Next Article in Journal
Super-Cocooning Against Property Crime: Do Visual Primes Affect Support and Does Race Matter
Previous Article in Journal
“My Future”: A Qualitative Examination of Hope in the Lives of Black Emerging Adults
Previous Article in Special Issue
“Keeping an Eye Out”: Students’ Experiences of School Personnel’s Noticing in Shaping or Hindering a Positive School Climate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/socsci14070430
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bullying and Social Exclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Primary Education Schools

by
Álvaro Carmona
and
Manuel Montanero
*
Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(7), 430; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14070430
Submission received: 16 May 2025 / Revised: 3 July 2025 / Accepted: 11 July 2025 / Published: 13 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Revisiting School Violence: Safety for Children in Schools)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Children’s safety, well-being and inclusion in the school environment can be severely impacted by social isolation and bullying. This study examined these threats in a sample of 14 group-classes (291 students) from four different primary education schools. A total of 44 special educational needs (SEN) students and 44 students without SEN were selected. The social network structure of each group-class was analysed, as well as the number of friendship ties, the degree of emotional well-being and social participation (both inside and outside of the school), and the possible cases of bullying. The results show a significantly greater rate of social rejection, emotional distress and risk of exclusion in SEN students with respect to their peers, as well as a considerably higher perception of bullying (38.6% vs. 4.8%). The SEN students who reported bullying were mostly schooled in social networks with a more segregated and fragmented structure. Moreover, the mean value obtained in these groups was lower for all the analysed indicators, although the differences were not statistically significant. These data support the idea that the social capital of the group class could influence the prevention of violence and bullying towards SEN students. However, further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm this. Lastly, strategies to promote the social inclusion of SEN students in primary education schools are discussed.

1. Introduction

Social exclusion and bullying are among the main barriers to the well-being and personal development of children in primary education. In this context, social exclusion refers to a process through which individuals are systematically denied access to meaningful social participation and relationships within the peer group, which can lead to isolation, rejection, and limited emotional support (Mulvey et al. 2017). Isolation at school is described as a decrease in social contacts with classmates that can eventually lead to feelings of loneliness (Kwan et al. 2020).
Bullying is one of the main factors linked to social exclusion. Bullying, or peer victimisation, is understood as repeated aggression, either directly (physical or verbal aggression) or indirectly (in the relational scope), that persists for a long period of time. These situations mainly imply an imbalance of power between the bullies and their targets, i.e., the victims (Crick et al. 2006).
The prevalence of bullying varies greatly among countries and educational stages (Hamel et al. 2021). For instance, in Australia, almost 30% of children aged 8–9 years report suffering from physical, verbal or mixed bullying at least once per week (Bayer et al. 2018). In Spain, according to the recent study conducted by Universidad Complutense de Madrid and the Colacao Foundation in a sample of over 20,000 students from 325 different schools, 7.6% of primary education students aged between 10 and 12 years perceive themselves as victims of bullying. The most frequent bullying behaviours are insults and mockery, slander to generate social rejection, and exclusion from daily social activities and relationships. These behaviours occur in all spaces of primary education centres, mainly in schoolyards and classrooms when the teacher is not present. Their prevalence is clearly influenced by the personal and sociocultural characteristics of the victims. Most victims report that the main reason for suffering bullying is that their physical appearance or demeanor is different from that of their peers (Díaz-Aguado et al. 2023).
Students with special educational needs (SEN), which encompass those requiring additional educational support due to disabilities, learning difficulties, behavioral or emotional disorders, or socio-educational vulnerability, are frequently identified among bullying victims (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2019; Hamel et al. 2021). Some studies have found that SEN students are twice as likely to suffer or perpetrate bullying (Rose et al. 2011). In the last years of primary education, these students are at greater risk than other students (Flynt and Morton 2004), especially if they also have learning difficulties (Turunen et al. 2017), behavioural disorders (Monchy et al. 2004) or disabilities (de Boer et al. 2013). However, other studies have detected no differences between primary education students with disabilities and other SEN categories (Kozmus and Psunder 2018). In Spain, according to the report of Díaz-Aguado et al. (2023), about 34% of students with specific educational support needs suffer from bullying in compulsory education, compared to 19% of students with typical development.
On the other hand, bullying situations do not usually take place in brief periods or isolated episodes, but they are reflected in long-lasting patterns that emerge at early ages. Son et al. (2012) identified that about one third of primary education students with disabilities in USA were victims of bullying. Klanienė et al. (2024) detected precursor behaviours that led to said isolation, such as refusal to playing group games, physical distancing and difficulty to establish social relationships. Academic transitions, particularly that from primary to secondary education, also pose critical periods in which social dynamics are reestablished and the risk of victimisation increases. School organisation in these educational stages (compulsory attendance, overcrowded classrooms, very low student autonomy, etc.) facilitates unequal power relationships that favour bullying, especially during the transitions in which new groups are established (Spernes 2020; Strindberg and Horton 2022). Silva et al. (2019) detected that, during this period, up to 59.1% of the students were involved in bullying situations, either as bullies (33.1%), victims (14.5%) or bully-victims (10.5%). The systematic review of Falla et al. (2021) concluded that bullying predominantly manifests in SEN students as victimisation, with these students rarely assuming the role of bullies.
In general, school violence and bullying have a negative impact on the emotional well-being and academic progress of children (Klanienė et al. 2024). The consequences of this systematic aggression or isolation result in high levels of anxiety, depression and social withdrawal, and these effects persist even when controlling for emotional and behavioural variables (Fink et al. 2015; Kwan et al. 2020).
The prevention of social exclusion requires group-class cohesion, as well as the creation of mutual support and friendly social networks (Kennedy et al. 1997; Molina Roldán et al. 2021). All this constitutes what has been coined as the social capital of the group, that is, the network of interpersonal relationships based on trust and reciprocity, which provide emotional support and access to key resources for education and personal development (Putnam 2000; Mamas et al. 2019).
The main objective of the present study was to explore the risk of social exclusion and bullying in a sample of primary education students, as well as the main variables, related to the social capital of the group-class, that could contribute to preventing said situations. To this end, we analysed the nature of these variables and the reasons that justify their relevance as possible predictors of the social exclusion of SEN students.

2. Theoretical Framework

The dynamics of bullying and social exclusion within a classroom are deeply connected to the presence, or absence, of social capital. This concept does not refer to an individual attribute but a resource that exists in the structure of relationships between people, comprising networks, norms, and trust that facilitate action (Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000). In this vein, bullying should not be viewed as an isolated act of aggression, but rather as a relational strategy. It often functions as a mechanism through which perpetrators attempt to accumulate social capital for themselves in the form of status and dominance by systematically dismantling the social capital of their victims (Crick et al. 2006; Evans and Smokowski 2015). This erosion of social capital manifests as social exclusion, a process that denies the targeted student access to friendship ties, positive interactions, and a sense of belonging (Klanienė et al. 2024), thereby leaving them isolated and significantly more vulnerable to repeated attacks (Wicaksono 2019). This process creates a heightened vulnerability for students with SEN, who are consistently shown to experience higher rates of victimisation (Rose et al. 2011), often due to a deficit in the protective social capital that peer friendships provide (Falla et al. 2021).
Conversely, high social capital provides a powerful protective factor by shaping the classroom’s relational structure. A cohesive network, rich in friendship ties, establishes the prosocial norms and structural support that facilitate behaviors like defending a peer (Huitsing and Veenstra 2012; Jenkins and Fredrick 2017). In contrast, segregationist and fragmented networks lack this protective architecture, tending to generate antisocial behaviors that allow bullying to thrive (van den Bos et al. 2018).
From a literature review, the following variables in cohesive and inclusive networks can be highlighted: (1) structure of the social network and position of its members; (2) degree of social acceptance or rejection that each student receives from their peers; (3) friendship ties; (4) social participation; and (5) degree of emotional well-being (Garrote et al. 2017; Koster et al. 2009; Mamas 2025; Montanero et al. 2024, 2025).

2.1. Social Network of the Group-Class

The social network of a group-class is the structure of relations and position of each individual. The network guides and influences the access to different opportunities for personal and social development through the “channel” of social relationships (Mamas et al. 2019).
Despite the growing popularity of social network analysis, it remains underrepresented in existing literature. Evaluating the complexity of social inclusion requires a comprehensive approach that captures multiple dimensions, including social acceptance, peer perceptions, social interactions, and friendships (Koster et al. 2009). This multidimensional perspective is fundamental for understanding how students with SEN experience inclusion within their peer groups. Social Network Analysis (SNA) provides the necessary tools to assess the qualitative nature of social relationships and the quantitative structure of social ties. This enables a holistic understanding of these interrelated dimensions (Garrote et al. 2017; Mamas and Trautman 2025).

2.1.1. Network Structure

The structure of the social network that is constituted by a class may be inferred from the more or less stable valuations and interactions, both positive and negative, among its members in different academic or leisure scenarios.
Throughout the last three decades, numerous sociometric studies have identified typical structural configurations of social networks in primary education. Some classes present cohesive and dense structures, characterised by positive relationships among most of the students. Star configurations are frequent, where one or two very popular students hold central positions and concentrate most of the links of preference for playing and friendship, acting as figures of influence, whereas, in other configurations, the relationships are distributed more homogeneously among the members. When the network is not sufficiently cohesive, its representation is fragmented into different subgroups or presents isolated groups, which is considered an indicator of a poorly inclusive class (Mamas et al. 2019).
The representation of the social network of the group-class is, therefore, very useful to guide the educational intervention against bullying. In addition to identifying victims and bullies, it allows detecting potential “defenders” (Huitsing and Veenstra 2012), as well as other peers who act as “bonds” between subgroups within the class (van den Bos et al. 2018). Said students play a special role in the design of educational activities that promote the relational inclusion of the group.

2.1.2. Social Acceptance Degree

The sense of belonging to the group, that is, feeling accepted and valued by others, is a fundamental ingredient of social inclusion and well-being. We know that SEN students obtain lower social acceptance from their peers and rarely lead or are preferred by their classmates (Banks et al. 2018; Mamas and Avramidis 2013; Montanero et al. 2024), even in contexts of “full inclusion” (Garrote et al. 2017; Nepi et al. 2015). However, students with disabilities do not receive from their peers a worse valuation than students with mild SEN, associated with behavioural disorders or learning difficulties (Laws and Kelly 2005; Mand 2007; Norwich and Kelly 2004).
The degree of social acceptance of a student may be valued subjectively, from the feeling of acceptance or rejection manifested by the student him/herself, or objectively, through the estimation of the expressions of affection, indifference or disdain that students report on a scale about each of their peers (Montanero et al. 2025).

2.1.3. Friendship Ties

There is extensive evidence of the benefits of friendship for the emotional support and academic progress of SEN children (Rose et al. 2022). When students have friends in the group, their resilience is strengthened and the risks of social exclusion are reduced. Friendship ties facilitate the development of social skills and the construction of a social capital based on trust and reciprocity. It has been demonstrated that, from primary education, students identify friendship as an “alliance” that protects against bullying (Mamas 2025). As previously stated, an adequate number of friendship ties within a group serves to reduce the number of bystanders and, conversely, to encourage the intervention of “defenders” who act against situations of physical or verbal violence, thereby reducing instances of bullying (Huitsing and Veenstra 2012; Jenkins and Fredrick 2017).
Therefore, the number of friendship ties is a particularly relevant parameter that should not be mistaken for social acceptance. In fact, although some students with disabilities obtain in some cases a high degree of acceptance, even above the average level of their peers, they find it much more difficult to establish friendship ties. SEN students have fewer friends (Banks et al. 2018), and there is lower reciprocity and stability in their friendship ties (Schwab et al. 2015). Thus, an effective inclusion requires the promotion of group-class cohesion, enhancing friendship networks that prevent situations of exclusion and allow mobilising the necessary supports for SEN students (Mamas et al. 2019, 2020).

2.2. Social Participation and Support

The inclusive social participation of all students in curricular and extracurricular activities is another fundamental factor. Beyond the mere physical presence of SEN students in mainstream classrooms, this participation requires significant interactions in the different activities of the classroom that promote collaboration and a subjective perception of belonging and safety (Ainscow 2020; Frostad and Pijl 2007; Koster et al. 2009).
Given the different functional limitations of SEN students, social participation cannot become a reality without certain emotional, instrumental, informational and appraisal support (House 1981). Instrumental and informational support is based on continuous and tangible help, as well as on the exchange of knowledge that SEN students need for their progress in the learning process. On the other hand, emotional and appraisal support in the school context is mainly based on social recognition, e.g., through positive feedback in school tasks, or through empathy, which provides solace in the face of conflict and reinforces the feeling of belonging and self-esteem.
The combination of these supports facilitates the participation of SEN students in the daily activities of the classroom, especially when they are provided by their peers (Mamas et al. 2019; Montanero et al. 2024). Moreover, different studies point out that a genuinely inclusive classroom, founded on peer support and a positive relationship with the teachers, provides a space of emotional appraisal, which reduces the probability of victimisation and bullying (Hamel et al. 2021; Bayer et al. 2018).
Furthermore, social participation in recess and extracurricular activities is equally relevant, since these also often involve coexistence with classmates. Mamas and Trautman (2025) highlight that inclusion is influenced by the social network that is generated in recess, which does not necessarily coincide with that generated in the classroom. Moreover, recess is the period in which more aggressions and bullying situations occur (Özkal 2020), hence the relevance of evaluating and intervening, educationally, in this space of rest and fun.

2.3. Well-Being

Well-being is understood as a dynamic process that goes beyond the simple absence of psychological discomfort. It implies the self-realisation of the person in every dimension, through the relationship with oneself and the environment. According to a recent report of the European Commission (2024), well-being at school requires the creation of a safe space that tackles any type of violence and facilitates student participation and empowerment. In the case of SEN, well-being needs an authentic experience of inclusion and effective access to the different scopes of the school community, with the necessary supports (Schwab et al. 2015).
On the contrary, bullying is a very serious threat to the well-being of both aggressors and victims, ultimately affecting mental health (Alcântara et al. 2019; Labrador et al. 2023), resulting in high levels of anxiety and depression (Arseneault 2017). Peña and Aguaded (2021) found significant, negative correlations between bullying and perceived personal well-being. In the same line, Labrador et al. (2023) reported that victims of verbal bullying present significant increases in anxiety and emotion regulation problems, which leads to low self-esteem and social competence.
In these scenarios, friendship networks act as social shields that protect against victimisation. Having a group of friends (more than one companion) buffers the emotional impact of bullying (Bayer et al. 2018; Strindberg and Horton 2022).

3. Research Questions

As was previously described, different studies published in the last decades have demonstrated that SEN students are at higher risk of suffering social exclusion and even situations of violence and bullying in primary education schools, compared to students without SEN. However, the data vary greatly as a function of the country and context of analysis, and there is no consensus on the type of SEN that present higher risk (Hamel et al. 2021). In addition, most studies to date have focused solely on some relevant variables (mainly sociometric variables) to evaluate social exclusion. It is thus necessary to carry out multidimensional evaluations that take into account not only the social valuation of the classmates or friendship ties, but also well-being and social participation (Garrote et al. 2017; Koster et al. 2009; Mamas and Trautman 2025).
Different authors have identified personal factors that predict the risk of bullying, such as gender (only for the role of aggressor, more frequently in boys), socioeconomic status (especially in migrants), and SEN (Fink et al. 2018). Other works point out the importance of social relations (Hamel et al. 2021), relational inclusion and the social capital of the group-class (Mamas et al. 2019; Mamas 2025) as fundamental factors to prevent the exclusion of SEN students. However, further studies should provide empirical evidence to support this hypothesis in bullying situations.
In this sense, the present study aimed to address the following research questions:
  • RQ1. What is the difference between SEN students and students without SEN regarding the main indicators of social exclusion and bullying?
  • RQ2. Which type of SEN students present higher risk of exclusion or bullying?
  • RQ3. Are there any differences in the indicators of social exclusion between SEN students who experience bullying and those who do not?
  • RQ4. Does group-class cohesion contribute to preventing bullying situations for SEN students?

4. Method

This study was designed using a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods in social network analysis and social participation. This was done to examine the above-described variables and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

4.1. Context and Participants

The participants were recruited by random sampling, from the list of primary education schools of Badajoz city (Spain). Four centres (three public schools and one semi-private centre) were randomly selected. Two of the schools were located in a medium-socioeconomic area, while the other two were located in a low-socioeconomic area.
Within each center, we selected those group-classes of Year 4–7 (8–12 years of age) with at least two SEN students. Two classes were discarded, since none of the families or legal guardians of the SEN students signed the informed consent to participate in the study.
The 14 group-classes selected through this procedure had a total of 291 students, of whom 46 students (26 boys and 20 girls) presented SEN. According to data provided by schools, the following type of SEN1 were identified: (a) 10 students with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who had an evaluation report and the corresponding school enrolment report, or required specialised support (from a specialist teacher) inside or outside the classroom, as well as significant curriculum modifications, derived from an achievement gap of over 2 years with respect to the school year in which they were enrolled; (b) 9 students diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); (c) 10 students in a situation of socioeducational vulnerability, due to a very disadvantageous family context or a family context at risk of poverty, late school enrolment, or school absenteeism; and (d) 17 students with specific or moderate learning difficulties (LD) related to attention and learning disorders, mild language and communication disorder, or developmental delay.
Lastly, for each SEN student, one classmate without SEN was randomly selected, that is, 46 peers (23 boys and 23 girls). This procedure allowed controlling for possible interfering variables related to the school and group-class, such as the socioeconomic context of the school, the attitudes of the teachers toward educational inclusion, the size and characteristics of each group, etc.
The families of two girls with disabilities withdrew their consent for participation in the study, thus neither these girls nor their peers were evaluated (Table 1).

4.2. Materials

Considering the variables described in the introduction, the risk of social exclusion of the students was evaluated with two different instruments, based on the self-report of the participants, which are described below.

4.2.1. Social Acceptance Scale and Record of Friendship Ties

A scale was employed to measure the degree of social acceptance of each student, as well as their friendship ties. On the one hand, to assess social acceptance, students were asked to indicate one of the following options with respect to each classmate of their group-class: “I get along very badly with him/her”, “I get along badly with him/her”, “I neither like or dislike him/her”, “I like him/her” or “I like him/her a lot, I think highly of him/her”. These items were translated into a scale of 5 numerical values (−2, −1, 0, 1, 2). This “roster-rating” method, where every student rates every other peer on a Likert-type scale, aligns with established approaches for quantifying social preference in sociometric research (Guimond et al. 2022).
On the other hand, friendship ties were identified through a direct nomination procedure, which provides the necessary data to map the classroom’s social network and analyze the students’ relational patterns within the peer group (Huitsing and Veenstra 2012). Participants were asked to nominate a maximum of two classmates of the same group with whom they had a friendship tie. They were told that, if they had no friends in their class, they should not select any names. From this information, sociograms were created for each of the group-classes that participated in the study. These networks represented, in an integrated manner, the structure of friendship ties and the social valuation received by each student, as well as the isolated subgroups and members.

4.2.2. Questionnaire of Well-Being and Social Participation

With the aim of designing the self-reported instrument of well-being and social participation, we thoroughly reviewed different recently published questionnaires, such as the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ) of Zurbriggen et al. (2017). From a bank of questions extracted from said questionnaires, a total of 34 items were compiled. Then, the items were validated by two experts, who evaluated the clarity (4.1 out of 5) and suitability (4.7) of the questions. As a result, two questions were discarded and the rest of the questions were modified and adapted, in order to align them with the objectives of the study, generating the final version of the questionnaire. The reliability index, through Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.89.
The final version of the questionnaire is structured in two blocks, comprising a total of 32 questions: 19 items in the first block about well-being and participation in classroom activities and in recess; and 13 items in the second block about well-being and participation outside of the school, particularly social and leisure activities with children of the same age. To estimate criterion validity in terms of concurrent validity, a correlation was calculated with a similar standardized test: the Adaptation Multifactor Self-Report Inventory (Hernández 1998). The results were 0.54 (p < 0.001) for the first block and 0.53 (p < 0.001) for the second.
For the specific objectives of this study, two additional questions were added at the end of the questionnaire, which were focused on identifying the perception of bullying situations: “I am frequently mocked by other children” and “some of my classmates are always messing with me”. The responses were marked on a five-value Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, fairly frequently, very frequently). The final value ranged between 0 and 4. In consideration of the fact that bullying is understood to denote a persistent pattern of aggression that is protracted over an extended duration (Crick et al. 2006), we designated as students that have been bullied those who obtained a summative total of six points or more from both items in the questionnaire.

4.3. Data Gathering Procedure

All the students of each group-class (291 individuals) completed the social valuation scale, that is, the degree of acceptance of each of their peers in the group-class, and nominated up to two friends (for which all students were given a tabulated list with the names of their classmates). They were supervised to prevent them from commenting their answers with their peers, simulating an exam. The participants were allowed 10 min to complete this task.
Subsequently, the samples selected in each class (both SEN students and their peers without SEN) were taken to a different classroom to complete, for another 20 min, the well-being and social participation questionnaire. During this period of time, the participants were supervised to prevent them from talking to each other, as well as to solve any doubts. The students with disabilities responded in a structured interview format, in order to guarantee that they understood all questions and with the aim of recording observations with qualitative information, derived from the clarification of some answers.

4.4. Analysis and Measurement Procedure

The social acceptance scores that each student received from the rest of their peers were added and divided by the number of students of the corresponding group-class (who were present in the classroom during the evaluation), thereby obtaining two measures (absolute and relative) of the degree of social acceptance of each individual. Moreover, the mean social acceptance of the entire group-class was also calculated. The same procedure was followed for the calculation of friendship ties.
Then, from the absolute measurements of the previous variables, the structure of the social network of each class group was graphically represented. To represent the sociograms, boys and girls were identified with squares and circles, respectively, of different size as a function of the degree of social acceptance they received (the absolute score was recorded in brackets within each figure). The choices of friendship were represented with arrows, or with lines (no head) in the case of reciprocal nominations. The figures that corresponded to the individuals who received the most nominations appeared in the central part of the network, whereas the figures of those who received the least nominations and lower social valuation appeared in the periphery.
The representations of the social networks were subsequently classified into three types: segregationist, fragmented and cohesive. The classification criteria of these types of social networks are rooted in the seminal conclusions of García and Cillessen (2017), who found that 12.4% of students were typically classified as neglected and 12.8% as rejected. These figures align closely with the broader ranges identified in the meta-analytic review by Newcomb et al. (1993). In their review of prior studies, including the work of Terry and Coie (1991), they reported that approximately 9% to 15% of students are typically classified as neglected and 11% to 13% as rejected, depending on the method used.
  • Informed by these findings, we defined a segregationist group-class as one in which a significant proportion of its members (over 15%) were rejected (i.e., received a negative social valuation from their peers), were isolated (i.e., received no friendship nominations), or presented both circumstances simultaneously. The selection of a 15% threshold for this category is therefore a deliberately conservative measure, one that respects the unique social dynamics of each classroom while being firmly anchored to the upper bounds of the empirically established ranges. This approach ensures that a classroom is only classified as structurally problematic when the proportion of students substantially exceeds the normative levels reported in peer relations literature.
  • A classroom network was classified as fragmented if it was divided into distinct subgroups connected by no more than one friendship link. This operationalization is directly grounded in the structural principles of social network analysis. In their work, Wasserman and Faust (1994) define such a solitary connecting tie as a “bridge” or “critical tie,” which is an edge whose removal increases the number of disconnected components (i.e., subgroups) in the network. A social structure that relies on a single bridge is considered highly “vulnerable,” as its connectivity, a formal measure of network “cohesiveness”, is minimal. This criterion therefore allows for the identification of classrooms characterized by weak overall cohesion and a high susceptibility to splintering.
  • A classroom network could present the structural issues of both previously defined categories. In such cases, a mixed classification was assigned to any group-class that simultaneously met the criteria for being both segregationist and fragmented. This identifies a particularly challenging network structure, one that is characterized by both a significant proportion of isolated or rejected students (>15%) and a structural division into poorly connected subgroups reliant on single or non-existent bridges.
  • Finally, a classroom network that did not meet the criteria for a segregationist, fragmented or mixed structure was classified as cohesive. Structurally, this indicates a high degree of network cohesion, as the group forms one large, integrated component instead of splintering into isolated subgroups. Importantly, this classification does not presuppose universal social acceptance, nor does it imply a complete absence of negative peer interactions. Instead, it defines a healthy network structure as one in which instances of social isolation or rejection exist but do not exceed the previously established 15% threshold that would define the network as structurally problematic.
Furthermore, the individual responses to the well-being and social participation questionnaire were added to extract the means of the two dimensions of the questionnaire. Moreover, the mean scores of well-being and participation were also calculated for each group-class.
To measure the bullying situations, we added the scores obtained by each individual in the two questions of the self-report, which were previously mentioned. It was considered that a student presented risk of bullying if he/she obtained a total of over 6 points (with scores ranging from 0 to 8), that is, if the student declared that these situations occurred “fairly frequently” or “very frequently”.
Lastly, Student’s t-test and Kruskal-Wallis test (with Bonferroni’s correction) were employed to verify whether the differences found in the previous measures between the different analysed groups were significant.

4.5. Ethical Guarantees

During the development of this study, the ethical and legal requirements established by the current regulations were considered at all times. In this sense, the project was approved by the Bioethics and Biosecurity Committee of the University of Extremadura (registration number: 38//2024). In addition, the researchers provided a certificate of no criminal record for sexual offenses, which was available to anyone who requested it. The principals and teachers of the participating schools and the parents of the participating students signed an informed consent. They were informed in writing that any participant could terminate their collaboration in the study at any time, and that such decision would not incur discrimination or prejudice against whomever made it.
In compliance with the current regulations, the gathered data, from both the participants and the schools, were treated with full confidentiality, according to the legislation on the protection of personal data (Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December). Thus, the data were anonymised, ensuring that the identity of the participants could not be revealed. An alphanumeric code was assigned, in order to guarantee that only the researchers of this study could relate the obtained information to the identity of the individuals. The original records of the evaluation instruments (both paper-format and digital) were subsequently destroyed.

5. Results

5.1. Differences Between SEN Students and Students Without SEN

Regarding RQ1, as can be observed in Table 2, the SEN students obtained significantly lower scores with respect to their peers in all the variables of social inclusion that were evaluated in this study: social acceptance, friendship ties, well-being and social participation (curricular and extracurricular). No significant differences were found as a function of sex.
With regard to RQ2, the SEN students with disabilities (SEND students) obtained significantly lower scores than all the other SEN categories in the number of friendship ties (H = 18, p = 0.001). In the rest of the variables, no significant differences were found.
A total of 17 possible cases of bullying were detected in the SEN students (38.6%), whereas only two cases were identified in their peers (4.5%). It is worth highlighting that 47.4% of the students with learning difficulties had suffered bullying situations, that is, 20–27% more than the rest of the SEN categories.

5.2. Differences Between SEN Students Who Suffered Bullying and SEN Students Who Did Not

Regarding RQ3, the SEN students who perceived bullying obtained lower scores in all variables of social inclusion with respect to the SEN students who did not suffer bullying. However, only the difference in extracurricular participation was statistically significant (Table 3).
With regard to the social network structure, the students who perceived bullying were enrolled in more fragmented and segregationist group-classes (RQ4). The following group-classes were identified: three segregationist group-classes, two fragmented group-classes (both with same-sex subgroups), eight mixed group-classes (segregationist and fragmented), and one very cohesive group-class with high mean values of social acceptance, well-being and participation. A total of 74% of the students who had suffered bullying were enrolled in mixed group-classes. In turn, no bullying cases were detected in the cohesive group-class (Table 4).
Next, two significant examples are presented. Figure 1 represents group-class C3B, classified as mixed (fragmented and segregationist). A great disparity can be observed in social valuations (numbers in brackets), with multiple cases of rejection and isolation. Most of the friendly bonds are reciprocal, although they are limited to two or three people of the same sex, generating closed subgroups that rarely interact with the rest. There are two clearly marginalised students who received a large number of rejections and reported having suffered bullying (students 21 and 13). In sum, the graph demonstrates the existence of polarisation and social barriers to the integration of the most vulnerable students into the network.
On the contrary, Figure 2 represents the only group-class that was highly cohesive (N6A), with a strongly interconnected friendship network and multiple reciprocal selections of friendship, as well as high values of social acceptance in all members, showing solid bonds and the absence of isolated students. The graph presents small nuclei of affinity that are perfectly integrated in the global structure, which prevents the formation of closed subgroups. Popularity is equally distributed, without dominant or rejected figures, and the sexes are clearly integrated. In this group, none of the students expressed a negative valuation toward another student of the class in the social acceptance scale. Similarly, there were no reported cases of bullying.
During the evaluation of social participation, the SEN students of N6A commented on certain educational practices that could have influenced the configuration of the social network of this group, such as: (1) the drafting of “support letters”, where positive emotions were expressed toward the classmates; (2) classroom activities to address conflicts among classmates (which may emerge inside or outside of the classroom) and their peaceful resolution through dialogue; or (3) the involvement, by turns, of the entire class to support the participation of a girl with a disability, both in the classroom and in recess.
Lastly, it was identified that the SEN students who had suffered bullying were enrolled in group-classes with a lower mean in all the indicators of inclusion (acceptance, friendship ties, well-being and social participation) with respect to the group-classes of the students who reported no cases of bullying. However, the differences in these indicators were not statistically significant.

6. Discussion

6.1. What Is the Difference Between SEN Students and Students Without SEN Regarding the Main Indicators of Social Exclusion and Bullying? (RQ1)

The results obtained in this study are in line with those of previous works that report the greater risk of suffering social exclusion and bullying in primary education among SEN students compared to their peers. The SEN students presented significantly lower means with respect to their peers in all the indicators of social inclusion evaluated in the current study: social acceptance, friendship ties, well-being and social participation. The percentage of perceived bullying found in this group (38.6%) was even slightly higher than that reported in recent studies, which are also contextualised in Spanish schools (Díaz-Aguado et al. 2023). Thus, regarding the first research question of this study, it can be concluded that SEN students of primary education continue to be at greater risk of suffering social isolation and bullying with respect to their peers.

6.2. Which Type of SEN Students Present Higher Risk of Exclusion and Bullying? (RQ2)

In relation to the second research question, no clear differences were found between the different type of SEN. The students with disabilities presented worse results in all the mean values. However, the differences were significant only in the number of friendship ties. Although these children reached certain levels of social acceptance and participation at school, similar to those of other students with learning difficulties, social vulnerability or ADHD, they undoubtedly encountered great difficulty in establishing reciprocal friendship ties with other children of the class. Consequently, they lacked an important resource for their emotional well-being, as well as for the generation of resilience in the face of conflicts with other classmates (Mamas 2025).
On the other hand, the profile with the highest frequency of perceived bullying was that of the students with learning disabilities (LD). Almost half of these students reported being often mocked by their classmates and felt that some of their peers were constantly attacking them. It is worth pointing out that the percentage of bullying was higher even with respect to that of the other categories, such as ADHD, with greater probability of presenting behavioural disorders, which is especially frequent in victims of bullying (Monchy et al. 2004).

6.3. Are There Any Differences in the Indicators of Social Exclusion Between SEN Students Who Experience Bullying and Those Who Do Not? (RQ3)

In regard with the third research question, it was found that the SEN students who perceived bullying presented a lower degree of social acceptance, a smaller number of friendship ties, and a lower level of well-being and social participation compared to the SEN students who did not report suffering cases of bullying. However, these differences were significant only in terms of social participation outside of the school. This finding may suggest that some inclusion measures implemented by teachers could contribute to reducing perceived bullying inside the school (both in the classroom and in recess). Primary education students seem to experience more social isolation in extracurricular leisure activities (playing in the park, birthday parties, etc.) than in those activities that are performed in the classroom or in the schoolyard.

6.4. Does Group-Class Cohesion Contribute to Preventing Bullying Situations for SEN Students? (RQ4)

Finally, the results of the current work reflect that most of the students with SEN who perceived bullying situations were enrolled in group-classes with a less cohesive social network compared to those who did not perceive bullying, which is in line with previous studies reporting that poorly cohesive networks tend to generate more antisocial behaviours (van den Bos et al. 2018). The means of social acceptance, friendship ties and social participation were also lower in the classes that included bullied students, although the differences were not significant. However, the tendency of these data is in agreement with the idea that the social capital of the group-class could have a relevant influence on the prevention of violence and bullying toward SEN students. Nevertheless, further studies with larger group-class samples are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.
In any case, the emotional education and peer support practices found in the only group that was highly cohesive and inclusive (N6A) suggest the relevance of educational intervention for the entire class, and not only for the individuals, in preventing the bullying that is suffered by a considerable proportion of SEN students (Hamel et al. 2021; Mamas et al. 2021). This type of practice could be especially important in contexts of full inclusion, where the risk of social rejection and even violence toward certain SEN students continues to be, paradoxically, very high (Nepi et al. 2013). In badly managed environments, with no pedagogical strategies for the promotion of empathy and positive interactions among students, social divides are wider and stigmas are consolidated, thus a large number of SEN students experience rejection from their peers (Monjas et al. 2014). On the other hand, the data points to the fact that, when teachers engage collaboratively in innovative processes to carry out more inclusive practices, the indicators may improve (Mamas et al. 2023).

7. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

In summary, the results confirm that SEN students experience significantly higher rates of social exclusion than their peers. They also perceive bullying considerably more frequently. Furthermore, those who reported being bullied were mostly in social networks with a more segregated and fragmented structure, which supports the idea that social capital could help prevent violence and bullying towards SEN students.
However, the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution, given the small number of bullied SEN students and the fact that most of the differences between bullied and non-bullied SEN students were not statistically significant.
It would be necessary for future studies to replicate this type of assessment with a larger sample of students with different types of SEN, including physical and sensory disabilities, as well as SEN arising from high capacities.
Future studies should also focus on how to improve the potential of schools and, particularly, classes, with the aim of generating safe and inclusive environments. They should analyse whether the educational interventions that foster cooperation and solidarity, as well as the actual participation of SEN students in classroom and schoolyard activities, has a significant impact on the reduction of isolation and bullying. Cooperative learning strategies, such as peer tutoring, could play an important role, on the one hand, to increasing the social acceptance and friendship ties of SEN students, and, on the other hand, to facilitating effective participation in a larger number of activities, with the necessary support to ensure their learning progress (Klang et al. 2020; Talbott et al. 2017; Toulia et al. 2021).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.; methodology, M.M.; software, Á.C.; validation, Á.C. and M.M.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, Á.C.; resources, M.M.; data curation, Á.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.C. and M.M.; writing—review and editing, Á.C. and M.M.; visualization, Á.C. and M.M.; supervision, M.M.; project administration, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and by ERDF/EU (Grant PID2023-147501OB-I00). The APC was funded by University of Gävle.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics and Biosecurity Committee of the University of Extremadura (protocol code 38/2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Note

1
The classification of SEN types in this study followed the criteria outlined by the Spanish Ministry of Education (MEFPD 2022), which distinguishes categories such as sensory, physical and intellectual disabilities, learning difficulties, socio-educational disadvantage, and behavioral disorders (including ADHD). These categories are commonly used by educational support services across Spanish schools and form the basis of official school records and diagnoses.

References

  1. Ainscow, Mel. 2020. Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 6: 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alcântara, Stefania Carneiro, Mònica González-Carrasco, Carme Montserrat, Ferran Casas, Ferran Viñas-Poch, and Desirée Pereira de Abreu. 2019. Violência entre pares, clima escolar e contextos de desenvolvimento: Suas implicações no bem-estar. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 24: 509–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arseneault, Louise. 2017. Annual research review: The persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58: 430–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Banks, Joanna, Selina McCoy, and David Frawley. 2018. One of the gang? Peer relations among children with special educational needs in Irish mainstream primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education 33: 396–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bayer, Jordana, Lisa Mundy, Isobel Stokes, Stephen Hearps, Nicholas Allen, and George Patton. 2018. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child and Adolescent Mental Health 23: 334–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Coleman, James S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Crick, Nicki R., Jamie M. Ostrov, and Nicole E. Werner. 2006. A longitudinal study of relational aggression, physical aggression, and children’s social–psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34: 131–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. de Boer, Anke, Sip Jan Pijl, Wendy Post, and Alexander Minnaert. 2013. Peer acceptance and friendships of children with disabilities in general education: The role of child, peer, and classroom variables. Social Development 22: 831–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Díaz-Aguado, María José, Rosario Martínez-Arias, Laia Falcón, and María Alvariño. 2023. Acoso Escolar y Ciberacoso en España en la Infancia y en la Adolescencia. Madrid: Pirámide. [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission. 2024. Wellbeing and Mental Health at School. Guidelines for School Leaders, Teachers and Educators. Brussels: European Union. [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, Caroline, and Paul Smokowski. 2015. Prosocial Bystander Behavior in Bullying Dynamics: Assessing the Impact of Social Capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44: 2289–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Falla, Daniel, Sergio Sánchez, and José Antonio Casas. 2021. What Do We Know about Bullying in Schoolchildren with Disabilities? A Systematic Review of Recent Work. Sustainability 13: 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fink, Elian, Jessica Deighton, Neil Humphrey, and Miranda Wolpert. 2015. Assessing the bullying and victimisation experiences of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools: Development and validation of the Bullying Behaviour and Experience Scale. Research in Developmental Disabilities 36: 611–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fink, Elian, Praveetha Patalay, Helen Sharpe, and Miranda Wolpert. 2018. Child-and school-level predictors of children’s bullying behavior: A multilevel analysis in 648 primary schools. Journal of Educational Psychology 110: 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Flynt, Samuel W., and Rhonda Collins Morton. 2004. Bullying and children with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology 31: 330. [Google Scholar]
  16. Frostad, Per, and Sip Jan Pijl. 2007. Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education 22: 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. García, Francisco-José, and Antonius Cillessen. 2017. An Adjusted Probability Method for the Identification of Sociometric Status in Classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Garrote, Ariana, Rachel Sermier Dessemontet, and Elisabeth Moser Opitz. 2017. Facilitating the social participation of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools: A review of school-based interventions. Educational Research Review 20: 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guimond, Fanny-Alexandra, Robert Altman, Frank Vitaro, Mara Brendgen, and Brett Laursen. 2022. The interchangeability of liking and friend nominations to measure peer acceptance and friendship. International Journal of Behavioral Development 46: 358–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hamel, Niklas, Susanne Schwab, and Sebastian Wahl. 2021. Bullying: Group differences of being a victim and being a bully and the influence of social relations. Studies in Educational Evaluation 68: 100964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hernández, Pedro. 1998. TAMAI. Test Autoevaluativo Multifactorial de Adaptación Infantil. Madrid: TEA. [Google Scholar]
  22. House, James S. 1981. Work Stress and Social Support. Boston: Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huitsing, Gijs, and René Veenstra. 2012. Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior 38: 494–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jenkins, Lyndsay N., and Stephanie Secord Fredrick. 2017. Social capital and bystander behavior in bullying: Internalizing problems as a barrier to prosocial intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46: 759–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kennedy, Craig H., Lisa S. Cushing, and Tuija Itkonen. 1997. General education participation improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education 7: 167–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Klang, Nina, Ingrid Olsson, Jenny Wilder, Gunilla Lindqvist, Niclas Fohlin, and Claes Nilholm. 2020. A cooperative learning intervention to promote social inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 586489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Klanienė, Ilona, Rasa Skališienė, and Skirmantė Lidžiūtė. 2024. Social exclusion among peers as a form of expression of bullying in a pre-school education group. Educational Journal 1: 710–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Koster, Marloes, Han Nakken, Sip Jan Pijl, and Els van Houten. 2009. Being part of the peer group: A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 13: 117–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kozmus, Andreja, and Mateja Pšunder. 2018. Bullying among pupils with and without special needs in Slovenian primary schools. Educational Studies 44: 408–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kwan, Celia, Mojgan Gitimoghaddam, and Jean-Paul Collet. 2020. Effects of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities: A Scoping Review. Brain Science 10: 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Labrador Rodríguez, Teresa, María de la O Toscano Cruz, Sara Conde Vélez, and Ángel Boza Carreño. 2023. Factores psicológicos y secuelas en estudiantes de educación primaria víctimas de acoso escolar. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía 34: 141–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Laws, Glynis, and Elaine Kelly. 2005. The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in United Kingdom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 52: 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mamas, Christoforos. 2025. Relational inclusivity: Eliciting student perspectives on friendship. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11: 101410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mamas, Christoforos, Alan J. Daly, and Giovanna Hartmann Schaelli. 2019. Socially responsive classrooms for students with special educational needs and disabilities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 21: 100334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mamas, Christoforos, Alan J. Daly, Shana R. Cohen, and Gabrielle Jones. 2021. Social participation of students with autism spectrum disorder in general education settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 28: 100467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mamas, Christoforos, and David Trautman. 2025. Defining and exploring relational inclusivity: Attending to inclusion across four dimensions of schooling. Frontiers in Education 10: 1544512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mamas, Christoforos, and Elias Avramidis. 2013. Promoting social interaction in the inclusive classroom: Lessons from inclusive schools in England and Cyprus. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2: 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mamas, Christoforos, Peter Bjorklund, Jr., Alan J. Daly, and Sara Moukarzel. 2020. Friendship and support: Special education students and tie formation in two middle school classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research 103: 101608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mamas, Christoforos, Peter Bjorklund, Jr., Shana R. Cohen, and Caren Holtzman. 2023. New friends and cohesive classrooms: A research practice partnership to promote inclusion. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4: 100256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mand, Johannes. 2007. Social position of special needs pupils in the classroom: A comparison between German special schools for pupils with learning difficulties and integrated primary school classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education 22: 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ministerio de Educación, Formación Profesional y Deportes (MEFPD). 2022. Alumnado con necesidad específica de apoyo educativo. Equidad y compensación de las desigualdades en educación. Available online: https://educagob.educacionfpydeportes.gob.es/equidad/alumnado-neae.html (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  42. Molina Roldán, Silvia, Jesús Marauri, Adriana Aubert, and Ramon Flecha. 2021. How inclusive interactive learning environments benefit students without special needs. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 661427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Monchy, Marleen, Sip Jan Pijl, and Tjalling Zandberg. 2004. Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19: 317–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Monjas, María I., Luis J. Martín-Antón, Francisco-Juan García-Bacete, and María L. Sanchiz. 2014. Rechazo y victimización al alumnado con necesidad de apoyo educativo en primero de primaria. Anales de Psicología 30: 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Montanero, Manuel, Alba M. Mayo, Raquel Borrero, María-Jesús Fernández-Sánchez, and Álvaro Carmona. 2024. Peer tutoring as a strategy for inclusive education in primary education: A case study. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Montanero, Manuel, Álvaro Carmona, and Manuel Lucero. 2025. Children with Special Educational Needs: Assessing their social-emotional wellbeing. In Social-Emotional Well-Being in Children and Adolescents. Edited by E. Kourkoutas, D. Manier and P. Parmar. in press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mulvey, Kelly Lynn, Corey Boswell, and Jiali Zheng. 2017. Causes and consequences of social exclusion and peer rejection among children and adolescents. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth 17: 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nepi, Lucia Donata, Jessica Fioravanti, Paolo Nannini, and Andrea Peru. 2015. Social acceptance and the choosing of favourite classmates: A comparison between students with special educational needs and typically developing students in a context of full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education 30: 408–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nepi, Lucia Donata, Roberto Facondini, Francesco Nucci, and Andrea Peru. 2013. Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28: 319–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Newcomb, Andrew F., William M. Bukowski, and Linda Pattee. 1993. Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin 113: 99–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Norwich, Brahm, and Narcie Kelly. 2004. Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal 30: 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Özkal, Neşe. 2020. Teachers’ and school administrators’ views regarding the role of recess for students. International Journal of Progressive Education 16: 121–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Peña, María-José, and Elena Aguaded. 2021. Inteligencia emocional, bienestar y acoso escolar en estudiantes de Educación Primaria y Secundaria. Journal of Sport and Health Research 13: 79–92. [Google Scholar]
  54. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rose, Amanda J., Sarah K. Borowski, Allie Spiekerman, and Rhiannon L. Smith. 2022. Children’s friendships. In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 3rd ed. Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rose, Chad A., Lisa E. Monda-Amaya, and Dorothy L. Espelage. 2011. Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education 32: 114–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schwab, Susanne, Markus Gebhardt, Mathias Krammer, and Barbara Gasteiger-Klicpera. 2015. Linking self-rated social inclusion to social behaviour. an empirical study of children with and without special education needs in secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education 30: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Silva, Jorge Luiz da, André Vilela Komatsu, Marcela Almeida Zequinão, Beatriz Oliveira Pereira, GuoYong Wang, and Marta Angélica Iossi Silva. 2019. Bullying, habilidades sociais, aceitação pelos pares e amizade de estudantes em transição escolar. Estudos de Psicologia 36: e180060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Son, Esther, Susan L. Parish, and N. Andrew Peterson. 2012. National prevalence of peer victimization among young children with disabilities in the United States. Children and Youth Services Review 34: 1540–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spernes, Kari. 2020. The transition between primary and secondary school: A thematic review emphasising social and emotional issues. Research Papers in Education 37: 303–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Strindberg, Joakim, and Paul Horton. 2022. Relations between school bullying, friendship processes, and school context. Educational Research 64: 242–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Talbott, Elizabeth, Agata Trzaska, and Jaime L. Zurheide. 2017. A systematic review of peer tutoring interventions for students with disabilities. In The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education. Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 319–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Terry, Robert, and John D. Coie. 1991. A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology 27: 867–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Toulia, Anastasia, Vasilis Strogilos, and Elias Avramidis. 2021. Peer tutoring as a means to inclusion: A collaborative action research project. Educational Action Research 31: 213–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Turunen, Tiina, Elisa Poskiparta, and Christina Salmivalli. 2017. Are reading difficulties associated with bullying involvement? Learning and Instruction 52: 130–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2019. Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  67. van den Bos, Wouter, Eveline A. Crone, Rosa Meuwese, and Berna Güroğlu. 2018. Social network cohesion in school classes promotes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE 13: e0194656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wicaksono, Hendri. 2019. Socio-economic status and social capital: A multicausal analysis of bullying among highschool students in Karawang, West Jawa. Masyarakat: Jurnal Sosiologi 24: 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zurbriggen, Carmen L. A., Martin Venetz, Susanne Schwab, and Martin G. P. Hessels. 2017. A psychometric analysis of the student version of the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 33: 283–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 14 00430 g001
Figure 1. Segregationist and fragmented structure (mixed) of the social network of group-class C3B (circles: girls; squares: boys; size: social acceptance; arrows: unidirectional selections of friendship; lines: reciprocal selections of friendship; blue: SEN students; orange: peers; red borderline: students who reported having suffered bullying).
Figure 1. Segregationist and fragmented structure (mixed) of the social network of group-class C3B (circles: girls; squares: boys; size: social acceptance; arrows: unidirectional selections of friendship; lines: reciprocal selections of friendship; blue: SEN students; orange: peers; red borderline: students who reported having suffered bullying).
Socsci 14 00430 g001
Socsci 14 00430 g002
Figure 2. Cohesive structure of the social network of group-class N6A (circles: girls; squares: boys; numbers in brackets: social acceptance; arrows: unidirectional selections of friendship; lines: reciprocal selections of friendship; blue: SEN students; orange: peers).
Figure 2. Cohesive structure of the social network of group-class N6A (circles: girls; squares: boys; numbers in brackets: social acceptance; arrows: unidirectional selections of friendship; lines: reciprocal selections of friendship; blue: SEN students; orange: peers).
Socsci 14 00430 g002
Table 1. Participants (D: disabilities; LD: learning disabilities; ADHD: attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder; SV: social vulnerability).
Table 1. Participants (D: disabilities; LD: learning disabilities; ADHD: attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder; SV: social vulnerability).
Class *SizeDLDADHDSVPairs
A3B2401001
A5C2601001
A6A2020002
C3B2401203
C3C2502103
C5A2010203
C5B2304105
L5A2510001
L5B2212216
N3A1500022
N4A2321014
N5A1202013
N5B1402035
N6A1811125
(*) Class codes correspond to internal labels used by schools to identify group-classes. They do not imply any hierarchical or academic ranking.
Table 2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and differences (Student’s t-test, p-value and Cohen’s d) between SEN students and students without SEN.
Table 2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and differences (Student’s t-test, p-value and Cohen’s d) between SEN students and students without SEN.
Social InclusionSEN StudentsPairsDifferences
NMSDNMSDtpd
Relative social acceptance440.640.64440.690.562.60.0090.60
Relative friendship ties440.530.72441.10.743.10.0030.73
Well-being and social participation (at school)442.90.58443.30.443.4<0.0010.52
Well-being and social participation (outside of school)443.10.63443.50.483.30.0010.57
Table 3. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and differences (Student’s t-test, p-value and Cohen’s d) among SEN students, as a function of whether they suffered or did not suffer bullying.
Table 3. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and differences (Student’s t-test, p-value and Cohen’s d) among SEN students, as a function of whether they suffered or did not suffer bullying.
Social InclusionBullied StudentsNon-BulliedDifferences
NMSDNMSDtpd
Relative social acceptance170.510.71270.730.581.10.2920.64
Relative friendship ties170.390.46270.630.851.10.2930.72
Well-being and social participation (at school)172.70.122730.111.40.140.58
Well-being and social participation (outside of school)172.70.59273.20.592.70.0080.59
Table 4. Frequency and proportion of students who had suffered bullying in each group-class, social network structure, mean social acceptance (SA), mean number of friendship ties (FT) and mean well-being and school social participation (WSSP).
Table 4. Frequency and proportion of students who had suffered bullying in each group-class, social network structure, mean social acceptance (SA), mean number of friendship ties (FT) and mean well-being and school social participation (WSSP).
Class SizeSENPairsBullyingSocial NetworkSAFTWSSP
A3B24111 (0.50)Mixed13.823.1
A5C26110Mixed17.31.83.2
A6A20221 (0.50)Segregationist13.61.92.8
C3B24332 (0.33)Mixed19.21.92.8
C3C25332 (0.33)Mixed17.222.8
C5A20330Mixed12.31.83.5
C5B23552 (0.20)Mixed16.41.83.5
L5A25110Fragmented17.91.72.6
L5B22664 (0.33)Mixed19.51.63.1
N3A15221 (0.25)Segregationist7.81.73.1
N4A23441 (0.25)Segregationist12.522.9
N5A12333 (0.50)Mixed8.81.73.0
N5B14552 (0.20)Fragmented11.21.82.9
N6A18550Cohesive25.61.93.5
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carmona, Á.; Montanero, M. Bullying and Social Exclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Primary Education Schools. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14070430

AMA Style

Carmona Á, Montanero M. Bullying and Social Exclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Primary Education Schools. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(7):430. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14070430

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carmona, Álvaro, and Manuel Montanero. 2025. "Bullying and Social Exclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Primary Education Schools" Social Sciences 14, no. 7: 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14070430

APA Style

Carmona, Á., & Montanero, M. (2025). Bullying and Social Exclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Primary Education Schools. Social Sciences, 14(7), 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14070430

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop