Submission 86 — Jodie Wilde — Inquiry into support for autistic children and young people in schools | External submission

Submission: Inquiry into support for autistic children and young people in

Schools

About Me

 Jodie Wilde

 Autistic adult  Parent of 2 Autistic children who attend WA public primary school; and  (Ex) early childhood and primary teacher in WA public schools, including contracts in Education Support Centre and Autism Specialist Learning Program – with a Masters of Inclusive Education  Post-graduate research student: Understanding Autistic Identity to Improve Wellbeing and Inclusion.

Major Concerns

The extreme prevalence of dehumanising attitudes towards autistic students in WA schools
The use of ABA and ABA-based practices in schools
The segregation of autistic students
The suspension and expulsion of autistic students
The lack of knowledge, and understanding about autism across the whole education system – from the top down
The extreme prevalence of dehumanising attitudes towards autistic students in WA schools See this blog post (written by me) https://www.accomplishinclusion.com/post/judgement-ridicule-and worse-how-western-australian-school-staff-talk-about-autistic-students
The use of ABA and ABA-based practices in schools In addition to the humiliation, dehumanisation, discrimination, bias, victimisation, and violence that autistic students are subject to by staff in WA schools, the WA government is directly contributing to the reinforcement and reproduction of these attitudes and practices through its support of ABA and ABA based practices in WA Schools.

These practices epitomise and reinforce deficit views of autism (and disability more generally) that aim to ‘normalise’ autistic/disabled people and force conformity to ableist norms and expectations, instead of reflecting on the appropriateness of these norms and expectations and making societal/systemic changes.

ABA is NOT an evidence-based practice – despite its proponent’s claims. There are significant flaws in the research base, including:  Lack of reporting re: conflicts of interest (most studies are conducted by practitioners or researchers with direct links to ABA practice) o The reliance of the Autism CRC synthesis of autism early intervention programs is extremely concerning given Autism CRC’s links to ABA organisations:  https://anticonversion.medium.com/the-ndis-the-autism-crc-and-aba-therapy-in australia-a-conflict-of-interest-93c4797f2cb7  Lack of reporting re: adverse affects (only ‘positive’ outcomes are reported – not the impact on the child’s health, safety and wellbeing)

 Measures focusing exclusively on skill acquisition and outcomes deemed important from parental and/or practitioner perspective (regardless of whether these are desirable outcomes for the individual)  Lack of social validity (appropriateness of the outcomes not considered from the perspective of the autistic person or the wider autistic community)  Lack of cultural considerations (findings are based on research focusing predominantly on White, middle-class, boys)

The Autistic community worldwide has consistently condemned the use of ABA as a practice that directly and indirectly leads to abuse and trauma – and there is a growing body of research supporting these concerns.

The fact that the WA government and Department of Education has repeatedly ignored these concerns and continues to push to expand the use of these practices highlights the systemic prejudices, discrimination, and de-humanisation that autistic people face.

The physical and mental health, safety and wellbeing of autistic children and adults is not a priority – the only concern is whether they conform to existing expectations and norms.

References: Lack of ABA evidence base:  Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Sandbank, M. and Woynaroski, T.G. (2021), Research Review: Conflicts of Interest (COIs) in autism early intervention research – a meta-analysis of COI influences on intervention effects. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr., 62: 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13249  Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Sandbank, M., & Woynaroski, T. G. (2021). Adverse event reporting in intervention research for young autistic children. Autism, 25(2), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320965331[https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zh64e](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zh64e)  Bottema-Beutel, K., & LaPoint, S. C. (2021). Pervasive Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Applied Behavior Analysis Autism Literature [Preprint].  Reichow, B., Hume, K., Barton, E. E., & Boyd, B. A. (2018). Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub3  Rodgers, M., Marshall, D., Simmonds, M., Le Couteur, A., Biswas, M., Wright, K., Rai, D., Palmer, S., Stewart, L., & Hodgson, R. (2020). Interventions based on early intensive applied behaviour analysis for autistic children: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technology Assessment, 24(35), 1–306. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24350  Rodgers, M., Simmonds, M., Marshall, D., Hodgson, R., Stewart, L. A., Rai, D., Wright, K., Ben Itzchak, E., Eikeseth, S., Eldevik, S., Kovshoff, H., Magiati, I., Osborne, L. A., Reed, P., Vivanti, G., Zachor, D., & Couteur, A. L. (2021). Intensive behavioural inter-ventions based on applied behaviour analysis for young children with autism: An inter-national collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis. Autism, 1362361320985680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320985680  Sandbank, M., Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Cassidy, M., Dunham, K., Feldman, J. I., Crank, J., Albarran, S. A., Raj, S., Mahbub, P., & Woynaroski, T. G. (2020). Project AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000215

 The Department of Defense Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration Quarterly Re-port to

Congress, Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2019. (2019). United States Department of Defense. https://www.altteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TRICARE-Autism-Report.pdf?x78693

References: Autistic Community Concerns:

https://autisticadvocacy.org/policy/briefs/intervention-ethics/

https://asan-aunz.org/autistic-australians-call-for-sen-hughes-disqualification-from-the-select

committee-on-autism/

https://reframingautism.org.au/position-statement-on-therapies-and-interventions/

https://pwd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/150720-PWDA-Submission-to-Inquiry-into

Autism-Finalv2.pdf

https://www.sentex.ca/~nexus23/naa_aba.html

https://awnnetwork.org/autistic-conversion-therapy/

References: Evidence supporting the Autistic community’s concerns regarding the harms of ABA:

Anderson, L. K. (2023). Autistic experiences of applied behavior analysis. Autism, 27(3), 737-750. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221118216

Freitas, B. G. (2020). Questioning Normativity: Exploring the Experiences of Autistic Adults Who

Have Undergone Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA)

Kupferstein, H. (2018). Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Advances in Autism, 4(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016 McGill, O., & Robinson, A. (2021). “Recalling hidden harms”: Autistic experiences of childhood applied behavioural analysis (ABA). Advances in Autism, 7(4), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-04-2020-0025

Sandoval-Norton, A. H., Shkedy, G., & Shkedy, D. (2019). How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse? Cogent Psychology, 6(1), 1641258. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1641258

Shkedy, G., Shkedy, D., & Sandoval-Norton, A. H. (2021). Long-term ABA Therapy Is Abusive: A Response to Gorycki, Ruppel, and Zane. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 5(2), 126-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-021-00201-1

Shyman, E. (2016). The Reinforcement of Ableism: Normality, the Medical Model of Disability, and Humanism in Applied Behavior Analysis and ASD. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 54(5), 366-376. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.5.366

Veneziano, J., & Shea, S. (2023). They have a Voice; are we Listening? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16(1), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00690-z

Wilkenfeld, D. A., & McCarthy, A. M. (2020). Ethical Concerns with Applied Behavior Analysis for Autism Spectrum “Disorder”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 30(1), 31-69. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2020.0000

The segregation of autistic students The introduction of autism SLP units is a way to segregate autistic students whilst appearing to conform to the requirement to provide inclusive education.

Please see attached the comprehensive case study paper | wrote detailing the significant issues with

this approach in 2021 (the paper received a high distinction and selected to use as an exemplar for future students).

The suspension and expulsion of autistic students This concerns relates directly to my experience as a parent of an autistic child who has been repeatedly failed by the education system. A (very) brief look at his school experience so far:  2019: o Entered kindy (aged 4) and began experiencing (behaviour) difficulties in term 2 o No support or intervention suggested or provided – I produced a behaviour profile and IBP in June 2019 to attempt to address this (and began the process of diagnosis) o I engaged with an external psychologist to work with the teacher to support my son – this offer was never accepted and other concerns were repeatedly dismissed  2020: o Jan –  I provided a strengths and needs profile for the new school teacher o Feb –  First suspension received in week 3 (25th Feb) of pre-primary (aged 5) for challenging behaviour o March –  School psych engaged early March to work with my private psych; psych requests use of Team Teach – I refuse (this refusal is ignored)  Repeatedly suspended throughout term 1 (several as a direct result of using Team Teach and other ‘strategies’ his psych and I indicated would escalate his behaviour) o April –  SSEN:BE engaged (at my request) follow post-COVID lockdown in term 2; this proved to be an extremely bad decision as it has resulted in my son’s PTSD o May –  my son receives an ADHD diagnosis o June –  My son develops extreme anxiety – manifested In behaviour and physical illness  I (again) provided the school with a comprehensive list of support strategies, developed in conjunction with private psych  The documents developed by SSEN:BE are presented and raise significant red flags regarding the ‘strategies’ and approaches proposed; consulted private psych to review  Comprehensive feedback provided with suggested (appropriate strategies); SSEN:BE refused to adopt many of the most important ones; discussion continue into term 3 o July/August –  The school begin implementing SSEN:BE plan resulting in significant and major escalations and suspensions as a direct result of being physically restrained by adults  I contact DDWA to discuss the issue of suspension and disability discrimination  I request access to all records relating to my son – these have never been provided in full  I make an official complaint to Regional Office and they support the school  I contact Sussex Street Legal for advice re: making a disability discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Commission o September –  Private psych contacts SSEN:BE to provide support – they refuse to engage with him o October –  Regional office officially dismisses my complaint and I begin the process of escalating to the Deputy Director and Human Rights Commission

 A new principal begins at the school and I agree not to proceed with my complaint to allow them time to make improvements  Continued discussion with SSEN:BE regarding the (in)appropriateness of their approaches o November –  School continues to use ‘positive handling’ meaning a 5 year old is being physically restrained/moved by 2 fully grown adults  My son frequently has cuts/scratches from these encounters – he is suspended again (three times) for defending himself in these situations  I again provide the school with a significant number of strategies that they should use instead o December –  My son receives a suspension for the final two days of school – ending the year on a deep low and guaranteeing a bad start to the following year  2021: o Jan –  My son meets his new teacher briefly the day before school starts o Feb –  11th Feb starts to refuse to attend school following inappropriate approaches o March  Son is (unofficially) suspended for an incident during recess when he was supposed to have EA support  The practice of unofficial suspension (calling me to collect him early) continues as standard practice throughout the year o May –  My son’s behaviour ‘increases’ and he is again suspended;  On investigation, the school has removed several of the strategies I gave them (and were working well) without discussion with me o June/July  SSEN:D engaged to support school in implementing appropriate strategies to support my son  These strategies are aligned to my suggested strategies and work well for the remainder of the year o November –  My son receives an official ASD diagnosis  I am verbally assaulted on school grounds regarding my son’s ‘behaviour’ (towards an older student)  The parent in question is allowed to remain a frequent volunteer at school events  2022: o Feb/Mar –  School continue the unofficial policy from 2021 of calling to collect early whenever they are finding my son’s behaviour challenging (25th Feb, 28th Feb, 4th Mar, 17th Mar, 21st Mar) o April-June  Son suspended multiple times  Son’s heightened anxiety returns – manifests in school refusal and physical symptoms  Son is rarely in class when he is in school – spends most of his time outside

o July –  School attempt to suspend son for ‘hitting’ a staff member; I saw the incident and how he was roughly treated (physically) by the EA who didn’t know me; son’s arm is injured; school backs down  Becomes apparent that the SSEN:D strategies from 2021 have been abandoned o August-September  School continues to send son home early (11th Aug,  Son’s anxiety continues to increase – resulting in greater school refusal and more time outside the classroom when he does attend o October-December  Classroom teacher is reassigned every Friday for the remainder of the school year; a relief teacher that my son has previously had a bad experience with is given the class on Fridays  Son is suspended twice while the relief teacher is in the class  Son starts to refuse to go to school/need collecting early on Thursdays as anxiety about Friday teacher increases significantly  Frequent calls to come into school to ‘reset’ son; often out of class  I stop taking him into school on Fridays  2023: o Jan –  I provide the school with updated information re: how to support my son o Feb –  I request a meeting with son’s new EA’s (5 of them) to make sure they are all on the same page re supporting my son; the school refuses my request  Son suspended 21st Feb  Receive a copy of son’s IEP; highly inappropriate and clearly demonstrating the lack of knowledge and understanding of autism (see concern number 5 below)  Provide feedback to school re IEP; receive limited response from the school  Son again suspended 28th Feb o March –  Son again suspended (7th March, 28th March)  Continue to receive phone calls to collect my son early/reset him o April  Son suspended 4th April for the reminder of term 1  Son returns to school for term 2 on 26th April; suspended after 1 hr 30 mins in school; request meeting to dispute suspension  SSEN:D re-engaged to support the school and begin to observe my son  Case conference 27th April with SSEN:D o May  Meeting to discuss son’s suspension on 26th April not granted until May 19th  School psych re-engaged to observed son and support the development of IBP o June –  Meet with school re: IBP – some significant changes needed to reflect appropriate strategies  Meet with SSEN:D to discuss implementation of strategies going forward

The lack of knowledge, and understanding about autism across the whole education system – from the top down This is a immensely widespread issue that I could speak to at length. Some of these are illustrated in the following blog posts (written by me)

https://www.accomplishinclusion.com/post/how-not-to-write-an-individual-education-plan-iep:

https://www.accomplishinclusion.com/post/knowing-the-autism-diagnostic-criteria-is-not-the-same as-knowing-what-autism-is-isn-t

https://www.accomplishinclusion.com/post/challenging-ableism-in-education-tips-for-teachers-on how-to-be-an-inclusive-educator

Case Study: Guiding Inclusive Practice - A Policy Statement for Sempiternal1 Primary

School, Western Australia

Jodie Wilde 11001984

Queensland University of Technology

EUN639 Inclusive Education: Historical, Conceptual and Legal Foundations

Semester 1, 2021

Ms Haley Tancredi

April 23, 2021

In submitting this work, I declare that, unless otherwise acknowledged, this work is wholly

my own. I understand that my work may be submitted to Turnitin and consent to this taking

place.

1 All names have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

Case Study: Guiding Inclusive Practice - A Policy Statement for Sempiternal Primary

School, Western Australia

Inclusive education is a fundamental human right enshrined in Article 24 of

the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations, 2008)

and detailed in General Comment 4 (GC4; United Nations, 2016) As a signatory to the

CRPD, Australia has a binding obligation to provide inclusive education for all students

(United Nations, 2008). This requirement is enacted at a national level through the Disability

Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA; Australian Government [Federal Register of Legislation],

and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE; Australian Government [Department of Education, Skills & Employment], 2012). The use of inclusive education is

supported by an extensive body of evidence demonstrating improved outcomes for students

with disabilities in inclusive settings. Despite this, Australian schools continue to use non

inclusive practices under the guise of inclusion. This needs to change to ensure we meet our

legal and ethical obligations as educators.

The Development of Inclusive Education

For much of human history disability was viewed as an undesirable trait to be

eradicated. In 1939, Nazi Germany implemented a eugenics program that systematically

murdered over 300,000 children and adults with disabilities and paved the way for the

Holocaust (Davis et al., 2020). These atrocities prompted the international community to take

a closer look at fundamental rights and in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR; United Nations, 1948) was adopted. The UDHR opened the door for civil- and

disability-rights activism and these movements gained traction worldwide during the second

half of the twentieth century.

Legal Foundations of Inclusive Education

In the 1970s, legal challenges in the US and a parliamentary inquiry in the UK led to

changes to legislation regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in education

(Graham, 2020). The inclusive education movement was advanced by The Salamanca

Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) which

called for governments to make systemic changes to implement inclusive education. While

the Salamanca Statement marks an important milestone in inclusive education, it is not a

legally binding instrument. It was not until the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations, 2008) that a legal obligation to “ensure

an inclusive education system at all levels” was created. However, the CRPD did not

explicitly define inclusive education allowing misconceptions surrounding inclusion to

persist. In response, General Comment 4 (United Nations, 2016) was adopted to provide clear

guidelines regarding what inclusive education looks like in practice.

In Australia, the obligation to provide equal access to education is enacted by the

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Australian Government, 1992) and the Disability

Standards for Education 2005 (Australian Government, 2005). Although this legislation does

not specifically address inclusive education it does align with the CRPD (United Nations,

2008), specifying that students with disabilities have the right to enrol and participate in

education programs on the same basis as their peers. To achieve this, educators are obligated

to:

Develop proactive strategies to prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Consult with students or their representatives regarding needs; and
Provide reasonable adjustments to facilitate access to education. An adjustment is unreasonable if providing it would cause unjustifiable hardship to the education

provider.

Consultation is required to identify potential barriers preventing students with disabilities

from accessing and participating in education on the same basis as their peers and to develop

reasonable adjustment to address these barriers (Australian Government, 2005).

Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Practices

GC4 (United Nations, 2016) makes it clear that inclusive education requires schools

and teachers to be flexible, reflective and adaptable and that all aspects of education are

responsive to the needs of diverse students. Including curriculum and assessment, teaching

and learning strategies, and the physical environment. This necessitates extensive system

wide reform. Students with disabilities cannot be excluded from high-quality general

education, nor should they be educated in isolation from their peers in special units or

classrooms (segregation), nor be expected to simply fit into the existing system (integration).

GC4 explicitly states that the practices of exclusion, segregation and integration are

incompatible with inclusion and must end (United Nations, 2016).

The Fundamental Principles of Inclusion

The CRPD (United Nations, 2008), GC4 (United Nations, 2016), DDA (Australian

Government, 1992) and DSE (Australian Government, 2005) all assert the obligation to

provide the supports necessary for students with disabilities to overcome barriers and access

education on an equal basis with their peers. However, the terms “overcome barriers” and

“on an equal basis” are open to misinterpretation and this has led to the continuation of non

inclusive practices in Australia, particularly segregation and integration. An in-depth

understanding of the fundamental concepts of inclusion is necessary to understand why these

practices do not meet the requirement to provide inclusive education.

The social model of disability views disability as the result of barriers in the

environment that prevent access to education. These barriers are the product of ableism; the

privileging of the viewpoints and/or needs of people without disabilities over people with

disabilities. Barriers can be addressed through the equitable provision of supports based on

individual needs, not on equal distribution of resources. The dilemma of difference

recognises that in order to provide equitable supports we need to identify diversity whilst also

ensuring that this doesn’t lead to stigma or marginalisation. The use of strengths-based,

person first inclusive language can combat ableism and stigma by separating the person from

the disability2 (Graham et al., 2012; Graham et al., 2020).

Segregation and integration are not inclusive practices because they fail to recognise

the social aspects of disability and are inherently ableist and inequitable. They employ a

deficit model that views the person’s disability itself as the barrier to education. Therefore,

the focus should be on “fixing” the disability, not on addressing systemic barriers. The

requirement to provide education “on an equal basis” is presumed to be met because students

with disabilities are not actively excluded from education. The underlying message of

segregation and integration is that the ability to fit into the existing system (designed for

people without disabilities) is indicative of whether the student is capable of academic and

social success. Students with disabilities need to prove they are capable of success by

adapting to the requirements of the system or be excluded from it (de Beco, 2017).

Why Inclusive Education Should Be Our Goal

It is clear that the provision of inclusive education is a legal obligation, but it is also

an ethical and professional obligation. As teachers, we have a duty to ensure we provide the

highest standards of education for all students and inclusive education is an effective way to

achieve this. An extensive body of evidence has consistently shown that when compared to

their peers in segregated settings students in inclusive settings make greater academic

progress, are more likely to have high-quality relationships with their peers, have improved

2 It is important to note that some members of the disability community strongly oppose person first language, for example Autistic adults (like myself) who view neurodiversity and identity as inseparable.

mental health outcomes and are less likely to exhibit anti-social behaviours (Cole, 2021; de

Bruin, 2020; SWIFT, 2017). This translates to improved long-term outcomes for post

secondary education, employment and relationships (de Bruin, 2020). The academic impact

of inclusive education on students without disabilities is largely neutral to positive, refuting

the argument that students without disabilities are disadvantaged in inclusive classrooms

(Szumski et al., 2017, Hehir et al., 2016). The positive social impacts of inclusion on students

without disabilities includes greater acceptance of diversity and reduced stigma and prejudice

towards people with disabilities in the wider community (Hehir et al., 2016).

These benefits are the result of true inclusive education, not segregation or

integration. The proportion of students with disabilities in each class must reflect the

distribution of people with disabilities in the community and inclusive classroom practices

are critical (de Bruin, 2020). This requires the proactive use of high-quality, universally

accessible strategies that address the barriers that prevent access to the curriculum and

learning environment. Individual supports are provided in addition to these practices. (Hehir

et al., 2016; de Bruin, 2020; Carrington, 2007). Teachers must have high expectations for

students with disabilities and ensure they create high quality Individual Education Plans

(IEPs) (de Bruin, 2020). There are clear links between inclusive practice and The Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers which require teachers to: have high expectations of all

learners, support student engagement through inclusive teaching practices, use a range of

flexible teaching strategies, differentiate the curriculum to meet the needs of diverse learners,

and engage with research to improve practice (AITSL, 2017). From a legal, ethical and

professional perspective, inclusive education should be the aim of all schools across

Australia.

Case Study: Sempiternal Primary School

Overview of Current Practice

Sempiternal Primary School is an independent public school located 40 km south of

Perth, Western Australia. The school’s on-site programs include the Specialist Learning

Program for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (SLP). This program is a Department

of Education initiative that targets students with ASD without an intellectual disability. The

aim is for students “to exit the program when they are integrating successfully in

mainstream” (School of Special Educational Need: Disability, n.d.). Students are enrolled in

mainstream classes but spend the majority of their time in segregated SLP classrooms. SLP

classes run an alternate curriculum based on Individual Education Plans (IEPs). IEPs are

developed without consultation with the mainstream classroom teacher and with minimal

consultation with parents/caregivers.. There is no identification of potential instructional

barriers that could be proactively addressed through flexible and responsive teaching

practices. Proactive behaviour management strategies are included in Individual Behaviour

Plans (IBPs) however IBPs are only developed as a reactive measure to persistent patterns of

severely challenging behaviours.

The primary focus of SLP classrooms is on highly scripted instructional programs, for

example Discrete Trial Training and Direct Instruction. While these programs are aligned to

the students instructional level they provide no flexibility in delivery or engagement. There is

very little adjustment to classroom routines, teaching strategies or the learning environment.

For example, students must sit cross-legged and eyes forward during mat sessions and remain

seated and silent at their desk during activities. Some proactive strategies are included within

the program, for example the use of visuals and breaks. However, visuals are exclusively

used to remind students to comply with behaviour expectations and the teacher determines

the timing, duration and type of break given to students. The justification for this is that

“students need to learn how to cope in mainstream classrooms that are not tailored to their

individual needs”. Students respond to this rigidity with externalised behaviours that staff

find challenging resulting in a significant amount of time spent on reactive behaviour

management strategies.

Critical Analysis of Current Practice

With a comprehensive understanding of inclusive education, it is evident that current

practice at Sempiternal Primary School is not inclusive. Nor can it achieve inclusion whilst

continuing to operate the Specialist Learning Program for Students with ASD (SLP). The

program does not meet the legal, ethical or professional obligations to provide high-quality

inclusive education to students with disabilities. Despite marketing itself as “fully inclusive”

(School of Special Educational Needs: Disabiliy, n.d.) this program is in fact segregation with

the explicit end goal of integration. The CRPD (United Nations, 2008) and GC4 (United

Nations, 2016) make it clear that these practices are fundamentally incompatible with

inclusive education and governments must commit to ending them. It also fails to meet the

obligations of the Disability Standards for Education (Australian Government, 2005). It does

not consult with students to consider how to meet their sensory needs and it does not provide

reasonable adjustments to program design and delivery relevant to individual needs.

There is no evidence of the incorporation of teaching strategies that facilitate

inclusion, as identified by research and supported by the Australian Professional Standards

for Teachers (AITSL, 2017). Instead, the emphasis of the program is on modifying

externalising behaviours to meet neurotypical expectations. The goal is for students to

integrate into a system that does not accommodate their needs by learning to suppress their

sensory and social-communication differences. This is despite widespread condemnation of

these practices as damaging to mental health and wellbeing by the Autistic community

(Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 2021). As a Department of Education initiative, the

program exposes the institutional ableism and systemic bias that persists at all levels of

education. This program needs to be disbanded immediately and changes made at a whole

school level to ensure students with disabilities are fully included in general education

classes.

Recommendations

The research into inclusive practice offers insight into the steps schools can take to

achieve inclusion. Successful inclusion requires schools to build a whole-school culture of

inclusion and to support teachers to develop flexible practices that are responsive to the needs

of all learners (Hehir et al., 2016). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) provide a

framework for building these capabilities. The purpose of an MTSS is to proactively identify

potential barriers to learning for all students and then select and implement appropriate

evidence-based strategies to address these barriers. The emphasis is placed on developing

effective school-wide universal (tier one) strategies that all learners benefit from whilst

recognising that some learners will still require more targeted (tier two) and intensive (tier

three) supports in addition to the universal supports (Brown-Chidsey et al., 2015). Universal

Design for Learning (UDL) is an effective tier one strategy that can be used to address the

needs of diverse learners and is recommended by the Australian Institute for Teaching and

School Leadership (AITSL, 2020).

UDL is based on the principles of universal design in architecture, the aim of which is

to consider all possible users and build in support at the design stage, reducing the need to

retrofit at a later date. In education, this means considering potential barriers to engagement,

understanding and participation and then designing lessons and assessments with supports

built in. UDL lessons provide options for engagement, representation, and action and

expression that maximise the opportunity to learn. Examples include providing content in

different formats, allowing students to. choose how they demonstrate their understanding, and

designing authentic, hands-on activities. CAST have developed comprehensive guidelines to

assist teachers in this process (CAST, 2018). The key point to remember is that these

supports are made universally available to all students, not just the students we believe will

benefit from them. From here, further supports and adjustments can be made based on

individual needs.

The adoption of MTSS and/or UDL does not guarantee inclusion, however these

approaches provide a strong foundation for building an inclusive school environment. Other

considerations are staff training and development to ensure deep understanding of and

commitment to inclusion, and the availability and distribution of resources to help facilitate

inclusion, for example digital technologies. However, absence of staff commitment to

inclusion or lack of resources cannot be an excuse to delay the move towards inclusive

education.

Call to Action

The case for moving away from segregation and integration towards inclusion is

unambiguous. It is a legal, ethical and professional requirement. As teachers we have a duty

to ensure all students are given the opportunity to succeed and research supports the use of

inclusive education as the best way to provide this opportunity. Current practice at

Sempiternal Primary School does not fulfil these obligations. Change can and should begin

immediately. The existence of non-inclusive education models at a national or state level is

not an excuse for schools to disregard their duty to provide high-quality inclusive education

for all.

References

Australian Government [Department of Education, Skills & Employment]. (2012). Disability

Standards for Education 2005. Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/node/16354

Australian Government [Federal Register of Legislation]. (1992). Disability Discrimination

Act 1992. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00763

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Autistic Self Advocacy Network (2021). Position Statement.

https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/position-statements/

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2015). Introduction. In Practical handbook of Multi

Tiered Systems of Support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools (pp.

1-6). Guilford Publications.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=4000654

Carrington, Suzanne. (2007). Chapter 8: Classroom relationships, pedagogy and practice in

the inclusive classroom. In Schools and diversity (2nd ed, pp. 108–127). Pearson

Education Australia.

Cole, S. M., Murphy, H. R., Frisby, M. B., Grossi, T. A., & Bolte, H. R. (2021). The

Relationship of Special Education Placement and Student Academic Outcomes. 54(4).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022466920925033

Davis, J., Gillett-Swan, J., Graham, L. J., & Malaquias, C. (2020). Chapter 4: Inclusive

education as a human right. In L. J. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive education for the 21st

century (pp. 79–99). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116073-6

De Beco, G. (2017). The right to inclusive education: why is there so much opposition to its

implementation? International Journal of Law in Context, 1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000532

De Bruin, K. (2020). Chapter 3: Does inclusion work? In L. J. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive

education for the 21st century (pp. 55–76). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116073-4

Graham, L. J., Medhurst, M., Tancredi, H., Spandagou, I., & Walton, E. (2020). Chapter 2:

Fundamental concepts of inclusive education. In L. J. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive

education for the 21st century. Taylor & Francis Group.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116073-3

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A

Summary of The Evidence on Inclusive Education. ALANA. https://alana.org.br/wp

content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf

Lawrence, K. S.,. (2017). Research Support for Inclusive Education and SWIFT. SWIFT

Center.

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of

students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis.

Educational Research Review, 21, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs

education [Program and meeting document]. World Conference on Special Needs

Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, September 2, 2016,

General comment No. 4 on Article 24: Right to inclusive education (CRPD/C/GC/4).

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=

CRPD/C/GC/4&Lang=en

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2008,

www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with

disabilities.html

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, www.un.org/ en/universal

declaration-human-rights/

Walton, E. (2016). Chapter 3: The meaning of inclusive education. In The language of

inclusive education: exploring speaking, listening, reading and writing (pp. 47–65).

Routledge.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317638681/chapters/10.4324%2F978131575

9272-11