5 Dec 2025
National Catholic Education Commission and Victorian Catholic Educational Authority Supplementary Submission: Thriving Kids Enquiry
The National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC) and the Victorian Catholic Education Authority (VCEA) were grateful for the opportunity to appear before the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability (the Committee) in the Parliamentary Inquiry into Thriving Kids and to make this supplementary submission.
The NCEC represents 1,751 Catholic schools, 820,000 students and over 112,000 staff in Catholic schools across Australia. This includes the 494 schools, 218,900 students and 32,500 staff who fall within the authority of the VCEA.
Representatives from the NCEC and the VCEA appreciated the questions from members of the committee and have responded to some of those in more detail below.
Students with disability in Catholic schools
The member for Gorton, Ms Alice Jordan-Baird, partly in response to claims at earlier hearings reported in the media that government schools ‘do the heavy lifting’ with respect to students with disability in schools, asked for commentary on the contribution of non-government schools in this space.
Catholic education is grateful to be able to clarify this misconception and to reinforce that sectoral comparisons are not helpful – it is in the interests of all students with disability that their parents are able to choose the right educational setting for them. Sectoral comparisons detract from a student-centred approach at the heart of Thriving Kids.
Students with Disability (SWD) data for Catholic schools including trend data shows an increase that is characteristic across ALL sectors. Of all SWD students, 67% attend government schools, whilst 17.8% attend Catholic schools, and 15.2% attend independent schools, which is in line with enrolment share (Catholic schools educating approximately 20% of students in Australia).
The Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) reports the % of SWD and level of adjustment as a percentage of total enrolment as seen below:
| Sector | Calendar Year | Support within QDTP | Supplementary | Substantial | Extensive | Total SWD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catholic | 2024 | 4.6% | 12.8% | 4.6% | 1.0% | 23.0% |
| Government | 2024 | 7.9% | 10.8% | 5.1% | 3.4% | 27.2% |
| Independent | 2024 | 8.4% | 10.3% | 3.6% | 1.2% | 23.5% |
The role of education
Thriving Kids presents an important chance to reimagine a more integrated approach that strengthens the critical connections between health and education. Barriers to learning often arise well before children enter school. Early identification and intervention can reshape developmental pathways by addressing needs during the most crucial stages of brain development. When support is provided early, children’s potential is maximised, and long-term social, emotional, and educational outcomes are significantly enhanced.
Implementation in schools, as the first point of universal access, should be ‘safety net’ and not a first point of identification. Delays identified at school have missed opportunities for early intervention. Screening processes should be embedded at multiple points from birth to age five, ensuring a continuum of support ranging from universal practice to small-group intervention and intensive services tailored to meet identified needs at the local level. Research is clear that the earlier children’s developmental needs are developed the greater benefit to their achievement of educational outcomes. James Heckman’s studies found that high-quality birth-to-five programs for disadvantaged children yield a 13% per child, per year return on investment. This return comes from improved education, health, social behaviour, and employment outcomes, which in turn reduce long-term taxpayer costs.
Where ECEC services or schools identify the need for intervention, the Thriving Kids initiative must anticipate and make provision for the resourcing, training and funding to equip schools to deal with those students no longer covered by NDIS but who need support and/or intervention specific to their needs. These resources need to be funded, co-constructed with educationalists and be sector neutral.
Resourcing Concerns
The member for Nicholls, Mr Sam Birrell, asked about any concern from schools or school systems regarding Thriving Kids and the impact on funding and resourcing. Catholic education maintains that the effectiveness of intervention increases the earlier the identification, ideally at developmental milestones. This is far earlier than the age of compulsory education. Notwithstanding, Catholic education recognises that the current uncertainty around the operation and implementation of Thriving Kids is of concern if it disproportionately relies on classrooms (for both identification and implementation of intervention), mostly at the level of Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (which receives no additional funding in the current model).
There is uncertainty about how existing disability loadings in schools would align with Thriving Kids’ approach. There is concern in the context of that uncertainty that the responsibility for resourcing will fall to schools. There is currently not enough information about the operation of Thriving Kids to recommend an approach to funding which may include an adjustment of the disability loading formulas to include students accessing Thriving Kids supports; the introduction of targeted grants for foundational supports in non-government schools; or the development of co-investment models with states to ensure parity between sectors. What is certain is that education is critical for implementation of support and without funding reform, non-government schools may face resource gaps, leading to inequity for students in non-government schools. Clear accountability frameworks are needed to prevent cost-shifting from health to education budgets.
The inquiry should consider the cost (material, human, capital and cognitive) of training teachers in early years and equipping classrooms and learning spaces to deliver the mechanisms of identification and intervention alongside allied health providers. There is significant concern from schools that interventions will disrupt learning for the student receiving intervention and the rest of the class. Schools cannot manage multiple providers delivering services in classrooms. This is disruptive to the delivery of education. Allied health operators working in schools need to work within the frameworks in place in schools, in partnership with the school and this is best achieved when they are in the employment of the school or the system. Funding to support training, education and administration will be necessary for successful understanding and implementation and to ensure students with educational needs are effectively supported.
The benefit of partnerships with health and access to allied health professionals for the delivery of intervention was canvassed and is supported by Catholic education. The risk for resourcing is in communities and regions where allied health professionals are not available or accessible. Investment to ensure access to health professionals and the skills to administer integrated intervention will strengthen the capacity for education and health to partner in situ through Hubs. Many schools do not have the physical spaces or resources for effective implementation of allied health interventions which can compromise the capacity to deliver integrated health services or wrap around services in the classroom context.
The most significant resource concern for Catholic education is one of workload for schools and for teachers and learning support officers in the classroom. The demands of data collection, reporting and tracking are already a large impost on practitioners’ time which is exacerbated in instances of students who need (and deserve) individual and personalised learning or behaviour plans. An ever-increasing workload for teaching and non-teaching staff in schools is accelerating the rates of burn out, early exit from the profession and an extremely challenging labour market. The inability to attract or retain quality educators to classrooms causes the most detriment for students. For those with a developmental delay or disability this makes it more difficult to achieve learning outcomes. The impact of the Thriving Kids initiative must consider the impact on teacher time and capacity and plan for appropriate funding and resourcing.
Resourcing opportunities
The member for Dickson, Ms Ali France, asked about the opportunity for non-government schools to leverage their facilities out of regular school hours. Catholic education believes this idea has a lot of merit with reference to the family and community support that will be needed to roll out the comprehensive supports that are necessary for true wrap around or full-service models.
Catholic education spoke briefly to the committee about the trusted role of schools and the benefit of leveraging such trust for families, particularly those from priority cohorts, who are navigating complex systems for support in a range of areas. Schools (and indeed churches) are central points in a community which, out of school hours, could be leveraged as maternal health check ins, therapy spaces, family playgroups and parent education facilities – all necessary as avenues to identify developmental delay. This would build connections of trust particularly in communities where institutional trust is low. This approach, with the right resourcing and appropriate consideration of regulatory considerations to ensure safety and effectiveness has enormous potential.
This is particularly important for priority cohorts. Complex needs require integrated solutions, and equity remains a pressing issue in Australian education. Thriving Kids offers an opportunity to reduce the impact of postcode disadvantage on educational outcomes. School communities in low socio-economic areas are acutely aware of the multiple stressors—housing insecurity, food scarcity, and health challenges—that affect families. Caregivers facing these pressures are further disadvantaged when expected to manage fragmented systems of support for their children.
Catholic education suggests that high-needs communities must be prioritised in the initial rollout of Thriving Kids. Evidence-based models should integrate health and education while being tailored to the specific needs of local communities. Culturally sensitive, place-based approaches are essential to ensure timely identification and appropriate interventions. International examples of full-service school models demonstrate the effectiveness of combining early learning, health checks, and family support to maximise readiness and strengthen school engagement.
The extension of school sites to offer co-located long day care and early learning opportunities is one example where this community trust is built early in a child’s development within a broader school
precinct or community. The co-location of early childhood services also reduces transition stress or concern for children with delay or disability and facilitates effective information sharing between settings for continuity of strategies. Catholic education has the benefit of partnerships with other agencies such as Catholic early childhood services, Catholic Health and Catholic Care as well as welfare agencies like St Vincent de Paul which all help to provide community-based support and care. These full service or wrap around models require resourcing and regulatory support but provide the opportunity to reduce transitions for families, give trusted and accurate advice through professionals and provide opportunities for engagement, which are essential to both identification and intervention.
Overall
Thriving Kids offers a vital opportunity to design systems of support that integrate health and education, reducing duplication, and avoiding ineffective practices. Models must remain responsive to the evolving needs of communities.
Implementation must be guided by clear parameters and evidence-based models, enabling communities to select best-practice approaches. Models should scale in intensity according to need, levels of disadvantage and ensure equitable access for priority populations. They must be culturally sensitive and responsive to broader social determinants of health, including family cohesion, parental mental health, financial stress, housing, and food security.
A robust evaluation framework is essential, incorporating processes for identifying and assessing need, monitoring access and participation, and measuring both immediate and long-term outcomes. Flexibility must be built into the system so that issues can be identified and addressed early. Staged implementation across defined timeframes will allow tailoring, reassessment, and redesign as required.
Catholic education strongly supports the observation offered by the Committee Chair and member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, that this initiative requires multi-sector coherence to reduce the fragmentation of the current approach. Thriving Kids must integrate complex systems, and streamline supports for target cohorts, recognising that developmental trajectories and responses to intervention vary. There is an opportunity to leverage multi-tiered systems of support to strengthen universal practice across health, early childhood and school education, empower families, and build workforce capability.
Catholic education welcomes the opportunity to collaborate to ensure Thriving Kids delivers positive outcomes for students, families, and the workforce.