Generated view: 7 sources whose Kunskapsbank note was filed under this theme, and the claims and candidates they link to.
C31 weakened
For children with special educational needs, being placed in mainstream inclusive classes rather than separate special settings has not been shown to change how fast their academic achievement grows: studies that follow pupils over time find about no difference (d = 0.05 for pupils with general learning difficulties), although at a single point in time pupils with general learning difficulties in inclusive classes score higher (d = 0.35 on average, 0.64 in propensity-matched comparisons; Krämer, Möller & Zimmermann 2021), which may partly reflect which pupils are placed where.
Serves: Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
Ages: grundskola-lag, grundskola-hog, overgripande
Bounds: Placement itself, compared across settings; not the quality of teaching in either setting and not wellbeing. Evidence on file: Dalgaard, Bondebjerg, Viinholt & Filges 2022 (Campbell Systematic Reviews, DOI 10.1002/cl2.1291; abstract only): no consistent positive or negative effect on language, literacy or maths; averages favoured inclusion slightly but none significant; non-randomised OECD studies. Stefanidis et al. 2023 (International Journal of Educational Research, DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102208; abstract only): co-taught classes gave no significantly higher achievement for students with or without disabilities. All evidence is non-randomised. Weakened 2026-10-31 (nightly attacks): Krämer, Möller & Zimmermann 2021 (Review of Educational Research 91(3), 432–478, DOI 10.3102/0034654321998072; full text): 40 non-randomised studies, N = 11,987; pupils with general learning difficulties (often IQ about 50–90) scored higher in inclusive settings, d = 0.35 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 0.28 without outliers), maths and verbal alike; cross-sectional d = 0.48 vs longitudinal gains d = 0.05 (−0.16 to 0.25), a significant difference; propensity-matched d = 0.64 (4 samples), covariate-controlled 0.21 (ns), unmatched 0.29; peers without difficulties d = −0.14 (ns); psychosocial d = 0.00. Covers general learning difficulties only, not all special needs.
Attack record: 1 attack: 1 narrowed · Evidence links: 4 linked sources (2 supports, 2 limits)
4 link(s) from sources in this view.
C32 weakened
Targeted academic interventions for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities raise reading, writing and maths results at the end of the intervention compared with teaching as usual or active controls (about 0.3 SD for reading and 0.4 for maths on standardised tests; larger on researcher-made tests), but whether those gains last is not shown. Reading and writing gains are similar in mainstream and special settings; maths gains have been shown in mainstream settings but not in special schools.
Serves: Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
Ages: grundskola-lag, grundskola-hog, overgripande
Bounds: Targeted, structured academic interventions; not placement (C31). Evidence on file: Van Herwegen, Masterman, Dockrell, Marshall, Gordon & Thomas 2026 (Review of Education, DOI 10.1002/rev3.70127; abstract, open access; full text read 2026-11-01, see below): overall g = 0.44 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.50); positive for reading, maths and writing; very high heterogeneity (I² ≈ 93%); reading and writing gains similar in mainstream and special settings, maths larger in mainstream. Stockard et al. 2018 (Review of Educational Research; adjacent): structured Direct Instruction curricula show positive academic effects. Weak spot: published-study bias and small samples could inflate the average. Weakened 2026-11-01 (Hall, Dahl-Leonard, Cho, Solari, Capin et al. 2023, Reading Research Quarterly 58(2), 285–312, DOI 10.1002/rrq.477; PMC full text): 53 studies (77% RCTs, N = 6,053) of reading interventions for K–5 pupils with or at risk for dyslexia, standardised norm-referenced outcomes only: g = 0.33 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.41); grades 3–5 g = 0.16 vs K–2 0.36 (not significant); no publication bias. Van Herwegen et al. 2026 full text now read (UCL Discovery): reading 0.36, maths 0.51, writing 0.43 overall; outcome type moderated reading (p < .001) and maths (p = .02) — researcher-made measures reading 0.54 / maths 0.77, standardised reading 0.27 / maths 0.40; reading high-quality studies 0.32; maths in mainstream 0.65 with no significant positive effect in special schools (46 outcomes, including pupils with Down syndrome (7 outcomes) and severe learning difficulties (4); Van Herwegen et al. 2026 p. 23); writing trim-and-fill 0.36 → 0.32; control type not a moderator (about a quarter active controls). Time bound (weakened 2026-11-07, point (b) of the closer reading): Van Herwegen et al. 2026 analysed "only short-term outcomes" (p. 6) and only 13.5% of its studies reported any follow-up (p. 32); Hall et al. 2023 excluded follow-up-only reports and reports no follow-up analysis — so the pooled gains are end-of-intervention effects; durability is not shown.
Attack record: 2 attacks: 2 narrowed · Evidence links: 4 linked sources (2 supports, 2 limits)
3 link(s) from sources in this view.