Tadeja Kodele in Irena Lesar The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties Abstract: The article is based on the assumption that, given the commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Salamanca Declaration (1994), pupil participation in school should indeed be present in all processes that take place on a daily basis. Because many pupils face major or minor learning difficulties during their time at school, the issue of participation in solving these problems is critical, especially when a pupil has learning difficulties. In a representative sam- ple of school counsellors from Slovenian primary schools, a combined quantitative–qualitative survey revealed that pupils’ participation in most processes or activities in school is present in just over two- fifths of schools (44%), although the majority of school counsellors (90.9%) believe that pupils’ partici- pation in planning and providing learning assistance to pupils with learning difficulties is crucial. The qualitative analysis showed that the notion of participation is very modest and often tautological, and most counsellors see obstacles to the implementation of participation mainly among pupils, but also among school staff and management. In further research on pupil participation, it would be good to consider the perspective of pupils with learning difficulties and include more qualitative and quanti- tative research techniques. Keywords: child participation, pupils with learning difficulties, obstacles, school management, inclu- sion UDC: 37.091 Scientific paper Tadeja Kodele, PhD., assistant professor , University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Work, Topniška 31, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: tadeja.kodele@fsd.uni-lj.si Irena Lesar, PhD., full professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: irena.lesar@guest.arnes.si Let./Vol. 74 (140) Issue 4/2023 pp. 195-214 ISSN 0038 0474 Kodele, Lesar 196 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Introduction The participation of children in shaping, selecting and making decisions con- cerning their lives has become the subject of numerous studies, discussions and policy developments (Alderson 2008; Hart 1992; Lansdown 2010; Shier 2001), es- pecially since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinaf- ter: »the Convention«) in 1989. This framework document has been instrumental in raising awareness about the importance of children’s participation, which is highlighted in Article 12. Thus, children have been recognised as having, in ad- dition to the right to protection and care, the right to be heard and participate in decisions about their own lives according to their age and maturity (Donnelly 2010; Lansdown 2010; Vis and Thomas 2009). However, the diction »in accord- ance with the age and maturity of the child« enshrined in the Convention (1989) raises many questions about when a child is mature or old enough to influence decision-making so that adults can also take their views into consideration when making decisions. In this situation, adults are obliged to respect the principles and rights of the Convention and ensure its implementation, but a problem can arise when adults encounter their own ideas and interpretations about the appropri- ate age and maturity of a child (Kroflič 2010; Lansdown 2001, 2010; Rutar 2012; Woodhead 2010). Some studies (Collins 2017; Fitzgerald et al. 2009; Lansdown 2005; Saywitz et al. 2010; Schofield 2005) have shown that participation has a number of positive effects for children (e.g., positive experiences with participation can increase a child’s self-confidence, self-esteem and certain skills such as learning to formulate an opinion and cooperating with others; it can also have a positive effect on the development of autonomy and growing up to be an independent adult). At the same time, awareness of the importance of pupil participation in school education has been raised. Numerous studies (DeRoiste et al. 2012; Eriksson 2006; Finn and Cox 1992; Law et al. 2004; McMahon and Zyngier 2009; Niia et al. 2014; Rob- inson 2014; Smith 2007) have shown that involving children in decision-making not only encourages pupils to participate actively in a democratic society, but also contributes to pupils’ achievements and success (e.g., a more positive attitude Kodele, Lesar 197 of pupils towards school, themselves and learning, a more cooperative attitude between teachers and pupils). The implementation of this right in the education process may be particularly challenging for pupils who may find it more diffi- cult to articulate their opinions and views, for pupils with limited communication skills or for pupils with special educational needs (hereinafter: »SEN«) (Eriksson 2006; Maclver et al. 2019; Robinson 2014). The latter also include pupils who, for some reason, are less successful in school, that is, pupils with learning difficulties (hereinafter: »LDs«). In the Slovenian school system, these pupils do not acquire the formal status of pupils with SEN, who have additional rights, but the school should address their educational needs within the regular work programme and existing professional resources. Considering that Slovenia (like many other coun- tries) is not only a signatory of the Convention (1989) but also committed itself to promoting inclusive schools already in 1994 by signing the Salamanca Decla- ration (1994), the question of involving pupils in solving their LDs is even more important (Lesar 2007). The purpose of the present paper is to investigate how counsellors experience the participation of pupils with LDs. Participation of children in school education Many authors have written about children’s participation in general, but the most frequently mentioned are Hart (1992), Shier (2001) and Lansdown (2001, 2010). Hart (1992) designed a well-known eight-step participation ladder that shows the extent to which young people are involved in decision-making and im- plementation. The special feature of his participation model is that it also includes the first three steps, the so-called »nonparticipation«, in which children are not really involved in the processes, but their apparent participation justifies those who have the power to »teach« or »cure« children. Despite some differences in the formulation of their definitions of children’s participation, all three have in com- mon that the different steps of participation follow one other from the step where children are able to express their views on issues relevant to them, but these are not necessarily taken into account to the step where children share power and responsibility with adults for decisions relevant to them, their opinions are heard and taken into account, and children are recognised as active and competent in- terlocutors. In the case of pupils with LDs, this means that these pupils should have the opportunity to speak not only about their LD(s), but also about possible forms of assistance, implementation and evaluation of assistance, that is, have a say in all phases of the process (Kodele 2017). It is not uncommon for adults with otherwise good intentions to help pupils with LDs decide for them and not with them. Particularly in more persistent LDs, the pupil is usually »examined« and »judged« as objectively as possible by an ex- pert (professional and medical discourses predominate), hence usually identifying the LD(s) without talking to the pupil and their parents. In further searching for solutions, experts undoubtedly rely on system-level solutions—in Slovenia, pupils should go through a five-level continuum of support (Kavkler 2011; Mellard et The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 198 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies al. 2010) before being granted the status SEN; this continuum particularly fo- cuses on their expertise on the effectiveness of different forms of assistance. The five-level continuum of support does not prevent pupil participation, but neither does it explicitly emphasise it. Based on research findings (Magajna et al. 2008; Vršnik Perše et al. 2016), the evaluation of the implemented forms of assistance is rarely, if ever, carried out only by »experts« within the team. Therefore, it would be important for adults to realise as soon as possible how important it is to sup- port the pupil in identifying their LDs, to plan, implement and evaluate the assis- tance provided (Kodele 2017) and to not accept anything without talking to the pupil and obtaining their consent. In the name of protection and care, we often overlook a pupil with an LD, and our interpretations and solutions are often conditioned by imagining the pupil as a helpless and incompetent person unable to express their opinion (Kroflič 2010, 2015; Lodge 2005; Loreman 2009). Therefore, the obstacles to achieving pupil par- ticipation often represent negative and low adult expectations of children because, too often, the unique characteristics of the child do not match adult standards or adults want to improve children’s characteristics (e.g., limited communication skills of children, inability to solve problems, etc.) (Hart 1992; Lansdown 2010; Lo- reman 2009). Other barriers may include adult resistance to participation—often because of the cultural and social context—adult persuasion that children’s par- ticipation leads to a lack of respect for adults (Lansdown 2010) and the fact that adults are not sufficiently qualified to encourage children’s participation (look for opportunities to use different media to engage children in conversations, encour- age them to express their opinions, etc.) (Lansdown 2010; Malone and Hartung 2010). Because an individual’s perceptions significantly influence an individual’s view or interpretation in a given context and, consequently, their actions (Lans- down 2010; Loreman 2009; Polak 2008; Valenčič Zuljan 2004), we wondered how the counsellors in Slovenian primary schools perceive pupil participation. Some earlier studies (Breiting et al. 2005; Deal and Peterson 1999; Hodges et al. 2020; Katsenou et al. 2013; McCormack et al. 2021; Tiusanen 2017; Wilson 2002) have shown that pupil participation is inextricably linked to school cul- ture, for example, to the unconscious values and beliefs shared by members of the school community that shape the school’s identity. Similarly, Polak (2008) notes that the origin of all decisions and actions of school staff is their psychological system, which is influenced by their job satisfaction and work environment. The school or school management is certainly the responsible party for providing such a school culture that takes into account and involves every pupil, which is the so- called »inclusive culture« (Dyson et al. 2004). Above all, school must provide the space, time and opportunity for the pupil to participate so that their opinion is heard and taken into account in the teaching process while involving the pupil in the decision-making process (Messiou 2002). This is even more important when working with pupils with LDs. Starting with the fact that the reasons for LDs are numerous and varied and that there are not only individual, but also social, cultural and economic reasons, it is necessary to take into account the individual- ity and specificity of each pupil. As G. Čačinovič Vogrinčič (2008) shows, it often Kodele, Lesar 199 happens that adults take their own definition of an LD for granted and leave the pupil only with the option to accept this definition. In this way, adults can deprive children of the experience of discovering and developing their own functioning that would help them succeed. A special feature of the Slovenian school system is the school counselling service, which is a unique form of school counselling in Europe (and in other countries of the former Yugoslavia). It is established in all preschools, primary and secondary schools, as well as in boarding schools and educational institutions for young people with behavioural problems. The school counselling service is an organisational form of assistance that has different profiles depending on the size and needs of the institutions: pedagogue, psychologist, social worker, special ped- agogue, social pedagogue and inclusive pedagogue. The assistance of school coun- selling service is directed not only at the pupils, but also at the teachers, school management and parents, with whom they collaborate in the following areas: learning and teaching, school culture, education, atmosphere/climate and rules, care of physical, cognitive, moral, emotional and social development of pupils, ed- ucational and career guidance and socio-economic difficulties (Gregorčič Mrvar et al. 2020; Programske smernice 2008). As a rule, the help of school counsellors in solving pupils with LD(s)’s problems is not provided in groups but individually, usually outside the classroom (Vršnik Perše et al. 2016), which can greatly facili- tate the participation of pupils in the solution process of LDs. Based on the assumption that it is necessary to ensure pupils’ participation in all processes related to their lives, including the process of overcoming LDs, the question is whether including the pupil’s perspective on LDs can help overcoming them more effectively (similar to Rudduck and Flutter 2004). By involving pupils in the resolution process, it is possible to give them another important message: school staff are (supposedly) experts in various strategies and techniques for over- coming LDs, but without the pupil articulating their LDs, trying different forms of help and evaluating them, all these techniques and strategies are often ineffec- tive. However, it is crucial that we creatively apply this professional knowledge to concrete problems, taking into account the aspects that adults without pupils cannot recognise or identify. The research problem As the occurrence of LDs is very common (Košak Babuder and Velikonja 2011; Magajna et al. 2008; Vršnik Perše et al. 2016) and is experienced by every- one to a different extent during school, the question arises regarding how coun- sellors in Slovenian primary schools perceive the participation of pupils in the process of solving their LDs. In the research, we were interested in the following: – Whether, in the counsellors’ estimation, pupils’ participation is generally present at their schools? Is the involvement of pupils with LDs important in the planning and implementation of learning assistance? The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 200 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies – How do school counsellors understand the concept of pupil participation? – What factors do school counsellors think can inhibit the participation of pu- pils with LDs? – What obstacles do school counsellors recognise in realising the participation of pupils, especially pupils with LDs? Methodology Type of research In our study, a combined quantitative–qualitative research approach was used with the questionnaire as a tool. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, nb. 01/2014 and was conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation. For the purposes of the present paper, selected data from the survey questionnaire, which originally included 25 questions (10 closed-ended, 11 open-ended and 4 semi-open-ended) were analysed. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was between 0.613 and 0.676 (more about this in Kodele 2017). Population The population consists of counsellors who worked in school counselling in mainstream schools during the 2014/2015 school year and whose scope of work was pupils with LDs. Following Huberman’s (1993) model, nearly two-fifths (39.6%) of counsellors with 7 to 18 years of experience and one-fifth (19.8%) of counsellors with 19 to 30 years of experience participated. The number of counsellors with 4 to 6 years of experience (17.6%) and counsellors with 1 to 3 years of experience (15.5%) was slightly lower. The smallest group of counsellors (7.5%) were those between the ages of 31 and 40. The results refer to primary schools only; the text will continue to use only the term »school«. Data collection and analysis The questionnaire, which had previously been piloted, was sent electronical- ly to all 450 mainstream schools in Slovenia in February 2015 with the request that the questionnaire be completed by school counsellors who spend most of their working time with pupils with LDs. A total of 342 questionnaires were returned, of which 189 were valid (i.e., those where the school counsellors answered at least one-third of the questions), representing 42% of the total population. Not all re- spondents answered all the questions asked, so the figures for each question are shown separately. Because this was an online survey, the questionnaire began with a conviction to explain all the necessary information about the survey (e.g., Kodele, Lesar 201 the purpose of the research, data collection and anonymity, and a consent form). By clicking the »Continue« button, the respondent agreed to participate in the survey. The respondents also had the right to withdraw their responses at any point in the response process. The collected material was analysed quantitatively using the statistical pro- gramme SPSS 23.0. A t-test and chi-square were used to test for statistically sig- nificant differences. The responses to the open-ended questionnaires were mostly analysed using inductive thematic content analysis (Mesec 1998); only the defi- nitions of participation were analysed deductively based on Hart’s participation ladder (Hart 1992). Coding was based on the consultants’ definitions, but because the concept of participation is broad, we also took into account what the consult- ants focused on in their responses (e.g., process, population, specific aspects of participation). Results The existence of participation at school and its role in the process of solving pupils’ learning difficulties As a starting point for the analysis of the results obtained, we first present the respondents’ assessments regarding the participation in their school in gen- eral. Do you estimate that pupils in your school participate in most of the processes or activities that also affect pupils (e.g., organising and carrying out various activities, planning and carrying out lessons, etc.)? f f (%) YES 81 44.0 NO 103 56.0 Total 184 100.0 Table 1: Presence of pupils’ participation in the school Table 1 shows that, according to the assessment of counsellors, participation is only present in more than two-fifths of the schools, so the participation in most processes or activities that can also affect pupils (e.g., organising and carrying out various activities and planning and delivering lessons) is absent in more than half of the schools. We also asked the surveyed counsellors a half-open question as to whether the participation of the pupils in the planning and implementation of the learning assistance is crucial for them to effectively help the pupils with LDs and asked them to briefly justify their answer. The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 202 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Do you think that pupils’ participation in the planning and implementation of learning assistance for pupils with LDs is crucial for effective assistance? f f % YES 160 90.9 NO 16 9.1 Total 176 100.0 Table 2: The importance of pupils’ participation in planning and implementing learning assistance The majority (90.9%) of the counsellors assessed that pupil participation in the planning and implementation of learning assistance is crucial for effective assistance. Some (f = 113) supported their assessment for various reasons, which we have divided into the following group sets in the qualitative analysis. Partici- pation of pupils with LD can be divided as follows: – contributes to a greater motivation of the pupils to solve LD (f = 62). – is a prerequisite for the pupil to collaborate more actively in the learning and assistance process (f = 21) to improve their working habits, become more in- dependent, gain self-esteem and, above all, ensure that the assistance offered to the pupil can be successful at all. – influences the actual planning and implementation of assistance (f = 12). – helps the pupil take more responsibility for solving their LD (f = 11). – is necessary because the pupils are competent interlocutors or experts based on personal experience (f = 7). However, nearly one-tenth (9.1%) of the counsellors estimated that pupil participation in the planning and implementation of learning assistance is not crucial for effective assistance, mainly because of the following reasons: – pupils are not yet mature enough to participate (f = 6), so school staff must decide on the planning and implementation of the learning assistance. – cooperation with the parents of the pupils with LD is central to the effective- ness of assistance, not the participation of the pupils (f = 2). Although most of the counsellors state that participation is central to the planning and implementation of effective learning assistance, it is surprising that participation is only implemented in more than two-fifths of the schools. There- fore, we ask ourselves where we should look for the reasons for this unusual dis- crepancy. Because it is precisely the notions of school staff that have a consid- erable influence on the implementation of processes (Dahlberg and Moss 2006; Jeznik 2015; Kroflič 2010; Lesar 2007; Polak 2008; Rinaldi 2006; Valenčič Zuljan 2004), we were interested in counsellors’ notions of pupil participation. The notion of pupil participation among counsellors The counsellors were asked what they meant by »pupil participation« and asked them to briefly describe their understanding of the concept. In the qualita- Kodele, Lesar 203 tive analysis, we looked for content emphases in the definitions, which could be classified into five categories (see Table 3). Analysis of definitions according to predominant content f Tautological 69 Population pupils with LDs 40 pupils with SEN status 15 ∑55 General whole school activity 38 teaching 6 learning 3 content selection 3 decision-making 3 ∑53 Individual aspects of participation planning 20 implementation 16 evaluation 11 ∑47 Ignorance of concept of participation 2 Table 3: Qualitative analysis of the definitions of pupils’ participation of counsellors The analysis shows that some of the of definitions are indeed tautological (f = 69); that is, the counsellors describe the understanding of the term partic- ipation only with different words of the same meaning (e.g., participation, in- volvement, pupil participation). From these records, it is difficult to understand what pupil participation means in everyday school life, that is, whether pupils can express their opinions on issues that are important to them, whether their opinions and suggestions are taken into account, in which areas they can partic- ipate in decision-making and so forth. In addition, some counsellors (f = 55) link their understanding of the concept of participation with pupils, either with pupils with LDs (f = 40) or with pupils with status SEN (f = 15). Some (f = 53) give general definitions of the concept of participation and link it either to the whole school activity (f = 38) or to the possibility of involving pupils in content selection, teaching, learning and decision-making (∑f = 15). A large number of counsellors (f = 37) define the concept of participation as the possibility of actively involving pupils in individual aspects of participation, with the planning of an activity in the foreground (f = 20), followed by implementation (f = 16) and evaluation (f = 11). However, two counsellors do not seem familiar with the concept of participation. The understanding of the concept of counsellors’ participation was also com- pared with Hart’s (1992) ladder of participation because it allows for the most comprehensive classification of the definitions received, including nonparticipa- tion (see Table 4). The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 204 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Definitions according to Hart’s ladder of participation f 1. step: Manipulation 1 2. step: Decoration 0 3. step: Tokenism 1 4. step: Assigned but informed 15 5. step: Consulted and informed 39 6. step: Adult-initiated, shared decisions with children 19 7. step: Child-initiated and directed 2 8. step: Child-initiated, shared decisions with adults 0 Undefined 112 Table 4: Participation definition of counsellors according to Hart’s participation ladder Because of the modesty or ambiguity of the record regarding the relationship between adults and pupils, in more than half of the cases, the step of participation could not be determined: regular attendance at hours of assistance and active participation. In other cases, however, individual definitions of participation could mostly (f = 39) be placed at the fifth step of participation, such as the following: Participa- tion of the pupils. Based on pupil experience. Consider their strengths and weak- nesses. Encourage pupils to share their suggestions and follow their suggestions. The sixth (f = 19) and fourth step (f = 15) follow. However, only two records indicated being assigned to the seventh level of participation, for example: This means that the pupils are cocreators of the process, and they cooperate by con- tributing their own opinions and suggestions. I understand this concept as the pupils’ ability to make their own decisions about themselves. About their active participation and involvement in school activities. In less than one-third of the surveyed counsellors (31.7%), we found the no- tion of participation, which, according to Hart (1992), could be classified as real participation (steps 5, 6 and 7). Following Hart (1992), we have placed the defi- nitions under real participation from step 5 on because, from this step on, adults consult with children about how their ideas and opinions will influence the deci- sions of the adults, and the children are also informed about them. Among the definitions of participation, there were also two datasets that Hart would define as nonparticipation, and we placed one in the third step: Active participation of pupils in the development of a plan for implementing the learning assistance, how, when and what exactly their tasks are, what is expected of them. One definition was even included in the first step: By this I mean the will- ingness of the pupils to accept assistance, to be guided and to consider and follow the instructions and recommendations they receive during the hours of additional professional assistance. I see this as the pupil’s interest and self-motivation to complete the tasks, in the sense of filling in gaps in their knowledge and the ability to learn various social skills. Kodele, Lesar 205 To check whether the definitions of counsellors’ participation influence the assessment of the existence of participation in their school, we first formed two groups of surveyed counsellors based on the above analysis: a numerically small- er group whose definitions were rated at the fifth or higher step and the others whose definitions were rated under step 5. The test of the independence hypothesis showed no statistically significant differences (χ2 (1) = 2.13, sig. = .145), meaning that the assessment of the existence of participation at school is not significantly connected to their notions of participation. Our hypothesis that the notion of the participation of counsellors, who otherwise work with everyone at school (pupils and their parents, teachers, management and external institutions), is related to the implementation of participation was not confirmed. From the data and anal- yses, the counsellors in Slovenian schools attribute a greater role to other factors (presented below) in the implementation of participation. Factors that make an important contribution to the realisation of participation of pupils with LDs In addition, we were also interested in examining what factors, according to the counsellors, influence the participation of pupils with LDs. The school coun- sellors were asked to rate the factors listed in Table 5 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means that they believe the factor influences pupil participation the most and 7 the least. Factors affecting the participation of pupils with LDs M St. d. n The preference of the school management for the pupils’ participation in the process of solving their LD 2.23 1.343 168 Willingness of the teacher/counsellor to involve pupils in the process of solving theirs LDs 2.46 1.237 168 Socio-economic status of pupils with LDs 3.02 1.512 168 Good cooperation of the parents of pupils with LDs with the school 3.68 1.718 167 Pupils’ age 4.90 1.329 167 Pupils’ gender 5.58 1.319 167 Pupils’ ethnicity 6.12 1.279 167 Table 5: The influence of individual factors on the participation of pupils with LDs in solving their LDs Note: 1 – most influence, 2 – influence, 3 – partly influence, 4 – neither , nor, 5 – partly does not influ- ence, 6 – little influence, 7 – least influence As shown in Table 5, the participation of pupils with LDs in the solution process is, in the opinion of the counsellors, most strongly influenced by the pref- erence of the school management for pupil participation (M = 2.23) and the will- ingness of the school staff to involve the pupil in the process (M = 2.46). This is The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 206 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies followed by the socio-economic position of the pupil with LD (M = 3.02) and the significant cooperation of the parents with the school (M = 3.68). According to the counsellors, pupil age (M = 4.90), pupil gender (M = 5.58) and pupil ethnicity (M = 6.12) have the least influence. As has been found in other studies (Hodges et al. 2020; Wilson 2002), an important factor in implementing participation is school management and its clearly expressed commitment to implementing participa- tion. We also examined whether there would be differences in the influence of individual factors on participation in terms of the counsellors’ perception of par- ticipation, but the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences. Obstacles to the participation of pupils in general and to the participation of pupils with LD When the counsellors were further asked where they see the obstacles to pupil participation, they could only highlight one of the answers offered that they believe is the biggest obstacle to pupil participation. Obstacles to the participation of pupils f f (%) Deeply rooted hierarchical relationships between adults and children in society that do not require the participation of children. 47 25.1 Unwillingness of adults to get involved with the ideas and thoughts of children. 38 20.3 Adults’ conviction that children cannot be competent adult interlocutors because of underdeveloped higher levels of thought and judgement. 35 18.7 Adults’ conviction that children do not have sufficient communication skills and experience to participate. 15 8.0 Adults believe that involving children in matters that are important to them means that we burden children with too much responsibility too early. 13 7.0 Negative and low adult expectations of children. 9 4.8 Adults’ belief that the participation of children leads to a lack of respect for older people. 8 4.3 Taking the child’s opinion into account when making decisions is very tiring and exhausting because it often takes a long time for a child to be ready to open up. 4 2.1 Other. 18 9.6 Total 187 100.0 Table 6: Counsellors on obstacles to pupils’s participation A quarter of the counsellors (25.1%) answer that the greatest obstacle to pupil participation is »the deeply rooted hierarchical relationships between adults and children in society, which do not require the participation of children«. A fifth of the counsellors (20.3%) choose the response »lack of willingness of adults to engage with children’s ideas and thoughts« and slightly less (18.7%) rate »the adults’ conviction that children cannot be competent adult interlocutors because Kodele, Lesar 207 of an underdeveloped higher level of thinking and assessment« as a major obsta- cle to pupil participation. Less than one-tenth of the counsellors (8.0%) cite »the adults’ conviction that children do not have sufficient communication skills and experience to participate« as a main obstacle. In addition, 7% of the respondents choose the answer »adults’ conviction that children’s participation in matters im- portant to them means that we place too much responsibility on children too ear- ly«. Even fewer (4.8%) vote for the answer »adults’ negative and low expectations of children«, and a similar proportion (4.3%) vote for the answer »adults’ convic- tion that children’s participation leads to a lack of respect for older people«. The smallest percentage of the counsellors (2.1%) choose the answer that »taking the child’s opinion into account when making decisions is very tiring and exhausting, as it often takes a very long time for a child to be ready to open up«. Among other obstacles to participation, the counsellors also mention lack of time, too many pupils, performance-oriented curricula, pupils’ lack of interest, unrealistic expectations of pupils, irresponsibility of pupils, the way parents raise their children and that pupil participation depends on individual activities. Here, too, we examined whether counsellors who perceive participation as real recognise obstacles to its implementation other than those who do not understand partici- pation as being complex. The calculation showed no statistically significant differ- ences (2Ȋ (7) =7.70, sig.= .359), meaning that the identification of obstacles to the implementation of participation does not depend on ideas about the participation of children. We were particularly interested in those cases where the counsellors identify obstacles to pupil participation in the process of solving their LDs. Because we wanted to gain insight into their independent articulation of the obstacles they actually face in the solution process LDs, we offered them an open question and then divided the answers (n = 141) into six categories. Obstacles to the participation of pupils with LDs f f (%) Obstacles on the part of the pupils 78 55.3 Obstacles on the part of school staff or schools 73 51.8 Systemic obstacles 29 20.6 Obstacles on the part of the parents 17 12.1 Poor relationship between pupils and school staff 10 7.1 The importance of adult support for a pupils with LDs 4 2.8 Table 7: Obstacles to the participation of pupils with LDs from the perspective of the counsellors The most frequent (f = 78) obstacles mentioned by the counsellors are those on the pupils’ side: – Pupils’ lack of motivation to deal with LDs, which led to their irresponsibil- ity. – Obstacles related to the personality traits of pupils, their specificities (e.g., emotional and behavioural problems of the pupil, their intellectual abilities), The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 208 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies with particular emphasis on the immaturity and age of the pupil and the low self-esteem of the pupil with LDs. – Social and economic situation or life situation of their family. Obstacles on the part of staff or schools (f = 73) that the respondents most frequently named include the following: – The belief of school staff in the pupil as an incompetent being. – Unwillingness of the school staff to enable and encourage the participation of the pupils with LDs. – The lack of professional knowledge of the teachers to work with the pupils with LDs. – The lack of incentives for the participation of pupils with LDs by the school management. – Bad school atmosphere. In addition to obstacles on the part of the pupils and school, the counsellors frequently mention systemic obstacles (f = 29), here reflected in a lack of time and the resulting overload of the school staff, as well as obstacles on the part of the parents (f = 17), which mainly concern the poor integration of parents into the school or the nonparticipation of parents. Quite a few counsellors also mention poor relationships between school professionals (especially teachers) and pupils with LD as an obstacle or point out the importance of building a good relationship between a school professional and a pupil (f=10). In their responses, the counsel- lors also note the importance of adult support (school staff and parents) in solving LD (f = 4), but adult support sometimes seems to be misunderstood. Some coun- sellors imagine participation by listening to the pupil’s proposal but leave the pu- pil completely alone in implementing the proposal. If this proves to be ineffective, they step out of the position of a person who knows more about communication with children and strengthen both groups’ convictions that children should follow their proposal. Discussion Data analysis shows that, according to the counsellors’ assessment, pupil participation in most processes or activities that also affect pupils does not take place in more than half of the schools. This is a surprising result because we ex- pected participation to be more widespread in Slovenian schools, given that Slove- nia signed the Convention (1989) and Salamanca Declaration (1994). The result is also surprising because, on the other hand, more than 90% of the counsellors state that pupil participation is crucial for effective support in resolving LDs, which is confirmed by the results of many other studies (Gersch 1996; Goepel 2009; Mar- entič Požarnik and Plut Pregelj 2009; Rudduck and Flutter 2004; Sharp 1996; Wade and Moore 1993). Therefore, we asked whether the (mis)understanding of the concept espe- Kodele, Lesar 209 cially contributes to the assessment of the existence of participation in school. The results show that a third of the counsellors give rather tautological answers to the question of what they imagine participation to be and that more than half of them, because of an insufficiently explained understanding of participation, could not be correctly classified in Hart’s participation ladder. Further analyses showed that slightly less than one-third of the counsellors understand participa- tion as real and that no significant correlations between the understanding and evaluation of the existence of participation in school could be found. Does the fact that most Slovenian formal and professional documents in the field of education do not provide real pupil participation contribute to this (Kodele and Lesar 2015)? Indeed, the participation of the pupils should be promoted not only by counsellors, but also by all school professionals and by school legislation. Given previous research on school management as a factor that significantly contributes to the realisation of pupil participation in everyday practice (Hodg- es et al. 2020; Wilson 2002), it is not surprising that the counsellors see school management as a factor that enables the realisation of pupil participation to the highest degree. Obstacles to pupil participation from the perspective of counsel- lors are mainly obstacles on the pupil’s side, on the school management’s side and on systemic obstacles. It is interesting to note that the selection of obstacles in general, which we offered in advance, as well as the obstacles to participation of pupils with LDs, which the respondents themselves wrote based on their experi- ences, appeared quite similar in content and frequency . It is worth noting that the obstacles mentioned in the open questions emphasise the aspect of the inability of a pupil to participate in the solution of LDs. After completing the analyses, we identified some limitations that should be taken into account in the future. The electronic form of the questionnaire enabled easier access to the respondents, but also reduced their motivation to write down their experiences, observations and understandings in more depth, hence making a more complex qualitative analysis impossible. In the future, it would be good to check the obtained data with another research technique (e.g., focus groups) and include at least pupils with LDs. Among the demographic data, it would be appro- priate to include others (e.g., level and profile of education achieved, additional education in the field of LDs). Conclusion Slovenia, like many other countries, is not only a signatory to the Convention (1989), which in Article 12, recognised children as having the right to be heard and to participate in decisions about their own lives, but it is also committed to promoting inclusive schools in the signing of the Salamanca Declaration (1994). The question of pupils’ participation in solving their LDs is even more important because this is a population in Slovenia that is not formally included in the group of children with SEN and would be entitled to legally provided forms of assistance (Lesar 2007). Therefore, the responsibility for finding solutions to pupils’ LDs The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 210 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies rests with schools, and it would be professionally desirable to include the pupils themselves in the process of identifying LDs, offering help and evaluation of help. Especially if we start from the above assessment of the counsellors, the participa- tion of a pupil with LDs in solving their LDs is crucial for effective assistance. This is why we invited counsellors from all Slovenian primary schools to participate in a survey to find out how much pupil participation is actually present in their schools, as well as how they understand participation, its role in solving LDs and obstacles to it. According to the results, the participation of pupils in Slovenian primary schools is not yet part of the routine in the pedagogical practice of school staff because pupil participation in most school processes or activities that also affect pupils does not take place in more than half of the schools. The concept of pupil participation among counsellors is often tautological and shallow, and only a little under a third of the counsellors describe pupil participation in such a way that, based on Hart’s ladder of participation, could be classified as real participation. We believe that only paying attention to the changing nonconstructive percep- tions about the participation of (future) school staff, about their role in creating conditions for the implementation of participation and so forth is not enough. At the same time, we should also pay attention to leadership and the creation of systemic incentives and opportunities to create an appropriate (inclusive) climate and culture. The analysis of the results has shown that management and a col- laborative school culture and climate are crucial to ensuring and promoting pupil participation. Therefore, it would be useful to consider how more content could be taught in school management education to create an appropriate school culture and climate. In any case, it would be worth considering how these findings could be incorporated into the process of education for future school management and professional staff. In particular, the analysis of the respondents’ open-ended answers led to the conclusion that some adults envisage the pupils’ participation in the context of demonstrating and measuring power. It should be noted that this is a rather »per- verse« perception because participation is actually aimed at overcoming inequali- ties of social power (Lynch et al. 2009). Therefore, the focus should be on creating an individual working project of help in which the child is recognised as an expert based on personal experience (Čačinovič Vogrinčič 2008) and school staff are in- volved in communication as experts in teaching, learning and education. References Alderson, P . (2008). Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practice. 2nd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Breiting, S., Mayer, M. and Mogensen, F . (2005). Quality criteria for ESD - schools, guide- lines to enhance the quality of education for sustainable development. Vienna: Austri- an Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Collins, T . M. (2017). A child’s right to participate: Implications for international child pro- tection. The International Journal of Human Rights, 21, issue 1, pp. 14–46. Kodele, Lesar 211 Čačinovič Vogrinčič, G. (2008). Soustvarjanje v šoli: učenje kot pogovor. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. Dahlberg, G. and Moss, P . (2006). Introduction. Our Reggio Emilia. In: C. Rinaldi (ed.). Dialogue with Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge, pp. 1–22. Deal, T. and Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. DeRoiste, A., Kelly, C., Molcho, M., Gavin, A. and Gabhainn, S. N. (2012). Is school partici- pation good for children? Associations with health and wellbeing. Health Education, 112, issue 2, pp. 88–104. Donnelly , C. (2010). Reflections of a Guardian Ad Litem on the participation of looked-after children in public law proceedings. Child care in practice, 16, issue 2, pp. 181–193. Dyson, D., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence. In: D. Mitchell (ed.). Special Educational Needs and Inclusive Education: Major themes in education. London: Routledge Falmer, pp. 208–294. Eriksson, L. (2006). Participation and disability: A study of participation in school for chil- dren and youth with disabilities. Stockholm: Department of woman and child health child and adolescent psychiatric unit Karolinska Institutet. Finn, J. D. and Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils. American Educational Research Journal, 29, issue 1, pp. 141–162. Fitzgerald, R., Graham, A., Smith, A. and Taylor, N. (2009). Children’s participation as a struggle over recognition. In: B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas (eds.). A handbook of children and young people’s participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice. Hoboken: Routledge, pp. 293–305. Gersch, I. S. (1996). Listening to children in educational contexts. In: R. Davie, G. Upton, and V . Varma (eds.). The voice of the child: A handbook for professionals. London: Falmer Press, pp. 27–48. Goepel, J. (2009). Constructing the individual education plan: Confusion or collaboration? Support for Learning, 24, issue 3, pp. 126–132. Gregorčič Mrvar, P ., Jeznik, K., Kalin, J., Kroflič, R., Mažgon, J., Šarić, M. and Šteh, B. (2020). Šolska svetovalna služba: stanje in perspektive. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulte- ta. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From ttokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Hodges, A., Joosten, A., Bourke-Taylor, H. and Cordier, R. (2020). School participation: The shared perspectives of parents and educators of primary school students on the autism spectrum. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 97. Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. London: Cassell. Jeznik, K. (2015). Od prepoznanja do pripoznanja identitete otrok in mladostnikov. Sodob- na pedagogika, 66, issue 1, pp. 28–45. Katsenou, C., Flogaitis, E. and Liarakou, G. (2013). Exploring pupil participation within a sustainable school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, issue 2, pp. 243–258. Kavkler, M. (2011). Konceptualne osnove obravnave učencev z učnimi težavami. In: M. Košak Babuder and M. Velikonja (eds.). Učenci z učnimi težavami. Pomoč in podpora. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, pp. 8–43. Kodele, T . (2017). Participacija učencev v procesu reševanja njihovih učnih težav. PhD diss. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Kodele, T. and Lesar, I. (2015). Do Formal and Professional Documents in the Field of Education Promote Pupil Participation? Sodobna pedagogika, 66, issue 3, pp. 36–51. Košak Babuder, M. and Velikonja, M. (eds.). (2011). Učenci z učnimi težavami. Pomoč in podpora. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 212 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Kroflič, R. (2010). Etična in politična dimenzija projekta Reggio Emilia. In: T . Devjak, M. Batistič Zorec, J. Vogrinc, D. Skubic and S. Berčnik (eds.). Pedagoški koncept Reggio Emilia in kurikulum za vrtce: podobnosti v različnosti. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulte- ta, pp. 11–67. Kroflič, R. (2015). Kje se v partnerstvu med vrtcem/šolo in družino znajde otrok/mladost- nik? Vzgoja in izobraževanje, 46, issue 4/5, pp. 5–12. Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children’s participation in democratic decision-making. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Lansdown, G. (2010). The realisation of children’s participation rights. Critical reflections. In: B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas (eds.). A handbook of Children and Young people’s Participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 11–24. Law, M., Finkelman, S., Hurley, P . Rosenbaum, P . L., King, S., King, G. and Hanna, S. (2004). Participation of children with physical disabilities: Relationships with diagno- sis, physical function, and demographic variables. Scandinavian Journal of Occupa- tional Therapy, 11, pp. 156–162. Lesar, I. (2007). Osnovna šola kot inkluzivno naravnana institucija. PhD diss. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematizing student participation in school Improvement. Journal of Educational Change, issue 6, pp. 125–146. Loreman, T. (2009). Respecting childhood. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Lynch, K., Baker, J. and Lyons, M. (2009). Affective equality: Love, care and injustice. Dub- lin: Palgrave Macmillan. Maciver, D., Rutherford, M., Arakelyan, S., Kramer, J. M., Richmond, J., Todorova, L., Romero-Ayuso, D., Nakamura-Thomas, H., Ten Velden, M., Finlayson, I., O’Hare, A. and Forsyth, K. (2019). Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors. PloS ONE, 14, issue 1. Magajna, L., Pečjak, S., Peklaj, C., Čačinovič Vogrinčič, G., Bregar Golobič, K., Kavkler, M. and Tancig, S. (2008). Učne težave v osnovni šoli: problemi, perspektive, priporočila. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. Malone, K. and Hartung, C. (2010). Challenges of participatory practice with children. In: B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas (eds.). A handbook of children and young people’s participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 24–38. Marentič Požarnik, B. and Plut Pregelj, L. (2009). Moč učnega pogovora: poti do znanja z razumevanjem. Ljubljana: DZS. McCormack, O., O’Flaherty , J. and Liddy , M. (2021). Student’s views on their participation in publicly managed second level schools in Ireland: The importance of student-teach- er relationships. Educational Studies, 47, issue 4, pp. 422–437. McMahon, B. J. and Zyngier, D. (2009). Student engagement: Contested concepts in two continents. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4, issue 2, pp. 164–181. Mellard, D., McKnight, M. and Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional in- tensity. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, issue 4, pp. 217–225. Mesec, B. (1998). Uvod v kvalitativno raziskovanje v socialnem delu. Ljubljana: Visoka šola za socialno delo. Messiou, K. (2002). Marginalisation in primary schools: Listening to children voices. Sup- port for Learning, 17, issue 3, pp. 117–121. Kodele, Lesar 213 Niia, A., Almqvist, L., Brunnberg, E. and Granlund, M. (2014). Student participation and parental involvement in relation to academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 59, issue 3, pp. 297–315. Polak, A. (2008). Timsko delo v vzgoji in izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta. Programske smernice za delo svetovalne službe v osnovni šoli (1999). Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. Rinaldi, C. (ed.). (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge. Robinson, C. (2014). Children, their voices and their experiences of school: What does the evidence tell us? York: Cambridge Primary Review Trust. Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. Lon- don: Continuum. Rutar, S. (2012). Kako razumeti in uresničevati participacijo v vrtcu? Sodobna pedagogika, issue 3, pp. 86–98. Saywitz, K., Camparo, L. B. and Romanoff, A. (2010). Interviewing children in custody cases: Implications of research and policy for practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, issue 4, pp. 542–562. Schofield, G. (2005). The voice of the child in family placement decision-making: A develop- mental model. Adoption and Fostering, 29, issue 1, pp. 29–44. Sharpe, P . (1996). Children’s personal problem solving. In: K. Jones, and T . Charlton (eds.). Overcoming learning and behavior difficulties: Partnership with pupils. London: Routledge, pp. 147–159. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, ppportunities and obligations. Chil- dren & Society, 15, pp. 107–117. Smith, A. B. (2007). Children and young people’s participation rights in education. Interna- tional Journal of Children’s Rights, 15, pp. 147–164. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. (1994). World conference on special needs eduaction: Access and quality. Available at: http:// www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF (Accessed on 3. 5. 2022). Tiusanen, M. (2017). Pupil participation in the development of school culture. Education in the North, 24, issue 1, pp. 88–93. United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UNICEF . Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2004). Pojmovanje učiteljeve in učenčeve vloge pri pouku kot del učitel- jeve profesionalne opreme. In: B. Marentič-Požarnik (ed.). Konstruktivizem v šoli in izobraževanje učiteljev. Ljubljana: Center za pedagoško izobraževanje Filozofske fakultete, pp. 527–544. Vis, S. A. and Thomas, N. (2009). Beyond talking - children’s participation in Norwegian care and protection cases. European Journal of Social Work, 12, pp. 155–168. Vršnik Perše, T ., Schmidt, M., Čagran, B., Košir, K., Hmelak, M., Bratina, T ., Licardo, M., Kalan, M. and Lorbek, T. (2016). Evalvacija različnih oblik dodatne strokovne po- moči, ki je otrokom dodeljena v skladu z Zakonom o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami. Nacionalna evalvacijska študija – končno poročilo. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, MIZŠ, Pedagoški inštitut. Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1993). Experiencing special education. Buckingham: Open Uni- versity Press. Wilson, S. (2002). Student participation and school culture: A secondary school case study. Australian journal of education, 46, issue 1, pp. 79–102. Woodhead, M. (2010). Foreword. In: B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas (eds.). A handbook of children and young people’s participation. Perspectives from theory and practice. Lon- don, New York: Routledge, pp. xix-xxii. The school counsellors about participation of pupils with learning difficulties 214 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Tadeja KODELE (Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za socialno delo, Slovenija) Irena LESAR (Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) ŠOLSKI SVETOVALNI DELAVCI O PARTICIPACIJI OTROK Z UČNIMI TEŽAVAMI Povzetek: Članek temelji na predpostavki, da mora biti zaradi zavezanosti Konvenciji o otrokovih pravicah (1989) in Salamanški izjavi (1994) participacija učencev v šoli pravzaprav prisotna v vseh procesih, ki se vsakodnevno dogajajo. Ker se veliko učencev v času šolanja sooča z večjimi ali manjšimi učnimi težavami, je vprašanje participacije učencev pri reševanju teh težav zelo pomembno, zlasti kadar ima učenec učne težave. Na reprezentativnem vzorcu šolskih svetovalnih delavcev iz slovenskih osnovnih šol je bilo s kombinirano kvantitativno-kvalitativno raziskava ugotovljeno, da je po njihovi oceni participacija učenca pri večini procesov ali dejavnosti v šoli prisotna le na dobrih dveh petinah šol (44 %), čeprav večina šolskih svetovalnih delavcev (90,9 %) ocenjuje, da je participacija učenca pri načrtovanju in izvajanju učne pomoči zanj ključnega pomena. Kvalitativna analiza je pokazala, da so pojmovanja participacije pri večini svetovalnih delavcev zelo skromna, neredko tavtološka, da pa večina ovire za implementacijo participacije vidi predvsem v učencih, pa tudi pri strokovnih delavcih in vodstvu šole. V nadaljnjih raziskavah o participaciji učencev bi bilo dobro upoštevati perspektivo učencev z učnimi težavami ter vključiti več kvalitativnih in kvantitativnih raziskovalnih tehnik. Ključne besede: participacija otrok, učenci z učnimi težavami, ovire za participacijo, vodstvo šole, inkluzija Elektronski naslov: tadeja.kodele@fsd.uni-lj.si Kodele, Lesar