Submission 132 — Inclusive Educators Australia — Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative | External submission

Submission to the House Standing Committee

on Health, Aged Care and Disability

Inclusive Educators Australia

3 October 2025

Email: contact@inclusiveeducators.org.au

Website: https://inclusiveeducators.org.au/

1. Overview

Inclusive Educators Australia welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Thriving Kids Inquiry.

We acknowledge the Government’s commitment to strengthening supports for children with disability. We recognise that Thriving Kids has the potential to deliver important benefits: redirecting fragmented supports into a more coherent system, building the capability of mainstream services and improving outcomes for children. At the same time, we have three overarching concerns about the proposed reform initiative:

Timeframe: The proposed rollout period of less than one year is far too short for reforms of this scale. Transforming education systems to properly support children with autism and/or development delay requires sequenced, systemic change, co-developed with educators and education leaders. Attempting rapid reform risks tokenistic “add-on” implementation, poor practice on the ground and ultimately undermining the intent of the reform.
Scope: By singling out children with developmental delay and/or autism, the initiative risks fragmenting reform and creating parallel systems that reinforce segregation in education. Reform should be grounded in an inclusive, principled approach and encompass all children with disability, not just specific diagnostic groups.
Foundations: Any new initiative must sit within a broader national framework for inclusive education. This means ensuring reforms are consistent with Article 24 of the CRPD, avoiding and phasing out segregation, and accompanied by systemic capability building and supports for educators.

2. Background

2.1 Inclusive Educators Australia

Inclusive Educators Australia (IEA) brings together Australian education professionals who are focused on providing an inclusive education for all students. We believe that every student, regardless of background or ability, has the right to quality inclusive education in a regular education environment, alongside same-age

peers, accessing the core curriculum and participating fully as valued members of their school community.

IEA has over 10000 members across our organisation and affiliate networks, which comprise principals, teachers, education assistants, allied health professionals working in education, school and system administrators. These members work in public, Catholic and Independent school systems.

IEA recognises the professional knowledge and skills of inclusive educators and promotes and supports their valuable leadership across schools and education systems. IEA facilitates access to professional learning opportunities, evidence-informed resources and collaborative networks to enhance inclusive education practices.

IEA is focused on celebrating and advancing inclusive education reform efforts and is committed to building the confidence and capability of the education workforce to ensure scalable and sustainable change across classrooms, preschools, schools and the education system.

2.2 Inclusive education

IEA recognises that students with disability have a fundamental human right to inclusive education under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). IEA’s understanding of inclusive education is informed by Article 24 of the CRPD and General Comment No.4 (Right to Inclusive Education) released by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) in 2016.

General Comment No.4 defines inclusion as:

‘a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion.’1

The CRPD Committee goes on to say that ensuring the right to inclusive education entails:

‘a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal educational environments to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to remove the barriers that impede that possibility’
‘strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. It focuses on the full and effective participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those who, for different reasons, are excluded or at risk of being marginalised’
‘access to and progress in high-quality formal and informal education without discrimination’
‘an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy and the mechanisms for financing, administration, design, delivery and monitoring of education.’2

Inclusive education requires an ongoing commitment to an improvement focus and a high level of frequency and fidelity of quality teaching and learning practices across the whole-school. As a result, inclusive education is not a destination. There will always be a need to build capability and to improve systems and processes.

Importantly, General Comment No.4 distinguishes inclusion from:

Exclusion, which ‘occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form.’ 3
Segregation, which ‘occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities.’ 4
Integration, which ‘is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions’.5

IEA therefore considers that inclusive education, as an educational practice, means that all students with disability:

learn in a regular education environment (that has been sufficiently transformed to be accommodate all learners), alongside their same-age peers
access the core curriculum, with appropriate adjustments and supports
fully and effectively participate in their school community as valued members.

We have experienced firsthand that inclusive education leads to the best academic, social and emotional and post-school outcomes for students with disability. These positive outcomes are experienced by all students with disability, including those with complex learning profiles. This is supported by a wealth of research evidence that consistently highlights inclusive education as a beneficial model of education for all students.6

We have also witnessed the transformative impact of inclusive education on students without disability, improving not only their educational outcomes but also shaping their beliefs and attitudes. Inclusive education fosters greater acceptance of diverse characteristics, identities and learning profiles. This is again supported by a wealth of academic evidence.7

2.2.1 Segregated education

IEA considers that ‘special schools’, or ‘special’ units or classrooms within mainstream preschools or schools, to be segregated education and incompatible with inclusive education. We consider the educational experiences and outcomes of segregated education settings for students with disability to be unacceptably poor and amounts to educational neglect. We are not aware of any research evidence that demonstrates that segregated education provision improves long term outcomes for students with disability.8

Rather, a 2020 study that tracked the outcomes of ‘matched pairs’ of students, found that students accessing inclusive education had significantly more positive outcomes than their matched student. The quasi-experimental study focused on 15 pairs of students with complex learning profiles, matched across 12 characteristics. One

child in each pair was included in general education for 80% or more during their day. The other child in the pair received their education in a separate special education class.9 The authors concluded that:

‘Progress outcomes for communication, literacy, and numeracy skills from the first IEP in the district to the most current IEP were highly significant for the students served in general education versus their counterparts in separate classes. In addition, levels of engaged learning, social interactions, and involvement in typical curricular activities were significantly higher during the school day for students served in general education classes.’10

In addition to being incompatible with inclusive education, segregation in education also constitutes a form of discrimination. The CRPD Committee has confirmed that segregated education models violate Articles 5(2) and 24(1)(a) of the CRPD, and that a failure to provide inclusive and quality education in mainstream settings is itself discriminatory.11 The Committee explained that this is the case because segregated education systems are based on, and perpetuate, the assumption that some learners are “unsuitable” for regular education.12

2.2.2 Inclusive education in practice

IEA members have significant experience and expertise in delivering inclusive education and transforming schools to be fully inclusive of all students. Our experience demonstrates that inclusive education is practicable and achievable across Australia, at all stages of education and across public, Catholic and Independent systems.

Our experience and expertise show that the following elements are critical to the successful realisation of inclusive education:

Shared understanding amongst all stakeholders of inclusive education, including its guiding philosophy, fundamental concepts, frameworks and practices
System-level support from state/territory and regional stakeholders and Departments of Education
School leadership and commitment from principals and broader leadership teams

Strategic planning to develop a robust plan for achieving inclusive education in the school’s unique context
Professional development opportunities for teachers and support staff to become more confident in providing inclusive education, with sufficient time allocated to enable this
Community education of the broader school community about inclusive education and the benefits for all students
Family collaboration with parents/carers and supporters in planning and decision-making
Inclusive culture that actively fosters inclusive attitudes and behaviours and building a school culture based on respect for diversity
Empowering the leadership and voice of students with disability
Ongoing, continuous review and monitoring of inclusive education implementation.

3. Key concerns and recommendations

Our comments and recommendations focus on the Thriving Kids initiative from an educator perspective, drawing on the expertise of teachers, principals and education professionals implementing inclusive education in early childhood and school settings.

To be successful, Thriving Kids must:

reinforce the right to inclusive education, ensuring that supports strengthen inclusion and participation in regular education settings
invest in building the capability of mainstream services rather than creating another “add-on”, separate program
embed evidence-informed collaboration between educators and allied health professionals, ensuring students receive targeted supports in inclusive settings while strengthening teacher capability and avoiding pull-out models
address inequities facing First Nations and culturally and diverse children, embedding culturally safe and intersectional approaches
tackle workforce shortages and gaps in inclusive education training through targeted recruitment, retention and professional development strategies
support seamless transitions across mainstream systems, with nationally consistent frameworks and portability of supports.

3.1 Thriving Kids must sit within a broader inclusive education framework

Thriving Kids should be framed as a systemic, capability-building initiative, embedded within a broader inclusive education reform package. With the right design and timeframe, it has the potential to drive sustainable reform that improves outcomes for all children. If poorly framed or rushed, however, it risks entrenching segregation, overwhelming educators and undermining long-term equality for students with disability.

The fact sheet from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing indicates that Thriving Kids will be delivered through mainstream and community platforms, including ECEC and schools. Beyond naming these settings, however, the proposal provides little clarity on how supports would operate in education. This vagueness creates both risk and opportunity.

If Thriving Kids embeds inclusive education principles, it could strengthen mainstream capability and improve outcomes for all children. If not, it risks inserting diagnosis-based programs into schools and early learning centres without addressing systemic barriers. Anchoring the initiative in inclusive education reform is therefore essential to ensure it builds capability within ECEC and schools, rather than creating parallel systems that undermine them.

The recent Review of Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention emphasises that best practice interventions^i must be non-categorical, family-centred, rights-based and embedded in natural settings such as ECEC and schools.13 This approach highlights the importance of building inclusive practice in mainstream education (which we prefer to call “regular education”, noting that mainstream suggests another “separate” stream). Accordingly, Thriving Kids should strengthen inclusive practice in these settings, rather than create diagnosis-based programs that risk fragmenting reform.

As we discussed in section 2.2, research consistently shows that inclusive education delivers the strongest long-term academic, social and emotional outcomes for students with disability, including those with developmental delay and autism. By contrast, segregated or parallel initiatives deliver poorer outcomes and exacerbate exclusion. Thriving Kids will only succeed if it forms part of a comprehensive national framework for inclusive education.

Australia has already committed, under the CRPD, to realising inclusive education for all children. Meeting this obligation requires systemic transformation across ECEC and schools, not piecemeal programs. The Disability Royal Commission reinforced this imperative, with all Commissioners unanimously affirming the right to enrolment in, and equal access to, regular education.14 The Disability Royal

^i Note: we prefer language of “supports” over “intervention”, which has more negative connotations.

Commission recommended a National Roadmap to Inclusive Education, a coordinated, long-term plan to embed inclusion across Australia.15 While governments agreed in principle to this recommendation, there have been no public statements on progress made in developing a National Roadmap.

Thriving Kids therefore represents a critical opportunity to give substance to Australia’s national commitments. If embedded within a broader inclusive education framework, it can serve as an early, practical step toward the longer-term Roadmap, ensuring investment builds mainstream capability and benefits all learners.

3.2 Workforce gaps: structured support and systemic reform

Educators are central to the success of Thriving Kids. Early childhood educators, teachers and school leaders are the people who must translate policy objectives into practice in classrooms and early learning settings, every day. Without their confidence, capability and time, no initiative will succeed. Yet teachers are already under significant workload pressure. Simply layering new expectations on top of existing demands will undermine both teacher wellbeing and the effectiveness of the program.

Workforce shortages are now one of the biggest issues facing schools and early childhood education, with secondary teacher demand expected to outstrip supply by more than 4,000 between 2021 and 2025. Shortages are most acute in rural and regional areas and are compounded by rising enrolments, declining initial teacher educator completions, workload and retention challenges.16 The Review of Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention identifies these shortages, alongside variable capability and lack of regulation, as major barriers to best practice. Thriving Kids must therefore treat workforce reform as a central pillar of its design.

The Review also found that professional learning must be structured, ongoing and job-embedded to be effective.17 Thriving Kids should therefore prioritise comprehensive professional development, mentoring and technical assistance to enable educators to embed inclusive pedagogy in daily practice. This aligns with international evidence showing that system-wide investment in educator capability is the most effective way to improve outcomes for children with disability.18

Inclusive education should not be viewed as an added burden in the context of teacher shortages. On the contrary, research shows that teachers are more likely to

remain in the profession when they feel confident, effective and supported in meeting diverse needs.19 Universal design and inclusive pedagogy also reduces workload duplication, allowing teachers to plan for diversity once rather than manage multiple parallel programs.20 By investing in capability, collaboration time and system-level supports, Thriving Kids can strengthen both inclusion and teacher retention.

To achieve this, governments should invest in:

Professional standards and preparation: Embed inclusive education in teacher and leadership standards; strengthen initial teacher education so all graduates are confident to teach diverse learners; and incentivise postgraduate study in inclusive education.
Recruitment and retention: Target incentives and tailored supports to recruit and retain educators in rural, regional and remote communities.
Ongoing professional learning: Scale up structured, job-embedded professional learning across ECEC and schools, supported by mentoring and coaching. Content should include adjustments, universal design in pedagogy and assessment, inclusive culture, and trauma-informed wellbeing. Ensure educators have adequate time and resourcing to participate.
Leadership and technical support: Equip school leaders with training and resources to plan for inclusion and lead reform, and establish expert teams within education authorities to provide coaching, planning advice and monitoring.
Practical tools and collaboration time: Develop accessible guidance on curriculum adjustments, assessment practices, consultation with families, and monitoring of supports. Resource dedicated, protected time for teachers to collaborate with colleagues and allied health professionals so inclusion strategies are embedded without adding to workload.

These reforms are not optional. Without them, Thriving Kids risks becoming another well-intentioned “add-on” disconnected from the realities of schools and early learning settings. With them, it can embed inclusive education capability at the core of its design and achieve lasting impact.

3.3 Working with allied health professionals and parents/caregivers

Allied health professionals play a vital role in supporting many children with disability and their development, and their contribution to Thriving Kids will be essential. The Review of Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention highlights that supports are most effective when delivered in children’s natural environments, with educators, allied health professionals and families working together to promote inclusion.21 This evidence shows that collaborative, classroom-based models enhance teacher capability, benefit all learners and reduce reliance on individualised interventions that remove children from their peers.

Therapies delivered outside school hours, such as physiotherapy or occupational therapy, can also be valuable, provided strategies are shared with educators and reinforced in everyday learning. The key is collaboration: when allied health and educators work together, every child benefits.

By contrast, ineffective models treat allied health as a substitute for inclusive teaching. Pull-out or one-to-one sessions during class time can reinforce deficit views of disability, entrench segregation and deny children the full benefits of inclusive education. They also risk disempowering teachers by positioning external specialists as the primary drivers of support, rather than equipping educators with the knowledge, tools and time to embed inclusive practice every day.22

Thriving Kids should therefore promote evidence-informed models of allied health inclusion that build, rather than bypass, educator capability. This means prioritising:

in-class collaboration
joint planning and coaching
structured opportunities for teachers and allied health professionals to learn from each other
clear design guardrails to prevent pull-out or deficit-focused models from becoming the default.

Alongside this, Thriving Kids should invest in parent-facing information supports that are consistent with inclusive education. Families need access to plain-language, culturally safe resources that help them identify early developmental concerns and act within everyday routines. Such resources should encourage

partnership with educators, not reliance on segregated or clinical settings, and be available through multiple entry points such as child and maternal health services, GPs, ECEC and schools.

3.4 Equity and intersectionality

By singling out children with developmental delay and/or autism, the Thriving Kids initiative risks fragmenting reform and undermining equity. A diagnosis-based approach does not reflect the diversity of children’s needs and stands in contrast to Australia’s broader reform directions. The risks of such an approach are significant:

Parallel systems: Designing programs only for certain diagnostic groups creates separate streams of provision. This undermines efforts to build a unified regular (mainstream) education system that meets the needs of all children with disability.
Reinforcing segregation: Diagnosis-based targeting can encourage pull-out or specialist programs that operate outside regular education classrooms, rather than strengthening inclusive practice within them. This risks entrenching segregation and undermining children’s right to learn alongside their peers.
Equity and fairness: Children with other disabilities — including intellectual disability, sensory impairments, or complex health needs — may face equally significant barriers to participation. Focusing narrowly on autism and developmental delay signals that their rights and needs are less urgent or less valued, which is discriminatory.
Misalignment with reform directions: The NDIS is deliberately moving away from diagnosis-based access towards functional needs. Thriving Kids should be consistent with that principle, focusing on the types of supports and systemic capability required, not on who “fits” a diagnostic category.
Implementation challenges: Diagnoses are often delayed, contested, or vary by location. Anchoring supports to diagnosis risks creating confusion, delays, and inequity in access, rather than providing timely, universal, and needs-based support in early learning and schools.

The Review of Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention reinforces these concerns, finding that best practice must apply to all children with developmental concerns, delay or disability; not just those with particular diagnoses.23 It highlights that a non-categorical approach is critical to equity, and that supports must be tailored to functional needs.

For these reasons, Thriving Kids should be framed around functional requirements and systemic capability-building. This approach would ensure that all children with disability benefit regardless of diagnosis, that investment is directed to inclusive practices in schools and ECEC, and that new, fragmented systems are avoided.

Equity must also extend beyond disability. Inclusive education requires attention to the broader structural inequities that shape children’s lives. First Nations children and those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds often face overlapping barriers, including racism, ableism and socio-economic disadvantage. These forms of discrimination do not operate in isolation but intersect to create distinct patterns of exclusion. For example, First Nations children with disability may be excluded from regular education due to the combined effects of systemic racism and ableism.

Thriving Kids should therefore adopt an explicit intersectional lens. This means embedding culturally safe practice, co-designing strategies with First Nations and CALD communities, and ensuring system-level reforms address the unique experiences of children at the margins. Only then will the initiative deliver on its promise of equity and inclusion.

3.5 Seamless transitions through mainstream systems

Families frequently report that transitions between education stages are points of disruption and exclusion. Moving from ECEC to school, from primary to secondary, and into post-school pathways can be marked by uncertainty, loss of support and, too often, exclusion from regular education settings.

From our members’ experience, for children with developmental delay and autism, these disruptions are particularly acute. A lack of planning or consistency across systems can mean children lose vital adjustments, parents are forced to re-explain their child’s requirements at each new stage, and schools struggle to provide continuity of support.

The Review of Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention highlights the importance of continuity across children’s environments and stresses that supports should be embedded in natural settings, with families central to planning and decision-making.24 It found that collaborative, family-centred planning is critical to sustaining inclusion and preventing children from falling through the cracks at key transition points. Thriving Kids must therefore embed mechanisms that ensure stability and alignment across education stages, rather than leaving transitions to chance.

To achieve this, Thriving Kids should establish:

nationally consistent transition planning frameworks, ensuring every child and family has a structured plan for key points of change
portability of supports across settings and jurisdictions, so adjustments and strategies follow the child, rather than expiring when they move into a new service or region
collaborative, family-centred planning processes that bring together educators, allied health professionals, students and parents to co-design the next stage of learning.

These mechanisms would help families experience continuity rather than disruption and ensure that each new setting is equipped to welcome and support the child from day one.

Ensuring smooth transitions is essential to children’s long-term educational and social outcomes. Thriving Kids must therefore strengthen mainstream pathways, rather than diverting children into segregated or parallel systems. A national transition protocol, including a portable child profile, consent-based data handover and a first-term inclusion plan, would provide a clear, consistent approach across the country. By embedding these safeguards, Thriving Kids can give families confidence that their children will not fall through the cracks as they move through the education system.

4. Conclusion

Thriving Kids presents a valuable opportunity to reshape Australia’s approach to supporting children with disability. To succeed, the initiative must be firmly anchored in inclusive education, supported by sequenced workforce reform, and underpinned by human rights obligations.

Poorly framed or rushed implementation risks repeating past mistakes, entrenching segregation and overwhelming educators. Properly designed, however, Thriving Kids can become a catalyst for system-wide reform towards realising inclusive education, that would benefit all children.

Our key recommendations are that Thriving Kids should:

reinforce progressive realisation of inclusive education and avoid segregated or parallel systems
be framed as a systemic capability-building initiative, anchored in functional requirements rather than diagnostic categories
be delivered within a multi-year, phased implementation plan, with workforce capability milestones front-loaded before service ramp-up
provide job-embedded professional learning and protected planning and collaboration time for educators
address workforce shortages through targeted recruitment, retention and training strategies, especially in underserved regions
promote evidence-informed allied health models that strengthen teacher capability and prioritise in-class support
adopt an explicit intersectional lens, embedding culturally safe practice and co-design with First Nations and CALD communities
establish a national transition protocol to ensure continuity of supports across all stages and settings.

Inclusive Educators Australia and our members are available to contribute practical expertise, evidence-informed resources and implementation strategies to ensure Thriving Kids delivers sustainable and meaningful change. We would welcome the

opportunity to provide further evidence from inclusive education practice and to advise on concrete implementation steps, including co-design of guidance for education providers.

1 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, 16th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4 (25 November 2016), [11]. 2 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, 16th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4 (25 November 2016), [9]. 3 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, 16th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4 (25 November 2016), [11]. 4 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, 16th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4 (25 November 2016), [11]. 5 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, 16th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4 (25 November 2016), [11]. 6 Kate De Bruin, ‘Does inclusion work?’ in Linda Graham (ed) Inclusive education in the 21st Century: Theory, policy and practice, Routledge 2019, ch 3 pp 55–76; Conrad Oh-Young & John Filler, ‘A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities’, (2015), vol 47, Research in developmental disabilities, pp 80–92. 7 Kate De Bruin, ‘Inclusive Education: A review of the evidence’ in Linda Graham (2nd ed), Inclusive education in the 21st Century: Theory, policy and practice, Routledge 2023, ch 6 pp 95–114; Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–44; Dessemontet, R. S., & Bless, G. (2013). Impact of including children with intellectual disability on peers’ academic achievement. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 23–30. 8 As expressly noted in the report published by U.S. National Council on Disability, “there is no research that supports the value of a segregated special education class and school”, see National Council on Disability, The Segregation of Students with Disabilities (Report, February 2018) 20 https://www.ncd.gov/assets/uploads/docs/ncd-segregation-swd-508.pdf. 9 Kathleen Gee, Mara Gonzalez and Carrie Cooper, ‘Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study’ 2020, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), p 223. 10 Kathleen Gee, Mara Gonzalez and Carrie Cooper, ‘Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study’ 2020, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), p 234. 11 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 (2018) on equality and non-discrimination, 19th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/6 (26 April 2018) [63]. 12 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 (2018) on equality and non-discrimination, 19th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/6 (26 April 2018) [64]. 13 University of Melbourne 2025, Review of best practice in early childhood intervention: Review report, Department of Social Services, Canberra. 14 See Recommendation 7.1 in Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final report, Volume 7: Inclusive Education, employment and housing. 15 See Recommendation 7.13 in Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final report, Volume 7: Inclusive Education, employment and housing. 16 Australian Government Department of Education (2022) Teacher Workforce Shortages: Issues Paper. Canberra: Australian Government. 17 University of Melbourne 2025, Review of best practice in early childhood intervention: Review report, Department of Social Services, Canberra. 18 Mitchell, D 2014, What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies, 2nd edn, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

19 Collins, B & O’Brien, T 2022, ‘Teacher retention: why teachers leave and why they stay’, Australian Journal of Education, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 7–24. 20 Mitchell, D 2014, What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies, 2nd edn, Routledge, Abingdon, UK; Florian, L & Spratt, J 2013, ‘Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 119–135. 21 University of Melbourne 2025, Review of best practice in early childhood intervention: Review report, Department of Social Services, Canberra. 22 Boyle, C & Anderson, J 2020, ‘Inclusive education and the role of teacher–psychologist collaboration’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1269–1285; McCartney, E 2017, ‘Working together: educational provision and speech and language therapy’, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 247–258. 23 University of Melbourne 2025, Review of best practice in early childhood intervention: Review report, Department of Social Services, Canberra. 24 University of Melbourne 2025, Review of best practice in early childhood intervention: Review report, Department of Social Services, Canberra.