Next Article in Journal
University Social Incubators and the Social and Solidarity Economy: Comparative Insights from Argentina and Brazil
Previous Article in Journal
Taking Stock of South African Responses to Homelessness: Advocating for Victim-Inclusive and Protective Policy Reform
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/socsci14100612
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Social Inclusion of Immigrant Irish Primary School Children: Urbanicity, School Size and School Composition

by
Martin H. Jones
1,
Jennifer E. Symonds
2,
Neil Kaye
2,*,
Seaneen Sloan
3,
Dympna Devine
3,
Gabriela Martinez Sainz
3 and
Olga Ioannidou
3
1
School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
2
Social Research Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3
School of Education, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(10), 612; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100612
Submission received: 6 August 2025 / Revised: 9 October 2025 / Accepted: 13 October 2025 / Published: 15 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Childhood and Youth Studies)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Given world immigration patterns, understanding immigrant children’s social inclusion is crucial, especially the role of school characteristics. The current study examines how individual- and school-level factors shape immigrant children’s peer relationship In Ireland, a context that has experienced rapid demographic change by remains underexplored in the literature. Drawing on social network theory, we analyse data from 2244 primary school children across 98 schools, using measures of peer group size, friendship nominations, and network centrality to capture social inclusion. Multilevel regression models show that immigrant children report smaller peer groups compared to non-immigrant peers, while minority language use is consistently associated with lower levels of social centrality. Contrary to expectations, school size and urbanicity had limited effects, and classrooms with a higher proportion of immigrant students were associated with reduced inclusion overall, although immigrant children themselves benefitted somewhat from greater classroom diversity. Family affluence was positively associated with all measures of inclusion, highlighting the role of socioeconomic inequalities alongside migration background. The findings underscore the complex and multifaceted nature of social inclusion, showing that both structural and interpersonal dynamics shape immigrant children’s experiences in Irish schools, and pointing to the need for targeted strategies to address linguistic and socioeconomic barriers.

1. Introduction

Traditionally a country of emigration, Ireland has experienced rapid transformation socially, culturally, and economically over the past forty years. The latest census data (CSO 2023) confirms that one-fifth of the resident population is now born outside of the Republic of Ireland—up from 17% in 2016. The largest migrant groups include those from Poland and the UK, with recent years recording significant increases in those from India, Brazil, and Romania (CSO 2023). Current patterns build on previous waves from Lithuania and from across 152 countries globally, which is indicative of the dynamism of immigrant flows, and of the Irish economy.
Primary schools have become increasingly diverse, though not consistently so across the country. A particular feature of the primary school system in Ireland is the number of small rural schools, with 42% of primary schools comprising four mainstream classes or fewer (DES 2022). While immigrants are present across all geographic regions, there are greater concentrations in urban centres—where schools are larger—with evidence of some clustering in areas of social disadvantage, where housing costs are lower (Devine 2011; McGinnity et al. 2022). Within this context of rapid migration, a key challenge for Irish society is the integration of immigrant families into local communities (e.g., Fanning 2018).
This provides a novel and unique cultural context for understanding how culture, language and ethnicity correspond to social integration, especially regarding primary school children’s social inclusion with their peers. Understanding migrant children in schools is a critical issue with profound implications for their academic success and personal development. As the global number of migrant children reaches 36 million, with Europe and North America hosting a significant portion of this population (UNICEF 2021), understanding how these children integrate into their new school environments becomes increasingly important. Social inclusion within schools affects various aspects of their lives, from academic performance to intrapersonal growth and peer relationships (Cillessen and Marks 2011; Ladd 2005; Narr et al. 2019; Palacios et al. 2019; Veenstra and Laninga-Wijnen 2022). However, there remains a significant gap in our understanding of the specific structural and interpersonal factors that influence the social inclusion of immigrant children, highlighting the need for further research in this area.
To address this gap, we turn to social network theory as the primary framework for this study. Social network theory, which focuses on the relationships and interactions within a group, offers valuable insights into how individuals connect and influence each other (Carrington et al. 2005; Cillessen 2009; De Nooy et al. 2018; Wasserman and Faust 1994). Key concepts within this theory, such as network size and centrality measures (degree, closeness, and eigenvector centrality), allow us to evaluate the number of peer connections immigrant children have and their relative status within these networks. This framework therefore provides a comprehensive method for analysing the factors that contribute to or hinder the social inclusion of immigrant children in school settings.
Utilising key conceptual tools from social network theory, this study aims to bridge the gap in the literature by examining how structural factors (e.g., school size and location) and interpersonal dynamics (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, and language proficiency) impact the social inclusion of immigrant children. Through this analysis, the study seeks to understand how immigrant children navigate their social environments and identify mechanisms that facilitate or impede their integration. This understanding is essential for informing strategies that promote social inclusion and enhance the academic and personal outcomes of immigrant children.

1.1. Immigrant Children and Social Inclusion

The inclusion of immigrant children in schools is central to a wider process of inclusion of immigrant families into the settlement society. As Devine (2009) notes, it is through children’s efforts to “work to belong” that friendships are forged, playdates arranged, and wider connections between parents and families emerge. Schools thus serve as critical spaces where immigrant children not only access education but also engage with the social and cultural fabric of their new communities. Through daily interactions with peers, immigrant children internalise the prevailing values and norms of the host culture, developing what McGovern and Devine (2016) and Ní Laoire (2011) describe as the “cultural know-how” necessary for social participation.
Immigrant children often bear a dual responsibility: succeeding academically and navigating social learning through relationships and networks that support their adjustment and well-being (Berry et al. 2006). Peer inclusion is a vital precursor to a range of positive developmental outcomes, including academic achievement, interpersonal competence, and emotional well-being (Cillessen and Marks 2011; Ladd 2005; Narr et al. 2019; Palacios et al. 2019; Veenstra and Laninga-Wijnen 2022).
Friendship formation among immigrant children frequently occurs with other children who share the common experience of being outsiders within the school or local community (Trisokka et al. 2021; Scholtz and Gilligan 2017; Massumi et al. 2023). This especially occurs where there are challenges over language, with immigrant peers acting as ‘linguistic brokers’ to facilitate social interaction in the classroom (Orellana et al. 2003; Bunar and Ambrose 2016; Rutland et al. 2012). Classroom composition also plays a role: the proportion of immigrant children can shape both who and how many students a child befriends in school. As Kandel (1978) suggests, friendship patterns are influenced by homophily (the tendency to associate with those perceived as similar) and by efforts to overcome ‘out-group’ biases. Thus, immigrant children may benefit from greater social inclusion in classrooms with a greater proportion of immigrant children, whilst non-immigrant children may experience less social inclusion in classrooms with relatively greater numbers of immigrant children (e.g., Cavicchiolo et al. 2023).
Where immigrant children share the same language, stronger connections occur, reinforcing a sense of belonging, similarity, and acceptance (Amina et al. 2022; Kam and Lazarevic 2014; Tuttle and Johnson 2018). Gender is also important: for example, immigrant boys often find acceptance and popularity through sporting competence, whereas girls’ social integration tends to develop around shared interests such as music and dress, and more intimate small group relations predominate (Devine and Kelly 2006; Keddie 2006; Kostas 2022; Scholtz and Gilligan 2017).

1.2. What Factors Might Increase Social Inclusion?

Social inclusion is a dynamic and complex process involving multiple structural and interpersonal factors (Dawes 2017; Echols and Ivanich 2021; Veenstra and Laninga-Wijnen 2022). or immigrant children, opportunities for inclusion depend on variables such as school size, location, socioeconomic composition, and peer diversity. Research indicates that rural schools and smaller educational settings often foster stronger social bonds and closer student–teacher relationships than larger, urban schools (Byun et al. 2012; Hardré et al. 2009; Darling-Hammond et al. 2020; Irvin et al. 2011; Roeser and Eccles 2014). Rural communities also tend to place a higher value on interpersonal relationships, which may enhance social connectedness for all students (Byun et al. 2012).
Socioeconomic status (SES) represents another critical dimension. Immigrant children are, on average, less likely to come from affluent families (Stevens et al. 2015), and material possessions such as fashionable clothing, shoes, or technology can influence social standing among peers (Plenty and Mood 2016). These disparities may therefore compound the social integration challenges faced by immigrant students, while those from more affluent migrant families may find it easier to establish peer relationships.
School size can also shape the social environment. Smaller schools, typically those with fewer than 400 pupils, allow teachers and administrators to observe, guide, and intervene in children’s social interactions more effectively (Crosnoe et al. 2004; Darling-Hammond et al. 2020; Roeser and Eccles 2014). However, many immigrant children are concentrated in larger urban schools, often located in less affluent neighbourhoods where housing costs are lower (Devine 2011; McGinnity et al. 2022). Thus, urbanicity, school size, and community SES are interrelated factors that influence immigrant children’s opportunities for social inclusion.
Gender further interacts with these structural factors. Shared interests and extracurricular activities often facilitate friendship formation, but school environments also matter. In single-sex schools, gender homogeneity may strengthen social bonds; however, for immigrant students unfamiliar with gender-segregated education—as in the Irish context—this arrangement may initially hinder adaptation (Gilligan et al. 2010; Ní Laoire 2011).
Finally, language acquisition is among the most significant influences on immigrant children’s inclusion. Limited proficiency in the host country’s language can pose major barriers to forming friendships and participating fully in school life (Devine and Kelly 2006; Onsès-Segarra et al. 2023; Strzemecka 2015). Yet bilingualism has also been associated with enhanced cognitive outcomes and greater sociocultural adaptation (Portes and Rivas 2011). The impact of language on inclusion is therefore dynamic and depends on both the level of fluency and the support available for language learning.

1.3. The Present Study

The current study investigates the social inclusion of immigrant children in Irish primary schools, addressing a critical gap in the literature that has rarely examined this issue in the Irish context. Drawing on social network theory, we focus on both structural school-level factors and interpersonal dynamics to understand how immigrant children integrate into peer networks. Specifically, we ask: How do school characteristics and individual attributes shape immigrant children’s positions within classroom social networks, and what mechanisms facilitate or hinder their inclusion?
To address this question, we examine several predictors of social inclusion—operationalised as friendship group size and measures of social centrality (degree, closeness, and eigenvector centrality). We expect that smaller and rural schools will foster greater inclusion for immigrant children, as closer-knit peer environments are likely to reduce social isolation. Similarly, we anticipate that classrooms with a higher proportion of immigrant students will enhance immigrant children’s social inclusion, since greater diversity may lessen the likelihood of marginalisation. By contrast, we predict that family affluence will play little role in shaping social inclusion, as the integration of immigrant children is expected to depend more on language proficiency and classroom dynamics than on socioeconomic background.
By situating the study in Ireland and grounding it in theoretically informed expectations, this research provides an empirical test of how school structures and classroom dynamics influence immigrant children’s social inclusion, thereby contributing both to international debates on migrant integration and to the limited body of Irish-specific evidence.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants come from the BLINDED study, which is a nationally representative longitudinal study of Ireland’s primary schooling: Children’s School Lives (Devine et al. 2020). The study used purposive sampling to ensure a nationally representative sample. This sampling methodology resulted in participants from 127 classrooms in 98 schools across the Republic of Ireland. All parents provided informed consent for their children. Participation rates averaged approximately 80% of children in the participating schools.
The current study included a total of 2244 primary school children. Participants’ average age was 10 years old (SD = 3 months). Approximately 33% of students were in low socioeconomic status schools (Ireland’s Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools programme). In the current study, 244 participants were immigrants, born outside of Ireland, whereas 1956 children were born inside Ireland. Immigrant children comprised 121 boys and 123 girls. Reflecting national patterns, immigrant children’s ethnicities were majority White and Irish (i.e., Irish citizens born outside Ireland, n = 46), immigrant children of colour (i.e., Asian, Black, Mixed; n = 79), other White and not Irish children (e.g., White Europeans, White North Americans; n = 68), and all other missing data. Non-immigrant children included 950 boys and 999 girls. The ethnicities for non-immigrant children were 1468 White Irish, 196 people of colour, and 141 other White and non-Irish.

2.2. Measures

Social Inclusion. Social inclusion measurement began with participants reporting their friend nominations: “Could you please name your close friends in this class? You can name up to 10 people, but you do not have to name 10 people. Just list those people you are friends with.” Participants responded, on average, with 5–6 friend nominations. Students’ friend nominations were analysed using R statistical software (igraph package) (Csardi and Nepusz 2006; R Core Team 2021). Social inclusion measures included indegree nominations, outdegree nominations, closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and the number of peer group members.
Indegree Nominations, Outdegree Nominations, and Centrality. Indegree nominations are the frequency of times a student was nominated by other students as a friend. Outdegree nominations are the frequency of nominations that a student reported others as being their friend. Centrality indicates social prominence in the classroom. The present study uses two types of centrality: closeness centrality and eigenvector centrality. Closeness centrality is the number of ‘steps’ from a given child to connect with any and all other children in the classroom (https://igraph.org/r/doc/closeness.html (accessed on 17 November 2023); Freeman et al. 1979). Eigenvector centrality measures the proximity of each participant with highly socially central children (https://igraph.org/r/doc/eigen_centrality.html (accessed on 17 November 2023); Bonacich 1972). Higher closeness centrality suggests more social connections within the classroom, where as eigenvector centrality suggests greater social prominence within the classroom.
Peer Group Membership. The Leiden community detection package in R provided suggested peer groups and size of peer group membership (Traag et al. 2019). Leiden detection methods can be used to indicate peer group membership. Leiden utilises reciprocally nominated friendships to detect coherent interconnected communities within the social network.
Immigration Status. Children’s immigration status was derived from the question “Were you born in Ireland?” A total of 11% of the sample were immigrants. Additionally, data on children’s home language was collected and categorised either as ‘English or Irish’ or as a ‘minority language’. Around 14% of the sample spoke a minority language, while this included close to half of the immigrant participants (47.5%).
Socioeconomic Status. The Family Affluence Scale measured the socioeconomic status of children (Inchley et al. 2018). The scale has been shown to be valid and reliable in previous research (Kehoe and O’Hare 2010) and is constructed from students’ self-reported responses on five items: Do you have your own bedroom for yourself? (1 = no, 2 = yes), Do you have a dishwasher at home? (1 = no, 2 = yes), Does your family own a car, van or truck? (1 = no, 2 = one, 3 = two, 4 = more than two), How many computers does your family own? (1 = none, 2 = one, 3 = two, 4 = more than two), and: How many bathrooms (rooms with a bath/shower or both) are in your home? (1 = none, 2 = one, 3 = two, 4 = more than two). Total scores on the FAS were calculated, with a possible range from five to 16, with higher scores denoting a higher family socioeconomic status.

School Context

School Size. School sizes ranged from 20 to 688 children. The average school size was 179 children (SD = 134; Median = 148.5).
Socioeconomic Status. In Ireland, support for schools with higher concentrations of socioeconomically disadvantaged students is provided through the national policy programme known as DEIS (Delivering Equality in Schools). DEIS identification is the number of children in receipt of welfare and other social supports in the given community. The current study included approximately 33% of participants in DEIS schools.
Single/mixed Gender Schooling. Ireland has primary schools that educate a single gender (boys or girls) or educate both boys and girls together. In the current study, 87% of study participants went to a mixed gender school, 6% went to an all-girls school, and 7% went to an all-boys school. Data for one school was missing on this variable.
Urbanicity. School urbanicity data came from the Ireland Central Statistics Office. The study utilised a three-tier system for schools’ urbanicity: cities, urban-towns, and rural areas. Cities had more than 50,000 inhabitants, whereas urban-towns had between 1500 and 49,999 inhabitants. Rural were areas with less than 1500 people. Approximately 22% of children in the current study lived in cities, 40% lived in urban-towns, and 38% of participating children lived in rural areas, which represents a slight over-representation of students in urban towns and an under-representation of those living in cities (CSO 2019).
Percentage Immigrant Students in Classrooms. We measured the percentage of immigrant students within a given classroom. A per-classroom measurement was appropriate given the schools utilised self-contained classrooms, which meant students’ social network boundaries operated within the given classroom. The percentage of immigrant children per classroom ranged from 0 to 100%. On average, 21% of classroom participants were immigrant students (SD = 17%, Median = 19%).
Sample characteristics at individual and school level are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Procedures

Fieldwork took place between March and June 2021. Data collection was undertaken by study fieldworkers, who were qualified educational professionals trained in data collection procedures by research professionals. Participant reports of friendships nominations came from paper and pencil questionnaires answered by children in their classrooms. Peer nominations were part of a larger assortment of other data collected by fieldworkers over the course of a single school day.

2.4. Data Analysis Plan

Answering the study’s research questions involved multiple sets of analyses designed to test the hypotheses derived from social network theory and prior literature. First, preliminary analyses were conducted using correlation matrices and Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) tests to identify potential associations between school urbanicity, school size, classroom immigrant composition, family affluence, and measures of social inclusion. These exploratory steps provided the basis for specifying the multilevel models.
Given the hierarchical structure of the data—students nested within schools—we employed multilevel regression modelling as the primary analytic approach, using mixed-effects linear models in Stata version 17 (StataCorp., 2023). For each dependent variable (peer group size, ingroup degree, outgroup degree, closeness centrality, and eigenvector centrality), we first estimated a null model to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The ICCs were then incorporated into the interpretation of the subsequent models, clarifying the proportion of variance attributable to school-level factors.
To test our hypotheses, we specified a sequence of nested models. The first model introduced individual-level predictors (immigrant status, gender, family affluence, and language proficiency). The second added school-level predictors (urbanicity, school size, and percentage of immigrant students in the classroom). The third model included cross-level interactions to test whether school-level characteristics moderate the relationships between individual attributes and social inclusion (e.g., whether the effect of immigrant status or language proficiency varies depending on classroom composition or school location). Model fit was evaluated using –2 restricted log-likelihood comparisons between successive models. Owing to space constraints, we only present findings of the null and full models, with intermediate models available from the authors on request.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Given past research suggesting some gendered social developmental differences (e.g., Rose and Smith 2018), the first statistical test examined whether boys and girls differed in social inclusion: indegree, outdegree, closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and frequency of peer group members. A Multiple Analysis of Variances (MANOVA) suggested significant differences between boys and girls, F (6, 1937) = 7.88, p < 0.001. Post hoc analyses suggested that boys had greater closeness centrality (d = 0.07), greater eigenvector centrality (d = 0.26), and more group members (d = 0.14), though these are small effect sizes (Cohen 1992).
A further MANOVA tested whether immigrant children experienced lower social inclusion compared to non-immigrant students. Results suggested significant differences between immigrant and non-immigrant children, F (5, 1972) = 53.94, p < 0.001. Immigrant children had fewer indegree nominations (d = 0.31), fewer outdegree nominations (d = 0.81), lower closeness centrality (d = 0.26), lower eigenvector centrality (d = 0.35), and fewer peer group members (d = 0.84; see Table 2), which had small to large effect sizes (Cohen 1992). These results suggest that immigrant children have generally lower social inclusion in Irish primary schools, particularly regarding outdegree nominations and total number of peer group members.

3.2. School Context, Family Affluence, and Social Inclusion of Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Children

Our starting point for the multilevel regression analysis was a null model (without explanatory variables) to assess the variance decomposition of the dependent variables between the individual level and school level. These were followed by full multilevel regression models including both individual- and school-level predictors as well as theoretically motivated interaction terms.

3.2.1. Variance Decomposition

From the null model, in the top panel of Table 3, we see that school level factors account for around a quarter of the variation in peer group size, around 17% of the variation in number of ingroup nominations and around 14% of the variation in number of outgroup nominations. By comparison, a relatively much-greater proportion of the variation in closeness centrality (82.0%) and eigenvector centrality (56.5%) is accounted for at school level. These findings confirm the appropriateness of a multilevel framework and indicate that school-level factors play a substantial role in shaping children’s embeddedness within peer networks, particularly with respect to their structural position (centrality) rather than the number of direct friendship ties.

3.2.2. Impact of Immigrant Status on Social Inclusion

In the full model, immigrant status is associated with lower peer group size (β = −1.11, p < 0.01), but not with the other social inclusion variables once other individual factors and school-level indicators are introduced. This suggests that immigrant students tend to have smaller friendship groups compared to non-immigrants. Minority language use emerged somewhat as a predictor of disadvantage: children speaking a minority language reported fewer ingroup nominations (β = −0.75), fewer outgroup nominations (β = −0.67), and significantly lower closeness centrality (β = −0.09, p < 0.05). This finding implies that linguistic or cultural barriers associated with speaking a minority language might pose specific challenges to social integration. These challenges could affect the ability of minority language speakers to establish and maintain social connections within the school environment.

3.2.3. Protective and Risk Factors for Social Inclusion

Other covariates significantly associated with our measures of social inclusion included gender and family affluence, at individual level, as well as roll size and the proportion of immigrant children in a class at school level.
Gender differences were observed, with girls having smaller friendship groups (β = −0.38, p < 0.01) and lower eigenvector centrality (β = −0.03, p < 0.001) compared to boys. Family affluence, by contrast, was positively associated with social inclusion: more affluent children received more ingroup nominations (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) and reported larger peer group size (β = 0.10, p < 0.01), indicating that children from wealthier families were able to integrate themselves better into their peer groups, even after other factors were controlled for. Age was not significantly related to any of the outcomes once other factors were taken into account.
At the school-level, the percentage of immigrant students in a classroom was consistently and negatively associated with inclusion outcomes. Classes with a higher proportion of immigrant students had smaller average peer group sizes (β = −3.90, p < 0.001), fewer ingroup nominations (β = −2.64, p < 0.001), and lower closeness centrality (β = −0.17, p < 0.001). This suggests that increasing classroom diversity, while often assumed to facilitate inclusion, may under certain conditions create challenges for peer integration.
School size showed only marginal associations. Larger roll sizes were associated with slightly more ingroup and outgroup nominations, but also with somewhat lower centrality scores, pointing to a complex balance between the breadth of peer contacts and the depth of embeddedness within larger peer networks. Urbanicity, school gender composition, and DEIS status did not show consistent associations with social inclusion.
We tested several interaction effects to elicit further nuance in these relationships. The positive interaction between immigrant status and classroom percentage of immigrants (β = 2.57, p < 0.05) indicates that immigrant children are less socially isolated when they are in classrooms with more immigrant peers, partially offsetting the negative main effect of class diversity on inclusion. Similarly, minority language speakers in city schools showed significantly higher closeness centrality (β = 0.08, p < 0.05), suggesting that urban contexts may provide greater opportunities for linguistic minority children to establish meaningful peer connections compared to rural settings.

4. Discussion

Fostering social inclusion amongst immigrant groups, and particularly amongst immigrant children, is a crucial step towards improving their academic, intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Whilst social inclusion is a dynamic and complex process, the current study has sought to disentangle the role of multiple structural and individual factors in shaping immigrant children’s peer group composition, network status, and overall integration within Irish primary schools.

4.1. School Size and Urbanicity

We hypothesised that students at smaller and more rural schools would exhibit greater social inclusion, with teachers and school staff better able to observe and intervene in children’s interpersonal interactions to promote a more inclusive school culture (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020). Contrary to this expectation, neither urbanicity nor roll size was systematically related to most measures of social inclusion. Although larger schools showed slight associations with higher nomination rates, they were also linked to lower centrality scores, suggesting a trade-off between breadth and depth of peer networks. Whilst previous research indicates that smaller school size promotes social acceptance of all students (Jones et al. 2025), further research is necessary to examine the extent to which this can exert a protective effect for immigrant students who are vulnerable to social isolation.

4.2. Classroom Diversity

We further hypothesised that classrooms with a higher proportion of immigrant children would facilitate greater inclusion of immigrant children, as diversity was expected to reduce isolation by normalising immigrant presence (Cavicchiolo et al. 2023). In contrast, our results indicate that a higher percentage of immigrant students in a classroom was negatively associated with all measures of social inclusion. Importantly, the interaction effect showed that immigrant students themselves benefitted somewhat from being in more diverse classrooms, as their friendship group size increased under these conditions. Nevertheless, the overall classroom environment appeared to experience greater social fragmentation when immigrant proportions were higher, regardless of individual immigrant status. This pattern resonates with earlier Irish studies reporting mixed outcomes of classroom diversity (Devine 2013; Smyth et al. 2009), highlighting both the promise and challenges of diverse school settings. The findings suggest that diversity does not automatically translate into integration and that active strategies may be required to foster cohesion in heterogeneous classrooms.

4.3. Family Affluence and Socioeconomic Status

At the individual level, we anticipated that family affluence would play a negligible role in shaping social integration once immigrant status and other covariates were taken into account. Instead, our findings consistently showed that family affluence was a strong positive predictor of peer group size, ingroup nominations, and centrality. This suggests that socioeconomic resources enable children to access social capital within school peer networks, perhaps through the acquisition of symbolic goods (e.g., clothing, technology) that confer social status, as suggested by Plenty and Mood (2016). Crucially, this finding applied to both immigrant and non-immigrant children, underlining the importance of recognising class-based inequalities as a key driver of inclusion alongside ethnicity or migration background.

4.4. Immigrant Status, Minority Language, and Social Position

Our most consistent finding was the disadvantage faced by immigrant and especially minority language children. Immigrant status itself was associated with smaller peer group size, although centrality was not systematically reduced once controls were included. More strikingly, minority language speakers reported fewer nominations and significantly lower closeness centrality, pointing to linguistic barriers as a central mechanism of exclusion. This aligns with previous research emphasising the role of language in shaping peer relationships (Cillessen 2009; Veenstra and Laninga-Wijnen 2022). Moreover, the interaction effects suggested that these disadvantages were partially mitigated in urban schools, where greater opportunities for linguistic diversity may buffer against isolation. Taken together, these results highlight the need for school-level interventions that address language barriers directly, for example, through bilingual support or structured peer mentoring schemes.

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

There are a few limitations that it is key to highlight in relation to the current analysis. First, we acknowledge the inherent heterogeneity that exists within the immigrant population in Irish schools and each child’s experience will be unique in relation to their history and current circumstances. Further research might seek to triangulate the findings using different methodological approaches or research designs.
Whilst the study is longitudinal in its design, our analysis is based on cross-sectional data at a single timepoint and, whilst we recognise that social integration is a dynamic and complex process, this cannot fully be captured through cross-section analysis. We recommend future research in this area to include a longitudinal dimension so as to more fully understand how peer groups in schools change over time for both immigrant and non-immigrant children.
Despite contributing to a greater understanding of the relationship between individual factors and school characteristics in relation to social inclusion, the associations uncovered are correlational and the data do not allow us to identify any causal mechanism.
A final limitation pertains to the way social inclusion is measured. The procedure asks children about their friendship groups within their class, and the dataset does not provide information on networks that transcend the classroom or, indeed, might exist outside of the school, through sport and leisure activity groups, community centres or even in the online space. These sites of interpersonal interactions and their impact on social integration potentially represent a rich seam for future research, especially for minority-language speakers and other (international and internal) immigrant groups.

5. Conclusions

This study shows that different aspects of school context are linked to different aspects of immigrant children’s social inclusion in primary school. The findings confirm that the social experiences of immigrant and non-immigrant children are multifaceted and complex. While immigrant children generally reported lower levels of social inclusion than their non-immigrant peers, these gaps were influenced by factors such as language background, socioeconomic status, and classroom composition.
The current study therefore provides some additional understanding for the unique social experiences of immigrant children, particularly within the empirical setting of primary schools in Ireland. We caution taking the current study’s findings that immigrant children should be placed in more urban schools and in classrooms with more immigrant children. Rather, the study’s findings should be interpreted as highlighting that immigrant and non-immigrant children’s social inclusion often differs depending on their school context. They also suggest that much more work is needed to increase the social inclusion of immigrant children in Ireland’s primary schools in ways that parallel immigrant children’s social experiences in schools throughout the world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.J., J.E.S. and N.K.; methodology, M.H.J., J.E.S. and N.K.; formal analysis, M.H.J., J.E.S. and N.K.; investigation, J.E.S., S.S., D.D., G.M.S. and O.I.; data curation, S.S., J.E.S., M.H.J. and N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.J., J.E.S., N.K. and D.D.; writing—review and editing, M.H.J., J.E.S. and N.K.; visualization, N.K.; project administration, J.E.S., S.S., D.D., G.M.S. and O.I.; funding acquisition, J.E.S., S.S., D.D., G.M.S. and O.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) on behalf of the Government of Ireland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of University College Dublin (protocol code HS-18-83-Symonds on 7 November 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amina, Farrukh, Melissa M. Barnes, and Eisuke Saito. 2022. Belonging in Australian primary schools: How students from refugee backgrounds gain membership. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45: 1864–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Berry, John W., Jean. S. Phinney, David L. Sam, and Paul Vedder. 2006. Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology 55: 303–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bonacich, Phillip. 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2: 113–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bunar, Nihad, and Anna Ambrose. 2016. Schools, choice and reputation: Local school markets and the distribution of symbolic capital in segregated cities. Research in Comparative and International Education 11: 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Byun, Soo-yong, Judith L. Meece, and Matthew J. Irvin. 2012. Rural-nonrural disparities in postsecondary educational attainment revisited. American Educational Research Journal 49: 412–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carrington, Peter J., John Scott, and Stanley Wasserman, eds. 2005. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 28. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cavicchiolo, Elisa, Sara Manganelli, Dora Bianchi, Valeria Biasi, Fabio Lucidi, Laura Girelli, Mauro Cozzolino, and Fabio Alivernini. 2023. Social inclusion of immigrant children at school: The impact of group, family and individual characteristics, and the role of proficiency in the national language. International Journal of Inclusive Education 27: 146–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Central Statistics Office (CSO). 2019. Urban and Rural Life in Ireland, 2019. Available online: https://data.cso.ie/ (accessed on 17 November 2023).
  9. Central Statistics Office (CSO). 2023. Census 2022—FY016—Population Usually Resident and Present in the State. Available online: https://data.cso.ie/ (accessed on 9 October 2024).
  10. Cillessen, Antonius H. N. 2009. Sociometric methods. In Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. Edited by Kenneth. H. Rubin, William M. Bukowski and Brett Laursen. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 82–99. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cillessen, Antonius H. N., and Peter E. L. Marks. 2011. Conceptualising and Measuring Popularity. In Popularity in the Peer System. Edited by Antonius H. N. Cillessen, David Schwartz and Lara Mayeux. New York: The Guildford Press, pp. 25–56. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, Jacob. 1992. Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1: 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Crosnoe, Robert, Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2004. Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education 77: 60–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Csardi, Gabor, and Tamas Nepusz. 2006. The igraph software. International Journal of Complex Systems 1695: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  15. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, Brigid Barron, and David Osher. 2020. Implications for Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development. Applied Developmental Science 24: 97–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dawes, Molly. 2017. Early adolescents’ social goals and school adjustment. Social Psychology of Education 20: 299–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Nooy, Wouter, Andrej Mrvar, and Vladimir Batagelj. 2018. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek: Revised and Expanded Edition for Updated Software. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 46. [Google Scholar]
  18. Department of Education and Science (DES). 2022. Statistical Bulletin—July 2022—Overview of Education 2001—2021. Available online: https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/annual-statistical-reports/ (accessed on 9 October 2024).
  19. Devine, Dympna. 2009. Mobilising capitals? Immigrant children’s negotiation of their everyday lives in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30: 521–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Devine, Dympna. 2011. Securing immigrant children’s educational well-being: Perspectives on policy and practice in Irish schools. In The Changing Faces of Ireland. Leiden: Brill, pp. 71–87. [Google Scholar]
  21. Devine, Dympna. 2013. ‘Value’ing Children Differently? Immigrant Children in Education. Children & Society 27: 282–294. [Google Scholar]
  22. Devine, Dympna, and Mary Kelly. 2006. ‘I just don’t want to get picked on by anybody’—Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in a newly multi-ethnic Irish primary school. Children and Society 20: 128–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Devine, Dympna, Jennifer E. Symonds, Abbie Cahoon, Mags Crean, Emma Farrell, Aisling Davies, Tamsin Blue, and Julie Hogan. 2020. Children’s School Lives: An Introduction, Report No.1. Dublin: University College Dublin. [Google Scholar]
  24. Echols, Leslie, and Jerreed Ivanich. 2021. From “fast friends” to true friends: Can a contact intervention promote friendships in middle school? Journal of Research on Adolescence 31: 1152–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fanning, Bryan. 2018. Racism and social change in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Freeman, Linton C., Douglas Roeder, and Robert R. Mulholland. 1979. Centrality in social networks: II. Experimental results. Social Networks 2: 119–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gilligan, Robbie, Philip Curry, Judy McGrath, Derek Murphy, Muireann Ní Raghallaigh, Margaret Rogers, Jennifer Jean Scholtz, and Aoife Gilligan Quinn. 2010. In the Front Line of Integration: Young People Managing Migration to Ireland. Milton Keynes: Children’s Research Centre. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hardré, Patricia, David Sullivan, and H. Michael Crowson. 2009. Child Characteristics and Motivation in Rural High Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education 24: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  29. Inchley, Jo, Dorothy Currie, Sanja Budisavljevic, Torbjørn Torsheim, Atle Jåstad, Alina Cosma, Colette Kelly, and Ársæll Már Arnarsson. 2018. Spotlight on Adolescent Health and Well-Being. Findings from the 2017/2018 Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Survey in Europe and Canada. In ternational Report. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Irvin, Matthew J., Judith L. Meece, Soo-yong Byun, Thomas W. Farmer, and Bryan C. Hutchins. 2011. Relationship of School Context to Rural Youth’s Educational Achievement and Aspirations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40: 1225–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jones, Martin H., Jennifer E. Symonds, Sinead Downey, Seaneen Sloan, Dympna Devine, and William Kinsella. 2025. The social acceptance of neurodiverse children in Irish primary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education 29: 553–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kam, Jennifer A., and Vanja Lazarevic. 2014. The stressful (and not so stressful) nature of language brokering: Identifying when brokering functions as a cultural stressor for Latino immigrant children in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43: 1994–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kandel, Denise B. 1978. Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Keddie, Amanda. 2006. Fighting, anger, frustration and tears: Matthew’s story of hegemonic masculinity. Oxford Review of Education 32: 521–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kehoe, Susan, and Liam O’Hare. 2010. The reliability and validity of the Family Affluence Scale. Effective Education 2: 155–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kostas, Marios. 2022. ‘Real’ boys, sissies and tomboys: Exploring the material-discursive intra-actions of football, bodies and heteronormative discourses. British Journal of Sociology of Education 43: 63–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ladd, Gary W. 2005. Children’s Peer Relations and Social Competence: A Century of Progress. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Massumi, Mona, Christina Brandl, and Annette Korntheuer. 2023. The organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany: Identifying gaps in the current state of knowledge. In Research Handbook on Migration and Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing: pp. 68–82. [Google Scholar]
  39. McGinnity, Frances, Ivan Privalko, Helen Russell, Sarah Curristan, Amy Stapleton, and James Laurence. 2022. Origin and Integration: Housing and Family Among Immigrants in the 2016 Irish Census. Dublin: ESRI. [Google Scholar]
  40. McGovern, Frieda, and Dympna Devine. 2016. The care worlds of immigrant children—Exploring inter-generational dynamics of love, care and solidarity across home and school. Childhood 23: 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Narr, Rachel K., Joseph P. Allen, Joseph S. Tan, and Emily L. Loeb. 2019. Close friendship strength and broader peer group desirability as differential predictors of adult mental health. Child Development 90: 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ní Laoire, Caitríona. 2011. ‘Girls just like to be friends with people’: Gendered experiences of migration among children and youth in returning Irish immigrant families. Children’s Geographies 9: 303–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Onsès-Segarra, Judit, Sara Carrasco-Segovia, and Juana M. Sancho-Gil. 2023. Migrant families and Children’s inclusion in culturally diverse educational contexts in Spain. Frontiers in Education 8: 1013071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Orellana, Marjorie Faulstich, Lisa Dorner, and Lucila Pulido. 2003. Accessing assets: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or “para-phrasers”. Social Problems 50: 505–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Palacios, Diego, Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Cristóbal Villalobos, Ernesto Treviño, Christian Berger, Mark Huisman, and René Veenstra. 2019. Classroom Ability Composition and the Role of Academic Performance and School Misconduct in the Formation of Academic and Friendship Networks. Journal of School Psychology 74: 5008–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Plenty, Stephanie, and Carina Mood. 2016. Money, peers and parents: Social and economic aspects of inequality in youth wellbeing. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45: 1294–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Portes, Alejandro, and Alejandro Rivas. 2011. The adaptation of migrant children. The Future of Children 21: 219–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  49. Roeser, Robert W., and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2014. Schooling and the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the United States. In Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology. Edited by Michael Lewis and Karen D. Rudolph. Cham: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 163–84. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rose, Amanda J., and Rhiannon L. Smith. 2018. Gender and peer relationships. In Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. Edited by William M. Bukowski, Brett Laursen and Kenneth H. Rubin. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 571–589. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rutland, Adam, Lindsey Cameron, Philipp Jugert, Dennis Nigbur, Rupert Brown, Charles Watters, Rosa Hossain, Anick Landau, and Dominique Le Touze. 2012. Group identity and peer relations: A longitudinal study of group identity, perceived peer acceptance, and friendships amongst ethnic minority English children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 30: 283–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Scholtz, Jennifer, and Robbie Gilligan. 2017. Encountering difference: Young girls’ perspectives on separateness and friendship in culturally diverse schools in Dublin. Childhood 24: 168–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Smyth, Emer, Merike Darmody, Frances McGinnity, and Delma Byrne. 2009. Adapting to Diversity: Irish schools and Newcomer Students. Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
  54. StataCorp. 2023. Stata Multilevel Mixed-Effects Reference Manual. College Station: Stata Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Stevens, Gonneke W. J. M., Sophie D. Walsh, Tim Huijts, Marlies Maes, Katrine Rich Madsen, Franco Cavallo, and Michal Molcho. 2015. An internationally comparative study of immigration and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems: Effects of generation and gender. Journal of Adolescent Health 57: 587–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Strzemecka, Stella. 2015. School integration in the eyes of migrant children. Based on the Polish migration to Norway. Przegląd Socjologiczny 64: 81–101. [Google Scholar]
  57. Traag, Vincent A., Ludo Waltman, and Nees J. Van Eck. 2019. From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific Reports 9: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Trisokka, Lambri, Leslie Gautsch, and Christoforos Mamas. 2021. ‘Feeling at home away from home?’ Social participation of refugee students in Cyprus: A mixed methods case study design. Journal of Refugee Studies 34: 4161–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tuttle, Malti, and Leonissa V. Johnson. 2018. Navigating language brokering in K–12 schools. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 40: 328–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. UNICEF. 2021. Child Migration—UNICEF Data. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/migration/ (accessed on 9 October 2024).
  61. Veenstra, René, and Lydia Laninga-Wijnen. 2022. Peer network studies and interventions in adolescence. Current Opinion in Psychology 44: 157–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
VariablesMeanSD
Individual level (N = 2244)
 Immigrant status0.110.31
 Girl0.510.50
 Age9.960.40
 Minority language0.140.34
 Family affluence (6–16)12.851.91
School level (N = 98)
 DEIS 10.370.48
 Mixed gender0.890.32
 Urbanicity (1–4)2.351.00
 Roll size178.66134.38
 % of immigrants0.190.18
1 Delivering Equality in Schools.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Social Inclusion Measures.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Social Inclusion Measures.
Social Inclusion MeanSD
N of Group MembersNon-Immigrant5.252.90
Immigrant2.972.49
IndegreeNon-Immigrant5.402.62
Immigrant4.582.64
OutdegreeNon-Immigrant5.672.60
Immigrant3.273.31
ClosenessNon-Immigrant0.570.15
Immigrant0.530.16
Eigenvector CentralityNon-Immigrant0.220.11
Immigrant0.180.12
Table 3. Regression models of individual- and school-level influences on social inclusion measures.
Table 3. Regression models of individual- and school-level influences on social inclusion measures.
Peer Group
Number		Ingroup
Degree		Outgroup
Degree		Closeness
Centrality		Eigenvector
Centrality
Null modelb *SEb *SEb *SEb *SEb *SE
 Constant4.80 ***(0.16)5.00 ***(0.13)5.09 ***(0.13)0.63 ***(0.02)0.26 ***(0.01)
 Variance: individual level6.43 ***(0.21)6.00 ***(0.20)7.09 ***(0.23)0.01 ***(0.00)0.01 ***(0.00)
 Variance: school level2.03 ***(0.36)1.25 ***(0.27)1.19 ***(0.27)0.03 ***(0.00)0.01 ***(0.00)
 % Variance at school level (ICC)24.0%17.3%14.4%82.0%56.5%
 Model fit (-2LL)−4916.81−4589.39−4745.981899.9261692.889
Full model
 Constant8.94 ***(2.13)2.00(2.12)5.02 *(2.10)0.77 ***(0.11)0.33 ***(0.09)
Individual-level
 Immigrant Student−1.11 **(0.40)−0.30(0.41)−0.41(0.40)−0.02(0.01)−0.01(0.02)
 Girl−0.38 **(0.12)−0.20(0.12)−0.12(0.12)−0.00(0.00)−0.03 ***(0.01)
 Age−0.00(0.15)0.23(0.15)0.06(0.15)0.00(0.01)0.00(0.01)
 Minority Language−1.71(1.04)−0.75(1.03)−0.67(1.01)−0.09 *(0.04)0.01(0.04)
 Family Affluence0.10 **(0.03)0.15 ***(0.03)0.05(0.03)0.00 *(0.00)0.00 **(0.00)
School-level
 DEIS 10.31(0.36)−0.10(0.32)−0.21(0.33)0.03(0.04)0.02(0.02)
 Mixed Gender −0.80(0.51)−0.01(0.44)−0.05(0.47)0.06(0.06)0.00(0.03)
 Urbanicity−0.10(0.19)0.16(0.17)0.07(0.18)0.01(0.02)0.00(0.01)
 Roll Size0.00(0.00)0.00 *(0.00)0.00 *(0.00)−0.00 ***(0.00)−0.00 ***(0.00)
 % of Immigrants−3.90 ***(0.77)−2.64 ***(0.76)−1.75 *(0.77)−0.17 ***(0.04)−0.02(0.04)
Interaction effects
 Immigrant Student × % Immigrants in classroom2.57 *(1.09)0.69(1.10)1.08(1.08)0.03(0.04)−0.03(0.04)
 Minority language × Rural0.51(1.20)−0.58(1.21)0.71(1.19)0.06(0.04)−0.05(0.05)
 Minority language × Town1.62(1.07)0.30(1.06)0.35(1.05)0.06(0.04)−0.03(0.04)
 Minority language × City1.23(1.09)−0.14(1.09)0.16(1.07)0.08 *(0.04)−0.01(0.04)
 Variance: individual level5.72 ***(0.19)5.74 ***(0.20)5.50 ***(0.30)0.01 ***(0.00)0.10 ***(0.00)
 Variance: school level1.74 ***(0.33)1.22 ***(0.26)1.41 ***(0.19)0.03 ***(0.00)0.10 ***(0.00)
% Variance at school-level (ICC)23.3%17.5%20.4%80.2%50.6%
Model fit (-2LL)−4379.81−4152.04−4121.221837.201620.78
N (individuals)18751781178118231823
N (schools)9694949494
1 Delivering Equality in Schools. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jones, M.H.; Symonds, J.E.; Kaye, N.; Sloan, S.; Devine, D.; Martinez Sainz, G.; Ioannidou, O. Social Inclusion of Immigrant Irish Primary School Children: Urbanicity, School Size and School Composition. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100612

AMA Style

Jones MH, Symonds JE, Kaye N, Sloan S, Devine D, Martinez Sainz G, Ioannidou O. Social Inclusion of Immigrant Irish Primary School Children: Urbanicity, School Size and School Composition. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(10):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100612

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jones, Martin H., Jennifer E. Symonds, Neil Kaye, Seaneen Sloan, Dympna Devine, Gabriela Martinez Sainz, and Olga Ioannidou. 2025. "Social Inclusion of Immigrant Irish Primary School Children: Urbanicity, School Size and School Composition" Social Sciences 14, no. 10: 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100612

APA Style

Jones, M. H., Symonds, J. E., Kaye, N., Sloan, S., Devine, D., Martinez Sainz, G., & Ioannidou, O. (2025). Social Inclusion of Immigrant Irish Primary School Children: Urbanicity, School Size and School Composition. Social Sciences, 14(10), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100612

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop