ABSTRACT
As the current debate (Cameron, 2005; Warnock, 2005) shows, the question of how children identified as having special educational needs (SEN) are best educated remains highly contentious. In particular, the idea that children with significant levels of need can successfully be ‘included’ in mainstream schools continues to be met with scepticism in some quarters. This is despite the long history that inclusive provision (in this sense) has in some parts of England (see, for instance, Hackney, 1985, and Stakes and Hornby, 1997) – a history which predates the Warnock Report (1978) by some years. In part, this is because the inclusion debate is founded on questions of principle and fundamental social values. However, that debate also raises questions that ought to be answerable from empirical evidence – questions such as whether children identified as having SEN attain more highly in special or mainstream schools, where their social skills develop most rapidly, where they themselves feel happiest, and so on. Unfortunately, these different types of questions are not always clearly differentiated, and, even where they are, the research evidence is not always as robust as one might hope.
