Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement

ABSTRACT This study explores the impact of inclusive education on the educational outcomes of students without Special Educational Needs (non-SEN) in Peru, utilizing official Ministry of

Education data and implementing cross-sectional regression analyses. Inclusive education is a complex issue that, without appropriate adaptations and comprehensive understanding, can present

substantial challenges to the educational community. While prior research from developed nations offers diverse perspectives on the effects of inclusive education on non-SEN students,

limited evidence exists regarding its impact in developing countries. Our study addresses this gap by examining inclusive education in Peru and its influence on non-SEN students, thereby

contributing to the existing literature. Our findings reveal that, on average, the presence of SEN students in regular classrooms does not significantly affect their non-SEN counterparts.

However, we uncover heterogeneous results contingent on the specific type of SEN and students’ academic placement. These results emphasize the importance of targeted resources and parental

involvement in facilitating successful inclusive education, particularly for specific SEN types. In summary, this study underscores the need for tailored strategies and additional resources

to foster the success of inclusive education and calls for further research in this field to expand our understanding and enhance educational policy. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS

MEDIUM- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: EXPERIENCES FROM TURKISH LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENTS Article Open access 28 June 2024 MATHEMATICS TEACHING STRATEGIES AND 4TH-GRADE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN ARAB COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM TIMSS 2019 DATA Article Open access 18 December 2024 THE CONCEPT OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ACADEMICS SPECIALISING

IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AT SAUDI UNIVERSITIES Article Open access 02 June 2023 INTRODUCTION Inclusive education has become a significant policy for improving access to and the quality of

education for children with special educational needs (SEN), who often encounter physical and social barriers hindering their access to education and entry into the labor market, which in

turn is detrimental to the economic and social progress of a country (Filmer, 2008; Mitra and Sambamoorthi, 2008). Thus, the United Nations has declared “inclusive and equitable quality

education” as the fourth 2030 Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to reduce the disability gap in education. Likewise, there exist international declarations like the Salamanca

Statement in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994) or the Declaration of the Decade of the Americas for the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities 2016–2026 (OAS, 2018) that incorporate the principle

of inclusive education to guarantee education for all. There are different education approachesFootnote 1 to ensure education for children with SEN, but the inclusive approach, unlike

others, promotes equal participation of SEN students in regular schools by attending classes alongside same-aged non-SEN students (Dixon, 2005). Inclusive education goes beyond the placement

of pupils; it refers to a unified system that receives all students regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Dixon, 2005). Under the inclusive approach, governments and schools should

provide the means (i.e., physical and human resources) to reduce or eliminate physical, academic, and social hurdles faced by SEN students within regular schools (Dixon, 2005). Thus,

inclusive education aims for social cohesion and a less discriminatory education approach that helps enhance the human capital acquisition of children with SEN (Kiuppis, 2014). Despite the

efforts for an inclusive education agenda worldwide, children with SEN remain behind in education indicators such as years of education, school attendance, or academic achievement (Filmer,

2008; Rangvid, 2022). This raises concerns about the impact that placement of children with SEN in regular schools may have on the educational achievement of children without SEN since these

children are also involved in the inclusive education system (Rangvid, 2019; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009). In Peru, for instance, some teachers in regular schools as well as some leaders of

deaf organizations, do not support inclusive education as they think it is detrimental for both SEN and non-SEN students (Goico, 2019; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2019). Nevertheless, there is

little empirical literature focused on the effects of inclusive education not only on SEN students but also on non-SEN students, especially in developing countries that shelter a high

percentage of people with disabilities (Olusanya et al., 2022). This paper, therefore, aims to fill that gap by using information from a developing country, namely Peru. It investigates the

impact of inclusive education, quantified through the presence of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on the academic performance of their non-SEN counterparts. Analyzing the peer

effects of inclusive education is of utmost interest for policymakers aiming to increase the presence of SEN students in regular schools, as policy implications should consider the effects

on all children. The present work provides three main contributions to the existing literature regarding peer effects in the context of inclusive education. First, we provide new evidence

using unusual and rich data from a middle-income country. To our knowledge, there is only one study focusing on a developing country. Indeed, Contreras et al. (2020) analyze the Chilean case

and find that placement of children with SEN in regular classrooms negatively affects the standardized test scores in mathematics and reading of their non-SEN peers, but it is neutralized

when schools receive additional resources and specialized professionals. Nevertheless, Contreras et al. (2020) use panel data for students attending primary schools in two periods, 2007 and

2011, without including types of SEN. In contrast, we study children attending primary and secondary schools using cross-section data between 2011 and 2019 and disaggregate our analysis by

types of SENFootnote 2. Our second contribution is to disaggregate our analysis by type of SEN. We are aware of two studies that use an overall indicator to reflect the presence of SEN

students and disaggregate it by type of SEN. On one hand, Hanushek et al. (2002) examine two types of special educational needs: learning or emotional and speech; while, Ruijs (2017)

examines four types: visual, hearing, physical or intellectual, and behavioral. In our case, besides evaluating the consequences of placing children with mobility, vision, hearing, and

intellectual or learning disabilities in a regular classroom, we also evaluate the repercussions of placing children with autistic spectrum disorder in a regular classroom, which is a much

less studied topic. Finally, our third contribution is to explore the heterogeneous results of inclusive education on the non-SEN student population. Unlike previous studies, we explore the

potential different impact of inclusive education between male and female non-SEN students. As most reproductive work has traditionally been done by women (cf. Razavi, 2012), it could be

argued that female non-SEN students are more likely to take care of or help SEN students, which in turn may influence their educational achievement. Our heterogeneity analysis also takes

into account school characteristics like classroom size as well as mother’s characteristics. In our analysis, we take significant steps to mitigate potential biases stemming from endogenous

classroom selection and the sorting of SEN students. We achieve this by focusing on schools with one class per grade level, which provides a more controlled setting for our study. Moreover,

our dataset allows us to identify the class composition, which is vital for investigating educational peer effects. The classroom environment is particularly relevant, as classmates have a

substantial impact on each other’s educational outcomes, given their shared classroom experience throughout the school day (Balestra et al., 2022; Burke and Sass, 2013; Lazear, 2001). Our

findings suggest that the inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on average, exerts a neutral influence on their non-SEN peers. A nuanced examination reveals varied results

contingent upon the specific categories of SEN. This variability is consistent with the fact that SEN encompasses a broad spectrum of support requirements arising from diverse degrees and

types of individual abilities, spanning physical, psychological, cognitive, and sensory domains. Hence, the influence of inclusive education would vary according to the distinct profile of

the SEN student integrated into a conventional classroom setting. Furthermore, our results underscore the importance of accounting for temporal dynamics and the particular educational phase

in gauging the impact of SEN students on their non-SEN counterparts. This observation aligns with the differential results discerned across academic grades. The rest of the paper is

organized as follows. The literature review and institutional setting are presented in the next section, followed by a description of the data and empirical strategy. After that, we discuss

our results, and finally, we conclude. BACKGROUND This section starts with a brief literature review and then describes the main features of the Peruvian educational system as well as its

public policy approach to inclusive education. LITERATURE REVIEW The inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools remains a subject of debate due to the mixed findings within the

empirical literature. Proponents of inclusive education argue that attending regular schools is not only a fundamental human right for children with SEN (Ainscow and César, 2006; Rangvid,

2022; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009) but can also yield benefits for non-SEN students, particularly in terms of their learning development. This is attributed to the additional resources allocated

to inclusive education (Keslair et al., 2012; Ruijs, 2017). Besides, inclusive education may help children without SEN to develop soft skills like kindness, tolerance, and patience, which

are important to living in a diverse society (Contreras et al., 2020; Dixon, 2005). On the other hand, the main concerns regarding inclusive education are related to negative peer effects.

The literature on class composition states that students’ performance is influenced by their peers’ characteristics (Ammermueller and Pischke, 2009; Burke and Sass, 2013; Lavy et al., 2012).

Since children with SEN may require more teaching attention and show disruptive behaviors (Ahmed et al., 2021; Contreras et al., 2020; Rangvid, 2019; Ruijs, 2017), they could be considered

“bad” students who could interfere with the educational development of their classmates without SEN (Lavy et al., 2012; Lazear, 2001), especially for those who are at the bottom of the

ability distribution (Balestra et al., 2022; Lavy et al., 2012). The quantitative studies that examine the peer effects of inclusive education mainly use data from developed countries. Most

of them have found that inclusive education has a negative or null effect on non-SEN students’ outcomes. For instance, using data from Switzerland, Balestra et al. (2022) find that placing

SEN students in regular classrooms harms not only educational outcomes but also labor market outcomes for non-SEN students. Similarly, studies from the United States (Fletcher, 2010) and

Denmark (Kristoffersen et al., 2015; Rangvid, 2019) show that exposure to SEN students decreases reading test scores of non-SEN students. Also, for the United States, Gottfried (2014) and

Gottfried et al. (2016) present evidence that inclusive education worsens the non-cognitive skills of non-SEN students. Fletcher (2010), however, points out that the negative effect of

inclusive education in the United States disappears for reading when their lagged scores are considered in the analysis. Likewise, studies for Canada (Friesen et al., 2010), England (Keslair

et al., 2012), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017) also find that the presence of SEN students does not affect the academic performance of their non-SEN peers; but they point out that this

result may be due to additional resources received by regular schools with SEN students. Conversely, other studies have found positive externalities of SEN students on the educational

achievement of their non-SEN peers. For instance, Cole et al. (2004) point out that non-SEN students in the United States perform better at reading and mathematics tests since they may

benefit from the additional resources allocated to inclusive education. Likewise, Hanushek et al. (2002) find that non-SEN students attending inclusive classrooms in the United States

improve their mathematics test scores. Using data from the same country, Gottfried and McGene (2013) go beyond by showing that having a sibling with SEN helps to improve the schooling

achievement of those siblings without SEN. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the effects of inclusive education on students with and without SEN. The coincidences

lie in the varied impacts of inclusive education on non-SEN students, demonstrating a nuanced and context-dependent picture. While Dell’Anna et al. (2021) hint at positive peer attitudes in

inclusive settings, the academic outcomes and the experience of non-SEN students diverge, with high achievers potentially benefiting more than low achievers (Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009). Kart

and Kart (2021) and Szumski et al. (2017) contribute to the discussion, highlighting mixed academic effects across different grade levels. The meta-analyses by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) and

Krämer et al. (2021) emphasize the overall positive impact of inclusive settings for students with SEN while still acknowledging variations in outcomes. Finally, Van Mieghem et al. (2020)

emphasize the pivotal role of teacher professional development in the successful implementation of inclusive education. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the conflicting results found in

the literature may be explained by the differences in the criteria used to identify a SEN student. Most of the previous studies have used an aggregated measure to encompass all SEN students

without considering the types of SEN (e.g., Contreras et al., 2020; Rangvid, 2019). On the other hand, some studies have focused on one or two types of special needs; such as emotional

disturbances and mental disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004; Fletcher, 2010; Hanushek et al., 2002; Kristoffersen et al., 2015), or learning and behavioral disabilities (e.g., Cole et al.,

2004; Friesen et al., 2010; Hanushek et al., 2002). The present paper addresses these limitations found in the literature by taking into account different types of SEN and also by exploring

the potential heterogeneous results of inclusive education for non-SEN students. INSTITUTIONAL SETTING: THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN PERU Primary and secondary education in Peru is compulsory

and provided by the government at no cost and by the private sector with a wide tuition range. Peruvian children between 6- and 11- years old attend primary school and start secondary school

by the age of 12 for a period of 5 years. The last National Population Census in 2017 reports that roughly 5.4% and 7.0% of Peruvians who are primary-school and secondary-school-aged,

respectively, have at least one disability. However, according to the School Census of the same year, <1% of children attending regular schools are categorized as SEN students, which

suggests that inclusive education in Peru is not well developed. Despite this low enrollment rate, the percentage of SEN students grew from 0.26% in 2007 to 0.96% in 2019. Since primary and

secondary schools in Peru must comply with a mandatory national curriculum, the same courses are taken by children who attend the same grade level across different schools. Schools may have

more than one class per grade level, which are called _sections_, which students are assigned when they start primary school, which makes it less likely that students are sorted in a

non-random fashion. Besides, every section has a specific classroom where students are instructed in most of their courses; thus, students do not need to move among different classrooms

throughout the school day. At the primary school, the teacher assigned to a section is usually responsible for the majority of the courses; whereas, at the secondary school, it is often the

case that there is a different teacher for each course. Another characteristic of the Peruvian education system is that it allows parents to send their children to any school, public or

private, even if that school is outside their district of residence. According to the last National Population Census in 2017, Peru has achieved almost universal coverage of education, 94.9%

of the population aged 12 or over have primary education, and 74.5% aged 17 or over have secondary education. These numbers, however, mask a disability gap. Among adults aged 17 or over,

14.1% of people with at least one disability report having no education, whereas only 3.9% of people with no disabilities report the same. There is also an educational disability gap of 11.9

percentage points (p.p.) among the female population, but it decreases to 7.1 p.p. among the male population. These figures suggest that having a disability poses a larger burden for

females than for males. In this context, the Peruvian National Education Law recognized in 2003 inclusive education as the main approach to providing education to students with SEN, which

should be accompanied by supplementary one-to-one attention by specialists (Congreso de la República, 2003). Thus, the Peruvian legal framework advocates an inclusive approach to integrating

children and youth with disabilities into society. Aligned with the national inclusive policy, the state, as per the 2012 General Law of Persons with Disabilities (Law 29973), ensures

access to quality inclusive education that accommodates individual needs. This entails adjustments in infrastructure, furniture, materials, curriculum, and teaching processes, all aimed at

facilitating quality learning and fostering the comprehensive development of each student. It is worth noting, however, that empirical evidence indicates that many regular schools lack the

necessary infrastructure, materials, and human resources to accommodate students with disabilities (Cueto et al., 2018; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011). The basic education system comprises three

modalities: regular basic education (EBR), alternative basic education (EBA), and special basic education (EBE). EBR represents conventional formal education. EBA caters to students who lack

access to EBR, emphasizing vocational and entrepreneurial skills. EBE is designated for students with SEN related to disability, talent, or giftedness. EBA and EBR schools, when admitting

students with SEN, are termed _inclusive schools_. EBE operates in both inclusive schools and standalone EBE schools. In inclusive schools that accept students with mild disabilities and

giftedness, EBE provides support and guidance through programs like Support and Advisory Services for Special Educational Needs (SAANEE). This includes personalized services and support to

students, parents, teachers, and school principals through weekly visits of specialized professionals (Congreso de la República, 2006). Nevertheless, the evidence shows that inclusive

education in Peru is far from successfully being implemented, and it is combined with an “integration approach” (Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011). On the other hand, dedicated EBE schools directly

serve severe and multi-disabled students with needs beyond the scope of EBR or EBA schools. EBR and EBA schools are mandated to reserve at least two slots per classroom during the enrollment

period for the inclusion of students with mild or moderate disabilities. However, in practice, this requirement is not systematically fulfilled (Cueto et al., 2018). DATA AND METHODOLOGY In

this study, we use three datasets that are collected by the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU). First, we utilized the Student Census Evaluation (ECE) as our primary data source, which

encompasses the scores achieved by students in the national standardized tests of reading and mathematicsFootnote 3. To create our dependent variable, “learning achievement”, we transformed

these scores into _z_-scores, standardizing them by grade level and by subject to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for use in our econometric analysis. Furthermore, the

ECE dataset includes additional demographic information such as gender and the primary language spoken by the students. The ECE started in 2007, with annual assessments of students in the

2nd grade of primary (2P). Subsequently, it was expanded in 2015 to encompass students in the 2nd grade of secondary (2S). In 2017, however, the ECE was not conducted. Our second dataset is

the National School Census (CE) which contains information regarding school characteristics and grade composition. The CE has been yearly collected since 2004, and it covers public and

private schools. We use it to measure inclusive education by identifying the presence of SEN students at the section level. These two datasets are merged at the school level through a school

identifier; thus, each student is linked to section characteristics in the school he or she is attending. The last dataset is the Information System to Support the Management of the

Education Institution (SG), which was implemented in 2003 but has been mandatory only since 2011. The SG contains information that is uploaded every year by teachers or school principals.

This includes students’ age, mothers’ age and education, and number of siblings. The SG is merged with the other datasets by using a student identifier. For our analysis, we focus on

students attending 2P in the period dating from 2011 to 2016 (excluding 2014)Footnote 4 and students attending 2S from 2015 to 2019 (excluding 2017).Footnote 5 For both grades, 2P and 2S, we

account for potential grade advancement and delay.Footnote 6 Therefore, in the case of 2P where students are usually 7 years old, we include children aged between 6 and 8 years, and for 2S

where students are usually 13 years old, we include children aged between 12 and 14 years. The final number of observations for 2P comprises 55,637 students who took the reading test and

55,614 students who took the mathematics test. And, for 2S, we have 47,491 students who took the reading test and 47,484 students who took the mathematics test. To evaluate the influence of

inclusive education on non-SEN students’ learning achievement, we use the CE where the school principal reports the number of SEN students placed in each grade level every year and per type

of SEN.Footnote 7 This report is based on medical certificates, psycho-pedagogical certificates, and parents’ affidavits. Thus, we can identify the presence of SEN students per section to

measure inclusive education.Footnote 8 Besides, we disaggregate the presence of SEN students per type. Specifically, we distinguish, for each section, the presence of students with mobility,

vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities, as well as those with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). In the case of intellectual or learning disabilities, the CE includes

those students with Down syndrome, brain injury, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The other SEN types considered in the CE include students with speech impairment, deaf-blindness, and

hospitalized. Although gifted students are identified as SEN students in the CE, we exclude them in our measure of SEN. There are three main challenges to estimating peer effects, as stated

by Manski (1993), that could hinder proper identification of the influence of SEN students on the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers. First, students in the same cohort could face

similar environmental factors or have similar unobserved characteristics that may influence their academic outcomes rather than having classmates with SEN. To disentangle the environment

from peer effects, we follow the literature by using a large number of observations and fixed effects (Balestra et al., 2022; Burke and Sass, 2013). Second, there is a potential reflection

problem as classmates may influence each other and determine their outcomes simultaneously. Since we focus on SEN characteristics related to physical disabilities, health issues, and

injuries determined by specialists, it is less likely that the SEN status of students was determined by the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers. The third problem is related to

self-selection. In the Peruvian school system, parents may choose to send their children to any school regardless of their district of residence; thus, specific school characteristics may

attract certain types of students. To address this problem, we restrict the analysis to schools with similar characteristics. We select schools located in urban areas providing mixed-sex

education that operate on the main school campus only during the morning shift and with 10–30 students per section. In the case of primary education, we select full-grade schools.Footnote 9

Besides, to address a potential sorting problem that could make it difficult to identify whether the learning outcome is due to the presence of SEN students or one’s ability, we select

schools with one section per grade level. In this way, we avoid the possibility for school administrators to group students into sections based on their characteristics or for parents to

choose a section without SEN students. Finally, more than 90% of non-SEN students take the standardized national tests, which suggests that school principals do not select high-performance

students to take these tests. To test the validity of our identification strategy, we perform two balancing checks for 2P and 2S, presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. To perform these

balancing checks, we use only students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, rather than separating them by subject as we do for the econometric analyses. Panels A, B,

and C show that the presence of at least one SEN student does not determine the gender, language, or age of non-SEN students, respectively. We observe that coefficients are statistically not

significant, and their size is smaller in comparison to those from the main analysis, except for reading test scores in 2S. In addition, panel D shows that individual characteristics do not

determine the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom. These results provide evidence against the likelihood of selection into classrooms. To examine the impact of inclusive

education on standardized test performance of non-SEN students, we estimate the following linear model: $$\begin{array}{ll}{{{\rm {EDC}}}}_{{i{s}t}}={\alpha }_{0}+{\alpha }_{1}{{{\rm

{SEN}}}}_{{{s}t}}+{\alpha }_{2}{{{\rm {STD}}}}_{{i{s}t}}+{\alpha }_{3}{{{\rm {SEC}}}}_{{{s}t}}\\\qquad\qquad+\,{\alpha }_{4}{{{\rm {SCH}}}}_{t}+{\alpha }_{5}{{{\rm {HH}}}}_{{it}}+{\gamma

}_{s}+{\gamma }_{t}+{\varepsilon }_{{{ist}}}\end{array}$$ (1) Equation (1) is estimated separately for each grade level (2P or 2S) and subject (reading or mathematics) using a linear

regression. \({{{\rm {EDC}}}}_{{i{\rm {s}}t}}\) is the learning achievement of student \(i\) in section \({s}\) at year \(t\), measured by the _z_-score of the standardized test. \({{{\rm

{SEN}}}}_{{{\rm {s}}}t}\) is a dichotomous variable capturing the presence of at least one SEN student in section \({s}\) at year \(t\); thus, \({\alpha }_{1}\) is our parameter of interest.

In other specifications below, \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{s}t}}\) will be differentiated by type of SEN. \({{{\rm {STD}}}}_{{i{s}t}}\) is a vector of student-level control variables that include

age in years and indicators for gender (1 = women) and spoken language (1 = indigenous). The vector \({{{\rm {SEC}}}}_{{st}}\) controls for section-level variables without student \(i\). It

includes mean age, proportion of male students, proportion of indigenous speakers, and number of students. The vector \({{{\rm {SCH}}}}_{t}\) includes number of students at the school level.

\({{{\rm {HH}}}}_{{it}}\) includes the following household characteristics: mother’s age, mother’s education, and the number of siblings. We also include school-fixed effects

\(\left({\gamma }_{{s}}\right)\)Footnote 10 and year-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{t}\right)\). Finally, \({\varepsilon }_{{i{s}t}}\) is an unobserved error term, and we cluster standard

errors at the section level as this is the common environment shared by students (Balestra et al., 2022). To assess potential heterogeneous influences, we follow recent literatureFootnote 11

and estimate Eq. (1) using split samples by the characteristic of interest (Feigenberg et al., 2023). In particular, we evaluate the gender of the student \(i\). For section

characteristics, we evaluate the number of students. Finally, we assess the varying estimates based on the mother’s age and the mother’s education. In the case of characteristics that are

represented by continuous or categorical variables, we convert them into dichotomous variables. For the number of students, we split the sample between sections that have 20 or fewer

students and sections with 21 or more students. In the case of the mother’s age, we use the mean age to split the sample above and below the mean. The mean age is 41.5 for those mothers with

children who attend 2P and 44.8 for those with children who attend 2S. Finally, for mothers’ education, we split the sample between those with and without tertiary education. The

descriptive statistics for our final cross-section subpopulations are presented in Table 3. All descriptive and econometric analyses were conducted using Stata 18. In this case, we combine

observations that include students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, as the characteristics of the separated subpopulations are similar to each other. According to

Table 3, students with SEN generally have lower reading and mathematics scores compared to their peers without SEN across both primary and secondary grades. This trend is more pronounced in

2S compared to 2P. We also observe in Table 3 that the proportions of women and indigenous language speakers are relatively consistent across SEN and non-SEN cohorts. Approximately 48% of

the students are female, and the average age is 6.9 in 2P and 12.9 in 2S. However, it is interesting to note that the mean proportion of indigenous language speakers is higher in 2S (~22%)

compared to 2P (~12%), indicating a potential demographic shift as students progress through the education system. A similar trend for indigenous language speakers is observed at the section

level. Moreover, figures in Table 3 show that the mean age in a section is ~7.2 in 2P and 13.3 in 2S, the sample is balanced between male and female students at the section level, and there

are around 20 students per section. Regarding household characteristics, the average age of mothers is 41.5 for those with children in 2P and 44.8 for those with children in 2S, around 6

out of 10 students have mothers with primary or secondary education, and the majority of students have more than two siblings. Finally, students enrolled in primary education typically

attend larger schools, characterized by a pupil population exceeding 120, in contrast to those in secondary education, where schools typically accommodate fewer than 100 students. EMPIRICAL

RESULTS Regression results from Eq. (1) are shown in Table 4.Footnote 12 For column (1), we use ECE and CE datasets, which do not include students’ age or household characteristics. For

columns (2) through (6), we add the SG dataset to incorporate students’ age and household characteristics. Columns (1) through (4) include the proportion of repeaters and the presence of at

least one specialized teacher when students were 3 years old, and they were not attending school; thus, the presence of an SEN student should not influence the proportion of repeaters or

presence of a specialized teacher. Columns (5) and (6) do not include those variables, and the results remain similar to those obtained in the previous columns. In addition, as a robustness

check, we try different subpopulations based on students’ age (columns (2) through (4)) and schools with variation in SEN students (column (6)). For all the specifications, our results

consistently show that the presence of at least one SEN student as a measure of inclusive education does not have a significant influence on the learning achievement of students who attend

2P or 2S. Our findings align with similar results from other countries such as Canada (Friesen et al., 2010), England (Keslair et al., 2012), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017), indicating

that inclusive education does not have a significant impact on the academic achievement of non-SEN students. Nevertheless, we notice in Table 4 that, after including students’ age and

household characteristics, the negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement (column 1) turned into a positive relationship (columns 2 through 6). Even in the

case of students who attend 2S, the magnitude of the positive relationship between inclusive education and mathematics scores increased when student’s age and household characteristics were

included in the regression. This suggests that the attributes of a student’s household, along with individual traits correlated with them, such as motivation, self-discipline, and parental

support, may exert a positive influence on their learning environment. This influence could potentially counterbalance any adverse effects of inclusive education. An alternative explanation

lies in the interaction effects between inclusive education and these supplementary factors. For instance, older students or those from more privileged households could potentially derive

greater benefits from inclusive education due to their increased adaptability to the classroom environment. We further explore these issues in the _Heterogeneity analysis_ section. The main

results, however, may mask different outcomes by type of SEN. Table 5 shows the results from Eq. (1) using the presence of at least one student with a certain type of SEN as a measure of

inclusive education. ResultsFootnote 13 in Table 5 are estimated by gradually adding control variables in each column. Columns (1) and (6) do not include any control variable. Columns (2)

and (7) add student controls. Cohort controls are added in columns (3) and (8), and school controls are added in columns (5) and (9). Finally, family controls are added in columns (5) and

(10). As we can see in Table 5, adding variables does not substantially change the estimates. We also notice that the sign of the relationship between inclusive education and learning

achievement varies by type of SEN, and only vision disability (panel A) and mobility disability (panel B) have a significant positive relationship with the standardized test scores of

students who attend 2P and 2S, respectively. As we can observe in Table 5, even when we use the Romano-Wolf multiple hypothesis correction, the significance of our findings remains similar

across different specifications (cf. Clarke, 2021, Clarke et al., 2020). These findings confirm our main results that inclusive education would not harm the learning performance of non-SEN

students, regardless of the type of SEN presented by their peers. Results in Table 5 show that the impact of attending an inclusive classroom with at least one SEN student with a vision

disability increases the reading and mathematics scores of students who attend 2P by 0.135 (adjusted _p_-value < 0.05) (column 5) and by 0.154 (adjusted _p_-value < 0.05) (column 10)

of a standard deviation, respectively. In the case of students who attend 2S, the impact of the presence of at least one student with mobility disability increases the performance on reading

and mathematics tests by 0.099 (adjusted _p_-value < 0.01) (column 5) and by 0.100 (adjusted _p_-value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. Similar to our

results, Ruijs (2017) found that the presence of students with vision disabilities as well as physical and intellectual disabilities in the third level of pre-vocational secondary education

in the Netherlands increases standardized test scores of non-SEN students. Moreover, previous studies pointed out that non-SEN students show more positive attitudes toward their peers with

physical disabilities (de Boer et al., 2012), which may explain the positive influence of SEN students with vision and mobility disabilities that we have found on the learning achievement on

non-SEN students. HETEROGENEITY ANALYSIS We further undertake several analyses to understand the differences in the impact of inclusive education.Footnote 14Clogg’s _z_-test is implemented

for testing the statistical significance of the difference between the coefficients estimated separately by splitting Eq. (1) (Clogg et al., 1995). Estimates of inclusive education by gender

of non-SEN students are presented in Table 6. The results show that the influence of inclusive education on learning achievement is not statistically significant for men or women, and there

is no statistical difference between them. To explore the influence of inclusive education by usage of adequate resources, we analyze the influence of the total number of students at the

section level. We find that inclusive education is associated with higher scores in reading and mathematics for non-SEN students who attend classrooms with 10–20 students and with lower

scores for those who attend classrooms with 21–30 students, regardless the student attends 2P or 2S. This result may reflect that small groups foster a closer interaction between students

and teacher which in turn may allow the teacher to develop better teaching strategies since they know each student better. The result of inclusive education by section size, however, is

statistically different only for the reading score obtained by non-SEN students who attend 2S. This result underscores the complexity of inclusive education’s effects and the importance of

context-specific considerations. Authorities should pay special attention to the number of students assigned to an inclusive classroom. To analyze the household’s characteristics, we use the

mother’s age and education. In the case of reading and mathematics in 2P, it seems that older mothers help to improve the scores of non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom; but

there is not a clear pattern in the case of 2S. The differences in the test scores by mother’s age, however, are not statistically significant in any case, 2P or 2S. We have to take this

result with caution as it is possible that other family characteristics rather than the mother’s age act as a moderator that could influence the effect of inclusive education on children’s

outcomes in school (Leigh and Gong, 2010; López Turley, 2003). We also present in Table 6 the estimates of inclusive education on test scores of non-SEN students by mother’s education. We

observe that the difference in inclusive education’s influence on test scores in reading and mathematics is not statistically different regardless mother’s education. Although the difference

is small and not significant, we observe that among non-SEN students in 2P and 2S with well-educated mothers (i.e., tertiary education), inclusive education is associated with lower scores

in reading and mathematics. This finding may suggest that well-educated mothers may dedicate fewer hours to helping their children as they are more likely to work outside the home in

comparison to less-educated mothers. CONCLUSION The current study focused on the learning achievement of non-SEN students in Peru who attend an inclusive classroom. We use three rich

administrative datasets that allow us to measure inclusive education by the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom, which is the appropriate setting as students spend their

school day mostly within the classroom. Thus, we are able to capture the influence of inclusive education on the test scores of non-SEN students on national standardized tests in reading and

mathematics. Inclusive strategies in regular classrooms are undeniably crucial, but without appropriate adaptations and a comprehensive understanding by all involved, inclusive education

can pose considerable challenges for the entire educational community, including non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019; Nilsen, 2020). While some studies for developed countries show that

the learning achievement of non-SEN students is improved by attending inclusive classrooms and others point to negative effects, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of inclusive

education for developing countries. From this perspective, our study contributes to the literature by examining the case of inclusive education in Peru and its consequences on non-SEN

students. To the best of our knowledge, this topic has not been previously analyzed in the Peruvian context. Further, we explore the influence of inclusive education by type of SEN and

undertake a heterogeneity analysis. Overall, this study has found that the inclusion of SEN students in regular classrooms, on average, yields no substantial implications for their non-SEN

counterparts. Our results have shown consistency among the different model specifications estimated using several subpopulations with different age ranges as well as an additional

sub-population restricted to schools with variation in the presence of SEN students. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there is a negative relationship between inclusive education and

learning achievement of non-SEN students that turns into a positive relationship when the mother’s characteristics are included in the analysis. This may present an opportunity for school

authorities to involve parents in the learning process of their kids to enhance inclusive education programs, as the literature suggests that the way inclusive education is implemented may

lead to positive results on the academic performance of non-SEN students (Szumski et al., 2017). We also found that the implications of inclusive education are contingent upon the specific

type of SEN. In particular, non-SEN students benefit from attending classrooms with at least one student with a vision disability in 2P and a mobility disability in 2S. This finding

underscores differential effects between lower and later grades, a phenomenon previously noted in the literature (Kart and Kart, 2021). Also, this result should draw attention from

policymakers interested in inclusive education as schools may be more suitable to assist this type of SEN students, whereas the potential lack of resources to support other types of SEN

might detrimentally affect SEN and non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019). In addition, we find that the influence of inclusive education is heterogeneous. We find that the small size of

the classroom (20 or fewer students) helps to improve learning achievement in reading for non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom in 2S. Similar to previous literature (e.g.,

Szumski et al., 2017), this finding points to the need for educational policymakers to increase the budget for inclusive education, targeting to hire more and adequate resources. Finally,

the mother’s characteristics are not relevant to explain differences in the estimates of inclusive education on academic achievement of non-SEN students. Despite the contributions made by

this study, some potential limitations could be addressed by future research. First, due to a lack of data, we are not able to incorporate a measure that reflects the diverse intensity of a

disability (Oh-Young and Filler, 2015) that could be associated with different costs (Nicoriciu and Elliot, 2023). Second, the datasets employed in this analysis are unavailable for certain

years, precluding our use of data from ECE before 2011. Additionally, the variable indicating the language spoken in 2S was not present in the same dataset (CE) for the years 2018 and 2019.

Finally, despite our efforts to mitigate concerns related to omitted variable bias, we concede the possibility of residual biases. Specifically, we omitted socioeconomic status from our

analysis due to substantial rates of missing data. DATA AVAILABILITY The datasets used in this study are available from the Peruvian Ministry of Education repository upon request. NOTES * In

the literature, there are three main approaches: (i) segregation, (ii) integration, and (iii) inclusive (see e.g., Dixon, 2005; Kiuppis, 2014; Madhesh, 2023). * It is worth noting that

results from countries like Peru are not directly comparable to those previously presented by Contreras et al. (2020). Indeed, academic performance in Peru is poorer relative to Chile, as

reported by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and it does not receive monetary incentives to enroll children with SEN. Furthermore, Chile displays a particular

institutional framework worldwide since state-subsidized private schools (voucher schools) have around 50% of total enrollment (CEM, 2019). Thus, insights from the Peruvian case are valuable

for other comparable countries. * Although the ECE evaluates other subjects, only mathematics and reading were evaluated in every ECE. Students attending 2nd grade of primary were evaluated

from 2007 to 2016 on mathematics and reading. In the case of students attending 2nd grade of secondary, they were evaluated on mathematics and reading from 2015 to 2019 (except 2017),

social sciences in 2016 and 2018, and science and technology in 2018 and 2019. * Unfortunately, information for SG was not available before 2011, and the MINEDU did not provide information

for 2014. * The ECE was not conducted in 2017. * Advancement and delay in 2P (2S) are determined based on the chronological age of the students as of March 31. If a student is one year

younger than the standard age of 7 (13), it would be considered advancement. Conversely, if a student is one year older than the standard age, that is, age of 8 (14), it would be considered

within a delay. * Since we only include schools with one section per grade, the number of SEN students reported by grade is used to account for the presence of SEN students at the section

level. * A cohort refers to the students within the same section for each grade level and year. * Full-grade refers to primary schools where teachers do not teach more than one grade in the

same classroom. * Since we work with schools that have only one section, school-fixed effects can also be understood as section-fixed effects. * Feigenberg et al. (2023) state that using a

split-sample approach is equivalent to a fully interacted model but avoids losing statistical power. Likewise, they state that, unlike a model with only one interaction, the split-sample

approach reduces bias due to omitted variables. * Results, including all control variables, are presented in the Supplementary Information. Tables S1 and S2 for reading and mathematics in

2P, respectively. Tables S3 and S4 for reading and mathematics in 2S, respectively. * Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information Table S5. *

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information from Table S6 to Table S10. REFERENCES * Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M, Karlsson K (2021) Do schools

discriminate against children with disabilities? A field experiment in Sweden. Educ Econ 29(1):3–16 Article  Google Scholar  * Ainscow M, César M (2006) Inclusive education ten years after

Salamanca: setting the agenda. Eur J Psychol Educ 21(3):231–238 Article  Google Scholar  * Ammermueller A, Pischke J (2009) Peer effects in European primary schools: evidence from the

progress in international reading literacy study. J Labor Econ27(3):315–348 Article  Google Scholar  * Balestra S, Eugster B, Liebert H (2022) Peers with special needs: effects and policies.

Rev Econ Stat 104(3):602–618 Article  Google Scholar  * Burke M, Sass T (2013) Classroom peer effects and student achievement. J Labor Econ 31(1):51–82 Article  Google Scholar  * CEM (2019)

Estadísticas de la educación 2018. Publicación 2019. Centro de Estudios MINEDUC * Clarke D (2021) rwolf2 implementation and flexible syntax

https://www.damianclarke.net/computation/rwolf2.pdf * Clarke D, Romano J, Wolf M (2020) The Romano-Wolf multiple-hypothesis correction in Stata. Stata J 20(4):812–843 Article  Google Scholar

  * Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol 100(5):1261–1293 Article  Google Scholar  * Cole C, Waldron N,

Majd M (2004) Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retard 42:136–144 Article  Google Scholar  * Congreso de la República (2003) Ley General de

Educación. Ley 28044. https://leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/28044.pdf * Congreso de la República (2006) Directiva No. 076-2006-VMGP/DINEBE

https://www.minedu.gob.pe/normatividad/resoluciones/rd_0354-2006-ed.pdf * Contreras D, Brante M, Espinoza S, Zuñiga I (2020) The effect of the integration of students with special

educational needs: evidence from Chile. Int J Educ Dev 74:102163 Article  Google Scholar  * Cueto S, Rojas V, Dammer M, Felipe C (2018) Cobertura, oportunidades y percepciones sobre la

educación inclusiva en el Perú. GRADE * de Boer A, Pijl S, Minnaert A (2012) Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of the literature. Int J Disabil Dev Educ

59(4):379–392 Article  Google Scholar  * Dell’Anna S, Pellegrini M, Ianes D (2021) Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: a

systematic review. Int J Incl Educ 25(8):944–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592248 Article  Google Scholar  * Dixon S (2005) Inclusion—not segregation or integration is where a

student with special needs belongs. J Educ Thought 39(1):33–53 Google Scholar  * Edwards B, Cameron D, King G, McPherson A (2019) How students without special needs perceive social inclusion

of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: a scoping review. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 66(3):298–324 Article  Google Scholar  * Feigenberg B, Ost B, Qureshi J (2023) Omitted

variable bias in interacted models: a cautionary tale. Rev Econ Stat https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01361 * Filmer D (2008) Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries:

results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev 22(1):141–163 Article  Google Scholar  * Fletcher J (2010) Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test

scores in early elementary school. J Policy Anal Manag 29(1):69–83 Article  Google Scholar  * Friesen J, Hickey R, Krauth B (2010) Disabled peers and academic achievement. Educ Financ

Policy 5(3):317–348 Article  Google Scholar  * Goico S (2019) The impact of “inclusive” education on the language of deaf youth in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Stud 19(3):348–374 Article 

Google Scholar  * Gottfried M (2014) Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educ Eval Policy Anal 36(1):20–43 Article  Google Scholar  * Gottfried M, Egalite A,

Kirksey J (2016) Does the presence of a classmate with emotional/behavioral disabilities link to other students’ absences in kindergarten? Early Child Res Q 36:506–520 Article  Google

Scholar  * Gottfried M, McGene J (2013) The spillover effects of having a sibling with special educational needs. J Educ Res 106(3):197–215 Article  Google Scholar  * Hanushek J, Kain J,

Rivkin S (2002) Inferring program effects for special populations: does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Rev Econ Stat 84(4):584–599 Article  Google

Scholar  * Kart A, Kart M (2021) Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: a review of the literature. Educ Sci 11(1):1.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016 Article  Google Scholar  * Keslair F, Maurin E, McNally S (2012) Every child matters? An evaluation of “special educational needs” programmes in

England. Econ Educ Rev 31(6):932–948 Article  Google Scholar  * Kiuppis F (2014) Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the

‘Salamanca process. Int J Incl Educ 18(7):746–761 Article  Google Scholar  * Krämer S, Möller J, Zimmermann F (2021) Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: a

meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 91(3):432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072 Article  Google Scholar  * Kristoffersen J, Krægpøth M, Nielsen H, Simonsen M (2015) Disruptive school

peers and student outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 45:1–13 Article  Google Scholar  * Lavy V, Silva O, Weinhardt F (2012) The good, the bad, and the average: evidence on ability peer effects in

schools. J Labor Econ 30(2):367–414 Article  Google Scholar  * Lazear E (2001) Educational production. Q J Econ 116(3):777–803 Article  Google Scholar  * Leigh A, Gong X (2010) Does maternal

age affect children’s test scores? Aust Econ Rev 43(1):12–27 Article  Google Scholar  * López Turley R (2003) Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother’s age or

family background? Child Dev 74(2):464–474 Article  Google Scholar  * Madhesh A (2023) The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special

education at Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:278 Article  Google Scholar  * Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud

60:531–542 Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar  * Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U (2008) Disability and the rural labor market in India: evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World Dev 36(5):934–952

Article  Google Scholar  * Nicoriciu A, Elliot M (2023) Families of children with disabilities: income poverty, material deprivation, and unpaid care in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:519

Article  Google Scholar  * Nilsen S (2020) Inside but still on the outside? Teachers’ experiences with the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in general education. Int J

Incl Educ 24(9):980–996 Article  Google Scholar  * OAS (2018) Program of action for the decade of the Americas for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. OAS, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  * Olusanya B, Kancherla V, Shaheen A, Ogbo F, Davis A (2022) Global and regional prevalence of disabilities among children and adolescents: analysis of findings from global

health databases. Front Public Health 10:977453 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Ombudsman P (2011) Los niños y niñas con discapacidad: Alcances y limitaciones en la

implementación de la política de educación inclusiva en instituciones educativas del nivel primaria. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 155. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo * Ombudsman P

(2019) El derecho a la educación inclusiva. Barreras en la implementación de los servicios educativos públicos y privados para estudiantes con discapacidad y con otras necesidades

educativas. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 183. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo * Rangvid B (2019) Returning special education students to regular classrooms: externalities on peers’

reading scores. Econ Educ Rev 68:13–22 Article  Google Scholar  * Rangvid B (2022) Special educational needs placement in lower secondary education: the impact of segregated vs. mainstream

placement on post-16 outcomes. Educ Econ 30(4):399–425 Article  Google Scholar  * Razavi S (2012) World development report 2012: gender equality and development—a commentary. Dev Change

43(1):423–437 Article  Google Scholar  * Ruijs N (2017) The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Econ Educ Rev 58:15–31 Article  Google Scholar  * Ruijs N, Peetsma T

(2009) Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ Res Rev 4:67–79 Article  Google Scholar  * Szumski G, Smogorzewska J, Karwowski M (2017)

Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 21:33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 Article 

Google Scholar  * Oh-Young C, Filler J (2015) A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil

47:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * UNESCO (1994) _T_he Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted

by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality. UNESCO * Van Mieghem A, Verschueren K, Petry K, Struyf E (2020) An analysis of research on inclusive education: a

systematic search and meta review. Int J Incl Educ 24(6):675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012 Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was

supported by the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Consortium (grant No. A1-PB03, CIES 2022). The authors express their gratitude to the participants of the XXXIV Annual Research Seminar

2023 hosted by the Economic and Social Research Consortium (CIES), as well as to two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback, which contributed to the improvement of this

manuscript. Special thanks to Juan Castañeda and Jonatan Amaya for their outstanding research assistance in earlier versions of this study. All remaining errors are our own. AUTHOR

INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Piura, Av. Ramón Mugica 131, Urb. San Eduardo, Piura, Perú V. B. Salas García *

Departamento de Economía, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima, 15088, Perú José María Rentería Authors * V. B. Salas García View author publications You

can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * José María Rentería View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS All the

authors contributed equally to this work. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to V. B. Salas García. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests.

ETHICAL APPROVAL This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. INFORMED CONSENT This article does not contain any studies with human

participants performed by any of the authors. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,

which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a

link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence,

unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory

regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Salas García, V.B., Rentería, J.M. Students with special educational needs in

regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement. _Humanit Soc Sci Commun_ 11, 521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8 Download citation * Received: 09

November 2023 * Accepted: 27 March 2024 * Published: 17 April 2024 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able

to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing

initiative