Barriers to Success in Postsecondary Studies for Students With Disabilities: An Analysis of Current Policies and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students with disabilities who wish to pursue education at the postsecondary level are impacted by various factors, including: differences between practices and policies at the secondary and postsecondary level, transition supports, and available accommodations. A comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to determine current barriers and effective supports in place for students with disabilities transitioning to postsecondary education. It was found that, in Ontario, students with a disability are nearly 24% less likely to attend university when compared to students without a disability, and those who do attend are more likely to attend college (Brown & Parekh, 2010; Finnie et al., 2011). Students with learning disabilities and ADHD report being unprepared and overwhelmed by the increase in responsibility and the workload, miss academic support from their parents, and experience more problems academically (Arscott, 2013; Tsagris & Muirhead, 2012). Currently, there are transition programs which have been identified as supportive by students with disabilities; however, these programs are not consistently delivered across the province. This study compared Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) documents and policies around supporting students with disabilities, the funding available, and the supports available between elementary/secondary and postsecondary education. The study focused on the transition supports for students with disabilities as well as the effectiveness of the programs available. Students with disabilities need support to develop academic coping strategies in order to meet the academic demands of postsecondary education, and, as stated by the OME (2013a), it is crucial for schools in Ontario to provide opportunities and support for all students to make a successful transition to postsecondary education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".