Selection for special education services: the role of gender and socio-economic status

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 1250).

	Valid N^a	%
Gender of child	1232	100
Male	666	50
Ethnic origin of biological mother	793	100
Norwegian	732	92.3
Ethnic origin of biological father	793	100
Norwegian	732	92.3
Child care when child was 4–5 years	1005	100
Official daycare centre	916	91.1
Others	89	8.9
Biological parents’ marital status at T1	529	100
Married	333	62.9
Cohabitating > 6 months	106	20.0
Separated	2	.4
Divorced	84	15.9
Widowed	0	–
Cohabitating < 6 months	3	.6
Never lived together	1	.2
Parental socio-economic status at T1	681	100
Leader	144	21.1
Professional, higher level	243	35.7
Professional, lower level	200	29.4
Skilled workers	88	12.9
Unskilled workers	6	.9
Mother’s highest level of completed education at T1	659	100
Junior high school (10th grade)	13	2.0
Senior high school (13th grade)	91	13.8
Some education after senior high school/or vocational (13th grade)	66	10.0
College degree	276	41.9
University degree	213	32.3
Father’s highest level of completed education at T1	655	100
Junior high school (10th grade)	30	4.6
Senior high school (13th grade)	86	13.1
Some education after senior high school/or vocational (13th grade)	123	18.8
College degree	202	30.8
University degree	214	32.7
Special education at T1	1205	100
Yes	58	4.8
Yes, male	38	3.2
Special education at T2	1165	100
Yes	85	7.3
Yes, male	53	4.6
Special education at T1 and T2	1250	100
Yes	48	3.8
Yes, male	33	2.6

Note:

T1, third grade; T2, fifth grade.

^a Note that valid sample size varies according to different time points of data collection.

Table 2. Pearsons correlation coefficients for the independent variables.

	Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.	Gender (C)	–
2.	SES (P)	‒.05	–
3.	Reading test scores (C)	.10*	.17***	–
4.	Math test scores (C)	‒.07	.13**	.57***	–
5.	Helplessness (T)	‒.07	‒.16***	‒.21***	‒.34***	–
6.	ADHD (C)	‒.14***	‒.09*	‒.24***	‒.31***	.36***	–
7.	ODD/CD (C)	‒.18***	‒.03	‒.11*	‒.18**	.20***	.38***

Note: C = child, T = Teacher, P = Parent. Gender is coded 1 = boy, 2 = girl.

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001.

Figure 1. Results from the structural equation model.

Notes: All estimates are unstandardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3. Results from structural equation modelling of the indirect effect of gender and parent socio-economic status (SES) on fifth-grade special education (SE T2).

	Coefficients B	95% CI	p-value
Indirect effects
Gender → SE T1 → SE T2	‒.41	‒.73 to ‒.09	.013
Gender → Teacher helplessness → SE T2	‒.08	‒.17 to .01	.085
Gender → ADHD → SE T2	‒.15	‒.27 to ‒.02	.029
SES → Math test score → SE T2	‒.14	‒.27 to ‒.02	.027
SES → Teacher helplessness → SE T2	‒.08	‒.14 to ‒.02	.013
SES → ADHD → SE T2	‒.05	‒.10 to >.00	.062

Note:

All estimates are unstandardized.