Chapter 4Addressing school refusal: the need for a national approach

Overview

4.1Evidence presented to the inquiry suggests that efforts to address school refusal are hampered by the lack of a nationally consistent and coordinated approach. This includes the lack of an agreed national approach to the collection, sharing and reporting of data related to school refusal and student engagement, as well as the absence of a strong national evidence base to support effective interventions.

4.2Accordingly, the committee heard numerous calls for:

a national focus on school refusal; and

improved data and research to support a national evidence base.

A national focus on school refusal

4.3The need for a coordinated national approach to school refusal was highlighted by more than one inquiry participant.[1]

4.4For example, Save the Children and 54 reasons advocated for a national approach in recognition of the respective roles of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in school education, as well as the involvement of both the health and education sectors in responses to school refusal.[2] Likewise,Associate Professor Glenn Melvin noted that addressing school refusal would involve various portfolios—at all levels of government—catering for numerous stakeholders across multiple tiers of intervention.[3]

4.5In a similar vein, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Disability Research Collaboration (MGSE DRC) argued for a national approach on the basis that school refusal is currently 'the purview of the states and territories who have varied and inconsistent responses to this significant issue'.[4] AssociateProfessor Lisa McKay-Brown of the MGSE DRC expanded on this point in her evidence to the committee:

… this is not a local, state-based problem. This is a national epidemic, so we can't just rely on different ad hoc ideas or decisions that might be developed at state levels. We know that evidence-based interventions are really important, but we don't have a national framework under which to apply these, and I think that's really important. When you consider that we have national wellbeing frameworks, why do we not have national frameworks around school attendance and other issues that link directly to wellbeing?[5]

4.6To this end, the MGSE DRC recommended 'a national approach to and investment in evidence-based interventions for school refusal within a multi-tiered system of support'. According to the MGDE DRC, multi-tiered systems of support provide a framework for organising and allocating resources to support student engagement in school (see Figure 4.1).[6]

Source: MGSE DRC, Submission 15, [p. 3].

4.7A national approach was also viewed as a way to improve collaboration around school refusal.For example, Associate Professor McKay-Brown noted that while there are individuals around Australia with passion and expertise in school refusal, they are currently dispersed and disconnected. According to both Associate Professor McKay-Brown and her MGSE DRC colleague DrMatthewHarrison, a national approach would help improve cross-sectoral connections and facilitate information sharing in relation to successful approaches to school refusal.[7]

4.8Other participants suggested that creating additional national guidelines or standards could help improve outcomes for specific cohorts of students experiencing school refusal. For example, Mrs Melinda Gindy of the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT) suggested that standards for gifted education could be developed to provide guidance for schools—similar to the Disability Standards for Education 2005.[8]

4.9However, some participants suggested that a national response to school refusal should be set in the context of a broader national focus on student wellbeing. For example, in addition to proposing a national strategy for student engagement (supported by a national funding program to support the scaling of evidence-based interventions), Save the Children and 54 reasons also recommended a national focus on student mental health and wellbeing—including full implementation of the National Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy.[9]

4.10The need for a national focus on student wellbeing was noted by MsJulieBirmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary with the Australian Government Department of Education, who observed that this was also a recommendation of the Productivity Commission's report into the review of the National School Reform Agreement.[10]

4.11While advocating for a national approach, a number of submitters also pointed to the importance of flexibility and the need for localised responses within the auspices of a broader national framework.[11]

Data and research to support a national evidence base

4.12Overall, there was widespread agreement among participants about the limitations of current school attendance data[12] and the need to improve data collection, sharing and reporting in relation to school refusal and student engagement.[13] The committee also heard evidence about the need for a stronger evidence base to support effective school refusal interventions.[14]

Data collection, sharing and reporting

Data collection

4.13The inability to measure the level of school refusal in Australia was highlighted by multiple participants. For example, Dr Greg Elliott noted that 'there is currently no way of consistently identifying and quantifying the level of school refusal in any school system in Australia'.[15] Similarly, Beyond Blue pointed to difficulties in assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on school refusal 'as there is no national, standardised dataset that reports on school refusal'.[16] This lack of data was also identified as a key issue by Ms Birmingham:

I think absolutely that is probably the key problem we have here: there's a real lack of data to understand the scale and scope of the problem. … I think it's a gap for the system as a whole.[17]

4.14Submitters like the Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, argued that improving data on school refusal should be a national initiative 'so that all states and territories can change the way students' absences are recorded to track school refusal better'.[18] A similar view was expressed by School Can't (School Phobia, School Refusal) Australia (School Can't Australia), which contended that better data collection would need to be underpinned by a nationally agreed definition of school refusal, as well as nationally consistent guidelines for recording school absences.[19] This point was also highlighted by witnesses such as Mr Andrew Pierpoint of the Australian Secondary Principals Association[20] and Dr Stephen Stathis of Queensland Health, who noted that the lack of a consistent definition makes it 'really difficult to capture consistent data'.[21]

4.15As noted in Chapter 2, this appears to align with information provided by education authorities, which suggests that the use of absence codes related specifically to school refusal is not common.[22]

4.16The need for a nationally agreed definition of school refusal was also recognised by The Autistic Realm Australia (TARA) and Yellow Ladybugs Australia,[23] while submitters such as the School Refusal Clinic, Carers ACT, and the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) all supported a standardised approach to data collection.[24] To this end, Ms Megan Gilmour of MissingSchool, suggested developing a national set of absence codes that would allow disaggregation of absence data at the school, state and national levels.[25]

4.17A desire for more nuanced data collection was reflected in submissions from parents who reported a lack of options when reporting their child's absence.[26] For example, one parent informed the committee that their child's school had 'no separate system to monitor school attendance difficulties' and that the data seem to 'get lost in statistics for the other children with physical illnesses'.[27] Another parent reported that school refusal was not available as a reason for absence at any of the five schools her daughters attended:

The options that could potentially be used to indicate school refusal are medical/illness, parent choice, and truancy—none accurately denote school refusal meaning that useful data is not even available at the school level.[28]

4.18Some parents also called for attendance data to more accurately recognise affected students' efforts at attendance, such as part-day attendance, as well as time spent on the school grounds or in the office (but not in a classroom).[29]

4.19The need for nuanced data sets—that would allow differentiation between different types of non-attendance—was also identified by Professor McKay‑Brown. Professor McKay-Brown also indicated that there were existing tools that could be adapted for this purpose:

So, firstly, we need to have a uniform data system that is nuanced enough. Certainly, there are tools out there, like the School Non-Attendance Checklist … that really do allow us to nuance different types of attendance problems. Using a tool like that, embedding it into school attendance systems and educating people about what it means is a starting point, I think.[30]

4.20To this end, the Australian Education Research Organisation noted that it is currently considering current national standards and systems for attendance reporting in Australia.[31]

4.21In addition to better differentiating types of school absence, there were also calls for data to be collected in a way that would allow disaggregation by a range of factors including socio-economic status, gender, intersex variations, disability, illness and mental health, First Nations identification, culturally and linguistically diverse background status, migrant and refugee background status, and the use of exclusionary practices by schools.[32]

4.22While supporting more accurate data collection, some participants, such as MsKamla Brisbane of Carers ACT, urged care around the language used in order to avoid increasing the existing stigma around school refusal.[33] A similar point was raised by both School Can't Australia[34] and Professor McKay-Brown, who highlighted the role educating parents would play in improving school attendance data:

We also need to educate families and people who are doing the reporting to ensure that there is no stigma attached to them reporting what is really happening for them in their families.[35]

4.23In addition to data on school refusal, some participants also argued for improvements to student wellbeing data more broadly. For example, Save the Children and 54 reasons recommended the development of a nationally consistent data collection 'to more effectively measure student wellbeing and engagement'.[36]

4.24To this end, Ms Rachel O'Connor, Assistant Secretary with the Australian Government Department of Education, noted the 'really positive agreement … across the states and territories and with the non-government sector' in this area. According to Ms O'Connor, this included a recent student wellbeing summit that had arisen out of a 'collective commitment' to improving the measurement of—and responses to—the mental health and wellbeing needs of students.[37]

4.25Further, Ms Birmingham noted that, ahead of the next National School Reform Agreement, there would be scope to 'be really trying to put a bound around that issue and to identify what the work is that we will do together with the states and territories to improve the data'.[38]

Data sharing and reporting

4.26At the individual school level, some participants expressed frustration at the current lack of data sharing between school sectors. For example, St Joseph's Flexible Learning Centre (SJFLC) reported that this situation can cause stress for students, who may need to 'retell their entire stories' and can also make it more difficult for the school to attract funding via the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD). According to SJFLC, improving data sharing around individual students would 'allow schools to focus on the needs of the young people rather than re-establishing understandings and knowledge'.[39]

4.27A similar point was raised by Mr Mark Breckenridge and Mrs Robyn Thorpe of the Australian Secondary Principals' Association, who explained that currently, a lot of 'hard work' goes into getting critical information about students who have moved from interstate,[40] including students who have additional needs:

… they come with nothing, and often they don't even have a birth certificate. … But then we don't have the background information of where that last school has provided a lot of support and interventions because that child has additional needs, so the school starts from scratch and has to do an awful lot of learning to work out where a child is at and what they require to best support them in their learning journey.[41]

4.28In relation to reporting on school refusal, a number of participants advocated for public reporting of school refusal and student wellbeing data. For example, TARA proposed that data about school refusal should be reported annually to Commonwealth, state and territory education departments, as well as being made publicly available on the Australian Government Department of Education website.[42] Similarly, Save the Children and 54 reasons recommended establishing regular reporting on student engagement and wellbeing, disaggregated to school level and integrated with the My Schools website.[43] Publication of school absence data at the individual school level was also recommended by School Can't Australia.[44]

4.29Public reporting was also supported by Associated Professor McKay-Brown in her capacity as a researcher:

As a researcher, having access to data makes a really big difference to me being able to think about where the research needs to happen. … For me, it's about the categorisation and having it publicly available for people to look at, because, as we've seen from this committee, once you ask the question, you realise how big it is, and we need a way to quantify that.[45]

Unique Student Identifier (USI)

4.30A number of participants mentioned the role the USI (see Box 4.1) could play in improving data sharing and reporting around school refusal.[46] For example, the Victorian Government highlighted its role in facilitating the 'efficient transfer of student information when students move between schools and systems'.

4.31The potential of the USI to address challenges created by the movement of students was also referred to by other witnesses. For example, while not speaking specifically about the USI, Adjunct Professor Frank Tracey of Queensland Health noted that more could be done in terms of following the data, particularly in relation to vulnerable families:

I think there is more to do in that space of pulling those threads together, if you will, to have a more comprehensive picture, because we know that, particularly vulnerable families, sometimes they move. Children go off the radar and they'll pop up somewhere else. So I'm a supporter of looking at that gap and just seeing how we might more actively follow the data.[47]

4.32In a similar vein, Ms Kira Clarke of the BSL emphasised the importance of understanding the trajectory of young people who disengage from school, who are currently 'invisible within the system':

The type of data that we see that is useful and important is a safety net tracking approach that looks, at the point of disengagement, at where those young people are going, tracking through service connectivity, through families and through understanding the different points of connection that are conditional to those young people becoming re-engaged back in education.[48]

4.33Similarly, Ms Birmingham expressed the view that the USI would be 'really key in the future to doing a better job of looking for kids who fall through the cracks'.[49]

4.34To this end, Professor Jim Watterston of the University of Melbourne, advised that the USI should be 'front and centre' as an immediate priority, given its potential to join up data and help track students 'when they turn up somewhere else, or even if they're involved in welfare—just to actually identify where they are'.[50]

4.35While noting previous delays in the rollout of the USI—as well as the need for changes to Commonwealth, state and territory legislation ahead of implementation—Ms Birmingham indicated that a preferred approach to the USI had now been piloted and agreed by Education Ministers as a way forward for the reform.[51]

Research to strengthen the national evidence base

4.36A range of participants agreed on the need for more research in order to strengthen the evidence base around school refusal.[53] For example, the PeterUnderwood Centre pointed to the 'paucity of school refusal research in Australia'.[54]

4.37In terms of research priorities, the Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta argued for more research to 'determine the nature and scope of the problem'.[55] Similarly, Ms Grantskalns of Independent Schools Australia submitted that further research be undertaken to understand the causes of school refusal and help develop effective strategies.[56] Further, Save the Children and 54 reasons recommended the development of a 'national evidence base' to identify 'what works' to support students.[57]

4.38More specifically, submitters such as Carers Australia suggested there was a need for further research into 'flexible learning arrangements',[58] while AssociateProfessor McKay-Brown called for more research into how to intervene early, as well as integrated health and education supports.[59]

4.39Further research into effective interventions was supported by AssociateProfessor Glenn Melvin of Deakin University, who described the current evidence base for effective interventions as 'very under-researched … in terms of clinical trials or trials where we evaluate those treatments'.[60] In his submission, Associate Professor Melvin also referred to the urgent need for evidence around the efficacy of specific educational settings for students experiencing school refusal—particularly in light of the apparent increase in popularity of distance/virtual education options:

We need to know what works for whom, to guide families and educators as to their best option given the well-established and broad ranging positive impacts of education. Evaluation of these education environments would also provide insights into how best to improve current offerings as well as informing the development of new and innovate models of education.[61]

4.40According to Associate Professor McKay-Brown, the current lack of research also works against collaboration and information sharing in relation to successful interventions—despite the various programs in operation on the ground:

We seem to be more behind in our ability to connect people. That is because, in Australia, we're not publishing a lot in this the space; there are few researchers publishing in this space. There are lots of programs happening in different places, but we have no way of knowing what these are, how the data is being collected around their efficacy and whether they're being implemented with fidelity.[62]

4.41A similar view was put forward by Ms Grantskalns who expressed a need for shared resources—for example, at a state or sector level—to support schools that are struggling individually 'to find their own way'.[63] Mr David Smart of Canberra Grammar School elaborated:

I think we're trying whatever we can and seeing if it works. It would be great to have an organisation who's done some research that's said, 'Well, these are the major causes, and this is what can work to support schools,' to know what they're trying to do is on the right track and helping.[64]

4.42To this end, Associate Professor McKay-Brown highlighted the benefits of a national approach to school refusal data and research:

I feel that a national … approach will allow us to, firstly, see what great work is being done around Australia and, secondly, make the connections across the sectors that we really need. It will enable us to really say, 'This is what we know, this is the data that we need to collect and this is what we do at each level.'[65]

4.43A national approach was also supported by the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH), which proposed the collaborative development of an evidence-based framework to address school refusal based on:

a literature review of national and international evidence for responding to school refusal; and

a mapping of current national and international school refusal initiatives.[66]

4.44The CCCH also proposed that the framework be accompanied by a strategy to enable implementation by schools, services and families.[67]

4.45 In addition to supporting further research, a number of submitters also noted that consultation with people with lived experience should be considered in decisions about designing and funding research and interventions relating to school refusal.[68]

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, Carers Australia, Submission 142, p. 2; Catholic Education Diocese of Bathurst, Submission 60, [p.8]; Name Withheld, Submission 97, p. 7.

[2]Save the Children and 54 reasons, Submission 20, p. 3.

[3]Associate Professor Glenn Melvin, Submission 34, [p. 2].

[4]Melbourne Graduate School of Education Disability Research Collaboration (MGSE DRC), Submission 15, [p. 2].

[5]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[6]MGSE DRC, Submission 15, [pp. 1 and 2]. According to the MGSE DRC, Tier 1 should consist of universal evidence-based strategies that are part of the daily school experience for all students. Tier2 supports should be provided to the subset of students who require additional assistance, while Tier 3 supports, which are individualised and resource intensive, should be reserved for the most chronic and complex cases. In addition, Tiers 2 and 3 should focus on capacity building, with Tier1 supports being sufficient to support all students most of the time.

[7]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2 and Dr Matthew Harrison, Senior Lecturer, Learning Intervention, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p.3.

[8]Mrs Melinda Gindy, President, Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT), Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 51.

[9]Save the Children and 54 reasons, Submission 20, pp. 3 and 4. See also, Professor Jennie Hudson, Director, Research, Black Dog Institute (BDI), Proof Committee Hansard, 22February 2023, p. 45.

[10]Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 55.

[11]See, for example, Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 145, [p. 9]; ProfessorJennieHudson, Director, Research, BDI, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 45; Victorian Government, Submission 25, p. 5; MGSE DRC, Submission 15, pp. 2 and 3.

[12]See, for example, Queensland Catholic Education Commission, Submission 13, p. 2; AssociateProfessor Glenn Melvin, Submission 34, [p. 1]; Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 55; BDI, Submission 5, p. 1; Beyond Blue, Submission 6, p. 2; MGSE DRC, Submission 15, p. 3; Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL), Submission 57, p. 18.

[13]See, for example, Learning Creates Australia, Submission 161, [p. 1]; South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 56, p. 4; Ms Veronica Elliott, Executive Officer, ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 16; MsMegan Gilmour, CEO and Co-founder, MissingSchool, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 23; Professor Jennie Hudson, Director, Research, BDI, Proof Committee Hansard, 22February 2023, p.45; Carers Australia, Submission 142, p. 3; Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, Submission 2, p.2.

[14]See, for example, School Refusal Clinic, Submission 17, [p. 5]; Associate Professor Glenn Melvin, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 46; MsCarolyn Grantskalns, CEO, Independent Schools Australia (ISA), Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 1; Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, pp. 1 and 2; Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 7, p. 4; Association of Parents & Friends of ACT Schools, Submission 14, [p. 2]; Centre for Multicultural Youth, Submission 16, [p, 1]; Peter Underwood Centre, Submission 24, p. 14; Centre for Excellence CFW, Submission 32, p. 4; Children and Young People with Disability Australia, Submission 39, [p. 1].

[15]Dr Gregory (Greg) Elliott, Director, Wellbeing, Catholic Schools Parramatta Diocese, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 8.

[16]Beyond Blue, Submission 6, p. 2.

[17]Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 55.

[18]Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 7, p. 3.

[19]School Can't (School Phobia, School Refusal) Australia (School Can't Australia), Submission 76, p.5.

[20]Mr Andrew Pierpoint, President, Australian Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA), Proof Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 2.

[21]Dr Stephen Stathis, Clinical Advisor, Mental Health, Alcohol and Other Drugs Branch, Clinical Excellence Queensland, Queensland Health, Proof Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 25.

[22]Queensland Department of Education answers to written questions on notice, 27 June 2023 (received 21 July 2023); Northern Territory Department of Education, answers to written questions on notice, 27 June 2023 (received 21 July 2023); Catholic Education Tasmania, answers to written questions on notice, 27 June 2023 (received 27 July 2023); Catholic Education Northern Territory, answers to written questions on notice, 27 June 2023 (received 27 July 2023); New South Wales Department of Education, answers to written questions on notice, 27 June 2023 (received 28July2023).

[23]The Autistic Realm Australia (TARA), Submission 55, p. 9 and Yellow Ladybugs Australia, Submission 59, p.6.

[24]School Refusal Clinic, Submission 17, [p. 5]; Carers ACT, Submission 26, p. 4; BSL, Submission 57, p.18. See also, Mr Mark Breckenridge, Vice-President, ASPA, Proof Committee Hansard, 20April2023, p. 2.

[25]Ms Megan Gilmour, CEO and Co-founder, MissingSchool, Proof Committee Hansard, 22February2023, p. 23.

[26]See, for example, Name Withheld, Submission 67, p. 4; Name Withheld, Submission 90, [p. 4]; Name Withheld, Submission 92, [p. 1]; Name Withheld Submission 97, p. 5; Name Withheld, Submission 105, [p.4]; Name Withheld, Submission 152, [p. 3]; Name Withheld, Submission 102, p. 4; Name Withheld, Submission 114, [p. 5]; Name Withheld, Submission 67, p. 4; Name Withheld, Submission 63, [p. 3].

[27]Name Withheld, Submission 105, [p. 4].

[28]Name Withheld, Submission 152, [p. 3].

[29]Name Withheld, Submission 67, p. 4.

[30]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[31]Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), answers to written questions on notice, 27June 2023 (received 14 July 2023). This work forms part of AERO's current research project on student attendance for the Education Ministers' Meeting.

[32]See, for example, School Can't Australia, Submission 76, p.11; Centre for Multicultural Youth, Submission 16, [pp. 2–3]; Children and Young People with Disability Australia, Submission 39, [p.4]; TARA, Submission 55, p. 9; Yellow Ladybugs, Submission 59, p. 5; Intersex Human Rights Australia, Submission 28, p. 16.

[33]Ms Kamla Brisbane, Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Carers ACT, Proof Committee Hansard, 22February 2023, p. 40.

[34]School Can't Australia, Submission 76, p.6.

[35]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[36]Save the Children and 54 reasons, Submission 20, p. 4.

[37]Ms Rachel O'Connor, Assistant Secretary, Student Engagement, Wellbeing and Closing the Gap, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22February 2023, p. 57.

[38]Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 56.

[39]St Joseph's Flexible Learning Centre, Submission 143, [p. 2].

[40]Mr Mark Breckenridge, Vice-President, ASPA, Proof Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 5.

[41]Mrs Robyn Thorpe, Board and Committee Member, ASPA and President, Northern Territory Principals' Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p.5.

[42]The Autistic Realm Australia, Submission 55, p. 9.

[43]Save the Children and 54 reasons, Submission 20, p. 4.

[44]School Can't Australia, Submission 76, p.5.

[45]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[46]See, for example, Carers Australia, Submission 142, p. 3; Victorian Government, Submission 25, p.5; Professor Jim Watterston, Dean, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, pp. 44, 45 and 47; Queensland Catholic Education Commission, Submission 13, pp. 2 and 7.

[47]Adjunct Professor Frank Tracey, Health Service Chief Executive, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Health, Proof Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 25.

[48]Ms Kira Clarke, Principal Research Fellow, Skills and Training, BSL, Proof Committee Hansard, 23February 2023, p. 19.

[49]Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 59.

[50]Professor Jim Watterston, Dean, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 47.

[51]Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Deputy Secretary, Schools Group, Australian Government Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, pp. 58–59. Ms Birmingham explained that the USI reform was originally agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2009. Implementation of a USI was included under the current National Schools Reform Agreement but progress was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as differences of opinion about how the system should be rolled out.

[52]Australian Government Department of Education, Schools Unique Student Identifier (USI), 18May2023 and Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, National Unique Identifier (USI) for school students, 5 May 2021.

[53]See, for example, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, Submission 39, [p. 1]; Name Withheld, Submission 95, [p. 5]; Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 7, p. 3; Name Withheld, Submission 102, p. 4; Name Withheld, Submission 105, [p. 4]; Name Withheld, Submission 111, p. 4; Association of Parents and Friends of ACT Schools, Submission 14, [p. 2]; Centre for Multicultural Youth, Submission 16, [p. 1]; ISA, Submission 29, p. 9; Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, Submission 32, p. 4; Name Withheld, Submission 72, [p. 2]; Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, Submission 2, p. 2; Mrs Melinda Gindy, President, AAEGT, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 50; Carers ACT, Submission 26, p. 4; Parents of Trans Youth Equity NSW & Parents of Gender Diverse Children, Submission 130, p. 2; Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, Submission 11, p. 1.

[54]Peter Underwood Centre, Submission 24, p. 14.

[55]Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, Submission 2, p. 2.

[56]Ms Carolyn Grantskalns, CEO, ISA, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 1.

[57]Save the Children and 54 reasons, Submission 20, p. 4.

[58]Carers Australia, Submission 142, p. 4. See also, Carers ACT, Submission 26, p. 4; Meg & Tara, Submission 149, p. 15.

[59]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 1.

[60]Associate Professor Glenn Melvin, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 44.

[61]Associate Professor Glenn Melvin, Submission 34, [p. 4].

[62]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[63]Ms Carolyn Grantskalns, CEO, ISA, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 6.

[64]Mr David Smart, Deputy Head, Senior Specialist Care, Canberra Grammar School, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 February 2023, p. 6.

[65]Associate Professor Lisa McKay-Brown, Chair, MGSE DRC, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 February 2023, p. 2.

[66]Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 145, p. 9.

[67]Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 145, p. 9.

[68]See, for example, Name Withheld, Submission 116, [p. 13]; Raise Foundation, Submission 147, [p. 4]; Peter Underwood Centre, Submission 24, p. 14; School Can't Australia, Submission 76, p. 14; Centre for Child and Community Health, Submission 145, p. 9.