Amistad y vecindad

Pertinent to the second research question concerning pupil interaction, Nakken and Pijl (2002) reviewed the effects of integration on social relationships between pupils with and without disabilities, revealing limited and inconclusive knowledge in this area. While Cuckle and Wilson (2002) found that a poor match of pupils’ interests and abilities made ‘equal’ friendships difficult to develop and sustain, Shevlin (2003) reported the development of positive, caring relationships by mainstream pupils towards their classmates with SLD. However, as Hegarty et al. (1981: 438) had long before pointed out, ‘Anything else would be extraordinary’.

Three decades ago, Carpenter et al. (1987) found that primary-age pupils involved in link- schemes needed to familiarise themselves with new ‘others’, assessing them before interaction took place, initiated first through gestures and then words. This situation is unlikely to have changed significantly in the years since then. Secondary-age pupils may react similarly, particularly those with SLD, as discussed by Frederickson et al. (2004). Later, with different co-authors, Frederickson emphasised the particular importance of adequate and careful peer preparation before pupils from different settings worked together (Frederickson et al., 2007). TA support, too, played a part in the development of pupil relationships; Thomas et al. (1998) found that carefully structured joint activities permitting some freedom from adults continually lingering nearby were important in facilitating the establishment of relationships between the two pupil groups. Most recently, the support of TAs who know when and when not to intervene, are consistent in their use of language and who provide a sense of security without being ‘ever-present’ was found to be critical to the

successful inclusion of pupils with autism (Humphrey and Symes, 2013). Many autistic children present differing amounts of eye contact, facial expression, vocal intonation, posture and gestures from their typically developing peers in everyday social contexts. In addition, they may differ in spontaneity or emotional reciprocity in seeking to share enjoyment or activities. All potentially constrain relationship building (Ockelford, 2013).

The nature of pupils’ social relationships and their sense of belonging in a classroom group are likely to provide important insights in research concerning inclusion and integration (Prince and Hadwin, 2013). Although the findings of studies examining friendships between special and mainstream school students in integrated settings are broadly positive in terms of mainstream school pupils’ social acceptance of their special school peers, those concerning the development of lasting friendships and the longevity of changes in attitude are mixed.

A small-scale study exploring the perspectives of pupils with SLD and their Year 9 mainstream peers participating in a link-scheme using English and Art found that although regular interaction was beneficial in terms of the increased understanding (assessed through interviews) of mainstream pupils of their peers with SLD, the establishment of friendships between pupils from the two groups proved challenging because of the differing perceptions of friendship between the two sets of pupils (Beveridge, 1996). Although Beveridge cited the principal aims of integrative link-schemes as being ‘the promotion of understanding and acceptance on the part of the mainstream pupils, and of social interactions for their special school peers’ (ibid: 18), she did not state what was being understood or accepted. Her findings concerning friendships were supported by those of a later Irish study examining the

PMLD aged 8-17 years and 30 mainstream pupils aged 15-16 years (Shevlin, 2001). All took part in once-weekly PE, arts and crafts curricular activities for one school year, with the objective of developing mainstream pupils’ personal and social skills to help them in their interactions with their peers with SLD and PMLD in school and in the wider community. After this link programme ended, however, due to the compound challenges of pupils’ differing understandings of friendship and of geographical distance, almost 77% mainstream pupils reported no further contact with their peers with SLD and PMLD (ibid.). The remaining pupils reported sporadic rather than regular contact, which was nevertheless enjoyed and viewed positively.

Four years later, in contrast, a study investigating the cognitive and affective outcomes between secondary mainstream school pupils and special school pupils with SLD during a year-long Young Enterprise Scheme20 programme produced positive findings concerning continuing out-of-school contact between the groups (Gladstone, 2005). Gladstone, however, supported this claim using data collected during and immediately after his study, while Shevlin’s data were obtained two years after his project ended. Both studies suggested that the formation of long-term friendships between these pupils demands high levels of support and commitment from schools.

Although significant communication difficulties existed among the pupils, their increasing mutual familiarity over time facilitated the use of signing and gesture, making participation

20 _{Young Enterprise is a UK business and enterprise education charity bringing volunteers from business into}

the classroom, linking schools with industry and helping to develop teamwork and entrepreneurial skills through ‘learning by doing’.

possible for all and promoting collaboration and friendship between the pupils. Students were proactive in their efforts to find ways to communicate with each other (Gladstone, 2005). Communication was described by Griffiths (2009) as a key element in a set of teaching and learning principles in an inclusive classroom, developed during a literacy link scheme involving secondary special school pupils and their co-located21 mainstream peers.