Search Results
Title: Skills, Standards, and Disabilities: How Youth with Learning Disabilities Fare in High School and Beyond
Resulting in 1 citation.
| 1. |
McGee, Andrew Dunstan |
|
Skills, Standards, and Disabilities: How Youth with Learning Disabilities Fare in High School and Beyond Economics of Education Review 30,1 (February 2011): 109-129. Also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775710001044 Cohort(s): Children of the NLSY79, NLSY79, NLSY79 Young Adult Publisher: Elsevier Keyword(s): Behavior Problems Index (BPI); Disability; GED/General Educational Diploma/General Equivalency Degree/General Educational Development; Geographical Variation; High School Completion/Graduates; High School Diploma; Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (HOME); Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT- Math); Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT- Reading); Pearlin Mastery Scale; Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (see Self-Esteem); Unemployment Rate, Regional Learning disabled youth in the Child and Young Adult samples of the NLSY79 are more likely to graduate from high school than peers with the same measured cognitive ability, a difference that cannot be explained by differences in noncognitive skills, families, or school resources. Instead, I find that learning disabled students graduate from high school at higher rates than youth with the same cognitive abilities because of high school graduation policies that make it easier for learning disabled youth to obtain a high school diploma. The effects of these graduation policies are even more remarkable given that I find evidence that learning disabled youth have less unmeasured human capital than observationally equivalent youth as after high school they are less likely to be employed or continue on to college and earn less than their observationally equivalent non-learning disabled peers. |
|
|
Bibliography Citation
McGee, Andrew Dunstan. "Skills, Standards, and Disabilities: How Youth with Learning Disabilities Fare in High School and Beyond." Economics of Education Review 30,1 (February 2011): 109-129.
|