. 29–43). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
41.
VaughnS.HoganA.HaagerD.KouzekananiK. (1992). Self-concept and peer-acceptation in students with learning disabilities: a four-to-five year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 43–50.
42.
WienerJ.HarrisP.J.ShirerC. (1990). Achievement and social behavioral correlates of peer status in LD children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 114–127.
