Poster

TITLE (Centered, Top, Bold, Large Font)

Parents' Perceptions of the Benefits and Limitations of Special Needs Schools Compared to Mainstream Schools for Children with Special Educational Needs

AUTHOR INFORMATION (Below Title)

Student Name: [Your Name]

Student ID: [Your ID]

Unit Name: ASS142-3 Coursework – Exhibition

Supervisor:

Date: 31st July 2026

LEFT COLUMN

INTRODUCTION

The mainstream inclusion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) is a key principle of UK education policy, yet remains highly debated. Legislation including the Children Act 1989, SENDA 2001, and the Children and Families Act 2014 promote inclusion while recognising the need for specialist provision (Thosare, 2015). Currently, 1.6 million pupils in England have SEN – representing 17.3% of all pupils – with 71,000 children holding EHC plans and demand for specialist provision increasing by 43% since 2015 (Department for Education, 2023; Thosare, 2015).

Policy Context:

Children Act 1989, SENDA 2001, Children & Families Act 2014

SEND Code of Practice 2015 – mandates inclusion but lacks robust monitoring

Policy Gap: Legislation supports inclusion but lacks implementation and parental satisfaction monitoring

Why This Matters:

Parents are primary advocates (Goodall, 2019), yet often experience a "powerless choice" – forced into decisions by systemic constraints (Hamilton, 2019). There is a clear gap in research synthesising parental perceptions of the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special school provision.

Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (Kurtz-Costes, 2015).

RESEARCH QUESTION

"How do parents of children with Special Educational Needs perceive the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special school provision?"

OBJECTIVES

Aim: To systematically synthesise existing qualitative data to understand the factors influencing parental preference and satisfaction in mainstream and special school provision for children with SEN.

Objectives:

To identify the primary drivers (social, academic, and emotional factors) behind parental school choice for children with SEN.

To evaluate the perceived barriers to successful inclusion in mainstream settings as reported by parents.

To identify gaps in current policy and provide evidence-based recommendations for improving SEN provision.

MIDDLE COLUMN

METHODOLOGY

Research Design: Qualitative Secondary Analysis – Systematic Literature Review (SLR), integrating findings from multiple empirical studies to address the research question (Boland et al., 2017; Gough et al., 2017).

Data Collection Strategy:

Databases: Google Scholar, ERIC, Taylor & Francis Online

Search Terms: ("SEN" OR "Special Educational Needs") AND ("Parental Perceptions" OR "Parental Choice") AND ("Mainstream" OR "Special School")

Boolean Operators: AND, OR (Booth et al., 2016)

Search Date: 2024–2025

Inclusion Criteria:

Peer-reviewed academic journal articles

UK studies

Published within the last 10 years (2014–2024)

Focus on parental views and perceptions

Full text available

Exclusion Criteria:

Non-peer-reviewed sources

Non-UK studies

Studies not focused on parental perceptions

Published before 2014

Approach to Analysis:

Thematic Analysis – Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase guide: familiarisation with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes, and writing up.

Ethics:

Secondary research – no participant contact (Bryman, 2016). Adhered to SRA Ethical Guidelines (2021). Accurate interpretation and citation of all sources.

THEMATIC ANALYSIS PROCESS

Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase guide to ensure a rigorous and transparent analytical process.

Phase Description

1 Familiarisation with data

2 Generating initial codes

3 Searching for themes

4 Reviewing themes

5 Defining themes

6 Writing up

RIGHT COLUMN

FINDINGS

Key Themes:

Decision-Making Factors (Linked to Objective 1)

Barriers to Inclusion (Linked to Objective 2)

Policy Gaps (Linked to Objective 3)

Theme 1: Decision-Making Factors (Linked to Objective 1)

Parents' perceptions of the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special schools are influenced by a complex interplay of academic, social, and emotional factors. Academic benefits include smaller class sizes, which Bondebjerg et al. (2023) found to significantly improve outcomes in special education settings. Social benefits encompass integration in mainstream settings versus peer connection in special schools (Fluyt et al., 2024; Castro & Palikara, 2020). Emotional benefits centre on children feeling "safe and understood" (Hamilton, 2019). Access to specialist expertise was also identified as a key benefit of special schools (Thosare, 2015). Kantová (2022) found that higher parental involvement increases the probability of positive educational outcomes.

Key Finding: Parents perceive benefits in both mainstream (social inclusion) and special schools (specialist support and expertise). The decision reflects a careful weighing of academic, social, and emotional considerations.

Theme 2: Barriers to Inclusion (Linked to Objective 2)

Parents report significant limitations in mainstream settings, which often drive them toward special school choices. Structural limitations include lack of 1-to-1 support and large class sizes (Hamilton, 2019; Roberts & Simpson, 2021). Communication limitations manifest as poor school-parent communication (Goodall, 2019). Attitudinal limitations encompass stigma and lack of staff understanding, with Rose and Shevlin (2017a) providing direct evidence from parents and Rose and Shevlin (2017b) finding that many children with SEN do not feel fully accepted in mainstream settings. Systemic limitations include inadequate EHC plans and funding constraints (DfE, 2023).

Key Finding: Parents feel "powerless" – forced to choose special schools due to mainstream limitations and failures (Hamilton, 2019). Parental voices are often "secondary to professional requirements" (Malcolm, 2022).

Theme 3: Policy Gaps (Linked to Objective 3)

Policy Identified Gap

Children & Families Act 2014 EHC plans lack robust implementation and monitoring

SEND Code of Practice 2015 Mandates inclusion but lacks resource allocation standards

Education Act 1996 No specific quality standards for SEN provision

Key Finding: Legislation supports inclusion on paper, but implementation is inconsistent and parental satisfaction is not systematically measured. Despite policy commitments, many parents and children do not experience genuine acceptance in mainstream settings (Rose & Shevlin, 2017a).

BOTTOM SECTION (Full Width)

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this research reveals that parents perceive both benefits and limitations in mainstream and special school provision. Parents value mainstream schools for social inclusion and special schools for specialist support and expertise. However, structural, communication, and attitudinal barriers in mainstream settings drive parents toward special school choices. Current legislation lacks effective implementation and monitoring, and parents experience a "powerless choice" constrained by systemic factors (Hamilton, 2019).

Recommendations:

Mandate consistent communication protocols between schools and SEN families to address parental concerns (Goodall, 2019; Rose & Shevlin, 2017a).

Increase funding for 1-to-1 support in mainstream schools to address structural limitations (Bondebjerg et al., 2023; Roberts & Simpson, 2021).

Strengthen EHC plan implementation and monitoring to ensure accountability (Malcolm, 2022; HM Government, 2014).

Provide mandatory SEN training for all mainstream teachers to address attitudinal barriers (Thosare, 2015; Rose & Shevlin, 2017b).

Establish parental satisfaction as a key performance indicator in SEN provision (Fluyt et al., 2024; Castro & Palikara, 2020; Kantová, 2022).

Impact: This research contributes to social justice by amplifying parental voices and identifying systemic barriers to inclusion, serving as a catalyst for targeted policy reforms aimed at improving SEN provision.

REFERENCES

Boland, A., Cherry, M.G. and Dickson, R. (eds.) (2017) Doing a Systematic Review: A Student's Guide. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Bondebjerg, A., Bjørnholt, B., Quvang, C. and Hansen, O. (2023) 'Small class sizes in special education: A systematic review of effects on student outcomes', Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(2), p. e1321.

Booth, A., Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D. (2016) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications.

Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castro, S. and Palikara, O. (2020) 'Parental decision-making in the context of SEN provision: A systematic review of qualitative studies', Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), pp. 987–1005.

Department for Education (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years. London: DfE.

Department for Education (2023) Special Educational Needs in England: Academic Year 2022/23. London: HMSO.

Fluyt, L., De Schauwer, E. and Van Hove, G. (2024) 'Parental decision-making in the transition to special education: A qualitative study on lived experiences', Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(1), pp. 45–58.

Goodall, J. (2019) 'Parental engagement in special educational needs: A continuum from involvement to engagement', British Journal of Special Education, 46(2), pp. 145–162.

Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. (2017) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Hamilton, K. (2019) 'The powerless choice: Parents' perspectives on the transition from mainstream to special schooling', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(4), pp. 451–466.

HM Government (1989) Children Act 1989. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (1996) Education Act 1996. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (2014) Children and Families Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office.

Kantová, K. (2022) 'Parental involvement and education outcomes of their children', Research Square, preprint. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2105821/v1.

Kurtz-Costes, B. (2015) 'Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory and the family', in Encyclopedia of Family Studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Malcolm, A. (2022) SASS Research Proposal Micro-Textbook: Level 6 Dissertation Guide. University of Bedfordshire.

Roberts, J. and Simpson, A. (2021) 'Barriers to inclusion in mainstream schools: Parental perspectives on structural and attitudinal challenges', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(8), pp. 901–918.

Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. (2017a) 'Parental perspectives on inclusion in mainstream schools', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(12), pp. 1205–1219.

Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. (2017b) 'A sense of belonging: childrens' views of acceptance in "inclusive" mainstream schools', International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(1), pp. 65–80.

Social Research Association (2021) Ethical Guidelines for Social Research. London: SRA.

Thosare, A. T. (2015) 'Inclusive education: A way to promote social integration of children with special needs', International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 5(2), pp. 153–157.

TITLE (Centered, Top, Bold, Large Font)

Parents' Perceptions of the Benefits and Limitations of Special Needs Schools Compared to Mainstream Schools for Children with Special Educational Needs

AUTHOR INFORMATION (Below Title)

Student Name: [Your Name]

Student ID: [Your ID]

Unit Name: ASS142-3 Coursework – Exhibition

Supervisor:

Date: 31st July 2026

LEFT COLUMN

INTRODUCTION

The mainstream inclusion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) is a key principle of UK education policy, yet remains highly debated. Legislation including the Children Act 1989, SENDA 2001, and the Children and Families Act 2014 promote inclusion while recognising the need for specialist provision (Thosare, 2015). Currently, 1.6 million pupils in England have SEN – representing 17.3% of all pupils – with 71,000 children holding EHC plans and demand for specialist provision increasing by 43% since 2015 (Department for Education, 2023; Thosare, 2015).

Policy Context:

Children Act 1989, SENDA 2001, Children & Families Act 2014

SEND Code of Practice 2015 – mandates inclusion but lacks robust monitoring

Policy Gap: Legislation supports inclusion but lacks implementation and parental satisfaction monitoring

Why This Matters:

Parents are primary advocates (Goodall, 2019), yet often experience a "powerless choice" – forced into decisions by systemic constraints (Hamilton, 2019). There is a clear gap in research synthesising parental perceptions of the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special school provision.

Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (Kurtz-Costes, 2015).

RESEARCH QUESTION

"How do parents of children with Special Educational Needs perceive the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special school provision?"

OBJECTIVES

Aim: To systematically synthesise existing qualitative data to understand the factors influencing parental preference and satisfaction in mainstream and special school provision for children with SEN.

Objectives:

To identify the primary drivers (social, academic, and emotional factors) behind parental school choice for children with SEN.

To evaluate the perceived barriers to successful inclusion in mainstream settings as reported by parents.

To identify gaps in current policy and provide evidence-based recommendations for improving SEN provision.

MIDDLE COLUMN

METHODOLOGY

Research Design: Qualitative Secondary Analysis – Systematic Literature Review (SLR), integrating findings from multiple empirical studies to address the research question (Boland et al., 2017; Gough et al., 2017).

Data Collection Strategy:

Databases: Google Scholar, ERIC, Taylor & Francis Online

Search Terms: ("SEN" OR "Special Educational Needs") AND ("Parental Perceptions" OR "Parental Choice") AND ("Mainstream" OR "Special School")

Boolean Operators: AND, OR (Booth et al., 2016)

Search Date: 2024–2025

Inclusion Criteria:

Peer-reviewed academic journal articles

UK studies

Published within the last 10 years (2014–2024)

Focus on parental views and perceptions

Full text available

Exclusion Criteria:

Non-peer-reviewed sources

Non-UK studies

Studies not focused on parental perceptions

Published before 2014

Approach to Analysis:

Thematic Analysis – Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase guide: familiarisation with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes, and writing up.

Ethics:

Secondary research – no participant contact (Bryman, 2016). Adhered to SRA Ethical Guidelines (2021). Accurate interpretation and citation of all sources.

THEMATIC ANALYSIS PROCESS

Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase guide to ensure a rigorous and transparent analytical process.

Phase Description

1 Familiarisation with data

2 Generating initial codes

3 Searching for themes

4 Reviewing themes

5 Defining themes

6 Writing up

RIGHT COLUMN

FINDINGS

Key Themes:

Decision-Making Factors (Linked to Objective 1)

Barriers to Inclusion (Linked to Objective 2)

Policy Gaps (Linked to Objective 3)

Theme 1: Decision-Making Factors (Linked to Objective 1)

Parents' perceptions of the benefits and limitations of mainstream versus special schools are influenced by a complex interplay of academic, social, and emotional factors. Academic benefits include smaller class sizes, which Bondebjerg et al. (2023) found to significantly improve outcomes in special education settings. Social benefits encompass integration in mainstream settings versus peer connection in special schools (Fluyt et al., 2024; Castro & Palikara, 2020). Emotional benefits centre on children feeling "safe and understood" (Hamilton, 2019). Access to specialist expertise was also identified as a key benefit of special schools (Thosare, 2015). Kantová (2022) found that higher parental involvement increases the probability of positive educational outcomes.

Key Finding: Parents perceive benefits in both mainstream (social inclusion) and special schools (specialist support and expertise). The decision reflects a careful weighing of academic, social, and emotional considerations.

Theme 2: Barriers to Inclusion (Linked to Objective 2)

Parents report significant limitations in mainstream settings, which often drive them toward special school choices. Structural limitations include lack of 1-to-1 support and large class sizes (Hamilton, 2019; Roberts & Simpson, 2021). Communication limitations manifest as poor school-parent communication (Goodall, 2019). Attitudinal limitations encompass stigma and lack of staff understanding, with Rose and Shevlin (2017a) providing direct evidence from parents and Rose and Shevlin (2017b) finding that many children with SEN do not feel fully accepted in mainstream settings. Systemic limitations include inadequate EHC plans and funding constraints (DfE, 2023).

Key Finding: Parents feel "powerless" – forced to choose special schools due to mainstream limitations and failures (Hamilton, 2019). Parental voices are often "secondary to professional requirements" (Malcolm, 2022).

Theme 3: Policy Gaps (Linked to Objective 3)

Policy Identified Gap

Children & Families Act 2014 EHC plans lack robust implementation and monitoring

SEND Code of Practice 2015 Mandates inclusion but lacks resource allocation standards

Education Act 1996 No specific quality standards for SEN provision

Key Finding: Legislation supports inclusion on paper, but implementation is inconsistent and parental satisfaction is not systematically measured. Despite policy commitments, many parents and children do not experience genuine acceptance in mainstream settings (Rose & Shevlin, 2017a).

BOTTOM SECTION (Full Width)

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this research reveals that parents perceive both benefits and limitations in mainstream and special school provision. Parents value mainstream schools for social inclusion and special schools for specialist support and expertise. However, structural, communication, and attitudinal barriers in mainstream settings drive parents toward special school choices. Current legislation lacks effective implementation and monitoring, and parents experience a "powerless choice" constrained by systemic factors (Hamilton, 2019).

Recommendations:

Mandate consistent communication protocols between schools and SEN families to address parental concerns (Goodall, 2019; Rose & Shevlin, 2017a).

Increase funding for 1-to-1 support in mainstream schools to address structural limitations (Bondebjerg et al., 2023; Roberts & Simpson, 2021).

Strengthen EHC plan implementation and monitoring to ensure accountability (Malcolm, 2022; HM Government, 2014).

Provide mandatory SEN training for all mainstream teachers to address attitudinal barriers (Thosare, 2015; Rose & Shevlin, 2017b).

Establish parental satisfaction as a key performance indicator in SEN provision (Fluyt et al., 2024; Castro & Palikara, 2020; Kantová, 2022).

Impact: This research contributes to social justice by amplifying parental voices and identifying systemic barriers to inclusion, serving as a catalyst for targeted policy reforms aimed at improving SEN provision.

REFERENCES

Boland, A., Cherry, M.G. and Dickson, R. (eds.) (2017) Doing a Systematic Review: A Student's Guide. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Bondebjerg, A., Bjørnholt, B., Quvang, C. and Hansen, O. (2023) 'Small class sizes in special education: A systematic review of effects on student outcomes', Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(2), p. e1321.

Booth, A., Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D. (2016) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications.

Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castro, S. and Palikara, O. (2020) 'Parental decision-making in the context of SEN provision: A systematic review of qualitative studies', Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), pp. 987–1005.

Department for Education (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years. London: DfE.

Department for Education (2023) Special Educational Needs in England: Academic Year 2022/23. London: HMSO.

Fluyt, L., De Schauwer, E. and Van Hove, G. (2024) 'Parental decision-making in the transition to special education: A qualitative study on lived experiences', Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(1), pp. 45–58.

Goodall, J. (2019) 'Parental engagement in special educational needs: A continuum from involvement to engagement', British Journal of Special Education, 46(2), pp. 145–162.

Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. (2017) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Hamilton, K. (2019) 'The powerless choice: Parents' perspectives on the transition from mainstream to special schooling', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(4), pp. 451–466.

HM Government (1989) Children Act 1989. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (1996) Education Act 1996. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. London: The Stationery Office.

HM Government (2014) Children and Families Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office.

Kantová, K. (2022) 'Parental involvement and education outcomes of their children', Research Square, preprint. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2105821/v1.

Kurtz-Costes, B. (2015) 'Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory and the family', in Encyclopedia of Family Studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Malcolm, A. (2022) SASS Research Proposal Micro-Textbook: Level 6 Dissertation Guide. University of Bedfordshire.

Roberts, J. and Simpson, A. (2021) 'Barriers to inclusion in mainstream schools: Parental perspectives on structural and attitudinal challenges', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(8), pp. 901–918.

Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. (2017a) 'Parental perspectives on inclusion in mainstream schools', International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(12), pp. 1205–1219.

Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. (2017b) 'A sense of belonging: childrens' views of acceptance in "inclusive" mainstream schools', International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(1), pp. 65–80.

Social Research Association (2021) Ethical Guidelines for Social Research. London: SRA.

Thosare, A. T. (2015) 'Inclusive education: A way to promote social integration of children with special needs', International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 5(2), pp. 153–157.