Press Release: Call for National Action to Prevent Violence, Abuse, and Neglect in Early Childhood Education

March 19, 2025 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Date	Contact
19 March 2025	Stephanie Gotlib Executive Director – Government Relations and Advocacy Email: stephanie.gotlib@allmeansall.org.au

All Means All supports National Children’s Commissioner Anne Hollonds’ call for urgent, coordinated national action to prevent violence, abuse, and neglect of children in early childhood education.

The ABC Four Corners investigation aired on 17 March 2025 exposed shocking practices against children. This included the use of restrictive practices against young children, in particular children with disability, alongside widespread neglect.

All children have the right to be free from violence, abuse, and neglect, and to learn in an inclusive and safe education system.

We share Commissioner Hollonds’ concern that the investigation laid bare serious failures in the regulatory system governing Australia’s early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector. This system is failing to prevent and adequately respond to violence, abuse, and neglect against children, including children with disability.

Dr Rhonda Galbally AC, Patron of All Means All:

“The Disability Royal Commission heard about horrific instances of violence, abuse and neglect of children with disability in early childhood education. We found widespread systemic failings across education systems that allow such serious harm against children to go unchecked. The Four Corners investigation has reinforced this disturbing reality within the ECEC sector.” “Urgent reform is needed to ensure that all children, including those with disability, can receive an early childhood education that is safe and free from violence, abuse and neglect. This is a foundation of ensuring a quality and inclusive ECEC sector for all.”

We call on the Education Ministers Meeting to take immediate action to address the critical gaps in laws, regulations, policies and enforcement that allow violence, abuse and neglect of children in ECEC to continue. This should include establishing an Independent ECEC Commission as recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2024. Regulators must be adequately resourced to deliver timely assessments of service quality and safety and take action to tackle concerns.

Reforms should be informed by the findings of the Disability Royal Commission and its recommendations should be adapted and implemented in the ECEC sector. This includes prohibiting restrictive practices and strengthening monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure these practices never occur.

Urgent action is needed to ensure every child has access to a safe, high-quality and inclusive early childhood education.

You can download a printable copy of our Press Release here.

Submission of All Means All to the Better and Fairer (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

October 25, 2024 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

On 23 October 2024 All Means All made a submission to the Federal Parliament’s Senate Education and Employment Committee inquiry into the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 (Cth).

The Submission has been endorsed by and represents the views of the following organisations.

We have made the following recommendations in respect of the Bill.

The Bill should set the Federal Government’s minimum funding contribution to students in public education at 25% of the School Resourcing Standard funding (SRS), rather than 20%, with States required to contribute a minimum of 75%. This would safeguard the education of students in public education by ensuring that those students are guaranteed the base level of school resourcing they need to succeed.

The additional 5% of Commonwealth funding is required and should be committed to undertaking desperately needed systemic reforms to improve the capacity of schools to implement inclusive education that benefits all students and address the significant equity gaps in Australian education, particularly affecting students with disability, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those who face additional barriers to education, including:
- reduction in class sizes, an increase in non-teaching hours, professional development and capacity building to support inclusive practices, such as planning and delivery of targeted and individualised adjustments and supports for students who need them;
- the need for widespread implementation of universal design for learning, ensuring that learning materials and environments are designed to be accessible and flexible for all students;
- investment in delivering social-emotional and well-being supports, including for students dealing with trauma, socio-economic disadvantage, mental health or other barriers;
- investment in the development of inclusive and culturally responsive school cultures;
- the use of digital and assistive technologies in schools, such as communication devices, screen readers, and adapted learning tools, which are critical for students with disability to fully participate in their education; and
- upgrade of school facilities to ensure they are universally accessible and include sensory-friendly environments.

The Bill should also remove the allowance made in respect of the contributions of States and Territories, that permits them to count up to 4% of certain operational non-student-related costs as part of their SRS contribution. This allows States and Territories to artificially inflate their reported spending on public education without necessarily directing that funding towards improving student outcomes. While these may be legitimate education-related expenses, they do not directly contribute to student learning in schools and this effectively means that the true SRS level for students in public education will remain at 96%, thus not meeting the minimum level of required direct funding per student to ensure they have the school resourcing they need to succeed.

Increased accountability regarding progressing inclusive education should be embedded in funding agreements with States and Territories.

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement should be amended to ensure “students with disability” are added to the list for Improvement Measures for Year 12 attainment and School attendance. This amendment would align with the Australian Government and state and territory governments supporting the vision for more accessible and inclusive education for school students with disability as articulated in Australia’s Disability Strategy.

You can read our Submission in full here. Please contact us if you require access to another format.

All Means All joins with other organisations in the ‘Better Together, Inclusion for All’ campaign and joint Position Statement on Inclusive Education in NSW

December 21, 2023 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

All Means All has joined with a number of national and NSW systemic and representative disability organisations, to issue the following Position Statement send to NSW Minister for Education, the The Hon. Prue Car MP on 20 December 2023.

Display of logos of Family Advocacy, Children and Young People With Disability Australia, MDAA, Physical Disability Council of NSW, Spinal Cord Injuries Australia, People With Disability Australia, Stroke Recovery Association NSW, Muscular Dystrophy NSW, Mental Health Carers NSW, MND NSW, First People's Disability Network Australia and All Means All.

The Position Statement is as follows and the letter can be downloaded in printable PDF from the Family Advocacy website here.

Dear Ms. Car

We write to you in your role as Minister for Education and Early Learning, specifically in relation to
the Disability Royal Commission (DRC) Final Report, Volume 7, Part A: Inclusive Education.

The key points made by all six Commissioners were (Page 79):

Under article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Australia has
obligations to recognise the rights of people with disability to education. Education is the
starting point for an inclusive society.

We agree with General comment no. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education of the
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that ensuring the right to inclusive education entails:
- a transformation in culture, policy and practice in educational environments to
  accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students
- a commitment to removing the barriers that impede that possibility.
We agree mainstream schools need major reforms to overcome the barriers to safe, equal
and inclusive education. However, the Commissioners hold differing views on certain aspects
of inclusive education.

We support for mainstream schools to have major reforms implemented with clear
timelines, transparency of the process and co-design of people with the lived experience
of disability

All Commissioners agreed that the status quo can no longer be tolerated, stating:

“a safe, quality and inclusive education can only be delivered through significant transformation of the school system. In Part A, ‘Inclusive Education’ we recommend legislative and policy changes, improved procedures and support services, and changes to culture, capability and practice ‘on the ground’. We recommend that these changes are embedded in school practices through enhanced workforce training and support, improved data collection and use, stronger oversight, and greater accountability. Reform at the scale we are proposing requires careful prioritisation and a coordinated approach.”

These suggested changes are reflected in Recommendations 7.1-7.13, listed below.

Recommendation 7.1 Provide equal access to mainstream education and enrolment
Recommendation 7.2 Prevent the inappropriate use of exclusionary discipline against students with disability
Recommendation 7.3 Improve policies and procedures on the provision of reasonable
adjustments to students with disability
Recommendation 7.4 Participation in school communities
Recommendation 7.5 Careers guidance and transition support services
Recommendation 7.6 Student and parental communication and relationships
Recommendation 7.7 Inclusive education units and First Nations expertise
Recommendation 7.8 Workforce capabilities, expertise and development
Recommendation 7.9 Data, evidence and building best practice
Recommendation 7.10 Complaint management
Recommendation 7.11 Stronger oversight and enforcement of school duties
Recommendation 7.12 Improving funding
Recommendation 7.13 National Roadmap to Inclusive Education

We expect Recommendations 7.1-7.13 to be implemented with clear timelines, a transparency of process and co-designed by people with a disability, their families, disability advocacy organisations and disability representative organisations.

We support Recommendation 7.14 to phase out and end segregated education

The DRC heard overwhelming evidence that people living in segregated settings are more likely to experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. All Commissioners agreed that reforms are required to ensure that no one is forced to participate in settings designed exclusively for people with disability. However, Commissioners were split over the future of settings such as special schools.

We agree with Commissioners Galbally, McEwin and Bennett (who have lived experience of
disability) and call on the government to give significant weight to the three Commissioners and accept their Recommendation 7.14. Phasing out and ending special/ segregated education.

Recommendation 7.14 acknowledges the legitimacy of both disabled people’s perspectives and the concerns of some parents. It aligns with Australia’s international human rights obligations under the CRPD and other human rights treaties, aiming to progressively establish a fully inclusive education system. This recommendation proposes a phased and responsible transition, complete with practical, time-bound targets and budgets, to eliminate discrimination through segregation and create a universally accessible, high-quality, and inclusive education system.

Inclusive education can only be achieved through ongoing enhancement of mainstream practices alongside a phased and responsible transition away from segregated approaches. This transition involves moving away from “special” schools, co-located education support units within mainstream school premises, and “special” classes where students are segregated based on their disability. Until we merge the parallel tracks of mainstream and segregated education into a single inclusive pathway to education, regular schools will not undergo the necessary transformation to provide equal and non-discriminatory education to all children, regardless of disability. This alignment is fundamental to realising an inclusive education system where all children attend school, play, grow, and learn together, fostering authentic and reciprocal connections and relationships that promote respect for their diverse differences and contribute to a more inclusive society.

While we acknowledge that the longer timeframe proposed by Commissioners Galbally, McEwin, and Bennett is intended to ensure sufficient time for implementing reforms in mainstream education, the suggested timeframe of ending segregation by 2051 is unduly conservative and risks leaving two more generations of children behind. We strongly recommend that the government tightens this timeframe so less children are impacted negatively by continued segregation.

We, the undersigned, have the expectation that the NSW Government’s response to the DRC
Final Report – Volume 7 – Part A: Inclusive Education must:

Address the major reforms required to overcome barriers to safe, equal and inclusive
education. Accept Recommendations 7.1 – 7.13 and implement them with clear timelines
and transparency of process.
Address the ongoing segregation of students with disability in education. Accept
Recommendation 7.14 Phasing out and ending special/segregated education.

We recognise the implementation of Recommendations 7.1-7.14 will require specific long-term planning and budgetary allocations, involving co-design with people who have the lived
experience of disability, their families, disability advocacy organisations and disability
representative organisations. Ultimately, it will be worthwhile to improve laws, policies, structures and practices to ensure a more inclusive and just society that supports the independence of people with disability and their right to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

Kind regards
Cecile Sullivan Elder, Executive Officer | Family Advocacy

Skye Kakoschke-Moore, Chief Executive Officer | Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA)

Edward Morris, Chief Executive Officer | Physical Disability Council of NSW (PDCN)

Carolyn Hodges, Acting Chief Executive Officer | People with Disability Australia (PWDA)

Graham Opie, Chief Executive Officer | Motor Neurone Disease New South Wales Ltd (MND)

Charlotte Sangster, Chief Executive Officer | Muscular Dystrophy NSW

June Riemer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer | First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN)

Dianne Lucas, Chief Executive Officer | Spinal Cord Injuries Australia (SCIA)

Jonathan Harms, Chief Executive Officer | Mental Health Carers NSW (MHCN)

Yvonne Munce, Acting Executive Director | Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW (MDAA)

Michelle Sharkey, Chief Executive Officer | Stroke Recovery Association NSW

Andrew Wilson, Chairperson | All Means All

All Means All welcomes Dr Rhonda Galbally AC and Stephanie Gotlib

December 16, 2023 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Sunday 17 December 2023

All Means All is thrilled to welcome Dr Rhonda Galbally AC as Patron and Stephanie Gotlib as Executive Director – Government Relations and Advocacy. Following the Disability Royal Commission, NDIS Review and the Review to Form a Better and Fairer Education System we are at a unique moment in time to progress crucial reform and the realisation of quality and inclusive education for students with disability in Australia. It is long overdue that the right to an inclusive education was afforded to all.

Dr Rhonda Galbally AC is a deeply respected and lifelong champion of inclusion and the rights of people with disability.

Dr Rhonda Galbally AC is a former Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People With Disability and a former member of the NDIA Board. She was also the Principal Member of NDIA’s Independent Advisory Council.

Dr Galbally has made significant contributions to Australian and international social development, particularly for people with disability. From 2008-2013, Dr Galbally was the Chair of the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council.

Dr Galbally founded the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and the Australian International Health Institute, now the Nossal Institute. She was also the founding CEO of the Australian Commission for the Future and the Executive Director of the Myer Foundation and Sidney Myer Foundation, Chair of Philanthropy Australia, the Chair of the Royal Women’s Hospital, and the Independent Chair of the competition policy review of medicines, poisons and chemicals. She was the transitional CEO of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency.

Dr Galbally was awarded an Order of Australia in 1990 and the Centenary Medal in 2003, in recognition of her service to the community. In 2012, Dr Galbally was awarded the Prime Minister’s Outstanding Achievement Award in the National Disability Awards and in 2019 she was appointed a Companion (AC) of the Order of Australia.

“We are honoured to welcome Dr Rhonda Galbally as the Patron of All Means All. Her lifelong commitment to the rights of people with disability and access to inclusive education aligns strongly with our mission, and her support magnifies our ability to create the transformative change to which we have a shared commitment. We look forward to shaping a brighter future together for students with disability.” said Mr Andrew Wilson, Board Chair of All Means All.

Stephanie Gotlib is a recognised and influential leader in the not-for-profit and disability advocacy sector.

Stephanie Gotlib is a widely recognised and respected disability advocate and CEO in the not-for-profit sector with more than 25 years of experience. She is currently Asia Pacific Regional Representative for Inclusion International, of which All Means All is a member, and she is also on the Board of Rights and Inclusion Australia.

Stephanie was the Chief Executive Officer of Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) from 2009-2019.

During this time Stephanie was a relentless voice for progressing the right to education for children and young people with disability. She has also served on a broad range of Ministerial Advisory Committees and Expert Advisory Groups.

Stephanie is tasked with leading All Means All’s government stakeholder engagement and advocacy as its Executive Director – Government Relations and Advocacy, ensuring that All Means All continues its important systemic advocacy work and is well positioned to respond to the current reform program nationally in respect of education of students with disability.

“We are thrilled that Stephanie Gotlib will be joining our team at this important time for All Means All following the Disability Royal Commission. She brings invaluable experience and expertise and is a highly respected and effective leader in disability advocacy with a deep understanding of issues of fairness, equal opportunity, inclusion and participation in the community and ’best practice’ in disability rights-based advocacy and practice.” Mr Andrew Wilson, Board Chair of All Means All, said.

Click to access this Announcement in printable PDF.

Submission of All Means All to the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework

July 3, 2023 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

On 1 July 2023 All Means All made a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework.

Our Submission considered primarily the importance of ensuring that Australia’s human rights framework is effective to adequately protect the fundamental human right to education through the enactment of a national Human Rights Act that includes a provision in relation to the right to education that expressly recognises and incorporates each of the following:

the right to education in its general application, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

the right to education as it applies to the situation of people with disability, being the right to inclusive education guaranteed by Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disability and explained by the Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities in its 2016 General Comment No.4;

the right to culturally and linguistically appropriate education for minority groups, which rights are recognised under a range of international human rights instruments such as the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and

intersectionality, being the experience by some Australians of multiple social categorisation or attributes, such as age, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, intersex status and ethnic origin or race, that may lead to multi-layered and cumulative discrimination or disadvantage and materially impact on their human right to education.

You can read our Submission in full here. Please contact us if you require access to another format.

Image © Jon Tyson

ALT: A photograph of a wall and ceiling in a dark room. On the wall there is a neon sign with the single word “all”.

Research on education of students with disability – Concerns with report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People With Disability

June 13, 2023 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Overview

All Means All has considered the research report “Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings for people with disability” published by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation (Disability Royal Commission) and produced by researchers from the University of Melbourne (Outcomes Report) as it relates to education of students with disability. In our view the Outcomes Report should not be relied upon to inform the development of policy in education of students with disability for the following reasons:

substantive methodological and other flaws, including with its purported systematic review of research, that fundamentally undermine the reliability and relevance of its findings and recommendations;
failure to consider the historical context and the use and impact on people with disability of segregation as a systemic practice; and
ethical and human rights concerns, notably in relation to unaddressed bias and the failure to adopt a disability inclusive human rights-based approach to the production of disability research.

It is crucial to clarify from the outset that our intention is not to engage in criticism of anyone who is involved in the production of the Outcomes Report and we acknowledge their efforts. However, we feel compelled to bring attention to certain concerns we have identified and ensure that these concerns are understood, as we believe they may have adverse implications for students with disability and the realisation of their right to inclusive education. By raising these concerns, we also aim to contribute to the overall betterment of research practices in the area of disability and the mitigation of potential harm to people with disability from research that is not aligned with their human rights.

Concerns about the Outcomes Report and its approach

In March 2023 the Disability Royal Commission published the Outcomes Report on its website, which had been commissioned and funded under the Disability Royal Commission’s research program titled ‘A Flourishing Future: The Disability Royal Commission Research Agenda. Section 5 of the Outcomes Report is titled ‘Education’ and purports to provide a systematic review of research in education focussing on ‘severe’ disability (although it is unclear how this was operationalised) to inform the Disability Royal Commission’s inquiry and recommendations.

Following the publication of the Outcomes Report, All Means All requested Dr. Robert Jackson PhD to consider and provide advice about the approach and findings in the Outcomes Report in relation to the education of students with disability. The request was prompted by a range of concerns from All Means All’s stakeholders, including members of the SIPN and SINE Networks of families and inclusive educators, that involved, amongst others, concerns about the findings of the Outcomes Report appearing to be at odds with significant high-quality reviews of education research over many decades and with the way the research was scoped and framed.

Dr. Jackson, an academic expert in the area of inclusive education and disability, has provided his advice to All Means All in a report that can be downloaded here. Dr. Jackson’s report identifies substantive methodological issues with the Outcomes Report that fundamentally undermine the reliability and relevance of its findings and recommendations. For example, inappropriate search strategies for the ‘systematic review’ of research carried out by the authors appear to have resulted in the omission of a significant body of research including important high-quality reviews (e.g. the 2015 meta-analysis by Oh-Young and Filler) as well as the likelihood that data collected from some studies has been considered twice and may have distorted findings.

Dr. Jackson’s report further identifies significant problems with the framing of the research, which neglects to consider the practice of segregation and its impact on people with disability through either a historical or a human rights lens and therefore ‘de-centres’ their voices and their long struggle for equality and inclusion.

In our view and for the reasons set out in Dr Jackson’s report and in this statement, the Outcomes Report, in relation to education at least, should not be relied upon to inform the work of the Disability Royal Commission or the development of policy on the education of students with disability.

More broadly, All Means All also urges researchers working in the area of disability and those who provide funding for the production of disability research, including in education, to adopt a disability inclusive human rights-based approach, as recommended by the international Disability Human Rights Research Network (DHRRN) in accordance with its Protocol for Rights-based Disability Research in all Fields and the CBM-Nossal Partnership for Disability-inclusive Development and Research for Development Impact Network in accordance with its Research for all: Making Development Research Inclusive of People with Disabilities.

The potential for disability research to cause harm

As Dr. Jackson notes in his report, few groups have experienced the extreme oppression at the hands of ‘experts’ that people with disability have experienced over history. In the context of academic research, it is important to acknowledge that some of the practices that persist in the academic world have not only permitted human rights violations, but have also enabled a veil of apparent academic credibility to be provided to perspectives and positions that are contrary to human rights.

In our view, academics who participate in research that is contrary to the rights of people with disability must be sensitive to being seen to be complicit in the violation of those rights.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD), which was negotiated with the substantive participation of people with disability and is considered to be the most authoritative global statement of their human rights, should underpin all research produced in relation to people with disability.

In the area of education, we are aware that knowledge and understanding of the CRPD and the rights and standards it embodies has been shown to be limited among academics and researchers, many of whom continue to produce research that is not disability inclusive or rights-based and which has the potential to significantly damage the future of inclusion for students with disability and the realisation of their right to education. We acknowledge however that an increasing number of academics and researchers in education are aligning their research with the CRPD and other relevant human rights instruments and we welcome this shift.

While the Outcomes Report utilises human rights terminology and references the CRPD it does not adopt a human rights-based approach. As noted by the DHRRN in its Protocol, research that ‘conflicts with, undermines or contradicts the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, even if it is claimed to be ‘rights-based’ is not human rights-based research.

Not only are the approach and recommendations in the Outcomes Report not aligned with the requirements or the goals of the CRPD under Articles 5 and 24, in some instances the Outcomes Report appears to go so far as to criticise the CRPD and some of its cornerstone concepts as ‘simplistic’ (p.3) and to suggest it ‘contains an oversimplified dichotomy’ (p.91) that results in the characterisation of ‘segregation’ as a discriminatory practice that is incompatible with ‘inclusion’. At the same time, the Outcomes Report also seems to assert that the CRPD ‘does not appear to rule out separate settings when deemed appropriate’, despite acknowledging the clear position in General Comment No.4 in relation to segregation (see 5.2.1.3, p 89). Unfortunately, assertions of this nature are deeply misguided and fail to grasp that the status of segregation on the basis of disability as a human rights issue flows from the application of the standards of equality and non-discrimination in international human rights law to the situation of people with disability, which are embodied in Articles 5 and 24 of the CRPD.

General Comment No.4 (Right to Inclusive Education) and General Comment No.6 (Equality and Non-Discrimination) provide guidance from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities about the meaning of Articles 24 and 5 and the status of segregation in education as a form of discrimination that is not compatible with the human right to inclusive education. The issue was also examined at length in the comprehensive advice on Article 24 of the CRPD and General Comment No.4 prepared by international human rights law expert Professor Andrew Byrnes for the Disability Royal Commission and published on its website on 24 June 2022 and which is consistent with All Means All’s own submission to the Disability Royal Commission in respect of this matter, and the 2020 Position Paper ‘Segregation of People With Disability is Discrimination and Must End’ released by the peak national cross-disability representative organisations and endorsed by more than 50 non-government organisations. The status of segregation on the basis of disability, including in education, was also discussed by the two United Nations representatives who gave evidence to the Disability Royal Commission, the Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Catalina Devandas Aguilar and Professor Gerard Quinn. Both made it clear that segregation is at the core of the CRPD, which requires governments to shift their policies away from segregation in order to achieve inclusion.

Disability inclusive rights-based research adopts human rights as the starting point and its approach to research questions is underpinned by how human rights can be achieved. In contrast to this, the Outcomes Report concerns itself with the respective merits of ‘segregation’ and ‘inclusion’ or ‘integration’ and asserts the ‘need to move beyond simplistic notions of physical location or dichotomies of inclusion vs segregation’ (p.3) and adopts instead ‘multi-dimensional typologies’ (a concept that appears to be a more contemporary expression of the pre-CRPD ‘continuum of supports’ concept) which, by implication, could include segregation on the basis of disability. In doing this, the authors would seem to have positioned themselves, in spite of the applicable human rights norms, as arbiters of whether or not segregation is a legitimate practice for some people with disability, while failing to interrogate the practice of segregation in any meaningful way or to provide robust evidence in its favour. Indeed, as noted by Dr. Jackson, the starting point for the Outcomes Report appears to be the assumption that segregation is beneficial and that until a threshold for research evidence on outcomes for inclusion is met, segregation is justified. This in itself is highly problematic not only as an issue of research methodology and unaddressed bias, but also because it raises significant ethical concerns as an approach that seeks to make the realisation of the human rights of people with disability conditional on positive research outcomes.

We are disappointed that the Outcomes Report has been funded and published by the Disability Royal Commission, not only because of its significant flaws, but also because it represents a missed opportunity to fund and support disability inclusive rights-based research to actually improve outcomes for disabled people. We do not see value in more research into the respective merits of education models that do not meet CRPD standards; the value is in research on how we can ensure that education systems are transformed to ensure those standards are met for all children and young people with disability in all schools, so that they too can realise their fundamental right to inclusive education. How do we ensure that inclusive social and academic supports are able to be delivered in every class? How do we successfully transition out of the current predominant ‘integration’ and ‘segregation’ models that comprise our existing ‘dual path’ system, into a system where, as a baseline standard, every school is a universally accessible, quality and inclusive school? How can we ensure that funding is allocated and used effectively to ensure an inclusive education system? How do we stamp out ableism and build inclusive school cultures that foster mutual respect and connection among diverse student populations? How do we promote among all stakeholders the understanding and recognition of the equal rights of students with disability to access education in regular classrooms?

The CRPD and General Comment No.4 make the goal of inclusion clear but disability inclusive rights-based research has a role to play in how we achieve that goal. The ACIE Roadmap is an attempt to identify the outcomes that need to occur to achieve that goal, stepped out over the next 10 years. The Outcomes Report not only fails to make a contribution that may be of value in working towards the goal of inclusive education, it has the flaws to undermine its achievement.

We agree with Dr. Jackson’s conclusion that the Outcomes Report is deeply problematic. If its findings and recommendations were to be relied upon, ‘it is difficult to see anything of significance changing for people with disability, who continue to experience poor rates of school completion, postschool study, and employment, as well as of poverty and community participation.’

For more information you can contact All Means All on: hello@allmeansall.org.au

You can also download a copy of this statement in printable PDF here and Dr Jackson’s report here.

www.allmeansall.org.au

All Means All joins peak student bodies and advocacy organisations calling for systemic reforms in disability and higher education in Australia

November 14, 2022 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Content warning: Sexual assault and harassment, ableism.

All Means All has joined the National Union of Students (NUS), the Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA), the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA), the Grace Tame Foundation and more than thirty bodies including its Co-Convenor on the ACIE Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education, Children and Young People People with Disability Australia (CYDA), as well as other ACIE member organisations such as Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) and other disability sector leaders such as People with Disability Australia (PWDA), National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN) and the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO), to demand the higher education sector to take strong measures to address discrimination experienced by people with disability in Australia.

The joint position statement and research report — titled ‘Disability & Higher Education in Australia’ — leverages case studies, stakeholder consultations, and interdisciplinary research to scrutinise and investigate the extent of structural ableism within Australia’s higher education sector and to highlight the urgency of the need for systemic reform: discrimination facing disabled staff and students are noted to be systemic, with only 17 per cent of disabled Australians attaining a Bachelor’s degree compared with 35 per cent of non-disabled Australians.

The joint position statement and research report also addresses the need to reform Australia’s broken anti-discrimination laws that are failing to ensure students with disability are able to access reasonable adjustments and reasonable accommodations and are enabling universities to avoid compliance with those laws with little to no consequences.

Other issues reported in the joint position statement and research report include rescheduling of classes on short notice, inaccessible classrooms and inconsistent policies on assistance animals — as well as heightened rates of sexual assault and harassment and vilification against disabled people on campuses.

“The National Student Safety Survey showed Disabled students were more than twice as likely to experience SASH on campus, consistent with the numbers seen through the Disability Royal Commission,” said NUS Disabilities Officer Georgie McDaid. “This is a duty of care problem, and it’s simply not good enough.”

Among calls to action in the report is a request that the Albanese Government should raise the level of financial support offered by AUSTUDY, ABSTUDY and the Disability Support Pension above the Henderson Poverty Line, as well as undertaking urgent reform of Australia’s anti-discrimination laws — especially the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth).

The research report is also calling upon government bodies — such as the Australian Human Rights Commission — to conduct investigations into structural ableism and sexual assault and harassment on university campuses experienced by disabled students.

“Our higher education system is physically locking out students barring them from opportunities,” said NUS President Georgie Beatty.

Action is long overdue and the higher education sector must now listen, reflect and take action to ensure meaningful access to education and opportunity.

“The current legislation is negatively impacting student wellbeing,” said ALSA President Annabel Biscotto.

“Enough is enough. It is time that students with disabilities feel as comfortable and accommodated within the classroom as their neurotypical peers,” said ALSA Vice President (External) Theo Totsis. “Denying us such liberties causes us to spiral and suffocate. Even I, being in my 6th year and diagnosed with autism and ADHD 18 years ago, have still not been made to feel otherwise.”

Click here or the image below to download the Disability & Higher Education Report and Recommendations in Australia in PDF.

Click here to download in Word format.

Media enquiries:

Annabel Biscotto

Australian Law Students’ Association

+61 400 206 011 | president@alsa.asn.au | https://alsa.asn.au

Georgie Beatty

National Union of Students

+61 411 606 808 | president@nus.asn.au | https://nus.asn.au

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.

Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia

July 19, 2020 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia

The Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education (ACIE) has released ‘Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia’ .

ACIE pillars.PNG

“Our Roadmap is underpinned by six key pillars to help realise inclusive education in Australia and prevent the violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of students with disability. These pillars are drawn from the evidence base and embed the rights of students as set out in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).”

The Roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia has two key sections:

the outcomes that need to occur, stepped out over the next 10 years; and
the key levers for change needed to realise these outcomes.

_______________________________

ACIE is an initiative bringing together organisations that share a commitment to advance inclusive education in Australia and across state and territory education systems, including government and non-government schools.

ACIE members 2.png

_______________________________

The ‘Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia’ has also been endorsed by the following organisations:

Further endorsements:

Appendix (1)

_______________________________

If you are an organisation and would like to endorse ‘Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia’, please contact the Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education here.

The Education Issues Paper – Submissions to the Disability Royal Commission

December 9, 2019 by allmeansall Leave a Comment

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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