Transformative Possibilities of Inclusion: Speech by Dr Graeme Innes AM to the Victorian Academy for Teaching and Leadership

June 12, 2022 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Image description: Photograph of Dr Innes sitting on a swivel chair next to a boardroom table. Dr Innes is a light skinned man with white short hair. He is wearing a back suit, white collared shirt and light tie. He is facing the camera and smiling. To his right is a seated black guide dog. Dr Innes has his arm outstretched touching the dog.

The following speech was delivered by Dr Graeme Innes AM, to the Victorian Academy for Teaching and Leadership’s 2022 Principal’s Conference on 31 May 2022.

Dr Innes is a lawyer, mediator, company director, and human rights advocate and served as Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner from December 2005 to July 2014.

Among his many important contributions to the rights of people with disability in Australia, Dr Innes was also involved in the drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities which was ratified by Australia in 2008 and recognises the right of people with disability to an inclusive education.

Dr Innes is the founder of the Attitude Foundation and sits on a number of boards in the disability sector. He is a frequent commentator about disability issues in the media, with regular appearances on television radio and print media, including on ABC’s The Drum and Q&A.

Dr Innes has generously shared with All Means All his recent speech to Victorian Principles and given his permission to publish it here.

Transformative Possibilities of Inclusion

I acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet today.

Tyler was doing well at school. It was term 1 year 2, and he was up and into his uniform every morning. He’d finish breakfast at a rate of knots, kiss the family goodbye, and be out at the bus stop just outside his front door. It was the first pickup of the run, so he jumped in and sat behind the driver. His mum wished his three siblings had been this keen.

Then the calls from the principal started. She said Tyler was well behaved throughout school, and during recess and lunch-time. But at the end of the day, when the kids were lining up for their buses, he was regularly involved in scuffles and fights.

The school had a no tolerance to violence policy, and the principal was concerned. She didn’t want to suspend Tyler for misbehaviour, but she was running out of alternatives.

Mum chatted with other parents of kids with autism with no positive results. Finally, in a last attempt to avoid suspension, she asked the principal if Tyler’s support worker could observe Tyler’s day at school, to see if she could spot the problem. It would be a day from his NDIS plan funds, but she thought it was worth a try.

Jess, his support worker, watched him travel to school, and have a really good day in class. At the end of the day, when classes finished, the kids streamed out into the playground and bus lines. Tyler was not first in line and did not get the front seat. That’s when the fights started.

The fix was simple. Tyler was let out two minutes early each day, and his seat on the bus became his regular seat in an inclusive school community.

Thanks for the chance to speak with you all today. I know the key role you each play in the success of the inclusion of kids with disabilities, and I also know the key inclusion plays in the success of the lives of kids who are included. I say this having experienced inclusive and segregated settings as a student, and having observed and participated in the disability sector most of my adult life. I want to share some of that experience and knowledge with you today.

I didn’t tell Tyler’s story at the beginning of this presentation to suggest that inclusion is always such an easy fix. Inclusion can sometimes be complex, inclusion can sometimes require extra support, extra staff training and extra resources, and inclusion can sometimes be contested – with advocates proposing changes that schools think are difficult or not achievable. But there are two fundamental reasons for including kids with disabilities.

First, it leads to better learning outcomes for all students and safer learning environments for kids with disabilities. I’ll come back to the research on that.

And second, if we are going to build a Victorian and Australian society that includes people with disabilities, we have to start in school environments. That’s where members of Australian society, with and without disabilities, learn how society works. It is completely counterintuitive to segregate children in schools, and then think that we can successfully transition them into an inclusive society. Segregation in schools puts kids with disabilities on what has been very well described as the polished pathway toward segregation in life – where we live, where we work, and how we interact with society.

I went to a segregated school up to year 10. It was a good learning environment for me, I was safe, and I learned successfully. Most of the teachers were excellent and passionate about their jobs. On the downside though, from the time I was four to the time I was sixteen, I had to travel an hour a day to school and an hour back. That was pretty wearing. But most importantly, I had no friends in my local community. My weekends were often lonely, and I did not have that cohort of friends around me for the rest of my life. I don’t suggest that the peer support from other people who are blind or vision-impaired was not valuable. I do suggest that I missed all of those links which we develop throughout childhood, and which often remain with us for many years. That’s my penalty for segregation. Others with disabilities are more harshly penalised.

So let’s look at what the law says about inclusion. There is clear international support through the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, a UN treaty to which Australia committed more than a decade ago. This treaty requires countries to include students with disabilities.

This treaty is supported by discrimination legislation at both State and Commonwealth levels. This legislation makes it unlawful to discriminate against students with disabilities by, among other things, excluding them from schools and educational environments. This legislation was passed by State and Commonwealth governments at different times, but has been in place for thirty years or more in most cases. The Commonwealth legislation is supported by Standards under the Disability Discrimination Act, which reflect and expand on the content of the law. They were passed more than a decade ago. They, and the State and Federal law, provide that it is unlawful to discriminate against students with disabilities in a range of ways, including exclusion from education settings. They go further and require education providers to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities. The only exception to this is where such adjustments would cause unjustifiable hardship to the education provider. So it is expected that education providers will, as part of this process, experience some hardship. It is only when that hardship becomes unjustifiable that the education provider has the opportunity not to provide the adjustment. Finally, these standards require that such adjustments must be made in consultation with the student, or the parents of the student. And this requirement makes absolute sense. Because we, as people with disabilities, and the families of people with disabilities, are the experts on our own lives and our own lived experience. So it would be foolish to make such adjustments without considering that advice.

Let me come back, as I promised, to the research supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities. for more than forty years, research into the education of students with disabilities has overwhelmingly established inclusive education as producing superior social and academic outcomes for all students, with or without disabilities. Further, 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 parties segregated environments, eg education support units or resource classrooms. Sadly, despite this, segregation continues to be suggested to families and educators as an appropriate option, despite having virtually no evidence basis. the most recent comprehensive review of this research was undertaken by the Alana Institute in 2017 at Harvard graduate school of education. Findings set out clear and consistent evidence that inclusive educational settings can confer substantial short and long-term benefits for students with and without disabilities. Included students with disabilities develop stronger skills in reading and mathematics, have high rates of attendance, are less likely to have behavioural problems and are more likely to complete secondary school. They are more likely to be enrolled in post-secondary education and to be employed and living independently. Finally, the benefits received by non-disabled students are equal to, or more positive than, non-inclusion.

None of this is surprising when you think about it. We learn skills, social and academic, as children which we take through the rest of our lives. Why wouldn’t this apply to students with disabilities or non-disabled students who have been educated with students with disabilities?

What I’ve done this morning is focussed on the why for inclusion because I know, if done successfully, the transformative possibilities it can have. I have not focussed on the how. That is for others with more day-to-day education experience than me. But I do know it requires resources, training, and collaborative partnerships to achieve. And I do know that you, as leaders of school communities, can – with the right mindset – achieve those transformative possibilities.

I’ve supported this focus through my own experience, the law, and current research.

But we all know that whilst there are many examples of successful inclusion, inclusion is not happening universally. Why is that, and how can we change that?

I assess that reflecting the whole community approach across Australia, people in the education community have a limiting and negative view of disability. People with disabilities are limited by the soft bigotry of low expectations. Most people in the community make assumptions about us that are negative and wrong. And if the bar is set low for us, most people with disabilities will tend not to push through that bar. We want to be included, we will benefit from being included – and the rest of society will as well. But we cannot be included unless society removes these assumptions, and works with us to make inclusion happen. Education is a microcosm of this situation.

So what can you, as educational leaders, do to change this situation. Well, it’s what many of you are already doing. Rather than saying why it’s saying why not. Rather than making those negative assumptions, it’s setting the assumptions aside. Rather than presuming you know, it’s asking the student or their parents how inclusion might work, and embarking on the journey to make that happen. And taking your school community with you on that journey. Some will come with you happily, some will be reluctant, and others will be unsure. You can use your leadership and skills to set the tone and the direction of the journey.

And what are the results if you take that approach? There are all of the benefits that the research I have referred to lays out for students with disabilities. Plus all of the benefits which the research lays out for the student body as a whole. People with disabilities, such as me, will grow up with their peers, rather than being introduced to them at the end of school when much of our learning and socialising has already occurred. The result will be better social and educational outcomes for everyone and a stronger and more cohesive Victorian and Australian society. And all it takes is making adjustments so that Tyler, and many others like him, get the front seat on the bus.

Thanks for the chance to speak with you today.

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

August 5, 2017 by allmeansall 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

July 23, 2017 by allmeansall 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:

Project Implicit (Harvard University)
Teaching Tolerance (Southern Poverty Law Centre)

[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

Inclusive Education in Queensland – Outcomes from the Deloitte Review

July 9, 2017 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

The Queensland Department of Education and Training (DET) has made a commitment “to inclusive education and continuous improvement to maximise education outcomes for students with disability.”

It is a welcome commitment especially in light of recent findings that segregated education in Australia is on the rise, and that the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) ranks our education system 39 out of 41 when compared with other high and middle income countries.

However, does that commitment accord with the reality of the delivery of education services to students with disability in Queensland? If it did then the State of Queensland could rightly claim to be the stand out performer when it comes to the education of students with disability in Australia, with its head well above the murky waters of national education performance.

A recent review of education for students with disability in Queensland State schools by Deloitte Access Economics (2017) suggests that this is not the case, with key adverse findings and recommendations in relation to inclusion, improvement, and maximised outcomes for students with disability.

Notably, the report identified widespread equivocal understanding of the term “inclusive education” and the characteristics, goals and practices of inclusion, with the term being commonly used as a synonym for special education in general, including segregated delivery of education to students with disability.

Such a finding was perhaps more readily explicable a decade ago, when the United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities was first established, which includes the first legally binding international human rights obligation to ensure an inclusive education system. But today, the matter of the definition of “inclusive education” has been settled. In October 2016 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRP Committee) issued a clear and authoritative definition of inclusive education (in General Comment No. 4) which includes the following statement:

“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.”

It also states that “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” and that “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.”

For those working within the system and needing to develop clear understanding and practice of inclusive education, the challenges faced were starkly illustrated when, in that same year, a Queensland State Special School, which is by its very nature providing segregated education within the meaning of the UNCRP Committee’s definition, won the prestigious “Showcase Award for Excellence in Inclusive Education“.

Unfortunately the concerns identified by the report do not stop with definitions and categorisations. The review further identified significant system-wide shortcomings in delivery of education to students with disability.

Some of these findings include:

a lack of awareness and understanding of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) and their implications for school leadership and practice;
a lack of inclusive vision, and direction resulting in weak signals to schools around the expectation and implementation of inclusive schooling practices;
a lack of a specific reporting framework allowing the outcomes of students with disability to be monitored and measured appropriately and explicitly included in performance, accountability and reporting mechanisms;
a lack of sector-wide evaluation of programs, initiatives, and systematic activity;
a lack of research on evidence-based educational practice and review of what works in schools;
a lack of effective governance and leadership in the space of inclusion;
a lack of understanding around what successful outcomes for students with a disability are, and how they can be achieved; and
a lack of effective engagement with parents.

The report deliberates that, in general, Queensland State schools are not currently universally equipped to educate all students with disability to a contemporary standard, and as a result parents are subjected to a range of influences to discourage their child’s enrollment in regular schools and classrooms, whilst students with disability endure greater use of school disciplinary actions as well as the use of restrictive practices – with no centralised data collection or analysis.

It is then not surprising to read that many schools and teachers struggle to implement practice in line with a whole school approach, or that there is a lack of teacher capability and time to appropriately differentiate lessons. All this results in defaulting to the old practice – “special teachers” delivering “special services” in “special settings” to “special students” – a practice that actually goes against the overwhelming research evidence of the last 40 years that establishes that inclusion of students with disability produces better social, academic and lifelong economic participation outcomes than segregation.

It is clear that school Principals, leadership teams and teaching staff are in desperate need of support to build knowledge and skills in inclusive education, to pursue cultural transformation, and to develop and deliver pedagogical frameworks that support the effective education of all students.

It is hoped that the DET will take concrete measures to address these shortcomings in the system and ensure that its commitment to an inclusive education system can be realised. It is concerning however that the DET’s newly released response plan fails to address core issues such as clarity around the meaning of “inclusive education” and the need to ensure that measures and practices to support students with disability are compliant with the goal of inclusive education as defined by the UNCRPD Committee.

Without strong commitment and measures to eliminate widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes inclusive education and the practices that are aligned to it, remediating inclusion out of the trenches of segregation will not be realised – and the outcomes for students with disability will continue coming up short under a “feel good blanket” of “don’t we already do inclusion?” and frequently repeated platitudes like “inclusion is not a one-size fits all” – each masking poor and dissonant practices.

The Human Right to an Inclusive Education

April 29, 2017 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

The Australian Government’s International human rights obligations

The obligation to ensure an inclusive education system is a recognised obligation of the Australian government under international human rights law. Notably, Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which provides for this obligation in Article 24 (Inclusive Education).

Article 24.1 of the CRPD provides:

“State Parties [including Australia] recognise the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, State Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels … .”

Article 24.2 of the CRPD provides:

“In realizing this right, State Parties shall ensure that:

Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, …;
Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;
Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;
Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;
Effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.”

There has been significant ambiguity as to what is meant by “inclusive education” and that ambiguity has complicated efforts to implement inclusive education systems.

On 26 August 2016 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Committee) adopted General Comment No. 4 to Article 24 (The Right to Inclusive Education). The purpose of General Comment No. 4 is to provide Governments with guidance on the scope of their obligation to provide quality inclusive education for people with disability. This guidance outlines the meaning of inclusive education and is instructive of the requirements that the Committee will apply in reviewing compliance by individual countries with Article 24.

The decision to issue a General Comment to Article 24 is stated to stem from the Committee’s “review of the national reports submitted since the beginning of its work and the information pertaining to the implementation of the right to education for persons with disabilities contained in those reports” and the Committee’s “concern that the exclusion in education on the basis of disability experienced by children and adults with disabilities not only constitutes discrimination, but also hinders their meaningful participation on an equal basis with others in all spheres of life” (see statement on the website of the UN Human Rights Commissioner here).

General Comment No. 4 has been the culmination of a near 2-year process involving the review of a draft General Comment and submissions from State Parties (including Australia), interested NGOs (including Children and Young People with Disability Australia), academics and disability advocates.

What does the human right to inclusive education mean in Australia?

While Australia has agreed to be bound by the CRPD and other major international human rights treaties and should enact domestic legislation to ensure those rights, Australia has not gone far enough in specifically incorporating its obligations under the CRPD into Australian law through legislation. This makes it difficult for individuals to enforce their human rights as they can only do so to the extent they are protected under domestic laws.

The Australian Government has endeavoured to discharge its obligations under Article 24 of the CRPD by imposing obligations on education providers (including private providers) to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Standards) made under it. The Australian Human Rights Commission is responsible for investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination in breach of the DDA.

But, especially in light of General Comment No. 4 , it seems clear that the DDA and the Standards may not go far enough to ensure the matters outlined in Article 24.1 and 22.4. It also seems clear that the obligation to “ensure and inclusive education system” requires more than the enactment of discrimination laws – it requires appropriate education reform and policies to support the implementation of inclusive education across the Australian education system.

Nevertheless, Article 24 and General Comment No. 4 together provide the most authoritative articulation of the human right of people with disability to an inclusive education and are important in advocating for access by Australian students with disability to an inclusive education. Every Australian parent, whether or not they have a child with disability, and every Australian education provider should take the time to read General Comment No. 4 . Not only does it make clear that the right to an inclusive education is a fundamental human right of every child with a disability, it also looks at the scope of that right in providing an interpretative definition of it, and it presents that right within its historical context, acknowledging and highlighting barriers and in light of its supporting academic, social and economic cases. [paras 1-4]

For parents, teachers and school administrators, General Comment No. 4 provides a blue print for implementing inclusive education and for identifying whether a child is being excluded or segregated, offered merely “integration” in a mainstream school or being provided with an inclusive education. Too often, inferior delivery of education to students with disability is wrongly labelled “inclusion” and sold to them, their families and teachers. When this results in poor experiences and perceived “failures” in educating students with disability in regular schools and classrooms, inclusive education itself is blamed when, ironically, it is the very lack of inclusion that often results in such “failures”. In that sense, the General Comment No. 4 provides a guide for testing educational practices against the key characteristics of an inclusive education and an inclusive education system.

The General Comment No. 4 is also an important tool for disability rights and inclusion advocates, to engage stakeholders and decision makers such as Governments, Education Departments and school Principals in understanding inclusive education as a fundamental human right of students with disability and in supporting the reform that is required to ensure and an inclusive education system in Australia as required under Article 24 of the CRPD.

What does the General Comment No.4 say?

The following significant aspects of General Comment No. 4 should be noted:

(1) Persons with disabilities and, when appropriate, their families, must be recognised as partners and not merely as recipients of education. [para 7]

(2) The right to inclusive education encompasses a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all educational environments [including private] to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to remove the barriers that impede that possibility. It requires an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy, and the mechanisms for funding, administration, design, delivery and monitoring of education. [para 9]

(3) Inclusive education is to be understood as, amongst other things:

a fundamental human right of all learners – notably, education is the right of the individual learner and parental responsibilities in regard to the education of a child are subordinate to the rights of the child [including the right to an inclusive education]; and
the result of a process of continuing and pro-active commitment to eliminate the barriers impeding the right to education, together with changes to culture, policy and practice of regular schools to accommodate and effectively include all students. [para 10]

(4) The need to distinguish between “exclusion”, “segregation”, “integration” and “inclusion” is critical. Paragraph 11 provides 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.[1]”
“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.

Placing students with disabilities in mainstream classes without appropriate structural changes to, for example, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration (placing persons with disabilities in mainstream institutions so long as they can adjust to the standardised requirements) does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion. [para 11]

It is clear from General Comment No. 4 that education in segregated settings, whether separate special schools or special support units co-located with a regular school, is not inclusive education within the meaning of Article 24.

(5) The core features of inclusive education are:

whole systems approach (education ministries must ensure that all resources are invested toward advancing inclusive education, and toward introducing and embedding the necessary changes in institutional culture, policies and practices);
whole education environment (the committed leadership of educational institutions is essential to embed the culture, policies and practices to achieve inclusive education at all levels);
whole person approach (recognition is given to the capacity of every person to learn, and high expectations are established for all learners – inclusive education offers flexible curricula, teaching and learning methods adapted to different strengths, requirements and learning styles – it commits to ending segregation within educational settings by ensuring inclusive classroom teaching in accessible learning environments with appropriate supports – the education system must provide a personalised educational response, rather than expecting the student to fit or “integrate” into the system);
supported teachers (teachers and other staff in learning environments are provided with education and training as to core values and competencies to accommodate inclusive learning environments);
respect for and value of diversity (all students must feel valued, respected, included and listened to and effective measures to prevent abuse and bullying are in place);
learning-friendly environment (a positive school community where everyone feels safe, supported, stimulated and able to express themselves);
effective transitions (learners with disabilities receive the support to ensure the effective transition from learning at school to vocational and tertiary education, and finally to work);
recognition of partnerships (involvement of parents/caregivers and the broader community must be viewed as assets with resources and strengths to contribute);
monitoring (inclusive education must be monitored on a continuing and regular basis to ensure that segregation or integration is not happening in effect). [para 12]

(6) Education systems should apply the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach which recognises that each student learns in a unique manner and involves developing flexible ways for students to learn. [para 25]

(7) The denial of reasonable accommodations constitutes discrimination and the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is immediately applicable and not subject to progressive realisation. [para 30]

(8) Any support measures provided [including provision of education assistant support] must be compliant with the goal of inclusion. Accordingly, they must be designed to strengthen opportunities for students with disabilities to participate in the classroom and in out-of-school activities alongside their peers, rather than marginalise them. [para 33]

(9) Learners with communication impairments must be provided with the opportunity to express themselves and learn using alternative or augmentative communication, including electronic communication aids. Learners with social communication difficulties must be supported through adaptations to classroom organisation, including working in pairs, peer tutoring, seating closer to the teacher and the creation of a structured and predictable environment. Learners with intellectual impairments must be provided with concrete, observable/visual and easy-read teaching and learning materials within a safe, quiet and structured learning environment. [para 34]

(10) Governments must adopt and implement a national education strategy which includes provision of education at all levels for all learners, on the basis of inclusion and equality of opportunity. [para 40]

(11) Governments should gather disaggregated data and evidence on the barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from having access to, remaining in, and making progress in quality education to enable the adoption of effective measures to dismantle such barriers. [para 66]

(12) Governments should transfer resources from segregated [special schools and special units within mainstream schools] to inclusive education environments. [para 68]

(13) Inclusive education requires a support and resource system for teachers in educational institutions at all levels. Parents/caregivers of students with disabilities, where appropriate, can serve as partners in the development and implementation of learning programs, including individualised education plans. They can play a significant role in advising and supporting teachers in provision of support to individual students. [para 70]

(14) Quality inclusive education requires methods of appraising and monitoring students’ progress that takes into account barriers faced. Traditional systems of assessment, utilising standardised achievement test scores as the sole indicator of success for both students and schools, may disadvantage students with disabilities. The emphasis should be on individual progress towards broad goals. [para 72]

_______

Now that the Committee has adopted and published General Comment No. 4, the Australian Government should review the Australian education system generally and in particular the Disability Standards for Education 2005 for consistency with the right to a quality inclusive education under Article 24 of the CRPD, as clarified by the Committee.

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

Inclusive Education – What Does the Research Say?

February 5, 2017 by dev Leave a Comment

Introduction

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. Further, 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 (e.g. “education support units” or “resource classrooms”). Unfortunately segregated education remains a practice that has continued mostly for historical reasons and which continues to be suggested to families and educators as an appropriate option, despite having virtually no evidence basis.

The most recent comprehensive review of the research was undertaken by the Alana Institute and presented in an international report entitled “A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education“ released in 2017. The Report was prepared by Dr Thomas Hehir, Professor of Practice in Learning Differences at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in partnership with global firm Abt Associates.

The Report is essential reading for education administrators, teachers and parents in documenting 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 Right to Inclusive Education), recently released by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In particular, the General Comment defines non-inclusion or “segregation” as the education of students with disabilities in separate environments in isolation from students with disabilities (i.e. in separate special schools or in special education units co-located with regular schools). [p3]

The Report recognises that the growth in inclusive educational 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 communities to the implementation of effective inclusive education and notes the need for general societal education as to the benefits of inclusive education.

Key findings of the Report

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] There is also evidence that participating in inclusive settings can yield social and emotional benefits for students with disabilities including forming and maintaining positive peer relationships, which have important implications for a child’s learning and psychological development. [p18] 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) rather than distributing those students across classrooms in their natural proportions. [p9]
“A literature review describes five benefits of inclusion for non-disabled students: reduced fear of human difference, accompanied by 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 sense of belonging); development of personal moral and ethical principles (less prejudice, higher responsiveness to the needs of others); and warm and caring friendships.” [p12]
An extensive recent meta-analysis covering a total sample of almost 4,800,000 students has also confirmed the finding that inclusive learning environments have also been shown to to have no detrimental impact, and some positive impact, on the academic performance of non-disabled students.

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 their 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 it is through the development of a culture of collaborative problem solving that the inclusion of students with disabilities can serve as a catalyst for school-wide improvement and yield benefits for non-disabled students. [p10]

Key Report Recommendations for Fostering Inclusive Education [pp.22-25]

[Establish an expectation for inclusion in public policy] National policy, publicly endorsed by national leaders, must affirm the right of students with disabilities to be included along-side their non-disabled peers.
[Establish a public campaign to promote inclusive education] Changing public opinion about the importance of inclusive education, especially for students with intellectual disability, is important. Long-standing misconceptions about the capacities of students with disabilities to thrive in an inclusive classroom must be countered – teachers, school administrators and parents must be supported and educated so that students with disabilities experience effective welcoming schools and classrooms that meet their needs.
[Build systems of data collection] Countries must invest in collecting accurate data on the degree to which students with disabilities have access to general education, including the amount of time actually spent in general education classrooms. This data can be used to identify schools and communities in need of support in better educating and including their students with disabilities.
[Provide educators with a robust program of pre-service and in-service preparation on inclusive education] First, attitudes matter a great deal and attitudes among educators are often negative, and those attitudes can carry over into the classroom and the school. Teachers and school leaders need opportunities to both confront these attitudes and to see how successful inclusion can work. Secondly, educators must learn classroom techniques that can help students with disabilities to thrive – in particular, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework – which requires that schools design curricula to accommodate the diverse strengths and weaknesses of all learners – should be used to support teacher development.
[Create model universally designed inclusive schools] Schools that have done inclusion particularly well should serve as demonstration models for the training of inclusive teachers and school administrators.
[Promote inclusive opportunities in both post-secondary education settings and the employment market] Post-secondary education and employment settings should be encouraged to expand opportunities for people with disabilities.
[Provide support and training to parents seeking inclusive education for their children] Parents often need support in seeking inclusive education for their children and in maximising their child’s development. In the United States, parent-training centres have been funded by the federal government to teach parents about inclusive education and to provide them with support in seeking effective inclusive placements for their children.

You can read the full Report here.

Want to know more?

Research on social and academic outcomes:

Reviews and meta-analyses

“Towards inclusive education: A necessary process of transformation” Dr K. Cologon, (2019) for Children and Young People With Disability Australia. [A review of over 200 studies, specifically aimed at providing information to parents.]

“Does Inclusion Work?”, Dr K. de Bruin (2019), Chapter 3 in L.J. Graham (Ed). Inclusive Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Policy and Practice. Sydney: Allen and Unwin [This review of research specifically considers the benefits of inclusive education for students with multiple and complex disabilities.]

“The Segregation of Students with Disabilities”, National Council on Disability (USA, independent federal agency) (2018). [This paper concludes that there is no evidence in support of segregating students with disability from the perspective of social and academic outcomes.]

“Evidence of the Link Between Inclusive Education and Social Inclusion”, European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2018). [This review of research of over 250 studies internationally finds a link between school inclusion and post school outcomes such as open employment.]

“A Summary of the Research Evidence on Inclusive Education’”, Todd Grindal, Thomas Hehir, Brian Freeman, Renee Lamoreau, Yolanda Borquaye, Samantha Burke (2016). [A comprehensive review of research led by Harvard, finding that students who are included achieve better social and academic outcomes and there are benefits for non disabled students as well.]

“Inclusive Education of Students With General Learning Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis”, Krämer S, Möller J, Zimmermann F. In Review of Educational Research. (2021) ;91(3):432-478. doi:10.3102/0034654321998072 [A meta analysis representing over 4 mission students concluding that inclusive classrooms with students with disability do not adversely impact on the learning of non disabled students and may even provide benefits for them.]

“A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities” Oh-Young, Conrad & Filler, John. (2015) in Research in Developmental Disabilities. 47. 80-92. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014. [A meta analysis supportive inclusive education for students with disability from the perspective of social and academic outcomes.]

“Mainstreaming Programs: Design Features and Effects“, Wang MC, Baker ET (1985) The Journal of Special Education. 1985;19(4):503-521. doi:10.1177/002246698501900412

“The Efficacy of Special Versus Regular Class Placement for Exceptional Children: a Meta-Analysis”, Carlberg C, Kavale K. (1980) in The Journal of Special Education. 14(3):295-309

“Research Support for Inclusive Education and SWIFT”, Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT Schools), (January 2017)

“Inclusion or Segregation for children with an Intellectual Impairment: What does the evidence say?” (2008)Dr Robert Jackson, Associate Professor at Edith Cowan University

Recent studies

“Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study” (2020), Kathlee Gee, Mara Gonzalez and Carrie Cooper, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, August 2020

“The Relationship of Special Education Placement and Student Academic Outcomes” (2020), Sandi M. Cole, Hardy R. Murphy, Michael B. Frisby, Teresa A. Grossi and Hannah R. Bolte, The Journal of Special Education, June 2020

Research on segregation:

“The impact of inclusive education reforms on students with disability: an international comparison” (2019), Kate de Bruin, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23:7-8, 811-826. [A study concluding that Autistic students in Australia are being increasingly segregated.]

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse “A brief guide to the Final Report: Disability” (2017). [This report identifies segregation as a setting-based risk of sexual abuse of children with disability.]

“Fighting school segregation in Europe through inclusive education Fighting school segregation in Europe through inclusive education: a position paper Council of Europe” (2017), Council of Europe. [A position paper following a review of education systems across Europe and calling for a de-segregation strategy.]

“Disability and child sexual abuse in institutional contexts, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse” (2016), Wayland, Sarah & Llewellyn, Gwynnyth & Hindmarsh, Gabrielle. [Research commissioned by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse identifies segregation as a setting-based risk of sexual abuse of children with disability.]

Research on “gatekeeping”:

“Gatekeeping and restrictive practices with students with disability: results of an Australian survey”, delivered at the Inclusive Education Summit, Adelaide (2017), Shiralee Poed, Kathy Cologon and Robert Jackson. [Research identifying widespread gatekeeping and restrictive practices across Australian education systems.]

“Improving Educational Outcomes for Children with Disability in Victoria” (June 2018), Eleanor Jenkin, Claire Spivakovsky, Sarah Joseph and Marius Smith. [Research identifying widespread gatekeeping and restrictive practices in Victorian education.]

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