Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

Australian alliance for inclusive education

Queensland Election: Inclusive education means investing in regular schools – not more investment in segregated special education  

by Leave a Comment

All Means All

20 November 2017 

MEDIA RELEASE 

Queensland Election: Inclusive education means investing in regular schools – not more investment in segregated special education  

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education welcomes the bi-partisan public commitment to inclusive education for Queensland’s students with disability, made on Friday 10th November, Day 13 of the election campaign, by Queensland Education Minister Kate Jones and Shadow Education Spokesperson Tracy Davis speaking to ABC Radio.  We are pleased to note that this commitment also included implementing the 17 recommendations of the Deloitte Review into Education for Students with Disability.  

We also commend the important work and reform that the Queensland Government has been undertaking to support implementation of an inclusive education system, including establishing the Disability and Inclusion Branch and the Autism Hub and Reading Centre, employing inclusion coaches, a program of inclusive education Masters scholarships for school Principals and investing in training and resource development across the board.  

The State of Queensland can also be proud of schools such as Thuringowa SHS that show how schools can plan for and move from segregated to fully inclusive models and achieve better outcomes for all their students.  

It is reassuring that the major political parties appear to be committed to ensuring the right to quality inclusive education for students with disability, recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 24 of the United Nations  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  (as clarified by UN  General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Inclusive Education) and Sustainable Development Goal 4, and reflected in the the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 established under it).  This right also aligns with the priorities of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 which states “The shared vision is for an inclusive Australian society that enables people with disability to fulfil their potential as equal citizens” and the NDIS goal of full social and economic participation. 

In this context, All Means All is disappointed that, on the same day as the bi-partisan pledge was made in the media, Queensland Labor Leader and Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, promised funding for a new $32 million Special School in the Caboolture area.  This comes in addition to government investment in the new Cairns Special School that reportedly cost $26 million and is anticipated to enroll 60 students for the commencement of 2018.  This is very significant resource expenditure that could have been utilised to support teachers to better support students with disability in regular classrooms.  

As UN General Comment No. 4 states, Governments should be transferring resources from the segregated special education system to implement inclusive education in the general schooling system (paragraph 68). 

There is an overwhelming body of more than 40 years of research supporting superior academic, social, economic participation and independence outcomes for students with disability in regular schooling and that has never demonstrated better outcomes from segregated education. That objective evidence underlies a moral and human rights mandate and duty for Australia to progress towards a universally accessible and genuinely inclusive general education system.  

The maintenance of a segregated special system alongside the general system diverts critical funds that should be used in the general school system to support better inclusive practice, undermines the will to include and support students with disability and facilitates “gatekeeping” – usually informal and insidious practices intended to discourage enrollment of students with disability within the general system.  

It is concerning that Australia, against international trends and its own domestic policy commitments, has steadily increased the proportion of students with disability in segregated “special” education over the last 12 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013, view here showing 17% disproportionate increase in segregated special schools between 1999-2013; see also Disability in Australia: changes over time in inclusion and participation factsheets: community living, education and employment).

This regression was queried in May of this year by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and should be seen in light of international trends away from segregation.  For example, Italy which has an education system recently ranked by UNICEF well above Australia, abolished segregated special education in the 1970s and has educated all students with disability in regular classrooms for the last 40 years.   

While many politicians, policy makers and school administrators say that there is demand from parents for segregated special settings and that they are only responding to that demand, it is important to note that: 

  • Many parents of students with disability do not have access to  adequate information, research evidence and advice regarding inclusive education versus segregated special settings.  Accordingly, many parents, no doubt hoping to do the best for their children, are not making reasonably informed decisions. 
  • UN General Comment No. 4  on Article 24 is unequivocal that the right to an inclusive education is a fundamental right of the child, a right that transcends the parental “right to choose” (paragraph 10(a)). It is the role of government to protect children from harm, including by taking an active role in educating parents about the longer-term consequences of particular choices. 
  • Segregation is not usually the ‘first choice” of parents of students with disability, but a response to discriminatory and poor inclusive practices in general schools.  In fact, recent Australian research (2017) confirms alarming levels of “gatekeeping”, with 70% of participants reporting discrimination, including denial or discouragement of enrolment or restrictive practices.  Many families that have experienced discrimination and harm flee the general education system, not because of inclusive education but because of the lack of it.   

The challenges faced in the general education system to educate the diverse body of learners representing Australian school children are real and require strong leadership and commitment to the implementation of inclusive school reform, such as upskilling teachers, education assistants and school leaders. The denial of education rights to students with disability, even when dressed up as “parent choice”, can never be the appropriate response. 

While we understand that during an election campaign there is a strong incentive to make commitments in order to bring support from particular groups, we call on all parties in the Queensland State election to continue the great bipartisan work on inclusive education that is occurring and commit to ensuring a single, universally accessible, quality inclusive education system for all students in Queensland, consistent with the best evidence and respect for the fundamental human right of every child to an inclusive education alongside their same-age peers, as the foundation of life-long inclusion and full membership of our communities.  We also call on all parties to reconsider any campaign promises to invest in segregated education for students with disability and invest instead in making Queensland a more inclusive State.

___________________________________________________________

All Means All  is the  The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education.  We are a multi-stakeholder alliance of people and organisations working together 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 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 

Media Release AMA and CYDA – National Survey: Discrimination against students with disability in schools is widespread

by Leave a Comment

6 November 2017
MEDIA RELEASE
National Survey: Discrimination against students with disability in schools is widespread

A national survey of students with disability has revealed that discrimination against children and young people with disability in our education system is rife.

Students, families and teaching staff across Australia participated in the survey conducted by academics at the University of Melbourne, Macquarie University and CurtinUniversity.

The results released publicly today in a paper titled, “Gatekeeping and restrictive practices with students with disability: results of an Australian survey”, by Dr Shiralee Poed, Dr Kathy Cologon and Dr Robert Jackson, and delivered at the Inclusive Education Summit, Adelaide, October 2017, reveal that more than 70% of students have experienced one or more instances of disciminatory “gatekeeping” or restrictive practices in schools and education systems.

Click here to read IN FULL the joint Media Release by All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education and Children and Young People With Disability Australia.

Gonski Panel Review – All Means All Submission

by Leave a Comment

Submission – Quality Schools

Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools

2 November 2017

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

 

Download printable PDF here 

Executive Summary

We believe that a quality school means a school that welcomes and provides full access to the diverse range of Australian students, on the basis of equal opportunity and non-discrimination.

Further, we hope that this review will appreciate that a quality education system is one that values the potential of every child, including children with disability, and their right to access a quality inclusive education, a fundamental human right as recognised in various international human rights instruments, including:

  • Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (as clarified by General Comment No. 4); and
  • Sustainable Development Goal 4” to “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

We submit that the maintenance and continued investment in a “dual system” of education, comprising separate segregated settings for students with disability, whether in “special” schools, co-located education support units or separate classrooms in general education schools, is fundamentally discriminatory, not supported by the research evidence and inconsistent with inclusive education as the modality by which people with disability realise the universal human right to education.

We hope that the Panel has the courage to recommend robust changes to law, policy and practice to ensure that all our schools become inclusive positive learning environments promoting social cohesion, belonging, active participation in learning and a complete school experience with positive peer interactions.

This review presents an opportunity for the Panel to contribute to designing a high expectations and evidence-based inclusive education system that all our children deserve. Its recommendations will be critical to progressing towards a universally accessible and inclusive education system for all Australian students or entrenching a regressive and harmful segregating model of education for students with disability, contributing to greater academic marginalisation and social exclusion.

 

Human Rights Framework and meaning of inclusive education

Recommendation: Review of the Australian education system, including law, policy and practice, to ensure compliance with international human rights obligations and commitments to inclusive education, including Article 24 of the CRPD and General Comment No.4

Recommendation: Ensure consistent use and understanding of the term “inclusive education” to ensure that measures and practices are evidence-based and compliant with the obligation to implement an inclusive education system

The CRPD was ratified by Australia on 17 July 2008.

Article 24.1 of the CRPD requires State Parties to “ensure an inclusive education system at all levels” and Article 24.2 provides more specifically that persons with disabilities are not to be excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability and that they have a right to access an inclusive, quality education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live. Article 24 also mandates reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements and for supports to be provided “within the general education system”.

In August 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Committee) issued General Comment No. 4, as a formal guidance instrument on the meaning and scope of Article 24 of the CRPD. Together, Article 24 and General Comment No.4 are the most authoritative instruments on inclusive education as a human right for people with disability.

General Comment No.4 was developed through a near 2-year consultative process starting in 2015 involving stakeholders including Australia.

A key reason for the development of a General Comment on inclusive education was the Committee’s concern, after reviewing a decade’s worth of country implementation reports, of widespread failure to ensure compliance with Article 24, including because of a lack of clarity around the meaning of “inclusive education”.

As recognised by European Commissioner on Human Rights in a recent comment, some of this confusion has arisen through the “rebranding” of segregated models of delivery as “inclusive”:

“In other instances, countries appear to be willing to settle for some form of segregation and rename segregated forms of education under a more acceptable brand (such as ‘appropriate education’ in the Netherlands) or even as inclusive education (for instance ‘inclusive education centres’ in Romania).”[1]

As such, perhaps the most critical clarification in General Comment No.4 is as to the the need to distinguish between “exclusion”, “segregation”, “integration” and “inclusion”.  Paragraph 11 sets out important definitions:

  • “Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form.”
  • “Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities.”
  • “Integration is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions.”
  • “Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences.

In this regard, it is important to note that the same phenomenon is observed in Australia where special education organisations such as the Australian Special Education Principals Association continue to advance the position that “inclusion is not a place” and that “special schools” and other segregated models can be legitimately characterised as forms of inclusive education[2], a position that cannot be reconciled with Article 24 of the CRPD, General Comment No.4 or any logical concept of social inclusion.

In his recent report[3], the European Commissioner also noted the tendency for “vested interests” to preserve the status quo and resist inclusive education:

Professional groups involved in special education, such as teachers, psychologists and testing centres frequently oppose desegregation in order to protect vested interests.” [pp 10-11]

A correct understanding and application of these concepts is critical to implementing a genuinely inclusive education system. We believe that government should take a leading and active role in addressing the misuse of “inclusive education” and the rebranding of segregated education as “inclusive”.

Finally, it is important to note that General Comment No.4 is instructive as to the matters that the Committee will consider in their future reviews of compliance by State Parties. In this regard, the Committee in October 2017 issued questions to Australia, including notably:

 “26.  Please explain how the State Party’s new education funding model supports progressive implementation of article 24 of the Convention, including in the light of the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, which calls for the transfer of resources from segregated to inclusive education settings.”

 

The experience of students with disability and families

Recommendation: Funds be allocated to support students and families to access an inclusive education, avoid discriminatory practices and ensure that legal obligations are being met

The reality for students with disability in Australia is that, too often, they are offered a “qualified” opportunity to participate in a system established before people with disability were recognised as holders of educational rights and without regard to their functional needs.  That system remains resistant, both culturally and in terms of educational practice, to accommodating their participation and inclusion, particularly for students with intellectual, cognitive or sensory disabilities.

Ten years after the CRPD and notwithstanding the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (and the Disability Standards for Education 2005[4] enacted pursuant to it), the experience of students with disability in the Australian education system is too frequently one of discrimination and devaluation, isolation, lack of resources and supports, denial of enrolment or other forms of “gatekeeping”[5], inadequately trained teachers, lack of expertise in inclusive practices and inflexible structures and approaches that operate as barriers.  Too often, students with disability experience practices that are not evidence-based, that tend to isolate them and that result in a lower quality educational provision and consequently poor educational outcomes.

A recent study of over 700 families across Australia identified that a staggering 71% of those surveyed reported either “gatekeeping” or restrictive practices[6].

These concerns are backed up by many Parliamentary and departmental inquiries across Australia, notably the national 2016 Report by the Education and Employment References Committee of the Australian Senate into the impact of policy, funding and culture on students with disability[7].

It seems clear that the experiences of Australian students with disability are strongly characterised by systemic “integration”, “segregation” and “exclusion” – not “inclusive education”, as those terms are defined in paragraph 11 of General Comment No. 4.

The continued operation, demand for and growth of a parallel and high-resourced system of segregated education alongside the general education system, evidences systemic failure of the general education system to ensure access and inclusion of every Australian student and a denial of their fundamental human rights.  Reports also suggest significant increases in rates of “home schooling”, particularly for autistic students.

As recognised in the 1954 US case of Brown v Board of Education in relation to racial segregation, the notion of “separate but equal” has no place in education.

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” – Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

We do not see this reasoning to have different application to students with disability and in fact, when seen against the background of other efforts to make quality education accessible to women or to racially marginalised groups, the denial to whom was considered acceptable in earlier but recent times, many parallels are evident.  In this regard, we believe that segregated education of students with disability is also discrimination hidden in plain sight.

It is particularly disturbing that in the last decade or longer, a period that also coincided with ratification of the CRPD and the introduction of the Disability Standards for Education, there has been significant growth in segregated education of students with disability[8].  This concern has also been expressed at an international level where Australia was asked to explain this by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May of this year:

“Rodrigo Uprimny, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Australia: “As for persons with disabilities and inclusive education, there was evidence of a rise in segregated education. What measures was the Government taking to ensure inclusive education across the country?”[9]

A week before the above Committee session, the Australian government released a fact sheet showing a 35% growth in segregation of students with disability in special schools alone[10].

As such, while the current and previous governments have expressed their commitment to inclusive education, including through the National Disability Strategy, the growth in segregation speaks to the national failure in education of students with disability.

 

Evidence basis for inclusive education

Recommendation: Funding only be allocated to evidence based and best practice inclusive education across the education system

Recommendation: The Australian government adopt a national desegregation strategy in relation to education of students with disability and provide systemic funding to support progressive implementation of inclusive education  

For over 40 years, the body of relevant research into education of students with disability has overwhelmingly established inclusive education as producing superior social and academic outcomes for all students.

Italy ended segregated education in 1978 when it closed its special schools and today 99% of students with disability are fully educated in regular classrooms.  More recently, the Canadian province of New Brunswick prohibited segregated education in the public education system through its internationally award-winning legally enforceable Policy 322[11].

The research has consistently found that academic and social outcomes for children in fully inclusive settings are without exception better than in the segregated or partially segregated environments[12].  Unfortunately segregated education remains a historically-entrenched practice that continues to be suggested to families and educators as the appropriate default option, despite having virtually no evidence basis.

In the case of students with intellectual disability, a comprehensive 2008 literature review by Australian academic expert Dr Robert Jackson found that no study has ever demonstrated “special” segregated education to produce better outcomes.[13]

A recent study from the Netherlands reported better academic outcomes for children with IQs of 30-35 in general education than for children with higher IQs of 50 educated in “special” schools.[14]

The most recent comprehensive review of the research was undertaken in an international report entitled “A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education” released in 2017[15], by Dr Thomas Hehir, Professor of Practice in Learning Differences at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, with Abt Associates.

The Report documents the results of a systematic review of 280 studies from 25 countries.

The Report defines inclusive educational settings in accordance with General Comment No. 4.

The Report recognises that growth in inclusive practices stems from increased recognition that students with disabilities thrive when they are, to the greatest extent possible, provided with the same educational and social opportunities as non-disabled students [p4].

The Report also acknowledges the significant barriers of negative cultural attitudes and misconceptions amongst school administrators, teachers, parents (including some parents of children with disabilities) and notes the need for general societal education.

Key findings of the Report include:

1. There is “clear and consistent evidence that inclusive educational settings can confer substantial short and long-term benefits for students with and without disabilities”. [p1]

  • “A large body of research indicates that included students with disabilities develop stronger skills in reading and mathematics, have higher rates of attendance, are less likely to have behavioural problems, and are more likely to complete secondary school than students who have not been included.  As adults, students with disabilities who have been included are more likely to be enrolled in post-secondary education, and to be employed or living independently.” [p1]
  • Multiple reviews indicate that students with disabilities educated in general education classrooms outperform their peers who have been educated in segregated settings. A 2012 study by Dr Hehir examined the performance of 68,000 students with disabilities in Massachusetts and found that on average the greater the proportion of the school day spent with non-disabled students, the higher the mathematic and language outcomes for students with disabilities. [p13]
  • The benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities extend beyond academic results to social connection benefits, increased post-secondary education placement and improved employment and independence outcomes. [p15] Again, there is a positive correlation between social and emotional benefits and proportion of the school day spent in general education classrooms. [p19]
  • The Report states that “…research has demonstrated that, for the most part, including students with disabilities in regular education classes does not harm non-disabled students and may even confer some academic and social benefits. Several recent reviews have found that, in most cases, the impacts on non-disabled students of being educated in an inclusive classroom are either neutral or positive.” [p7] Small negative effects on outcomes for non-disabled students may arise where a school ‘concentrates’ students with severe emotional and behavioural disabilities in the one class (itself a form of segregation). [p9]
  • It further states that “A literature review describes five benefits of inclusion for non-disabled students: reduced fear of human difference, increased comfort and awareness (less fear of people who look or behave differently); growth in social cognition (increased tolerance of others, more effective communication with all peers); improvements in self-concept (increased self-esteem, perceived status, and belonging); development of personal moral and ethical principles (less prejudice, higher responsiveness to the needs of others); and warm and caring friendships.” [p12]

2.  Teaching practice is central to ensuring that inclusive classrooms provide benefits to all students. [p9]

  • Teachers with positive attitudes towards inclusion are more likely to adapt the way they work for the benefit of all students and are more likely to influence colleagues in positive ways to support inclusion. [p9]
  • Research suggests a positive correlation between teacher training and positive attitudes towards inclusion. [p9]
  • Though financial resources matter, implementing inclusive education requires teachers and other educational professionals to regularly engage in collaborative problem solving.  Research suggests that through the development of a culture of collaborative problem solving, the inclusion of students with disabilities can serve as a catalyst for school-wide improvement and yield benefits for non-disabled students. [p10]

A comprehensive meta analysis published in 2017 and covering a total sample of almost 4,800,000 students also found that educating students with disability in general education settings alongside non-disabled peers has no detrimental impact, and some positive impact, on the academic performance of non-disabled students[16].

Last month the European Commissioner on Human Rights argued that the segregation of students with disability –  in special schools, support units or quarantined to the corner of mainstream classrooms – compromises the performance of the general education system:

“Available studies indicate that school segregation has negative implications not only for minority or vulnerable students themselves but also jeopardises the overall performance of education. Tackling school segregation is not only necessary to safeguard the right to education and equality in the education systems, but also key to improving the effectiveness and performance of the education system as a whole. … The countries with the highest index of social inclusion in schools … are also the ones that performed best in the mathematics test in the PISA 2012 survey.  These results are attributed to the ‘peer effect’, namely the positive outcome derived from the fact that students with learning difficulties benefit from sharing the educational space with their more advantaged peers. … Conversely, a high concentration of students with learning difficulties in the same [segregated] classroom lowers educational quality and the expectation of teachers regarding their pupils’ potential for progress.” [p13]

 

Conclusion

The Australian Government has a duty to ensure that laws, policy and funding progress the implementation of an inclusive education system and are not promoting or maintaining segregating educational practices that are discriminatory, exclusionary and not supported by evidence.

The rise in segregated education and home-schooling is an indictment on the current adequacy of our education system and the need for reform.

___________________________________________

[1] See https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/respecting-the-human-rights-of-persons-with-psychosocial-and-intellectual-disabilities-an-obligation-not-yet-fully-understood

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227643447_Towards_inclusion_an_Australian_perspective

[3] https://rm.coe.int/fighting-school-segregationin-europe-throughinclusive-education-a-posi/168073fb65

[4] The Disability Standards for Education not only fail to even mention “inclusion” or “inclusive education”, they have been in place since 2005, that is for most of the period of 2003-2015 which has seen a significant increase in segregation of Australian students with disability.  https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/disability_standards_for_education_2005_plus_guidance_notes.pdf

[5] “Gatekeeping” is an unconscionable practice and refers to the formal and informal discouragement of enrolment and attendance of students with disability by local mainstream schools, as identified in 2016 Report by the Education and Employment References Committee of the Australian Senate into the impact of policy, funding and culture on students with disability.

[6] https://allmeansall.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TIES-4.0-20172.pdf

[7] see http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/students_with_disability/Report

[8] Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Schools Australia. View at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4221.02013 Viewed on 15 April, showing that between 1999-2013, there was an increase in special schools of 17% Australia

[9] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21677&LangID=E

[10] www.aihw.gov.au%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D60129559751&h=ATOjvsdyRLQi2FWQUPRmTNaAUtMSsOK1O1k1xbfxD88_Qo1x2ILZRyO1Mcv-u7SU9PD7xPRGitCiuUU05jY4Wlxe6wfTpgKBLTeyY5yrw-uVqvo4E_1DAw8YfVMHvkuv1fvjKJ-5JZ5_K0BCuojAP2A_vZ3GTpkhG1zReCKG12Do_At17nW4VY-vlsb8NG_0plrsMyRkkx_QozNTDpiLugkgrCHILsF9Q0XA1aZ-unbHAbDjjMqYK_SdJquQ-IQNj2_3p4r3McWk5gTLocnz8mKhCDkNLauGfCfAsEY

[11] See http://www.startingwithjulius.org.au/canada-policy322/

[12] ”Inclusion in Education: Towards Equality for Students with Disability“, Dr K. Cologon, Children and Young People With Disability Australia.

[13] Jackson, R (Ibid), at page 13 stated “No review could be found comparing segregation and inclusion that came out in favour of segregation in over forty years of research”.

[14] de Graaf, G. & de Graaf, E. (2012), Development of self-help, language and academic skills in Down syndrome. Paper presented at 11th World Down Syndrome Congress, Cape Town, South Africa.

[15] http://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf

[16] Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis“, Grzegorz Szumski, Joanna Smogorzewska, Maciej Karwowski in Educational Research Review 21 (2017) 33e54

___________________________________________

 

[Cover photo © Chance Anderson]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

Leading Learning 4 All: Inclusive Education and “Taking Advice”

by Leave a Comment

Senator Collins: “[The Leading Learning 4 All website project was] set to fail from the outset.”

Senator O’Neill: “Minister, will you give an undertaking to pause the site?”

Minister Birmingham: “I’ll take advice on that.”

All Means All – together with peak disability organisations such as Children and Young People With Disability Australia, Disabled People’s Organisations Australia, Down Syndrome Australia and others, leading academics, prominent disability advocates, educators and parents of students with disability – altogether approximately 180 organisations and individuals – are signatories to an Open Letter seeking the suspension of the Leading Learning 4 All website resource whilst it undergoes a rigorous independent review.

A response to the Open Letter was released by the Australian Special Education Principals’ Association (ASEPA), the developers of the Leading Learning 4 All website, on the @LL4All Twitter account.

The Open Letter was tabled by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 26 October 2017 and the Leading Learning 4 All resource was the subject of questions put by the Senate Committee to the  Commonwealth Department of Education and Minister Simon Birmingham, the federal Minister for Education.  While some questions were taken on notice, we consider more broadly that the answers provided by the Commonwealth Department in relation the concerns raised by the Letter and the Committee members were insufficient.

You can watch the video in full here:

In particular, we note that the federal Minister has undertaken to take advice as to whether the Leading Learning 4 All website should be suspended pending the review and correction of that resource.  In that regard we offer the following.

  • There is a fundamental difference between developing a substandard resource for use by schools that is to be improved over time and developing a sound resource that is to be supplemented over time.  To the extent that it is suggested that deficient modelling of inclusion was presented in the resource for “discussion purposes”, the deficiencies should have been specifically identified for users rather than implicitly endorsed as a federal Government funded and sanctioned resource.
  • There is a fundamental difference between presenting the requirement of developing inclusive general education classrooms as a legal obligation and professional requirement and presenting inclusion in general education as some optional, aspirational or inspirational goal for “champion” school leaders to help promote.
  • There is a fundamental difference between aiming for compliance with the Disability Education Standards 2005 as minimum “access” standards and recognising that a genuinely inclusive education is a fundamental right of all students established by Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which Australia is a party, the detail of which has been internationally prescribed in 2016 by General Comment No. 4 (Right to Inclusive Education) and which guidance Australia in its submission to the Day of General Discussion on the General Comment welcomed:

“Australia considers that the adoption of a General Comment on the right to education will provide valuable guidance to States in interpreting their obligations under the Convention.” [para 4 of Australia’s Submission].

  • The response to the Open Letter by ASEPA and by the Commonwealth Department in Senate Estimates, and in fact the approach that was taken to the development of such a key inclusion resource by tasking as the lead developer a body whose experience is confined to segregated “special” school settings, suggests:
    • a failure of Australian education administration to model an inclusive and collaborative process for the development of a key resource aimed at the inclusion of students with disability – any such resource must be developed with relevant stakeholders and, notably, in partnership with people with disability and disabled people’s representative organisations;
    • the inappropriate degree of capture that the special schooling system has and is being given on the development of broader and general policy in relation to students with disability being educated in regular schools – rather inclusive education policy must be founded on a best practice and sound evidence base; and
    • the critical need for the Australian education administration, and in particular its senior ranks, to develop a sound understanding of principles and frameworks for inclusive education.
  • The implementation of genuinely inclusive education in Australia depends upon strong and committed leadership to develop an inclusive and collaborative culture in our schools – everything that is done in this space that is weak, equivocal, half-willed or presented as aspirational or inspirational – for “champions” and “promoters” of inclusion – is counter-productive and is likely to entrench the inertia of the status quo and the continued academic and social segregation of our most vulnerable students in “special” settings – to the detriment of their long-term outcomes and inclusion in society.

We respectfully ask that the federal Minister consider these matters.

[Cover photo © Foter]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

All Means All: Our Submission to the United Nations – Inclusive Education in Australia

by Leave a Comment

All Means All has made a submission to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD Committee) about Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and Australia’s obligations under it, which assisted in the Committee’s formulation of the final List of Issues adopted last month at the Committee’s 18th session and which will form the basis of a review of Australia’s compliance with the CRPD in 2018.

All Means All is pleased to see its submission reflected in the final List of Issues, particularly items 24 and 26 which request Australia to provide specific student data separated into segregated and non-segregated settings and an explanation of how the new needs based funding model supports implementation of an inclusive education system especially in light of the CRPD Committee’s calls in General Comment No.4 for the transfer of resources from segregated to inclusive education settings.  All Means All also raised the recommendations of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee’s 2016 Report into education of students with disability and the impact of the Disability Standards for Education.

The following are the items from the final List of Issues that specifically relate to Article 24 and inclusive education:

24.   Please provide updated data on the participation, completion rate, suspensions, use of restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities in both segregated and inclusive classroom settings, disaggregated by age, gender, disability, location and ethnicity.

25.   Please detail the measures taken to:

(a)   Implement the recommendations in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee’s 2016 report, “Access to real learning: the impacts of policy, funding and culture on students with disability”;

(b) Conduct research into the effectiveness of current education inclusion policies and the extent to which the Disability Standards for Education (2005) are being implemented in each state and territory;

(c) Increase funding to ensure the provision of reasonable accommodation for inclusive and quality education;

(d) Increase the accessibility of tertiary education facilities and courses for all persons with disability, particularly deaf persons and persons with intellectual disabilities.

26.  Please explain how the State party’s new education funding model supports progressive implementation of article 24 of the Convention, including in the light of the  Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, which calls for the transfer of resources from segregated to inclusive education settings.

All Means All’s submission also stated its support for the broader List of Issues submission by Disabled People’s Organisations Australia and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to provide a submission specifically in relation to Article 24 of the CRPD.

You can download All Means All’s submission below:

Submission – Australia – Article 24 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 18th Session

[Cover photo © Falcon]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

 

Leading Nowhere: Flawed LL4All Website Must Be Subject to Rigorous Independent Review

by Leave a Comment

For $350 one can undertake the ‘Champion Training‘ course and become part of a select group of school leaders qualified to roll out the Leading Learning 4 All website resource funded by the Commonwealth government and launched by Federal Education Minister Senator Simon Birmingham early this year.  This select group is “charged” with creating many “Promoters” of Leading Learning 4 All.  In particular, this select group will have access to the ‘Champions’ section of the website to “continue to grow the resource”.

First, the concepts of “Champions” and “Promoters” of a resource that is intended to advance the inclusive education of students with disability must be seen against the fact that students have a right – not a privilege – to access a genuinely inclusive education in their local school and the education system and schools within it have an obligation to deliver that genuinely inclusive education.  It should not be presented as an ideal above and beyond the standard for “heroes” within the education system – it is and should be the standard required to be achieved by all staff within the education system.

Secondly, “growing” any resource intended to better guide the implementation of an inclusive education system must be consistent with the right to inclusive education, based on best inclusive practice and objective evidence and subject to rigorous scrutiny.  Qualifying as a “Champion” is manifestly inadequate to justify participation in “growing” any inclusive education resource particularly given widespread poor practices and fundamental lack of understanding of what is inclusive education, but particularly in the context of a resource that has been identified as flawed from the beginning and that does not from the outset provide a sound framework for delivering inclusive education in our schools.

The Leading Learning 4 All website resource has caused significant concerns and prominent disability advocates, academics and organisations including All Means All and the peak disability representative organisations have written an Open Letter to federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham outlining a range of concerns relating to appropriate language, the promotion of approaches that do not represent best practices in inclusive education, representation of students with disability including inappropriate language, the application of the Disability Standards for Education and the alleged lack of consultation with representative organisations of people with disability and families. The concern has also been raised from overseas, with some UK organisations and experts from as far away as Sweden adding their names to the  letter. 

The New South Wales Teachers Federation has now joined calls for rigorous, independent review of the resource and questions have also been raised by Shadow Education Minister Tanya Plibersek as well as South Australian Parliament MP and Leader of the Dignity Party Kelly Vincent MLC who has signed the letter. 

We understand that to date there has been no response to the Open Letter either from Leading Learning 4 All or Senator Birmingham’s Office.   This is a matter of great significance as students and teachers both deserve a quality resource that supports quality inclusive education in our schools and implements anti-discrimination obligations of education providers. 

As an example, the following was shared with us by a concerned parent who was on call-waiting and decided to switch off the volume and watch the videos on the website using the close-captioning option instead; “professional learning demeaning moment” … “I’m going to attack their growth and development” and “those painful face to face meetings” were unexpected to say the least, but if you don’t take the time to subtitle properly and ensure quality across the resource you run the risk of detracting from and undermining the outcomes that are being sought to be achieved.

If you would like to read the Open Letter in full and add your name to it, you can see it here and click on the Contact form.

[Cover photo © Stefan Stefancik]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

Media must stop promoting segregated education as the answer to abuse of children with disability

by Leave a Comment

[CORRECTION:  When this article was published earlier this week, we were not aware that  Manning Gardens Public School operates a segregated education support for children with disability and the article misidentified the school as “a regular primary school on the NSW mid-north coast, which does not have an education support unit”.  In fact, the Manning Gardens Public School website states “We have a purpose built support unit catering for children with intellectual disabilities or developmental delays”.  This new information reinforces the point that we sought to make, that while the story on 7.30 was framed as the failings of education of students with disability in a regular classrooms, both children attended segregated education supports unit co-located within regular public schools, an important detail that should have been included in 7.30’s report.]

ABC television’s 7.30 featured a story about Austin Franks, a 16-year-old autistic student at Pennant Hills High School being subjected to restraint practices including boxing pads to move him from room to room.

The story was presented in the shocking context of almost 250 reported complaints of mistreatment of disabled children in NSW state schools in the past two years, which are detailed in a government document obtained by 7.30 under Freedom of Information laws.

While the importance of investigative journalism of this nature should be recognised, All Means All has some concerns about how the story was framed and an implication that students with disability are better off in segregated environments, contrary to a large body of research over 4 decades that shows that students with disability educated with their non-disabled peers develop stronger skills in reading and mathematics, have higher rates of attendance, are less likely to be labelled as having “behavioural problems” and are more likely to complete secondary school than students who have not been included.  As adults, students with disability who have been included are more likely to be enrolled in post-secondary education, and to be employed or living independently. In other words, being disconnected from one’s community and same-age “typical” peers comes at a significant cost to disabled students and their families, as well as to society as a whole.

However, the story was introduced as follows:

“Austin would present a challenge for any school.  He is severely autistic, non-verbal and has an intellectual disability.  But Pennant High School in Sydney accepted the responsibility of educating him alongside his mainstream peers.  Thing went terribly wrong.” 

The suggestion being that despite its best intentions of educating Austin “alongside his mainstream peers”, the regular education system had failed.

All Means All understands that Austin in fact attended an education support unit (with a high adult-to-student ratio) co-located with the regular public school. That is certainly not the same as being educated in a regular classroom in a regular school with appropriate support.  It is in fact segregated “special education”, as defined by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is not inclusive education in a regular classroom – which is a fundamental right of all students.

Austin’s mother Caroline Franks then details what she observed and her interactions with her son’s school.

“He would come [home] covered in blood,” Austin’s mother, Caroline Franks, told 7.30 through tears.

“I would ring the school and say ‘what happened?’ And they would say, ‘oh, we don’t know, we don’t know what’s caused it’.

“They failed to mention he was being pushed around with boxing batons or screamed at or not allowed to go to the toilet or access his sandwiches or anything like that.”

7.30 also reported on the story of another child, Thomas Maker-North who was strapped last year into two different types of chairs at Manning Gardens Public School, a regular primary school on the NSW mid-north coast, which does not have an education support unit.  Again, the suggestion is made that the problem is with the regular education system and his mother expresses the view that she now felt she would need to consider a “special school” for her son.  In other words, “special education” is presented as the answer, a point that has been picked up by many people on social media whose response has been to question the fundamental human right of students with disability to attend regular schools and to blame the victims or their families for pursuing educational rights for their children.

But when you scratch the surface of the 7.30 report, Austin’s story is not about the failings of inclusive education in a regular classroom – it is rather an indictment on the special education “strategies” delivered in a segregated education support unit co-located with a regular public school.

It is unclear how Manning Gardens Public School came to decide to use a restraint chair on Thomas Maker-North but All Means All is aware that these strategies are often introduced by “specialist” staff or consultants such as occupational therapists or physiotherapists brought into schools to advise on strategies for students with disability.

It is concerning that 7.30 framed its report on abuse of children with disability in education around the failings of the general education system together with implicit as well as explicit suggestions that segregated “special education” is the answer, when in fact the logic of supporting students with disability with more “segregation” and often archaic “special education” strategies, needs to be seriously questioned.

Restraint and seclusion strategies are a form of child abuse and are more than wrong – they are unconscionable and in many cases they are criminal. The practical capacity for staff to use restraint and seclusion is a function of the culture and tolerance of the educational setting.

It is a sad reality that children with disability are being restrained and abused in both regular and segregated educational settings and data on the abuse, not to mention the breakdown by educational setting, is difficult if not impossible to obtain.

However, it is undeniable that children with disability and especially those who are non-speaking or have intellectual disability, are more vulnerable in “special” settings where segregation and isolation mask and act as major barriers to identifying and reporting abusive behaviour. It is often non-disabled peers in the regular classroom who will blow the whistle on the abuse of this nature of a classmate, and that is one very good reason why students with disability – including those who are labelled or perceived as having “behavioural issues” –  are likely to be safer and more respected as individuals in regular classrooms with appropriate support.  Similarly, regular education staff who have not been conditioned to these practices are also more likely to resist and report them.

We urge Australian journalists, whose work is so critical to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in our community, to recognise when reporting on education of students with disability that segregated “special” education is not evidence-based, does not align with human rights principles and does not keep students with disability safer.

[Cover photo © Sam McGehee]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

NSW Parliament Report into Education of Students With Disability – Concerns for Inclusive Education

by Leave a Comment

The Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education (Committee) that was tasked to inquire into and report on the provision of education to students with a disability in government and non-government schools in New South Wales, has delivered its report into “Education of students with a disability or special needs in New South Wales” (Report).

Many of the findings are significant and some of the recommendations of the Report are welcomed, if for the most part expected:

  • the NSW Government formalise a presumption that “a child is to be educated in an inclusive mainstream setting, unless there are compelling individual reasons for other arrangements” [Recommendation 1];
  • educational progress of students with a disability be reported annually by the Minister for Education to the NSW Parliament [Recommendation 2];
  • the NSW Government work with the Commonwealth Government to ensure that adequate needs-based funding is provided to meet the needs of students with disability [Recommendation 4];
  • the NSW Government review its Education Disability Criteria to ensure it is in keeping with contemporary understandings of disability [Recommendation 7];
  • the NSW Department of Education implement a system for gathering data about the school setting for students with a disability from each school district, with tracking that monitors the numbers who attend special and mainstream settings [Recommendation 13];
  • School Learning and Support Teams are adequately trained, resourced, staffed and remunerated to provide support to students, teachers and their schools [Recommendation 14];
  • programs in schools are supported by peer-reviewed evidence of change in the trajectories of student outcomes over time [Recommendation 18];
  • clearer guidance be provided to parents and schools about making reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities [Recommendation 20];
  • better and/or mandatory training in the legal obligations and Disability Standards for Education for teachers and Principals [Recommendations 28, 29 and 30];
  • improvements to complaint procedures for complaints regarding allegations of misconduct or reportable conduct [Recommendations 37, 38, 39]

However, the Report itself is also highly problematic as it reveals a fundamental inconsistency between the principles of inclusive education, which it purports to support, and the recommendations it makes, ostensibly in pursuit of those principles.

While the Committee states, albeit in a qualified way, that it “supports the cultural, legislative and policy shift from segregating students with disabilities and special needs to including them in mainstream schooling in all systems”, there are many areas of the Report that are fundamentally inconsistent with the achievement of this objective, but perhaps none more glaringly so than Recommendation 10:

That the NSW Department of Education increase support classes in mainstream schools to adequately meet student need.

While the Committee recognised the “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an international instrument specifically dedicated to disability within the context of human rights” ratified by Australia, as an overarching legal instrument that imposes “an obligation to recognise the fundamental rights of individuals with disabilities” it would appear that the Committee has in fact failed to understand the nature and scope of those obligations in relation to the right of students with disability to an inclusive education and the obligation of governments to implement an inclusive education system.

Notably, the Committee makes no mention of Article 24 of the Convention or indeed General Comment No. 4 on Article 24 which was released last year by the UN to clarify the definition of inclusive education as guidance to countries as to their obligations in relation to inclusive education.

It is clear from General Comment No. 4 which defines concepts such as “exclusion” “segregation”, “integration” and “inclusion”, that “special schools” and “special units” or “special classrooms” within mainstream schools are forms of segregated environments and cannot be defined as inclusive education (paragraph 11).  The Comment also expressly called for countries to transfer resources from segregated to inclusive environments as part of the process of progressive realisation of obligations in Article 24.

While the Report purports to call for educational reform to address the crisis in education of students with disability in New South Wales and criticises the “stark contrast between the principles of inclusion promoted in our education system and the reality experienced by these children and their families”, its recommendations, if implemented, would have the opposite effect.

It is not enough to say that “a deep cultural change is necessary if students with disabilities and special needs are to be genuinely provided with the opportunity to reach their fullest potential” and that “the presumption of inclusive education across New South Wales” ought to be promoted, when the “solutions” presented to address those issues are, squarely, to increase educational segregation of students with disability.  Given  that this is exactly what has been happening over the last decade, a recommendation of this nature is simply a call for entrenchment of the status quo and a direction away from human rights and best evidence.

In this regard research has demonstrated the following about special (segregated) education settings in NSW.

  • Enrolments in separate segregated settings (including support classes in mainstream schools) are increasing faster than total enrolments in NSW government schools (Sweller, Graham & Van Bergen, 2012).
  • Enrolment growth is being fuelled by enrolments in the behaviour disorder category (Graham & Sweller, 2011).
  • One third of NSW government special schools now cater specifically to students labelled with emotional and behavioural disorders (Graham, 2012).
  • Boys from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students are significantly overrepresented (Graham, 2012) and their overrepresentation is increasing (Sweller, Graham & Van Bergen, 2012).
  • Reintegration to mainstream is rare and enrolments of up to four years are not uncommon (Granite & Graham, 2012).
  • Research has noted high rates of absenteeism, drop-out and graduation to juvenile justice (Graham, Sweller & Van Bergen, 2010).

Notwithstanding these factors, submissions from school leaders, teacher unions and some parents for students with disability to be placed in segregated settings appear to have been given the greatest weight by the Committee, despite clear research evidence that:

  • Students with disabilities included in regular education settings outperform their segregated peers socially and academically, have higher rates of attendance, are less likely to have behavioural problems, and are more likely to complete secondary school than students who have not been included.
  • Including students with disabilities in regular education classes does not harm non-disabled students and some academic and social benefits have been found.
  • Segregating students with disability through placement in special units and special schools increases the likelihood of those students being trapped in a separate “special” low expectation pathway to a future of social and economic exclusion.

It should be appreciated that it is often students with intellectual disability or who are Autistic or labelled as having “behaviour” problems, who are the ones being increasingly segregated under current approaches that have failed to adapt to providing accommodation to students with these types of support needs in regular education settings. One must ask whether the segregating response is driven by the best interests of the student or a change-adverse regular schooling system.  

It was disappointing to see the NSW Primary Principals Association stating that “there is in fact a place – and a need – for support units and special schools, and that the presence of such settings can be reconciled with an inclusive approach to education”.  Similarly, the Committee found that “many representatives of the special education sector, maintained that students with disabilities should not be subject to a ‘one-size fits all’ approach and need access to the educational setting that can draw the best learning outcomes” which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of inclusive education and the adoption of universal design for learning frameworks in general education schools as well as contrary to the research evidence outlined above. In fact, ensuring that we have an education system that is designed on the assumption that “one size doesn’t fit all”  is at the very core of inclusive education and the universal design approach – that with appropriate design, differentiation and accommodations we can ensure equitable access and authentic participation by every student.

It is worth noting that Italy has not segregated its students since 1978 and that, since then, it has maintained a unified single education system for all students without special schools or segregated units or classrooms – that is over 40 years of educational practice on how this can be achieved.  Similarly, in New Brunswick in Canada, a fully inclusive public educational model has been adopted and students, regardless of disability, do not attend segregated settings.  In Australia we also find inclusive school models that welcome and accommodate all students in the same classrooms regardless of disability.

Importantly, the matter of what is inclusive education has been articulated clearly at the level of the United Nations, through an extensive consultative process over many years, led by human rights and education experts and people with disability, which has provided the most authoritative definition of the right to inclusive education.  Put simply, it is not for the education sector – the school leaders, the teachers, the providers of education services – being the sector whose reform was in question in the first place, to determine what is and is not an inclusive approach to education and that segregated settings “can be reconciled with an inclusive approach to education”. That the Committee has done so given the clear human rights and evidence context, fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of the Report.

There is no doubt that reform is needed, including urgently changing attitudes and mindset and up skilling teachers, education assistants and particularly school leaders, to educate the diverse body of learners comprising Australian school children but increasing segregation and separation of students with disability is not the way – not from a human rights perspective and not from a best evidence perspective.

It is deeply disappointing that the Report does not even attempt to move in the right direction towards inclusive education for all students in New South Wales. What is most concerning is that students with disability continue to pay the price of countless political and bureaucratic failures to understand the basic premise that inclusive education is incompatible with segregated educational provision for students with disability, and to commit to effective transition towards a single, properly resourced and culturally supported inclusive education system for all learners – a system where students with disability learn in the same classrooms, seated next to their non-disabled same-age peers and included in the same lesson.

All Means All is currently working on a response to the NSW Government in relation to the Report.  If you would like to know more about this you can email us at hello@allmeansall.org.au

[Cover photo © John Towner]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus

The UNESCO Guide for Inclusion in Education and “including” Special School Resources in the General System

by Leave a Comment

By Catia Malaquias

On 5 July 2017 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) released “A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education”.  The drafting of the Guide was coordinated by Professor Mel Ainscow, Emeritus Professor of Education at University of Manchester and Adjunct Professor at the Queensland University of Technology.

UNESCO, as the United Nation’s specialised agency for education is leading the Education 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  Sustainable Development Goal 4 aims “to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030.    The Guide is intended as a resource for countries to help embed inclusion and equity in their education policies and systems.

“The ultimate objective is to create system-wide change for overcoming barriers to quality educational access, participation, learning processes and outcomes, and to ensure that all learners are valued and engaged equally.” [p.10]

This objective is consistent with the obligation of countries (including Australia) as signatories to the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).  Article 24 (Inclusive Education) of the CRPD was recently clarified in General Comment No. 4 by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN Committee):

“The right to inclusive education encompasses a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal educational environments to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to remove the barriers that impede that possibility.  It involves strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. … It requires an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy, and the mechanisms for financing, administration, design, delivery and monitoring of education.” [para 9]

General Comment No. 4 makes clear that the education of students with disability in settings separate from their same-age non-disabled peers is not “inclusion” but rather “segregation”:

“Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities.” [para 11]

In fact, the General Comment calls on Governments to transfer scarce human and financial resources tied up in segregated special schools and units to support the inclusion of students with disability in general education classrooms:

“The Committee urges State parties to achieve a transfer of resources from segregated to inclusive environments.  State parties should develop a funding model that allocates resources and incentives for inclusive educational environments to provide the necessary support to persons with disabilities.” [para 68]

The UNESCO Guide also envisages the practical and progressive transfer of resources from special schools to inclusive educational settings:

“Where countries have separate special provisions, it is likely that these will continue contributing, at least for the time being.  Special schools and units can play a vital role by acting as resource centres for supporting regular schools as they seek to become more inclusive. For this reason, encouraging cooperation between the two sectors is very important, not least so as to minimise social isolation. Such cooperation opens up new and promising opportunities for special school staff to continue their historical task of providing support for the most vulnerable learners in the education system (Ainscow, 2006).” [p31]

In saying this the UNESCO Guide also notes that approaches, practices and thinking developed in special education settings may not be appropriate in general education school settings:

“Too often, the kinds of individualised responses that have been the hallmark of special education divert attention from the forms of teaching and school conditions that can actually involve all the learners in the class.  This helps to explain why efforts at inclusion that depend on practices imported from special education tend to foster new and more subtle forms of segregation, albeit in mainstream settings.

…

The recognition that inclusive schools will not be achieved by transplanting special education thinking and practice into mainstream contexts opens up new possibilities. Many of these relate to the need to move from the individualised planning frame … to a perspective that seeks to personalise learning through an engagement with the whole class (Hart et al., 2004).”

It is this mismatch between special education thinking and practices and general education contexts that makes the “experience-based” inclination of Governments and school administrators and teachers in general education to treat special schools and their staff as “experts” or “leaders” on the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms so problematic.

Leadership in inclusion must come from Government and primarily from the general education system itself – it should not be outsourced to a subsidiary and largely external component experienced in practicing segregation rather than inclusion. Re-badging special schools as “resource centres” is one thing – giving them the label of “centres of excellence” on the education of students with disability is factually questionable and counter-productive more broadly:

  • in disempowering general education teachers from feeling competent to teach students with disability; and
  • removing the sense of responsibility of general education teachers towards the education of students with disability.

In essence it confirms the myth upon which the special segregated education system has traded and continues to trade:

“Students with disability have ‘special needs’ that are best addressed by ‘special teachers’ in ‘special schools'”.

The limited “transformational” concession being that the myth can now be practiced in a general education school provided there is oversight and hands-on support from the special school system.

In effect, the resources of the special education system should be “included” within the general education system, rather than preserved in a “segregated” parallel system, a separateness that dates back to the institutionalization of people with disability.

The progressive and concerted inclusion of the resources of the special education system depends upon Governments making the community and particularly parents of children with disability aware of the research evidence in support of inclusive education.

UNESCO and the International Bureau of Education recognised this in their “Training tools for Curriculum Development: Reaching Out to All Learners” (2016), upon which the UNESCO Guide is based:

“… it is desirable that governments make clear their commitment to inclusion, emphasizing the positive benefits for parents and children. Specifically, it is useful to emphasize the distinction between needs, rights and opportunities. All children have needs (e.g. for appropriate teaching), but they also have the right to participate fully in a common social institution (a local general education school) that offers a range of opportunities for them.  Too often parents are forced to choose between ensuring that their child’s needs are met (which sometimes implies special school placement) and ensuring that they have the same rights and opportunities as other children (which, according to the Salamanca Statement, implies general education school placement). The aim therefore should be to create a system where these choices become unnecessary.

This is why it is important to stress that inclusion is about the development of regular schools, rather than the reorganisation of special schooling.  The aim has to be to increase the capacity of all schools in the general education system, so that, like the most effective schools that exist, they can meet the demands of all children while offering them similar rights and opportunities.  This has implications for a changed role for special schools in the medium term and the disappearance of special schools entirely in the longer term.  However, it is vital to note that the disappearance of the buildings that house special schools does not imply the disappearance of the skills, attitudes, values and resources which those buildings currently contain.”

In that regard, it is worth remembering that Italy closed down its special schools in the 1970s and accordingly students with disability have since been educated in regular classrooms.  The medium to long-term goal for most countries is in the distant past  for Italy.

 

In the meantime, the reality in Australia is far more troubling, with data showing that there has been a significant increase over the last decade in the proportion of students with disability in segregated education settings, evidencing a clear departure from the path of realising the right of every Australian student to an inclusive education and a failure of efforts in policy and practice across the Australian educational landscape towards the goal of an inclusive education system.

[Cover photo © UNESCO]

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus 

Recognition of Unconscious Prejudice as a Barrier to Inclusion of Students With Disability

by Leave a Comment

By Catia Malaquias

When asked if they are biased or prejudiced against a minority group, people will generally respond that they are not – most feel that they can consciously counter any prejudice that they have – or may have had. They trust in their capacity to present an unbiased or unprejudiced disposition to others – whether to people of different gender, different racial or religious background, different sexuality or to people with disability.

Most school principals, teachers and education assistants – like the majority of society – believe that they discharge their professional responsibilities without prejudice – treating all students equally and without discrimination. 

However, over the last 20 years there has been increased recognition that prejudice and bias operate at an explicit, conscious and controllable level and at a residual, implicit, subconscious and spontaneous or uncontrollable level.  In the last 10 years there has been significant growth in research on the effects of implicit bias and prejudice in education outcomes.

Research suggests that people can control their speech to avoid conscious prejudice.  For example, a teacher can pleasantly greet each student on entry to the classroom in a relatively consistent and equal manner.  However, implicit or unconscious bias and prejudice is by definition not consciously controllable – and manifests itself in body language and spontaneous behaviours – particularly when an individual is fatigued or under stress.  For example, research suggests that implicit bias and prejudice is revealed in behaviours like avoiding eye contact, lower duration of eye contact, less smiling and genuine warmth, less tolerance, more punitive and disciplinary sanctioning and generally reduced willingness to interact with the relevant minority.

A student – including a student with disability – with often greater awareness and sensitivity to social exclusion is more likely to pick up on the exclusionary cues and inconsistent behaviour of implicit bias and prejudice.  In addition, regular class members are also likely to pick up subtle and not so subtle behavioural cues from school staff that demonstrate the side-lining and devaluation of their minority group peers.

Studies have demonstrated that implicit and unconscious bias and prejudice operate to reduce academic and social outcomes by reducing teachers’ expectations for learning potential and at the same time trust in the teacher (due to less consistent messaging) and general belonging in “minority peers” – in fact they operate to increase exclusion and suspension from schooling – which in turn are strong predictors of long-term social and economic exclusion – including of crime and incarceration (see for example “Understanding Implicit Bias”, American Federation of Teachers).

On the other hand, some studies have even suggested that implicit bias or prejudice against a minority student group may actually operate to empower the majority student group – to increase their confidence and expectations – to increase the allocation of professional attention in their favour – and ultimately to improve their academic and social outcomes.

In essence, subconscious or implicit prejudice may have a compounding effect on the outcomes for the relevant minority student group.  Implicit bias and prejudice is a major barrier to the realisation of the right to inclusive education on a full and equal basis. Interestingly, when studies have controlled for conscious bias (measured by teacher self-reporting) and unconscious bias (measured by “implicit association tests”) the implicit measure of unconscious bias was found to explain different achievement gap sizes across the classroom as a function of differing teacher expectations between the majority and minority groups (see: “The Implicit Prejudiced Attitudes of Teachers: Relations to Teacher Expectations and the Ethnic Achievement Gap”.)

Implicit bias and prejudice is something that all members of society carry depending upon their own life experience – being formed from as early as 3 years of age from the family environment and exposure to media stereotypes.  Unconscious bias is said to be essentially automatic as a brain process – it is said to be an environmental and societal process rather than the product of an individual’s conscious choices.  In fact, even people with disability and family members sometimes demonstrate strong implicit bias against disability.

Although it is clear that implicit bias and prejudice is not easily changed by anti-bias “reprogramming” training or otherwise undone, being aware that one’s behaviour is predisposed to spontaneous and uncontrolled display of prejudice – particularly when fatigued or under stress – reduces the likelihood and severity of demonstration. In essence, people can “interrupt themselves” and “catch themselves”.  It also demonstrates the importance of countering stereotypes in the early developmental years of children.

Changing school culture to a more inclusive culture – to a culture more welcoming of students with disability – involves both modifying conscious cultural prejudice and increasing awareness of unconscious or implicit cultural bias and prejudice in school staff and the broader school community.

There are a number of websites that offer “implicit association tests” designed to reveal the presence and degree of an individual’s implicit prejudice towards particular social concepts and minority groups, including people with disability. See for example:

[Cover photo © Megan Soule]

 

Thank you for visiting our website.  You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @allmeansallaus 

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.