Chapter 7 - The disability discrimination ACT and the role of the Commonwealth
7.1
The Disability Discrimination Act has markedly
affected the way our schools operate by providing legislative support for
inclusive education. By giving a broad definition to disability, it has raised
questions about whether our schools adequately provide for all those who are
protected by its provisions. The proposed disability education standards will
make the rights of these students more transparent. Inconsistencies between the
definition of disability under this Act and those that determine funding
eligibility for disability support programs in schools have already been
discussed in Chapter 2. This definitional issue and its funding consequences
underpins the reluctance of some educational authorities to finalise education
standards. This chapter focuses on the broader funding implications of the
Disability Discrimination Act and in particular the proposed education
standards. It will examine the adequacy of current Commonwealth funding
arrangements for students with disabilities in light of the proposed new
education standards and consider the level of financial responsibility that the
Commonwealth should accept to ensure that all students can fully participate in
education.
7.2
The Disability Discrimination Act, along with
similar state and territory laws, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a
person on the ground of the person’s disability. The Act imposes a general
obligation not to discriminate in education and provides a corresponding right
to complain of unlawful discrimination, either to the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission (HREOC) or the Federal Court. It is unlawful to
discriminate in areas relating to admission, access to benefits provided by the
educational authority or to student expulsions. The obligation upon an
educational authority is to avoid direct and indirect discrimination. In the
case of indirect discrimination, an educational authority is only required to
make reasonable adjustments to allow the student with disability to
participate, but it is not unlawful for an educational authority to refuse an
enrolment that would impose an unjustifiable hardship upon the authority.
7.3
The Disability Discrimination Act has been a
catalyst in the integration of most students with disabilities, and in
response, educational authorities have had to develop new funding mechanisms to
support integrated education in government schools. These mechanisms were
discussed in Chapter 2. However, the Act applies to a wide range of educational
institutions regardless of the sector, and this has resulted in greater demand
for enrolment of students with disabilities in non-government schools and
systems. For example, in the independent school sector[1] enrolments have increased by 89
per cent since 1995, compared to a 26 per cent increase in total full time
enrolments.[2]
The Catholic school sector estimates that, in 1985, students with disabilities
made up only 0.2 per cent of the total enrolments, yet by 2000 this figure had
increased to 2.2 per cent of enrolments.[3]
The cost of supporting these students has had financial implications for the
non-government school system.
7.4
The National Council of Independent Schools’
Association (NCISA) had the following to say about the effect of the Disability
Discrimination Act:
NCISA is concerned that while the Disabilities Discrimination
Act 1992 has introduced a rights-based model for students with
disabilities, current government funding arrangements for students with
disabilities inhibits its implementation. It potentially places an inequitable
burden on the families in those independent schools which have students with
disabilities enrolled. The problem is particularly acute for independent
schools since they are generally not able to draw on the state services to
assist in meeting the needs of students with disabilities nor can spread the
cost over a student population wider than at their own school.[4]
7.5
Similarly, the Catholic system argued that the
cost of meeting the needs of an increasing number of high support students was
problematic:
As NSW Catholic schools enrol more students with greater support
needs, funding support cannot be expanded rapidly enough to address all
identified learning needs. For example, simply arranging for a student to be
catheterised or otherwise toileted at school can cost up to $6,000 per year.
Similarly, as the number of students who enrol in NSW Catholic
schools, particularly those with higher support needs, increases so do total
support costs. All eleven NSW Dioceses have indicated that the cost of support
provision for students with disabilities is far greater than the Commonwealth
and state funds attracted by the student’s enrolment. The cost of essential
support for a student with a disability in a regular school can vary from
$1,600 to $32,000, depending on the level of need of the particular student.
Available Commonwealth funds typically meet no more than 40% of service
provision costs for students with mid-range service support needs.[5]
7.6
The recent and well publicised
anti-discrimination case involving the Hills Grammar School[6] will increase the pressure on
non-government schools to accept students with significant disabilities. In
1997 the parents of a girl with spina bifida attempted to enrol their daughter
in kindergarten for 1998 at the Hills Grammar School. After some discussion
about her needs, the school eventually refused the enrolment. This decision was
made on the basis that the school was not adequately resourced to look after
the girl, given her special needs. The parents took the matter to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Commissioner found that the school
had unlawfully discriminated against the girl on the grounds of disability. An
appeal by the school was lost in the Federal Court.
7.7
The Finney v Hills Grammar School[7] case was particularly important
as it tested the extent to which the non-government school sector can argue
that the enrolment of student with a disability places an unjustifiable
hardship on the school, and consequently refuse the enrolment. The
unjustifiable hardship exemption provides educational authorities with the
ability to argue that the services or facilities required by a student with a
disability seeking admission to an institution would result in significant
costs, or cause major difficulties, and consequently lead to unjustifiable
hardship.
7.8
It was found that it would not have been
unjustifiable for a non-government school to have enrolled a child with spina
bifida given the specifics of the case. While the Commissioner agreed that the
enrolment of the student would place a ‘hardship’ on the school the hardship
was not considered to be unjustifiable. The Commissioner took into account the benefits
and detriments for the student, the school and the community, and
balanced these against the hardships which would be encountered:
...the concept of
“unjustifiable hardship” connotes much more than just hardship on the
respondent. The objects of the Act make it clear that elimination of
discrimination as far as possible is the legislation's purpose. Considered in
this context, it is reasonable to expect that the School should have to undergo
some hardship in accepting Scarlett’s enrolment. It is clear from the evidence
that this would have occurred, as Scarlett required services and facilities not
required by other students. The nub of the issue is whether such hardship was
unjustifiable. In paragraph 6.16 and 6.17 I have set out the benefits and
detriments to all concerned, including the effects of Scarlett’s disability and
the financial implications for the School. Determination of this question
requires me to decide if, in the context of these benefits and detriments, the
hardship caused would have been unjustifiable. I find the defence of
unjustifiable hardship has not been made out by the School.[8]
7.9
The non-government education sector was not only
concerned because the Commissioner found against the school, but because the
case did little to clarify the meaning of the term ‘unjustifiable’:
While the requirement to enrol students with disabilities is
apparently softened by the “unjustifiable hardship provision” there continues
to be uncertainty about the precise legal obligation this entails for schools,
with the assessment of “unjustifiable hardship” depending on the particular
facts of each case.[9]
7.10
The committee notes that the unjustifiable
hardship exemption is only available to a school when it is considering a
student’s application for enrolment. The proposed education standards will
extend this exemption to apply post enrolment. Some representatives from the
disability sector were concerned about the apparent loss of rights that this
extension would cause, while the non-government sector supported the extension
of the exemption. Whether this will affect the rights of students with
disabilities is debateable. Currently it is open to a school accused of
indirect discrimination to argue that its decisions or actions were not
unreasonable under the circumstances; alternately, they can argue that the
demands of the aggrieved person were unreasonable.
7.11
Universities and Technical and Further Education
(TAFE) colleges have been struggling with appropriate strategies to implement
the obligations imposed by the Disability Discrimination Act. A number of
universities have developed action plans to develop strategies for ensuring
equity and access for their students with disabilities. These are considered by
HREOC when making determinations in relation to unjustifiable hardship. Banks
and Kayes reported that long standing use of disability action plans in the
TAFE sector might be responsible for disability discrimination being less of a
problem in that sector.[10]
The committee notes that, at the time of writing this report, 22 universities
and 18 TAFE Colleges or Institutes of Technology had lodged action plans with
HREOC.[11]
7.12
As noted in Chapter 6, the committee has little
doubt that funding these strategies has proved difficult for the post-secondary
sector. The University of Melbourne wrote in its submission:
There are significant resource implications for the University
in providing an educational environment that is free of disability
discrimination, as mandated by anti-discrimination legislation. In a climate of
reducing reliance on government funding, the University has to allocate its
resources responsibly and cannot afford to alter its environment and practices
to comply with anti-discrimination legislation in a short time frame. The
cohort of students with disabilities in the University environment has
increasing numbers of students with high support needs which will result in
increasing demand for time and financial resources. There will continue to be
barriers towards the participation of students with disabilities if the funding
made available to Universities is not increased.[12]
The draft disability standards
for education
7.13
The Disability Discrimination Act makes
provision for the Attorney-General to formulate education standards. Standards
made by the Attorney are subject to parliamentary approval and possible
amendment.[13]
Once in force, the Act provides that it will be unlawful for a person to
contravene a disability standard. Standards will set out how education and
training are to be made accessible to students with disabilities and include
measures that, if implemented by educational authorities, will be evidence of
compliance with legal obligations. However, some state government and many
non-government authorities have raised concerns about the cost implications of
this approach for the school sector, given the broad and generally untested
scope of the Disability Discrimination Act.
7.14
The Victorian Department of Education and
Training summarises the position of a number of authorities:
A number of government school and VET [Vocational Education and
Training] systems, along with Catholic and independent school systems, have
expressed concern at the potential cost of implementing the standards. The
Commonwealth has argued that as the standards simply codify the Act, there
should be no additional costs generated by the standards. Attempts to
undertake a cost benefit analysis of the standards have not been successful.[14]
7.15
The committee agreed with those witnesses who
argued that education standards would give greater certainty about equity
entitlements for students with disabilities. The committee also believes that
because the Disability Discrimination Act is drafted in very general terms and
applies to a broad range of areas, the standards will be important for
providing greater certainty and clarity about the responsibilities of education
institutions. Teachers, schools and education authorities have had to rely on
interpretations from case law to clarify the expectations of the anti‑discrimination
provisions.[15]
The committee is concerned, however, that after a process of six and a half
years, the standards have yet to be finalised.
7.16
The Disability Discrimination Act acknowledges
the importance of consultation with relevant parties and, in particular, state
and territory governments, because it requires the comments of relevant state
and territory ministers to be taken into account before making standards that
are enforceable at law.[16]
As a consequence, the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) established a taskforce to develop disability
standards for education in 1995. The taskforce was chaired by the Commonwealth
and comprised representatives from the states and territories, the DDA
Standards Project[17]
and stakeholder groups within the education and training community.
7.17
The outcome of that process was a set of draft
disability standards for education. These were considered by MCEETYA in July
2002. The standards dealt with the areas of: enrolment; participation;
curriculum development, accreditation and delivery; student support services;
harassment and victimisation, and set out the rights, or entitlements, of
students with disabilities, consistent with the rights of the rest of the
community. They describe the legal obligations of educational authorities,
institutions and other education providers, and include examples of compliant
measures that are performance based. The meeting made the following resolution
on the standards:
Council expressed concern over the delay in finalising the draft
Standards but agreed that outstanding legal and financial issues be further
addressed by December 2002 prior to the introduction of legislative amendments
to the Disability Discrimination Act if necessary, and to the implementation of
the Standards, and urged all jurisdictions to work co-operatively on this
matter.[18]
7.18
The committee sees the development of disability
education standards as one of a number of steps necessary to address the
discriminatory practices identified in this report. It agrees that all
Australians should be protected by nationally agreed disability standards with
respect to education, and consequently shares the concerns of the Physical
Disability Council of Australia which had the following to say about the
outcome of the July 2002 MCEETYA meeting:
As the convener of that [DDA
standards] project and as the
executive officer of the Physical Disability Council of Australia, we would
like to say that we were extremely disappointed to see that the standard was
referred to yet another task force for further work, especially since we understand
that the advice that was received from the Commonwealth Deputy Chief Counsel
should have allayed any fears about the actual draft standard exceeding the
legislation. The Physical Disability Council of Australia even questioned
whether the standards would ever be finalised.[19]
7.19
The formulation of education standards is an
essential part of the overall legislative scheme developed to reduce
discrimination in education. While existing law will be able to deal with
matters contained in the standards, the committee has learnt that the Act by
itself is not necessarily the most effective or efficient means of achieving
this aim.
7.20
Compliance with the current law often depends on
a parent lodging a complaint against an educational institution with the
ultimate resolution of the problem relying on a court decision. The committee
found a level of dissatisfaction with this process, particularly the time taken
to deal with complaints, the stress endured during the process and the final
outcome of the process. In Brisbane, Queensland Parents for People with a
Disability (QPPD) told the committee:
Two years ago QPPD gathered together three families who had been
involved in cases in Queensland, and all three stated that they would not ever
go through the process again. They felt that the victimisation they had
suffered afterwards was worse than the process of going through the court case.
In fact there is a culture in Queensland where parents often advise other
parents not to complain, because of the risks involved.[20]
7.21
Although the Disability Discrimination Act has
been in force since 1992 it has become evident that, in its application to
education, the objectives of the Act are yet to be fully realised. Evidence
provided to the committee suggests that there is considerable variation in
legislative compliance among the states and territories as well as differences
in compliance between the government and non-government school sectors. The
Independent Education Union describes the situation in relation to the
non-government sector:
...many of the submissions
received from members reflect their real concern at not being able to meet
these obligations. The consistent and strong feedback from members is that the
resources and funding arrangements for students with disabilities in non
government schools are not adequate and that schools are therefore vulnerable
to being in breach of the Act.[21]
7.22
Further, the committee was told that in 2000,
only 1.5 per cent of students enrolled in the independent school sector and 2.2
per cent of students in the Catholic school sector had a disability. This
compared to 3.9 per cent of total students in the government school sector.[22] While the committee accepts
that there has been a trend towards increasing enrolments of students with
disabilities in non-government schools, the magnitude of the disparity between
the enrolment numbers of the government and non-government school sectors
raises questions about equity of access. Following her study into numeracy and
literacy for students with disabilities Dr Christina van Kraaynoord had the
following to say:
...I think it is our experience, based on our
research, that the state takes the bulk of students with severe disabilities.
Although the Catholic education system is increasingly taking children with
high support needs, I believe that independent schools, because of their
independent nature, are able to select students much more carefully and may, in
fact, seek ways of precluding students from attendance or enrolment in their
schools, despite the anti-discrimination legislation.[23]
7.23
The Queensland Parents for People with a
Disability told the committee:
Some of the general feeling
from parents who have given us anecdotal feedback about private schools is that
generally the Catholic system has been more welcoming of students with
disabilities, whereas other non‑denominational or
independent schools seem to have the notion that they require special
facilities in order to take children with disabilities, even though the reason
that people approach those schools in the first place is usually to avoid special
facilities.[24]
7.24
In the government sector, students with
‘traditional disabilities’ are reasonably well catered for under funded
programs, although some parents would argue that until education is fully
inclusive many students with disabilities will continue to be discriminated
against; this issue was explored in Chapter 3. Mary Keeffe-Martin reports that
Australia has not experienced a ‘flood’ of special education litigation because
of complex complaint-based appeal processes, unwanted expense and publicity,
the exemption clause of unjustifiable hardship and the stress of lengthy court
cases.[25]
She also reports that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that this
trend is changing. Parents, students, teachers and advocacy groups have raised
awareness about discriminatory practices in schools. During 2000–2001, 82
complaints were made to HREOC about discrimination in education.[26]
7.25
Of particular concern is the extent to which
students with ‘less traditional disabilities’ are managed. The legislation
relies on the concept of reasonable adjustment being made to provide
substantive equality for students with disabilities. For some disabilities such
as conductive hearing losses, learning disabilities, and some behavioural
disorders this is clearly not happening in all instances. The Australian
Association of Teachers of the Deaf had the following to say about the
management of conductive hearing losses in Victoria:
We believe that the eligibility criterion should be broadened to
include these students in recognition that their hearing impairment places them
at risk for language, communication and literacy development. These students
have complex needs and access to a learning environment with trained Teachers
of the Deaf will provide them with an appropriate supported learning
environment. [27]
7.26
The Independent Schools Association of Western
Australia described the situation in Western Australia:
Many students in member schools, particularly the Aboriginal
schools, suffer from this. It is estimated that 40–80% of Aboriginal students
are affected in member schools whether they are in urban, rural or remote
setting. Schools cannot access specialist support because the Western
Australian Institute for Deaf Education, the visiting teacher service of the
State Education Department which also supports independent schools, does not
support students with conductive hearing loss.[28]
7.27
One witness explained that it was not until she
began studying at university that appropriate and reasonable accommodations
were made to allow for her learning disability, scotopic sensitivity:
This is my first year at University and the first time my
disability has ever been validated. I have had substantial support, lighting
has been changed, photocopied are my sheets, I am not marked down for only
being able to read a certain amount of work, extensions on assignments, the
list seems endless.
I did not attend a bad school nor have heartless teachers. My
teachers were merely ignorant of my disability and this is a result of poor
training in the area of Scotopic Sensitivity. They followed all guidelines set
down by the Board of Education, although these guidelines did not meet any of
my needs as a student with a disability.[29]
7.28
Many witnesses told the committee, or wrote in
their submissions, about the lack of assistance provided in schools to students
with dyslexia. As one dyslexic wrote:
It does not appear that the NSW Education
Department has established a clear policy position on dyslexia or a framework
for delivering practical and effective assistance to dyslexic children, most of
whom will not complete their education, and many of whom will continue to swell
our prison and juvenile justice systems, which are comprised mainly of people
with reading and learning difficulties.[30]
7.29
As discussed in Chapter 5, even where
established programs provide funding support for students with ‘traditional
disabilities’, equality is not always assured in a mainstream setting if
teachers and teacher aides do not possess the necessary skills, or are not
available, to give students with disabilities appropriate access to curricula.
7.30
Evidence was given to the committee about the
negotiation process which has eluded MCEETYA for more than six years. It was
explained that there was a great deal of resistance to the adoption of the
standards. The convenor of the Disability Discrimination Act standards project
group told the committee that it is unlikely that any agreement would be
reached in 2002, and that resistance was coming from states which ‘deemed’ that
inclusive education was too expensive.
7.31
The report[31]
prepared by the Standards Working Group for the July 2002 MCEETYA meeting, sets
out points of legal contention that were also reported to have delayed the
adoption of standards. The report discusses a number of legal issues raised by
one state government. In particular, it addresses issues to do with the legal
basis for the standards, and whether some provisions seek to extend the
application of the Disability Discrimination Act. Evidence provided to the
committee indicates that one solution to the uncertainty surrounding the legal
basis of the standards, is to amend the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure
that the standards will be within power. This will ensure that once adopted, the
standards will be beyond legal challenge.
7.32
The committee agrees that the finalisation of
the standards is long overdue. It also agrees that Australia’s education system
should be underpinned by an agreed set of national standards setting out the
equity entitlements of students with disabilities. In the event that MEECTYA
cannot reach agreement about the proposed standards, the committee believes
that the Commonwealth has no alternative but to take a unilateral step and
bring into force the Disability Standards for Education 2002. These have been
available in draft form for some months.
Recommendation 17
The committee recommends that the Attorney-General formulate the
Disability Standards for Education 2002, under paragraph 31 (1) (b) of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992; it also recommends that the Commonwealth take the
necessary legislative action to put the education standards beyond legal
challenge.
Cost implications of the standards
7.33
The committee is concerned about the claims made
by a number of witnesses that cost considerations have also hindered progress
in finalising the standards. However, it does not believe that these
considerations should hinder the finalisation of the standards.
7.34
The Commonwealth argued that the education
standards should not impose any significant financial burden on educational
authorities because they clarified existing obligations and did not extend the
ambit of the Act.[32]
That is, provided education authorities were meeting their current obligations
under the Act, there should be no need to extend or modify current programs and
processes. The Commonwealth also advised that state and territory jurisdictions
had indicated that they complied with the requirements of the Disability
Discrimination Act. In a speech to a disability and research seminar the Deputy
Disability Discrimination Commissioner had the following to say on this matter:
The extra costs argument is hard to understand. On the one hand
the States assert that they are currently complying with the provisions of the
DDA in this area. However they assert that the draft Standards, which with a
few minor exceptions do not extend the DDA in my view, will cause them major
extra costs. This is hard to understand if one accepts their first assertion,
and the fact that all of them have had similar State legislation, in some cases
for twice as long as the DDA has been law.[33]
7.35
The committee is aware that the New South Wales
government did not share this view and was concerned that the standards
exceeded the Act in application. As a consequence the New South Wales
government predicted that the introduction of the standards would have
significant cost implications.
7.36
The Tasmanian Department of Education supported
the introduction of the standards. They argued that because their department’s
policies and practices met current legislative requirements, the standards
would not impose any additional costs They also told the committee that some
other states were less than compliant with current requirements, and
consequently concerned about possible costs implications:
Other states would agree, I think, that at this point in time
they are not necessarily meeting their full requirements under the act and that
has been highlighted in relation to the DDA standards. It is the difference
between the standards and the act—that is, the gap in funding—that is
difficult. If the standards are implemented, it is going to raise a profile in
relation to the act and recognise that discrepancy.[34]
7.37
The South Australian government estimated the
cost for the state of introducing the standards would be in the order of $19.3
million.[35]
It predicted that the state will be required to extend support to the cohort of
students that came within the definition of disability under the Disability
Discrimination Act, but were not currently provided for under the department’s
policies and programs. The department also expected additional costs to be
incurred from:
- the provision of professional development in relation to the
obligation of educators under the Education Standards;
-
the adaptation and production of curriculum support materials
following the development of individual education plans for all students with a
disability;
-
the provision of timely support services especially to isolated
areas;
-
the additional costs for technology-based services and laptop
computers with specialised software programs.[36]
7.38
The Victorian government was also concerned
about the largely untested scope of the definition of disability under the
Disability Discrimination Act. At issue is the extent to which students that
fall within the broad definition disability under the Disability Discrimination
Act are covered by existing disability arrangements. As the Victorian
Department of Education and Training explained:
The issue confronting providers in an environment where the
dedicated program (in Victoria’s case the Disability and Impairment Program and
Commonwealth Targeted Program funding) does not cover the whole population
covered in the statute, is whether the adjustments made as the result of other
program initiatives (eg Special Learning Needs, Reading Recovery) or allocation
of additional resources by an individual school, will satisfy a tribunal or
court that a reasonable adjustment has been made.[37]
7.39
The Victorian government made the following assessment
of the cost of implementing the education standards:
...should it become evident
that there is a requirement to provide the same type and level of adjustment to
all students who meet the Act’s definition, it has been estimated that costs in
Victoria will increase by approximately $100m per annum for government schools
alone.[38]
7.40
Education Queensland wrote:
The Standards however, have a potential impact of increasing
costs if the Standards expand the current range of students identified as
having a disability. One assumption shared by some service providers is that
the combined population of students with high need disabilities and learning
difficulties is about 18%. Currently Education Queensland supports about 15% of
students across this range.[39]
7.41
The committee agrees that a full and independent
cost assessment of the impact of the draft education standards is required to
give support to the claims made by state education departments. The committee
obtained a copy of the draft regulation impact statement prepared for the July
2002 MCEEYTA meeting and it is concerned about the basis of the estimates. The
regulation impact estimates the cost of introducing the standards to be $328.3
million to $334.3 million for schools ($310.2 million) and the VET sector ($18.1
to 24.1 million). Of this $141.3 million to $147.3 million was identified as
recurrent costs, $5 million as recurrent costs for five years, $2 million as
one of costs with the remaining costs unspecified.[40]
7.42
The committee is sceptical of the estimates for
two reasons: not all states contributed to the costing exercise; and some
estimates were based on the assumption that 18 per cent of school students
would fall within the Disability Discrimination Act definition of disabilities.
This figure is inflated by the inclusion of students with learning
difficulties, many of whom would not fall within the definition of disability
under the Act. While the number of students that fall within the definition of
the Disability Discrimination Act is unknown, the committee notes that the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that in 1998, 277,400 children aged
5–17 years, or 8 per cent of all children in this age group had a disability.[41] While the definition of
disability under the Disability Discrimination Act is much broader than the
definitions used for funding eligibility support under state programs, it is
unlikely that all students falling within the broader definition would require
significant, if any, educational adjustments.
7.43
The Disability Discrimination Act gives a new
responsibility to the Commonwealth government. To ensure the objectives of the
Act are achieved, the committee agrees that the Commonwealth will have to
accept a level of financial responsibility for the implementation of the
education standards in government schools. The committee agrees that the cost
of implementing the standards should not prevent their finalisation, but rather
that these cost considerations should be addressed jointly by the Commonwealth
and state and territory governments. The extent to which this responsibility
should be shared between the Commonwealth, states and territories is a matter
that is most appropriately decided by MCEETYA. Importantly, because the
committee agrees that all governments have a responsibility to ensure that the
object of the Act is achieved, the provision of additional Commonwealth funds
to assist in the implementation of the education standards should be contingent
on finalisation of those standards. Such funding would be over and above those funds
currently provided to state governments for the education of students with
disabilities.
Recommendation 18
The committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory
governments share the cost of implementing the education standards. MCEETYA is
the appropriate forum to determine the extent that these costs should be
shared.
Commonwealth funding for the
school sector
7.44
The committee examined current Commonwealth
funding arrangements in schools to determine whether Commonwealth funding is
being effectively targeted to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
7.45
General recurrent grants are the principal
Commonwealth funding source available to government and non-government schools.
This funding is based on the average recurrent cost of educating students in
Australian schools (AGSRC index). The AGSRC index includes the costs associated
with educating students with disabilities and in the case of non-government
schools grants are also based on the capacity of a school community to support
its school. These funds are allocated on a per student basis and it is
estimated that the Commonwealth will provide in recurrent funding $9.2 billion
to the Catholic system, $5 billion to the independent sector and $5.7 billion
to the government schools over the 2000–2004 quadrennium.[42]
7.46
Traditionally, the Commonwealth has provided
funds for specific purposes, such as disability education and attempted to
limit their use to that purpose. However with the passage of the States
Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000 this approach
was discarded, and a new accountability framework introduced that focussed on
improving student outcomes. As a condition of funding, state and territory
authorities were required to commit to the National Goals of Schooling and to
achieve any performance measures, including targets, incorporated in the Act.
7.47
Under the revised arrangements, funds previously
provided under the literacy and numeracy grants program were combined with
special education support grants to fund a new program, known as the Strategic
Assistance for Improving Student Outcomes (SAISO) Program. This program
aims to provide educational authorities with funds to improve educational
outcomes for students who are educationally disadvantaged. Funds may be directed
at school students from kindergarten to year 12 who are educationally
disadvantaged in terms of their educational participation and learning
outcomes, particularly in numeracy and literacy. This may be associated with a
range of factors such as disability, a language background other than English,
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, low socio-economic background
and learning difficulties. As education is primarily a state responsibility,
the funds are not intended to meet all of the costs of meeting the needs of
educationally disadvantaged students, but are meant to be used strategically,
to improve educational outcomes over time.[43]
7.48
The program is designed to give educational
authorities the flexibility to make decisions about which schools have the
greatest need for additional assistance to achieve improved outcomes. These
authorities have the responsibility to distribute SAISO funds throughout the
sector and determine appropriate funding amounts for schools. These are
required to provide the Commonwealth with details about how the funds are
managed. The committee accepts that the current funding arrangements are
administratively simple, and allow authorities to address the needs of students
with multiple educational disadvantages without being constrained by artificial
divides between programs. However, these new arrangements result in a loss of
transparency about the use of Commonwealth funds to support students with
disabilities. The problem is that there is no corresponding mechanism to measure
improvements in educational outcomes for students with disabilities; that is,
until as discussed in Chapter 2, performance measures for this group can be
developed.
7.49
Figure 7.1 sets out the total level of funding
provided under SAISO to each sector. Included is that part of SAISO funding
that is allocated on a per capita basis to students with disabilities. It
includes an amount of $116 for every government student and $589 for every
eligible non-government student. These funds must be directed towards those
students that meet the eligibility criteria outlined in paragraph 2.7. For the
reasons set out above it must be assumed that only a portion of total
SAISO funds are directed towards students with disabilities.
7.50
With eligibility to per capita funding being
restricted to the traditional categories of sensory, physical and intellectual
disabilities, many disabilities that fall within the broad definition of
disability under the Disability Discrimination Act do not qualify for per
capita support. Some submissions from the non-government sector criticised this
lack of Commonwealth funding support for this group of students:
I believe (and I have heard from numerous colleagues at
conferences) that it is often the students with disabilities who present the
least amount of problems in the classroom. The students with learning
disabilities such as students with ADHD, usually present far more of a
challenge—displaying feelings of inadequacy (that they are unable to cope with
mainstream curriculum) and taking it out in a number of ways: anger,
frustration, bullying etc. Yet, there is no funding for these students.[44]
Figure 7. 1: Total SAISO Funding $m 2001–2002 –
including additional [45]
including additional strategic assistance)
(to nearest $100,000)
|
|
NSW
|
Qld
|
Vic
|
SA
|
WA
|
Tas
|
ACT
|
NT
|
Government
|
Per capita
|
3.9
|
2.1
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.6
|
No. of students
|
31,706
|
15,183
|
19,205
|
11,487
|
7,566
|
2,956
|
1440
|
4622
|
Total
|
83.9
|
39.9
|
53.0
|
19.7
|
20.3
|
7.3
|
2.3
|
4.4
|
Catholic
|
Per capita
|
4.3
|
1.1
|
2.83
|
0.8
|
0.6
|
0.1
|
0.08
|
0.08
|
No. of students
|
6,507
|
1,661
|
3,314
|
1,206
|
1,008
|
185
|
189
|
87
|
Total
|
30.4
|
8.2
|
22.4
|
4.6
|
7.2
|
1.3
|
1.0
|
1.1
|
Independent
|
Per capita
|
1.3
|
0.4
|
1.0
|
0.8
|
0.2
|
0.06
|
0.1
|
0.03
|
No. of students
|
2,013
|
694
|
1,464
|
1,140
|
328
|
118
|
71
|
91
|
Total
|
13.9
|
4.1
|
11.6
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
0.7
|
0.6
|
0.3
|
7.2
The committee is concerned that this criticism
arises because funds for educationally disadvantaged students have been
broadbanded under the new arrangements. Although per capita support is targeted
towards students with higher support needs, education authorities have
considerable discretion in the use of the vast majority of SAISO funds.
Consequently, they can direct funding towards any disadvantaged student,
including students that would fall within the broad definition of disability
under the Disability Discrimination Act. The committee shares the concerns
expressed by the Australian Association of Christian Schools in relation to
broadbanding:
Broadbanding has its up sides. It provides the individual
organisation, be it the AIS or the Catholic Education Commission or government
education authority, with a range of choices inside a broad band. However, it
might mean, for example, in the current broadbanding area that you are
referring to, that the bulk of the money could wind up in literacy and numeracy
areas and very little of it might find its way into the support of students
with disabilities, and that is a major concern.[46]
7.3
The National Council of Independent Schools’
Association also criticised the lack of transparency about the current
arrangements:
While the broadbanding has had positive benefits in terms of new
approaches to meeting the needs of students with disabilities, it has failed to
effectively address the problem of inadequate government funding and has acted
to reduce the transparency of the total level of government resources provided
to meet the specific additional educational support needs of students with
disabilities.[47]
7.4
Submissions questioned the rationale behind the
new arrangements. As previously explained SAISO funding has two components;
that which must be directed toward students with disabilities and that which
must be directed towards educationally disadvantaged students. While specific
funding for students with disabilities will increase as the number of students
with disabilities in a sector increase, the quantum of funds directed towards
educationally disadvantage students remains fixed regardless of the number of
students with disabilities enrolled in any sector. The Association of
Independent Schools of Western Australia wrote in its submission:
The original funding distribution was established during the mid
nineteen eighties when independent schools across Australia enrolled few
students with disabilities. The same historical formula is being used in 2002
and the Department of Education Science and Training has admitted, when
questioned, that the funding has ‘no formula but only a history’. The
allocation certainly does not take into account the cost of complying with the
DDA, the increase in numbers of students with disabilities enrolled in the
sector and the costs of providing for these students.[48]
7.5
The committee understands the appeal of
broadbanding to schools and to state and territory educational authorities. The
difficulty that arises for the committee however, is that under current arrangements
it cannot follow the trail of financial assistance from the Commonwealth to the
final recipient. Consequently the committee cannot be assured that Commonwealth
funds are being used as Parliament intended. Committee members have
considerable anecdotal evidence gleaned from visits to schools in their states
and of reports to electoral offices that children eligible for funded support
are not being supported in a manner that corresponds to the funds provided to
the school.
7.6
The committee does not question the rights of
schools to determine the use to which funds are put. The choice of employing
specialist assistance, purchasing assistive technologies, modifying school
environments or implementing a particular strategy designed to assist a student
with a disability is most properly decided by those with specific knowledge of
a student’s circumstance. What the committee does require is evidence that
funds are expended in a way that is relevant and appropriate to the educational
task that needs to be performed. For this reason, the committee believes that
the Commonwealth should require state and territory education departments as
well as non-government systems and schools to develop reporting processes that
ensure accountability for Commonwealth funds expended at the school level.
7.7
The States Grants (Primary and Secondary
Education Assistance) Act 2000 prescribes the general conditions under which
financial assistance is to be paid to a state for government or non-government
schools. The Act requires that before authorising payments, the Commonwealth
must agree with state and territory governments about the conditions on which
financial assistance is granted. The committee notes that the current agreement
lists financial accountability as a condition for funding. The committee also
notes that this condition is met if a qualified accountant provides a
certificate stating that the amount received by an education authority has been
spent or is committed to be spent for the purposes for which the assistance was
granted. The committee is highly sceptical about the adequacy of this measure
and agrees that improved accountability mechanisms are necessary to ensure the
transparent use of Commonwealth funds for students with special needs.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that the conditions on which financial
assistance is paid to state and territory education authorities, and the
supporting guidelines for quadrennial funding, should be strengthened to
include reporting processes that ensure that Commonwealth funds for students
with disabilities are spent on students with disabilities.
Adequacy of funding in the non-government sector
7.8
Many submissions raised concerns about the
extent to which current funding arrangements allowed schools to meet the
expanding responsibilities brought about by the introduction of Disability
Discrimination Act and the increasing number of students being diagnosed with
disabilities:
These legislative moves have had wide ranging impact on the
capacity of schools to ready themselves for inclusion. The capital component
alone, physically restructuring schools to meet all forms of student
disability, is well beyond the capacity of school communities to meet. Capital
funding has not increased to meet these demands. Classroom curriculum demands,
the provision of resource teachers to cater for students with disabilities, are
resource intensive. No forward planning to meet this additional resource demand
in the form of additional funding has been forthcoming.[49]
7.9
The committee also received evidence from the
non-government sector, about the disparity of funding between the government
and non-government school sectors. This was a criticism about the level of
funding from state education departments as much as it was about Commonwealth
funding arrangements. It was argued that the lack of funding restricted the
ability of schools to provide adequately for students with disabilities and
consequently restricted the educational outcomes of such students enrolled in
non-government schools:
I must admit that, when I did move across from the state system
to Catholic and independent schools, I was absolutely horrified at the lack of
funding that was made available to students in independent and Catholic
schools. Our students in independent schools are funded at one-tenth of what
they would get in state schools. An example of this would be that a number of
our funded students who are accessing only three hours of support time a week
would be funded full time in the state school system. This impacts hugely on
learning programs for those students.[50]
7.10
Teachers from the sector argued that they were
not getting the support they needed to meet the needs of students with
disabilities. It was argued that integration places high demands on education
staff and there can be a tension in balancing the needs of the whole class if
appropriate levels of support are not in place. They were concerned about the
lack of adequate resources available to them to prepare separate curriculum
content or manage a wider range of learning needs. As one teacher wrote:
As a school we are committed to fostering equal access to the
curriculum for all students. This is a labour intensive initiative, not only
do we team teach in classes, we modify units of work, set alternative
assessment tasks, act as notetakers and conduct intensive reading classes.
This all takes an enormous amount of staffing time. Consequently the amount of
funding allocated is never enough and each year one has to be more creative
because the demands continue to grow.[51]
7.11
It was also argued that the lack of funding for
students with disabilities in non-government schools denied parents the right
to choose the type of education that suits their child. This was particularly
problematic where a parent wanted a child with a disability to attend the same
school as a sibling:
Another school that wrote recently sought to enrol the sibling
of a currently enrolled student. The sibling had Down syndrome. The child
arrived at the school, funding could not be found to provide adequate support,
and reluctantly they have had to take that child and the sibling out of the
school because they wanted both of their children to go to the same school.[52]
7.12
This in itself was described as discriminatory:
The discrimination is that those students who seek to choose an
independent school setting are not able to do so with the same freedom as other
students. A child with a disability is discriminated against by not having the
same choice as non-disabled students. That is because of the inequities in the
funding. It is a structural issue, if you like, rather than a philosophical
issue.[53]
7.13
Inequities extended beyond funding support. The
evidence suggests that students attending non-government schools do not have
the same level of access to assessment services, therapy services or even
funded school transport services in some states, as students attending
government schools.
Revised
funding arrangements for the non-government school sector
7.14
Submissions from non-government school
authorities argued for revised funding arrangements as a means of addressing
the inequities previously discussed. Both the NCISA and the National Catholic
Education Commission (NCEC) proposed funding models to support the education of
students with disabilities in their sector.
7.15
The NCISA advocated that students with
disabilities should receive the same level of government support irrespective
of the school sector in which they are educated. They argued that this support
should include access to state and territory government provided services, such
as transport and therapy services, as well as funding. NCISA maintains that the
responsibility of providing for students with disabilities should be shared
between Commonwealth and state governments, the extent to which the
responsibility is shared being a matter of negotiation between governments.
7.16
In place of the current system of general
recurrent grant funding and SAISO funding, the National Catholic Education
Commission advocates that government funding for students with disabilities
should more closely reflect the cost of educating students with disabilities in
the government sector. This model mirrors current arrangements for all students
attending non-government schools, but instead of using the AGSRC as the measure
for calculating recurrent funding for students with disabilities, a new measure
is proposed. As the Catholic Education Commission of NSW explains:
...in place of the current Commonwealth funding arrangements for
students with disabilities...the Commonwealth should allocate funds for each SWD [student with disabilities] in Catholic systems equivalent to 56.2%
(51.2% in the ACT) of the national average cost of educating a student with
disabilities in regular government system schools. It is proposed that $20,000
be used as a reasonable estimate for this.[54]
7.17
The Catholic Education Commission of New South
Wales goes even further to suggest that this mechanism should be applied to all
other non-government mainstream schools, so that they receive for each student
with a disability an amount equivalent to their SES percentage of the average
cost of educating a student with a disability.
7.18
The committee rejects both the models outlined
above. Under the NCISA model the independent school sector accepts no financial
responsibility for providing for students with disabilities. While the
committee notes that the model proposed by the Catholic sector proposes that
this responsibility be shared between Commonwealth, state and territory
governments and the sector, it questions the appropriateness of using an
average cost of supporting students with disabilities given the enormous
heterogeneity of the group.
7.19
Most importantly the committee rejects both
models on the basis that their implementation would result in significant
funding increases to the non-government sector. Given the competing demands for
education funding, and the significant resources available to this sector, the
committee does not agree that there is justification for increasing the total
quantum of Commonwealth funds provided to this sector. The committee does not
accept that the non-government sector lacks the financial resources required to
address the needs of students with disabilities. On current funding trends, the
Catholic education system will in 2004 have an estimated total income 11.7 per
cent higher than the estimated total cost of educating primary and secondary
students in government schools. For other non-government schools, estimated
total income will be 7.8 per cent higher.[55]
7.20
The committee also notes that the Commonwealth
funding formula for the non-government schools sector reflects actual
expenditure by the two levels of government on government schools. This
includes the funds allocated for students with disabilities and the support
services provided. Therefore the Commonwealth funds provided to non-government
schools through general recurrent grants implicitly includes a proportion of
funding for the education of students with disabilities. Where non-government
schools either do not enrol many students with disabilities or where they do
not provide appropriate levels of support for students with disabilities, they
benefit disproportionately from Commonwealth financial assistance. The
committee agrees that the needs of students with disabilities in this sector
would be more appropriately served if the sector made better use of its current
resources. It therefore makes no recommendations in relation to further
assistance to non-government schools. Matters relating to special education may
be an issue for the non-government sector in funding negotiation for the
2004–2007 quadrennium.
Non-government support centres
7.21
The committee heard from a number of
non-government centres that provide education, therapeutic or other services to
improve the educational opportunities, learning outcomes and personal
development of children with disabilities. The committee visited the Cora
Barclay Centre in Adelaide and was impressed by the important contribution that
this centre made to the lives of many students with hearing impairments. The
value of the work by associations such as the Australian Federation of SPELD
Associations (AUSPELD), the Autism Association and Royal Blind Society is also
well documented in Hansard.
The committee regrets that it has not been able to give
adequate attention to the funding issues associated with these centres in the
time it has had to report. However, the committee is concerned about the extent
to which these centres rely on charity to carry out their important work. The
committee concludes that appropriate funding arrangements for these centres
requires more detailed examination and consideration.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page