Failure of systemic discrimination in Queensland public education | External submission

Submission to the Review of the Disability

Discrimination Act 1992

Submitted by Alison Philippe

a Student at

Cover Letter

To the Review Panel,

Please accept this submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. I write as

the                       a student at                                       . This submission outlines

systemic failures, discriminatory practices, and unmet obligations within Queensland’s public education system. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this submission and respectfully request that the Panel consider the urgent reforms needed to prevent further harm to children with disabilities.

Sincerely,

Alison Philippe

Introduction

| welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

(DDA). My submission reflects the lived experience of a student 1 ii, where systemic failures have consistently undermined this child’s right to equitable education.

Australian governments at both federal and state levels claim to uphold non-discrimination, yet schools frequently disregard these obligations in practice. Policies, procedures, and risk management are prioritised above teaching and learning. This reflects what Hannah Arendt described as the “banality of evil”: discrimination becomes normalised, procedural, and unexamined, not through deliberate malice but through unquestioned obedience to systems that cause harm. When schools rigidly follow internal rules at the expense of a child’s rights, they perpetuate discrimination while claiming compliance.

The result is that children with disability are denied an education that meets their needs, contrary to Australia’s obligations under the DDA, the DSE, the CRPD, and the CRC.

Does the DDA promote substantive equality in education? In principle the DDA intends to promote substantive equality. In practice, it does not. The student ii continues to be denied meaningful access to curriculum, structured teaching, and consistent behavioural support.

The school regularly fails to implement necessary adjustments such as verbal interrogative commands (e.g. “Sit down now”, “Safe Hands) followed by visual supports. This sequence reflects the strategies used at home, where firm, directive verbal instructions precede any visual cue. At school, these are applied inconsistently or not at all. Staff frequently defer to passive observation, allowing avoidance behaviours and dysregulation to escalate.

This failure results in substantive inequity, not because the child cannot learn, but because the school does not teach.

Does the DDA effectively impose obligations on education providers? No. In Queensland, schools frequently avoid their responsibilities by citing:
Safety: is used as an excuse to limit attendance or justify informal exclusion rather than increasing support.
Budget limitations: claiming adjustments are too costly.
Policy compliance: where staff prioritise adherence to departmental policy and procedures above individualised teaching.

The belief that following policy is inherently virtuous mirrors Arendt’s observations about bureaucracies: harm occurs when individuals stop questioning whether their actions uphold justice.

As long as “policy compliance” is treated as more important than a child’s learning or wellbeing, discrimination will continue unchecked.

What are the compliance challenges for schools? Schools face structural challenges, not child-related challenges. These include:

severe underfunding;
insufficient training;
a culture of risk aversion; and
market-driven pressures. Teachers are undertrained in disability-specific education, communication differences, trauma responses and behavioural expectations. Staff are instructed to follow rigid routines that prioritise the school’s risk-adverse and compliance-based requirements, not the child’s needs. The result is a system that protects the institution rather than supporting the learner.

Does the DDA appropriately define discrimination in education? No. The DDA focuses on individual acts, not systemic discrimination. At , discrimination manifests cumulatively:

lack of instructional teaching;
inconsistent use of verbal and visual supports;
failure to redirect constructively;
busy-work in place of curriculum; and
behaviour framed as defiance rather than communication. Such patterns reflect Arendt’s insight that systemic harm is often perpetrated through routine actions that go unquestioned. These patterns are discriminatory even when individual incidents appear minor.

Does the DDA work effectively with other legislation? No. Schools rely on internal departmental policies and codes of conduct instead of federal anti discrimination obligations. As a result, policy becomes a shield against accountability. State-level procedures, including risk and safety protocols, override federal rights. The organisational culture rewards compliance, even when compliance conflicts with the DDA or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Is the DDA accessible to families? No. Enforcement requires legal expertise, financial capacity, and emotional endurance. Families already in distress cannot pursue lengthy legal processes. The system expects families to carry the burden of proof while the institution enjoys the protection of legal teams and bureaucratic processes.
Does the DDA support meaningful remedies? No. Remedies are retrospective and focus on individual cases. Schools are not required to change culture, training, or systemic behaviours. Even when breaches are identified, no structural reform is mandated.

Are complaint mechanisms fit for purpose? No. These mechanisms lack independence and transparency. Principals hold near-total discretion over attendance, behaviour support, and access to curriculum. Families who question decisions are treated as adversaries.
What systemic discrimination issues should the Review address? Priority issues include:

informal exclusions disguised as safety responses;
reduced hours without due process;
chronic underfunding of public schools;
failure to use verbal interrogative instruction followed by visual support;
lack of behavioural analysis or structured interventions;
busy-work instead of curriculum-aligned learning; and
refusal to adopt effective home strategies. These practices disproportionately harm students with disability.

Failure to implement reasonable adjustments Schools often claim that visual supports alone are sufficient. They are not. Some children require verbal interrogative commands before visual cues or other strategies. Examples include:

“Sit down now.”
“Come to the table, sit.”
“Safe hands, or gentle hands, please.”
“Come here now, please.” What is used at home, should be integrated into the school, using these commands ensures consistency, firmness, and non-negotiability. If necessary, they are followed by a visual schedule or first-then board. This approach is effective. The school, however, refuses to adopt it because it deviates from their preferred easy to use model. Such refusal constitutes discrimination.

Denial of academic learning in special schools Students in special schools are regularly denied genuine teaching. Busy-work replaces curriculum. Expectations are lowered to what the school can manage, not what the student is capable of. Schools frequently claim they are teaching at curriculum Level 7 or higher, despite the fact that the child cannot read or write. These claims are administratively convenient but educationally meaningless. No inquiry is made into the student’s actual potential. Instead, the school insists on a one-size fits-all programme focused on compliance rather than learning.

Lack of partnership with families Despite rhetoric about partnership, schools often adopt a “do it our way or leave” stance. Strategies that work at home are dismissed because they do not fit the school’s comfort zone or routine. This mirrors Arendt’s description of bureaucratic harm: when individuals prioritise procedure over humanity, discriminatory outcomes become normalised. Schools attempt to force children with disability to fit into rigid systems rather than adapting systems to meet their needs, causing emotional and psychological harm.

Should the DDA be amended to address systemic discrimination? Yes. The Act must explicitly include systemic discrimination. This includes failures arising from policy frameworks, funding structures, workforce training, cumulative non-compliance, and deeply ingrained cultural attitudes.
Recommendations
Recognise systemic discrimination in the DDA.
Mandate enforceable minimum standards for reasonable adjustments.
Require independent oversight of behaviour support and attendance decisions.
Publicly report compliance data.
Increase federal responsibility for inclusion training.
Fully fund public schools to their School Resource Standard.
Require academic learning in special schools.
Replace risk-based exclusions with rights-based support.

Conclusion

The DDA is well-intentioned but ineffective in practice. The experience of a student at demonstrates that systemic discrimination persists through routine and unexamined practices. Unless schools are compelled to adopt enforceable, rights-based frameworks, discrimination will continue, protected by bureaucratic processes that prioritise compliance over humanity.

References

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Viking Press. Barnes, M., & Cross, R. (2021). Quality at a cost: The politics of teacher education policy in Australia. Critical Studies in Education. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education. Critical Studies in Education. Deakin REDI. (2025, April). Exploring inequities in Australian school funding. Deakin University Research for Educational Impact. https://redi.deakin.edu.au/2025/04/exploring-inequities-in-australian-school-funding Perry, L. (2024). Tensions undermining equitable school funding: Insights from Australia. Journal of Educational Administration and History. Queensland Advocacy Incorporated. (2020). Is it just my child? The use of School Disciplinary Absences in Queensland State Schools. Savage, G. C., & O’Connor, K. (2021). School autonomy, accountability and the “self-improving school” agenda: Lessons from Australia. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(1–2), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1843536 The Educator Online. (2024, June). We can’t afford to wait: Underfunded public schools harming Australia’s economy.https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/we-cant-afford-to-wait-underfunded-public-schools-harming-australias-economy-new-report-finds/283729