You are here:

Every child matters? An evaluation of “Special Educational Needs” programmes in England
ARTICLE

, ,

Economics of Education Review Volume 31, Number 6, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

The need for education to help every child has become more important for policy in the US and the UK. Remedial programmes are often difficult to evaluate because participation is usually based on pupil characteristics that are largely unobservable to the analyst. We evaluate programmes for children with ‘Special Educational Needs’ in England. We show that the decentralized design of the policy generates much stronger differences across schools in access to remediation resources for children with moderate learning difficulties than for children with either no difficulties or severe difficulties. However, these differences are not reflected in subsequent educational attainment – suggesting that the programme is ineffective for children with moderate learning difficulties. Also, we use demographic variation within schools to consider the effect of the programme on whole year groups. Our analysis is consistent with no overall effect on account of the combined direct and indirect (spillover) effects.

Citation

Keslair, F., Maurin, E. & McNally, S. (2012). Every child matters? An evaluation of “Special Educational Needs” programmes in England. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 932-948. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.005

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), pp. 49-74.
  2. Audit Commission (2002). Special educational needs: A mainstream issue. London.
  3. Crawford, C., Dearden, L., & Meghir, C. (2007). When you are born matters: The impact of date of birth on child cognitive outcomes in England. IFS Report. October 2007.
  4. Crawford, C., & Vignoles, A. (2010). An analysis of the educational progress of children with special educational needs. Department of Quantitative Social Science. Working Paper No. 10-19. Institute of Education, University of London.
  5. Cullen, J. (1997). Essays on special education finance and intergovernmental relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
  6. Dhuey, E., & Lipscomb, S.S. (2010). Disabled or young? Relative age and special education diagnoses in schools. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), pp. 857-872.
  7. Fogel, L., & Nelson, R. (1983). The effects of special education labels on teachers behavioral observations, checklist scores, and grading of academic work. Journal of School Psychology, 3(21), pp. 241-251.
  8. Ho, A. (2004). To be labeled, or not to be labeled: That is the question. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), pp. 86-92.
  9. Keslair, F., & McNally, S. (2009). Special educational needs in England. Report to the national equality panel. July 2009. http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Special%20Educational%20Needs%20in%20England.pdf.
  10. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2002). Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), pp. 584-599.
  11. Manacorda, M. (2012). The cost of grade retention. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(2), pp. 596-606.
  12. McGee, A. (2011). Skills, standards and disabilities: How youth with learning disabilities fare in high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, 30(1), pp. 109-129.
  13. Morgan, P.L., Frisco, M.L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. Journal of Special Education, 43(4), pp. 236-254.
  14. OfSTED (2004). Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools, HMI 2276.
  15. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2004). Inclusive learning: 2002/3 annual report on curriculum and assessment. London.
  16. Schlosser, A., & Lavy, V. (2005). Targeted remedial education for underperforming teenagers: Costs and benefits. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), pp. 839-874.
  17. Valås, H. (2001). Learned helplessness and psychological adjustment. II: Effects of learning disabilities and low achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), pp. 101-114.
  18. Wilkins, L. (2008). Learning the hard way: A strategy for special educational needs.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.