Children’s Well-Being in Inclusive Education

Introduction to Topic

Reflection activity: 

• How do you define well-being?
• How do you define children’s well-being?
• How do you define children’s well-being in schools?
• What has informed your knowledge about children’s well-being?

Since the 1960s, the topic of “well-being” has received more attention in public discourse and more recently, the specific situation of children has also been given greater consideration. Ben-Arieh (2014) points out that the understanding of children’s well-being has changed over time from that of well-becoming to well-being, and from a risk to a positive perspective. In terms of the legal background, the United Nations Convention on Child’s Rights (UNCRC, 1989) plays an important role – it specifies various aspects of children’s well-being and has also been ratified by 196 countries. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is increasingly employed as a framework for shaping policies aimed at enhancing children’s well-being. It seeks to integrate the right to protection with the rights to autonomy and development. Article 29 highlights the concept of the evolving child and frames well-being as development, emphasising the importance of fostering the child’s personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. Similarly, the child’s right to freedom of expression (Article 13) underscores the importance of respecting children’s perspectives, granting them the freedom to seek, receive, and share information and ideas of all kinds. This demonstrates the right of children to be heard and have their views considered in matters affecting them.

In general, there is no consensual understanding on how to define children’s well-being (cf. Minkkinen, 2013: 547; see also O’Hare & Gutierrez, 2012: 614; Mashford-Scott et al., 2012: 235). A number of examples are listed below:

• Focusing on existential dimensions of children’s well-being, UNICEF (2023) takes into account five domains of child well-being: “Survive and Thrive, Learning, Protection from Harm, Safe and Clean Environment and Life free from Poverty”. Within the domains, they use indicators such as “child marriage”, “basic hygiene” or “child poverty”.
• “From a child rights perspective well-being can be defined as the realisation of children’s rights and the fulfilment of the opportunity for every child to be all she or he can be” (Bradshaw et al., 2007).
• Focusing on educational settings, Konu and Rimpelä (2002) argued that four needs should be taken into account in schools (adapted version of Allardt’s theory of welfare) such as “having, loving, being and health status”. An example of “having”, would be “how do you like the school yard?”, whereas “loving” could represent educational relationships. For the domain of “being”, this would consist of their academic development.

Existing definitions, such as the ones above, differ in terms of the domains of life they focus on, including the conceptions of the good life on which they are based, and the level of expectations formulated. In this respect, it depends on the spatial and temporal context, e.g. whether the focus is on the current life situation or on factors that will increase well-being in the future (cf. Mashford-Scott et al., 2012). Furthermore, conceptions of well-being differ in terms of how the child is perceived: For example, whether they are perceived as active agents of well-being.

The next step is to introduce the Structural Model of Child Well-being (SMCW), which will be used as a working definition. We will also discuss what child well-being means from a holistic perspective.

Key aspects

Structural Model of children’s well-being

Figure 1: Structural model of children’s well being

As mentioned above, there are different understandings of child well-being. In the following, we present Jaana Minkkinen’s structural model of child well-being. We have chosen her model as there are clear references to the UNCRC and it includes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory (1981) as well as the work of Vygotsky. For example, Minkkinen emphasises the role of the child as “a constructive, social actor in his or her own life and as an agent in society” (Minkkinnen, 2013: 553). In addition, she highlights the impact of the different dimensions or concepts on children’s well-being.

In defining children’s well-being, Minkkinnen (2013) lists four dimensions, which interplay with each other:

1. “Physical well-being comprises health, the absence of disease, and proper physical functionality” (Minkkinen, 2013: 550). In this regard, Minkkinen takes into account that the prerequisites such as their general health status differ between children, and that they have an impact on their current well-being.
2. “Mental well-being concerns the positive mental situation of the child. It refers to mental health and the absence of psychiatric disorders and includes both emotional and cognitive well-being.” (Minkkinen, 2013: 550).
3. “Social well-being refers to a positive situation between the child and the people in his or her life” (Minkkinen, 2013: 551).
4. “Material well-being implies a positive material situation in the child’s life. It relates to having sufficient nourishment, housing and other material items that are normally elements in the standards of living in the society and culture surrounding the child” (Minkkinen, 2013: 551)  .

In addition, Minkkinen (2013) describes four circles which have an impact on children’s well-being (see Figure above):

• “Subjective action refers to the internal and external activities engaged in by the child that produce well-being for him or her” (Minkkinen, 2013: 552 ). It relates to concrete activities such as thinking, speaking or playing” which may an impact on current well-being or have a positive influence on future well-being.
• “Circle of care refers to those people interacting with the child face to face and their physical, cognitive, emotional, and material support for the child” (Minkkinen, 2013: 554 ). It emphases how individuals can have a significant impact on children’s well-being. This could be relatives such as parents, peers, medical professionals, people from the neighbourhood and teachers, and those who are jointly responsible to take care of the respective children.
• Structures of Society “refer to the way in which social order and cooperation concerning children are organised in society, namely by institutions such as the family, childcare, healthcare, education (…), and the laws and conventions which regulate the functional requirements of these institutions” (Minkkinen, 2013: 555).
• Culture refers to “all kinds of human and societal activity, and pervades every circle in the model” (Minkkinen, 2013: 555).

Minkkinen’s structural model of well-being takes into account different dimensions of well-being and illustrates how these dimensions interact. In addition, it highlights the idea of the child as an active agent. However, it also identifies different circles that can have an impact on children’s well-being.

Children’s well-being in educational settings

With regard to children’s well-being, O’Toole and Simovska (2022) point out that ‘it makes little sense to talk about children’s cognitive or academic progress without also assuming their personal, social and emotional well-being, or vice versa’ (p. 25), in other words, both dimensions are intertwined. It would therefore be short-sighted to view well-being only as a means towards promoting cognitive achievement. It should also be clear that cognitive performance can also have an impact on well-being. In this respect, both well-being and wellbeing need to be considered.

Well-Being from an inclusive perspective

If we look at the structural model of child well-being from an inclusive perspective, it is evident that the concept of well-being—and how it is experienced—varies greatly from child to child, as their unique circumstances shape what is achievable for them. As Minkkinen pointed out, the prerequisites for well-being are not universal and depend on individual factors. For instance, a child with a chronic illness will have a different understanding and experience of well-being compared to a child without such an illness or disability. In this context, well-being cannot be uniformly defined, as the goals and benchmarks for one child’s health and quality of life may differ significantly from those of another.

Theoretical background to children’s well-being

This sub-chapter explores key theories essential to understanding children’s well-being, and focuses on child development, attachment theory, and resilience theory. These theories provide a comprehensive framework for examining how various factors, including relationships, environments, and personal attributes, influence the growth and well-being of children.

Child Development

Child development is an intricate and dynamic process through which children grow, learn, and acquire the essential skills necessary for living in society. This process is multifaceted, encompassing physical, cognitive, emotional, and social domains, each of which plays a crucial role in a child’s overall well-being (Britto et al., 2016; Fattore et al., 2006). During early childhood, particularly the first five years, children undergo rapid brain development, with neural connections forming at an astonishing rate (Britto et al., 2017). These early experiences significantly influence cognitive abilities, emotional regulation, and social interactions (Housman, 2017; Kagitcibasi et al., 2001). According to Jaana Minkkinen’s Structural Model of Child Well-being, these early experiences, and the broader environment, are critical in shaping the child’s development, linking to the subjective actions of the child—their thoughts, emotions, and activities, which directly contribute to their sense of well-being (Minkkinen, 2013).

The environments in which children are raised, including the quality of their relationships, the stimulation they receive, and their access to adequate nutrition, profoundly shape their developmental trajectory (Bradley & Corwyn, 2008; Britto et al., 2016; Britto et al., 2017). Minkkinen emphasises the Circle of Care, which includes those individuals – such as family, peers and teachers – who directly interact with the child and provide physical, cognitive, emotional, and material support. This circle forms a crucial foundation for the child’s growth, ensuring a stable and nurturing environment that promotes healthy development. A nurturing and supportive environment that provides consistent love, intellectual stimulation, and physical care sets the stage for healthy growth and development (Britto et al., 2017). Within this Circle of Care, parents and caregivers play a pivotal role in mediating the impact of external risk factors, such as marginalisation, deprivation, and disadvantages, on a child’s outcomes. Parental knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and resources significantly influence a child’s development (Bornstein et al., 2022).

Moreover, societal structures, as described in Minkkinen’s model, are integral to children’s well-being. Schools, in particular, represent a key component of the societal frame, offering structured opportunities for learning, social interaction, and access to resources that support children’s development. Schools not only provide education but also foster environments where children can develop social skills, build relationships, and experience a sense of belonging. Through the societal frame, schools help shape children’s experiences and opportunities, serving as a bridge between the immediate support offered by the Circle of Care and the broader cultural values and norms.

Encouraging parents to contribute to early childhood development and minimise inequality and disadvantage is a key national and worldwide public policy priority (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2023; Government of Ireland, 2019). By ensuring children have access to supportive environments – whether through family, community, or schools – we lay the groundwork for long-term well-being, resilience, and success in life (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2005) thus ensuring children become agentic citizens of society. This approach aligns with Minkkinen’s emphasis on children’s roles as “constructive social actors” in shaping their own lives and their ability to engage with society (Minkkinen, 2013).

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby and later expanded by Mary Ainsworth (Bretherton, 1994) , offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the critical role of early relationships in a child’s life. According to the theory, the bond formed between a child and their primary caregiver is foundational to the child’s emotional and social development, shaping the child’s potential to learn and thrive (Guerrero, 2021; Pallini et al., 2016; Raby et al., 2012). This attachment bond, established in the early years, serves as the blueprint for future relationships. Secure attachment, characterised by a caregiver’s consistent responsiveness and sensitivity, fosters a sense of safety and trust in the child, enabling them to explore their environment with confidence and form healthy relationships throughout life. Within Minkkinen’s model, these secure relationships are integral to the Circle of Care, directly impacting the child’s subjective actions and sense of well-being.

Conversely, insecure attachment, which may result from inconsistent, neglectful, or unresponsive caregiving, can lead to difficulties in managing emotions, forming relationships, and maintaining self-esteem (Lewis et al., 2000; Priddis & Howieson, 2012). Disorganised attachment, often associated with experiences of trauma or neglect, poses even greater challenges, leading to deep-seated issues with trust, fear, and emotional instability (Green & Goldwyn, 2002; Skibniewski-Woods, 2017; Wilkins, 2012). The attachment style that a child develops in these formative years profoundly impacts their ability to build and maintain relationships, handle stress, and navigate social situations. Therefore, fostering secure attachments through attentive and responsive caregiving is crucial for promoting social, emotional, behavioural, and educational well-being in early and later childhood.

Resilience Theory

Resilience theory describes the capacity of individuals, particularly children, to adapt positively to adversity, stress, or trauma (Masten, 2018; Masten & Barnes, 2018). Central to this theory, resilience is viewed as a dynamic process influenced by a combination of internal and external factors such as individual characteristics, family dynamics, and broader social environments. Resilience involves the ability to self-regulate, solve problems effectively, maintain a positive self-concept, and access supportive relationships. These aspects align closely with Minkkinen’s concept of subjective actions, as children actively engage in problem-solving and develop coping mechanisms.

The development of resilience is largely facilitated by protective factors that mitigate the impact of adverse experiences (Rutter, 1985; Rutter, 2012). These protective factors are closely linked to the Circle of Care – supportive relationships with caregivers, positive experiences within the educational system, and a cohesive, caring community (Werner, 1996). Schools, as part of the societal frame, also play a crucial role in fostering these protective relationships, helping children to develop resilience by providing a safe and structured environment for growth and learning.

Conclusion

The concepts of child development, attachment theory, and resilience theory are deeply interconnected, collectively highlighting the critical importance of nurturing environments in promoting children’s well-being. Healthy child development is fundamentally dependent on the presence of secure attachments, which provide the emotional foundation necessary for children to explore their world, form meaningful relationships, and develop a sense of self-worth (Masten, 2001). These secure attachments, in turn, are instrumental in fostering resilience, enabling children to face challenges with confidence, adaptability, and perseverance.

When children are supported through the Circle of Care, consisting of strong, stable relationships and positive developmental experiences, they are more likely to thrive, even in the face of adversity. This interconnectedness underscores the need to ensure that children grow up in environments that foster secure attachments, support healthy development, and build resilience. Such environments, influenced by societal structures like schools and guided by cultural values, contribute to children’s immediate well-being and lay the groundwork for lifelong mental, emotional, and social health.

By nurturing these foundational aspects, we contribute to the development of resilient, well-adjusted individuals who are capable of contributing positively to society, ultimately leading to a more resilient and healthy community as a whole.

Indicators of children’s wellbeing

Internationally, there has been a plethora of well-being assessment instruments designed to determine levels of at least one feature of children’s well-being. However, in reality, the practical application of these instruments is inadequate for the purpose of actually teaching in the classroom. In terms of data collection for example, UNICEF must rely on the accessibility, and availability of, data when assessing the status of child well-being across different countries (UNICEF, 2023). Furthermore, while the data provides invaluable, if not complete insight into the implications of events on children’s well-being, it does not produce contextual information which educators can use in the here and now.

Within the broader use of well-being measurement instruments, social indicators are key, as they gather data relating to health, safety, feelings of love and happiness, successful social relationships, access to learning and development opportunities, and material or economic necessities. Indeed, Ben-Arieh and colleagues (2014) argue that the general concept of well-being represents a conceptual framework that merges empirical studies and normative assessments while also bridging policies and research. For instance, The Good Childhood Index (UK) was developed by The Children’s Society in 2010 as part of their well-being research programme and is still in use today. It measures the well-being of children aged eight years and over. The Index is made up of a five-item measure of overall life satisfaction using the Modified Students Life Satisfaction Scale – a single item measure of happiness relating to life as a whole – and finally, a series of questions about well-being in ten key areas of children’s lives. These areas include: family, friends, health, home, appearance, time use, the future, money and possessions, school, and amount of choice. While this provides important information, there is little practical guidance for the educator on how to understand the thoughts and feelings of children they work with on a daily basis.

Traditionally, well-being measurement instruments, rather than supporting children’s current levels of well-being, are very much problem-based and deficit-focussed as they are tasked with providing information to tackle what are seen as potential future problems such as mental health disorders, obesity, or anti-social behaviour (Liddle & Carter, 2015; Tisdall, 2015). For example, the New Economics Forum, a think tank that offers innovative ways of looking at future investment and economies, discusses measuring children’s current levels of well-being meaningfully to inform policies which will promote future economic stability (Lawlor et al., 2009). These types of well-being measurement approaches are seen as valuable, particularly in the fields of politics and economics, in terms of both assessing current interventions and informing funding and planning for future ones (Qvortrup, 2009). Such well-being measurement scales construct the child in terms of being a human becoming future adults whose potential physical and social demands on society must be managed by addressing what is ‘lacking’ within her/his current context, rather than as a human being – a competent and agentic social actor with inalienable rights, operating in the here and now (Einarsdottir et al., 2015; Minnkkinen, 2013; O’Toole, Dowling & McElheron, 2023; Qvortrup, 2009). It could be argued that children’s current levels of well-being are frequently scrutinised through a negatively focussed lens, often to inform prospective actions and decisions rather than to recognise and nurture their contemporary levels of well-being. However, it must be acknowledged that children’s current lived experiences are valuable indicators of prospective outcomes over which society can have a positive effect and has a duty to nurture.

There has been some movement in terms of the consideration of children’s well-being within measurement instruments. This is evidenced by some attempts to reframe mental health and well-being in terms of positive psychology which highlights the power of utilising positive experiences and reflections to bring about effective change (Liddle et al., 2015; Nishida et al., 2021). Yet another development is the move towards considering subjective well-being, or seeking out children’s evaluations of their ‘personal assessment processes’ as Minkkinen has put it (2013: 550). These personal assessments of well-being involve individual’s self-reports of health, welfare and overall satisfaction and happiness and are seen as crucial to the true and effective measurement of well-being. This can be seen in resources such as the Stirling Children’s Well-Being Scale (SCWBS) which was developed by the Stirling Council Educational Psychology Service in the United Kingdom, and has been adapted for use in various international contexts. Its development drew on current theories of well-being and positive psychology to provide a method of measuring the effectiveness of interventions and projects designed to promote children’s well-being and emotional development. The SCWBS utilises a set of positively-worded questions to establish a holistic gauge which measures the emotional and psychological well-being of children aged 8-15 years. While the SCWBS’s move from focusing on mental illness to subjective mental well-being is a constructive one, it should be said that this is a development which has taken place on a limited scale within a specific area of well-being research, that of mental well-being. While this trend of using a strengths-based lens to examine aspects of children’s well-being is gaining momentum, it is yet to be the norm in other domains of well-being research, such as environmental or physical (Nishida et al., 2021).

A significant factor to keep in mind when considering children’s well-being frameworks is the fact that they have almost exclusively been designed by adults with children as their focus, but with little or no design input from children themselves (Fane et al., 2020; Rosenthal and Ben-Arieh, 2022). The exclusion of children’s perspectives from child well-being knowledge is problematic as it affords the possibility for undemocratic and inequitable child well-being frameworks which can stifle children’s agency. Notably, recent innovative research has revealed that when children are involved in research on this topic, they bring a unique perspective, often identifying important concepts which have often been lacking in previous research. In particular, child researchers have specifically identified agency and autonomy as key indicators of how to accurately gauge their own well-being (Moore et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2021). These studies sought to address the imbalance between child and adult voices in research on children’s well-being. Importantly, they have positioned children as co-researchers and provided a platform for children to contribute to the body of knowledge on children’s well-being (Moore et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2021). This repositioning of children as co-constructors in research, rather than merely participants, reframes them as intrinsic and integral to that research rather than simply incidental to the curiosity of the researcher. Within these studies, children have clearly articulated what well-being means to them with many identifying well-being indicators which are already utilised within current child well-being frameworks. However, many of these studies have also empowered children to contribute to new ways of defining and measuring well-being such as the importance of children’s agency and autonomy in play (Fane et al., 2020; Hart & Brando, 2018).

With that in mind, whether designed with or without children’s insights, such well-being measurement scales generally require the user to answer written questions while removed from the context of a dynamic educational setting, rather than recognising and responding to indicators of well-being while they are being played out in real time. In essence, whether well-being measurement tools are being completed by a child or an observer, the information which is gathered is based on predetermined measures and is more likely to be used to inform future developments as opposed to guiding dynamic and ongoing interactions. While these well-being measurement scales serve a valuable purpose, they are seemingly ubiquitous, with far fewer resources to support the educator in everyday practice. Resources focussed on dynamic well-being indicators, or in simple terms, those that support educators in knowing what to look out for, are far fewer on the ground. In response to this, a resource to guide educators in gauging children’s active and dynamic well-being is available at the end of this chapter.

What has an impact on children’s wellbeing and how can we support children’s well-being?

Shaping Well-Being: The Role of National Policy in Supporting Children and Families

National policy plays a crucial role in promoting children’s well-being by developing strong and supportive families and communities. This role is multifaceted, encompassing the establishment of legal frameworks, the provision of essential resources, and the implementation of programmes designed to create environments where children can thrive. Central to these efforts are national policies that establish legal frameworks to protect and promote children’s rights and well-being, ensuring that every child receives the care and support necessary for healthy development. These frameworks align with Jaana Minkkinen’s model, particularly in shaping the societal structures that impact child well-being. They create a society where the safety and well-being of children are prioritised and safeguarded, contributing to the broader societal and cultural context in which children grow (see Hickey at al., 2023).

One key aspect of policy is the enactment and enforcement of child protection laws. Such laws are designed to shield children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, which are critical to ensuring their physical and emotional safety (Burns & McGregor, 2018; Devaney & Gregor, 2016; Devaney & McGregor, 2015). For instance, mandatory reporting laws require professionals who work with children, such as educators and healthcare providers, to report any suspicions of abuse or neglect, thus creating a safety net for vulnerable children (Hanly, 2020; Pellegrini et al., 2022). This aligns with Minkkinen’s concept of structures of society, where institutions like schools and healthcare systems are crucial in maintaining and protecting children’s rights. Additionally, family support legislation plays a significant role in fostering environments where children can flourish. Policies that mandate parental leave allow parents to spend crucial early months with their newborns, fostering secure attachments that are foundational to emotional and social development. Flexible working hours and family benefits further support work-life balance, enabling parents to be more involved in their children’s lives, which is essential for nurturing strong family bonds and promoting overall well-being (Hewitt et al., 2017; Heymann et al., 2017; Moss‐Racusin et al., 2021).

Child poverty is a complex and multidimensional issue that goes beyond a mere lack of financial resources, encompassing broader concerns such as social exclusion, capabilities, and human development. While traditional definitions of poverty focus on inadequate command over economic resources (Atkinson, 1989), contemporary perspectives recognise that poverty’s impacts extend to fundamental aspects of a child’s well-being, such as their ability to participate fully in their community or lead a life they value (Sen, 1999). This broadened understanding underscores that poverty not only diminishes material living standards but also limits access to opportunities, impacts social relationships, and restricts agency. For children, these deficits are particularly detrimental as they shape their developmental trajectories and influence their future life chances, highlighting the urgency of addressing child poverty as a multidimensional problem (Lister, 2004). Lone parenthood, ethnicity, disability and family size have been identified as being associated with persistent poverty (Children’s Rights Alliance, 2023). Prolonged exposure to poverty and deprivation significantly affects children’s outcomes across various domains, including their physical and mental health, educational achievement, and socio-emotional well-being (Children’s Rights Alliance, 2023). It can also lead to low self-esteem, which may contribute to mental health difficulties later in life. The longer a child remains trapped in the cycle of consistent poverty, the more profound the negative impact on their self-perception, aspirations, and ability to seize opportunities and reach their full potential. However, these outcomes are not inevitable, and with the right policy decisions, it is possible to break the cycle of child poverty.

National policies allocate funding and resources to universal and targeted supports that directly benefit children and their families. Early family supports are crucial in addressing and mitigating the impacts of poverty and economic stress, which as discussed above, can be significant barriers to child well-being. Welfare programs such as child allowances and tax credits provide families with the financial means to meet their children’s basic needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter. These efforts relate to Minkkinen’s emphasis on material well-being, ensuring that children have access to resources that meet their basic needs and contribute to a stable living environment. Such supports are particularly vital for low-income families, helping to level the playing field and giving all children, regardless of their socio-economic background, the opportunity to thrive. Policy initiatives in Ireland such as Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures (Department of Children and Youth affairs, 2014), the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme (2016) and First 5 (Department of Children and Youth affairs, 2018), are dedicated to the provision of quality services for young children and their families in order to improve their child learning, development and wellbeing and support parenting competencies. More recently, the Young Ireland (2023) framework (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2023), developed in consultation with children and young people, ensures that future strategies reflect a child rights-based approach to decisions that affect children by placing them at the centre of policy and decision-making. This approach is designed to target child poverty and well-being by focusing on key areas, including; education reform and inclusion in education, child protection, access to housing and access to further/higher education, youth and family justice, and play and recreation and the digital environment.

Early supports for families, supported by national policy, often include the provision of home visiting services. These services are services, are often multi-faceted in their aims, but many prioritise strengthening the parent-child bond, offering guidance on responsive parenting practices that foster secure attachment and emotional stability. In addition, many services often focus on enhancing cognitive development through early learning activities and guidance for parents on how to stimulate their child’s intellectual growth at home. By promoting positive interactions, home visiting services reinforce the circle of care described by Minkkinen, to help ensure that children benefit from supportive relationships in their formative years. A recent review of home visiting in Ireland found that home visiting promoted child learning and development, strengthened parent and child skills, and fostered a positive parent-child bond (Hickey et al., 2024). While there is considerable evidence that home visiting, as an early intervention programme, can help to promote positive child development and family outcomes in disadvantaged areas, evidence as to ‘what works best’ is hampered by the variability of programme components and robust evidence on programme effectiveness (Hickey et al., 2024).Despite this, home visiting programmes are particularly effective in reaching families who might be isolated or have limited access to traditional services. They have been shown to mitigate the effects of poverty and related challenges such as substance use or housing instability by connecting families to community resources and offering tailored support (McGilloway et al., 2024). By offering support directly to families, these services bridge the gap between state resources, including psychological and therapeutic services and other healthcare and educational systems, and the day-to-day realities of parenting. This aligns with Minkkinen’s model, where the structures of society – including policies and services – play a vital role in shaping children’s environments. By funding home visiting services, national policies help ensure that families receive early, consistent support, enhancing the subjective actions of children – how they engage, learn, and grow – within a nurturing and stable context. Ultimately, this holistic approach contributes to creating a more equitable and inclusive society, where every child has the foundation to achieve their full potential.

Policy in inclusive education plays a critical role in upholding the well-being of children with special educational needs (SEN) by ensuring their access to quality education. This begins with legal frameworks that guarantee the right of children with SEN to learn alongside their peers in mainstream classrooms. These frameworks often align with international agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which emphasises the importance of inclusive education. By embedding these rights into law, policies hold educational institutions accountable for providing supportive and accessible learning environments. This legal protection ensures that children with SEN are not discriminated against, and that their specific needs are addressed, thus creating a foundation for their academic and social well-being. By promoting inclusivity, national policies help create a school culture that aligns with the cultural aspects of Minkkinen’s model, where every child feels valued and supported, which is essential for their social and emotional development. This inclusive approach is not only beneficial to the child with SEN but also enriches the educational experience for all students, fostering empathy, understanding, and a sense of community.

In addition to legal guarantees, inclusive education policies provide for the allocation of resources that are essential for meeting the diverse needs of children, particularly children with disabilities/ SEN. Funding supports the hiring of specialised professionals, such as special education teachers, speech therapists, and psychologists, who can provide targeted support to children. It also enables training for general educators, equipping them with the skills to implement inclusive teaching strategies. Furthermore, policies often provide for assistive technologies and adaptive learning tools that allow children with SEN to engage with the curriculum. These resources ensure that students with SEN have the tools and support necessary to overcome barriers to learning, promoting their academic growth and allowing them to participate fully in the school environment.

Inclusive education policies also focus on fostering school cultures that embrace diversity and create a sense of belonging for all students. This includes promoting whole-school approaches to inclusivity, where teachers, students, and parents work together to build a welcoming and supportive environment. By encouraging practices such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), policies help schools create flexible teaching methods that accommodate a variety of learning styles and abilities, ensuring that every child can succeed. These inclusive practices not only enhance academic outcomes but also support the social and emotional well-being of children with SEN, as they feel accepted and valued in their school community. Together, legal protections, resources, and inclusive practices ensure that children with SEN are provided with the opportunities and support they need to thrive in a quality educational setting.

In summary, national policies play a pivotal role in promoting children’s well-being by establishing the legal and social frameworks necessary for the development of strong, supportive families and communities. Drawing on Minkkinen’s Structural Model of Child Well-being, these policies shape the societal structures that support the Circle of Care surrounding each child, while fostering environments where children’s subjective actions can flourish. Through a combination of legal protections, financial support, access to healthcare and nutrition, and the provision of quality education, these policies create an environment where children can thrive. By addressing the diverse needs of children and ensuring that all have access to the resources and opportunities they need, national policies help lay the foundation for a healthier, more equitable society.

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disability: A Holistic Approach to Well-Being

Children with special educational needs face unique challenges that can impact their well-being across physical, emotional, social, and academic domains. Inclusive educational settings are essential in fostering an environment where these children can thrive, not merely by addressing deficits, but by recognising and building on their individual strengths and capabilities (Forde, 2023). The importance of a nurturing and supportive “Circle of Care,” as outlined by Minkkinen’s structural model, is particularly critical for children. This care network – encompassing teachers, peers, families, and wider community resources – must work collaboratively to create an environment of belonging and inclusion. Legal frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) reinforce the necessity of inclusive education, holding institutions accountable for providing accessible learning environments. Practical measures, such as individualised learning plans, assistive technologies, and tailored teaching strategies, ensure that students with SEN have equitable opportunities to achieve their full potential. However, inclusion goes beyond academic support – it also requires cultivating a school culture that prioritises social connection, emotional well-being, and active participation for all students. Schools that embrace UDL principles, for example, not only accommodate diverse needs but also foster a sense of community and shared purpose, enriching the educational experience for every child.

The Ethics of Care in Supporting Inclusion and Belonging

Ensuring the well-being of children with SEN necessitates an “ethics of care” approach, particularly in a neoliberal context where the emphasis on measurable outputs and academic performance often sidelines relational aspects of education (Forde, 2023). In such systems, teachers may find their capacity to extend care constrained by time pressures and accountability metrics, leaving those with the greatest need for support underserved. Yet, care is central to fostering a sense of inclusion and belonging which are critical components of well-being. When educators prioritise care, they create spaces where children feel valued, understood, and empowered to participate. This care must be visible not just in one-on-one relationships but also in the broader school culture, reflected in inclusive policies, collaborative leadership, and meaningful engagement with families and communities. Research underscores that a caring approach mitigates the negative effects of systemic inequities by addressing the relational and emotional dimensions of learning environments. Teachers, therefore, act not just as instructors but as advocates and allies, ensuring that the voices of SEN children are heard and their needs met. By embedding care into the fabric of educational practices, schools can resist the depersonalising tendencies of neoliberalism and instead cultivate environments that ensures the well-being of all children—especially those with SEN—can thrive as active and valued members of their communities.

Holistic Approaches to Supporting Well-Being in Inclusive School Settings

​​The role of the school in supporting well-being in inclusive settings needs to be addressed holistically. According to Minkkinen (2013), a comprehensive understanding of child well-being encompasses not only individual development but also the social, emotional, and environmental contexts in which children thrive. To effectively support children’s well-being, schools must address a range of factors, including optimal school conditions, such as resources, physical facilities and support services. Key indicators of students’ well-being include positive attitudes and emotions towards school, joy in the learning environment, a positive academic self-concept, and the absence of worries, somatic complaints, and social problems (Hascher, 2003). Creating a nurturing environment and positive climate is essential, as is fostering inclusive leadership practices that engage students in decision-making. Additionally, building strong partnerships with families and the community, along with providing robust support and training for educators, is crucial for fostering an inclusive atmosphere where all children can flourish.

School conditions in terms of well-being refer to the physical conditions of the area, the learning environment, and the services provided by the school (Konu & Rimpela, 2002). An ideal school environment utilises the physical structure to encourage healthy behaviours and support social-emotional well-being, encompassing educational spaces, physical activity, and food preparation (Hawkins et al., 2023). Physical conditions include crowdedness, noise level, lighting, ventilation, temperature, cleanliness, safety (incident risk), and facility conditions. The conditions in a classroom are significantly affected by school resources, and how these resources are effectively used is crucial for creating an optimal learning environment. However, having more resources does not guarantee well-being, nor does having fewer resources mean that children’s well-being is not supported. The real impact of schools on children’s well-being is not determined by how much resources they have but by how effectively those resources are used. From a justice perspective, as Schweiger (2015) emphasises, the focus should be on what children can realistically do and become (i.e., their capabilities and function) rather than just the resources provided to them. Resources are only valuable if successfully transformed into opportunities that enhance children’s well-being. This perspective highlights that, inequities and injustices, such as discrimination, can hinder the effective use of resources, making it crucial for schools to ensure that their resources are used in ways that genuinely support the development and well-being of all children.

Other essential parts of the learning environment are the psychological and emotional environment, often called the school climate. A positive climate feels safe, friendly, inviting, and supportive; others feel exclusionary, unwelcoming, and often unsafe (Kutsyuruba et al., 2015). Thapa and colleagues (2013) identify five essential school climate aspects critical to fostering a positive and effective learning environment. Firstly, safety includes rules and norms, physical safety, and social-emotional safety, ensuring that pupils feel protected and supported. Secondly, relationships play a crucial role, including respect for diversity, strong school ties and commitment, social support, effective leadership and the impact of students’ race and ethnicity on their perceptions of school climate. Third, teaching and learning covers a broad spectrum, including social, emotional, ethical and civic education, service learning, and support for academic and professional growth, as well as teacher and student perceptions. Fourth, the institutional environment addresses the physical environment, resources, and facilities that contribute to the functionality and attractiveness of the school. Finally, the school improvement process involves continuous efforts to improve various dimensions of the school environment to create a better overall climate for students and staff. Taken together, these aspects provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving school climate.

Positive relationships within the school context are known to contribute to children’s well-being. From an ecological perspective, any relationship within the school is interconnected with other ecosystems in children’s lives (Roffey, 2012). The role of the school within this system is to develop its relationship positively, both within itself and with other systems as a mesosystem. From this perspective, the school serves as a space for reciprocal interactions between children, educators, staff, and home. The educator-child relationship could be a protective factor by promoting healthy development, especially for at-risk children (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Teacher training from a relational perspective effectively supports teacher-child relationships at the school level (Lyon et al., 2009; Rudasill et al., 2020). Common characteristics of schools, where peer relationships are more positive, include leaders with a vision of safety and well-being, effective behavioural policies, and planning that emphasises relationality (McGrath & Noble, 2010). Holistically, implementing effective school-based Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programmes has demonstrated positive relational and behavioural outcomes for children. Another important relational aspect is staff relations. Caring relationships between colleagues and principals are positively associated with educator well-being and engagement while reducing burnout and coping with stressful situations at school (Eldor & Shoshani, 2016). These findings show that school policies that prioritise relationships can positively affect relationships within the school in a multifaceted way. Similarly, a positive, inviting, and inclusive school culture, leadership with a clear vision, safe and reciprocal relationships, and opportunities for participation are prominent in family-school relationships (Haines et al., 2015). Additionally, the way to effective school-family relationships is to see the family as equal partners who want the best for the children and involve them as collaborators in their child’s learning (Roffey, 2012).

School leadership is seen as a critical factor for children’s well-being and inclusion, targeting specific learning needs that vary depending on the context (Fonsén et al., 2022; Douglas, 2022). The principles of effective leadership for inclusion are as follows: inclusive principles, a strategy that includes the whole school, and a shared leadership model (Ekins, 2013). It is important to prepare inclusive principles and a strategic foundation in an adaptable way. This outlines the school’s shared idea of inclusiveness and steps to prioritise child well-being. However, creating this shared idea means reviewing the members’ values, beliefs, and meanings. The Index for Inclusion (Booth et al., 2006) is helpful for schools planning their inclusive practices. This includes the key concepts for inclusion, such as planning techniques for inclusive frameworks, and outcome evaluation strategies, and is a useful roadmap for schools looking to support child well-being and participation. While it is clear that prioritising whole-school well-being and inclusiveness is a systematic process, it is also evident that the leadership that promotes these practices is highly effective. Ryu and colleagues (2020) indicate that leaders can shift the school approach more positively with their educational vision, personal values, and adjustments to organisational priorities and structures, transcending individual relationships. To effectively implement the systematic changes, school leaders must be trained, exposed to good practices, and supported in developing their vision, as this can significantly impact inclusiveness at schools. Consider visiting the “Leadership for Inclusion” chapters for detailed information about inclusive school leadership.

Teachers as Catalysts for Children’s Well-Being: Key Influences and Support Strategies 

Improving what we do as educators and perhaps more importantly, how we do it, builds personal practice, confidence and self-esteem. When practice is honed, meaningful connections can be made between educator and student, laying firm foundations on which both educator and child well-being can be built. Considerable research has identified the symbiotic relationship between educator and child well-being (Harding et al., 2019, Lavy & Naama-Ghanayim, 2020; Marigen et al., 2022;). In particular, this relationship emphasises the importance of the connections between educator well-being and classroom interactions, which in turn support affective environments which nurture social, emotional and cognitive development for all concerned. Educator well-being can be influenced by different factors, many of which have been discussed elsewhere in this chapter (see section on School’s Role in Supporting Well-Being). However, on an individual level, educators who focus on developing an effective personal practice are well positioned to improve levels of personal and professional well-being. So how can we hone our practice?

Reflective Practice

The process of reflection is regarded as an essential aspect of building teaching practice (Brookfield, 2017; Farrell, 2015); and its implications for improving communication and building relationships, underscores reflection as an integral skill required to support inclusive practice and children’s well-being. It has frequently been noted that educators reflect constantly, although often in an informal way (Brookfield, 2017; Kraft, 2002; Schön,1983; Schön, 2017). While the knowledge to be gained from regular reflecting on the practicalities of what happens during an educator’s working day is invaluable, critical reflection provides a deeper understanding of an educator’s personal practice. So, when does reflection become critical reflection? Schön’s research on professional education (1983) focused on distinguishing between reflection in action and reflection on action. Reflection in action is the thought process that we have whilst involved in a situation, during which we become aware of what we are thinking, feeling and doing. Whereas reflection on action takes place at a later stage, when we consider the events that took place and the subsequent consequences, and relate these to what we were thinking, feeling and doing. The dynamic interplay between both types of reflection creates a process in which the educator can better understand the implications of her/his personal practice and the far-reaching effects it can have on others, including their subjective well-being.

This is particularly pertinent when considering the relational aspect of pedagogy and the complex nature of actions and interactions which take place in a dynamic and diverse classroom environment. Indeed, relational pedagogies require significant levels of responsiveness and reciprocity which are regularly informed by relevant and meaningful feedback on their efficacy. Reich (2017) reports that the ability to be appropriately responsive or as he terms it, reflexive, requires constant reflection. Within the process of self-reflection, there is a degree of self-research which leads to developing levels of personal understanding and growth. Of course, any process is made more fruitful by applying as much pertinent information to it as possible. One way to appreciably inform reflective practice is to utilise Brookfield’s four lenses of critical reflection (2017). He suggests that educators need to see themselves from different angles in order to fully appreciate many aspects of their practice, including the effect they have on others and their sense of self. He goes on to argue that as individuals harbour implicit views and assumptions that guide their actions, then perhaps the individual is not always best placed to interrogate their own actions objectively. By extension, when educators reflect on their own teaching, they are more likely to self-confirm their actions rather than self-reflect. Brookfield offers some guidance in counteracting this tendency by identifying four lenses which can be used to guide educators to be objective in their subjective reflection. These are:

Students Eyes

Seeing ourselves through the eyes of students allows us to understand the effect our actions and communications can have on them. Our actions, even when they are entirely well-meaning, can have significant effects on a child’s well-being in both positive and negative ways. It is important to recognise and acknowledge that the meanings we ascribe to our actions may not be perceived in the same way by the students who are at the receiving end of those actions; looking at ourselves through the eyes of the students provides valuable insight into how our actions and communications are received.

Colleagues’ Perspectives

Inviting colleagues to observe and discuss practice can provide insights from those who have a shared, contextual understanding and appreciation of actions and interactions. They can offer new perspectives and often suggest responses which may never occur to individuals when reflecting in isolation. Moreover, shared and professional dialogue regarding children’s learning, development and well-being bolsters shared and sustained thinking, and fosters a sense of inclusive practice amongst team members.

Personal Experience

Your own experience as a student educator brings with it a wealth of understanding of how environment, context and dynamics can help or hinder your ability to feel secure, confident and self-assured. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) provides ongoing opportunities to not only upskill in specific areas, but also offers opportunities for personal reflection on learning contexts and environments.

Theory and Research

Theory and Research can furnish unanticipated and illuminating interpretations of the familiar, as well as revealing unfamiliar knowledge and understanding. Moreover, Theory and Research are not static in nature, but rather evolve, bringing ever-developing understanding to our work as educators. Arming ourselves with the most current and pertinent information can only support our efforts to nurture children’s well-being and build inclusive educational settings.

Brookfield’s four lenses framework is highly valuable in enabling educators to assess the impact of their personal practice and is particularly pertinent in relation to supporting educator and child well-being.

Pedagogy of Care

A significant element of Minkinnen’s SMCW Model (2013) is the presence of a Circle of Care, in which it is acknowledged that children’s well-being is highly dependent on those individuals who interact with them face to face. Here it is recognised that, amongst others, teachers provide physical, cognitive, emotional and material support to children through a lens of care. However, the connection between care and education is one that is more embedded in some educational areas than others. For example, the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is one which espouses the belief that education and care are intrinsically linked, and that there cannot be one without the other. As a direct result of the interconnectedness of care and education, children’s well-being is often a key focus of educators within the field of ECEC. The Key Person Approach (Goldschmied & Jackson, 2004) often acts as an effective framework that Early Childhood Educators utilise to direct their focus and actions. This approach sees each child explicitly linked to an educator who is personally responsible for building a close relationship with the child, acting as a significant figure of attachment for the child and liaising closely with family. Within other educational settings, the subject of well-being is often just that – an explicit topic which is covered by a detailed curriculum. For example, in Ireland, well-being has been added to the Primary and Special School curriculum, with an overall goal of supporting children’s well-being through integrating the subjects of Physical Education (PE) and Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE). This has led to ‘well-being’ being treated like other subjects within the curriculum, often with the usual set of expectations, such as homework, attached. Correspondingly, a report on equity and excellence in education from the International Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that indeed, schools in many jurisdictions typically rely on explicit curricula and programmes as the prevailing approach for promoting student wellbeing (OECD, 2016). According to the report, most schools implement wellbeing programmes through dedicated units or strands within physical and health education, civic and citizenship education, moral or religious education. This is in contrast to the area of ECEC, where care and well-being are seen as an implicit part of educators’ work with children as opposed to an explicit body of knowledge to be imparted. While it is vital that educators know, and work, within the curriculum they are provided with (what we do), however, how educators work with children when utilising the curriculum (how we do) is equally important. When care underpins educators’ actions and interactions, relationships are stronger and well-being is fostered.

Building a Sense of Belonging

It is interesting to note that many well-being measurement scales contain evaluative questions based on feelings of belonging, highlighting the importance of individuals feeling a sense of inclusion or togetherness for the betterment of their subjective well-being. Added to this, the growing body of research which examines the link between a sense of belonging and effective learning contexts and environments (Hurley, 2023; Juutinen, Ólafsdóttir, & Einarsdóttir, 2024; Rose & Shevlin, 2017), points to the necessity for educators to promote environments where children feel they belong. Engaging with diverse communities of students requires the educator to adopt the view of belonging as a holistic and relationally constructed concept which does not necessarily require a shared language, ethnicity, religion, gender, background or age. Rather, what is required is a sense of shared space and focus, where each person present feels that she/he is welcomed, recognised, valued and has agency within that space. As in all matters related to children’s well-being, the educator’s role in building a sense of belonging is informed by her/his relationships with those with whom that space is shared. Knowing each child’s personality, strengths, and family and cultural context, is key to shaping a space that can both reflect and nurture those who engage within it, adult and child alike. When educators build a welcoming and empowering educational setting, they not only reveal the complexities and the strengths of the children they work with, but they also provide a window into their personal practice, revealing the values and care that underpin their work with children.

Peer’s and Family’ Role: What has an impact on children’s well-being and how can we support children’s well-being?

The relationship between parents and children serves as a critical protective factor in a child’s well-being, offering emotional security, guidance, and a foundation for resilience. This bond becomes even more significant when extended to include collaborative relationships with schools and teachers, creating a unified support system that reinforces the child’s well-being. When schools actively engage with families – particularly those of children with special educational needs (SEN), disabilities, or immigrant backgrounds – they bridge gaps in understanding and create opportunities for tailored support. Adopting a capabilities approach in these collaborations ensures that the focus is on what children are capable of, rather than merely addressing deficits. Close communication between parents and educators enables a shared understanding of the child’s unique needs and strengths, fostering trust and aligning efforts to create inclusive and supportive environments. For children from immigrant backgrounds, this collaboration can address cultural and linguistic barriers, promoting a sense of belonging and validation. Likewise, for children with SEN and disabilities, this partnership ensures access to resources, adaptive strategies, and emotional support tailored to their individual circumstances. Families play a vital role in shaping educational policies and practices through active participation in advisory committees, school councils, and decision-making processes, ensuring their perspectives are valued and included. Additionally, strengthening family capabilities through targeted workshops on parenting skills, home-based learning, and behaviour management empowers parents to effectively support their children’s education and well-being. Ultimately, when families, schools, and teachers work together with a shared commitment to inclusivity and well-being, they create a powerful framework for protecting and nurturing each child’s growth and potential.

Siblings play a critical role in shaping a child’s well-being, often serving as companions, confidants, and role models within the family dynamic. Positive sibling relationships can offer emotional support, a sense of security, and opportunities for social learning, which are especially important for children with special educational needs (SEN) or those from immigrant backgrounds. For instance, a child with SEN who has a nurturing sibling may experience increased self-confidence and social competence as their sibling advocates for their inclusion and helps bridge gaps in communication or understanding with peers and teachers. Similarly, an immigrant child may rely on their sibling to navigate new cultural or linguistic challenges, providing a shared sense of identity and resilience in the face of adversity. However, strained or neglectful sibling relationships can have the opposite effect, potentially exacerbating feelings of isolation or inadequacy. For example, a child with SEN who is teased or excluded by a sibling may internalise negative perceptions of their abilities, impacting their emotional well-being and self-esteem. Minkkinen’s Circle of Care framework emphasises the critical role siblings play as part of a child’s immediate support network, influencing their social, emotional, and developmental outcomes. Schools can reinforce these positive sibling dynamics by involving siblings in collaborative activities, offering guidance on how to support one another, and recognising the unique contributions siblings make to a child’s well-being. By fostering strong sibling relationships, families and schools can create an environment where every child feels valued, supported, and empowered to thrive.

Peers also play a pivotal role in shaping a child’s well-being, particularly in the school environment, where friendships and social interactions significantly influence their emotional and social development. Positive peer relationships can provide children with a sense of belonging, validation, and emotional support, which are crucial components of well-being. For children with special educational needs (SEN), or those from immigrant backgrounds, having a supportive peer group can be transformative. For example, a child with SEN who is included in collaborative classroom activities, or befriends peers who offer encouragement and assistance, may experience enhanced confidence, reduced anxiety, and improved engagement with learning. Similarly, an immigrant child who is welcomed by peers and invited to participate in cultural or linguistic exchanges may feel a sense of inclusion and pride in their identity, which fosters resilience and self-esteem. Conversely, the absence of such positive interactions can lead to isolation and exclusion, undermining a child’s well-being. For instance, a child who is marginalised, due to their disability or linguistic differences, may feel disconnected and develop low self-worth, negatively impacting their academic and social development. Minkkinen’s Circle of Care underscores the importance of these peer relationships within the broader ecosystem of well-being, highlighting how peers, as part of the child’s immediate social environment, contribute to emotional safety and positive development. Schools can nurture this dynamic by fostering inclusive practices, promoting empathy, and creating opportunities for cooperative learning, ensuring that all children – regardless of their background or abilities – have the chance to thrive within a supportive peer network.

Schools can play a vital role in fostering well-being between parents and children, siblings, and peers by creating inclusive opportunities that strengthen these relationships. This approach aligns with Minkkinen’s Circle of Care, which emphasises the importance of close, supportive interactions in a child’s immediate environment. Below are practical examples tailored to children with SEN such as a chronic illness.

Fostering Well-Being Between Parents and Children

• Parent-Child Workshops: Organise regular workshops focused on joint activities, such as art projects, storytelling, or cooking classes. For example, a school could host an “Inclusive Family Art Day,” where children with SEN and their parents work together on creative projects that emphasise teamwork and communication.
• Home-School Journals: For a child with a chronic illness who may miss school frequently, schools could provide a home-school journal that allows parents and teachers to communicate daily about the child’s needs and achievements. Parents could also share positive moments at home, reinforcing their connection with the child.
• Family Inclusion Days: Host events like “Family Fun Days,” where parents can participate in classroom activities or see their children’s work is showcased. For a child with a chronic illness or disability, this could include an adapted environment where they can fully participate.

Fostering Well-Being Between Children and Their Siblings

• Sibling Support Programs: Create school-based sibling groups where siblings of children with SEN such as a chronic illnesses can share experiences and receive guidance on how to support their sibling. For example, a school counsellor could facilitate sessions where siblings discuss strategies for helping their brother or sister feel included during play or activities.
• Inclusive Learning Projects: Plan activities that involve siblings working together, such as science fairs or reading buddy systems. A child with SEN could partner with their sibling to present a project that highlights their unique strengths, fostering mutual respect and teamwork.

Fostering Well-Being Between Children and Their Peers

• Peer Buddy Systems: Pair children with SEN, or chronic illnesses, with supportive peers for activities like group work, lunch breaks, or recess. For example, a peer buddy could help a child with mobility issues navigate the playground, ensuring they feel included in social interactions.
• Social Skills Groups: Run small, inclusive social skills programs where children learn about empathy, active listening, and inclusion. A child with SEN could benefit from structured opportunities to build friendships in a supportive environment.
• Inclusive Celebrations: Ensure that all children, including those with chronic illnesses, disabilities, from ethnic minorities etc. are part of school-wide events. For example, during sports day, offer adapted activities where all children can participate, such as wheelchair-friendly races or team-based games that focus on collaboration rather than competition. For cultural events ensure representation of all children.
• Peer education and self-advocacy: When children are given the opportunity to share their experiences, such as explaining a chronic illness or a unique learning need to their peers, not only fosters understanding but also reduces stigma and builds empathy within the classroom. This process allows children to develop confidence and agency, enabling them to feel valued and respected for their contributions. For example, a child with diabetes might explain how they manage their condition, helping classmates understand their needs while encouraging acceptance and support. Peer education and self-advocacy not only benefit the individual child but also create a more inclusive and empathetic school culture where all children feel empowered to share their stories and perspectives.

These practical initiatives reinforce the Circle of Care by fostering positive, reciprocal relationships among the key individuals in a child’s immediate environment, i.e., parents, siblings, peers, and educators. By creating spaces for collaboration, understanding, and mutual support, schools ensure that children with SEN   feel valued and included. These efforts not only enhance individual well-being but also contribute to a culture of empathy and community that benefits all children.

Child’s level: What has an impact on children’s well-being and how can we support children’s well-being?

Reflection Activity: How can educators create an environment that empowers children to express themselves and engage actively in their own well-being?

Children’s well-being is a multifaceted concept that we are trying to expand our knowledge of. In this section, we will focus on the individual child. We could gain a more comprehensive understanding by considering children as active subjects in their own well-being (Mason & Danby, 2011). Beyond this, conceptualising the child as a social actor who structures their own world and as an agent who transforms society will reveal a more meaningful perspective (Minkkinnen, 2013). Child well-being is connected to daily experiences, including their interactions with people, places, activities, and time (Fattore et al., 2009). Research shows that children’s subjective well-being is influenced by their agency and sense of control, opportunities for play, interactions with educators, peers, and staff, and feeling safe and secure at school (Fattore et al., 2009; Jevtić & Visković, 2021). Although these concepts are intertwined and support each other in terms of children’s well-being, it would be useful to talk about how they can be supported by looking at their separate meanings.

Fostering children’s agency and participation in inclusive settings is essential for their well-being and development. Children have the right to express their views on matters affecting them, and this participation is crucial for their holistic development (UNCRC, 1989). According to Minkkinen (2013), children’s agency is integral to their overall well-being, as it enables them to navigate their social environments and contribute meaningfully to their learning experiences. Agency, that is the ability to make choices and have a say in their lives, empowers children to become active participants in their learning and social environments (Jans, 2004). According to Sen’s capability approach, children can be seen as agents who construct their own world; however, they must have opportunities to realise their agency so that they can be capable (Hart & Brando, 2018; Sen, 1993). Likewise, looking at the agency as a practical achievement rather than a priori assumption   could be a more empowering approach (Jerome & Starkey, 2022). It means that even though agency and the right of participation are universal rights, it is possible to emerge through interaction and negotiations between the child and the school. This can be achieved by providing diverse opportunities for decision-making, whether it is choosing activities, contributing to classroom rules, or engaging in group projects. Using dialogic communication techniques, where children are encouraged to express their thoughts and feelings openly, helps to foster a sense of agency. Tools like visual aids, storytelling, and role-playing can be effective in facilitating this process.

Play   is essential for children’s well-being, encompassing their physical, emotional, and psychological health. Through play, children can build connections with people and places, learn independently, and develop confidence, resilience, self-esteem, and self-efficacy, all crucial for their overall well-being (Cole-Hamilton & Gleave, 2011). Furthermore, children’s subjective well-being is strongly linked to free time and play opportunities (Corominas et al., 2021). Research indicates that engaging in playful experiences positively influences children’s development, regardless of their age group (Gordon, 2014). Given these findings, promoting free play in the classroom and at school, and providing playful learning experiences, will positively contribute to children’s well-being. Creating supportive environments across multiple domains, to support children’s well-being through play within an inclusive education framework, is essential. This involves integrating play-based learning into the school curriculum, designing classrooms with flexible and accessible spaces for various types of play, training educators to incorporate inclusive play into their teaching, and ensuring sufficient unstructured recess time to allow play that benefits all children. Lynch and colleagues (2023) suggested universal design principles for facilitating play in inclusive settings. A play promoting space for all should serve equitable, flexible, simple, and intuitive use, include perceptible information, tolerance for error, different sizes and spaces, and require low physical effort. In this way, the space could be responsive to the changing needs of play and learning.

Children’s relationships   with peers and adults play a significant role in their well-being, especially in inclusive educational settings. In particular, the quality of those relationships provides emotional support or a sense of relatedness, which contributes to positive development, including higher levels of engagement, motivation, and academic performance (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). From Minkkinen’s perspective, the ‘Circle of Care’ emphasises the importance of a supportive relational environment where children feel valued and understood. Supporting well-being from a relational perspective at the child level, it is essential to understand the children and their perspective on relationships, help relationship-building skills, and create space for them to express themselves and their feelings. It is thought that the relational support perceived by children may be effective in their adaptation to school, and that negative relationships may also be a determinant to school-related adaptation difficulties (Harrison et al., 2007). In educational settings, where children from low-income, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may risk feeling like they do not belong at school or consider dropping out, the protective role of relationships becomes even more critical (Jain et al., 2019; Reicher, 2010). On the other hand, child temperament could affect teacher-child interaction quality (Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009). For example, shyness could impact the closeness in teacher-child relationship. It is important to be aware of the character, temperament and differences between children, to ensure their inclusion and to support reciprocal relationships. For these relationships to progress positively for the child, it is important to think about ways to create opportunities to get to know the child and support them to express themselves.

Initial recognition methods – including observations, checklists, and informal interviews – help educators identify a child’s developmental level, interests, and needs (Bagnato, 2007). With young children, it is also essential to have a check-in routine to understand their well-being (Laevers & Declercq, 2018). Creative methods could be used to explore their ideas and opinions about their well-being (Pople & Cotton, 2014). Drawing, playdough, videos, and photobooks could potentially be tools for children to reflect on their perspectives on well-being. While creative methods help to understand children, they also allow children with different needs to express themselves, thanks to various techniques. Another critical method is participatory observation (Fine & Sandstrom, 1988). Observations can be made by understanding the child’s culture, verifying the information the adult understands from the child, and diversifying the methods. Building trust through empathetic communication is vital; active listening and attention to verbal and non-verbal cues help educators grasp a child’s feelings and thoughts (Petrie, 2011). Offering self-expression opportunities through art, play, or storytelling further deepens understanding, ensuring each child feels seen, heard, and supported.

It should be taken into consideration that different children may give different meanings to these dimensions and have different needs. This can be challenging, and it is crucial to be mindful of and respectful of children’s individuality and diverse identities. For instance, a child who speaks a different language at home may require language support, and a child with a physical disability may need specific accommodations to access the playground. Children who feel anxious about interacting with their peers may benefit from private conversations with their teacher, one-on-one peer support, and gentle encouragement. As seen in the examples, knowing and understanding the child can be seen as an important step in supporting the child’s well-being in the classroom. Understanding each child in an inclusive setting begins with recognising their unique strengths, needs, and preferences (Villa & Thousand, 2021).

Building a Strong Circle of Care for All

Ultimately, a strong Circle of Care within a school ensures that all children – whether they have disabilities, come from marginalised backgrounds, or face unique challenges – are supported holistically. This approach is rooted in the idea that every child needs a network of caring individuals who provide consistent and meaningful support. By creating a nurturing environment where teachers, peers, families, and communities collaborate closely, schools can offer the emotional security that children need to feel safe and valued. For instance, teachers who are trained in inclusive practices can provide differentiated instruction tailored to each child’s unique learning needs, while peers contribute to a sense of belonging and acceptance through positive interactions. Families, when engaged as active partners in the educational process, help bridge the gap between home and school, ensuring that children feel supported in every aspect of their lives. This comprehensive approach allows schools to be more responsive to the individual needs of each child, creating an inclusive atmosphere where all students can thrive.

In addition to emotional support, a strong Circle of Care is critical for fostering social development, which is especially important for children who may feel isolated or excluded due to disabilities or socio-economic disadvantages. Inclusive schools that prioritise peer support and collaboration create opportunities for children to build friendships and develop social skills through group activities, peer mentoring programs, and cooperative learning. These experiences are essential for building empathy and understanding among students, helping them to appreciate the diverse backgrounds and abilities of their peers. For children with disabilities, being integrated into social activities alongside their classmates can reduce feelings of isolation and increase their sense of belonging, while for marginalised children, such interactions can help break down social barriers. By facilitating positive social interactions, schools contribute to a broader culture of inclusivity, ensuring that every child has opportunities to develop the social competencies that are critical for success both inside and outside the classroom.

Moreover, a well-rounded Circle of Care also addresses the academic foundation needed for children to thrive, especially for those who might face additional challenges in their educational journey. Through individualised learning plans, access to specialised support services, and a curriculum that respects diverse learning needs, schools can ensure that every child receives the guidance and resources they need to succeed academically. For instance, children with disabilities might benefit from assistive technologies that help them access learning materials, while those from marginalised backgrounds may need additional academic support to overcome gaps in their educational experiences. By providing these resources, schools help level the playing field, giving each child the tools they need to reach their full potential. The Circle of Care thus acts as a framework that integrates emotional, social, and academic support, creating a well-rounded educational environment where all students are given the opportunity to flourish. This holistic approach ensures that inclusivity is not just a policy, but a lived reality, where every child is empowered to succeed.

Promoting the well-being of children with disabilities and other marginalised groups in an inclusive school is a comprehensive effort that requires collaboration among teachers, peers, families, and the wider community. By strengthening the Circle of Care and addressing broader societal barriers, schools can create environments where all students, regardless of their needs or background, can flourish. In line with Minkkinen’s Structural Model of Child Well-being, this approach ensures that every child has the opportunity to experience positive physical, emotional, and social development, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and resilient society.

Conclusion

Now, it’s time to recall our case. After reading the chapter, what did you think of to encourage Fatima, include her in the classroom, and support her learning? Here is the rest of the case.

The Unseen Factors

Beneath the surface, Fatima’s migration background played a significant role in her behaviour. Her family had left Syria to escape conflict, facing numerous challenges such as housing instability, financial difficulties, and the emotional toll of leaving their homeland. At home, Fatima found solace in drawing and painting, expressing her feelings and experiences through art. She also had a keen interest in animals, though the language barrier and cultural differences at school made it difficult for her to engage with these topics. These unseen factors contributed to her shyness and reluctance to participate in class.

Intervention and Support

Recognising Fatima’s potential, her teacher, Ms. Garcia, took the initiative to understand her better. After noticing Fatima’s interests, Ms. Garcia arranged a meeting with her parents to learn more about her background. She then incorporated visual aids and bilingual resources into her teaching, helping Fatima grasp the curriculum better. Art projects became a regular part of class activities, allowing Fatima to express herself creatively. Ms. Garcia also paired Fatima with Layla, a bilingual classmate, to assist with language and class activities, and organised cultural lessons and a “Cultural Heritage Day” to celebrate diversity, fostering a sense of belonging for Fatima.

Transformation and Conclusion

The impact of these interventions was transformative. With the support of visual aids and bilingual resources, Fatima’s comprehension and engagement in class improved markedly. Her academic performance showed steady progress, especially in subjects with visual learning components. Socially, Fatima began forming friendships, starting with Layla and extending to other classmates. She became more active in class discussions and group activities, gaining confidence in her language skills and cultural identity. The inclusive and supportive environment at Harmony Elementary helped Fatima feel valued and understood, significantly reducing her anxiety and sense of isolation. Fatima’s story highlights the importance of cultural competence and empathy in education, demonstrating that every child has the potential to succeed when given the right opportunities and support.

Local contexts

Literature

About the authors

name: Anne Piezunka

Anne is an educational researcher from Germany. In her research she is interested in educational relations, the implementation of inclusive education and the potential and limitations of data collection on discrimination. She is also involved in an initiative to improve educational relations called “Reckahner Initiative für Pädagogik”.

name: Büşra Gündeş Orman

Büşra is a researcher in early childhood education from Istanbul Aydın University in Turkey. She has experience teaching children aged 3-5 and has worked on various projects with children from diverse groups, especially those affected by poverty and migration. Currently, she supervises teacher candidates during their practicum. Her research interests include school well-being, socio-emotional learning, children at risk, and inclusive education.

name: Mahvand Sahranavard Espily

Mahvand is educated in English Literature. She is educated kids music teacher at Adamak institute (orff schulwerk association) in Iran. She is a vocal coach and  kids music teacher around 21 years. She is teaching in an alternative school in Iran (kodakan Donya) from 2013 until now, also has experiences in working with kids 3-5 years old, Working with autistic children , low concentration children and hyperactive children. Managing many different kids event such as Pinocchio, Little black fish, Alice in wonderland, manage play week, nations celebration, manage many internal and external travels for kids, manage different visit for kids and invite many different musicians, manage many workshops for parents in different fields, member of literature work group,music work group, child friendly work group and report writer work group. She’s got many certifications about vocal pedagogy, education and kids music in Iran and outside of Iran.

name: Tracy McElheron

Tracy is a practising early childhood educator and Lecturer in Early Childhood Education. She has worked in the early childhood sector in Ireland for 25 years, teaching children from 2 to 5 years old. Her areas of expertise include curriculum and assessment for early childhood education, and the theory and practice of play as a pedagogy in the early years. Her doctoral work explores the implications of the hidden curriculum on children’s articulation of gender in early childhood education. She is a passionate advocate for the transformative capacity of relational pedagogy to build child, family, and educator identity.

name: Deirdre Forde

Dr. Deirdre Forde is a distinguished lecturer in Inclusive Education at Maynooth University. With a  background as a qualified primary teacher and a chartered child and educational psychologist, she brings extensive experience from various educational settings and psychological services to her role. Deirdre’s research and teaching interests are diverse and encompass areas such as disability and the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion within educational and societal contexts. She is particularly passionate about amplifying children’s voices, advancing relational education, and shaping policies related to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). Her work is dedicated to fostering inclusive environments that acknowledge and celebrate diversity.