Serving their communities? The under-admission of children with disabilities and ‘special educational needs’ to ‘faith’ primary schools in England

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Oxford Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1080/03054985.2023.2249818
Tammy Campbell
{"title":"Serving their communities? The under-admission of children with disabilities and ‘special educational needs’ to ‘faith’ primary schools in England","authors":"Tammy Campbell","doi":"10.1080/03054985.2023.2249818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Around 28 per cent of state primary school children attend ‘faith’ establishments in England, the majority in Catholic or Church of England schools. Research suggests ‘faith’ schools tend to educate proportionally fewer children from low-income families (proxied by eligibility for Free School Meals [FSM]). This paper examines whether they also under-admit children ‘disadvantaged’ according to another key dimension: having special educational needs and/or disability (SEND). Descriptive statistics and modelling use the National Pupil Database census and span 2010–2020. Across years, ‘faith’ primary schools are less likely to include children with SEND, and less likely to admit children with SEND to the first (Reception) year. Accounting for area-level factors, indications of under-admission to Catholic schools become more pronounced. Some disproportionality for Church of England schools is explained by confounders – but even after attenuation, they remain less likely to serve children with SEND than non-‘faith’ schools. Together, FSM and SEND predict a substantively meaningful lowered likelihood of children attending ‘faith’ schools, so these schools, at the national level, seem to have become hubs of relative ‘advantage’. Findings therefore demand interrogation of whose interests these institutions serve, and of their part within the current English system.","PeriodicalId":47910,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Review of Education","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2249818","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Around 28 per cent of state primary school children attend ‘faith’ establishments in England, the majority in Catholic or Church of England schools. Research suggests ‘faith’ schools tend to educate proportionally fewer children from low-income families (proxied by eligibility for Free School Meals [FSM]). This paper examines whether they also under-admit children ‘disadvantaged’ according to another key dimension: having special educational needs and/or disability (SEND). Descriptive statistics and modelling use the National Pupil Database census and span 2010–2020. Across years, ‘faith’ primary schools are less likely to include children with SEND, and less likely to admit children with SEND to the first (Reception) year. Accounting for area-level factors, indications of under-admission to Catholic schools become more pronounced. Some disproportionality for Church of England schools is explained by confounders – but even after attenuation, they remain less likely to serve children with SEND than non-‘faith’ schools. Together, FSM and SEND predict a substantively meaningful lowered likelihood of children attending ‘faith’ schools, so these schools, at the national level, seem to have become hubs of relative ‘advantage’. Findings therefore demand interrogation of whose interests these institutions serve, and of their part within the current English system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为他们的社区服务?英国“信仰”小学招收残疾和有“特殊教育需要”的儿童人数不足
在英格兰,大约28%的公立小学学生就读于“信仰”机构,其中大多数是天主教或英国国教学校。研究表明,“信仰”学校倾向于从低收入家庭(由免费校餐资格[FSM]代表)中教育较少的孩子。本文根据另一个关键维度:有特殊教育需求和/或残疾(SEND),研究了他们是否也低估了“弱势”儿童的入学率。描述性统计和建模使用国家学生数据库人口普查和2010-2020年。多年来,“信仰”小学不太可能包括有SEND的孩子,也不太可能让有SEND的孩子进入第一学年(接收)。考虑到地区层面的因素,天主教学校录取不足的迹象变得更加明显。混杂因素解释了英国国教学校的一些不成比例,但即使在衰减之后,它们仍然比非“信仰”学校更不可能为SEND儿童提供服务。FSM和SEND共同预测,儿童进入“信仰”学校的可能性显著降低,因此,在国家层面上,这些学校似乎已经成为相对“优势”的中心。因此,调查结果需要询问这些机构为谁的利益服务,以及它们在当前英国体系中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Oxford Review of Education
Oxford Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Oxford Review of Education is a well established journal with an extensive international readership. It is committed to deploying the resources of a wide range of academic disciplines in the service of educational scholarship, and the Editors welcome articles reporting significant new research as well as contributions of a more analytic or reflective nature. The membership of the editorial board reflects these emphases, which have remained characteristic of the Review since its foundation. The Review seeks to preserve the highest standards of professional scholarship in education, while also seeking to publish articles which will be of interest and utility to a wider public, including policy makers.
期刊最新文献
Colour-evasive racial ideologies underpinning the hidden curriculum of a majority-minority occupational therapy school in London, England: an analysis of minoritised undergraduate students’ experiences Environment in the views of preschool children: an investigation of children’s drawings and narratives in Turkey Understanding the salary gap between academic faculty and top administrators: a New Public Management perspective Theory-informed beliefs in early childhood education: contradictions in child development theories and models of play The pronunciation of students’ names in higher education: identity work by academics and professional services staff
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1