04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Principals’ Perspectives on the Way(s) Schools as Organizations Responded to Disabled Students Needs During COVID-19 Pandemic
Anastasia Vlachou1, Anastasia Toulia2, Lia Tsermidou1, Stavroula Kalaitzi1, Filippos Papazis1, Aristea Fyssa3
1Department of Educational Studies, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; 2Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Greece; 3Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, Greece
Presenting Author: Vlachou, Anastasia
The outbreak of COVID-19 has had unprecedented, serious effects on global healthcare systems with chain reactions on every aspect of human life, including socioeconomic and education (Armitage and Nellums, 2020). Upon the WHO declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic (World Health Organization (WHO), 2020), countries around the world locked down to minimize the disease’s spread potential and applied unparalleled draconian measures, including school closures affecting more than 1.5 billion learners and 630 million school teachers all over the world (UNESCO, 2022). Different countries introduced various policies, ranging from complete closure in Germany, and Greece to targeted closure in the United Kingdom (Nicola et al., 2020). Overall, more than 100 countries imposed a nationwide closure of educational facilities at all levels of the educational system. Within the pandemic aftereffects’ context, socially disadvantaged populations, such as disabled people, have experienced an exacerbation of existing social inequalities (Ahmad et al., 2020; Dorn et al., 2020). 2020). In particular, disabled students have been disproportionally affected by the lockdown-related measures; for example, they have been forced rather than by own choice to interrupt or to have no access to quality education and to experience the disruption of community support networks (Karagianni, 2020).
In Greece, disabled students were extremely affected at an educational, pedagogical and social level. In particular, 7.8% of the Greek disabled students attend state educational settings; that is, 105,970 students suffered from the pandemic implications (Rellas, 2020). The majority of disabled students are educated in mainstreaming and fewer students are educated in segregated educational environments (Kassianos, 2018). However, in both cases, there was no preparation or measures taken to support them and their families at homeschooling (E.S.A.meA. – Observatory of Disability Issues, 2021). Furthermore, no measures were taken on educational and therapeutic personnel attendance, individualized support, and adaptive educational resources (Rellas, 2020).
Albeit the policy responses that were undertaken to address the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the organizational preparedness and response planning of educational organizations has been found poor and non-disability inclusive (efsyn.gr, 2020). However, in terms of policy and strategic planning, the pandemic preparedness and response has been acknowledged to be a starting point for reforms in established systems such as schools (Guterres, 2021). The WHO described pandemic preparedness as “a continuous process of planning, exercising, revising and translating into action national and sub-national pandemic preparedness and response plans” (World Health Organization (WHO), 2011). The policy and decision makers are aligned with this approach and argue over the need for a system thinking change approach guided by organizational pandemic preparedness plans (Aronson, 1996; Arnold and Wade, 2015). This implies the need to address the pandemic preparedness gap in educational organizations to respond to the needs of more vulnerable groups of students such as disabled students (Papazoglou, 2020). Thus, it seems of crucial importance to focus on organizational preparedness for education, including identifying the main areas (domains) of preparedness that guide the process of organizational preparedness and the sub-themes (indicators) per domain that help educational organizations to evaluate their level of preparedness and to identify potential gaps and set priorities for planning. In order to explore and understand the abovementioned challenges, the current study aims to examine the role of school settings in managing the educational crisis that emerged from the global pandemic. Specifically, the study explores the perceptions of primary and secondary school principals over the level of preparedness of the schools for supporting disabled students during the global pandemic. The study aims to identify ways and processes followed at different domains when addressing disabled students’ educational and psycho-social needs during the global pandemic.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSample
The sample of the study consisted of 166 school principals (52 males, 114 females) of preschool (n=66), primary (n=65) and secondary (n=35) education. The majority of the participants were between 51-60 years old (66.9%), they had between 21-30 or more than 30 years of working experience (48.2% and 28.9 respectively) while half of them worked in middle sized schools (between 50 up to 100 students)
Instrument
Survey development was based on the existing literature. The questionnaire survey was comprised of three main sections. The first section included questions focusing on collecting information about the participating schools [i.e. type of school (regular or special), level of education provided (preschool-primary-secondary education), school location (urban or rural), size of school, e.c.t] and demographic characteristics of school principals. The second section focused on eliciting principals’ perspectives regarding the degree of preparedness of the schools in terms of ways and procedures employed to respond to the educational and psycho-social needs of disabled students during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Specific information was required focusing on six main domains of schooling: a. resources, b. human resources, c. pedagogical processes, d. educational practices, e. collaboration-communication, and f. policy-practices for monitoring and assessing the degree of preparedness. The third section involved questions related to the challenges school principals faced in responding to the needs of disabled students and their recommendations. The questionnaire survey contained a combination of questions. Most questions (84 out of 87 questions) were closed questions answered through a 5-point Likert type scale (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree).
After obtaining an ethical approval by the Ethics Committee, the survey questionnaire was send electronically via google form to 500 state preschool, primary and secondary regular and special education settings in different parts of Greece. The survey started at September 2022 and is still in progress.
The quantitative data were analyzed by using the SPSS package version 27. Firstly, descriptive analyses were performed (means, frequencies, and percentages) to explore basic trends in responses. Next, the Spearman’s rho and Mann-Whitney criteria were applied to explore relations among respondents’ responses and their demographic characteristics as well as the characteristics of the school. Besides answering closed questions, the participants were also given the opportunity to elaborate on their views in three open-ended questions focusing on students’ educational needs that remained uncovered during the pandemic. Their answers were analyzed qualitatively with the aim to create categories deriving from the data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study is still in progress, however, the preliminary quantitative analysis of collected questionnaires highlighted among others i) the critical aspects of preparedness for school settings, ii) the participation of disabled students in their learning and the practices that affected their participation, iii) challenges students experienced and strategies employed by schools to overcome those challenges/barriers, iv) employed educational practices during the global pandemic, v) educators’ role, vi) collaboration between educators and parents/carers of disabled students. According to the principals who participated in the study, at the beginning of the global pandemic a need emerged for educators to attend professional development workshops/be professionally trained in the use of ICT to support disabled students in their learning; counselling skills to be able to support students and their families; differentiated educational practices that could advance/improve the learning moving beyond the physical space of classrooms; collaboration practices with students with disabilities and their families aiming towards the development of responsive to each family’s needs educational program; development and adoption of collaborative processes/practices among key stakeholders in the educational practice during the global pandemic. Furthermore, results supported the lack of social and political capacity to respond to the needs and demands of disabled students, thus transferring the responsibility for the education of disabled students to their families. The results of this study can provide the opportunity for further discussion on the reflection and re-development of responsive policies and practices to the needs of disabled students in times of crisis like the global COVID-19 pandemic.
References1.Ahmad, A., Chung, R., Eckenwiler, L., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Hunt, M., Richards, R., et al. (2020). What does it mean to be made vulnerable in the era of COVID-19? Lancet 395, 1481–1482. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30979-X
2.Armitage, R., and Nellums, L. B. (2020). The COVID-19 response must be disability inclusive. Lancet Public Health 5:e257. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30076-1
3.Arnold, R. D., and Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Computer Science. 44, 669–678. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
4.Aronson, D. (1996). Overview of Systems Thinking. Available at: https://www.fwsolutions.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Overview ST article .pdf (Accessed August 2,2022)
5.Dorn, A. V., Cooney, R. E., and Sabin, M. L. (2020). COVID-19 exacerbating
inequalities in the US. Lancet, 395, 1243–1244. doi: 10.1016/
S0140-6736(20)30893-X
6.efsyn.gr [Η Εφημερίδα των Συντακτών] (2020). Reflections of Disability in the narrative of the Pandemic. https://www.efsyn.gr/nisides/ 245802_antanaklaseis-tis-anapirias-sto-afigima-tis-pandimias (Accessed October 27, 2022)
7.E.S.A.meA. – Observatory of Disability Issues (2021). The Constitution [Έρευνα: Μεγάλες πληγές η έλλειψη υποστήριξης των μαθητών με αναπηρία στη β’ βάθμια και η επαγγελματική τους εκπαίδευση]. https://www.esamea.gr/pressoffice/press-releases/5294-ereyna-megales-liges-i-elleipsi-ypostirixis-ton-mathiton-me-anapiria-sti-ba-bathmia-kai-i-epaggelmatiki-toys-ekpaideysis (Accessed October 27, 2022)
8.Guterres, A. (2021). An evidence-based quest to protect human health. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. https://theindependentpanel. org/ (Accessed July 12, 2022)
9.Karagianni, Y. (2020). “Success story” Without Disabled People. Disability and Covid19: The global impacts. iHuman. Accessed 25th February 2021. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ihuman/covid-19-blog/disability-and-covid-19-global-impacts/success-story-without-disabled-people (Accessed July 2, 2022)
10.Kassianos, P. (2018). “Statistics on the education of students with special educational needs and/or disabilities,” in Center of Educational Policy Development-G.S.E.E. & National Confederation of Disabled People Conference, Athens, Greece. https://www.kanep-gsee/wp-content / uploads / 2018 / 10 / (Accessed May 19, 2022)
11.Nicola, N., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., et al. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): a review. International Journal of Surgery 78, 185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018Nicola et al., 2020
12.Papazoglou, M. (2020). For a substantial distance education. [Για μια ουσιαστική εξ’ αποστάσεως εκπαίδευση]. Kathimerini J. https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/1078577/gia-mia-oysiastiki-ex-apostaseos-ekpaideysi/ (Accessed July 22, 2022).
13.Rellas, A. (2020). Disabled individuals are also excluded from the pandemic response measures. http://epohi.gr/atoma-me-naphria-kai-covid-9-apokleismena-kai-apota-metra-antimetwpishs-ths-pandhmias/ (Accessed July 20, 2022).
14.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2022).COVID-19 Recovery. Education: from School Closure to Recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse (Accessed March 20, 2022).
15.World Health Organization (2022). Disability. https://www.who.int/health-topics/disability#tab=tab_1 (Accessed January 30, 2022).
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Student Well-being During COVID-9 And Willingness to Return Back To School
Amalia Bjornsdottir1, Gudlaug Palsdottir2, Gudrun Ragnarsdottir1
1University of Iceland, Iceland; 2Sudurnes Comprehensive College
Presenting Author: Bjornsdottir, Amalia
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020 had a profound impact on education in Iceland and worldwide and presented many challenges to schoolwork. In upper secondary schools in Iceland all teaching was converted to emergency remote teaching (ERT, Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020) in middle of March and teachers and students worked from home. In the fall schoolwork was organized as classroom-based or a mixture of classroom and remote teaching but school buildings were closed to students again after few weeks. Already a number of studies have shed a light on schoolwork during the pandemic (see e.g., Huber, 2021; Jóhannsdóttir & Jakobsdóttir, 2020; Khanal & al., 2021; Van der Spoel & al., 2020) but the aim of this paper is to look at how the uncertainty and constant changes impacted students.
Not being able to see friends, participate in extra-curricular activities, or attend social events during the pandemic was a source of distress for some students (Magson et al., 2021) and they felt lonely and distressed. Several other studies showed that students missed having face-to-face communication with their schoolmates (Esposito et al., 2021; Niemi og Kousa, 2020; Pelikan o.fl., 2021; Sofianidis o.fl., 2021). While other studies indicated that student communication during lessons did not decrease, and that new technology may have changed the way young people communicate (Ferraro et al., 2020).
Upper-secondary schools in Iceland offer a variety of study programs defined at different qualification levels. The academic track aims at preparing students for university education, vocational training prepares students for regulated professions, and general upper secondary education is for those who did not meet the requirements for first two tracks (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011). The students in the upper-secondary schools are a diverse group with different needs who were effect by the pandemic in different ways and to a different degree. Some studies revealed that students experienced severe anxiety related to the pandemic (Ningsih et al., 2020; Thahir et al., 2021), while others found a decrease in anxiety among students during the pandemic (Ferraro et al., 2020). In the US the pandemic widened achievement gaps, increased drop-outs, and impacted well-being of students (Dorn et al., 2021); the same might be true elsewhere. Then there is the question of how students cope with resuming their studies in school buildings how it is to return to what was normal before.
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Icelandic upper-secondary students. We examined which groups felt the most negative effects of the pandemic and if some students found it more difficult than others to resume traditional studies within the walls of the school after the pandemic. In order to evaluate this, we will look at which factors in the students' background predicted a) more anxiety in distance learning compared to traditional on-site learning b) more loneliness in distance learning compared to traditional on-site learning c) and what factors predicted that students felt difficult return to school.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAn online questionnaire was administered to students in four upper-secondary schools in the spring semester of 2021. Three of these were comprehensive schools, offering both academic tracks and vocational training, and the fourth was a traditional academic school (grammar school). The number of participants was 1,306, and of those 55% were women. About 59% were on an academic track, 20% were in vocational training, and 16% were in general upper secondary education (only offered in the comprehensive schools) for those who did not meet the academic requirements for the first two tracks. Participants answer question about conditions that they they believed affected their learning (ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety, depression, social anxiety, disability and so forth). They also answered question about how they felt about returning to traditional learning when schools finally reopened, if they experience more or less anxiety and loneliness in distance education compared to traditional studying in classroom. Data were analyzed with SPSS using odd ratio and regression.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of the study indicate that most students perceived online teaching as effective. About half of the students experienced less anxiety with distance learning, but almost a quarter reported more anxiety. Students with university educated parents reported more anxiety compared to students with parents without university education. Students in general education where less likely to report increases anxiety in distance education compared to students on academic track. Students with dyslexia, social anxiety and depression reported less anxiety in distance education compared to their counterpart without those conditions.
About 54% of participants felt good about returning to school but 22% felt bad about it. Students that reported social anxiety, depression, having an immigrant background and were in general education where less likely than other to report that they felt good about returning to school. The result seem to indicate that groups that frequently are thought of as vulnerable had more difficulty returning to school. It seems possible that the long-time consequences of COVID-19 could be greater for these groups and therefore special support is needed for them.
ReferencesBozkurt, A. & Sharma, R.C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education 15(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021). COVID-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-education-the-lingering-effects-of-unfinished-learning
Esposito, S., Giannitto, N., Squarcia, A., Neglia, C., Argentiero, A., Minichetti, P., Cotugno, N.,& Principi, N. (2021). Development of psychological problems among adolescents during school closures because of the COVID-19 lockdown phase in Italy: A cross-sectional survey. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.628072
Ferraro, F. V., Ambra, F. I., Aruta, L., & Iavarone, M. L. (2020). Distance learning in the COVID-19 era: Perceptions in Southern Italy. Education Sciences, 10(12), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120355
Huber, S. G. (2021). Schooling and education in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Food for thought and reflection derived from results of the school barometer in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. International Studies in Educational Administration, 49(1), 6–17.
Jóhannsdóttir, Þ.J. & Jakobsdóttir, S. (2020). Fjarkennsla og stafræn tækni í framhaldsskólum á tímum farsóttar vorið 2020: Sjónarhóll kennara og stjórnenda. Netla – veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Sérrit 2020 – Menntakerfi og heimili á tímum COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2020.26
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011). The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Upper Secondary Schools – General Section. https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-of-Education/Curriculum/adskr_frsk_ens_2012.pdf
Niemi, H. M., & Kousa, P. (2020). A case study of students’ and teachers’ perceptions in a Finnish high school during the COVID pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.167
Ningsih, S., Yandri, H., Sasferi, N., & Juliawati, D. (2020). An analysis of junior high school students’ learning stress levels during the COVID-19 outbreak: Review of gender differences. Psychocentrum Review, 2(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.26539/pcr.22321
Pelikan, E. R., Lüftenegger, M., Holzer, J., Korlat, S., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2021). Learning during COVID-19: The role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(2), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01002-x
Sofianidis, A., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Konstantinou, P., Stylianidou, N., & Katzis, K. (2021). Let students talk about emergency remote teaching experience: Secondary students’ perceptions on their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11, 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060268
Thahir, A., Sulastri, Bulantika, S. Z., & Novita, T. (2021). Gender differences on COVID-19 related anxiety among students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 36(1), 71–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2021.36.1.05
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Inclusive Approaches to Supporting the Wellbeing of The School Community in the Recovery Phase of Covid-19 – Challenges and Dilemmas
Joan G Mowat
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Mowat, Joan G
This paper builds on a paper presented at ECER 2021 which drew on the first phase of a small-scale longitudinal study examining how current and former students on the Into Headship (IH) programme in Scotland supported their school communities during the first lockdown in the UK, with a particular emphasis on children and young people (CYP) considered to be vulnerable through disability, poverty, being looked after or otherwise disadvantaged. Its starting point derives from Ainscow, Booth and Dyson’s (2006) typology of inclusion – ‘inclusion as a principled approach to education and society,’ concerned with the inclusion of all children.
It has been well documented that global inequalities, as identified by Wilkinson and Pickett (2018), have been magnified through the pandemic. An extensive range of commentators highlights the catastrophic global impact of the restrictions and disruption to schooling posed by the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of children and on their learning (Lee, 2020; Mowat, in press, 2023a, 2023b; Shum, Skripkauskaite, Pearcey, Waite, & Creswell, 2021; UNESCO et al., 2020; UNICEF, 2021; UNICEF Data, 2020; World Health Organisation, 2020). A substantial number of children in Europe were living in homes that lacked the resources to support home learning and were living in poorly heated homes (Mowat, in press, 2023a; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
Whilst much attention has been devoted to losses in learning brought about by the pandemic and to learning recovery, increasingly attention is turning towards the socio-emotional wellbeing of CYP (Lee, 2020; Mowat, in press; OECD, 2020; Wang, Zhang, Zhao, Zhang, & Jiang, 2020). UNICEF (2021) highlights the fragility of support systems for children and how the hardships experienced fall disproportionally on the most disadvantaged (p. 16). Even when restrictions were eased in the UK, children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and those from low-income families continued to show elevated health symptoms (Shum et al., 2021; Mowat 2023a). In England, the lack of face-to-face contact with children at risk of abuse and neglect led to a reduction in referrals to social services (a finding mirrored globally (UNICEF, 2020b)) and the anxiety brought about by disrupted relationships with staff and peers led to increasing incidences of self-harm in some children within the care system (OFSTED, 2021; Mowat 2023a). This highlights the key role that schools play as places of learning but also places of safety and belonging.
The quality of school leadership is an essential element in creating schools which are equitable, inclusive, and compassionate in their approach. This requires a focus on the whole school community and on responsive and adaptive leadership which has at its heart inclusive practice and social justice (Mowat, 2023a). School leaders have had to navigate an unprecedented landscape of complex and rapid change and therefore the quality of headship preparation programmes becomes crucial in ensuring that prospective headteachers can rise to the challenge.
This small-scale empirical study is supported by a BELMAS grant and focusses on Into Headship, a masters-level programme delivered within a single academic year in partnership with Education Scotland. Through examination of the ways in which IH students supported their school communities during and in the aftermath of lockdown (with a specific, but not sole, focus on more vulnerable CYP), the study seeks to ascertain the degree to and ways in which engagement with the IH programme had prepared them to meet the challenges in order to inform the development of headship programmes globally.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper focusses on the second phase of a longitudinal, qualitative study, with phase one being an online survey based on an open-ended questionnaire administered to two cohorts of Into Headship students conducted in June 2020 towards the end of the first lockdown in the UK. 46 students responded to the survey. Phase 2, conducted in Dec 2022/Jan 2023, focusses on the period beyond the initial lockdown and, drawing from the findings of phase 1, has a specific focus on the wellbeing of the school community – pupils, staff and families. It has been conducted via. individual interviews with eight respondents to the initial survey, drawn from the secondary, primary and special education sectors. In addition to reflecting on how they had supported the wellbeing of their school communities beyond the initial lockdown, participants were provided with their response to the survey (phase 1) and asked to reflect on how close to reality their initial perceptions of the challenges to be faced as schools emerged from lockdown had been and whether there were challenges that had not been anticipated. Three focus group discussions have also been held with participants from each of these sectors. The focus group discussion had a broader focus, examining the response of the Scottish Government to Covid recovery; insights about leading in times of crisis; and insights to inform the development of the IH programme nationally. Whilst at an early stage of analysis, the initial interviews and focus group discussions seem to largely corroborate, but add greater depth, to the findings from phase 1.
Participants within the 2nd phase of the study were drawn from respondents to the survey who had indicated a willingness to participate. An open invitation was sent, and criteria were drawn up to select the sample, such that it was representative of respondents to the survey as a whole: the SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) status of the school; urban/rural; sector (primary, secondary/special education); and gender of the participant. Participants attended a short briefing and informed consent was gained. Whilst the initial intention had been to conduct data-gathering face-to-face, this proved to be too complex to organise and interviews and focus group discussions were held via. Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Data is being analysed via. thematic analysis, drawing on a framework of King and Horrocks, generating, initially, descriptive and analytical codes and then over-arching themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings will reveal the challenges that prospective headteachers (some of whom will have, in the interim, taken up a headship post) have faced in meeting the demands of a rapidly shifting policy landscape in the midst of a pandemic and the means by which they have sought to support their school communities (staff, families and children) in the recovery period. In particular, the findings will identify barriers to the inclusion of CYP facing adverse circumstances, whether through disability, poverty, being care experienced or marginalised in any shape or form, and affordances. It will provide insight into the approaches that they have adopted and their perceived efficacy which should inform the work of senior leadership teams in Scotland and beyond. It will demonstrate how priorities may have changed over time as schools have moved into the recovery phase. It will enable insights to emerge regarding the national response to recovery and will also identify those aspects of the Into Headship programme which have provided IH students with the knowledge, understanding, skills-set, confidence and resilience to address the needs of their school community and areas in which the programme could be strengthened, insights which can inform the development of headship preparation programmes more widely. The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, academic papers and a research brief for practitioners.
ReferencesAinscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Routledge.
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 4(6), 421.
Mowat, J., G. (2023a). Building Community to Create Equitable, Inclusive and Compassionate Schools through Relational Approaches. Routledge.
Mowat, J. G. (2023b). Working collaboratively with the school community to build inclusion for all. In R. J. R. Tierney, F. Erkican, K. (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Education Researching Disability Studies & Inclusive Education (3rd ed., pp. 85-97). Elsevier.
Mowat, J. G. (in press). Establishing the medium to long-term impact of Covid-19 constraints on the socio-emotional wellbeing of impoverished children and young people (and those who are otherwise disadvantaged) during, and in the aftermath of, Covid-19. In M. Proyer, F. Dovigo, W. Veck & E. A. Seitigen (Eds.), Education in an Altered World: - Pandemic, Crises and Young People Vulnerable to Educational Exclusion. London: Bloomsbury.
OECD (2020), "Coronavirus special edition: Back to school", Trends Shaping Education Spotlights, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OFSTED. (2021). The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2020/21. London.
Shum, A., Skripkauskaite, S., Pearcey, S., Waite, P., & Creswell, C. (2021). Report 10: Children and adolescents’ mental health: One year in the pandemic Co-Space Study: Covid-19: Supporting Parents, Adolescents and Children during Epidemics (Vol. 10). Oxford: University of Oxford.
UNESCO, UNICEF, & The World Bank. (2020). What Have We Learnt? Findings from a survey of ministries of education on national responses to COVID-19. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/resources/national-education-responses-to-covid19/
UNICEF Data. (2020a). How COVID-19 is changing the world: a statistical perspective (Vol 1 & 2). Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/resources/how-covid-19-is-changing-the-world-a-statistical-perspective/
UNICEF. (2021b). The State of the World's Children 2021. On my mind: Promoting, protecting and caring for children's mental health (Executive Summary). Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2021
Van Lancker, W. V., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social crisis in the making (Comment). The Lancet Public Health 2020, 5(5), 243-244.
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak (Correspondence). The Lancet, 395(March 21, 2020), 945-946.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2018). The Inner Level: How more equal societies reduce stress, restore sanity and improve everyone's wellbeing. UK: Penguin Random House
World Health Organisation. (2020). Mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/mental-health-considerations.pdf
|
