Cross-ministry data on service use and limitations faced by children in special education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with disabilities often face limitations that cross support sectors. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to measure cross-ministry service use, outcomes, and functional limitations faced by children who qualified for special education. METHODS: We used longitudinal British Columbia ministry data linked to children (0-18y) registered in K-12 education. Children were grouped by special education funding (most to least; Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Unfunded, and no special education), and related to 1) service use patterns, 2) the age they first used disability services, and 3) functional limitations reported in health visits. We also reported how length of special education use related to disability service use. RESULTS: Of 111,274 children, 154(0.1%) were Level 1, 4427(4.0%) Level 2, 2897(2.6%) Level 3, 13472(12.1%) Unfunded, and 90324(81.2%) not in special education. Children with higher funding levels, compared to lower levels of funding, generally were more likely to experience poorer outcomes, have functional limitations, have service needs, and receive early support. One exception was children with serious behavioral/mental health special education coding, which had poorer outcomes for their level of funding. Children received child disability supports early (about half of users started by 4y), but use was mostly limited to those with many years (9+years) of funded special education (70.7% of the all users) and biased to certain special education codes (i.e., Level 1, severe intellectual disability, and autism). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the long-term, diverse needs of children in special education and may be used to inform decisions surrounding their support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".