Preface
AUSTRALIAN
SENATE
Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education
REFERENCES COMMITTEE
10 December 2002
Senator
George Campbell
Chair
Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education Committee
Parliament
House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Campbell
The subcommittee formed to deal with the inquiry into the
education of students with disabilities has completed its report and has made
unanimous recommendations.
We commend this report to the full committee.
Yours sincerely
Senator
Kim Carr
Subcommittee
Chair
|
|
|
|
Senator
Lyn Allison
|
Report formally adopted by the committee on 10 December 2002
for tabling in the Senate.
|
|
|
Senator
John Tierney
|
|
|
Senator
George Campbell
Chair
|
Preface
This inquiry has highlighted problems and challenges facing
not only those most immediately concerned with the education of people with
disabilities, but governments and school systems concerned with the totality of
education decision making. Reading the evidence to the inquiry, listening to
witnesses and visiting schools gave the committee some insight into the
anxieties and stress endured by parents in attempting to obtain the best
educational outcomes for their children. A degree of frustration was evident in
a substantial number of submissions from parents. Less well documented was
evidence of teacher frustration from having to deal with a wide range of
learning needs and, sometimes, manifestations of behaviour associated with
disabilities which they may not be equipped to handle. Nonetheless, the
committee received sufficient insight into classroom problems to suggest that
dealing with the needs of students with disabilities contributed to increased
stress among teachers.
This inquiry arises from two concerns the committee has
about the effectiveness of Commonwealth programs affecting the teaching of
students with disabilities in schools and in post-secondary education. The
first concern is that children and their parents are not being given the
support that they need in the education systems. Many parents are under a
double disadvantage: having children with either multiple disabilities or
coming from a socially disadvantaged background. This is a human rights issue
of considerable significance. Social justice demands that students with
disabilities should have equal access to education. Commonwealth, state and
territory anti-discrimination legislation support this fundamental principle,
yet there still appear to be marked disparities in the quality of educational
opportunities offered to students with disabilities. The committee was
disappointed with the failure of the nation’s peak education body, the
Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
(MCEETYA) to finalise education standards at its July 2002 meeting. This is a
failure at the national level to recognise the paramount issue of equity in the
provision of services to those with disabilities.
The second concern of the committee arises from the first:
whether Commonwealth funding is being effectively targeted at deficiencies in
the provision of education programs for students with disabilities, at school
and system levels, and in post‑secondary
education. There is unambiguous evidence of under-resourcing of programs aimed
at bringing students with disabilities into the mainstream of learning; as well
as funding inconsistencies between states. More significantly, there is
evidence that under-resourcing reflects the wider problem of diminishing
resources for the education of all people.
When the committee refers to resourcing, it intends this to
mean not only to what is in the budget, but what is in the stock of human and
social capital needed to secure good educational outcomes and happy and
productive people with a sense of self-worth. Much evidence was received that
the shortfall in the ‘attitude’ budget was indicative of a problem more serious
than a shortage of funds. This is the context in which the committee records
its conclusions and makes its recommendations.
Any Senate inquiry will give particular attention to funding
policy and financial arrangements. The Commonwealth does not run schools or
universities, but there is a clear link in education funding through the States
Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000 and the Higher
Education Funding Act 1988 from the Parliament to the recipients of
Commonwealth funding. This committee has an interest in the use to which funds
are put and the validity of evaluations of program outputs. It looks for
indications that there is a transparent process though which recipients are
able to account for the ways in which Commonwealth funds are spent.
The committee received many submissions from representative
bodies in the non-government school sector about the problems of meeting the
needs of a growing number of students with disabilities in the sector. Around
20 per cent of students with disabilities attend non-government schools. Given
the extent of Commonwealth funding for this sector, the committee was surprised
to find how little these students were supported. The committee accepts that
funding disability education in all school sectors will continue to be
problematic but argues that any review of funding arrangements for the non
government sector must be considered in the context of the total resources
already available to that sector.
Similarly, most submissions from the post-secondary school
sector told of the financial difficulty of meeting the support needs of
students with disabilities. When viewed against a context of diminishing public
funding and a growing number of students with increasingly complex
disabilities, this situation is unlikely to improve. Students with disabilities
are under represented in post-secondary education and while evidence suggests
that this sector has comprehensive systems and procedures in place to support
these students, many continue to be disadvantaged by their disability. In part
this results from students having to bear the financial costs of studying with
a disability, with less likelihood of their being able to supplement their incomes
from employment. Compounding the disadvantage is a general lack of awareness
about inclusive teaching practices by teaching staff.
The committee heard evidence that the proportion of students
with an identified disability is increasing, relative to the overall student
population. Early diagnosis of physical and sensory disability and improved
early medical intervention is making educational prospects easier for some.
There are problems, however, in dealing with increased numbers of children
suffering from autism and from various learning disabilities. School education
authorities have been generally reluctant to define learning disabilities; with
most states using the same remedial programs to meet the needs of students with
learning disabilities as they use for a student who is having learning
difficulties. For a student with a diagnosed learning disability this may be
neither sufficient nor appropriate. The committee recognises the importance of
reaching national agreement on the definition and assessment of learning
disabilities, and for the purposes of this report defines a learning disability
as a neurological impairment that is intrinsic to the individual and is life
long. A person with a learning disability will have severe and prolonged difficulties
in the acquisition and development of expected literacy, numeracy and reasoning
skills given at least average intelligence and in the absence of other causal
factors. Few interest groups and individuals write submissions to parliamentary
inquiries reporting that all is well with the policy under consideration, and
recommending that it continue. The committee accepts that not all students and
parents who share the burdens of coping with a disability, are adversely
affected by current policy and practices. There are many dedicated, gifted and
knowledgeable teachers offering excellent programs catering for students with a
range of disabilities. The committee saw some of them in action. Nonetheless,
although satisfied parents and students do not usually write submissions,
neither do many, perhaps most, of those whose experiences are far less happy.
The evidence from many submissions and from witnesses who
appeared before the committee gives the clear impression that quality education
for students with disabilities is a scarce commodity in schools generally. A
picture has emerged of students affected by disabilities taught in many cases
by teachers unskilled or lacking confidence in their ability to involve them in
the full curriculum, resulting in these students performing at less than their
full capability, and being regarded as marginal participants in the activities
of the school community. Evidence also indicates that there is a considerable
level of unmet need, especially in the area of learning disabilities. The
committee was told of exceptional schools, not to be included in this
generalisation. A number of particular schools were commended for their
achievements in regard to inclusion policies and successful educational
outcomes. Well-informed witnesses left the committee with a strong impression
that such schools are in a select minority.
The committee received much evidence of a serious and
worsening skills shortage among teachers who increasingly find students with
disabilities assigned to their classes. Teachers are not always prepared for
this experience, and unskilled in methods which involve teaching across a wide
spectrum of abilities, capabilities and disabilities. They are often unsure of
dealing with the classroom dynamics that are affected by the presence of
students with different disabilities, particularly in secondary schools. For
the most part, trainee teachers receive insufficient exposure to the theory and
practice of dealing with students with disabilities. Of much greater concern is
the unlikelihood of most teachers already in service receiving adequate
professional development in this area. This represents a sadly wasted
opportunity to graft specialised knowledge and skills effectively onto general
experience and confidence which develops as teachers settle into their
profession.
The training deficit is exacerbated by the decline in the
specialist knowledge base of the profession. Staff rationalisations over the
past decade have reduced the number of specialists as it has been assumed that
with inclusion policies now broadly accepted, classroom teachers will develop
skills in areas that were once the domain of specialists. The closure of a
number of special schools, a policy given broad support, has nonetheless
resulted in an overall loss of expertise. The remaining specialists attached to
schools are often as lonely and isolated as the students in whose interests
they are working. There is now a serious shortage of specialists in areas of
sensory disabilities as well as in autism and learning disabilities. As
specialist education training is regarded by universities as ‘demand driven’,
there are fewer course options available to teachers who want to specialise,
and a number of universities have ceased offering such courses entirely.
The training deficit needs to be urgently addressed, and an
attitudinal change to professional development is long overdue. The report of
this committee on the status of teachers, tabled in 1998, pointed to the
institutional weaknesses in the programs now conducted, and the adverse effects
of devolution of responsibility onto schools. The committee takes the view that
effective professional development in the area of disabilities requires
programs to be properly structured and sustained over a period of time, involving
both theoretical material and active involvement in practical ‘best practice’
experiences. Quality professional development comes at a cost. If the outcomes
of this training result in attitudinal change in regard to inclusive education,
improved teaching methods and increased levels of pedagogical and technical
skills, these costs will be justified.
This report includes a chapter on inclusive education
because this policy is widely accepted as likely to lead to the most desirable
learning outcome for students. Inclusive education also recognises the human
rights and equal entitlements of those with disabilities and embraces certain
social responsibilities and ethical goals which are supposed to be consistent
with a polity such as Australia. There is considerable evidence that some of
these responsibilities are proving to be onerous. The continuing MCEETYA
wrangle over the education standards, and concerns about the largely untested
scope of the definition of disability under the Disability Discrimination Act
show that commitment to fiscal rectitude is taken more seriously than
commitment to principle.
The committee notes criticism of schools and education
authorities by parent groups about their alleged failure to take inclusion
seriously. Some submissions have argued that the willingness of state education
authorities to embrace inclusive education has as much to do with the
opportunities it affords to make savings as it does to the educational and
social principles that are supposed to underlie the change. The committee
accepts that there is some basis for this assertion. Reported instances of
insensitivity, lack of consultation and underestimation of a student’s learning
ability by schools and principals have been noted in many submissions. A great deal
of this failure on the part of schools can be attributed to education and
training deficiencies. Attitudinal problems may also be partly explained by
lack of training and to the normal pressures that face schools in a climate of
financial stringency. Even the most enlightened and committed school principals
have a limited ability to impose an ethos in a school which is too far in
advance of community attitudes.
Parents of children with disabilities are naturally
conscious of the needs of their children to be fully accepted into the social
life of the school. The committee acknowledges the importance of this view,
while agreeing the learning needs of students must be given priority. Inclusive
education must continue to embrace a number of learning centre options, where
required. A small minority of students will need varying levels of withdrawal
from the mainstream classroom, depending on the nature of their condition, if
their needs are to be properly met. From another angle, the learning
environment of all students must be safeguarded, both in regard to their
physical safety and in regard to their ability to concentrate on their learning
tasks. Schools are responsible for ensuring that these conditions are
maintained.
This report is not intended to be comprehensive in covering
the field of issues relevant to the teaching of students with disabilities. If
there are omissions noted, it will be because few, if any submissions were
received in regard to them. On the other hand, the committee regrets that it has
not been able to give adequate attention to a number of issues of which it is
aware, in the time it has had to report. One issue in particular; the
transition from school to work, may warrant an inquiry of its own. The social
justice outcomes for our school system require attention to the ability of
schools and vocational training institutions to prepare students for work in
particular, as well as life in general. Adjustment to the workforce begins in
schools, and there is evidence that more focus needs to be put onto work as an
outcome rather than a vague possibility that may follow.
The committee notes that state education and other school
authorities have either made recent policy pronouncements on education for
disabilities or are in the process of revising policy. The coincidence of this
with MCEETYA’s deliberations over standards provides the Commonwealth with an
opportunity to initiate policy, leading to sustained improvement in the
educational and lifetime prospects of students with disabilities. The committee
believes that this would be best achieved through addressing the training and
retraining of teachers and specialist staff, but also agrees that the
Commonwealth must accept a level of financial responsibility for the
implementation of the standards. Schools cannot transform their curriculum and
their culture by ministerial or administrative fiat. There is a cost involved.
The inclusion of students with disabilities in educational institutions and
their transition to the wider community is also a learning process. Its success
will depend almost entirely on an investment in knowledge and skills.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page