Examining the Post-School Decision-Making and Self-Determination of Disabled Young Adults in Ireland

Abstract

Reflecting the neglect of childhood disability in transitions research, there is a notable dearth of research on the factors shaping self-determination in post-school decision-making for disabled young adults. To address this gap, we explore how early educational experiences, parental expectations, economic vulnerability, school context, and educational supports shape perceived school support in developing self-determination skills among disabled and non-disabled secondary school students in Ireland. Utilising data from the nationally representative Growing Up in Ireland study, descriptive analyses map post-school decision-making and self-determination skills development among disabled and non-disabled young adults at age 20. Multivariate analyses explore the experiences of students with different disabilities, investigating how family, school, and peer influences shape such skill development. Disparities are found between disabled and non-disabled students, as well as among disabled students in school support for this skills development, with gender, socioeconomic background, cultural capital, and early educational experiences also important in perceived support. Positive school engagement and student-teacher relationships, as well as high self-expectations, emerge as protective factors, indicating that fostering supportive environments and self-concept may enhance students’ self-determination skills. The findings underscore the importance of promoting causal agency, providing support for proxy agency, and taking action to create enriching opportunities and choices for all students.

1. Introduction

The end of compulsory education is a moment in which students’ life trajectories, shared in many ways through primary and secondary school, profoundly diverge. Self-determination skills are vital for accessing post-secondary opportunities and achieving success within them. Such skills are particularly crucial for disabled students, enabling their access to support services and accommodations for their disabilities, navigating institutional infrastructure, communicating with instructors, and engaging in academic and social activities [1]. This paper focuses on the experiences of disabled and non-disabled students, exploring how they experience decision-making at school at this critical juncture.

While disabled young people have made gains in their post-secondary education and employment outcomes over time, gaps persist [2,3], particularly for students with socio-emotional difficulties [4]. Disabled young people are at greater risk of early school leaving [3] and remain less likely to attain and maintain competitive, integrated employment or pursue post-secondary education to prepare for long-term careers [1,5]. This can limit their opportunities in the future, further exacerbating the challenges they face. Moreover, societal structures and systems in place may not support the unique needs of these individuals. As the social model of disability argues, disability is a consequence of societal arrangements that fail to accommodate diverse needs rather than an individual issue [6,7,8]. This lack of accommodation can lead to a cycle of disadvantage, where disabled young people are continually left behind due to systemic barriers. These disadvantages are closely linked to individual characteristics as well as home and school-related factors and can accumulate within and beyond school. Understanding these intersecting influences is crucial for developing inclusive policies and practices to support disabled young people in achieving equitable outcomes.

Self-determination is a fundamental aspect of human agency that describes individuals’ capacity to act consciously and volitionally, exercising control over their lives either directly (causal agency) or indirectly through actions taken on their behalf (proxy agency) [9]. Conceptualised as the exercise of desired personal control within vital life domains amidst relational, systemic, or cultural contexts, self-determination is distinct from but inclusive of independence and autonomy [10,11]. This means that self-determination goes beyond simply being able to make decisions independently; it involves making choices that align with one’s personal values and goals and having the ability to act upon these choices.

This concept is particularly important for disabled young people, as it empowers them to take charge of their own lives, fostering a sense of self-worth and confidence. It allows them to advocate for their needs, make informed decisions about their education and career paths, and navigate societal systems that may not always be accommodating of their needs. Meanwhile, schools play a pivotal role in this process. They are often the first place where disabled young people learn to exercise their self-determination skills. Much existing research has shown that school-based interventions aimed at increasing self-determination and transition skills [12,13,14,15] are critical in equipping disabled young people with the skills they need to navigate the world independently and confidently and show promise in decreasing achievement gaps, although there is less evidence of a positive impact on quality of life outcomes [16]. Further, research has shown a positive association between higher levels of self-determination and favourable school and life outcomes, such as better community access upon graduation, higher rates of enrolment and completion of post-school education, an increased likelihood of securing employment with higher wages, and an improved quality of social relationships [17,18,19,20]. These outcomes highlight the transformative power of self-determination and the crucial role schools can play in fostering it.

There is, however, a dearth of research on how disabled young adults reflect on self-determination and the opportunities available to them to develop relevant skills, and critically, how the school context shapes perceptions of opportunities and decision-making skills. Most studies on self-determination among disabled young people focus on particular disability types, such as intellectual disabilities [21,22,23,24,25], learning disabilities [26,27], or autism [28]. This approach fails to capture the diverse spectrum of disabilities and contextual factors that may influence self-determination outcomes across different populations. Furthermore, much of the empirical research in this area relies on researcher-led approaches [29] or on reports from parents or teachers (e.g., in Tomaszewski et al., 2022 [28]), neglecting the student’s voice. This reliance has revealed discrepancies between disabled young people’s perceptions and those of their parents or teachers regarding opportunities for self-determination skills development [30,31]. Our study addresses these gaps in the literature by utilising rigorous, nationally representative longitudinal data from the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study. This approach offers rich insights across diverse geographic areas, demographic groups, and different types of disabilities. We draw on information provided by multiple informants, incorporating disability and family characteristics reported by parents and teachers, as well as self-determination-related skills reported by young people themselves. This multi-informant approach ensures a more holistic understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by disabled young people. The availability of information on disability status and type allows us to explore potential gaps between disabled and non-disabled youth and whether students with different disabilities fare differently in their self-determination skills.

Additionally, our analysis centres on students’ voices and views on their school’s role in facilitating decision-making skills. This focus is maintained while considering a broad range of key personal and contextual factors. By doing so, we aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of disabled young people and the factors that influence their self-determination outcomes.

Internationally, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) provides the regulatory foundation to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities [32]. This international mandate sets a global standard for the treatment and inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Ireland has a distinct and complex history regarding the education and social inclusion of persons with disabilities. A key piece of legislation, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (ADMA), has been developed to support decision-making and maximise a person’s capacity to make decisions. This Act applies universally and is relevant to all health and social care services, underscoring Ireland’s commitment to empowering individuals with disabilities [33].

For disabled students, particularly at secondary level, recent decades have seen substantial policy developments to support them in both mainstream and special school settings. These supports include special educational needs (SEN) support, individual education plans (IEPs), access to resource and learning support teachers, the provision of assistive technologies, the availability of specialised facilities, transition planning assistance, and support from external agencies [34]. These mechanisms aim to promote inclusion, provide tailored assistance, and facilitate access to education and opportunities for academic and personal development for disabled students. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act 2004 sets out important provision, especially in resource allocation. A significant development is the removal of the requirement for students to be diagnosed in order to access support in schools [35]. This change reflects a shift towards a more inclusive and accessible educational system. These disability-focused developments are further complemented by the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme, which aims to mitigate educational inequality by offering additional resources to schools serving a high concentration of students from disadvantaged backgrounds [36]. These resources are of particular benefit to disabled students, helping to level the playing field and ensure equal opportunities for all students [37].

Despite policy efforts to support disabled students, less is known about how their decision-making skills are supported at school. Adopting an ecological perspective using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory [38,39] and the resulting Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model, our study examines how young adults in Ireland reflect on support for their self-determination skills development. The approach locates developmental outcomes as a function of proximal processes that result from the interaction between the person and their context over time. In this view, development itself is a set of interactions between the person and their environment that produce both constancy and change in the person’s characteristics [38]. By situating our analysis within this framework and locating disabled students’ post-school decision-making in the interaction of their personal characteristics, external context, and interpersonal relationships, we provide a unique understanding of the multifaceted nature of self-determination among disabled and non-disabled young adults transitioning from school to post-school settings.

Using multi-wave longitudinal data from the GUI study on the cohort born in 1998, we explored the dynamic interactions between personal characteristics (such as disability type and gender) and contextual factors (including economic vulnerability, parental education, cultural capital, and whether the school is identified as serving a socio-economically disadvantaged population) in shaping self-determination skills development.

Specifically, we seek to address two overarching research questions:

(1)

What are the processes shaping causal and proxy agency for young adults, particularly disabled young adults, as they prepare to leave school in Ireland?

(2)

What role do early educational experiences, interpersonal relationships, parental expectations, and self-expectations play in the levels of self-determination among disabled and non-disabled young adults, while accounting for a diverse array of personal and contextual characteristics?

It should be noted that our study primarily assesses students’ perceptions of school-based support in developing self-determination skills rather than directly assessing students’ agency in decision-making, due to data availability. However, our study provides unique insights into students’ positivity towards school support in developing their decision-making skills at this critical juncture in their lives. First, these insights are derived from the students’ own voices, adding a layer of authenticity and relevance to our findings. Second, as mentioned earlier, many of the disadvantages disabled students face are a result of the current system not providing adequate accommodations to meet their unique and diverse needs. Schools are often the first place to respond to these needs and provide key supports for disabled young people to learn to exercise their self-determination skills. Focusing on students’ reflections on how their self-determination skills development is supported at school helps us identify gaps in current support systems when addressing students’ increasingly diverse needs and social profiles.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources: Growing Up in Ireland

We conducted secondary analysis of four waves of the GUI child cohort study, a nationally representative longitudinal study of children born in 1998. At Wave 1, GUI gathered data on 8570 9-year-olds in Ireland in 2007/2008, randomly selected through 910 primary schools, representing one-in-seven 9-year-old children in Ireland [40]. Subsequently, the selected children were followed up at age 13 (Wave 2) in 2011/2012, with 7400 children and their caregivers remaining in the sample. Data from the first two waves of GUI’s child cohort were used to identify context variables, including disability status. The third wave of data was collected in 2015/2016 from 6216 17/18-year-olds, including 73 percent of Wave 1 participants [41]. The fourth wave was collected in 2018/2019, when the respondents were 20 or 21 years of age, with 5191 respondents. Data from Wave 4 were used to retrieve the outcome variables for the present study, particularly those relating to assessments of independence skills and self-determination.

The GUI study adopted a fixed panel design, so by 20 years of age, the sample represents children/young people and their families who were residents of Ireland at 9 years of age and who were still living in Ireland at 20 years. A total of 4729 respondents who participated in all four waves were included in the analysis. Data were weighted using the weighting factor for the full sample at 20 for the participants in all four waves, producing a nationally representative sample. For details of this procedure, see McNamara et al., 2021 [42]. The rich data allow us to identify disabled children at 9 years old, drawing on information from multiple informants, and to explore the multifaceted and multi-layered nature of the influences on the development of self-determination skills among disabled and non-disabled young people as they progress through primary and secondary education.

2.2. Variable Description

Outcome variable. We examined students’ decision-making and self-determination skills development using Wave 4 data, based on self-reported answers provided in the Young Person Main Questionnaire. At age 20, young people were surveyed about the extent to which their school benefited them in aspects including ‘decide what to do after leaving school’, ‘think for yourself’, ‘prepare you for adult life’, ‘prepare you for the world of work’, ‘know how to acquire a new skill’, ‘know how to go about finding things out for yourself’, and ‘increase your self-confidence’ (with a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.81). Responses were categorised as ‘a lot’, ‘some’, and ‘no help’. A binary variable was created to distinguish students with higher positivity towards self-determination skills support (top 81.7% of the scale) from those with lower positivity.

Individual characteristics. Gender and disability type at age 9 are independent variables, with recent research [4,43] informing our identification of disabled children at this age. Teachers identified four primary disability types: physical, speech, learning, and emotional/behavioural difficulties. Primary caregivers (typically mothers) supplemented this information, identifying children with specific learning difficulties, communication disorders, or coordination issues. The teacher-reported Strengths and Difficulties Scale (SDQ) identified children with mental health or emotional/psychological challenges. Children identified by caregivers as experiencing hampered daily activities, ‘slow progress’, or speech and communication difficulties were categorised as ‘other’, if not classified under the four main disability types. In cases of multiple disabilities, children were categorised according to the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance (e.g., a child with both general learning/intellectual and physical disabilities was categorised as having a general learning/intellectual disability).

Family resources. Family resources in this study considered socioeconomic indicators, cultural and social capital, and broader community environment. Parental education, defined as the highest educational attainment of the primary caregiver (usually mothers), was constructed as a binary variable (third-level degree or not) using Wave 1 data. Those who have a third-level degree in Ireland refers to individuals who have obtained a professional qualification, a university degree, or both. This also includes those who have earned a postgraduate diploma/degree, or a Ph.D. degree. Economic vulnerability is a composite measure derived from latent class analysis, including income poverty, household joblessness, and financial strain, using the first three waves of data [44]. The number of physical books at home is a common measure of social and cultural capital [45]. In this study, we used the number of books at home at age 9 to reflect investment in achievement during middle childhood. Neighbourhood characteristics were also considered, as they can provide critical contexts for adolescent development [46,47]. They were captured through students’ responses to the question ‘This [neighbourhood] is a safe area’ at age 17, using a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Academic achievement. Academic achievement is closely associated with self-determination skills development [48,49]. The GUI study incorporated various measures to assess student academic achievement across different waves. We used Drumcondra reasoning test scores (an aptitude test used in Irish schools to assess students’ cognitive skills) at age 13 to capture academic performance in earlier years. Students’ educational pathways at age 20 (Higher Education, Further Education and Training, or other) served as indicators of more recent academic performance.

School engagement. School engagement is crucial for children’s academic progress and attachment [50,51,52]. It was assessed through students’ responses to the question, ‘How do you feel about school in general?’ using a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I like it very much’ to ‘I hate it’ at Wave 2, with positive engagement indicated by liking school and negative engagement reflecting dislike.

The quality of interactions between students and teachers plays a key role in students’ development, both academically [53] and non-academically [54,55]. We assessed this interaction quality by examining students’ self-reported conflict levels with teachers at age 13, based on instances of the student being reprimanded for misbehaviour or untidy/late work by their teacher.

School attendance is closely associated with academic performance [56,57,58], especially among disabled young adults [59]. Poor school attendance can lead to unfavourable learning and educational outcomes both in the short and long term, such as limited learning opportunities and high drop-out rates in high school [60] or lower college enrolment [61]. School absence in this study was measured by the number of school days missed at age 9 based on teacher reports, with students missing over 10 days classified as having higher absenteeism.

Parental educational expectation. Building upon previous research [4,43], we examined the influence of parental educational expectations at age 9 on post-secondary outcomes. It was measured from the primary caregiver’s assessment regarding their child’s future educational path. A binary variable distinguished between expectations of achieving a third-level degree and all others.

Self-expectation. Young people’s perceived efficacy and academic aspirations are key predictors of their perceived career opportunities and choices [9]. We assessed young people’s self-expectations based on their academic self-image relative to peers at age 17, using a binary variable to differentiate those perceiving above-average performance from others.

School characteristics. Evidence suggests that school context significantly influences students’ engagement and decision-making in Ireland, with those attending socio-economically disadvantaged contexts faring less well [3,62]. The socioeconomic profile of schools is captured by their participation in the DEIS programme, with a binary variable distinguishing students attending DEIS schools from those in non-DEIS schools at any wave of data collection.

Full variable description is summarised in Appendix 

Table A2. Variable Description.

Variable Name	Description
Outcome variable	We examined students’ perceived decision-making and self-determination skills development using Wave 4 data from the Young Person Main Questionnaire. At age 20, young people were surveyed on how much their school helped them in areas such as ‘decide what to do after leaving school’, ‘think for yourself’, ‘prepare you for adult life’, ‘prepare you for the world of work’, ‘know how to acquire a new skill’, ‘know how to go about finding things out for yourself’, and ‘increase your self-confidence’. Responses were categorised as ‘a lot’, ‘some’, and ‘no help’. A binary variable was created to distinguish students with higher positivity towards self-determination skills support (top 81.7% of the scale) from those with lower positivity.
Individual characteristics	Gender and disability type at age 9 are independent variables exploring individual student characteristics. Teachers identified four primary disability types: physical, speech, learning, and emotional/behavioural difficulties. Primary caregivers (typically mothers) supplemented this information by identifying children with specific learning difficulties, communication disorders, or coordination issues. The teacher-reported Strengths and Difficulties Scale (SDQ) identified children with mental health or emotional/psychological challenges. Children identified by caregivers as experiencing hampered daily activities, ‘slow progress’, or speech and communication difficulties are categorised as ‘other’ if not classified under the four main disability types. In cases of multiple disabilities, children are categorised according to the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance (e.g., a child with both general learning/intellectual and physical disabilities is categorised as having a general learning/intellectual disability).
Family resources	Family resources in this study consider socioeconomic indicators, cultural and social capital, and the broader community environment. Parental education, defined as the highest educational attainment of the primary caregiver (usually mothers), is constructed as a binary variable (third-level degree or not) using Wave 1 data. Economic vulnerability is a composite measure derived from latent class analysis, covering income poverty, household joblessness, and financial strain using the first three waves of data. Additionally, the number of books in the home at age 9 serves as a measure of social and cultural capital, reflecting investment in achievement during middle childhood. Neighbourhood characteristics are also considered, as they provide critical contexts for adolescent development. Neighbourhood characteristics were captured through students’ responses to the statement ‘This [neighbourhood] is a safe area’ at age 17, using a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
Academic achievement	Academic achievement is closely associated with self-determination skills development. We use Drumcondra reasoning test scores at age 13 to capture academic performance in earlier years. Students’ educational pathways at age 20 (Higher Education, Further Education and Training, or other) serve as indicators of more recent academic performance.
School engagement	School engagement was assessed through students’ responses to the question, ‘How do you feel about school in general?’ using a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I like it very much’ to ‘I hate it’ at Wave 2, with positive engagement indicated by liking school and negative engagement reflecting dislike. The quality of interactions between students and teachers was captured by students’ self-reported conflict levels with teachers at age 13, based on instances of the student being reprimanded for misbehaviour or untidy/late work by their teacher. School absence in this study was measured by the number of school days missed at age 9 based on teacher reports, with students missing over 10 days classified as having higher absenteeism.
Parental educational expectation	Parental educational expectations were measured by the primary caregiver’s anticipation regarding their child’s post-secondary educational path at age 9. A binary variable distinguishes between expectations of achieving a third-level degree and all others.
Self-expectation	Young people’s self-expectations were assessed by their academic self-image relative to peers at age 17, using a binary variable to differentiate those perceiving above-average performance from others.
School characteristics	The socioeconomic profile of schools was captured by students’ participation in the DEIS programme, which supports schools with a high prevalence of socially disadvantaged students. A binary variable was created to distinguish students attending DEIS schools from those in non-DEIS schools at any wave of data collection.

.

2.3. Analytical Approach

We adopted both descriptive and multivariate statistical approaches, all undertaken in Stata 17. Descriptive analyses explored the demographic and socioeconomic profiles of the students included in the analysis and examined the overall level of positivity regarding the school’s role in preparing both disabled and non-disabled young adults for decision-making, as well as the results in relation to key individual and contextual characteristics. Descriptive analyses were also employed to investigate whether disabled young adults encounter additional disadvantages compared with their non-disabled peers, economically, socially, and academically.

Multivariate regression modelling sought to understand both variation in self-determination skills development and the factors associated with such skills. Using a multilevel structure, we examined how individual, family, and school characteristics in childhood and adolescence shape the probability of both disabled and non-disabled young adults at age 20 feeling their self-determination skills development was supported at school. Standard errors were clustered at the school level at age 9 to account for school-level correlations. The results of the multilevel logistic models were expressed in odd ratios, with values greater than one indicating a higher likelihood of students perceiving support for their self-determination skills development at school and values less than one indicating a lower likelihood.

The analysis comprised four successive blocks of variables. The initial model considered only gender and disability type. The second block incorporated socioeconomic backgrounds, including economic vulnerability experienced by the household, parental education level, number of books in the household, the broader living environment measured by perceived neighbourhood safety, and school DEIS status at primary and secondary levels, along with parental expectations at age 9. The third block added early school experiences and engagement factors, including school attendance at age 9, self-reported relationships with teachers at 13, positive school engagement at 13, as well as academic performance at 13, measured by standardised test scores. The fourth block extended the analysis to include academic self-image at age 17 and educational outcomes at age 20. This sequential approach allowed us to dissect the key factors influencing students’ perceived self-determination skills and understand how these impacts might be mediated by other key characteristics.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Results

Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory [38,39] and the resulting Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model, our study examines how both disabled and non-disabled young adults in Ireland reflect on their decision-making and the extent to which their self-determination skills are supported at school. To contextualise the analyses, we begin by outlining the descriptive findings related to self-determination outcomes.

Considering the demographic and socioeconomic attributes of the 4727 students included in the analysis, all residing in Ireland, our sample comprised 50.6% boys and 49.4% girls, with approximately two-thirds (66.8%) not experiencing any economic vulnerability across all previous waves (see details in Appendix 

Table A1. Demographic Characteristics.

Individual Characteristics		%
Gender	Boys	50.6
	Girls	49.4
Disability Type	No disability	76.8
	Intellectual/general learning difficulties	8.1
	Specific learning difficulties	5.2
	Socioemotional/behavioural difficulties	5.7
	Physical/sensory/speech difficulties	2.0
	Other	2.2
Economic Vulnerability (EV)	No EV	66.8
	EV	33.2
Books at Home	Had <30 books	40.5
	Had 30 books or more	59.6
Primary Caregiver (PCG)’s Education	No degree	80.1
	Degree	19.9
School DEIS Status	Non-DEIS	78.9
	DEIS	21.1
Parental Expectation at Age 9	No 3rd-level degree expected	28.0
	3rd-level degree expected	72.0
Educational Outcome at Age 20	University degree/higher education or above	37.1
	Non-university 3rd-level degree	16.4
	Non-university sub-degree	6.9
	Further education and training (FET)	22.4
	Did not finish programme	4.8
	No post-school education	12.3

). Just under 60% of students had over 30 physical books at home at age 9, and one-fifth had a degree-educated primary caregiver. The majority of students (72.4%) were expected to attain a third-level degree by their parents at age 9. Around one-fifth attended DEIS schools, which have a higher concentration of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Consistent with prior research, which has shown a greater complexity of needs at DEIS schools [63], our study reaffirms a higher prevalence of disabled students attending DEIS schools compared with non-DEIS schools (36.5% vs. 26.5%).

Regarding disability status, a total of 21% of 9-year-olds were identified with at least one of four disability classifications, with 8% having general learning/intellectual disabilities, 5.7% with socioemotional or behavioural disabilities, 5.2% with specific learning disabilities, and 2% with physical disabilities. It is important to note that different conceptualisations and operational definitions of disability can directly impact the reported disability rate. However, our results broadly align with many international studies that find a high prevalence of cognitive and psychological difficulties. For instance, Young’s study conducted in the US in 2019 found a high prevalence of cognitive difficulties [64]. A global study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in 2021, focused on children and young adults aged between 2 and 17 years, found a high prevalence of psychological difficulties, considering both physical and sensory functioning and psychosocial functioning when measuring the disability rate [65].

At age 20, the most common educational pathway was University-Degree/Higher Education (HE) (37.1%), followed by Further Education and Training (FET) (22.4%) and Non-University Third-Level courses (16.4%). However, 4.8% did not complete their school programme, and 12.3% were not engaged in any form of post-school education.

Students demonstrated a generally high level of positivity regarding their school’s role in preparing them for decision-making at age 20, particularly in acquiring new skills, being independent, and increasing self-confidence. To explore more nuanced factors influencing students’ perceptions of their school’s support for decision-making abilities, we investigated the results in relation to key individual and contextual characteristics.

Figure 1 illustrates significant variations across different disability types. While notably positive responses were observed among non-disabled students (83%), similar positive responses were evident among those with specific learning difficulties (83.2%) and intellectual disabilities (80.9%). Conversely, young people with socio-emotional or behavioural difficulties showed the least positivity (68.4%), followed by those with physical or sensory difficulties (75.2%) and ‘other’ difficulties (75.7%).

Our descriptive analysis indicates a strong association between the school’s role in supporting self-determination skills development and students’ school experiences, and less association with family resources. Positive responses were more prevalent among individuals with lower school absenteeism at age 9 and higher school engagement. Although there were no significant variations in parental expectations regarding degree attainment, notable differences were observed in young people’s self-expectations. Those with higher academic self-image reported greater positivity (83.8% with above-average academic self-image vs. 63.8% with lower academic self-image). Furthermore, disparities were evident in educational pathways, with HE students exhibiting the highest positivity in terms of self-determination skills.

As predicted by the social disability model, disabled young people face accumulating disadvantages in various life domains compared with their non-disabled peers. These challenges extend beyond their disabilities and include a higher risk of economic vulnerability, increased school absence, and lower academic achievement. Academic difficulties for these students often began at an early age, with two-thirds identified as ‘struggling’ at age 9. This trend persisted, with disabled students consistently underperforming compared with their non-disabled peers, likely contributing to their lower academic self-image and the reduced likelihood of pursuing HE courses after secondary school. Notably, fewer disabled students attended HE at age 20 compared with their non-disabled peers, with a significant disparity of 17.3% vs. 43.1%.

3.2. Logistic Regression Results

To further unpack the influence of key personal characteristics, external context, and interpersonal relationships on both disabled and non-disabled students’ positivity towards their school’s support in developing self-determination skills, we employed multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Table 1. Multilevel Logistic Regression Model Results.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Constant	5.515 ***	4.482 ***	4.718 ***	4.133 ***
Female (Base: Male)	0.806 **	0.832 *	0.716 ***	0.679 ***
Disability (Base: No disability)
Intellectual/general learning	0.751 #	0.721 #	0.671 #	0.766
Specific learning	1.061	1.131	1.066	1.163
Socio-emotional and behavioural	0.503 ***	0.533 ***	0.52 ***	0.553 ***
Physical/visual/hearing/speech	0.650 #	0.673 #	0.720	0.711
Other	0.604 *	0.597 *	0.615 #	0.657
Economic vulnerability at wave 1, 2 or 3 (Base: No economic vulnerability)		0.724 ***	0.711 ***	0.757 **
Parent has 3rd level degree (Base: Lower education)		1.01	1.006	0.953
Had >30 books in house at 9 (Base: 30 books or less)		0.757 ***	0.793 **	0.782 **
Lived in a safe neighbourhood at 17 (Base: unsafe neighbourhood)		1.762 ***	1.786 ***	1.66 ***
Attended DEIS school at 9, 13 or 17 (Base: Did not attend DEIS school in any wave)		0.997	0.983	1.064
Parental expectation at 9: 3rd level degree (Base: No 3rd level degree expected)		0.91	0.934	0.851
More than 10 days of school missed at 9 (Base: missed 10 days or less)			0.724 **	0.750 **
Teacher conflict at 13 (Base: No teacher conflict)			0.792 *	0.888
Positive school engagement at 13 (Base: Less positive)			1.613 ***	1.539 ***
Drumcondra test score at 13 (Base: Lowest quintile/1st quintile)
2nd quintile			0.794	0.683 **
3rd quintile			0.900	0.693 **
4th quintile			0.739 #	0.533 ***
5th quintile			0.693 *	0.483 ***
Above-average academic self-image at 17 (Base: Average or below)				2.381 ***
Post-school educational outcome (Base: University 3rd level degree)
Non-university 3rd level degree				0.860
Non-university sub-degree				0.559 ***
Further education and training				0.496 ***
Did not finish programme				0.499 ***
No post-school education				0.520 ***
N of observation	4681	4661	4164	4162
N of schools	837	836	789	789
Pseudo R-square	0.007	0.016	0.033	0.054

Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05, # p < 0.1. Data from GUI, Child Cohort, wave 1, 2, 3, and 4 (at 9, 13, 17, and 20 years).

displays the odds ratios for each variable, along with an indicator of significance. The logistic model results are presented in odds ratios and can be compared with the reference category.

Despite the generally positive response to schools developing self-determination skills, systematic gaps were identified between disabled and non-disabled students. Disabled students were significantly less likely to feel supported in decision-making at school compared with their non-disabled peers, holding all else constant. To explore the impact of different types of disability, we utilised a multi-category rather than binary variable. Unequal impacts based on different types of disability were evident among all tested models. Notably, having a specific learning difficulty showed no significant association with perceived opportunities to develop self-determination skills at school, regardless of other controls. Conversely, being identified as having socio-emotional or behavioural difficulties remained significantly associated with a lower likelihood of feeling supported in decision-making at school, even after accounting for all characteristics. Young adults identified with intellectual and ‘other’ disabilities also exhibited a lower likelihood of feeling supported in their self-determination skills at school compared with their non-disabled peers. However, this result became insignificant when considering academic self-image at 17 and educational results at 20. Similarly, the association between having physical or sensory difficulties and self-determination skill development became insignificant once school engagement and academic performance at age 13 were introduced. These findings suggest that the lower likelihood for these groups is mediated by one or more contextual factors at a later stage. Finally, significant gender differences emerged, with girls being more critical of the development of self-determination skills at school.

Considering the bioecological framework, individual characteristics cannot be viewed in isolation but must be understood within their broader context. Therefore, Model 2 additionally considered family and neighbourhood backgrounds and showed that economic vulnerability, cultural capital and perceived safety of the neighbourhood were all significant predictors of the development of self-determination skills at school. Specifically, economically vulnerable students and those with greater cultural capital were more likely to perceive limited decision-making opportunities compared with their peers. Conversely, a perceived higher level of neighbourhood safety was associated with enhanced opportunities for self-determination skills development at school. However, parental education and expectations of their child’s academic attainment, as well as the socioeconomic context of the school, did not have a significant influence.

Specific school-related factors significantly influenced the development of self-determination skills at school, with a positive school climate having a particularly enduring impact. In Model 3, positive school engagement was significantly associated with improved decision-making skills development at school, while high levels of conflict with teachers was associated with more limited school support in decision-making. The positive effect of positive school engagement persisted even after accounting for all controls, whereas the negative impact of student-teacher conflicts was mediated by academic self-image at age 17 and educational outcomes at age 20 in Model 4.

Regarding academic performance, high-performing students at age 13, relative to their peers in the lowest quintile, were more critical about school support in developing their self-determination skills. The negative association remained even after other controls were included in Model 4. Similarly, less positive responses were found among those pursuing any form of education other than HE at age 20. It is, however, important to note that students’ post-school educational trajectories are closely tied to earlier academic performance, school experiences, and parental or teacher expectations, all of which both influence and reflect young people’s decisions. Furthermore, an augmented self-concept can improve students’ perceived opportunities for developing their decision-making skills. Compared with those with a below-average academic self-image, individuals with a higher academic self-image were more likely to believe that their schools have supported their self-determination skills.

To summarise, despite the complexity of these dynamics, certain key variables consistently retained significance. Specifically, students with socio-emotional or behavioural difficulties, economic vulnerability, higher academic performance, and greater cultural capital tended to be more critical of the support provided by their schools for self-determination skills development, as were females. Conversely, individuals in perceived safer neighbourhoods and those with positive school engagement tended to express more favourable perceptions.

4. Discussion

Our study leverages nationally representative longitudinal data from the GUI study to offer a comprehensive perspective on the development of self-determination skills among both disabled and non-disabled young adults in Ireland. We examine this development through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory and the PPCT model, focusing on the dynamic interaction between individuals and their context over time. The analysis has revealed clear disparities between disabled and non-disabled students in their positivity towards their school’s role in supporting their self-determination skills development, with disability type, gender, socioeconomic background, cultural capital, and early educational experiences emerging as key predictors. The findings underscore the importance of considering the multifaceted nature of development within a broader environmental context. They reflect the PPCT model’s emphasis on the interplay between person and context, highlighting how supportive environments and personal attributes contribute to positive developmental outcomes, especially in the self-determination domain.

Specifically, through a detailed examination of the decision-making experiences of young people with various disabilities, our research reveals systematic gaps between disabled and non-disabled students. These disparities are not uniform but vary among disabled young adults with different types of disabilities, highlighting different experiences in terms of school support for student agency. This aligns with earlier research which found the challenges disabled young people face are unique to their disability and needs profile [28,66]. Consistent with previous findings [4], our study pinpoints particular risks for students with socio-emotional or behavioural difficulties in school support for their self-determination skills. These risks persist even after accounting for a range of key personal and contextual characteristics. The results underline the need for tailored support strategies that consider the specific challenges associated with different types of disabilities and needs. For instance, interventions for students with socio-emotional or behavioural difficulties can involve strategies to improve social skills and manage problematic behaviours, in addition to standard school supports. Such targeted interventions can create an environment conducive to the practice and development of self-determination skills, helping to bridge gaps and promote more equitable outcomes for all students.

Interestingly, students with specific learning difficulties hold no less positive views regarding support for their decision-making skills compared with their non-disabled peers. One possible explanation is that specific learning difficulties (such as dyslexia), as opposed to other types of disabilities, are less likely to impede an individual’s ability to set and achieve goals, be self-aware, and advocate for themselves, which are key to developing self-determination skills. A study among US college students supports this, showing that students with specific learning difficulties have the highest perceived self-determination levels compared with their peers with other disabilities [67]. Overall, these findings highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of the unique challenges faced by different groups across disability types and levels and the importance of targeted interventions. Ultimately, these supports should enable all students, regardless of their needs, to develop their self-determination skills to their fullest potential.

Our results further substantiate the gendered nature of self-determination skills development at school. Globally, research on the influence of gender on self-determination competencies varies. While some studies do not find differences [68,69], others highlight specific challenges encountered by girls. These challenges include differences in aspects of self-determination such as locus of control, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy compared with boys [70], variations in preferences for exercising self-determination, and differing levels of self-knowledge application in decision-making [71]. Additionally, much of the existing programme content aimed at enhancing self-determination may be biassed towards the learning styles of young men, resulting in young women not benefiting equally [66]. Therefore, it is crucial to develop more gender-neutral supports for disabled young adults and ensure that interventions benefit young women and young men.

Our findings also shed light on the multifaceted nature of students’ self-determination skills development, emphasising the need to address diverse factors to cultivate a supportive school environment conducive to student growth and empowerment. The bioecological framework suggests that individual characteristics and their impact cannot be isolated from their context, as developmental outcomes are the result of dynamic interactions between these elements. Numerous studies have highlighted more limited opportunities for self-determination skills development among students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, a disadvantage sometimes compounded by disability [72,73]. Although our analysis does not identify a direct influence of family and school context, a persistent negative association is found between economic vulnerability and perceived support for self-determination skills development.

Our findings confirm the significant role of personal relationships in shaping students’ decision-making processes, particularly within a supportive school context. This aligns with the PPCT model’s emphasis on the interplay between person, relationship and context. Positive student-teacher relationships and school engagement are vital protective factors, consistent with international research [73,74]. It is important for students to feel connected to and cared for by educators, as their self-determination development at school is ultimately cultivated within the context of relationships [75]. Positive and supportive relationships enable educators to better understand student needs and experiences [76] and promote behavioural engagement [77].

Additionally, enhancing self-concept can increase students’ positivity about their school’s role in developing their self-determination skills, while parental education and expectations play a limited role. This aligns with Bandura et al.’s study in 2001 [9], which suggests that children’s career trajectories can be influenced more by their perceived efficacy and academic aspirations than parental influences. However, many school-based interventions supporting students’ post-school transitions often treat disabled young people as passive recipients, excluding them from planning and decision-making [76,78,79]. Such exclusion can lead to feelings of unpreparedness and decreased confidence in adapting to new environments [80]. It is, therefore, imperative to actively involve students as causal agents in developing their sense of control and self-determination. This can be achieved by providing disabled young adults with more course choices, involving them in educational planning [75], and helping them see beyond their immediate experiences [73].

Our study further reveals that students’ perceptions of their self-determination skills development at school are influenced more by their subjective perception than their actual ability. The negative impact of factors such as being a high performer, possessing greater cultural capital, and attending HE courses may seem contradictory, but perhaps it suggests that these students are more critical of the support provided by schools for their skills development. High-performing students, especially when surrounded by high-achieving peers, may be acutely aware of competitiveness [81] and hold more critical views of themselves and the support system [82]. These students may also have better access to external resources and hence have higher expectations of their school in terms of fostering their self-determination skills.

Using an ecological framework, we identify disparities between disabled and non-disabled students in support for their self-determination skills, with factors such as disability type, gender, socioeconomic background, early educational experiences, school climate, and self-expectation emerging as key predictors. Support systems should thus consider the interplay of these factors to better meet the needs of these students. It is also important to identify, value, and teach skills needed to be college- and career-ready while young people are still in school to ensure that they are prepared for post-school life, as supported by Lombardi et al.’s study [15]. Self-determination skills are vital for accessing post-secondary opportunities and succeeding within those pathways, as they enable individuals to navigate institutional structures, communicate effectively, and participate fully in academic and social activities [1]. This research highlights the importance of enhancing capacity and developing skills, promoting both causal and proxy agency, and creating supportive environments for all young adults in school and post-school settings.

Future Research/Limitations

A number of limitations can be noted. While the study focuses on disabled young adults’ perceptions of opportunities to develop self-determination skills at school, it does not directly assess their actual decision-making capacity or specific school initiatives promoting self-determination. Future research can explore how these skills are cultivated and practised among young adults with and without disabilities and evaluate school programmes aimed at enhancing self-determination.

Our models do not consider the complexity or severity of disabilities, which can significantly influence individual experiences and support needs. Furthermore, disability status and type are based on parental and teacher reports at age 9, which may not capture later diagnoses or evolving disabilities. Future studies should account for changes in disability status over time and utilise the longitudinal nature of this and other data sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of students’ experiences.

Finally, apart from family characteristics and school DEIS status, our study relies solely on student self-report, without considering information from parents or educators. Discrepancies between young adults’ self-reports and those of their parents or educators are evident in many studies [28]. Given that school and environment strongly influence students’ self-determination skills development, incorporating diverse perspectives from parents and educators can help identify gaps and develop more targeted interventions.

5. Conclusions

Using robust, nationally representative data from the GUI Study and framed within a bioecological perspective, our research investigates school support for the development of self-determination skills among disabled and non-disabled young adults transitioning from school to post-school environments in Ireland. Our analysis reveals significant disparities in perceived support between disabled and non-disabled students, as well as gaps by type of disability, influenced by factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, cultural capital, school climate, and self-expectation. Students with socio-emotional and behavioural difficulties, girls, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable.

Notably, positive school engagement, student-teacher relationships, and enhanced self-concept emerge as protective factors, highlighting the pivotal role of supportive and inclusive school climates, positive interpersonal relationships, and individual beliefs in nurturing decision-making agency. Aligned with the PPCT model, our results underscore the importance of supportive environments and relationships in nurturing positive developmental outcomes, particularly within the realm of self-determination. Therefore, interventions aimed at promoting both causal and proxy agency and establishing nurturing environments are crucial. Efforts to enhance self-expectations, foster supportive relationships, and build more inclusive and positive school climates are important in empowering individuals as active agents as they navigate the complexities of decision-making during the transition to adulthood.