Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

Australian alliance for inclusive education

The Education Issues Paper – Submissions to the Disability Royal Commission

by Leave a Comment

INTRODUCTION 

The following is an outline of the 12 questions that are set out in the Education and Learning Issues Paper published by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People With Disability (Disability Royal Commission).

This outline is not intended to be prescriptive or comprehensive.  It is merely designed to identify some common themes for people with disability and families seeking to ensure inclusive education as the human right of students with disabilities, and to assist them in considering developing their own submissions to the Disability Royal Commission and in response to the Education and Learning Issues Paper.

It is important to note that submissions are critical to inform the work of the Disability Royal Commission. It is very important that the Royal Commission understands the importance of ensuring that all children have access to a quality and genuinely inclusive education and the reforms that are needed to ensure this happens across all Australian education systems.

If you are considering making a submission, the information that you provide and the length is entirely up to you  – one paragraph by email, or several pages, answers to all 12 questions or just the points you would like to make, your personal story or just your thoughts on why inclusive education matters.  We recommend that you use the words “Submission – Education and Learning Issues Paper”.  It can be be emailed to DRCenquiries@royalcommission.gov.au or posted to: GPO Box 1422, Brisbane Qld 4001.

Also, you can make multiple submissions, about education or any other relevant matter.  This means that you can follow up with more information later.

However, before preparing and submitting a submission, you should read this Disability Royal Commission Education and Learning FAQ Sheet from the Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education and also the information from the Disability Royal Commission on “Confidentiality and protections for people engaging with the Royal Commission” and “Support services during the Royal Commission”.

If you have any feedback on this document please Contact Us.

VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION

Q1 – Are particular forms of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation more prevalent in education and learning environments?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include experiences in relation to:

  • The practice of segregating students with disabilities. This is the denial of the right to education on an equal basis and a form of educational neglect.
  • The use of restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities.
  • Failures to provide academic supports to students with disabilities.
  • Failures to provide academic supports to students with disabilities.
  • The impact of microaggressions, ableism and educational shortfalls.
  • The impact of school bullying.  Schools should be able to protect children with disability against bullying while maintaining their inclusion into general education settings.

 Q2 – Does the extent or nature of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation of people with disability vary between: a. stages of education and learning (i.e. early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, further education)? b. settings of education and learning (i.e. inclusive, integrated or segregated)? c. States or Territories? d. government, Catholic or Independent education systems?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include experiences in relation to:

  • Ableism.  This is at the core of all violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation is disability prejudice (ableism), so it generally affects all contexts for people with disabilities.
  • The impact of segregation. Note that research indicates that disability segregated models for delivery of education to students with disabilities are less safe in that it is easier to conceal violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation so it is more likely to go undetected, be more serious and be carried out for longer.  Please share any information you have about this.
  • The impact of inclusion and how genuinely inclusive environments can help to keep children with disabilities safer.

Q3 – Taking an intersectional approach, how do the specific experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation vary amongst students in education and learning environments?

Around the world there are some well-established links between segregation and ethnicity or race and in Australia there is increasing research that suggests that First Nations students and children in out of home care are particularly affected by segregation and exclusion policies.

There is also some evidence of a correlation between segregated settings being more clustered in lower income areas.

Please share with the Disability Royal Commission any information about your personal experience of these matters including in relation to segregation, suspensions and expulsion.

Q4 – What are some of the underlying causes of the issues and barriers (outlined in Section 2)? How do these issues and barriers link to or influence the experiences of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation by people with disability in education and learning environments?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include your experiences around:

  • Difference and disability being viewed negatively. For example:
    • focus on diagnosis not individual needs of the child;
    • stereotyping;
    • social rejection; and
    • devaluation.
  • The impact of negative attitudes and beliefs about disability and education. For example:
    • failure to recognise equal rights to education – “gatekeeping”, saying “we don’t have funding”, “we don’t have the skill”, suggesting the learning of non disabled students will be prejudiced, excluding students with disabilities from some activities including excursions, concerts, etc;
    • low expectations for students with disabilities;
    • deficit “medical model” thinking that focuses on “fixing” children with therapies, not providing supports and accommodations;
    • entrenched values in the education system that privilege students who are high attaining academically and disadvantages those who aren’t including many students with disabilities;
    • the “othering” idea that students with disabilities are one homogeneous group and are distinct from the rest of society – and should be segregated or congregated for that reason.
  • Poor practices and “integration” instead of genuine inclusion.  Note that “integration” is when students are physically placed in regular classrooms but do not get adequate supports and accommodations. This is NOT genuine inclusion.
  • Insufficient or unhelpful professional development for principals and teachers.
  • Lack of resources. For example, when students denied AAC, etc.

Q5 – What measures and mechanisms prevent violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of students with disability in education and learning environments? What role does or could inclusive education play in preventing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation in society?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The importance of challenging “dangerous assumptions” about disability and education, noting that education is a human service and all human services are based on assumptions. Common “assumptions” include that people with disabilities:
    • should be segregated;
    • should be grouped with ‘their own kind’;
    • cannot be engaged in the regular class work; and
    • even when there is some inclusion (with pull-outs for special classes) or placement in a mainstream classroom with an aide, these assumptions still drive the approach.
  • The academic and social outcome of ALL students improve when “assumptions” change to:
    • all students share similarities and differences;
    • students learn best together;
    • all students can be engaged in the same lesson material if adapted and appropriate supports provided.
  • The need for schools to adopt trauma-informed and rights-based approaches that respect diversity and the rights of the child.
  • The need for schools to develop positive and inclusive school cultures, and accessibility, responding to students’ academic and social and emotional needs. Noting that segregation has been found to be a “setting based” risk factor that heightens risk of abuse of children with disabilities (see Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Final Report in 2017).
  • The importance of robust and enforceable legal and policy frameworks that comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilties and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (eg the Disability Discrimination Act and the Disability Standards for Education are not enough).
  • Data collection and monitoring, including on school attainment and outcomes.

Q6 – What barriers or impediments are there to identifying, disclosing and reporting gviolence, abuse, neglect or exploitation in education and learning settings?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • That parents may not be in a position to identify educational neglect of a child with a disability due to lack of information, low expectations, reliance on third party advice.
  • The power imbalance between parents and the education system. Parents are often too fearful or intimidated and may fear retribution against their child, to escalate or make a formal complaint.
  • The fact that parents are sometimes “burnt out” or traumatised dealing with other issues or accessing disability supports (e.g. NDIS)
  • The fact that some children with disabilities who experience violence, abuse or neglect are not able to communicate this effectively.Inclusion can be protective because other children or siblings are more likely to witness and report incidents.
  • The lack of strong enforceable rights (Disability Discrimination Act and Disability Standards for Education).
  • The fact that complaint mechanisms are generally ineffective and inadequate. Some families have experience of ‘blow back’ or retribution for raising issues and official complaints.
  • The devaluation of students with disabilities and negative attitudes cultures that may play a part in creating a culture of school staff not reporting violence, neglect and abuse.

REPORTING, INVESTIGATING AND RESPONDING TO VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION

Q7 – What barriers or impediments are there to adequately investigating violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation in education and learning settings?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • Devaluation of students with disabilities and a negative attitudes culture playing a part in creating a culture of school staff not investigating violence, neglect and abuse.
  • Lack of procedures and knowledge on how to capture student voice and experience.
  • Difficulty for parents in obtaining information – may only see bruises, scratches or notice changes in behaviour.
  • Segregation – in closed environments for people with disabilities, other “witnesses” may be less able to community violence, abuse or neglect.
  • Power imbalance between parents and the education system – resources, access to legal services, etc. Pressure put on families to prove claims and disability of child often used against child in calling out “behaviours”.
  • Lack of independence and accountability across multiple levels – regional, school and specialist roles.
  • Lack of follow up on suspensions and exclusions and underlying causes or triggers i.e. what happened, what was missed, what needs weren’t met.

Q8 – Are there good practice examples that encourage reporting, effective investigation and responses to violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation in education and learning settings?

 There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The power of inclusive school culture based on respect for rights and human dignity. This encourages broad responsibility for the experiences and well being of every member of the school community.
  • Accountability through data collection and monitoring as well as effective complaints mechanisms. Moving beyond the collection of data on attendance, discipline, disability and adjustments to include access, attainment and satisfaction.
  • Recognising, supporting, and utilising “children’s voice”.

EDUCATION AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES

 Q9 – What has prevented Australia from complying fully with is obligations in Article 24 of the CRPD? What needs to change within (a) Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, (b) schools and communities, and (c) individual classrooms, to ensure an inclusive education system at all levels?

 There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The reality that people with disabilities and their families have great difficulty in holding governments accountable.
  • Initial and over emphasis on physical presence has resulted in “integration” – business as usual with “add-ons”. Whole of system reform is needed to ensure inclusive education.
  • Lack of political will and the impact of “vested interests” (including teacher unions and “special education”). Do you have experiences of dealing with politicians?
  • The failure of governments to set up robust legal frameworks in support of inclusive education for students with disabilities, which has resulted in States and Territories continuing to operate education systems that deny students with disabilities the right to education on an equal footing.
  • Lack of appropriate regulation of school admissions and school access, lack of enforceable rights, lack of enforceable systemic standards and lack of monitoring (and collection of data) continue to play a significant role.
  • In many cases, education policies that have, deliberately or by omission, failed to define “inclusive education”.
  • Continuous investment in a dual track system subverts any other efforts made e.g. high schools appear to struggle with meaningful inclusion for many and there appears to be no effort to look at learning as progression for students with disability.
  • Deeply rooted prejudice within the education system.
  • Continued reliance on the resilience of children and their families to advocate for themselves and build skills regardless of appropriateness. This is unfair.
  • Segregation being still seen as a form of “benevolence” – there are deeply entrenched cultural views about how society should respond to disability that run counter to a rights-based approach to education.
  • Under the current system, the wide margin of discretion given to school principals and educators when it comes to providing reasonable adjustments.
  • Funding and financial arrangements that provide individual and systemic incentives to segregate – both for education systems, schools and parents.

Q10 – What is essential to facilitate the transition from segregated or integrated settings to inclusive education settings, and to sustain the change?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The critical importance of the recognition of inclusive education as a fundamental human right.
  • Effective efforts to create cultural change within schools and beyond: Inclusive education requires a change in perspective, from seeing certain children as a problem to identifying existing needs and improving the education system itself. This requires investment in changing attitudes and promoting a positive school climate where diversity is recognised and accepted.
  • Comprehensive review of current laws, policies and education practices to identify current gaps and deficiencies, including funding.
  • A National Inclusive Education Plan to drive implementation of an inclusive education system and sustain inclusive education, including a desegregation strategy, clear targets and an ambitious timetable, long-term objectives and sufficient and appropriately allocated resources – as recommended in the CRPD Review Concluding Observations, General Comment No.4 and Federal Senate review into education of students with disabilities – guided by definitions in General Comment No.4 as the applicable standard.
  • The need to look to learning from Australian schools that are running good practice inclusive models or have successfully “transitioned” out of segregated models (i.e. closed education support units or special classrooms) and also schools transitioning out of “integration” models to genuine inclusive models. Good knowledge and practices should be shared and encouraged through professional and funding incentives.
  • The need to establish robust legal and policy framework to support not only a “non-rejection” default position but also a comprehensive and explicit legal prohibition of discrimination against individual students with disabilities, covering segregation, integration and exclusion and “gatekeeping” practices, but also provide for systemic transformation and implementation of obligations of the CRPD (Art 24) in relation to the education system itself.
  • The importance of disaggregated data, effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
  • Educating and upskilling education stakeholders (training and professional incentives).
  • Creating formal pathways for parent-teacher collaboration especially in developing reasonable adjustments and supports for individual students.
  • Building department and school capacity for sustainable inclusive education practices – eg. universal design for learning approaches, differentiated instruction, use of teacher aides inclusively, behaviour supports, co-teaching, data based instructional decision-making, peer-supported learning, culturally responsive teaching.
  • Appropriate regulation of “school choice” to ensure it is not generating discrimination. Note that parents often decide to send their children to segregated settings because of significant “gatekeeping”(as confirmed by research and number inquiries and reports) and lack of quality evidence-based information. In most cases these choices cannot be said to be free or informed.

Q11 – What is the impact of inclusive education on the life course outcomes (including learning and employment outcomes) of students with disability? And students without disability?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The harm of segregation to students with disabilities, socially and academically. Note that “There is no research that supports the value of a segregated special education class and school” (A “The Segregation of Students with Disabilities”, National Council on Disability (USA, independent federal agency) (2018)
  • Segregation reduces the opportunity for students with disabilities of acquiring essential life skills through contract with others. It often sets students up for more segregated models – sheltered workshops, group homes.
  • The beneficial impact of inclusive education on non-disabled students: Research has also shown consistently that children who share inclusive classrooms with children with disabilities have more positive attitudes towards difference, better social skills and awareness, less disruptive behaviours and more developed personal values and ethics (Hehir, 2007 comprehensive review).
  • The detrimental impact of segregation on siblings.

Q12 – How does inclusive education promote a more inclusive society?

There are many things that families could share with the Disability Royal Commission in response to this question.  Some things to consider include:

  • The role of schools in defining the values for societies in the future.
  • The role of inclusion at school a necessary foundation for the development of inclusive communities. Inclusion of people with disabilities in society cannot happen while they are kept apart, as long as we keep perpetuating “special places for special people”.
  • The growth of respect and understanding when students of diverse abilities and backgrounds play, socialize, and learn together. This includes access to socialisation experiences outside the classroom – after- school activities, youth camps, etc. – where students also acquire skills and competencies that are key for future work and life.
  • The role of education models that exclude and segregate students on the basis of disability in perpetuating discrimination against people with disability, denying them social and academic opportunities on an equal footing with others, reinforcing prejudices against them and weakening the bonds of social cohesion.

Disability Royal Commission – General FAQ and Education FAQ Sheets by Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education

by Leave a Comment

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission) was established on 4 April 2019, and its purpose and areas of inquiry are set out in the Terms of Reference contained in a document called the Commonwealth Letters Patent, signed on 4 April 2019, and a further amendment to that document signed on 13 September 2019. The Terms of Reference are available in Easy Read.

The Letters Patent also appointed 7 Commissioners, with the Hon. Ronald Sackville AO QC also appointed as Chair of the Disability Royal Commission. The other Royal Commissioners are the Hon. Roslyn Atkinson AO, Ms Barbara Bennett PSM, Dr Rhonda Galbally AC, Ms Andrea Mason OAM, Mr Alastair McEwin AM and the Hon. John Ryan AM.

An interim report of the Disability Royal Commission must be given to the Government by 30 October 2020, with the final report due on 29 April 2022.

Education Submissions and Education Issues Paper

The Disability Royal Commission will look in detail into several areas, including the education of students with disabilities, and has released an Education Issues Paper, which is intended to assist people with relevant information and evidence, to make submissions to the Disability Royal Commission.  The Education Issues Paper sets a framework for the sorts of issues the Disability Royal Commission intends to explore.

Due Date

Disability Royal Commission is asking for submissions by 20 December 2019, although submissions will be accepted after that date.

FAQ Sheets – Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education

All Means All is a member and, together with Children and Young People With Disability Australia, is a National co-Convenor of the Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education (ACIE). You can visit ACIE’s website here to find out more.

ACIE has developed the following FAQs Sheets to support the community in understanding various aspects of the Disability Royal Commission:

You can access the FAQ Sheets through ACIE’s website on the links below:

Committee on the Rights of the Child calls for inclusive education for all children with disabilities

by Leave a Comment

This week the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) published its Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth reports of Australia (Advance Unedited Version) (CRC/C/AUS/CO/5-6) (2019 CRC Concluding Observations), which it adopted on 30 September 2019, in relation to the CRC Committee’s review of the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Australia on the implementation of its international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The review of Australia was undertaken during the 2402nd and 2403rd meetings of the CRC Committee held in Geneva last month and, in addition to Australia’s State Party report and the report from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the CRC Committee also considered submissions from many civil society organisations, including All Means All.

All Means All welcomes the 2019 CRC Concluding Observations and hopes that Australia will be guided by them in ensuring the human rights of all children, including children with disabilities.

Notably in relation to the education of children with disabilities, the 2019 CRC Concluding Observations recommend as follows:

“43. (c) Ensure that all children with disabilities have access to inclusive education in mainstream schools, are provided with the support needed, and address cases of restraint and seclusion.”

The Committee also made many other recommendations in relation to the right of all children as well as recommendations that emphasise the rights of children with disabilities, in respect of the following matters:

  • data collection (paragraph 11(e));
  • access to services and non-discrimination (paragraph 19(a));
  • meaningful and empowered participation within the family, community and schools (paragraph 22(d));
  • right to freedom of expression (paragraph 25);
  • access to online information through making available audio description and captioning (paragraph 27(b));
  • violence including sterilization of girls with disabilities without their prior, fully informed and free consent(paragraph 30(g));
  • prevention of maltreatment and abuse of children with disabilities in care (paragraph 34(e));
  • NDIS eligibility criteria and the types of support covered, and ensuring the NDIS has the necessary human, technical and financial resources for its optimal and timely implementation (paragraph 35(a));
  • stigmatization of and prejudice against children with disabilities (paragraph 35(b));
  • disparity in health status (paragraph 36);
  • delivery of mental health services (paragraph 38(b));
  • disability discrimination in immigration (paragraph 45(g)); and
  • over-representation and detention of children with disabilities in the justice system (paragraph 48(g)).

You can read the Concluding Observations of the CRC Committee in full here.

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities releases Concluding Observations – Australia

by Leave a Comment

24 September 2019

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today released its Concluding observations on the combined second and third reports of Australia (Advance Unedited Version) (CRPD/C/AUS/CO/2-3) (2019 Concluding Observations), which it adopted on Friday 20 September 2019, in relation to the Committee’s review of the combined second and third periodic report of Australia (Australia Report) on the implementation of its international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The review of Australia, undertaken during the Committee’s 22nd Session in Geneva earlier this month approximately five years after the 2013 initial review of Australia, was attended by:

  • an Australian Government delegation led by Mr Andrew Walter;
  • Dr Ben Gauntlett, Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australia’s “A” rated National Human Rights Institution; and
  • civil society representatives, including a delegation of 7 Australians with disabilities that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disabilities and people with intellectual disabilities, and representatives from All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education.

All Means All, which had made a Submission to the review in July 2019, was able to meet with several members of the Committee and the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, to discuss the human rights of people with disabilities to inclusive education and the significant evidence of serious systemic failures and substantive non-compliance by Australian governments, with Article 24 of the CRPD.

Similar concerns about inclusive education were also expressed in the Civil Society Shadow Report and the National Human Rights Institution Report submitted by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and highlighted in the statements made by Dr Ben Gauntlett during the constructive dialogues held on 12 and 13 September 2019 (Constructive Dialogues).  In his opening statement at the Constructive Dialogues, Dr Gauntlett noted that “Australia has a segregated education system, where schools have turned away students because of their disability, and the rate and extent of segregation is growing, which is contrary to Article 24 and General Comment No.4.” You can read Dr Gauntlett’s full statement here.

The Committee’s Concluding Observations, which relate to the 35 key issues identified by the Committee in its “List of Issues Prior to Reporting” and sought to be addressed in the Australia Report, recognised some positive aspects, including the introduction of the NDIS and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People With Disabilities, but expressed serious concerns about a range of issues and strongly criticised, among other things, current legal and policy frameworks and the general failure of Australia to harmonize domestic legislation with the CRPD.  

The Committee also recommended that the Australian Government establish formal and permanent mechanisms to ensure the full and effective participation of people with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations, in the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the CRPD.  

In relation to inclusive education, and in comparison with the 2013 Concluding Observations (CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1) of the Committee on Australia’s initial report, the Committee’s comments during the Constructive Dialogues and its 2019 Concluding Observations in relation to Article 24, clearly reveal the Committee’s increased concerns with Australia’s failure to progress inclusive education and alarming growth of segregation of students with disabilities contrary to Article 24 and General Comment No.4.

Notably, this time around, the Committee has provided more specific recommendations (at paragraph 46 of the 2019 Concluding Observations), including the following, which the Committee expressly stated should be read in line with the Committee’s 2016 General Comment No. 4 (the Right to Inclusive Education) and targets 4.5 and 4.a of the Sustainable Development Goals:

  • that Australia develop a national Action Plan for Inclusive Education;
  • that Australia address the increasing rate of segregation, seclusion and isolation of students with disabilities in education;
  • that Australia redirect adequate resources to a nationwide inclusive education system for all students; and
  • that Australia improve the collection of data on the numbers of students with disabilities, including data about “students who do not qualify for an adjustment, are unable to enrol in local mainstream schools, educational attainment and completion, suspension and expulsion rates and the use of restrictive practices and bullying”.

The Committee also called for an end to the practice of detaining and restraining students with disabilities (paragraph 28(e) of the 2019 Concluding Observations).

The Committee’s concerns in relation to the implementation of Article 24 and inclusive education were also evident in statements made during the Constructive Dialogues.  In this regard, Committee Chairperson Mr Danlami Umaru Basharu (at 1.31.34 of the UN webcast Consideration of Australia (Cont’d) – 500th Meeting 22nd Session Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 13 September) specifically questioned Australia about “reforming the Australian legal and policy framework, including the [Disability Discrimination Act] 1992, to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities to inclusive education are upheld, and there is immediate and progressive implementation of Article 24 and General Comment No.4, including specific measures to address cultural and attitudinal barriers within education departments and at school administration levels and ensure adequate training of and support to school administrators and educators, for the inclusion of students with disabilities.”

Committee Member and law Professor, Dr Markus Schefer noted that “in education, the trend of inclusion seems to be in decline” in Australia (at 0.44 minutes of the UN webcast Consideration of Australia – 499th Meeting 22nd Session Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 12 Sep 2019) and that “the Melbourne Declaration on Education Goals for Young Australians does not explicitly identify students with disabilities as a priority, and it does not commit explicitly to inclusive education” (at 1.36 of the of the UN webcast Consideration of Australia (Cont’d) – 500th Meeting 22nd Session Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 13 September).  He also asked “is [Australia] proposing to address these issues within the Melbourne Declaration or within any other framework?”.  Importantly, Dr Schefer took specific issue with the Australian Government’s “views on what ‘inclusive education’ means and that it can involve choice of the parents of segregated education” and stated that “this view stands in stark contrast to what this Committee has consistently defined ‘inclusive education’ to mean”.

Country Rapporteur for the review of the Australia Report, Mr Monthian Buntan, in his final statement at the conclusion of the Constructive Dialogues (at 2.41 of the UN webcast Consideration of Australia (Cont’d) – 500th Meeting 22nd Session Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 13 September), further stated that the Commitee is “very deeply concerned at the lack of legally enforceable instruments to enforce several issues such as accessibility, inclusive education, employment”.

More broadly, long-standing Committee Member Mr Martin Babu Mwesigwa who participated in and recalled the 2013 review of Australia noted (at 2.42 of the UN webcast Consideration of Australia – 499th Meeting 22nd Session Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 12 Sep 2019) in reference to the Australia Report, “the information implies that substantially not much has changed in Australia since the review of the initial report in 2013” and that “many of the issues raised in 2013 and communicated in the then Concluding Observations, are the same issues that civil society has brought to our attention 6 years later in 2019.” Mr Mwesigwa then asked “What, in the opinion of the delegation of Australia, have been the reasons for failure to address most of the issues raised in 2013, that formed the then Concluding Observations, over the last 6 years?”

All Means All welcomes the 2019 Concluding Observations and the strong guidance provided to Australia on the human rights of people with disabilities and the need to discharge its international law obligations by implementing the CRPD, including notably Article 24 on the fundamental human right of all students with disabilities to inclusive education.

 

Our Inclusive Education Fact Sheet – UN Review of Australia 2019

by Leave a Comment

All Means All has prepared a Fact Sheet on Inclusive Education for the United Nations Review of the Combined Second and Third Periodic Report of Australia – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  It is based on our submission to this process, which you can read here.

The review is taking place in September during the 22nd Session of the Committee and will be attended by delegates from Australia including All Means All.

You can view and print the Fact Sheet in accessible PDF here.

Queensland Education Minister’s funding initiatives in direct conflict with Government’s Inclusive Education Policy

by Leave a Comment

The Inclusive Education Policy for Queensland’s public schools (Queensland Policy) adopted by the Queensland Education Department following the review of education for students with disability in Queensland State schools by Deloitte Access Economics (2017) (Deloite Review), commits the Department to “continuing our journey towards a more inclusive education system at all levels” guided by the applicable international human rights principles.  The Queensland Policy has been welcomed as a strong step in the right direction and a genuine effort to improve outcomes for students with disabilities and address the key criticisms and recommendations of the Deloitte Review.

Assistant Director General Deborah Dunstone (Disability and Inclusion Branch) who described it as “probably the best work I’ve done in my career” at a QUT education event in 2018 (watch video  here), emphasised that in developing the Queensland Policy, “having to define [inclusive education] and be really clear about it from a system point of view was critical”.

Consistently with General Comment No. 4 (2016) to Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UN CRPD) which was ratified by Australia in 2008, and Sustainable Development Goal No. 4 in the 2030 Agenda, the new Policy provides:

“Inclusive education means that students can access and fully participate in learning, along-side their similar-aged peers, supported by reasonable adjustments and teaching strategies tailored to meet their individual needs.  …

Inclusive education differs from the following approaches and practices in significant ways:

…

Segregation – students learn in separate environments, designed or used to respond to their particular needs or impairment, in isolation from other students.”

General Comment No. 4, which provides the most authoritative guidance to governments on their obligations to students with disabilities under international human rights law, further states that:

  • “The right to non-discrimination includes the right not to be segregated and to be provided with reasonable accommodation” [para 13];
  • Progressive realization means that State parties have a specific and continuing obligation “to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible” towards the full realization of article 24.  This is not compatible with sustaining two systems of education: mainstream and special/segregated education systems.”  [para 39]; and
  • “The [UN CRPD] Committee urges State parties [including Australia] to achieve a transfer of resources from segregated to inclusive environments.” [para 68]

However, less than a year after the Queensland Policy’s launch and months after the Queensland Government’s commitment to a human rights approach through the passage of the Human Rights Act 2019, Grace Grace, the Minister appointed to the Education portfolio in the second term of the Palaszczuk Government, has announced in Parliament new budgetary allocations that deliberately preference segregated education of students with disabilities and has praised an increase in segregated settings for students with disabilities.  This not only runs counter to the Queensland Government’s policy commitment, but also breaches the principle of “progressive realisation” of UN CRPD Article 24 General Comment No. 4 and further represents an impermissible deliberate retrogressive measure that must be immediately addressed.

At a Budget Estimates Committee hearing on 1 August 2019, the Minister stated as follows.

“Ms GRACE: The Palaszczuk government has a proven track record of supporting school students with a disability. I am proud that this budget continues that support. The budget includes a four-year $136.2 million funding boost to provide additional teachers and teacher aides in state school special education services across Queensland. The number of students with a disability enrolled in Queensland schools is growing.

I remember opening a new school extension—a beautiful new building—on the Sunshine Coast. One family there came from northern New South Wales. They had moved to Queensland and they said that the provision of education for their daughter at that special school on the Sunshine Coast was second to none and absolutely amazing. They were beaming about the manner in which their daughter was growing because of the education our special schools deliver every single day. I take my hat off to those teachers and teacher aides who work in this area and do a wonderful job. That is one example of many.

We are investing in facilities in special schools. The quality of education is fantastic. We are looking forward to employing an additional 150 teachers and 90 teacher aides next year alone in order to give our students the special support they need.

The numbers are increasing greater than in the mainstream. We will have a four per cent increase over the next five years compared with around 1.5 per cent in the mainstream. There is a growth in that area.

The budget includes facilities such as a new special school to open in 2021 at Palmview on the Sunshine Coast and completion of construction of a new secondary special school at Caboolture, opening in term 1 of 2020. I was very proud to visit with the local member, Minister Mark Ryan, a couple of weeks ago to see the progress of that school. It will be state-of-the-art for its students. The school will welcome up to 160 year 7 to 12 students in term 1 of 2020. It will be a game changer for the Caboolture community. Well done there.”

All Means All has been concerned for some time that, unlike her predecessor Kate Jones who oversaw the Deloitte Review and the development of the Queensland Policy, this Education Minister does not appear to understand  or support her own Government’s policy setting, which she has rarely acknowledged since her appointment to the role.  Indeed, to be proud of increased investment in segregated education and the “quality” of segregated education in Queensland as “fantastic”, evidences a failure to recognise not only the direction in the Queensland Policy but the clear statements by the UN that segregation of children with disabilities is a human rights issue and constitutes discrimination against them.

The Minister’s position also flies in the face of over 40 years of research that strongly and consistently evidences that segregated education is not beneficial – or safe – for students with disabilities.  Indeed, the national Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recognised in its Final Report in 2017, and in the research it commissioned, that segregation, including in education, is a ‘setting-based risk factor’ that heightens risk of abuse of children with disabilities.

The issue of the increase in segregation of Australian students with disabilities is expected to be examined by the UN later this year during its review of Australia’s report on compliance with the UN CRPD.  The issue was also raised by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the course of its 2017 consideration of the fifth periodic report of Australia on its implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, when it asked Australia to explain “evidence of a rise in segregated education’ and recommended in its Concluding Observations that Australia take “effective steps to ensure that children with disabilities, including those with cognitive impairments, can access inclusive education”.

It is also deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to perpetuate the myth that parents of children with disabilities want their children to be segregated, without acknowledging the “gatekeeping” and other systemic failures that drive them out of the general education system in the first place, including because of budgetary allocations that preference segregation.

As noted by delegates during the sessions for the drafting of Article 24 of the UN CRPD in rejecting segregated “parallel” models of education, “segregated education is in fact a false choice enforced by lack of resources and access to support”.

We call on Minister Grace and Premier Palaszczuk to confirm their support for Queensland’s Inclusive Education Policy, and encourage the Queensland Government to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible to transfer resources from segregated to inclusive environments as is required of governments bound by the UN CRPD.

Our UN Submission – Review of Australia – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

by Leave a Comment

All Means All

Submission

Combined Second and Third Periodic Report of Australia – United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

26 July 2019

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

Endorsed by Disabled People’s Organisations Australia (DPOA), Children and Young People With Disability Australia (CYDA) and Inclusion International.

 

 

Click the PDF icon to READ and PRINT.  

 

Also available in PLAIN ENGLISH format. 

New journal article: A CRPD analysis of NSW’s policy on the education of students with disabilities – A retrogressive measure that must be halted

by Leave a Comment

Coming after recent media attention on the increasing segregation in NSW of “gifted” students based on selective academic streaming, the Australian Journal of Human Rights (produced by the Australian Human Rights Centre  at the University of NSW) has published an article that critically analyses recent policy developments in NSW that will increase the segregation of students with disabilities.

NSW, perhaps more than any other state of Australia, is presiding over an increasingly vertically stratified and segregated education system based upon “intellectual” expectations  and implicit prejudice.

The article concludes that the growing segregation of students with disabilities in NSW amounts to a significant breach of their fundamental human right to an inclusive education under international human rights law.  Further, it provides much-needed analysis of relevant legislation and government policy in light of Australia’s legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was ratified by Australia in 2008.

The authors, Emily Cukalevski (from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, National University of Ireland, Galway and a former associate to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and Catia Malaquias (a lawyer and co-founder of All Means All), analysed Article 24 of the CRPD, especially in light of the CRPD Committee’s guidance in General Comment No.4 and General Comment No.6.

They specifically considered the meaning of “inclusive education” and noted that special schools, special units co-located in mainstream school grounds and special classes in mainstream schools are each forms of “segregation” that are incompatible with inclusive education.  General Comment No.4 defines “segregation” as the provision of education to students with disabilities “in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular impairment or to various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities”. They authors further consider the implications of the CRPD Committee’s guidance that segregation is disability-specific discrimination and the right to non-discrimination includes the right not to be segregated.

The authors also critically analysed the development of the NSW Government’s policy position and its genesis in a recent report of the NSW Parliament into the education of students with disabilities. Despite the report’s overall intent seemingly being in line with the core purpose of Article 24, it established a flawed foundation for NSW’s policy as it misconceived inclusive education and consequently concluded that segregated settings and a policy of inclusion are not “mutually exclusive ideals”.  Unfortunately, as the authors have identified, this conclusion is inconsistent with the report’s own definition of inclusive education, as well as the CRPD’s guidance.

The authors have concluded that the NSW Government’s current policy, and in particular its commitment to increase “support class establishments … at a greater rate than general enrolment growth”, not only contravenes Article 24 but also amounts to deliberate and impermissible retrogression under the CRPD:

“[T]he plan to increase segregated support classes is an unjustified retrogressive measure. It is a deliberate policy decision that is designed to reverse the progress made towards realising an inclusive education system in NSW. It directly targets learners with disabilities and diverts funding and resources away from inclusive education measures; where funds could be used to support students with disabilities in regular classes, they will now be deployed to deliver a greater level of segregated education to those students in support classes. This decision has not been justified on the basis of limited resources or an economic crisis and it is not intended to be temporary. Rather, it has been justified on a misconception of inclusive education itself and on a skewed understanding of student ‘needs’.”

The article also notes that while a decade has passed since ratification of the CRPD, Australia does not have an overarching national inclusive education strategy.  The Australian Government is obliged to ensure that Article 24 is implemented without limitations or exceptions in all parts of the country.  The absence of a national commitment to inclusive education has contributed to compromising and delaying the realisation of the human rights of Australian students with disabilities across Australia’s States and Territories:

“The lack of a strong national framework has provided space for the NSW Government to commit to measures that are not only inconsistent with Article 24 but also amount to an impermissible retrogression under the CRPD. It has also led to concerning jurisdictional divergences.”

The authors end with a call for the Australian Government to drive the systemic and cultural change that is required to realise inclusive education consistently across Australia – through the adoption of stronger national discrimination legislation and the provision of guidance and coordinated policy reform (including a national inclusive education strategy) – to ensure that all schools can become beacons in their communities for the inclusion of people with disabilities.

You can download the published article here (download fee may apply).  Alternatively you can view the authors’ manuscript here.

2019 Federal Election: What are the major parties offering on education of students with disabilities?

by Leave a Comment

In the lead up to this election and before, All Means All has worked to engage with politicians and policy makers in relation to the education of students with disabilities and we have welcomed the major parties that have reached out to us and to our members to help shape their policy positions at this federal election.

With only one day before Australians cast their votes, here is our overview of policy and initiatives pledged by the major parties in relation to the education of students with disabilities.

Additional Funding

While as a matter of constitutional arrangements, it is the States and Territories that are generally responsible for schools, the Australian federal government has a role particularly in relation to providing funding education.  When it comes to education of students with disabilities the Australian government has a further role given its international law obligations through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, to ensure that students with disabilities can realise their rights to education.

In relation to funding, the Coalition’s only promise is to support the National School Resourcing Board to review current funding arrangements resulting from its reforms to the schools funding package, and develop a fairer model for all schools.  While the current arrangements have been modeled on the approach recommended by the Gonski Review undertaken by a previous Labor Government, funding levels under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government have not reached the levels recommended by the Review and the Coalition has not committed to additional funding beyond projected current funding levels.

Labor has promised to increase funding for schools to reach the levels recommended under the Gonski Review, and to provide an additional $300 million funding over the first three years of a Shorten Labor Government to ensure students with disabilities get the support they need at school.  Labor has also agreed to review the processes related to the National Consistent Collection of Data and the “Students With Disabilities” loading to ensure students are getting appropriate levels of support.

The Greens have committed more generally to a “well-funded world-class education system”.

Inclusion Education Initiatives

The Coalition has not made any specific commitment to inclusive education or education of students with disabilities more generally, while Labor and the Greens have announcement support for inclusive education reform and announced specific initiatives.

Labor has committed the development of a National Inclusive Education Strategy in collaboration with the States and Territories to meet Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Greens have also committed to inclusive education in its policy paper called “An Accessible Australia: Our plan for a more inclusive Australia”, where they promise to “champion inclusive education” and “support schools to develop inclusive education practices in line with existing human rights”.  The Greens policy also references the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities as well as General Comment No.4 on the Right to Inclusive Education.

Labor has further committed to:

  • a proposal for new Initial Teacher Education Standards with emphasis on inclusive education and supporting students with disabilities;
  • ongoing professional development for teachers and principals and increased training and support for learning support staff to ensure that they are contributing effectively to learning outcomes of students with disabilities, including the creation of Australian Professional Standards for learning support staff; and
  • a National Evidence Institute for Schools, which will also conduct a “review of the efficacy and most effective use of learning support staff, including guidance for principals and schools on how learning support staff can be best utilised in our classrooms”.

The Greens have also committed to:

  • develop a new national standard of inclusive education training in alignment with professional standards for teachers and world’s best practice; and
  • give all pre-service and in-service teachers and principals the opportunity to train, retrain and be regularly upskilled in inclusive education practices, by providing a pool of $100m per year for four years to universities for inclusive education upskilling.

We note that while the Coalition has also promised a national evidence institute, it has not allocated funds for it.

Election Policy Documents and Announcements 

Labor:

“Support for Students With Disability”

“Labor’s Plans to Secure More Inclusive Education for Students With Disability” (Announcement by Andrew Giles MP)

Greens: 

“An Accessible Australia: Our plan for a more inclusive Australia”

Easy Read: “An Accessible Australia: Our plan for a more inclusive Australia”

We hope this guide is helpful. While we have sought to cover all relevant policy announcements, if you think that we have missed something please contact us.

Abuse of students with disabilities must stop! Response to A Current Affair story

by Leave a Comment

 

All Means All

27 February 2019

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education is saddened but not surprised that yet another story of abuse of students with disabilities has come to light, in this case involving serious allegations of physical and verbal abuse of a 5 year-old student with Down syndrome in a segregated special unit co-located with a mainstream government school in New South Wales.  Unfortunately, we know from our work with families that for many students with disabilities, abuse in our schools is a pervasive and devastating reality.

The story which aired on Channel 9’s “A Current Affair” program today, included audio recordings taken by the child’s parents after they suspected physical abuse but had their concerns dismissed.  We understand that they decided to approach the media after contacting the NSW Department of Education and feeling dissatisfied with the response and desperately concerned for their child.

“Students with disabilities, including the young student featured in the A Current Affair report, have the right to be safe from harm at school and to access a fully inclusive education in regular classrooms with their non-disabled peers, in the general education system.” said All Means All Chairperson, Gina Wilson-Burns.

While we know that entrenched prejudice, devaluation and ableist attitudes means that all students with disabilities across all educational settings are at increased risk of violence, abuse and neglect, we also know that segregation of students with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, into separate classrooms and settings is a factor that materially heightens this risk.

This was identified in the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and in its published research, “Disability and child sexual abuse in institutional contexts”, which concluded that “[s]egregation and exclusion in closed institutional contexts away from public scrutiny leaves children (and adults) with disability at heightened risk of violence and harm including sexual abuse”, and noted the reduced oversight within segregated settings and the reduced capacity of children with cognitive disabilities to share concerns about abuse and neglect.

The right not to be segregated –  whether in special classes or units in mainstream schools or in special schools – and to access a quality inclusive education is encompassed in Article 24 of the  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which Australia is a party.

A range of international human rights instruments including General Comment No. 4 (The Right to Inclusive Education) have made it clear that the segregation of students with disabilities  is a form of discrimination against them and that it is not compatible with their right to inclusive education under Article 24. For example paragraph 13 of General Comment No.4 states that “the right to non-discrimination includes the right not to be segregated and to be provided with reasonable accommodation”.

Research evidence over the last 40 years has also consistently found that students with disabilities benefit academically and socially from education in regular classrooms in the general education system. A 2008 review of comparative research found that “[n]o review could be found comparing segregation and inclusion that came out in favour of segregation in over forty years of research”. A  2017 comprehensive review of the research comprising 280 studies from 25 countries also found that inclusive education produced superior social and academic outcomes for all students and that academic and social outcomes for children in fully inclusive settings are without exception better than in segregated or partially segregated environments (e.g. special support units or classrooms).

“It’s time for governments across Australia to denounce the myth that ‘special’ segregated settings keep students with disabilities safe and are in their best interests, and to commit to real reform so that children with disabilities can be safe and fully included within the general education system. Safety comes with being valued, known and connected and that starts with being in the same classroom as all the other children.” said Ms Wilson Burns

All Means All calls on the Australian government to:

  • immediately institute the announced Royal Commission into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disabilities, extending to the treatment of students with disabilities in our schools, across all settings; and
  • unequivocally commit to systemic reform to implement a universally accessible, quality and fully inclusive education system in accordance with its international human rights obligations.

We also call on the NSW government to commit to genuine inclusive education reform, including by abandoning its policy decision to increase segregated support classes for students with disabilities as outlined in its response to the report of the NSW Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No.3 into “Education of students with a disability or special needs in New South Wales”:

“Support class establishments will increase in 2018 at a greater rate than general enrolment growth, consistent with trends in recent years.  The trend since 2012 is for the majority of new support classes to be established in mainstream schools.”

Increasing the segregation of students with disabilities – whether in separate classrooms in mainstream schools or other segregated settings – will not achieve an inclusive education system.

The answer lies in genuine systemic reform that begins with resource-allocation driven change, guided by a national inclusive education strategy.

We hope that the young student in the A Current Affair story and her family will overcome this traumatic experience, and that they receive the support they need to ensure their child can be safe at school and access a genuinely inclusive education experience, to which she is entitled.

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education is a multi-stakeholder alliance working for the implementation of an inclusive education system and the removal of the legal, structural and attitudinal barriers that limit the rights of some students, including students with disabilities, to access an inclusive education in regular Australian classrooms.

You can visit our website for more information at www.allmeansall.org.au

For media queries contact hello@allmeansall.org.au

About Us

All Means All is the Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education, a nationwide multi-stakeholder alliance working together to implement an inclusive education system and remove the legal, structural and attitudinal barriers that limit the rights of some students to access full inclusive education.

Want to learn more

Sign up for all the latest news and resources straight to your inbox.