Mental Health in Schools

Abstract

French

Students who are excluded from the daily life of schools are at risk for mental illness. This is especially true for children with disabilities as they are marginalized by assumptions and beliefs about what they cannot do at school as opposed to what they can do. This article presents research literature on belonging, inclusion, and social and emotional learning as a backdrop to the call to school psychologists to reinvent their roles. Although this call has been issued, the practice of assessment for special education placement remains one of the top job demands. Rather than categorizing and labelling, psychologists can be a key supporter of classroom teachers in promoting successful academic, social, and emotional strategies to assist teachers in inclusive classrooms.

Keywords

inclusive education school psychology belonging

Jamie enjoyed elementary school. He helped out in the kindergarten classroom at lunch and recess. He had friends and ate lunch with them in his classroom. When he got to secondary school, it was a big place, and although the other kids seemed to know him and like him, he ate his lunch in the stairwell at school. If the teacher who taught him after lunch was in her classroom and had opened the door, then he ate in there with some of the other students who also had some anxiety about where to eat in the big cafeteria.

Chris enjoyed elementary school and had friends that he could talk to in his classroom. Because his school board did not have inclusive classrooms for students with intellectual disabilities at the secondary level, he was bussed to a school far away from his neighbourhood. The bus drove around the back of the high school where he would get off and enter the centre. He was not allowed in the “big school.”

One student attends his neighbourhood school while the other does not. Is Jamie any more included than Chris who attends a segregated setting away from his neighbourhood friends?

Belonging

Think for a moment about a place where you feel most comfortable. Now ask yourself why is it that you feel comfortable in this place? Perhaps it is the hockey arena that you go to with your friends for a few games of pick up. Perhaps it is the stage where when the curtain goes up the energy flows and you give the best performance. Wherever the place, I bet that nothing negative came to mind. That is what is meant by a sense of belonging. You know that you matter and you know that whatever it is that you do in this place is good and brings out your strengths in the best possible ways. You have a purpose for being there.

Although many psychological theorists have included the construct of belonging as part of their work, it was not until Baumeister and Leary (1995) that the “belonging hypothesis” was tested using the empirical literature. They verified what people had thought for many years—the need to form connections with other people is a fundamental need of human beings. People who do not have their belonging needs met are more likely to experience emotional deficits (anxiety, depression, grief, loneliness, etc.).

In relation to school, Osterman (2000) discussed belonging as encompassing the relationships with teachers and peers, as well as involvement in school activities. Research in the area of school belonging indicates that students who feel a sense of belonging in school are more likely to experience positive mental health outcomes and be successful (Cemalcilar, 2010; McMahon, Parnes, Keys, & Viola, 2008; Pitman & Richmond, 2007). It is up to the school system to create an environment where students do experience connections with other people and feel valued for who they are and what they bring to the relationship. Think of the student who does not excel academically. How does she feel that she belongs in school if all the focus is on reading and writing and she is given the message that she is not good at these tasks? What about the student who is told that he does not belong in a class with his friends from his neighbourhood? He must go on a special bus to attend a school for classes with “kids like him”. Once at that school, he is excluded further by not being allowed to join the other students (i.e., “kids not like him”) to eat in the cafeteria. Would you want to get up and go to work every day if you knew that someone was there telling you directly or indirectly that you were not good at your job; that you did not belong. Children come to school at the age of 5 and stay until they are 18 and school becomes their job; their occupation. They too need to love their work. How can we help students feel that they belong in school? The first challenge is to look at the whole person. As adults working in the school system, we can get caught up in the student and forget about the person. By accepting the whole child/adolescent, he/she will feel like he/she belongs. For students to feel a sense of belonging, they need to recognize themselves in everything that we think of as schooling—the histories we study, the scientists, authors, and leaders we honour, and the ways in which we learn and define “intelligence.” Too many students are thought of as “dumb” in school, then go home and dismantle and repair electrical gadgets, construct intricate models using connecting blocks, dance, sing, paint, or look after younger siblings. They should be able to see their skills and knowledge as valued in their classrooms. If not, then they are excluded and this can lead to a host of mental health issues or further exacerbate those that already exist (Wight, Botticello, & Aneshensel, 2006).

What Is Inclusive Education?

The foundation of inclusive education is a belief that all students belong and are valued members of their classroom and neighbourhood school communities (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004; Specht & Young, 2010). In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. Despite this, and in contradiction to inclusive educational policy in every province/territory, students who are of Aboriginal descent, students who have learning exceptionalities, students who are newly arrived immigrants, students from visible minorities, and students from lower socioeconomic groups are most at risk for exclusion from full participation in school (Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, 2008). Inclusive education should not be thought of as an end but rather a means to an end. That end is to create a better quality of life for all our students—to bring them to a society that accepts difference. When students are segregated, the opportunity to interact with a broad range of difference and interest and understanding is lost. Inclusion creates “social capital (connections among people) that allow networks, norms, and trust that enable participants to act others to pursue shared objectives” (McConkey & Mariga, 2011, p. 13). Inclusion realizes that all students are unique (perhaps some more than others), and belong in their neighbourhood communities where regular life occurs. If we accept uniqueness, no one need feel that they do not belong.

Schools receive awards for creating safe and inclusive communities, while still maintaining separate classes or areas of the school for students with disabilities. In reality, the award is for schools that promote racial and ethnic diversity and endorse anti-bullying campaigns. Although these endeavours are necessary and worthwhile, the message received is that students with disabilities still do not fit with the view of who belongs in school. It seems that disability is the last bastion of inclusion that we are still fighting. We need to look at inclusion for all students and know that when we say all, we mean ALL. Therefore, the focus of this review is on issues related to disability and the segregation of those students who are identified as having learning difficulties because of issues related to physical, emotional, and cognitive challenges. These students represent 9% to 15% of the Canadian school-aged population (Canadian Council on Learning [CCL], 2009; Timmons, 2006).

Inclusion and Student Outcomes

Inclusion supports the social and academic outcomes of all students. Research has reported equivocal results for different groups of students who are included in the classroom. However, more recent research reports that (a) there are no adverse effects or differences in the achievement of typically developing peers when students with exceptionalities are included in the regular classroom (Kambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2007); (b) the inclusive classroom environment is more positive (or no different) than segregated settings for students with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and language impairments (CCL, 2009); and (c) children who are educated in high inclusive settings are in better health, enjoy going to school more, progress more quickly in school, and interact more positively with peers compared with students educated in low inclusive settings (Timmons & Wagner, 2008). Settings that promote inclusion are more successful in achieving learning for all, the ultimate goal of education.

How Inclusion Is Delivered

The reality is that inclusion is the means by which education is delivered for the majority of students with learning exceptionalities in Canada. However, inclusion is not always implemented appropriately. Even when placed in regular education classrooms, many students with learning exceptionalities do not participate fully in the academic or social life of the classroom. They frequently experience a separate space and a separate program; their separation reinforced by working solely with an educational assistant (Giangreco, 2010). Significant concerns remain about the capacity for schools to effectively implement inclusion. Teachers lack training in instructional approaches that support inclusion (e.g., universal design for learning, differentiated instruction) and classroom management strategies. Teachers are not supported with the requisite time to collaborate, and there is a perceived general lack of support and resources for inclusive education (Bennett, 2009). As a result, students with exceptional needs are still segregated, continue to experience negative classroom climates and peer interactions, are still alienated and bullied, and fail to reach their academic potential (Symes & Humphrey, 2010). The challenge is to equip and empower the educational community with the competence and confidence required to teach students with exceptionalities in inclusive classrooms.

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health defines participation broadly as “involvement in life situations” (World Health Organization, 2001, p. 7). Repeatedly, participation has been shown as key to the healthy adjustment of individuals. Unfortunately, children with disabilities are found to engage in recreational and leisure activities less than children without disabilities (Brown & Gordon, 1987; Law, Haight, Milroy, Willms, Stewart, & Rosenbaum, 1999; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995), thus putting them at risk for negative life outcomes such as low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety.

Inclusion and Mental Health

“Mental health is a foundation for well-being and effective functioning for an individual, and for a community, and is created and compromised in everyday life, in families and schools” (Herman & Jane-Llopis, 2005, p. 42). Simovska and Sheehan (2000) reflect on the health promoting schools paradigm as a framework for building school environments supportive of mental and emotional health. They call for “genuine student participation, both within the classroom and in the broader school environment” (p. 216). Promoting children’s participation in school through opportunities such as involvement in classroom lessons, games, sports, and social events leads to a greater likelihood of successful experiences.

Impact of Exclusion

If we cannot be very certain that removing a student from the regular classroom will improve his or her functioning, then we should not do it. If we can say that pulling Susan out for 45 minutes per day for 8 months will bring her reading up to grade level, then it is worth it. If we say that John has an IQ less than 69 and belongs in a segregated class or Sinead has anxiety and will be in a “transition class” for the remainder of her school years, it does not work. Inclusion does not have to be every minute in the regular classroom for every day of their lives, but students should belong to a general education class not some other class based on IQ or some medical diagnosis. However, we continue to perpetuate the myth that grouping children by a similar diagnosis is the best way for them to learn. There is an assumption of homogeneity that follows labels. Believing that children with intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities or those who have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder are all the same is as misplaced as believing all children are the same. Do not get me wrong, I believe that people need to understand disability and potential learning issues that result, but if we treated these learning issues with a general understanding rather than some belief that all youth are alike because of disability X, it would serve everyone better. Contrary to popular belief, inclusion is not a one size fits all in the way we deliver education. It is, in fact, a complicated system that requires the expertise of students, parents, teachers, and a multitude of health professionals (including school psychologists) to successfully engage the whole child in learning. The one size fits all model perhaps is more fitting for the segregated classroom that focuses on only one aspect of the child—his/her disability.

Roger Slee (2011) discusses the issues of inclusion in his recent book The Irregular School. Slee presents a provocative look at diversity and issues surrounding exclusion. His view is that “schools have become fertile fields for the discovery of abnormalities” (p. 128). At the end of his book, he presents the idea that schools are communities that continue to promote a culture of indifference. We perpetuate the ideas that people are labelled and categorized for their own benefit instead of truly celebrating diversity and personal characteristics on a continuum rather than as categorically good or bad. His call is uplifting. He indicates that “there is an opportunity to build communities that recognize and represent others who have been shunned, to build rich learning communities of difference” (p. 173). As Valle and Conner (2011) so aptly point out, we have created dual education systems. Rather than educating all students in the regular classroom, we have created special education as a separate system.

Ingredients of an Inclusive Education System

Jordan and Stanovich (2004) identify three necessities in an inclusive classroom: (a) teachers must believe students with exceptionalities are their responsibility and it is their role to teach them, (b) teachers must believe that they are capable of teaching students with exceptionalities, and (c) the school must believe in and be committed to inclusive practice. When we have other places to “put” students with disabilities, we undermine the confidence of teachers to teach all students. Rather than putting students somewhere else, we need to support the teachers in our classrooms to be the best teachers for all students. We spend a lot of money on the “other system.” Diversity is at the heart of inclusion. Rather than expecting homogeneity and being disappointed, perhaps we should expect diversity and celebrate. Many scholars have written on the differences between special education and inclusive education. Philpott (2007) presented an interesting example of the notion of the paradigm of care. In special education, we tend to focus on asking what is wrong with the child, we focus on deficits, we diagnose diversity, and we tolerate the differences. The call in inclusive education is to ask what is wrong with the environment, focus on strategies to help the student learn, value diversity, and embrace difference.

Social and Emotional Learning

The classrooms of the 21st century are more diverse than ever before (Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, & Miller, 2006). Students with diverse cultural and learning needs report not feeling as connected to their peers, teachers, or school community (Brown, Higgins, Pierce, Hong, & Thoma, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Alienation is shown to be significantly associated with school dropout, gang activity, and poor relationships with peers, teachers, and other school personnel (Brown et al., 2003). Furthermore, alienation leads to increased rates of depression for students, as they are unable to establish positive peer relationships and social networks (Marcoen & Goossens, 1993). Reducing alienation has become a key goal for schools and requires instilling in students a respect for all people, regardless of the culture, ability, or appearance. Teachers who meet the diverse needs of students are more likely to have people in their classrooms who perceive school, themselves, and each other favourably (Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008). Learning how to respect diversity within classrooms improves school attitudes, behaviour, and performance, including performance on standardized tests and has a positive influence on the mental health of all students (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Porath, 2003; Zins & Elias, 2006). Education then has a major role to play in promoting the mental health of all students (Weare, 2007).

Attention to social and emotional issues has thus become a necessity for teachers and schools in meeting the challenge of teaching students in a changing and complex world where diversity is valued (Hymel et al., 2006). Creating a classroom environment where students feel safe, secure, and have sense of belonging helps reduce alienation, stigma, fear, and anxiety (Curran, 2003; Dwyer, 2002). People with positive self-concepts embrace and use their strengths to achieve their goals and overcome challenges (Hippe, 2004). They are not afraid to make mistakes, and thus will take risks and persevere through challenging tasks. Students who are respectful of others recognize the value of diversity to their own lives and to the community at large. They grow past the “everybody should think/act like me” stage of child development to an appreciation of what diverse others contribute (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). They learn to work cooperatively with others, using their own and others’ abilities appropriately (Johnson & Johnson, 2004).

Social and emotional well-being is foundational for academic instruction and learning. Not only must students’ neurological systems be readied for paying attention, processing concepts, and remembering, they must also not fear being humiliated by peers when they struggle, or they will avoid any challenge and the possibility for growth. Just as the hockey team requires goalies as well as forwards and defence to win, learners have complementary skill sets that can provide superior learning and demonstration of understanding. When students come to recognize and value diversity, there is no longer the “smart kid” and the “dumb kid” (usually based solely on linguistic prowess)—but rather is task dependant.

The Role of School Psychologists: Past, Present, and Future

Low education and literacy levels are associated with poverty and social exclusion, which, in turn, are associated with mental health issues (Weare, 2007). A primary goal of education therefore must be to help students stay in school. To accomplish this task, we need to include people in schools; help them feel that they belong. This will be a major role for school psychologists in bringing a focus on the social and emotional outcomes of all students and helping schools focus on these outcomes (Ross, Powell, & Elias, 2002). Imagine a school system in which we spent as much time teaching students with exceptionalities academic and social and emotional skills as we did trying to prove them different.

Farrell (2011) notes that school psychology’s history is the measurement and categorization of children based on the IQ. IQ testing was (and still is) a task that no other profession working in the schools can perform; arguably, school psychologists discovered a niche and it has become their raison d’etre. However, society has changed in the last 100 years, and schools should no longer be what they were at the beginning of the 20th century. School psychologists need to find a new niche, particularly in light of an emphasis on evidence-based research. Although IQ scores might predict school achievement, 50% to 60% of the variability is accounted for by factors other than IQ (Kavale & Flannigan, 2007; Sattler, 2001). Additionally, IQ tests do little to aid in the understanding of how to best teach students (Rose, 2009). I tested an 8-year-old girl who was struggling in school. We were in a small room where people needed to come in to gain access to repair the roof. At the beginning of the assessment we were chatting and a worker walked through because the ventilation system was not working properly and he needed to have a look at it. I said to her, “If he is going to keep walking through here, we may need to find another place to chat.” She said to me, “You could put a sign on the door saying do not disturb.” “A brilliant idea” I said. We wrote the sign and then when I went to put it on the door I said, “Oh it is metal so the thumbtack that was in the bulletin board will not work.” To this dilemma she replied, “Maybe you could get some tape.” Surprisingly, this child scored below 69 on her IQ test.

I remember that very day thinking something was sadly wrong. Here was a child who conversed well with me and problem solved in a very logical and adaptive way, and I would have to tell her parents that she had an intellectual disability. I am sure others have had similar experiences—the test results just did not coexist with the clinical impression of the child. Clearly this child had many strategies and strengths that would likely do her well in life in spite of what the testing results told us. Inclusion calls for us to investigate those strategies and strengths and work with them.

Annan and Priestly (2011) reviewed the literature in school psychology from 2000 forward to determine the profession’s key principles. With reference to inclusion, respect for diversity and valuing strength are two principles that school psychologists advocate. Given this, I think we need to ask why we continue to be stuck in the categorize and label mode of special education. The Alberta Teachers’ Association’s recent publication (Spring 2012) contains an article written by Johnson and Crawford (2012) titled “Inclusive Education: How can school psychologists help teachers.” In light of Alberta’s new policy “Action on Inclusion,” they discuss the levels of support that can be provided from universal to individualized based on the National Association of School Psychologists task force. Clearly this move reflects the changing role of psychologists to provide more preventative measures at the classroom or school level as well as more targeted interventions for students who continue to have difficulty. As we move to a more complex classroom environment across Canada, teachers need the experts to support what they do as curriculum experts in the classroom. We need to remember the whole person. School psychologists with their training in assessment, intervention, social and emotional well-being, and child and adolescent development can be these experts. We need to create a new role for psychologists to promote mental health for all—to be preventative rather than merely reactive. A call for inclusive education is a call for prevention. We need to help create schools that are welcoming and value the diversity in what we say and do.

If needs are not met in the regular classroom, then it is not inclusion, but do not assume that needs are being met in segregated settings. Segregation has existed for many years, but we have not “fixed” disability. All we have done is marginalized individuals and made people to feel less valued because they do not belong in the world of the “normally” developing. We need to stop doing special education in the regular classroom. Our system of schooling needs to change. We cannot say we value diversity yet continue to operate within a largely verbal and linguistic education system. We tell children that we value them but still require essays and paper and pencil tests in art, drama, music, and technology courses. Although there is a call for more school psychologists, most of these professionals continue to spend most of their time assessing students for special education services (Jordan, Hindes, & Saklofske, 2009). This continuing trend needs to be addressed and we must take the lead in being leaders in the social and emotional development of children—all children. Using the universal to individual model of support, school psychologists can be seen as the leaders in helping teachers develop a better sense of the whole child and how best to create resilience rather than using the traditional model of test and categorize, as this model continues to perpetuate the myth that the deficit is inherent in the child rather than in the school environment in which he or she is placed.

Conclusion

Let us revisit the school lives of Chris and Jamie presented at the beginning of this article. Recall that Jamie was in a school considered inclusive because it did not have segregated classrooms, and Chris was in a segregated classroom. Neither child was fitting in well because of a number of barriers. Jamie’s anxiety may be causing problems for his inclusion. Rather than leave it to the individual students to include themselves, it is up to schools to provide those opportunities and access to such opportunities to assist students in belonging. We are called to create community for all. Chris needs to be allowed to participate in the community that will be created for all. Only once we transcend the need for labelling to receive an education will we be able to include everyone.

Belonging is at the heart of it all and school psychologists can work within the system to fight against the exclusion that happens every day for many of our students across Canada. Only once we say education for all and truly believe it will the harmful practice of exclusion end.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jacqueline A. Specht is an Associate Professor in the areas of Educational Psychology and Special Education. She joined the Faculty of Education at Western in 2003. Currently she is Director of the Centre for Inclusive Education at the Faculty and teaches in both the pre-service and graduate programs. Her research interests focus on psychosocial issues surrounding the participation of children in the school system.

References

Annan

Priestly

(2011). A contemporary story of school psychology. School Psychology International, 33, 325-344. doi:10.1177/0143034311412845

Baumeister

R.F.

Leary

M.R.

(1985). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Bennett

(2009). Including students with exceptionalities. What works? (Research into Practice, Monograph No. 16). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Canada.

Brock

L. L.

Nishida

T. K.

Chiong

Grimm

K. J.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

(2008). Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129-149. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.02.004

Brown

Gordon

(1987). Impact of impairment on activity patterns of impairment on activity patterns of children. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 68, 828-832.

Brown

M. R.

Higgins

Pierce

Hong

Thoma

(2003). Secondary students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of disability, gender, and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 227-239.

Burstein

Sears

Wilcoxen

Cabello

Spagna

(2004). Moving toward inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 104-116.

Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). Does placement matter? Comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings. Lessons in Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/03_18_09E.pdf

Cemalcilar

(2010). Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate factors on students’ sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 243-272. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00389.x

10.

Council of Ministers of Education in Canada. (2008). Report Two: Inclusive education in Canada: The way of the future. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/122/ICE2008-reports-canada.en.pdf

11.

Curran

M. E.

(2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 42, 334-341.

12.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

13.

Dwyer

B. M.

(2002). Teaching strategies for the twenty-first century: Using recent research on learning to enhance training. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 265-270. doi:10.1080/13558000210161115

14.

Farrell

(2011). School psychology: Learning lessons from history and moving forward. School Psychology International, 31, 581-598. doi:10.1177/0143034310386533

15.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2010). Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: Is it the kind of help that helping is all about? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 341-345. doi:10.1080/08856257.2010.513537

16.

Herman

Jane-Llopis

(2005). Mental health promotion in public health. Promotion & Education Supplement, 2, 42-47.

17.

Hippe

(2004). Self-awareness: A precursor to resiliency. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The Journal of Strength-Based Interventions, 12, 240.

18.

Hymel

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Miller

L. D.

(2006). Reading, ‘riting, and relationships: Considering the social side of education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 16, 149-192.

19.

Johnson

R. C.

Crawford

(2012). Inclusive education: How can school psychologists help teachers? ATA Magazine, 92(3), 11-13.

20.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2004). Implementing the “teaching students to be peacemakers program.” Theory Into Practice, 43, 68-79.

21.

Jordan

Stanovich

(2004). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 14, 25-46.

22.

Jordan

J. J.

Hindes

Y. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2009). School psychology in Canada: A survey of roles and functions, challenges, and aspirations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 245-264. doi:10.1177/0829573509338614

23.

Kambouka

Farrell

Dyson

Kaplan

(2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49, 365-382. doi:10.1080/00131880701717222

24.

Kavale

K. A.

Flannigan

D. P.

(2007). Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: Toward a contemporary operational definition. In Jimmerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeydon

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice if assessment and intervention (pp. 130-147). New York, NY: Springer.

25.

Law

Haight

Milroy

Willms

Stewart

Rosenbaum

(1999). Environmental factors affecting the occupations of children with physical disabilities. Journal of Occupational Science, 6, 102-110.

26.

Malecki

C. K.

Elliott

S. N.

(2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1-23.

27.

Marcoen

Goossens

(1993). Loneliness, attitude towards aloneness, and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. In: Jackson

Rodriguez-Tomé

(Eds.), Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. 197-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

McConkey

Mariga

(2011). Building social capital for inclusive education: Insights from Zanzibar. Journal of Research on Special Education Needs, 11, 12-19. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01174.x

29.

McMahon

S. D.

Parnes

A. L.

Keys

C. B.

Viola

J. J.

(2008). School belonging among low-income urban youth with disabilities: Testing a theoretical model. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 387-401. doi:10.1002/pits.20304

30.

McWilliam

R. A.

Bailey

D. B.

(1995). Effects of classroom social structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 123-147.

31.

Osterman

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323-367.

32.

Philpott

D. F.

(2007). Assessing without labels: Inclusive education in the Canadian context. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17(3), 3-34.

33.

Pitman

L. D.

Richmond

(2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late adolescence: The importance of school belonging. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 270-290.

34.

Porath

(2003). Social understanding in the first years of school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 468-485. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.006

35.

Rose

(2009). Indentifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. London, England: Department for Children, School, and Families.

36.

Ross

Powell

Elias

(2002). New roles for school psychologists. Addressing the social and emotional learning needs of students. School Psychology Review, 29, 43-52.

37.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

38.

Sattler

J. M.

(2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA: Jerome Sattler.

39.

Simovska

Sheehan

(2000). Worlds apart or like minds? Mental health promotion in Macedonian and Australian schools. Health Education, 100, 216-222.

40.

Slee

(2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling, and inclusive education. London, England: Routledge.

41.

Specht

J. A.

Young

(2010). How administrators build schools as inclusive communities. In Edmunds

Macmillan

(Eds.), Leadership for inclusion: A practical guide (pp. 65-72). Rotterdam, Netherlands. Sense Publishers.

42.

Symes

Humphrey

(2010). Peer-group indicators of social inclusion among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: A comparative study. School Psychology International, 31, 478-494. doi:10.1177/0143034310382496

43.

Timmons

(2006). Impact of a multipronged approach to inclusion: Having all the partners on side. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 469-480. doi:10.1080/ 13603110500392726

44.

Timmons

Wagner

(2008). Inclusive education knowledge exchange initiative: An analysis of the Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Research/FundedResearch/201009TimmonsInclusiveEdu-cation.html

45.

Valle

J. W.

Connor

D. J.

(2011) Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices. New York: McGraw Hill.

46.

Weare

(2007). Linking educational and mental health—A European priority. Health Education, 107, 245-249. doi:10.1108/09654280710742546

47.

World Health Organization. (2001). ICF. International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

48.

Wight

R. G.

Botticello

A. L.

Aneshensel

C. S.

(2006). Socioeconomic context, social support, and adolescent mental health: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 115-126. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9009-2

49.

Zins

J. E.

Bloodworth

M. R.

Weissberg

R. P.

Walberg

H. J.

(2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In Zins

J. E.

Weissberg

R. P.

Wang

M. C.

Walberg

H. J.

(Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 23-39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

50.

Zins

J. E.

Elias

M. E.

(2006). Social and emotional learning. In Bear

G. G.

Minke

K. M.

(Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 1-13). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.