Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

Australian alliance for inclusive education

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

by Leave a Comment

DateContact
19 March 2025Stephanie 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.

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

by 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

Open Letter to National Cabinet: Immediate Actions Required for Australians with Disability – COVID-19

by Leave a Comment

We are a diverse range of organisations from across Australia, representing the interests of people with disability, their families, carers and support persons. Collectively, we have significant, direct and growing knowledge of the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on people with disability in Australia.

Australians with disability represent some of the most excluded of all Australians in relation to the impacts of Coronavirus. Our needs remain largely forgotten as evidenced by the fact that people with disability are rarely if ever, mentioned in any press conference, media release or government conversation about Coronavirus. The national discourse relating to Coronavirus is inherently ableist – preferencing able-bodied people as the norm. This ableist discourse is resulting in the exclusion of people with disability in efforts to prevent the spread of and address, the impact of the Coronavirus.

We are deeply concerned by the lack of specific and targeted measures from Australian Governments to proactively protect and support people with disability, their families, carers and support persons from the impact of COVID-19.

We call on all Australian Governments to take the following urgent actions to protect the lives of Australians with disability in the context of COVID19

  1. Guarantee continuity of supports for all people with disability.
  2. Expand criteria for COVID19 testing to include people with disability and their support persons.
  3. Urgently improve information and communications to be inclusive of all people with disability.
  4. Take measures to remove the barriers to adequate healthcare for people with disability.
  5. Include recipients of the Disability Support Pension (DSP) in the Coronavirus Supplement of $550 per fortnight.
  6. Urgently define what constitutes an ‘essential service’ for people with disability.
  7. Ensure effective measures are in place to recognise and respond to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of people with disability.
  8. Prevent discrimination of students with disability in the provision of education.
  9. Ensure the human rights of people with disability in congregate and other settings are upheld.
  10. Adequately resource Disabled Peoples Organisations (DPOs) and Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) to enable support of, and advocacy for, people with disability.

View the full Open Letter in Downloadable PDF

View the full Open Letter in Word

View the Open Letter in Plain English (Word)

View the Open Letter in Easy English (PDF)

First Peoples Disability Network
Women with Disabilities Australia
People with Disability Australia
National Ethnic Disability Alliance
Children and Young People with Disability Australia
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations
Disability Advocacy Network Australia
Deaf Australia
Autism Aspergers Advocacy Australia
Deafblind Australia
Deafness Forum of Australia
Brain Injury Australia
Inclusion Australia
Blind Citizens Australia
Down Syndrome Australia
Physical Disability Australia
Every Australian Counts
Disability Resources Centre Advocacy
Ideas
Disability Justice Australia
Enhanced Lifestyles
National Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum
Imagine More
Advocacy Western Australia
Midland Information Debt and Legal Advocacy Service
Melbourne East Disability Advocacy
Queensland Advocacy Incorporated
Family Advocacy
Grampians Disability Advocacy
Syndromes Without A Name
Advocacy Tasmania
Southwest Advocacy Association
Victorian Rural Advocacy Network
Assert 4 All
Colac Otway Region Advocacy Service
Disability Information and Advocacy Service
Gipplsland Disability Advocacy
Community Resource Unit
AED Legal Centre
ANTaR
Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health
People with Disabilities Western Australia
Association for Children with Disability Tasmania
Association for Children with a Disability Victoria
All Means All
Queensland Collective for Inclusive Education
Southern Disability Advocacy
Rights Information and Advocacy Centre
Regional Disability Advocacy Service
Youth Disability Advocacy Service
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services
Spinal Cord Injuries Australia
Barwon Disability Resource Council
North East Citizen Advocacy
Julia Farr Youth
Leadership Plus
VALID
Women with Disabilities Victoria
Citizens Advocacy Perth West
Speakout Advocacy
Developmental Disability WA
Women with Disabilities ACT
Council for Intellectual Disability
Citizen Advocacy Sunbury
South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability
Parent to Parent Queensland
People with Disabilities ACT
Aspergers Victoria
Disability Advocacy and Complaints Service of South Australia
Disability Advocacy Victoria

The Education Issues Paper – Submissions to the Disability Royal Commission

by Leave a Comment

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

Education Submissions and Education Issues Paper

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

Due Date

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

FAQ Sheets – Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education

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

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

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

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

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Inclusive Education Fact Sheet – UN Review of Australia 2019

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Leave a Comment

All Means All

Submission

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

26 July 2019

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education

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

 

 

Click the PDF icon to READ and PRINT.  

 

Also available in PLAIN ENGLISH format. 

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

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.