Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

Australian alliance for inclusive education

The Education Issues Paper – Submissions to the Disability Royal Commission

by Leave a Comment

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

Education Submissions and Education Issues Paper

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

Due Date

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

FAQ Sheets – Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education

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

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

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

Rebranding segregation – a rose by any other name …

by Leave a Comment

The European Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks recently commented upon the failure of many European countries to understand their obligations under the United Nations  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  (CRPD) – including in relation to the right to inclusive education under Article 24.

He also identified the practice of “rebranding” of segregated education to avoid committing to make education systems genuinely inclusive:

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

The Commissioner made these comments just prior to releasing his position paper reviewing the last 5 years of the implementation of Article 24 of the CRPD across European jurisdictions, entitled “Fighting School Segregation in Europe through Inclusive Education”.  That paper notes that:

“Separate schooling of children with disabilities is a widespread practice across Europe notwithstanding the fact that Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) imposes on states a duty to ensure that children with disability can access ‘an inclusive, quality primary and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which the live.’” [p7]

Article 24.1, which also applies to Australia as a State Party to the CRPD, provides that “State Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels … .”

Article 24.2 of the CRPD further requires State Parties to ensure that:

  1. Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, …;
  2. 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;
  3. Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;
  4. Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education; and
  5. Effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.”

The meaning of “inclusive education” and the scope of Article 24 were recently clarified in  General Comment No. 4 which was issued on 26 August 2016 by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Committee).  General Comment No.4 highlights the need to distinguish between  “exclusion”, “segregation”, “integration” and “inclusion” and provides definitions for those terms (paragraph 11).  Notably, it provides 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.”

Ambiguity as to what is meant by “inclusive education” has, to some extent, complicated efforts to implement inclusive education systems.  It has certainly made it easier for systems that are averse to change and desegregation to argue that educational segregation of students with disability is a legitimate part of an inclusive education system (see “Towards inclusion: an Australian perspective” (2007), Fiona Forbes).  It has also contributed to the “rebranding” of segregated models in seemingly more “palatable” guises, especially in light of increasing calls for the implementation of inclusive education from a moral, human rights and best evidence perspective.

For over 40 years, the body of relevant research into education of students with disability has overwhelmingly established that inclusive education produces 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 better than in segregated or partially segregated environments where children are segregated for part of their school day.

Source:  “A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education“ (2017).

General Comment No. 4 has now made it clear 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.

There is a wide range of names that are sometimes given to segregated education facilities or classrooms across the Australian education system.  If you are unsure whether a segregated environment is being proposed for your child, either for all of their school time or for part of it, it is important to ask questions to identify the nature of the arrangement, regardless of what it is called.  At a fundamental level, is your child being grouped with other students with disabilities in separate environments in isolation from students without disabilities?  If so, then education is going to be delivered to your child in a segregated setting to the extent that they are within that separate setting, which is incompatible with their right to an inclusive education.  The fact that the separate segregated setting may be co-located with or even within a regular school does not make the setting “inclusive”.

The following are some examples of names that are given to segregated education settings for students with disability or where students who are labelled as having learning or behaviour issues are segregated – in some cases they are “official” names, in others they are the “colloquial” names used by educators, students and families.

ACT:

Achievement Centre

Flexible Learning Centre

Learning Studio

Learning Support Centres (LSC)

Learning Support Units (LSU)

Learning Support Units Autism (LSU-A)

Multi Categorical Class

Specialist School

Northern Territory:

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Program

Specialist Centre

Specialist Program

Specialist School

New South Wales:

Disability Program

Early Intervention Unit

Education Support Unit (ESU)

Emotionally Disturbed (ED) Class

Learning Program With Specialised Staff

Personalised Learning and Support

Reading Recovery Program

School for Specific Purposes (SSP)

Special Class

Special Needs Support

Specialist Support Class

Special School

Support Class

Support Unit

Life Skills Class

Queensland:

Alternate Class (A1)

At-School Camp (Autism Program)

Diverse Learning Program

Early Childhood Development Program (ECDP)

Education and Therapy Centres (Autism Schools)

Individual Curriculum Plan (ICP) Classes

Learning Enrichment Centre

Life Skills Program

Resource Centre

Structured Learning Environment

Special Assistance School

Special Education Program (SEP)

Special Education Unit (SEU)

Specialist School

Technology Club (Autism Program)

South Australia:

Autism Intervention Program

Disability Unit

Education Centre

Inclusive Preschool Program (IPP)

Interception Room

Life Education Curriculum/Class

Nurture Class

Oral Aural Unit

Special Education Centre

Special Needs Centre

Special Options Class

Special School

Victoria:

Learning Support Unit/Class

Special Developmental School

Specialist School

Western Australia

Education Support Centre

Education Support Primary School

Education Support Unit

Inclusive Learning Unit

This not an exhaustive list, but some examples that have been provided to us by families and educators.  If you are aware of any other names for these types of settings, please contact us so that we can continue to add to this list.

[Cover photo © Anton Sukhinov]

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

The Human Right to an Inclusive Education

by 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:

  1. Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, …;
  2. 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;
  3. Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;
  4. Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;
  5. 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.

[Cover photo © Thomas Galvez]

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?

by 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.

Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 11.46.10 PM

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]

alana-1

  •  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]

alana-2

  • 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]

  1. [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.
  2. [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.
  3. [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.
  4. [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.
  5. [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.
  6. [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.
  7. [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.]

[Cover photo © Ben White; other photos © Alana Institute]

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

Your Child’s IEP – Guide for Families on Personalised Plans for Learning and Support

by Leave a Comment

What is an IEP?

An Individual Education Plan (IEP) (also known by other names including Individual Learning Plan or ILP) may be developed for a student with disabilities or a complex learning profile.  An IEP is about access and equity in education and should consider the “reasonable adjustments” that need to be made to provide students with access to teaching, learning and the schooling experience generally.  The provision of reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities is mandated by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education which apply across Australia.

IEPs enable Australian schools to demonstrate that they have met their legal obligations to:

  • ensure that students with disabilities participate in education and training on the same basis as non-disabled students;
  • plan for and provide teaching and learning adjustments for students with disabilities; and
  • consult with the student’s parents or guardian (their “associate” under the Disability Standards for Education) in developing the educational plan and formulating any appropriate adjustments.

Why are IEP meetings important?

IEP planning meetings or “case conferences” are important because they document the teaching and learning adjustments for your child and the formal goals or objectives that your child’s school team will be pursuing for the next school period, usually 3 to 6 months.

It is your chance to influence the goals that are set and how the school will endeavour to achieve them.  As a parent, you know your child and your input will be valuable in the team considering what academic and social goals should be pursued, when they should be pursued and how best to achieve them.

You are involved to ensure that the IEP outcomes are in the best interests of your child and to bring your long term vision and aspirations for your child to the table.

Don’t undervalue the importance of your role in the IEP process.

Remember, your child only grows up once, so take the time and effort to maximise the long-term outcomes of their schooling experience.

Who comes to IEP meetings?

IEP planning meetings involve your child’s teacher and, if your child is supported by an education or teaching assistant, the assistant might also attend.  The meeting will usually involve a senior school administrator, such as the principal or a deputy principal, and perhaps the school psychologist. Some larger schools will also involve a staff member specifically responsible for administration relating to students with disabilities and complex learning profiles.

At least one parent or guardian will need to attend the IEP meeting on behalf of their child.  Depending on your child’s age and preference, your child should also be invited to attend the IEP meeting.

If a parent does not comfortable attending on their own, they should try to reschedule so that their partner can attend or notify the school that they wish to attend with a friend or another trusted adult to support them.  In that case it is important for the parent to always discuss their intended approach and desired outcomes for the IEP meeting with any person accompanying them so that they are both “on the same page” and understand their respective roles.

Schools will usually allow parents to also invite relevant external professionals, such as a medical professional, psychologist, physiotherapist, occupational therapist or a speech therapist.  However, you should notify the school of any proposed external professional attendee and be prepared to explain why it would be beneficial or reasonable for them to participate.

How often should you meet for an IEP?

Your school will contact you to schedule the proposed IEP planning meeting at a date, time and place mutually agreeable to you and the school.

There should be an IEP meeting at least twice a year.  It is common for an IEP to be developed at a meeting a month or two after the beginning of the school year, and for the IEP to be reviewed and updated at a meeting a month or two after the middle of the school year. However, you can ask for an IEP meeting at any time if you feel it is needed to address concerns or issues about your child’s schooling. The first point of contact to arrange a meeting is usually your child’s teacher.

If you are having a mid-year IEP meeting, it may also be an opportunity to raise your child’s teachers and assistant support for the following year as schools often start their planning processes at that time.

What types of things will the IEP cover?

Your child’s IEP is likely to focus on some or all of the following and the supports and adjustments required in respect of them:

  • academic strategies and progress
  • communication strategies and progress
  • physical health and needs
  • independence skills, including building capacity to study and self-care independently
  • socialisation skills and peer connection issues
  • general emotional well being
  • self-regulation and behaviour skills.

Before the IEP Meeting

Preparation is key to successful IEP meetings.  There may well be a difference between a “smooth” IEP meeting and an IEP meeting that results in outcomes in the best interest of your child. Your input as a parent may result in the school changing or qualifying the goals and strategies that they were proposing – that is not a “bad” IEP meeting – that is a constructive “two way” IEP meeting and is why you are involved as your child’s ultimate representative.

It is important to prepare for the IEP meeting by:

  • having a Vision for your child

If you haven’t already, try to write down your Vision for your child’s future life as well as their life at school. Each goal that is formulated for your child at an IEP should be considered against that Vision – is it on the path to or consistent with achieving that Vision ? For example, if you imagine an inclusive life for your child, as a part of his or her community, having meaningful social relationships, then you should consider whether your child’s proposed IEP goals and how they are proposed to be implemented support achieving that Vision.  Share your Vision with the school.  Your Vision should guide both you and the school.

One of the principal barriers that people with disabilities face is the culture of low expectations within broader society. As a parent, they way you talk about your child, their disability and their right to learn can influence your child’s self perception and, equally as importantly, the attitudes and expectations of their school team.

  • talking with your child about school

Discuss school with your child and try to get a sense of their feelings, attitude and any worries about school. Other significant people in your child’s life, like their siblings and friends, may also add useful insights. If your child will be attending the IEP meeting, plan for this so you can support your child in being heard and understood.

  • try to ascertain what new goals the school is considering

Talk with your child’s teacher about what new goals are being considered for the IEP meeting or ask for a copy of the proposed IEP in advance – some schools will be happy to provide you with a draft IEP for you to consider.

  • reflecting on your child’s strengths and requirement for supports

You know your child better than anyone.  You know what skills they have mastered and which skills they need support with.

  • reflecting on strategies that work at home

Strategies that work at home (including use of technology or apps, social stories, pictorial aids, schedules, etc) are good starting points for the classroom.  Share your insights at the meeting.

  • writing down school successes to acknowledge and questions you would like to raise

Both your child’s teacher and you are trying to maximise academic and social outcomes for your child. Not all ideas will work.  Some need to be modified, some replaced with new strategies.  But when they do work, acknowledge and celebrate successes. Importantly, IEPs are also an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with your child’s school team so take the opportunity to reflect on the successes that you have observed, write them down and share them at the IEP meeting.

When previous IEP strategies don’t go to plan, learn from the experience in trying a different approach.  If you are interested in exploring or suggesting a particular approach to an issue, consider whether there is research or evidence to support it and provide to the teacher, in advance if possible, any relevant articles that you may have identified. Remember that teachers are busy so consider pointing to or highlighting the relevant areas and be mindful not to provide more information than is necessary.

When you don’t know the answer but want to raise a query – write down the question and ask it at the IEP meeting.  Different perspectives help the quality of the goal setting and formulation of strategies to achieve them.

  • thinking about any external professional that you consider should also attend the IEP planning meeting

Planning for and addressing your child’s needs may well benefit from expert advice from time to time.  If in doubt, ask a trusted professional whether they think they should attend in person or by teleconference.  In some cases, the professional may suggest that a brief letter to the school may be enough.  However, it is important to ensure that the professional understands your Vision for your child and their advice is for the purpose of supporting your child to access education.

As a matter of courtesy, notify the school if you plan to invite an external professional and briefly explain why you think their attendance would be beneficial.

  • Gather all documents to which you may need to refer at the meeting

These could be school letters, report cards, medical certificates, etc.

The more prepared and organised you are, the better the chance that the matters you wish to raise will be considered and addressed.

At the IEP meeting

Share or reaffirm your Vision for your child. Success is more likely to be achieved when everyone has the same ultimate outcomes in mind.

When discussing potential IEP goals with the school, remember the acronym “SMART“.

As a general guide, IEP goals should be:

  • S = Specific – goals need to be clear to be capable of being implemented.
  • M = Measurable – progress towards the goal must be objectively measurable.
  • A = Attainable – don’t agree to a goal that is clearly unrealistic at that time.
  • R = Relevant – how does each goal relate to your child’s education and your vision.
  • T = Timely – An agreed timeline for each goal will guide efforts to achieve it.

For examples of the kinds of outcomes that are likely to be proposed and the types of questions to ask when applying SMART to each goal, a great resource is the Developmental Disability WA’s booklet “Documented Plans” (click here).

Many parents like to take notes of matters discussed in IEP meetings or instead “bring a friend” who can take notes for them so they can focus on the discussion.   Remember that if you are bringing someone along as a note-taker, you should make sure in advance that you both understand your respective roles at the meeting.

Other things to consider in developing IEP goals:

  • Curriculum adjustments: for children with intellectual or cognitive impairment, unless adjustments are provided, they may not be able to participate in the class lesson and progress academically.  Curriculum adjustments are not an alternative program and must not result in students being left in a corner of the class, doing their own separate lesson disengaged from the rest of the class. (You can read more about universal design and curriculum adjustments in this parent resource here.)
  • Education assistant support: its important to ask specific questions about your child’s support. How often and when is support being provided? Will there be an education or  teacher assistant and if so how many and when?  Where possible, when exploring aide support it is important that the student be consulted.  The relationship between your child and their education assistant is critical to its success. Remember that close aide support for a student, especially over time, is not always the best approach to maximising academic and particularly social outcomes.  (You can read more about this here.)
  • Behaviour support approaches:  for students who are seen by their school as having “behaviour challenges”, it is important to get a clear understanding of how the school is proposing to support your child (specifically whether through traditional “disciplinary” approaches or more positive behaviour supports that seek to identify unmet need and recognise behaviour as a form of communication – you can read about this in our Parent Toolkit).   In some cases, schools may already have in place a behaviour plan that parents are not necessarily aware of, so you may like to ask whether that is the case for your child.  If there are any strategies that the school is using with which are harmful (such as those involving restraint or seclusion) or with which you disagree or are not comfortable, it important to express this clearly to your child’s school (you can read more about this here.)

Agreeing to the proposed IEP

You will usually be asked to sign the IEP at the end of the IEP planning meeting to show that you agree with its content.

However, if you are unsure about some aspect of the IEP, you should say that you would like to take a copy and to have a little more time to consider it.  Taking a couple of days to consider the IEP is not unreasonable given that its content usually guide the next 3 to 6 months of your child’s schooling.

If you and the school are not able to reach agreement, the matter will usually be resolved or escalated as follows:

  • a further meeting between you and the teacher.
  • a meeting between you and the principal (with the teacher attending if appropriate)
  • an appeal to your Regional Education Office for assistance in resolving the issue -this should involve an independent review of the situation and may include mediation.  You State’s Education Department’s website should contain the relevant contact information.

It should be appreciated that the higher a disagreement is escalated, the greater the impact on the subsequent working relationship between your family and the teacher and the school.  As such, it is important to try to resolve disagreements as quickly and as cordially as possible, to minimise unnecessarily adversarial outcomes.

If after signing an IEP you have second thoughts about some aspect of it, talk to your child’s teacher.  Addressing the issue promptly by asking the school to consider revising the IEP is better than wishing, at the next IEP meeting in 6 months time, that you had voiced your concern earlier.

Follow-up actions after an IEP

It is a good idea to write a note or email to your child’s teacher and the staff who attended the IEP meeting to thank them for their time and efforts – particularly when you feel that they have worked with you and taken your views into account.  This also provides an opportunity to reaffirm your Vision for your child and will help to ensure that the relationship with your child’s IEP team remains positive and constructive.

The implementation of the IEP will be the responsibility of the school.  However, consider how what you do outside of school hours may be able to assist your child in meeting the IEP goals.  The quicker the goals are met, the quicker new goals can be set in realising your vision for your child.

Resources

The Australian government has developed its own resource, Planning for Personalised Learning and Support: A National Resource, to support personalised planning and learning for students with disabilties, based on the obligations that schools have under the Commonwealth  Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005, and covers issues such as consultation with parents and students.

 

About Us

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

Want to learn more

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