Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools: Lessons from Norway 3030781933, 9783030781934

Citation preview

Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools Lessons from Norway

Jon Erik Finnvold

Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools

Jon Erik Finnvold

Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools Lessons from Norway

Jon Erik Finnvold Centre for Welfare and Labour Research Oslo Metropolitan University Oslo, Norway

ISBN 978-3-030-78193-4    ISBN 978-3-030-78194-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78194-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The principle of inclusion is widely held in Norway and across the OECD area, implying that every child should have the possibility to go to their local school and attend regular classes. This book deals with the realities of inclusion for people with physical disabilities in several ways. It examines inclusion in the ‘narrow’ sense of school placement: the degree to which children take part in ordinary classroom education with their peers or instead spend their schooldays in special schools, special classes or one-to-­ one tutoring. Children’s involvement with friends on and off the internet is also compared to that of children without disabilities. Moreover, inclusion in a wider sense is addressed, with the book exploring factors that affect the chances of children progressing through the educational system and completing their education. The book draws on two surveys (the first was completed in 2012, with a follow-up in 2020), which formed the basis of most of the analyses in this contribution. The rich Norwegian official registers offer possibilities to follow individuals with specific diagnostic conditions through their life course, and, in particular, the national insurance registers enabled samples to be generated for the surveys conducted. I am grateful to Statistics Norway, which prepared most of the data for the analyses. I would also like to thank the Sophies Minde Foundation, which funded the research. Thanks also to Iver Neumann, Lars Grue and Kari Eika for their contributions. Oslo, Norway

Jon Erik Finnvold v

Contents

1 School Placement, Special Education and Physical Disability in Norway  1 Introduction   2 Children with Physical Disabilities in the Norwegian Educational System   2 Why Focus on Specific Diagnostic Conditions?   4 School Placement: An Analysis   6 The Dilemma of Placement   9 References  11 2 Social Mobility and Disability: The Influence of Family Background and Geographical Context on Educational Attainment 15 Educational Attainment and Disability  16 Data and Methods  22 Results  25 Discussion  32 Conclusion  35 References  36

vii

viii 

Contents

3 School Placement and Parental Educational Expectations 41 Introduction  42 Methods  46 Results  50 Discussion  56 References  59 4 Disability, Social Participation and the Role of the School 63 Introduction  64 Data and Methods  67 Findings and Analyses  70 Schools as Arenas of Social Inclusion?  76 References  83 5 What Can We Learn from World of Warcraft? Social and Digital Inclusion in Secondary School 87 Introduction  88 Digital Divides and Disability  89 The Case of Online Gaming  91 Data and Methods  92 Are Students with Physical Disabilities Different from Their Peers?  97 Discussion  98 Conclusion 102 References 102 Index 105

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2

Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3

School placement, individual and family and residential characteristics. Sample from a survey of students with physical disabilities, 2020. Descriptive statistics 8 Individuals born in 1965–1985: characteristics of random sample and sample with physical disability, % of N26 Educational attainments for individuals born in 1965–1985: percentage with primary education as the highest completed education in 2010. Random sample and sample with physical disability28 Multivariate logistic model results for predictors of university education as highest completed education in 2010, individuals born 1965–1985 29 Social mobility for individuals with and without physical disability born in 1965–1985. Educational level in 2010 compared to mothers educational level in 1985 32 Sample characteristics 49 Educational expectations and actual achievements. Sample with and without physical disability. % 50 Descriptive statistics. Parental expectations regarding their children’s educational prospects. %. (N) 52 Logistic regression analysis. Probability of parents expecting their children to acquire a university education. Odds-ratio 54 Sample characteristics 71 Descriptive statistics, social participation, after school visits with friends and participation in organized leisure activities 73 Logistic regression analysis. Probability of participation in organised group activities in leisure time 75 ix

x 

List of Tables

Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

Logistic regression analysis. Probability of having friends visiting in their own home after school at least once a week 77 Logistic regression analysis. Probability of visiting friends in their own home after school at least once a week 79 Students in secondary school. A comparison between a sample with physical disability and a nationally representative sample95 Descriptive statistics, social participation and social media 96 Logistic regression analysis. Probability of being active on the net or visiting friends. Adjusted odds-ratios 99

CHAPTER 1

School Placement, Special Education and Physical Disability in Norway

Abstract  The chapter gives a brief overview of the Norwegian school system and the opportunities offered to children with physical disabilities. The chapter argues that social research that focus on students with specific diagnostic conditions, such as cerebral palsy, enable us to capture ways in which environments, facilities and policies can make a difference in the lives of all children with disabilities. The idea that all children with disability should have the opportunity to attend their local school as any other student, although an important official policy goal, is often in practice disputed. An empirical analysis of school placement reveals that only about half of the students with disabilities are fully included in ordinary classroom education. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 further analyse how lack of access to inclusive education affects students’ social networks and social participation. Keywords  Physical disability • Medical diagnosis • School placement • The medical model of disability

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. E. Finnvold, Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78194-1_1

1

2 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Introduction How likely is it that children with cerebral palsy and other physical disabilities will succeed in the Norwegian educational system? This book offers an analysis of the educational attainments of individuals with physical disabilities born between 1965 and 1985, comparing them with a representative national sample. With this historical analysis as a backdrop, the remaining chapters deal with the experiences of present-day children, families and youth with similar diagnostic conditions: How do parents view the future educational prospects of their children? What is the situation regarding their social interaction and engagement with friends, both in face-to-face situations and interactions on online social media? In particular, to what extent do the segregated educational practices experienced by these children affect their social interactions outside the school context?

Children with Physical Disabilities in the Norwegian Educational System Over the past 60 years, the level of societal expectations regarding what people with physical disabilities can achieve in the educational system has been increasing. At the start of the 1950s, Norwegian children with cerebral palsy (the most common physical disability) were not offered any public education. This was simply because of the prevailing societal belief that they could not benefit from it. In the mid-to-late 1950s, on the initiative of the Norwegian cerebral palsy organization, special institutions were set up. From the mid-1960s, the institutionalization of children with cerebral palsy was replaced by the establishment of both special schools and special classes in ordinary schools (Holte 2000). This change of policy allowed children with cerebral palsy to stay with their families and attend schools in their local area. While the number of special schools for people with disabilities peaked in 1980, it fell during the 1980s (NOU 2009). In 2010, fewer than 2000 children were in Norwegian special primary schools (Rix et  al. 2013), p.122. Special schools still exist, but they are restricted to a few larger city regions. However, the main way to offer education to children with physical disabilities is integration in ordinary schools, with access to assistive technologies and special educators. All primary school pupils have the formal right to go to the school in their local community that is closest to their residence.

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

3

In a study of educational inclusion in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, a ‘Nordic model of education’ is referred to (Egelund et  al. 2006). The model characterized by relatively detailed guidelines defined by national authorities, generous funding, an overall positive appraisal of the school system in the general population as well as by the teachers’ organizations. This model was according to the same study abandoned by all the tree Nordic countries in the nineties (p.  176). Another study claim that the Nordic model in the case of Norway might have ended even earlier: According to Oftedal and collaborators, the Norwegian educational system’s golden era of social democracy ended in the early 1970s (Oftedal Telhaug et al. 2006), when it was replaced by a focus on pupils’ individual emancipation and local influence over schools that lasted until about 1985. After that, Norwegian education policy took a neo-liberal turn with evaluation of pupils’ academic skills as a management tool. In Norway, every child that, according to a professional judgement, can benefit from special education is entitled to receive special education. The number of children receiving special education has expanded, particularly in the period 2000–2008. According to the Norwegian authorities, a total of 50,000 children received special education in 2018, corresponding to as many as 8% of all children in Norwegian primary schools (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020). The percentage that receives special education increases as children grow older, from about 4% for first graders to over 10% in the 10th grade. Special education is less common in secondary school, where less than 3% receive special education. The level of spending on special education is one factor behind the fact that Norway has the lowest ratio of students to teaching staff in public institutions in the OECD-­area (OECD 2016). How does the present day Norwegian special education system compare to other European countries? Official statistics for 31 countries show that all countries use some form of fully segregated setting for some learners, indicating a gap between the official policies adopted by all the countries and actual practice (Ramberg and Watkins 2020). There is a large variation between countries regarding the number of students diagnosed with special educational needs (SEN), and the criteria for inclusion vary between countries, making it difficult to carry out realistic comparisons (Schwab 2020). The criteria differ even within the Nordic countries (Egelund et al. 2006). The degree of inclusion is also difficult to compare, as students may officially be taught in the same classes as their peers but spend a significant amount of their day outside the regular classroom.

4 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Another complicating factor is the proportion of the children receiving special education or education in varies extensively between regions within the same country (Schwab 2020). Norway is no exception. In some municipalities, almost 20% of the children receive special educational assistance, while in other the proportion is less than 2% (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020). The variations indicate that special education is used and interpreted differently. The Norwegian special education system has been criticized for not being effective, particularly because of the extensive use of assistants without formal qualifications and the organization of special education in the form of segregated educational practices where children are taught outside of ordinary classes. Problems associated with the use of teaching assistants in regular classroom education have also been reported in the international literature, suggesting that the use of teaching assistants may undermine the inclusion, learning, socialization and independence of students with disabilities (Sharma and Salend 2016). The segregation of children with disabilities in the school system has been characterized as a ‘setback’ for Norwegian disability policy (Tøssebro 2016). To address these issues, an expert committee was set up by the central authorities. The committee confirmed many of the problems and suggested several measures to improve the situation (Nordahl 2018). One controversial recommendation was ending the formal right to special education. Due to responses from disability organizations, the formal right still remains. In the sample that forms the empirical case in the analyses that follow, 56% of the children in primary school and 53% of the students in secondary school are receiving special education in 2020. The reliance on special education is one of the motivations for choosing a population of children with physical disabilities as a case study, but not the only one.

Why Focus on Specific Diagnostic Conditions? The families and children that are the basis of the empirical investigations all have one factor in common: they are recipients of cash benefits because of their physical disabilities. In the process of application, a physician applies a formal diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD, 10th version). The diagnosis must represent a lasting condition with a severity that qualifies for a compensating benefit, with the severity of the condition determining the size of the benefit. What we have, then, is a professionally defined condition with an inbuilt measure

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

5

(amount of cash benefit) that indicates the severity of the condition. The register enables the researcher to define a population by selecting from an official register that exists for another purpose (to select children and families that meet the criteria for receiving cash benefits). One motivation for working with a specific diagnostic condition is pragmatic: the choice gives the researcher access to a population in a cost-effective way. The requirements for a successful educational experience are very different for a child with impairments related to vision compared to a child with hearing concerns or cognitive difficulties. When researching the families’ experiences using survey methodology, space is limited. The decision to focus on one type of disability provides the opportunity to focus on relevant questionnaire items for that particular type of disability, an opportunity that deepens our understanding but sacrifices the possibility of generalizing regarding other types of disabilities. Although sharing one common trait, a physical disability, the variation within this population of investigation is most likely considerably wider than in a random sample of children. There probably does not exist such a thing as the experience of physical disability. More accurately, we have a multitude of experiences. The use of survey methodology gives access to this variation by developing questionnaire items that can describe the consequences of the condition in a more precise way than would have been the case if the population of investigation had included different types of disabilities. It is important that this variation is reflected in the empirical design, as we want to know how aspects of a specific diagnostic condition affect the experiences of families regarding the educational system. Empirical investigations of disability that include medical diagnostic labels are met by some researchers with scepticism, evoking what is termed the medical model of disability. A focus on diagnostic conditions as well as parents’ self-evaluated impressions of their children’s functional abilities lends itself to determinism and victim blaming, whereby the problem is seen to lie within the individual and rehabilitation is seen as key to improving the welfare of individuals with disabilities. The medical model implies a failure to capture the ways in which environments, facilities and policies make a huge difference to the extent to which an individual with an impairment is able to function or fulfil their role. As an alternative to the medical model, research has proposed the social model of disability, implying that the limitations faced by people with disabilities are caused by societal structures and that the fault lies with society and not them. In what Tom Shakespeare has called the strong social model,

6 

J. E. FINNVOLD

a distinction is made between impairment and disability: impairment relates to functional limitations within an individual caused by physical, sensory or mental impairment, whereas disability is the loss or limitations of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community due to physical or social barriers. According to the social model, particularly the strong model, a term such as children with physical disabilities is not acceptable because it implies that disabilities are individual deficits. The perspective in the analyses that follow is that while disability cannot be reduced to an individual medical problem, nor can disability be reduced to a problem posed by society. People are disabled by their bodies as well by society (Shakespeare 2008, 2013). It follows that in empirical analyses, it is important to take variations in for example individual variations in need for assistance in an educational situation. Impairments is an important part of the disability experience. As argued by Tom Shakespeare, ‘Disabling barriers make impairment more difficult, but even in the absence of barriers impairment can be problematic’ [11, p. 43].

School Placement: An Analysis School placement deals with two different processes for children with physical disabilities. First, there is the decision whether to attend a special school or a regular school. The decision is normally taken when children are enrolled in the first grade in primary school, although families can later change their choice. It is not necessarily a choice, as representatives of the local educational authorities can argue that special school is the best option (Lundeby 2006). Parents then have to choose either to follow the advice from the local authorities or select the regular school in their local neighbourhood. When their decision is to attend a local school, an individual professional assessment decides whether the child is in need of special education. The way in which special education is eventually offered (e.g., how it is organized and the amount of resources that are provided) differs between municipalities as well as between schools. In terms of organization, special education can be offered in the context of ordinary classroom education, segregated special classes and groups, and one-to-one tutoring. In the analyses that follow, the degree of inclusion is categorized into four groups according to the degree of inclusion in ordinary education: children who spend all their time in a regular classroom (fully integrated), children who spend less than half their time in a regular classroom or in a special school (least integrated) and children who spend at least half their

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

7

time in a regular classroom (intermediate category). The risk factors that identify a propensity for overrepresentation in special education include belonging to a minority-language population, residing in a family with low socioeconomic status, and having parents with primary education as their highest completed educational level. Few previous quantitative studies have addressed the processes and outcomes of placement decisions for groups with disabilities. A study from the US used hours spent daily in general education classrooms as an outcome (Banerjee et al. 2017), finding that factors such as migration background, low income and low parental education were associated with less time spent in general education classrooms. Empirical evidence from a study of students in Poland with mild intellectual disabilities reached similar conclusions, finding that socioeconomic status was positively associated with child placement in integrative and regular schools rather than special schools (Szumski and Karwowski 2012). A working hypothesis may be that special education measures given in inclusive settings are more likely to be allocated to children in families with a higher income or parental educational level, whereas measures associated with stigma (segregated measures) are more likely to be allocated to children in families lacking access to resources associated with the middle-class. In Table 1.1, the results capture the degree of school segregation for a sample of students in primary and secondary school in 2020. As we can see, about half the students are fully integrated into ordinary classroom education. One out of four children experience segregated measures, either spending less than half their time in ordinary classroom education or being enrolled in a special school. As the students grow older, the level of segregation increases up to the end of primary school and then drops in secondary school. Boys are more likely to experience segregation, 32% of the boys experienced the most segregated practices (attending special school or more than half the time outside of regular classes) compared to 19% for the girls. What really determines the chances of receiving special education is the level of compensatory benefit, an indicator of the child’s need for assistance. Recipients of the lowest level of compensatory benefit relatively rarely experience the most segregated educational practices (7% are in a regular class less than half the time or in a special school). The corresponding figure for children with the highest level of benefit is as high as 66%. Another pattern relates to the centrality of the municipality. As expected, attending a special school is rarely an option in the least central

8 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 1.1  School placement, individual and family and residential characteristics. Sample from a survey of students with physical disabilities, 2020. Descriptive statistics Degree of school segregation Total In a regular class all of the time Gender Boy Girl Grade in primary school 1–4 5–7 8–10 Secondary school Level of compensatory cash benefit (monthly mean NOK) Level 1 (1299) Level 2 (2458) Level 3 (4916) Level 4 (7290) Mothers’ educational attainment Primary/secondary school University/tertiary education Parents’ country of birth Both parents born in Norway, EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand One parent born in Asia, Africa, South America Both parents born in Asia, Africa, South America

In a regular In a regular In a class at least class less special half the time than half the school time

(N)

100 100

48 52

21 28

19 12

13 7

(353) (262)

100 100 100 100

53 51 41 53

29 23 23 18

11 15 23 19

7 11 14 10

(177) (162) (148) (128)

100 100 100 100

75 55 45 17

18 29 27 16

4 10 18 37

3 5 10 29

(118) (194) (175) (116)

100

47

23

19

11

(293)

100

52

25

14

10

(322)

100

51

24

18

7

(382)

100

47

21

13

19

(94)

100

49

26

12

13

(138)

(continued)

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

9

Table 1.1 (continued) Degree of school segregation Total In a regular class all of the time Net family income in 2018 (quartiles) 1 (mean 483,000 NOK) 2 (mean 757,000 NOK) 3 (mean 956,000 NOK) 4 (mean 1,362,000 NOK) Centrality of resident municipalitya 1 (Most central) 2 3 4 5 (Least central)

In a regular In a regular In a class at least class less special half the time than half the school time

100

48

23

15

14

(155)

100

49

25

16

10

(154)

100

50

22

20

8

(151)

100

51

26

14

10

(155)

100 100 100 100 100

43 52 51 43 57

21 23 21 37 19

10 16 14 19 23

26 9 14 1 1

(84) (175) (160) (106) (74)

Definition of centrality issued by Statistics Norway: artikler-­og-­publikasjoner/_attachment/330194?_ts=15fdd63c098 a

(N)

https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/

municipalities. However, students in the least central municipalities are more likely to be in a regular class less than half the time. No social gradients regarding family income, education or parental country of birth could be observed. A logistic regression analysis confirmed the patterns displayed in the table, with age, gender, centrality and (in particular) level of cash benefit/assistance needs being the statistically significant factors.

The Dilemma of Placement Ideally, every child should have the possibility of attending their local school and attending regular classes. The principle of inclusion is widely held across the OECD area. Several reviews have suggested that students with SEN benefit from inclusive education with regard to social as well as

10 

J. E. FINNVOLD

academic measures (Carlberg and Kavale 1980; Oh-Young and Filler 2015; Kefallinou et  al. 2020). However, despite the positive attitudes associated with inclusion, tensions and difficulties can be observed. The ideal of inclusion has been referred to by Haug as a ‘masterpiece of rhetoric, easy to accept and difficult to be against or even criticize’ (Haug 2017), p.207. Haug goes on to claim that the focus of one criterion of inclusion, namely ‘where teaching goes on and together with whom’, is one-sided and at the expense of the development of pedagogical quality. The educational system is guided by policies to raise educational standards on the one hand and promote inclusion on the other. This is what creates a dilemma in special education, a dilemma that is commonly responded to by opting for a balance between inclusive and separate provisions. An empirical study based on the perspectives of educational practitioners in England, the USA and the Netherlands documented that practitioners perceived that limits in ordinary class placements did exist and that some separate specialist settings were accepted. A balance between inclusive and separate provision was opted for in the case of students with more severe disabilities (Norwich 2008). According to a review from 2009, a majority of studies on teacher attitudes towards inclusion reported a general negative attitude (De Boer et al. 2011). A later review was less conclusive but found a majority of studies to be positive (Lautenbach and Heyder 2019). A recent qualitative study of eight Norwegian teachers’ experiences with inclusive education in primary and lower secondary schools found a limited degree of cooperation between general and special education (Nilsen 2020). Furthermore, the study revealed the difficulties in giving children with disabilities an adequate follow-up because of the demands arising from a large number of pupils in the classroom. To understand placement dilemmas, we also have to take parental attitudes into account. Parents can play an important role in implementing inclusive practices by being active in the political arena as well as being involved in the practices of their schools (Paseka and Schwab 2020). Particularly with regard to social inclusion, parents have a potentially important role. A review of studies on parental attitudes revealed a general positive attitude towards including children with special needs in regular schools (De Boer et al. 2011). However, parents of children with disabilities reported more negative or neutral attitudes and had concerns about the availability of services and individualized instruction. Another relevant issue with respect to parental attitudes is the impact of the presence of students with SEN on students without SEN.  A

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

11

meta-analysis with the purpose of summarizing research on this topic concluded that academic benefits were plausible (Szumski et  al. 2017). The meta-analysis also found that the presence of children with more severe disabilities did not affect their peers negatively but instead had a neutral effect. Despite the political support in favour of inclusion, which is backed by research that implies benefits for both children with SEN and their peers, the analysis of school placement reported in Table  1.1 reveals that Norwegian children with physical disabilities are far from fully included. Practices allocating children to special schools and segregated practices within ordinary schools exist alongside practices of seemingly full inclusion. In particular, the close correlation between needs for assistance and segregation points to the dilemmas referred to in the literature and draws attention to the difficulties in realizing the most optimistic goals of inclusion. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 deal with selected aspects of placement, namely the consequences for parental expectations and the out-of-school social participation of children experiencing segregation. The theme of the second chapter is inclusion in another sense, exploring the factors that affect children’s chances of achieving a secondary education.

References Banerjee, Rashida, Todd Sundeen, Susan R.  Hutchinson, and Lewis Jackson. 2017. Factors that explain placement decisions for students with multiple disabilities: Findings from national data. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 17 (2): 110–122. Carlberg, Conrad, and Kenneth Kavale. 1980. The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education 14 (3): 295–309. De Boer, Anke, Sip Jan Pijl, and Alexander Minnaert. 2011. Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (3): 331–353. Egelund, Nils, Peder Haug, and Bengt Persson. 2006. Includerande pedagogik i skandinaviskt perspektiv (Inclusive pedagogy in a Scandinavian perspective). Stockholm: Liber. Haug, Peder. 2017. Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19 (3): 206–217. Holte, T. 2000. ‘Vi må fortsatt være tolmodige’, CP-foreningens jubileumsbok 1950–2000. (‘We still have to be patient’, the 1950–2000 celebration of the Norwegian association for cerebral palsy). Mysen: Grefsli trykkeri AS. Kefallinou, Anthoula, Simoni Symeonidou, and Cor J.W.  Meijer. 2020. Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. PROSPECTS: 1–18.

12 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Lautenbach, Franziska, and Anke Heyder. 2019. Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research 61 (2): 231–253. Lundeby, Hege. 2006. Hvor skal barnet gå? In Funksjonshemmete barn i skole og familie, ed. Jan Tøssebro and Borgunn Ytterhus, 102–133. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Nilsen, Sven. 2020. Inside but still on the outside? Teachers’ experiences with the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in general education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 24 (9): 980–996. Nordahl, T. 2018. Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge (Inclusive community for children and young people). Oslo: Fagbokforlaget. Norwich, Brahm. 2008. Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23 (4): 287–304. NOU. 2009:18. 2009. Rett til læring (The right to learn). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/45e9a9eca3a447f39451d1abfb4053cf/no/pdfs/ nou200920090018000dddpdfs.pdf OECD. 2016. https://read.oecd-­ilibrary.org/education/education-­at-­a-­ glance-­2016/norway_eag-­2016-­73-­en#page1 Oftedal Telhaug, Alfred, Odd Asbjørn Mediås, and Petter Aasen. 2006. The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50 (3): 245–283. Oh-Young, Conrad, and John Filler. 2015. A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 47: 80–92. Paseka, Angelika, and Susanne Schwab. 2020. Parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their perceptions of inclusive teaching practices and resources. European Journal of Special Needs Education 35 (2): 254–272. Ramberg, Joacim, and Amanda Watkins. 2020. Exploring inclusive education across Europe: Some insights from the European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education. Rix, Jonathan, Kieron Sheehy, Felicity Fletcher-Campbell, Martin Crisp, and Amanda Harper. 2013. Continuum of education provision for children with special educational needs: Review of international policies and practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (4): 375–391. Schwab, Susanne. 2020. Inclusive and special education in Europe. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Shakespeare, Tom. 2008. Disability rights and wrongs. Beyond Disciplinarity 4 (2): 45. ———. 2013. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.

1  SCHOOL PLACEMENT, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY… 

13

Sharma, Umesh, and Spencer J.  Salend. 2016. Teaching assistants in inclusive classrooms: A systematic analysis of the international research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41 (8): 7. Szumski, Grzegorz, and Maciej Karwowski. 2012. School achievement of children with intellectual disability: The role of socioeconomic status, placement, and parents’ engagement. Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (5): 1615–1625. Szumski, Grzegorz, Joanna Smogorzewska, and Maciej Karwowski. 2017. Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 21: 33–54. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 2020. Notat om spesialundervisning (A note on special education). https://www.udir.no/tall-­og-­ forskning/finn-­forskning/tema/notat-­om-­spesialundervisning/ Tøssebro. 2016. Scandinavian disability policy: From deinstitutionalisation to non-discrimination and beyond. Alter 10 (2): 111–123.

CHAPTER 2

Social Mobility and Disability: The Influence of Family Background and Geographical Context on Educational Attainment

Abstract  The chapter examine educational attainments for children diagnosed with a physical disability born between 1965 and 1985 (N = 1750), compared with a random sample in a pooled analysis. The chances of completing a secondary education was almost ten times less likely for children with a disability. Previous research has identified parental, family and geographical risk factors that lowers a child’s chance of success in the education system. For children already at risk, we hypothesized that these factors would contribute even more to outcomes. This hypothesis was not confirmed, the effect of parental and family factors on the chances of completing a secondary education being stronger in the random sample. Living in areas with high overall educational levels increased the educational success in both samples. However, the effect of geographical context was significantly higher for children with physical disabilities, indication that local socioeconomic context may be of particular importance for the educational career of this group. Keywords  Educational attainment • Parental background • Geography • Disability

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. E. Finnvold, Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78194-1_2

15

16 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Educational Attainment and Disability In general, parents of a child with a disability may encounter a unique set of challenges that are not faced by parents in ‘normal’ families (Shandra 2008; Shandra and Hogan 2009). This chapter deals with physical disability, of which cerebral palsy (80%) is the most prevalent condition. Other conditions include spina bifida (10%), and other neurological conditions with implications for physical disability. At present, most Norwegian children with physical disabilities are enrolled in ordinary schools, and a small minority in the few remaining special education institutions. Today the latter are dedicated to educating children with the most severe disabilities resulting from cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and other neurological conditions. From the early seventies, the number of children in segregated education facilities declined in favor of special classes in ordinary schools. In 1992, a political decision at the national level was reached to ultimately eliminate segregated special education institutions. Obviously, children with physical disabilities will face challenges related to physical access, as many of them will have restricted mobility; in more severe cases they will be dependent on a wheelchair. Children with cerebral palsy often have comorbidities and sensory losses, and even more often, learning disabilities (Andersen et al. 2008; Bottcher 2010). Another critical factor is the low level of social integration experienced by children with disabilities, who are less likely to have social networks, and in particular networks that include peers without disabilities (Bult 2011; Imms 2008; Pratt et al. 2008; Shikako-Thomas et al. 2008). It is easy to imagine that limited social interaction with friends and peers can have negative consequences for educational aspirations, such as limiting daily input in schoolwork. Participation in social learning situations stimulates cognitive development, and restrictions in social participation may impede the ongoing development of such abilities and exacerbate disparities between children with disabilities and their peers without disabilities (Bottcher 2010; Bottcher et al. 2010). Furthermore, the diagnosis itself can produce a stigma in which children, when comparing themselves with peers without disabilities, lower expectations in relation to their own school performance. Research conducted in the UK nonetheless concluded that young disabled people have educational aspirations similar to their peers without disability (Burchardt 2004). Based on the specific challenges facing children with physical disabilities, it can be argued that family background and geographical location

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

17

will be even more critical for the educational prospects of children with disabilities compared with the general population. Being more dependent on public institutions such as health care and school facilities, parents’ capacity to negotiate and deal with professionals can be a crucial factor in their children’s ability to achieve an independent adulthood. Parents with an academic background can be in a better position to ensure the quality of their children’s services due to previous experience with the school system, as well as social networks and social connections. Following this line of reasoning, parental social background will have an even greater impact on educational outcomes for children with disabilities. It can also be argued that parental background a will be of less significance for groups that is more dependent on, and more frequently in contact with, welfare state services and institutions. A investigation from the EU suggests that the social gap in educational mobility are reduced in countries with a relatively high spending on family services (Crettaz and Jacot 2014) Esping Andersen claim that “the uneven distribution of cultural capital among families is greatly neutralized in the Nordic countries, simply because much of the cognitive stimulus has been shifted from parents to centers that do not replicate social class differences” (Esping-­ Andersen 2005, p. 25). Historically, Norwegian children with disabilities have had a privileged access to pre-school day-care, which to some extent could equalize the advantages people derive from their family backgrounds. The relatively decentralized Norwegian settlement pattern might represent barriers for individuals with limited physical mobility. There is more to this than a simple “friction of distance”. The responsibility for primary education is organized by municipalities, and variations in the abilities to offer qualified personnel and facilities that are oriented towards the needs of children with special needs is likely. Significant social and cultural variations also exist between municipalities, variations that may affect educational outcomes. The chapter is organised as follows: The next three sub-sections discuss relevant studies that inform the empirical study. The data-sources and statistical approach are then described, followed by a presentation of the results. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the determinants of educational attainments, and the prospects of achieving a more egalitarian society in the context of a Scandinavian welfare state.

18 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Class Differentials and Social Mobility The study of social inequality and educational achievement has been a focal point for a number of major social theorists, including Boudon (1974) and Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Boudon argued that persistent educational differences among social groups exist because students make different decisions about proceeding to the next stage in the educational hierarchy that are correlated with their social class. In brief, average students from a higher social class will tend to take the risk and advance to the next level in order to avoid a social status lower than their orientation family. Average students from a lower social class will be more likely to decide not to proceed with further education, because the education they have already achieved represents a social status at least equal to the status of the people with whom they are most familiar in their everyday life. Research studies grounded in Bourdieu’s work on cultural capital suggest that rational choice decisions have a less prominent role in explaining educational inequalities (Lareau 1987). A broad definition of cultural capital includes not only ‘high culture,’ but also more general linguistic skills, habits, and knowledge, including cognitive skills. Inequalities exist because cultural capital in various forms is transmitted from parents to children through help with activities such as schoolwork, general intellectual stimulation, or organized leisure time. It seems plausible that parents who have already succeeded in the school system are more likely to have children who follow their path. Parental involvement in schooling can have a positive effect on the social skills of children with physical disabilities according to a study from Australia (Bennett and Hay 2007). The high level of parental involvement found in the study were attributed by the researchers to the high educational level of the parents in the sample. Another study noted how parents of low achievers in an affluent middle-class environment hired tutors for their children during summer months (Lareau 1987). Other analyses from the United States and Canada have found that parents’ socioeconomic status significantly contributed to the academic outcome of children with learning disabilities (Ireys et al. 1996; O’Connor and Spreen 1988), but further evidence is scarce. But to what extent are the above theories applicable to Nordic countries? Esping Andersen’s (Nolan et  al. 2010) general assumption is that social origins matter less for life chances in Scandinavia. In several

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

19

comparative studies, authors have claimed that Nordic countries are characterized by strong educational mobility (Hertz et al. 2007; Nolan et al. 2010; Pfeffer 2008; Vandenbroucke and Vleminckx 2011). It has also been found that the negative effect of less educated fathers has weakened considerably in Scandinavia but remained strong in other countries (Esping-Andersen 2004). However, several Norwegian studies inspired by Bourdieu have documented how middle-class students benefit from their home environment by assimilating learning skills and habits that promote school success. One study found that class inequalities in native languages are greater for oral than written exams, a finding that the authors interpreted to be a function of characteristics such as eloquence, self-assurance, and display of cultural competence or class-specific dialects that come to the forefront in face-to-­ face interactions (Andersen and Hansen 2012). Another study, based on extensive empirical documentation, found marked and widening class differentials in educational achievement (Wiborg and Hansen 2009). Furthermore, a longitudinal comparative study of Norway and the United States documented more similarities than differences in correlations between family background and college degree attainment (Reisel 2011). A study from Denmark concluded that, despite free education and generous governmental scholarships and financial programs, children of parents with only basic education had three times higher risk of achieving only basic education (Tverborgvik et al. 2013). Geographical/Community Context In recent decades, the larger Scandinavian metropolitan areas have experienced increasing diversity in terms of income inequality, ethnic composition, and educational background (Wessel 2005; Turner and Wessel 2013). Residential mobility and the housing market create neighborhoods that differ in cultural capital composition. Selection mechanisms sort families into neighborhoods according to socioeconomic distinctions. The Norwegian settlement pattern is featured by a large number of small municipalities with less than 5000 inhabitants. About 200 of the smaller municipalities are located beyond commuting distance to larger cities. Evidence from a US-context have documented that students with low-­ incidence disabilities in rural America face challenges as they have less access to diverse and specialized staff and other recourses compared to more urban areas (Pennington et al. 2009).

20 

J. E. FINNVOLD

The effects of neighborhoods involve the quantity and quality of public infrastructure such as resources allocated to schools, libraries, recreational facilities, and community-based efforts to support child development. Neighborhood influences also involve collective social exchange processes among residents. Selection into groups of friends in which educational achievement is valued and expected can have an impact on choices to proceed into the next level of education. It can also be the case that social networks among parents function differently in neighborhoods with different social composition. One study concluded that a neighborhood dominated by middle-class parents tended to react collectively when confronted with problematic school situations, in contrast to the situation in neighborhood with a predominantly working-class background (Horvat et al. 2003). Empirical evidence on the positive effects of neighborhood socioeconomic advantages, even after controlling for family socioeconomic characteristics is found in several studies (Boyle 2007; Patacchini and Zenou 2011; Rasbash et al. 2010). A recent study from the US found that neighbourhoods had a number of effects on intergenerational mobility (Chetty et al. 2014): That outcomes improve for children that move to a better neighbohood, and low-income children are more likely to succeed in counties that have less powerty, better schools and a larger share of two-­ parent families. A study based on Norwegian data for two general population cohorts born in 1946–1955 and 1956–1965 found that both family background and neighborhoods played an important role in explaining adult education levels (Raaum et al. 2006). The role of neighborhood tended to be weaker than family background. The role of neighborhood also tended to be declining over time, a finding that the authors attributed to school reforms that resulted in a marked regional equalization of education opportunities. Families with a disadvantaged child may not necessarily experience a positive outcome even when living in advantageous circumstances (Kupersmidt et al. 1995). For instance, one possibility is that the resources of affluent areas are not relevant to disadvantaged children, because their families cannot access or make use of them. Another is that such assets exaggerate adverse effects on children living in disadvantaged families (Owens 2010). This is because resource allocation is a zero-sum game, and disadvantaged children are situated poorly to compete and win. Disadvantaged children may be induced to make negative comparative

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

21

judgments with those around them, leading to lower expectations and self-defeating behavior. A recent British study concluded that academic attainment for students with learning difficulties was influenced by a number of school-level determinants, demonstrating that geographical context has an important role to play (Humphrey et al. 2013). In Norway, formal responsibility for education has shifted toward the municipal level in recent decades, in line with the intention of integrating children with disabilities in their local communities. It follows that variations among municipal schooling systems is likely to have an increasing impact on future achievements of children with a disability. Family Structure A number of studies have documented educational disadvantages for children from divorced or single- parent families (Jonsson 1997; McLanahan and Percheski 2008; Woessmann 2004). Possible mechanisms include negative effects of the emotional disturbance following a divorce, economic and time constraints facing households with a single parent, and lowered expectations for educational achievements reducing the probability of children’s academic success. A recent study found that attending a school with a relatively high proportion of single-parent families negatively affected the school performance of all children, an effect that is particularly strong in cases where the vast majority of single parents were mothers (De Lange et  al. 2014). In this case, family structure interacts with contextual factors in producing negative outcomes for already vulnerable groups. The association between family structure and school performance is, however, not significant in all studies. In a study from 2005 based on European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) data, no significant effects of family structure on educational attainment were found for the Nordic countries (Esping-Andersen and Wagner 2012). Because of the strain and hardship often associated with raising a child with a disability, some researchers have documented that family dissolution is more common in such families (Corman and Kaestner 1992; Swaminathan et al. 2006). However, a Norwegian study did not find an increased risk of divorce among families raising children with a disability (Lundeby and Tøssebro 2007). Previous research has also documented that children with resident fathers tended to report more positive

22 

J. E. FINNVOLD

interactions (Shandra 2008). However no previous studies have studied how family structure affects educational attainments for specific groups of disabilities, but it seems plausible that family structure is vital for groups that require more extensive family involvement and parental support (Shandra and Hogan 2009). When reviewing studies addressing parental educational background, geographical location and family structure, surprisingly few studies could be identified that simultaneously dealt with disability in any depth. It follows that it is difficult to form any firm hypothesis regarding the impact of these factors. If anything, risk factors are more likely to negative have consequences for the life trajectories of children already born with a disability. A Finnish study found that children in need of special education (as children with disabilities often receive) were less likely to receive services during periods of resource shortage if their parents had lower socioeconomic status (Somersalo and Solantaus 2001). A study based on longitudinal data from Scotland found that children with mental health problems and learning disabilities were less likely to gain advanced educational qualifications, and that area deprivation in early childhood had a negative impact on later educational inequalities (Cox and Marshall 2020).

Data and Methods The analyses utilize the rich register information available in Norway, drawing on databases that can identify individuals with specific diagnoses that dates back in time, and where we may merge the information with other official registers. Register analyses have several advantages over surveys. Recall bias is not a problem. Surveying groups with low education levels and high morbidity is normally associated with a high non-response rate, assuming that a survey is even considered possible. Families who have a child with a disability or a chronic disease may apply for public income support to compensate for expenses related to the disease. Such benefits are granted by the national Insurance Administration. The cash benefits are of two types: the basic benefit is intended to compensate for additional expenses related to the disability or chronic disease, and the attendance benefit compensates families for expenses related to care and nursing of the child at home. To be entitled to benefits, the child must suffer from a chronic condition, even after an adequate treatment program has been established. An application is forwarded on the family’s initiative to the local administration office. An official diagnosis, certified by a

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

23

physician, must be included in the application that documents the child’s condition. The diagnosis and severity of the child’s condition are the only valid criteria; income or other aspects of the family situation are not relevant. Definition of Physical Disability Based on availability of diagnoses in the register of the basic and attendance benefits, physical disability includes cerebral palsy (about 80% of the total sample, ICD-10 code G80), spina bifida (10%, ICD-10 code Q5), and a residual category that include 10% of the total sample. The residual include the following neurological conditions with implications for physical disabilities: ICD-10 codes Q71–73 (Lack of extremities in upper or lower body such as arms, fingers or foot), Q78.0 (osteoporosis), G12 (spinal muscle atrophy) and G70–73 (neuromuscular interferences). Study Population/Reference Population Using a 1985 version of the basic and attendance benefit registers, everyone aged 20  years or younger with a physical disability diagnosis were selected, resulting in a sample of 2033 individuals. The net sample consisted of individuals who was still alive in 2010, a total of 86.1% of the initial sample. A reference population was drawn from the general population register, consisting of a random sample of individuals aged 20 years or younger in 1985. Merger of Registers Based on the availability of unique personal identification numbers available for the basic and attendance benefit register, as well as for numerous other official registers of all persons residing in Norway, it was possible to construct a data file containing information about the educational attainment of the individual’s family members and other relevant variables. –– Educational attainment: Official education statistics collected by Statistics Norway document the educational activities of all Norwegian resident individuals from completion of lower secondary school (less than 10 years of formal education) to completion of all types of completed educational programmes education.

24 

J. E. FINNVOLD

–– Co-resident biological parents: Population statistics were used to identify individuals who lived with both parents in 1985. Available data did not permit measurements of family structure at other (future) t moments in time. –– Age and gender: Information about age and gender was retrieved from the general population register. –– Geographical characteristics: Based on information from all inhabitants 16  years and older in 2009, a data-set was provided by Statistics Norway that included a pre- coded measure of the percentage of the adult population with a university education in each municipality. Being able to identify the municipality code of each person’s residence during the construction of the data set, it was possible to merge information about the average aggregate level of education in resident municipality for all individuals. Due to ethical considerations, it was possible to identify the individual’s resident municipality in the final data set. –– Centrality is a measure of a municipality’s position relative to urban settlements on three different levels (StatisticsNorway 1994). Settlements with between 5000 and 15,000 inhabitants belong to level 1, level 2 consist of settlements between 15,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, and the six largest cities represent level 3. Municipalities outside of the commuting range of settlements on level 1 are defined as “centrality 0”. The remaining municipalities are given a centrality 1, 2 or 3 according to their population size, or if they are within commuting range to more central municipalities. Statistical Analysis First, descriptive information is presented for both the disability sample and the random sample. Second, both samples are merged in a single pooled sample. A variable pertaining to one of the samples is constructed with the purpose of estimating the effect of disability on the outcome variable (educational attainment). Several interaction variables are added to measure the possible empirical consequences of background characteristics for parents of children with a physical disability. The effect of interaction variables is compared to the effect of the main variable, meaning that a possible significant effect of, say, the parental education interaction variable is compared to the main effect of parental education in the pooled

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

25

sample (Skog 2004) p.214. Third, a measure of the degree of social mobility is constructed and presented for both of the samples. The measure compare the relative chances of achieving a higher or lower education than their mothers.

Results Descriptive statistics of the two samples are described in Table  2.1. Regarding age and geographical centrality, no statistically significant differences between the two samples were found (centrality was left out in the tables). For the rest of the background variables, a number of minor, but statistically significant differences is to be observed. Males are somewhat overrepresented in the disability sample. Parents of the children in the current Norwegian disability sample have a slightly lower educational level compared to the random sample, and are to some extent less likely to live in municipalities with a high average educational level. This confirms with research from a U.S. context that suggests that children with a disability are more likely to grow up in one-parent families, have parents with high-school education or less, and live in poverty (Shandra 2008). Two British studies on cerebral palsy and socioeconomic status showed a strong social gradient, that in part could be attributed to low birthweight (Sundrum et al. 2005; Dolk et al. 2001). As noted, differences are however minor. Another possibility is that parents’ educational attainments can be affected by the extra attention and care needed by children with disabilities. Contrary to previous Norwegian empirical studies (Lundeby and Tøssebro 2007), children in the disability sample more often live with only one of their parents. There are striking differences in educational attainment between the two samples. In the disability sample, 64% of the individuals were recorded in the registers with a primary school education as highest completed education in 2010. The corresponding figure for the reference sample was 17%. In the reference group, a total of 41% had completed postsecondary education at level I (three-year bachelor degree) or II (two-year master’s degree) compared to 14% in the disability sample. The differences between the two populations regarding educational attainment is probably underestimated, as 8% in the random sample were still in school, compared to 2% in the disability sample. What are the characteristics of those who succeeded in completing a secondary education? In Table  2.2, the educational attainments for the

26 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 2.1  Individuals born in 1965–1985: characteristics of random sample and sample with physical disability, % of N

Age in 2010 25–30 31–33 34–37 38–42 43–45 Total (N) Gender Male Female Total (N) Highest completed education, 2010 Primary school Secondary school University level I (bachelor’s degree) University level II (master’s degree) Total (N) Schooling, 2010 Not in school In school Total (N) Mother’s education, 1985 Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Total (N) Father’s education, 1985 Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Total (N) Resident biological parents, 1985 Parents with the same address as child

Sample with physical disability

Random sample

21 18 20 25 16 100 (1740)

22 18 21 22 17 100 (19,947)

54 46 100 (1740)

51 49 100 (19,947)

64 22 11 3 100 (1592)

17 42 31 10 100 (19,889)

98 2 100 (1592)

92 8 100 (19,889)

40 48 12 100 (1987)

36 49 15 100 (19,597)

34 50 16 100 (1899)

30 50 21 100 (19,142)

78

81 (continued)

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

27

Table 2.1 (continued)

Parents without the same address Total (N) Average educational level in residence municipality, percentage of residents with university education Low, up to 18.6% Medium, 18.7–26.6% High, 27% and above Total (N)

Sample with physical disability

Random sample

22 100 (2033)

19 100 (20,000)

21 38 41 100 (1750)

18 35 46 100 (20,000)

various sub-groups in both the disability sample and random population sample are displayed and compared. In both groups, individuals over age 38 have to a lesser extent succeeded in completing a secondary education. Gender differences in educational attainment do not seem to exist for children with a physical disability, whereas they are rather large for the population-based sample. As expected, children with a disability whose parents had higher levels of education more often succeed in the educational system. In the group of children with mothers having a primary education, 55% had not completed a secondary education in 2010, compared to 68% in the group with mothers who had completed a postsecondary education. A similar correlation between the father’s educational level and children’s achievements seems to exist. The same pattern occurs for the random sample. Children with both biological parents registered at the same address in 1985 did have better chances of completing a secondary education, but the advantage was more marked for children in the random sample. Individuals settled in the most central municipalities tended to more often have a university education compared to individuals living in less central municipalities. Living in municipalities with a higher overall educational level tended to increase the chances of completing a secondary education in both samples. Overall, the patterns of educational outcomes in the random sample mirror the ones observed for the disability sample. In the case of father’s education, the percentage who had not completed a secondary education ranged from 27% (father with primary education) to

28 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 2.2  Educational attainments for individuals born in 1965–1985: percentage with primary education as the highest completed education in 2010. Random sample and sample with physical disability Random sample Total Age group, 2010 25–30 31–33 34–37 38–42 43–45 Schooling status, 2010 Ongoing education No ongoing education Gender Male Female Mother’s education Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Father’s education Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Resident biological parents, 1985 Parents with the same address as child Parents without the same address as child Average educational level in residence municipality, percentage of residents with university education Low, up to 18.6% Medium, 18.7–26.6% High, 27% and above

Sample with physical disability

17 (19,889) 64

(1592)

19 16 13 18 20

(369) (309) (325) (372) (217)

(4438) (3533) (4106) (4488) (3324)

64 64 61 69 63

8 (1504) 8 18 (18384) 66

(1543) (48)

20 (10,121) 66 15 (9768) 64

(872) (720)

27 (7027) 13 (9514) 5 (2951)

68 63 55

(630) (742) (190)

27 (5630) 15 (9501) 6 (3914)

69 62 59

(472) (771) (250)

16 (16,211) 63 22 (3678) 70

(1242) (350)

22 (3663) 19 (6975) 14 (9251)

(333) (618) (640)

73 69 56

N number of observations

6% (father with university degree) in the random sample. In the disability sample, the percentage who had not completed a secondary education ranged from 69% (father with primary education) to 59% (father with university degree). In Table 2.3, multiple regression analyses are presented, modelling the probability of completing a secondary education. As expected based on

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

29

Table 2.3  Multivariate logistic model results for predictors of university education as highest completed education in 2010, individuals born 1965–1985 Disability status Physical disability Random sample Age group, 2010 25–30 31–33 34–37 38–42 43–45 Schooling status, 2010 Ongoing education No ongoing education Gender Male Female Mother’s education, 1985 Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Father’s education, 1985 Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Resident biological parents, 1985 Parents with the same address as child Parents without the same address Average educational level in residence municipality, percentage of residents with postsecondary education Low, up to 18.6% Medium, 18.7–26.6% High, 27% and above Interaction variables Mother’s education 1985/disability Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II Father’s education 1985/disability Primary school Secondary school University levels I and II

9.70*** 966*** 1 1 1 0.83** 0.62*** 0.79*** 0.81***

1 0.82** 0.62*** 0.79*** 0.81***

0.36*** 0.37*** 1 1 1 0.80*** 0.80*** 1.76*** 1.86*** 1 1 0.60*** 0.55*** 1.62*** 1.67*** 1 1 0.60*** 0.52*** 1 1 2.12*** 2.22***

1.32*** 1.24*** 1.18*** 1.12*** 1 1

0.59*** 1 1.33 0.69** 1 2.10*** (continued)

30 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 2.3 (continued) Disability status Resident biological parents 1985/disability Parents with the same address as child Parents without the same address as child Average educational level in residence municipality, percentage of residents with postsecondary education/disability Low, up to 18.6% Medium, 18.7–26.6% High, 27% and above Log likelihood

1 0.64**

1.66** 1.47** 1 −9295.2 −9241.3

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

descriptive statistics, the highest odds ratios were recorded for disability status (OR = 9.66), implying that children with a disability were almost ten times more likely to not complete a secondary education. Also as expected, strong correlations were found in the pooled analysis between both parents’ educational attainments, gender and co-resident biological parents. There also appears to be a strong positive effect associated with living in municipalities with the highest educational level. Importantly, several interaction variables were statistically significant. The odds ratio for individuals with a physical disability and mothers with primary school education has to be multiplied with the odds ratio for the corresponding variable in the pooled sample (1.86  ×  0.59  =  1.09), see Skog 2004, p.415. An odds ratio of 1.09 still implies that chances to complete a secondary education are slightly lower if the mother has a primary education as the highest completed education, but the results indicate that the effect of this variable is considerably less marked for individuals with a physical disability compared to individuals in the random sample. Significant interaction effects was also recorded for children having a father with university education. The interaction effect implies that the odds ratio of completing a secondary education for individuals having a father with a primary school education was 1.15 (1.67 × 0.69 = 1.15) for children with a physical disability, but markedly higher in the random sample (OR = 1.67). For children with a physical disability, the advantage of having a father with a university education was no longer present with an odds ratio of 1.09 (0.52 × 2.10 = 1.09). Overall, parental education only had minor impact on the chances of competing a secondary education for

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

31

individuals with a physical disability. A negative impact of non- resident parents could also be observed in the random sample (OR = 2.22), but markedly lower (OR  =  1.42) in the sample with physical disability (2.22 × 0.64 = 1.42). Living in municipalities with a higher overall educational level reduced the chances of completing a secondary education compared to municipalities with a medium or lower overall educational level. Notable interaction effects were also found for this variable. On this occasion however, the possible benefit of living in municipalities with a higher educational level was even better for children with physical disabilities. In model 2, the odds for not completing was 1.24 and 1.12 for children living in municipalities with low and medium educational level. The corresponding figures for children with physical disabilities was 2.05 (1.24 × 1.66 = 2.05) and 1.65 (1.12 × 1.47 = 1.65) respectively. The chances of completing a secondary education for individuals living in municipalities level decreased significantly more for individuals with a physical disability (0.56 × 0.58 = 0.32). Social stratification, whether originating from parental educational background or overall educational level in residence municipalities, all had a substantial impact on chances of completing a secondary education for individuals in the random sample as well as individuals with a physical disability. However, the relative impact of parental and geographical background differed between the two groups, with the geographical factor being more noticeable for individuals with a physical disability, and parental background for individuals in the random sample. To what extent do children with a physical disability experience a downward or upward social mobility compared to their peers in the random sample? What are the consequences of the relatively low educational achievement level documented in the previous analyses for children with physical disabilities? In Table 2.4, social mobility is measured by comparing the educational level attained in 2010 with the educational level of their mothers in 1985. Mothers are chosen because they tend to take on greater caring responsibilities compared to fathers, and because children tend to live with their mothers when parents’ is not sharing the same address. The table show that in both samples, 42 percent had achieved a level of education at the same levels as their mothers. Almost half of the individuals in the random sample (47.9%) achieved an educational level higher than their mothers, compared to about 20% in the disability- sample. The chances of experiencing a downward social mobility was almost

32 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 2.4 Social mobility for individuals with and without physical disability born in 1965–1985. Educational level in 2010 compared to mothers educational level in 1985

Random sample (without disability) Upward 47.9 No mobility 41.9 Downward 10.2 Total 100.0 (N) (19492)

Sample with physical disability 19.5 41.8 38.7 100.0 (1562)

Upward social mobility: Achieved a higher level of education compared to mother No social mobility: Achieved the same level of education as mother Downward social mobility: Achieved a lower level of education compared to mother

four times more likely for children in the disability sample compared to the random sample. (38.7% in the disability- sample, compared to 10.2% in the random sample). The findings suggest that being born with a physical not necessarily imply a downward social mobility, as more than 60 percent in the random sample experienced no or upward social mobility.

Discussion The most striking result in this study is perhaps the very low level of completion of secondary education for children with physical disabilities. In the population-based sample, risk factors such as living with one parent or having parents with lower educational achievements clearly influenced the chances of completing a secondary education program. The results confirm previous studies that revealed quite steep social gradients in educational attainment (Andersen and Hansen 2012; Reisel 2011; Wiborg and Hansen 2009). Given the massive expansion of the educational system in the past decades, and the generous economic support provided to students in Norway, one could expect social gradients in education to be less striking. It has been argued that countries with universal educational systems and high-quality child-care can generate more homogeneous educational outcomes (Esping-Andersen 2005; Esping-Andersen and Wagner 2012; Crettaz and Jacot 2014). Although without comparative evidence, it is not possible to characterize educational outcomes as socially homogeneous in this particular study. However, the effect of parental background

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

33

was less significant for children with physical disabilities. Although the evidence - at least the descriptive statistics - clearly displays the presence of social gradients for children with physical disabilities, the mechanisms behind appears to differ between the two populations. The question remains why the effect of parental background was less significant for children with physical disabilities. In line with Esping Andersen’s argument that early exposure to public welfare institutions reduces the importance of family background factors (Esping-Andersen 2004), it could be argued that children with disabilities - who are more dependent on social welfare institutions - will be less influenced by parents’ background. As children with disabilities historically have had privileged access to child-care, they are more likely to benefit from possible advantages of pre-school social welfare arrangements. Whether children with physical disabilities actually have utilized pre-school arrangements more often than their peers has not yet been documented, nor is there any available evidence that can support the possible long-term benefits of pre-­ school arrangements. An alternative explanation Boudon’s (1974) rational choice approach focus on individuals’ tendency to make educational decisions that ensure a social status at least at the level of the social background of their family. Not choosing a more prestigious educational path compared to friends may involve a considerable social cost for someone from a middle-class background. It might be the case that the social cost to a lesser degree is felt by individuals with a physical disability, as they have less interaction with their peers. Children with physical disabilities tend to spend more time with adults and have less formal and informal social participation with their peers (Bult 2011; Imms et al. 2009; Bottcher 2010; Pratt et al. 2008), and are often subjected to segregated educational practices (Wendelborg and Tøssebro 2008; Wendelborg and Tøssebro 2010; Kvalsund and Bele 2010). Living in areas with high overall educational levels increased the likelihood of people completing a secondary education, regardless of family background. Yet, the positive effect of geographical context was significantly higher for people with a physical disability. The study thus suggests that local socioeconomic context may be more important for the educational outcomes of children with physical disabilities. Several possible explanations for the association between educational outcomes and geographical context is conceivable:

34 

J. E. FINNVOLD

One possibility is that the association bears no relation to geographical characteristics, but is a manifestation of a sorting process following parental choices of neighborhoods, implying that the effect of the neighborhood indicator identified here might actually be an effect of migration (Evans et al. 1992). However, if this turns out to be the case, it could be argued that the effect of geographical context would be less strong for individuals with physical disabilities, because they are less likely to migrate, and more dependent on family, local networks and local institutional welfare services. Another possibility is that geographical context is a trigger of causal processes. If so, educational outcomes could be an effect of social processes in which people influence each other. Neighborhoods permeated by middle-class values toward education might positively affect educational attainment for children with a disability in particular. It can also have something to do with the quality and resources that are involved in schools in these particular areas. A study from the United States suggested that low-performing children in better-educated areas receive more and better special education (Hibel et  al. 2010). Special education could be more effective for children with a disability in advantaged schools because they have fewer low-performing children, and are able to allocate more or better human resources to children with learning difficulties. Another noteworthy finding is that there is no gender difference in the disability sample. A number of studies find that girls end up with a better educational position compared to boys. This is also evident in the random sample in our study. One feasible explanation for the gender- difference can relate to the fact that many typically male careers such as carpentry and other manual occupations have lower educational requirements compared to typically gendered careers such as nursing and teaching. Gender difference was not present in the disability sample, and one explanation could be that vocational occupations, in which boys are over-represented, is less accessible to boys with physical disabilities because of their “manual” content. Limitations With data derived from official registers, the possibilities to unravel the precise mechanisms that generate the documented patterns are limited. Furthermore, educational attainments represent the end-result of processes encountered at different stages and transitions during the

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

35

life-course, making efforts to explain outcomes even more demanding. The present findings are related to physical disabilities and are not necessarily valid for other types of disabilities. Using registers has strengths, but also important shortcomings. The sample is based on all families who received cash benefits with a specific diagnosis at one point in time. It is not likely that all families with children with a diagnosis of physical disability are included in the cash benefit register. Some families may not have applied for a benefit, not knowing about their rights or how to apply. Others may have applied but their applications were turned down. The actual size and composition of these two groups are unknown. It is possible that families who receive benefits have better ‘bureaucratic competence,’ and are not representative of all families having a child with a physical disability. Using municipality as a proxy for neighbourhood also has its shortcoming. Municipality is a larger unit, although more than 200 municipalities have less than 5000 inhabitants. The measurements reflect differences among municipalities, not neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods defined in statistics are often considerably larger than those that matter for outcomes. Bigger cities in particular may be highly segregated, a phenomenon that is not captured in the analyses, with the possible consequence that contextual effects appear weaker than they actually are. Close neighbours is more likely to have an impact than more distant ones. A French study found that school performance was strongly correlated with other children’s outcomes in the near neighbourhood (defined as the 20 to 30 adjacent households) (Goux and Maurin 2007).

Conclusion As expected and due to the overall lower educational achievement, a downward educational mobility was more common in the disability sample. As much as 73% of the population with a physical disability without a completed secondary education was not employed in the non- sheltered part of the labour market (Finnvold 2013). Childhood conditions are fundamental for subsequent achievements, and the societal and individual costs of a lacking educational qualifications is obvious. It is however important to avoid determinism with regard to social mobility and disability. We do not know the extent to which the lower educational achievement is socially constructed. A relatively large sample of parents that had children with physical disabilities in primary education in 2012 were asked

36 

J. E. FINNVOLD

how long education they expected their children to achieve (see Chap. 4). Only 17% anticipated their child not to compete a secondary education, a major difference compared to the 64% in the previous generation born between 1965 and 1985. In order to further closing the gap between parental aspirations and previous generations’ results, it is necessary to improve our understanding of the mechanisms that create favourable outcomes for specific groups of disabilities. The observed achievement level is a likely mismatch between pedagogical competence, resources, and practical facilities in the Norwegian education system vis-à-vis children with physical disabilities. The possibility that geographical context is more important for children with a disability can be interpreted as support for the perspective that social institutions may play a particularly important role in the lives of such children. For the design of effective policies that help disadvantaged children achieve their maximum potential, more information is required about how individuals with specific disabilities succeed in the education system, asking questions such as: why are some geographical areas are markedly more successful than others; and what part do the overall educational achievement level in the municipality play?

References Andersen, G.L., L.M. Irgens, I. Hagaas, J.S. Skranes, A.E. Meberg, and T. Vik. 2008. Cerebral palsy in Norway: Prevalence, subtypes and severity. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 12 (1): 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejpn.2007.05.001. Andersen, Patrick Lie, and Marianne Nordli Hansen. 2012. Class and cultural capital  – The case of class inequality in educational performance. European Sociological Review 28 (5): 607–621. Bennett, Kellie S., and David A. Hay. 2007. The role of family in the development of social skills in children with physical disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54 (4): 381–397. Bottcher, L., E. Muelengrant Flacks, and P. Uldall. 2010. Attentional and executive impairments in children with spastic cerebral palsy attentional and executive impairments in children with CP. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 52 (2): e42–e47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­8749. 2009.03533.x. Bottcher, Louise. 2010. Children with spastic cerebral palsy, their cognitive functioning, and social participation: A review. Child Neuropsychology 16 (3): 209–228.

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

37

Boudon, R. 1974. Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in Western society. New York: Wiley. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean Claude Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in education, society and culture. Vol. 4. Sage. Boyle, Michael H. 2007. Neighborhood and family influences on educational attainment: Results from the Ontario child health study follow-up 2001. Child Development 78 (1): 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8624. 2007.00991.x. Bult, M.K. 2011. What influences participation in leisure activities of children and youth with physical disabilities? A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (5): 1521–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.045. Burchardt, Tania. 2004. Aiming high: The educational and occupational aspirations and of young disabled people. Support for Learning 19 (4): 181–186. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez. 2014. Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (4): 1553–1623. Corman, Hope, and Robert Kaestner. 1992. The effects of child health on marital status and family structure. Demography 29 (3): 389–408. Cox, Fiona M., and Alan D. Marshall. 2020. Educational engagement, expectation and attainment of children with disabilities: Evidence from the Scottish Longitudinal Study. Crettaz British Educational Research Journal 46 (1): 222–246. Crettaz, Eric, and Cédric Jacot. 2014. Do family policies matter for educational outcomes? Patterns of educational mobility and family services in Europe. European Societies 16 (5): 645–665. Dolk, H., S. Pattenden, and A. Johnson. 2001. Cerebral palsy, low birthweight and socio-economic deprivation: Inequalities in a major cause of childhood disability. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 15 (4): 359–363. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1365-­3016.2001.00351.x. Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2004. Unequal opportunities and social inheritance. Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe: 289–314. ———. 2005. Social inheritance and equal opportunity policies. In Maintaining momentum. Promoting social mobility and life chances from early years to adulthood, 14–30. Londres, Institute for Public Policy Research. Esping-Andersen, Gosta, and Sander Wagner. 2012. Asymmetries in the opportunity structure. Intergenerational mobility trends in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30 (4): 473–487. Evans, William N., Wallace E. Oates, and Robert M. Schwab. 1992. Measuring peer group effects: A study of teenage behavior. Journal of Political Economy: 966–991. Finnvold, Jon Erik. 2013. Langt igjen? Levekår og sosial inkludering hos menneske med fysiske funksjonsnedsetjingar (A long way to go? Level of living and social inclusion for people with physical disabilites). Nova Rapport 12/13.

38 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Goux, Dominique, and Eric Maurin. 2007. Close neighbours matter: Neighbourhood effects on early performance at school. The Economic Journal 117 (523): 1193–1215. Hertz, Tom, Tamara Jayasundera, Patrizio Piraino, Sibel Selcuk, Nicole Smith, and Alina Verashchagina. 2007. The inheritance of educational inequality: International comparisons and fifty-year trends. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 7 (2). Hibel, Jacob, George Farkas, and Paul L. Morgan. 2010. Who is placed into special education? Sociology of Education 83 (4): 312–332. Horvat, Erin McNamara, Elliot B. Weininger, and Annette Lareau. 2003. From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal 40 (2): 319–351. Humphrey, Neil, Michael Wigelsworth, Alexandra Barlow, and Garry Squires. 2013. The role of school and individual differences in the academic attainment of learners with special educational needs and disabilities: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17 (9): 909–931. Imms, C. 2008. Children with cerebral palsy participate: A review of the literature. Disability and Rehabilitation 30 (24): 1867–1884. Imms, Christine, Sheena Reilly, John Carlin, and Karen J.  Dodd. 2009. Characteristics influencing participation of Australian children with cerebral palsy. Disability & Rehabilitation 31 (26): 2204–2215. Ireys, Henry T., David S. Salkever, Kenneth B. Kolodner, and Polly E. Bijur. 1996. Schooling, employment, and idleness in young adults with serious physical health conditions: Effects of age, disability status, and parental education. Journal of Adolescent Health 19 (1): 25–33. Jonsson, Jan O. 1997. Family dissolution, family reconstitution, and Children’s educational careers: Recent evidence for Sweden. Demography 34 (2): 277. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061705. Kupersmidt, Janis B., Pamela C.  Griesler, Melissa E.  DeRosier, Charlotte J. Patterson, and Paul W. Davis. 1995. Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development 66 (2): 360–375. Kvalsund, Rune, and Irene Velsvik Bele. 2010. Students with special educational needs – Social inclusion or marginalisation? Factors of risk and resilience in the transition between school and early adult life. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 54 (1): 15–35. De Lange, Marloes, Jaap Dronkers, and Maarten HJ Wolbers. 2014. Single-parent family forms and children’s educational performance in a comparative perspective: Effects of school’s share of single-parent families. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 25 (3):329–350. Lareau, Annette. 1987. Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education: 73–85.

2  SOCIAL MOBILITY AND DISABILITY: THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY… 

39

Lundeby, H., and J. Tøssebro. 2007. Family structure in Norwegian families of children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Research on Intellectual Disabilities 3: 246–256. McLanahan, Sara, and Christine Percheski. 2008. Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 257–276. Nolan, Brian, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, and Christopher T Whelan. 2010. The role of social institutions in inter-generational mobility. Working Papers 201018, Geary Institute, University College Dublin. O’Connor, Shelly C., and Otfried Spreen. 1988. The relationship between parents’ socioeconomic status and education level, and adult occupational and educational achievement of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21 (3): 148–153. Owens, Ann. 2010. Neighborhoods and schools as competing and reinforcing contexts for educational attainment. Sociology of Education 83 (4): 287–311. Patacchini, Eleonora, and Yves Zenou. 2011. Neighborhood effects and parental involvement in the intergenerational transmission of education. Journal of Regional Science 51 (5): 987–1013. Pennington, Robert, Channon Horn, and Amy Berrong. 2009. An evaluation of the differences between big city and small town special education services for students with low incidence disabilities in Kentucky. Rural Special Education Quarterly 28 (4): 3. Pfeffer, Fabian T. 2008. Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional context. European Sociological Review 24 (5): 543–565. Pratt, Brenda, Karin W. Baker, and Deborah J. Gaebler-Spira. 2008. Participation of the child with cerebral palsy in the home, school, and community: A review of the literature. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine 1 (2): 101–111. Raaum, Oddbjørn, Kjell G.  Salvanes, and Erik Ø. Sørensen. 2006. The neighbourhood is not what it used to be*. The Economic Journal 116 (508): 200–222. Rasbash, Jon, George Leckie, Rebecca Pillinger, and Jennifer Jenkins. 2010. Children’s educational progress: Partitioning family, school and area effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 173 (3): 657–682. Reisel, L. 2011. Two paths to inequality in educational outcomes: Family background and educational selection in the United States and Norway. Sociology of Education 84 (4): 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417012. Shandra, Carrie L. 2008. Parenting a child with a disability: An examination of resident and non-resident fathers. Journal of Population Research (Canberra, A.C.T.) 25 (3): 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03033895. Shandra, Carrie L., and D.P. Hogan. 2009. The educational attainment process among adolescents with disabilities and children of parents with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 56 (4): 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120903306616.

40 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Shikako-Thomas, Keiko, Annette Majnemer, Mary Law, and Lucyna Lach. 2008. Determinants of participation in leisure activities in children and youth with cerebral palsy: Systematic review. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 28 (2): 155–169. Skog, O.J. 2004. Å forklare sosiale feneomener. En regresjonsbasert tilnærming (Explaining social phennomenon. A regression-based approach). 2nd ed. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS. Somersalo, Heidi, and Tytti Solantaus. 2001. Economic recession and inequality in education: Children needing special services in focus. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 45 (3): 233–248. StatisticsNorway. 1994. Standard classification of municipalities 1993, NOS C192. Sundrum, R., S.  Logan, A.  Wallace, and N.  Spencer. 2005. Cerebral palsy and socioeconomic status: A retrospective cohort study. Archives of Disease in Childhood 90 (1): 15–18. Swaminathan, Shailender, Greg R. Alexander, and Sheree Boulet. 2006. Delivering a very low birth weight infant and the subsequent risk of divorce or separation. Maternal and Child Health Journal 10 (6): 473–479. Turner, Lena Magnusson, and Terje Wessel. 2013. Upwards, outwards and westwards: Relocation of ethnic minority groups in the Oslo region. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 95 (1): 1–16. Tverborgvik, Torill, Lene Björk Clausen, Brian Larsen Thorsted, Sigurd Mikkelsen, and Elsebeth Lynge. 2013. Intergenerational educational mobility in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 57 (5): 544–560. Vandenbroucke, Frank, and Koen Vleminckx. 2011. Disappointing poverty trends: Is the social investment state to blame? Journal of European Social Policy 21 (5): 450–471. Wendelborg, C., and J. Tøssebro. 2008. School placement and classroom participation among children with disabilities in primary school in Norway: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23 (4): 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250802387257. Wendelborg, Christian, and Jan Tøssebro. 2010. Marginalisation processes in inclusive education in Norway: A longitudinal study of classroom participation. Disability & Society 25 (6): 701–714. Wessel, Terje. 2005. Industrial shift, skill mismatch and income inequality: A decomposition analysis of changing distributions in the Oslo region. Urban Studies 42 (9): 1549–1568. Wiborg, Øyvind Nicolay, and Marianne Nordli Hansen. 2009. Change over time in the intergenerational transmission of social disadvantage. European Sociological Review 25 (3): 379–394. Woessmann, Ludger. 2004. How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the US. CESIFO working paper no. 1162: https://ssrn.com/abstract=528209.

CHAPTER 3

School Placement and Parental Educational Expectations

Abstract  How parents perceive their children’s educational prospects can reveal a great deal about how their children will progress in the educational system. This chapter examines the consequences of variations in inclusive education practices by investigating the determinants of parents’ educational expectations for their children. The empirical material includes results from a survey (net sample = 490) in combination with information merged from a range of official registers. The results showed that the more a child was segregated from ordinary classroom education, the lower were the parental expectations for the child’s educational attainment. Other factors significantly influencing parents’ educational expectations included how parents viewed their child’s school performance, as well as various measures relating to the severity of the child’s physical disability. However, these secondary factors could not account for the empirically strong association between segregation practices and parental expectations. Parental expectations were also significantly related to parental education. The findings indicated that the expectations of parents with higher income and education were less affected by school segregation practices. Keywords  Inclusive education • Parental educational expectations • Physical disability

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. E. Finnvold, Integrating Students with Disabilities in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78194-1_3

41

42 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Introduction A relatively low educational achievement level for people with disabilities is recorded in a number of international studies. In England, an ‘attainment gap’ is found between children with and without special educational needs and disabilities: by the end of compulsory education, only 16.5% of children with special educational needs had achieved the expected level of academic attainment, compared to 61.3% for children with no special education needs (Humphrey et al. 2013). A Norwegian study shows that in 2010 as much as 64% of a population of physically disabled people between ages 25 to 45 had never completed a secondary education, compared to 17% for the general population of the same age (see Chap. 2). This chapter focuses on one factor with a potential influence on this achievement gap, namely parental aspirations or expectations for their children’s educational prospects. Recent research suggests that parental expectations for their offspring’s education closely predict the children’s own expectations (Rimkute et al. 2012; Benner and Mistry 2007; Beutel and Anderson 2008; Kirk et al. 2011). The children’s expectations – and indirectly their parents’ – also affect their actual performance (Marjoribanks 2003; Scott-Jones 1995; Wood et al. 2010). A review of the literature suggest that higher parental expectations have a positive influence on grades and standardized tests, as well as increase persistence in school and student motivation (Yamamoto and Holloway 2010). The review also concluded that parental expectations was the strongest family-level predictor of student achievement outcomes. Although the review by Yamamoto and Holloway observed that the majority of studies are cross sectional, they also sited research based on longitudinal designs that considered parental expectations to be the causal determinant of student expectations and academic outcomes. A recent longitudinal study from Ireland (Smyth 2020) focused on 13  year olds found that expectations among the young were strongly driven by their mothers’ educational background, and that parents expectations also relied on signals from the school system such as academic achievement and ability group allocation. This chapter explores the actual variations in expectations within a population of parents with children with physical disabilities. In particular, it investigates the extent to which variations in segregating practices in the contemporary Norwegian primary school environment contribute to differences in parental expectations.

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

43

Physical Disability, School Segregation and Expectations Norwegian children who are identified with learning difficulties receive special educational teaching. The number of children receiving special education has been increasing, totalling 8.6% of all primary school pupils in 2011 (Rix et al. 2013). Despite the overall intention of integrating all children in conventional classes, a significant part of the special education takes the form of segregated education practices (Wendelborg and Tøssebro 2008, 2011). Parents with children in integrated school settings reported more teacher demand for achievement than did parents with children in special schools (Connor and Ferri 2007). It is therefore likely that segregation practices represent manifestations of expectations that teachers and professionals have towards specific groups or individuals, signals that might in turn be transmitted to and influence the parents’ expectations as well. A US study has shown that high mother expectations represent a buffer in the face of low teacher expectations: outcomes tended to be better for children with a combination of low teacher expectations and high parent expectations, compared to children with low expectations from both parents and teachers (Benner and Mistry 2007). As children with disabilities constitute a group that is more susceptible to low teacher expectations, parental expectations are likely to have a particularly important role to play in this regard. Individual Child Influences on Parental Expectations Parental expectations will in part depend on the degree of segregation, including measures of how much time that their children take part in ordinary classroom education or attend special schools. The chances of being segregated are influenced by a number of factors that at the same time influence parental expectations. To better understand the direct influence of segregation practices on parental expectations, I build several individual child and family characteristics into the analysis. Children with disabilities vary in their cognitive and functional capacity. For example, whilst cerebral palsy is the most frequent diagnostic category for children with physical disabilities, for many of these children the diagnosis is hardly noticeable, with minor consequences. However, in comparison to the general population, co-morbidity amongst children with disabilities is nonetheless more frequent, as are additional functional limitations related to the senses and to difficulties in learning, perception and verbal communication (Andersen

44 

J. E. FINNVOLD

et al. 2008; Kennes et al. 2002; Odding et al. 2006). Such variation will clearly have an impact on how parents perceive their children’s educational possibilities. Variations will also influence the children’s chances of being segregated from ordinary classroom education. Consequently, several indicators of cognitive and functional capacity are built into the empirical analysis. Family Influences on Parental Expectations Segregation practices are also influenced by the children’s family background. A recent study from Poland documents that children with disabilities from families with a higher socio-economic status (SES) were more likely to end up in integrative and regular schools than children from lower SES families, who more often were assigned to special schools (Szumski and Karwowski 2012). Evidence from several studies also suggests that boys and members of ethnic minority groups are over-­represented in segregated education practices (Barton 1997; Shifrer et al. 2010; Hibel et al. 2010). It follows that the empirical effect of segregation practices is likely to be filtered by the SES and ethnic background of the families, and consequently has to be built into the analysis. Independently of the parental SES impact on the likelihood of the child’s being segregated, parents’ educational expectations will most likely be influenced by their own educational achievements. In Norway, the Scandinavian self-image of equality of opportunities has a limited application to the field of education (Reisel 2011), and strong SES gradients in educational attainments are well documented (Andersen and Hansen 2012). Previous research has shown that parental expectations are linked to the parents’ own level of education, with parental achievement beliefs indirectly influencing child achievement (Davis-Kean 2005). Income might also have an effect on educational expectations. In a US study, Lareau observed that wealthy families with low-achieving children often sent their children to summer schools or arranged private additional tutoring to compensate for their children’s learning difficulties (Lareau 1987; Lareau and Horvat 1999). However, results from a review of mainly American studies reported contradictory findings regarding parental social background and beliefs about their parenting roles in education (Hoover-­ Dempsey and Sandler 1997). Although compensating schemes for families with children with disability exist in Norway, the income generated will hardly balance the extra

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

45

expenses associated with many forms of disability. Moreover, caring for children with disabilities will in some cases limit parents’ labor market participation, further restricting their financial ability to provide extra educational resources. Thus parents who are in a position to, and have the motivation to spend extra resources toward their children’s education will likely also have higher expectations. The significance of ethnicity is not straightforward. One study shows the existence of negative stereotypes about African American boys in their mothers’ beliefs about their sons’ and daughters’ academic competence, favoring girls over boys in academic domains (Wood et al. 2010). In general, minority parents might be expected to view education as a vehicle for upward social mobility and therefore have higher-than-average expectations (Kirk et al. 2011). A review published in 2010 concluded that the level of parental educational performance varies by racial/ethnic group, and that correlations between parental education and expectations is less marked for minority parents compared to European American parents (Yamamoto and Holloway 2010). In addition to SES, gender and ethnicity, family structure may also have an impact on expectations. As several studies have shown lower educational achievements amongst children in single-parent families, any analysis of variations in expectations must therefore take family status into account. Expectations and Disability Studies Research into the expectations of parents with children with disabilities compared to other groups is scarce and hard to come by. One study suggests that parents expect as much from their children with disabilities as they do from other children, and that progress in assistive the possibility of achieving a higher education (Masino and Hodapp 1996; Grigal and Neubert 2004). However, a longitudinal study from Ireland found that parents of children receiving special education had significantly lower expectations (Smyth 2020). A study based on the same set of longitudinal data from Ireland concluded that parents’ expectations about their children’s abilities strongly influenced their achievements as well as their self-­ concept across all young people including young with disabilities (McCoy et al. 2016). Also based on longitudinal data, a US study concluded that parental expectations significantly predicted study outcomes for children with disabilities (Doren et al. 2012).

46 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Another study finds that for children with disability, family SES was a significant predictor of academic achievement and self-concept (Ju et al. 2013). In a study from the US, parental expectations for their children’s ability to graduate from high school was found to have a positive effect on achievement for children receiving special education (Zhang et al. 2011). The study also analysed the possible empirical impact of SES and ethnicity on parent expectations, and concluded that whilst ethnicity could not predict expectations, fewer parents from low SES families expected their children to graduate from high school.

Methods Population of Investigation The population under investigation was identified through an official register that included recipients of compensatory cash benefits. In Norway, families with a child with a disability or a chronic disease may apply for public income support to compensate for expenses related to the severity of the disease. Such benefits are granted by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service (NAV). The cash benefits are of two types: the basic benefit, which is intended to compensate for additional expenses related to the disability or chronic disease, and the attendance benefit, which compensates families for expenses related to home care and nursing of the child. To be entitled to a benefit, the child must suffer from a chronic condition, even after an adequate treatment programme is established. The family sends an application to the local labour and welfare service. A physician-­ certified, official diagnosis must be included in the application, documenting the child’s condition. The diagnosis and the severity of that condition constitute the only valid criteria for receiving the benefits; neither income nor any other aspects of the family situation are considered. Definition of Physical Disability Based on the availability of diagnoses in the register of basic and attendance benefits, ‘physical disability’ in this study includes cerebral palsy (about 80% of total sample, ICD-10 code G80) and spina bifida (10%, ICD-10 code Q5). The remaining 10% contained neurological conditions with implications for physical disability (ICD-10 codes Q71–73, Q78.0, G12, G70–73).

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

47

Sample and Response Rate A total of 1079 mothers and fathers with a child between 6 and 16 years of age (per. 01.01.2019) having a confirmed diagnosis related to physical disability were identified in the register of the NAV.  In most cases, the children lived either with both their parents or with their mother. A postal questionnaire was sent to the mother’s address. Organised and prepared by Statistics Norway, the questionnaire was collected in January 2019 – March 2020. A total of 496 answers were received, resulting in a response rate of 49%. This response rate is normally considered a respectable result, as it matches the same level as surveys that Statistics Norway conducts using CATI (computer assisted telephone interviews)-based personal interviews. A previous investigation conducted in 2012 provided access to information available in official registers allowed to compare the net sample with the non-responders. Non-responders tended to have lower education than responders (response rate of 50% for parents with primary education as their highest achieved education, compared to 69% for those with a university education of any duration). Although response rates were also lower for one-parent families, the difference was not statistically significant. The level of cash benefits (an indicator of relative need) had no impact on the parents’ tendency to respond, nor did the country of origin. Somewhat surprisingly, parents born in non-western countries (i.e. outside the EU, the OECD, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) tended to have an average response rate. Merging of Registers Given the availability of unique personal identification numbers available for the basic and attendance benefit register, as well as for a number of other official registers available for all persons with a personal residence in Norway, I could construct a file with information about educational attainment, the individual’s family background, and other relevant variables. The variables used in the study are as follows: • Educational attainments: Individually based official education statistics collected by Statistics Norway document the educational activities of all Norwegian residents from completion of lower secondary school to completion of all tertiary education.

48 

J. E. FINNVOLD

• Severity of condition: The benefits register also includes information about the amount of monthly attendance benefits that the family received in 2019. Families in the lowest level (Level 1) received an monthly amount of 1299 NOK (about 122 euros), families in the highest level (Level 4), 7290 NOK (about 690 euros). The variation in the amount of received benefits can be considered an indicator of the severity of the disease based on a professional judgement. • Co-resident biological parents: A questionnaire item were used for identifying individuals living at the address of both biological parents. • Age and gender: Information about age and gender was retrieved from the general population register. • Country of origin: Information in the general population register made possible the identification of the parents’ country of origin. Questionnaire From the results of the survey questionnaire, several measures were included for capturing the parents’ aspirations for their children’s educational career. Other measures were related to inclusive education practices, the children’s functional ability and parents’ perceptions of their children’s performance in school. The precise wording of the questionnaire items is presented in Table 3.1. Statistical Analysis The data were analysed using multiple logistic regression models. Characteristics of Sample The characteristics of the sample appear in Table 3.1. To some extent boys are over-represented, an expected result given that the frequency of disability in many cases is over-represented amongst boys. As the table shows, the children’s functional status varies considerably, from those able to walk unassisted (21%) to those who are dependent on a wheelchair operated by others (16%). The amount of benefits that the families receive is grouped into four categories indicating variations in the level of need for assistance as formally ascertained by the Norwegian national insurance organisation. The group with the least need (20% of sample) received a monthly amount of 1299 NOK (about 122 euros) whereas the group with the highest level of need (17% of sample) received 7290 NOK (about 690 euros).

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

49

Table 3.1  Sample characteristics Gender Boy Girl Total Grade in primary school 1–4 5–7 8–10 Total Ability to walk Can walk unassisted Walk unassisted, but not long distances Can walk, but restricted mobility Usually use a wheelchair, but operate it independently Dependent on a wheelchair that has to be operated by others Total Level of compensatory cash benefit (monthly mean NOK) Level 1 (1299) Level 2 (2458) Level 3 (4916) Level 4 (7290) Total Family Lives with both parents Lives with one parent Total Parents’ country of birth Both parents born in Norway, EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand One parent born in Asia, Africa, South America Both parents born in Asia, Africa, South America Total Mothers’ educational attainment Primary/secondary school University/tertiary education Total Inclusion in regular classroom education In a regular class all of the time In a regular class at least half the time In a regular class less than half the time In a special school Total

57 43 100 37 33 30 100 21 26 20 18 16 100 20 35 29 17 100 85 15 100 61 15 24 100 46 54 100 49 25 15 11 100 (continued)

50 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 3.1 (continued) Parents evaluation of the child’s school performance Very good Good Average Below average Total

13 30 31 25 100

Table 3.2  Educational expectations and actual achievements. Sample with and without physical disability. % Total Primary Secon-­ edu- cation dary edu-­ cation Individuals with physical disability: Parental responses to the question 100 ‘What length of education do you think that your child will achieve’. 2020 Sample born 1965–1985, actual 100 achievements in 2010 General population born 100 1965–1985, actual achievements in 2010

Univer-sity/ tertiary edu-cation

(N)

19

39

42

(469)

64

22

14

(1750)

17

42

41

(19800)

Based on a previous register analysis, see Chap. 3 this volume

As the table makes clear, a majority of the children were fully integrated in regular classroom education (49%). However, as many as 15% of the children spent less than half of the time in regular classrooms, and 11% attended special schools.

Results Descriptive Statistics Table 3.2 shows how parents vary in their expectations. The first row shows that 19% believe that their child will end with only a primary education, that 39% expect that their child will pass secondary education, and that 42% assume that their child will obtain a university education. In

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

51

sharp contrast, the second row shows the actual achievements of a previous generation of the physically disabled (born 1965–1985), drawn from the same register comprising the same diagnoses. In this comparative sample, as many as 64% of the children with disabilities ended with primary education as their highest competed education, with only 14% acquiring a university education. The third row shows the results from a random sample drawn from the general population born 1965–1985. Interestingly, the actual achievements of this third group correspond to the parental expectations for their disabled child. As most of the parents in this last group are likely between ages 25 and 45, it follows that parents expect their disabled children to acquire an educational level similar to that which their own generation achieved. Table 3.3 presents the variation in the educational expectations for each variable. Expectations for girls are slightly higher than for boys. Expectations appear to decrease when the child approaches the end of primary school. Immigrants seem to have moderately higher expectations. A clear pattern emerges for the connection between the mother’s education and her expectations. A total of 32% of mothers with primary/secondary school education expect their children to achieve a university education, compared to 51% for mothers with a completed university education. Although clear patterns exist between education and expectations, far more noticeable gradients exist for expectations and measures of school performance, ability to walk, amount of received cash benefits (an indicator of the need for assistance), and school segregation. As expected, a very close correlation between performance and parental expectations can be observed. The same applies to the ability to walk and the indicator of the need for assistance. Inclusion practices also appear to have a marked impact on parental expectations. Expectations are particularly low for children who spend less than half of their time in a regular class: only 7% of the parents of those children expect their child to attend university. Multivariate Analyses Table 3.4 displays the results from a series of stepwise multivariate regression analyses (models 1–3). The first row presents the odds-ratio from univariate analyses. In addition to documenting statistically significant correlations, the present odds-ratios can be used for comparing changes when more variables are included in the multivariate analyses (models

52 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 3.3  Descriptive statistics. Parental expectations regarding their children’s educational prospects. %. (N) Response to the question ‘What length of education do you think that your child is going to have?’

Total Gender Girl Boy Grade in primary school 1–4 5–7 8–10 Ability to walk Can walk unassisted Walk unassisted, but not long distances Can walk, but restricted mobility Usually use a wheelchair, but operate it independently Dependent on a wheelchair that has to be operated by others Level of compensatory cash benefit (monthly mean NOK) Level 1 (1299) Level 2 (2458) Level 3 (4916) Level 4 (7290) Parents’ evaluation of the child’s school performance Very good Good Average Below average Family

Primary education

Secondary education

University/ tertiary education

100

19

39

42

(469)

100 100

17 21

36 41

47 38

(203) (266)

100 100 100

20 23 15

37 30 50

43 47 35

(169) (158) (142)

100 100

7 8

41 36

52 56

(99) (122)

100

24

44

31

(95)

100

12

37

51

(81)

100

57

33

8

(72)

100 100 100 100

5 13 21 51

33 42 42 35

62 45 37 14

(95) (163) (134) (71)

100 100 100 100

3 7 14 50

9 31 55 45

88 62 31 5

(67) (141) (141) (114) (continued)

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

53

Table 3.3 (continued) Response to the question ‘What length of education do you think that your child is going to have?’

Lives with both parents Lives with one parent Parents’ country of birth Both parents born in Norway, EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand One parent born in Asia, Africa, South America Both parents born in Asia, Africa, South America Mothers’ educational attainment Primary/secondary school University/tertiary education Inclusion in regular classroom education In a regular class all of the time In a regular class at least half the time In a regular class less than half the time In a special school

Primary education

Secondary education

University/ tertiary education

100 100

19 23

39 36

42 41

(402) (66)

100

18

42

40

(288)

100

24

34

42

(71)

100

19

34

47

(110)

100 100

20 19

49 30

32 51

(214) (255)

100

6

31

63

(230)

100

14

49

37

(119)

100

47

46

7

(72)

100

53

41

7

(45)

1–3). Model 1 includes individual factors such as gender, age, functional ability, level of compensatory benefit (perception of assistance needed as estimated by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service, NAV), and parents’ evaluation of school performance. As expected, and as previously observed in the descriptive statistics, parents’ expectations are strongly correlated with their evaluation of their child’s school performance. A strong correlation also exists between the level of cash benefits and parental expectations. Importantly, the results show a marked difference in the odds-ratios for the variable describing

54 

J. E. FINNVOLD

Table 3.4  Logistic regression analysis. Probability of parents expecting their children to acquire a university education. Odds-ratio

Gender Girl Boy Grade in primary school 1–4 5–7 8–10 Ability to walk Can walk unassisted Walk unassisted, but not long distances Can walk, but restricted mobility Usually use a wheelchair, but operate it independently Dependent on a wheelchair that has to be operated by others Level of compensatory cash benefit (monthly mean NOK) Level 1 (1299) Level 2 (2458) Level 3 (4916) Level 4 (7290) Parents’ evaluation of the child’s school performance Very good Good Average Below average Family Lives with both parents Lives with one parent Parents’ country of birth Both parents born in Norway, EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Univariate analyses

Multivariate analyses

Odds-ratio

Model 1 Adjusted odds-ratio

Model 2 Adjusted odds-ratio

Model 3 Adjusted odds-ratio

1 0.70

1 0.60*

1 0.67

1 0.74

1 1.14 0.71

1 1.01 0.62

1 1.10 0.61

1 1.37 0.70

1 1.18

1 1.98*

1 2.40

1 3.20**

0.43** 0.96

0.73 1.90

0.86 2.23

1.06 2.54*

0.09***

0.25*

0.32

0.70

1 0.46** 0.34*** 0.09***

1 0.58 0.43* 0.30*

1 0.60 0.34* 0.25*

1 0.71 0.43* 0.54

1 0.63** 0.48*** 0.32***

1 0.57*** 0.45*** 0.33***

1 0.58** 0.46*** 0.31***

1 0.55** 0.55*** 0.34***

1 0.73**

– –

1 1.1

1 1.31

1

–

1

1

(continued)

3  SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS 

55

Table 3.4 (continued)

One parent born in Asia, Africa, South America Both parents born in Asia, Africa, South America Mothers’ educational attainment Primary/secondary school University/tertiary education Inclusion in regular classroom education In a regular class all of the time In a regular class at least half the time In a regular class less than half the time In a special school Log likelihood

Univariate analyses

Multivariate analyses

Odds-ratio

Model 1 Adjusted odds-ratio

Model 2 Adjusted odds-ratio

Model 3 Adjusted odds-ratio

1.06

–

0.71

0.91

2.14***

2.23**

1.35

1 2.23***

– –

1 3.2***

1 3.70***

1 0.34***

– –

– –

1 0.52**

0.04***

–

–

0.19**

0.03*** –

– −212

– −201

0.06** −188

*p