Mainstream or special educational settings: the views of Spanish people with intellectual disabilities

6 Mainstream or special educational settings: the views of Spanish people with intellectual disabilities Abstract This paper aims to contribute to the debate on how different educational contexts can facilitate the inclusion or exclusion of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). We carried out a qualitative study based on the principles of inclusive research with 36 Spanish adults with ID. The data were gathered through individual interviews, which were transcribed, summarised and adapted for later analysis and coding with participants. Together with participants, we coded the interviews into two main categories: ‘mainstream schools’ and ‘special schools’. The results revealed the experiences of people with ID in mainstream schools, resource rooms and special education schools, analysing their preferences for regular or special contexts. The main conclusions drawn suggest that people with ID had both negative and positive experiences of inclusion at mainstream schools. Nevertheless, they preferred regular contexts, valued the help provided by SEN support teachers and highlighted the importance of adjusting the curriculum to students’ educational needs. They also emphasised the need for greater empathy from classmates at mainstream schools. Keywords: Intellectual disability, Mainstream school, Special school, Inclusive education, Inclusive research. 7 Introduction The 1994 World Conference on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) set the political and practical agenda for inclusive education. In this agenda, regular or mainstream schools were identified as the most effective means of fighting discrimination and guaranteeing the participation and learning of all students. However, 25 years after the Salamanca Statement, inclusive education is still a concern and a priority for many international organisations and national education systems. There is still a long way to go, since educational exclusion practices and discrimination continue to exist (Lacono et al., 2019; Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). Indeed, one of the Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations for 2030 is to ensure an education for everyone (UN, 2015). This pro-inclusive discourse is supported by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2018) and by the United Nations High Commissioner, who has underscored inclusive education as an opportunity for empowerment (UN, 2019). However, despite the efforts of international organisations and national education systems, most practices continue to be based on approaches that single out ‘special’ students through individualised responses and diagnoses (Florian, 2019). Spain is no exception in this sense, and the practical reality of inclusive education is far from ideal in educational agendas. In Spain, compulsory schooling consists of primary education (age 6-12 years) and lower secondary education (13-16 years). For SEN students, compulsory education may be extended up to the age of 21 years. Organic Law 8/2013, of 9 December, regulates the Spanish education system for the Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE). This law promotes the principles of inclusion and the normalisation of differences in education. It establishes four types of schooling for students: (a) full-time schooling in regular classes, (b) 8 a combination of resource classes and regular classes to satisfy needs that cannot be met solely in the latter, (c) SEN classes and (d) special schools. Inclusive Settings Benefit Students with Disabilities The benefits of inclusive contexts for students with ID have been widely reported in the extant literature. In a study with Italian students with ID, Note et al. (2018) concluded that these students learned more academic skills through inclusive education than through segregated education. Similar studies in other countries have shown that inclusive classes are the best option for students with ID, since the mainstream setting promotes cognitive and social development (Dessemontet et al., 2012). Other studies report that positive social experiences at school promote the well-being and quality of life of students with ID (Scharenberg et al., 2019; Smogorzewska et al., 2019). Similarly, in Australia, Wilson et al. (2017) observed that people with ID are happy when they feel included and share friendships with other people. Non-disabled peers are a key element in the educational inclusion of students with disabilities (Georgiadi et al., 2012). Teachers are another decisive figure in the inclusion of students with ID. A study carried out in Germany by Schwab et al. (2016) highlighted the importance of training teachers to facilitate social relationships among students in order to promote the inclusion of students with ID. Resource Rooms as an Aid to Inclusion In Spain, Sandoval et al. (2019) have linked resource rooms to the medical/therapeutic model of disability. In an Italian and Norwegian study, Nes et al. (2017) found that segregated classes were exclusive if attended only by certain students or if attendance was determined on the basis of a lack of academic competence. For their part, Riitaoja et al. (2019) reported that Finnish students had a negative perception of classroom practices in SEN classes due to the lack of academic knowledge provided in them and the division 9 between them and regular classes. In contrast, Author (2010) and Mañas-Olmo et al. (2020) found that Spanish students with disabilities liked resource rooms more than mainstream contexts, not because they were inclusive, but because they actually segregated them from their classmates. The participants in these two studies claimed to feel more comfortable in resource rooms than in regular classrooms because they offered them a safe place to be, away from the discrimination and exclusion they experienced in mainstream contexts. Some authors suggest that resource rooms may be a key element for inclusion when SEN teachers collaborate with subject teachers, working together in the same classroom, both attending to student diversity (Butt, 2016). However, the literature points to two requisites that must be met in order to ensure inclusive guidance in classrooms of this kind: (1) regular teachers must be trained to work alongside support teachers in mainstream classrooms (Gómez-Zapeda et al., 2017; Sandoval et al., 2019), and (2) regular teachers must be trained in inclusive practices to enable them to work with different methodological strategies and learning rhythms in a classroom (Nes et al., 2017). According to a study by Sandoval et al. (2019), if these two requisites are not met, teachers may simply delegate these duties to the SEN teacher, due to their lack of knowledge and confidence for dealing with special educational needs, which in turn may lead to the provision of therapeutic support rather than true inclusion. These results have been confirmed also in other international studies (Boynton & Mahon, 2018; Tones, et al., 2017). Special Schools vs. Pseudo-inclusive Practices Kassah et al. (2018) state that student segregation is the most extended form of exclusion in education. However, there are other authors who support special schools. For example, Kelly et al. (2014) report the inability of Irish mainstream schools to satisfy the academic, social, emotional and behavioural needs of students. In relation to affective aspects, Hornby 10 (2011) found that students in New Zealand develop a sense of belonging in special schools, as they feel comfortable among peers who have similar disabilities. In the social realm, Cook et al. (2016) explored experiences of friendship, intimidation and learning among children with disabilities in both regular and special schools in the UK, concluding that special schools facilitated social interactions and helped children overcome feelings of intimidation. In contrast, Norwich (2007) argues that it is not a case of choosing between mainstream and special schools. Rather, he believes that both types of school must learn from and complement each other with the aim of designing curricula adjusted to students’ needs, thereby creating an ‘inclusive system’ between them. However, this requires the commitment and collaboration of teachers from both school types, as indeed has been pointed out by Hedegaard-Soerensen et al. (2018) and Liasidou and Antoniou (2013). Taking the Experiences of People with ID into Account in order to Transform Practices Choosing which type of school to attend is an ongoing dilemma for people with disabilities. However, the opinions of those most affected have rarely been reported. Recent studies have shown that listening to people with disabilities may be a powerful tool for improving inclusive education (Messiou, 2019; Milner & Frawley, 2019). Recent inclusive studies have sought to explore the outlook of people with ID, providing testimonies and recommendations for developing more inclusive contexts (Author et al., 2019; Milner & Frawley, 2019). Although the number of inclusive studies carried out with people with ID is very small, some, such as that by Author et al. (2019), explore how people with ID envisage their ideal school. Puyalto et al. (2016) also describe studies related to inclusive research, identifying the steps and aspects to consider when working with people with ID within an inclusive approach. 11 Based on the principles of inclusive research, the present study aimed to add to our existing knowledge of how different educational contexts (mainstream or segregated) contribute to the inclusion or exclusion of people with ID. The objective was to make a meaningful contribution to scientific literature by providing personal testimonies identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the mainstream and segregated contexts. To this end, we proposed three research questions: 1) Do mainstream schools facilitate or hinder the learning of people with ID? 2) Do people with ID prefer mainstream schools or resource rooms? And 3) Are special schools barriers or facilitators? Method This study is based on the principles of inclusive research (Walmsley & Johnson 2003), in which people with disabilities play an active role as co-researchers (Nind, 2014). We selected this methodology based on our belief that the views of people with ID have too often gone unheard and their opinions may be valuable in creating inclusive educational settings (Messiou, 2019). Moreover, we believe that this type of methodology fosters the empowerment of people with ID in the fight for their rights (Frankena et al., 2019). By adhering to the principles of inclusive research, we also strove to avoid a power hierarchy between researchers and co-researchers, establishing horizontal rather than vertical relationships. Although in any research there is always some kind of hierarchy, in our study, we made a concerted effort to break away from conventional power structures, offering participants the opportunity to act as co-researchers involved in choosing the study topic and designing and analysing the interviews. We strove at all times to ensure that the study was conducted in a collaborative manner. However, it was the first author of the paper who held and transcribed the interviews and drafted the conclusions. The PhD commission of the University at which the study was conducted approved all ethical considerations. Moreover, the criteria established by the American Psychological 12 Association Ethics Code (APA, 2017) in relation to confidentiality, respect for participants and informed consent were also taken into account. Recruitment and participants To recruit the sample, we e-mailed eight occupational training centres for people with ID, of which only two agreed to meet with us. We then arranged a meeting with the directors of these two organisations to present the research project. We are aware that recruiting through service providers has its difficulties. However, the directors acted solely as gatekeepers, providing us only with access to people with ID; the final decision to participate (or not) in the study was made by participants themselves (Walmsley & Johnson, 2003). At the initial meeting with potential participants we emphasised that participation in the project was voluntary, and at the end we asked everyone to think about whether or not they wanted to participate. All those who attended the initial meeting expressed an interest in participating. Recruitment was the result of intentional sampling. Participants were required to meet the following criteria: adult male or female with ID willing to participate in the study voluntarily.. The final sample comprised 36 people from the two centres that agreed to participate in the study: 13 women (36%) and 23 men (64%). Regarding age ranges, 10 participants (28%) were between 18 and 30 years old, 12 participants (33%) were between 31 and 40 years old, 10 participants (n= 28%) were between 41 and 50 years old, and 4 participants (n= 11%) were between 51 and 63 years old. Age was not considered an exclusion criterion for the sample since, given that the ultimate aim was to analyse educational experiences in different contexts (mainstream schools, resource rooms and special schools), we decided to include all testimonies, regardless of the educational policies and historical contexts that had affected participants’ schooling. Indeed, we found only a few minor differences between the school experiences of older and younger participants. 13 Most participants attended mainstream schools (70%). Three participants (8%) started out in mainstream schools but were referred to special schools at some point during their school life. Four participants attended only special schools (11%) and, finally, four participants (11%) were not sure which type of school they had attended. Additionally, half of the participants in this study had attended resource classes at some point during their school life (50%). Data Collection We gathered the data in accordance with the principles of inclusive research (Nind, 2014). The co-researchers played an active role in both information collection and data analysis. We held an initial meeting, in which we explained what a study consisted of and how it was usually carried out. The process was similar in the two centres, although it was carried out independently in each organisation. In other words, the same sessions were held in both occupational training centres (one with 20 participants and the other with 16). We also presented the aims and scope of the present study. During the meetings, we talked about participants’ experiences at school and the type of school they had attended. This helped introduce participants to the world of research. Next, we held a brainstorming session focusing on the topics participants considered most important for research, from which we extracted a list of possible questions for the interviews. The following topics emerged from the brainstorming session: participants’ preference for either special or mainstream contexts, their experiences in resource rooms and their relationships with their classmates and teachers. The co-researchers therefore participated in choosing the research topics to be studied. In the same session, we thought together (researcher and co-researchers) about what questions could be asked to elicit information about these topics. The researcher ensured everyone's participation by asking each person questions in order of seating. All questions were written on a board. The only task completed by the researcher alone was the unification of questions 14 from the two centres. This was done by eliminating all duplicate questions and ordering the remaining ones to ensure consistency. The final interview was designed using this procedure, i.e., the interview was not validated by experts and the researcher and co-researchers were the only ones involved. The following are some of the questions asked during the interview: Were there people with disabilities at your school? Did you have classmates with disabilities? How did you feel about the SEN classroom? Would you have preferred to go to a special school? Would you have preferred to have classmates with or without disabilities? Interview Process The first author of this paper conducted the 36 interviews. During this process, participants acted only as interviewees. Each interview lasted between 20 and 40 minutes and was recorded using a portable digital device. Interviews were held in places with which participants were familiar (all interviews were held in the corresponding occupational training centre), since this helped them feel more comfortable, thereby building trust and encouraging honesty. Participants were given the transcription of their interview so that they could review and modify it, eliminating or expanding on any piece of information provided by them during the session. Some participants reviewed their interviews autonomously, while others were assisted by peers. For the sake of privacy, pseudonyms were used. Participants and their legal representatives signed informed consent forms. Before each interview, the authors explained to each participant the fundamental aspects of the study to ensure that the people with ID understood their rights. Data Analysis The data were analysed by a work team formed by the first author and the 36 participants. Therefore, in this phase also participants acted as co-researchers. Data analysis workshops comprising three sessions of approximately one hour each (three hours in total) were held at 21 Pepe: If I were a school principal, I would put students with a lower level in a different classroom. I did well in the resource room. I was calm and the subject matter was adapted to my needs. Among those participants who had never attended a resource class during their time at school, opinions differed. Some were in favour of this kind of support, since they said that in the mainstream classroom they had found it difficult to understand the contents being taught. They said they thought that the resource room should have been made available to them as a means of overcoming the difficulties they had had at school. Saray: I think it would have been better for me to attend a different classroom, where everything would have been explained to me in a way I could have understood better. However, other participants who had never been to a resource room were against such spaces, since their experiences in the mainstream classroom had been positive. They even stated that, if they were teachers, they would find a way to help students with ID cope with the academic contents and keep up with the rest of the class, thus fostering social inclusion. They would achieve this by using different methodologies, adjusting contents and promoting cooperation among students. Lucas: If I were a teacher, I would teach the same subject matter to all my students, but I would explain it in two different ways, i.e., slowly and simply to some students and in more detail to others. Table 1 summarises the arguments used by participants to justify their choices. Please include Table 1 here Experiences in Special Schools: Facilitator or Barrier Seven participants had studied in special schools. Four had attended a special school throughout their entire educational career, whereas the other three had started out at a 22 mainstream school and had been transferred to a special school at some point during their school lives. The experiences recounted by these participants varied. Some remembered their school as a place completely adapted to their learning needs and adjusted to the individual characteristics of each student. Manuela: The special school was perfect for me. I felt at peace and there was no discrimination from either my classmates or my teachers. Moreover, the teachers explained the contents better than in the mainstream classroom, which meant I could understand everything. However, others recalled negative experiences, since, as in mainstream schools, they were bullied by their classmates at the special school. Marcos: The special school was horrible. It was hell for me, because they harassed me all the time. Other participants described their special school as a place isolated from society, viewing this type of school as a form of social rejection or exclusion. Lucas: I did not like the special school. It seemed to be a place where they piled together people who were not normal. That is discrimination. What if the Choice were yours to Make: Mainstream Schools or Special Schools? We asked participants whether they would rather have attended a mainstream school or a special school. Some of those who had studied at mainstream schools mentioned the social discrimination they had suffered there, giving this as the reason for their being in favour of special schools. One participant said they were sure that an environment with only people with disabilities would have been a more peaceful and harmonious place. Moreover, many claimed that mainstream schools were not adapted to their learning needs, which was another reason why they would opt for special schools. 23 Pablo: I would rather have studied at a special school. I think that I would have learned more than I did at a mainstream school, because the subject matter would have been adapted to my needs. However, other participants who had studied at mainstream schools said they were satisfied with their experience. The reasons they gave included the normalisation of differences and the good relationships established between students with and without disabilities. Lola: I think we should all be at the same school. We are all human and deserve the same opportunities. We must learn to interact with each other and get along. Some participants reflected on the need to accept differences as normal in the educational sphere, questioning the differentiation made by schools on the basis of students’ capabilities. Cristina: I would prefer all children to study at the same school, because we should not make distinctions between people. Some need more and some need less support. Only if a child finds they cannot adapt would it be appropriate to consider whether he/she would do better at a special school. Participants who had attended special schools for their entire school lives said they would rather have studied at a mainstream school, since they felt discriminated against for not being allowed to go to the same school as other children. They also claimed that sending children to special schools did nothing to help normalise disability, since these settings were a barrier to educational and social inclusion. Lucas: I went to a special school, but I think it is better to attend a school that includes everyone, because there would be equality and we could learn to treat each other with respect. Lastly, participants who had started their compulsory education at mainstream schools and finished it at special schools said they had preferred the latter type. This was because not only 24 were these schools better adapted to their needs, they were also spaces free from discrimination by classmates. Nicolás: I only attended the special school for one year. The war among classmates was ferocious at the mainstream school. At the special school, though, I was treated well, people understood me and I was never hit. I know I have an impairment, but I deserve the same opportunities as other people. I preferred the special school. Table 2 summarises participants’ arguments in favour of or against special schools. Please insert Table 2 here Discussion and Conclusions The main conclusions that can be drawn from this study are, firstly, that participants reported both negative and positive experiences at mainstream schools, although there was a general feeling of exclusion. Secondly, participants said that, given the choice, they would study at mainstream schools, despite the obstacles encountered in that environment. Indeed, the preferred model that emerges from this study is one of integration. Even when students with ID shared mainstream settings, they were often simply present and did not participate. The barriers identified in this study are related both to discrimination by classmates and to the poor adjustment of the curriculum by teachers. These barriers were also reported by Author (2010) and Mañas-Olmo et al. (2020). In the present study, although some testimonies highlighted the central role played by teachers in the creation of more welcoming, less hostile and, therefore, less excluding scenarios, many other participants were especially critical of their educational experiences with teachers. Teachers are a key element in the development of inclusive practices, as they can celebrate diversity, contribute to preventing prejudice and stereotypes, reject and condemn any segregation, discrimination or exclusive practice, develop high expectations for all students, and act as a point of connection between the 25 school and the family (Butt, 2016). We believe that education systems need to review their teaching, learning and curricular approaches. Teachers’ praxis and competences greatly influence what students learn. As such, they should be required to be sensitive to ID and to acquire the resources and strategies they need to effectively teach all students in regular contexts (Schwab et al., 2016). It is especially vital to rethink initial and on-site training policies, which, in many cases, do nothing to help foster inclusive education (Membuhoglu & Altunova, 2020; Nes et al., 2017). However, despite the barriers identified in mainstream schools, participants talked about the support provided in this context by both classmates and some teachers who adapted the contents of their subjects (Kassah et al., 2018; Scharenberg et al., 2019). This helped develop a sense of belonging among all students and made people with ID feel loved and valued at school. Previous studies with students with ID have drawn the same conclusion (Jaques et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2017). Among the participants in our study, resource rooms are seen an alternative support method for compensating for the difficulties encountered in regular classes, and a place where people with ID can feel safe from discrimination by their classmates. For a certain length of time during the school day, students with ID who attend a resource class share a space exclusively with their SEN peers, and the curriculum is adapted to their needs. They also have a strong ally in this room: the teacher, who provides essential assistance for people with ID. Participants described their resource room teachers as patient, motivating and empathetic. This teacher profile is similar to that reported by Boynton and Mahon (2018). However, Sandoval et al. (2019) and Nes (2017) highlight the danger of segregated classrooms in mainstream schools, since their presence means that students with disabilities spend most of the school day isolated from their classmates. In our study, although most participants recounted positive experiences, they did perceive these settings as a form of 26 exclusion, since they were isolated and unable to follow a normal routine like the rest of their peers. Indeed, it is risky to present this positive image of segregated education without also condemning it, since, although according to the participants in our study special contexts are the most integrating, they are still special and segregating; in other words, they are ‘false’ inclusive contexts. In this sense, mainstream educational contexts must change; the practices which take place in them must be revised and improved in order to turn them into places where everyone can feel safe and welcome and be part of a truly social and academic community. Finally, most of the participants in our study regard special schools as a form of exclusion. Although their experiences in them were positive, they prioritise the existence of a school in which everyone learns together on the basis of respect and acceptance of differences. Indeed, previous studies attest to the success of students with ID at inclusive schools (Dessemontet et al., 2012; Nota et al., 2018). We can therefore conclude that, nowadays, there are useful and valuable tools available to help us advance towards inclusive education, although in order to build these inclusive scenarios it is necessary to admit that this goal can be achieved in many different ways, as every classroom is different and each school is unique. Thus, the best way to start developing inclusive projects is to listen to the opinions of people with disabilities. Limitations and further research Some of the limitations of this study are related to the broad age range of our sample (18- 63 years). However, we believe that all contributions were valuable for our research, although variables such as educational stage or education policy may influence the results. Another limitation is related to the editing of the transcriptions to render them accessible, since these changes may have affected the transparency and interpretation of the results. Nevertheless, we believe it was necessary as it enabled the results to be interpreted. The last 27 limitation is linked to the use of the ATLAS Ti program, which may have reduced the transparency of the coding performed by the co-researchers and the researcher. Future research may wish to focus on improving the procedures of inclusive research and analysing other research topics proposed by people with ID. Despite the limitations outlined above, we believe that the present study contributes to the literature in the field of inclusive education by voicing the opinions of one of the most vulnerable and silenced groups in the education system: people with ID. References APA. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code the conduct. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf Author. (2010). Title eliminated for an anonymous review. Author et al. (2019). Title eliminated for an anonymous review. Boynton, L., & Mahon, J. (2018). Secondary teachers’ experiences with students with disabilities: Examining the global landscape. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603 116.2017.1364793 Butt, R. (2016). Teacher assistant support and deployment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), 995-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145260. Cook, A., Ogden, J., & Winstone, N. (2016). The experiences of learning, friendship and bullying of boys with autism in mainstream and special settings: a qualitative study. British Journal of Special Education, 43, 250-271. https://doi.org/10.1111 / 1467- 8578.12143 Dessemontet, R.S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal 28 of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2788.2011.01497.x European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2018). Evidence of the link between inclusive education and social inclusion: A review of the literature. https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/evidence-literature-review Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286-295. https ://doi.org/10.1080/08856 257.2014.933551 Frankena, T.K., Naaldenberg, J., Cardol, M., Garcia Iriarte, E., Buchner, T., Brooker, K., ... Leusink, G. (2019). A consensus statement on how to conduct inclusive health research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 63(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12486 Georgiadi, M., Kalyva, E., Kourkoutas, E., & Tsakiris, V. (2012). Young children’s attitudes toward peers with intellectual disabilities: effect of the type of school, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25(6), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.1111 / j.1468-3148.2012.00699.x Gómez-Zepeda, G., Petreñas, C., Sabando, D., & Puigdellívol, I. (2017). The role of the Support and Attention to Diversity Teacher (SADT) from a community-based perspective: Promoting educational success and educational inclusion for all. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64. 127-138. https://10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.002. Hedegaard-Soerensen, L., Jensen, C., & Tofteng, D. M. (2018). Interdisciplinary collaboration as a prerequisite for inclusive education, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(3), 382-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1314113 Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2008) Looking back on school – the views of adult graduates of a residential special school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. 29 British Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1111 / j.1467- 8578.2008.00380.x Kassah, B. L. L., Kassah, A. K., & Phillips, D. (2018). Children with intellectual disabilities and special school education in Ghana. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 65(3), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1374358). Kelly, A., Devitt, C., O’Keffee, D., & Donovan, A. (2014). Challenges in implementing inclusive education in Ireland: principals’ views of the reasons students aged 12+ are seeking enrollment to special schools. Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12073 Lacono, T., Keefe, M., Kenny, A., & Mckinstry, C. (2019). A document review of exclusionary practices in the context of Australian school education policy. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(4), 264-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12290 Liasidou, A., & Antoniou, A. (2013). A special teacher for a special child? Reconsidering the role of the special education teacher within the context of an inclusive education reform agenda. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.820484 LOMCE. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa [Organic Law 8/2013, of December 9, for the Improvement of Educational Quality]. BOE de 10 de diciembre de 2013. Mañas Olmo, M., González Alba, B., & Cortés González, P. (2020). Life histories of people with intellectual disabilities. Between bullying and exclusion at school as identity modulators [Historias de vida de personas con discapacidad intelectual. Entre el acoso 30 y exclusión en la escuela como moduladores de la identidad]. Revista Educación, Política y Sociedad, 5(1), 60-84. http://hdl.handle.net/10486/689680 McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., Disher, S., Mathot-Buckner, C., Mendel, J., & Ray, L. (2003). The achievement of students with developmental disabilities and their peers without disabilities in inclusive settings: An exploratory study. Education & Treatment of Children, 26(3), 224-236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899751 Messiou, K. (2019). The missing voices: students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8) 768- 781. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1623326 Milner, P., & Frawley, P. (2019). From ‘on’ to ‘with’ to ‘by:’ people with a learning disability creating a space for the third wave of Inclusive Research. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 382-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118781385 Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? Bloomsbury. Nes, K., Demo, H., & Ianes, D. (2017). Inclusion at risk? Pushand pull-out phenomena in inclusive school systems: the Italian and Norwegian experiences. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(2), 111-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362045 Norwich, B. (2007). Special schools in the new era: how do we go beyond generalities? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(2), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00083.x Nota, L., Ginevra, M. C., & Soresi, S. (2018). School inclusion of children with intellectual disability: an intervention program. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 44(4), 439-446. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2018.1428785 Puyalto, M., Pallisera, M., Fullana, J., & Vilà, C. (2016). Doing research together: A study on the views of advisors with intellectual disabilities and non-disabled researchers