Methods for Teaching Students with High Incidence
Disabilities: Lack of Whole school programs.
Executive Summary
Primarily, education can be defined as a social group activity formulated to prepare learners on how to tackle life challenges in their society and culture (Jenkins, 2002). Globally, the educational assistance for learners with disabilities has shifted towards a system of inclusive education. In 1994, the United Nations called upon all nations to adopt an inclusive education system in which all students would be enrolled in public schools (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994). In the United States of America, 95% of students with different kinds of disabilities are placed in usual education settings (Kavale and Forness, 2000). It has also been shown that in Australia, a majority of students with disabilities such as autism are also placed in regular education systems.
This idea of an inclusive education for individuals who require special needs is supported in Australia. This is spearheaded by the Disability Discrimintaion Act (Australian Commonwealth Government, 1992), which prevents the discrimination of any person on the grounds of disability as a single factor. The DDA clearly dictates that all schools must comply apart from cases whereby a student with disability will impose great burden on the day to day operations of the school. Fundamentally, most Australian schools have been dependent on policies as opposed to legislation in the determination of the provision of services for individuals with disabilities (Dempsey, 2001). However, policy provision varies from one state to the next with some being for inclusion more than others. Additionally, while every states support inclusion up to a certain degree, the provision for the required additional resources to enhance inclusion also varies state-wise. In 2005, the ‘Disability standards for education’ was released by the federal government to mark the provision of standards, applicable to all states but its impacts have not yet been seen clearly.
Introduction
The various inadequacies of the education system with regards to individuals who are disable and the need for reform in order to reverse this trend have been documented in many publications. Education is one of the biggest challenge that students with disability and their parents face. Regularly, these families report that through their education experiences, their disabled loved ones are subject to limited opportunities, bullying, exclusion, discrimination, low expectations and even assault and other human rights violations (AIHW, 2006).
Additionaly, in almost every measure, students who are disabled are found to perform poorly as compared to the rest in Australian schools. This shows the widespread culture of low expectations of learners with disability in Australia (AIHW, 2006). For instance;
• 63% of school going children with disability found it difficult to ‘fit in’ with the rest in school 1
• Only 29.6% of individuals between the age of 15 and 64 years with disability had completed year 12, this figure is much smaller compared to the 49.3% of people without disability.2
• 12.7% of individuals with disability had completed bachelor degree or higher as compared to 19.7% of people without disabilities.
• About 15% of Australian students require additional support in their education but only 5% receive any kind of funding.
The figures above clearly show the state of education for people with disability in Australia and the lack of a whole school program to counter this negative trend (FAHCSIA, 2008 ). Although every school is required by the Disability Standards for Education (2005) to make sensible educational modifications, compliance with these standards have been very sparse, similarly, the completion and implementation of individual education plans, which detail the specific modifications, curriculum adjustments and educational goals, are in most cases not seen to the end (ABS, 2009).
In a recent report released by the Victorian Human Rights and Equal opportunity Commission, these failings have been investigated, and even though these findings are from a Victorian cohort
, it reflects what the CDA has found out across the whole of Australia. The key findings included the following (Commission, 2012 ):
• 50% of the students with disability and their parents reported discrimination at school. Additionally, 25% of teachers also reported to have witnessed discrimination.
• Challenges include inadequate funding, limited specialist support, inadequate knowledge and training in disability among educators, limited time for teachers to provide individual focus for students who are disabled.
• Parents cited lack of training for the teachers, lack of time on the side of teachers to offer individual support and lack of specialists as the major challenges. Educators cited the lack of funding and resources together with poor coordination and redundant school cultures as barriers.
• Bullying was also singled out as a significant challenge to persons with disabilities. With 60% reporting that they had experienced bullying. This is much higher as compared to the bullying of regular students which is at 40%.
• Although the law states that all enrolled students should attend school fuu-time, some schools do not allow this. In some cases, leaners are allowed to attend school during specific hours where a funded integration aide was present. In others, the student was put on part-time attendance due to behavioral problems that had been poorly managed.
According to CDA, in many scenarios where learning opportunities are not available to students with disability are mostly due to insufficient resources, inadequate skill/training and/or naïve leadership (Leadership, 2011). Most parents also report that their children attend school on a part time basis because the school does not allow full time participation.
For instance, in one specific situation in government school in Queensland, a 7 year old pupil suffering from an Autism Spectrum Disorder was only allowed to attend school for one hour each day. The explanation given to the mother was that the child swears and there was no enough funding for him to attend school full time and they felt his behavior was beyond control. There was no definite educational planning or any behavioral intervention employed by the school.
In another funded primary school in Sydney, a mother to a student with cerebral palsy is often called to the school to support her son in different ways such as going to the toilet and to take him home. The mother therefore has neither assurance nor trust that her son is receiving education and cannot be involved in any other activity besides that.
The above cases clearly illustrate an approach to education for learners with disabilities that is wholly dependent on more funding (Network, 2006) . Failure to do this leads to failure by the schools to accommodate these students whose wants and needs are much more required. This model has been ineffective in a large scale in delivering the desired outcomes despite of the significant investment and easily allows schools to shift the blame and responsibility to families and other problems. It is also clear that no other learner would be disallowed to attend school on a full-time basis due to administrative reasons or due to a failure in the funding system design. Similarly, no other student would be asked to go home as a result of their teachers being sick or because they needed help with their personal hygiene or even lunch.
In the 1980s, the program to educate children with disability was launched in mainstream schools. It operated under the ‘special needs funding’ model, whereby additional funding was allocated for a student with disability based on a stringent diagnostic criteria to be made available to schools in addition of to the core funding.
This model has been criticized by the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council during their submission to the Review of Funding for schooling (Council, 2011).
Even though the model has been operational for a generation, it has failed to deliver the necessary capacity for inclusion of students with disability in all schools in Australia, yet this is what was expected. Pre-service training in special education has not been made a mandatory subject in the Universities in Australia, and furthermore, there has not been complete obedience by the schools to the Disability Standards to Education since their introduction.
The continuous growth in expenditure towards disability support programs has also been substantial. They have also been influenced more by demand factors as opposed to evidence. There has been an increase in the number of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders globally and this has resulted into greater demand for more support in Australian schools. For instance, the budget for the NSW government program for the assistance of persons with disabilities grew by 144% in a 10-year period and clearly reflects the pressures caused by this demand (Council, 2011).
The current approach which invests majorly on individual-focused support through teacher aides is only providing an efficient disability service yet what the student really needs is a wholesome education service and therefore failing to meet the learners expectations and desires as noted earlier. Furthermore, accountability for the increased funding is very low and hence leading to the paradoxical situation whereby the student who is most needy ends up having more funds to acquire the least qualified staff in the school who consequently, ends up spending the most time with the student.
Additionally, the stringent diagnostic classifications that are employed by the state systems are fundamentally in place to act as rationing tools, and they sometimes end up locking out students who are genuinely in need of support. This is occurs as a result of the design of the procedure as opposed to the suggestion that the students in question have a certain need. The automatic position of schools which do not receive additional funding is to strive as much as their capabilities allow to be able to adhere to the requirements of the Disability Education Standards. The problems that arise due to this are clearly illustrated above.
Additional funding to carry on with this model is not a good public policy. At the moment, there are on going efforts to try and change the structural design in the present suite of education funding reforms (Network, 2006).
It is crucial to note that education systems are in dire need of greater capacity, financial support and accountability so as to deliver inclusive education effectively. The majority of students with disabilities being in mainstream schools, teachers are under more and more pressure to work with learners who have diverse needs which they are ill equipped to tackle.
In the year 2010, in Southern Australia, only 4.4 per cent of teachers across all the schools were qualified to practice special education. If this scenario is similar to the rest of the country, it clearly shows that there is need for major investment to increase the skills of the teaching staff in Australian schools.
Putting more resources to support the teacher aide time alone through the existing programs will not result into greater expertise and/or capacity. Additional workforce capacity is mandatory in this sector to enhance its effect. In most cases, teachers with no proper training are stretched beyond reasonable expectation with no easy and quick access to more training opportunities and other required resources.
While trying to address the capacity of the teaching staff in Victoria to effectively educate students with disabilities, the Held Back Report produced the following summarized findings:
• More than 50% of the teachers in the survey reported that they did not have access to support, training and resources that they needed in order to teach disabled students effectively.
• Sixty-two per cent of teachers and fifty-three per cent of principals cited inadequate support, training and support as their biggest challenge in attempting to inclusively teach persons with disabilities. 40% of integration aides also said the same.
• Forty per cent of the teachers were not aware of their legal responsibilities to students who were disabled under the Disability Standards for Education 2005.
• Lastly, it was reported that disabled students were present in almost all class rooms. Victoria needs a teaching staff that is fully equipped and trained to meet the learning requirements of all students in the school.
On the positive side, excellent practice in inclusive education has also been observed in a number of primary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, this is mainly as a result of individual efforts and occurs mostly in schools where the leadership understands and therefore places stronger measures to ensure inclusive learning for all students (AIHW, 2006).
In the year 2006, the Inclusive Education Network prepared a paper which was approved
by the Victorian Ministerial Disability Advisory Council. The paper pointed out the range of significant factors in inclusive education which are in agreement with feedback received by the CDA. These include:
• Apprpriate and effective resource allocation models
• Support in curriculum development for schools.
• An efficient teacher development structure
• A whole school policy which will ensure inclusion of all students.
• A positive minded and supportive teaching workforce.
• A total shift from the current individual classification and remediation in order to create a more inclusive classroom environment.
Availability of funded support and expertise across all systems
Presently, most students with disabilities are enrolled in the state systems since these are the only ones which have support programs for material disability. Catholic and other independent systems may have access to different funding options including partnerships with Medicare, self-funding from parents and intra system funds. This lack of portability has previously been flagged as a challenge by some CDA members and they were addressed (Commission, 2012 ). CDA would provide support for all systems as long as it is a part of an overall package that connected elements of school leadership, teacher skill and training, individual education planning and accountability with more individual funding or resources.
In a student’s education, parental choice is a vital element but which can be fraught and lead to conflict which could have been otherwise avoided. In very many cases, parents as well as educators are very less informed about the options they have and how best to plan and implement an individual learning program.
A robust sense of experience coupled with a capacity for inclusion have to be in place first before any student enrolls in a school for there to be a clear signal that individual funding could be fully and well utilized (Network, 2006).
As illustrated earlier, the characteristics of a good provision structure is comprised of a comprehensive approach that contains all the elements outlined in the earlier section. Addressing the myriad of needs of students with disability in a piecemeal manner is both counterproductive and will in the end prevent schools, even those that are willing to, from carrying out their responsibilities under the Disability Standards for Education.
Present Reforms
Presently, there is a significant effort on trying to improve the education system. This is aimed at delivering a more wholesome outcome for students with disabilities in Australia. Many of the issues discussed above have been put into consideration in these current initiatives. This is a great beginning and at a good time considering Australia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the rights of people with disabilies and endorsement of the National Disability Strategy in 2011 by the COAG. The summary of the reforms are as outlined below:
Increased Support for Students with Disabilities Partnerships
These are National Partnership pacts whose goals are capacity building in all education systems around Australia to add to the already existing systemic individual funding. They comprise of initiatives in different areas such as:
• Better in-service and pre-service training for teachers.
• Setting up expert support centers to assist teachers and schools.
• Increased availability and better utilization of assistive technology.
• Improvement of school leadership with respect to inclusive education.
• Improvement of teacher and parent awareness and capacity regarding the Disability Standard for Education.
• Building of skills in curriculum adaptation and student assessment.
In two state systems, that I ACT and NSW, the partnership agreement includes the provision of a specialist educator in every Australian school to provide expert educational planning, skills development, access to expert secondary consultancy in every school. this is a wholesome approach that values inclusion and may have a bigger chance of addressing the needs of persons with disabilities in mainstream schools.
Consistent Data Collection Nationally
This initiative has been endorsed by the COAG to specifically address the issue of inconsistency defining disability across the whole country. It will also collect data on adjustment practice in Australian schools to avail up to date information to the development of the disability component in the newly set funding system for schools. One interesting characteristic about this initiative is the factoring and use of functional need as opposed to the old diagnostic criteria to define the requirement for adjustment. This goes hand in hand with the job being carried out to design the National Disability Insurance Scheme and is also consistent with the Disability Standards for education (Governments, 2010).
The Australian National Curriculum
The Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has in recent times produced draft materials for learners with disability that sit squarely within the National Curriculum. This is good news since the curriculum is being improved as a single approach that can easily be adapted for students with disabilities. Hopefully, this approach will ensure the presence of students with disability in mainstream schools be less remarkable from an educational point of view. This will mean that the teachers’ skills in tailoring the work for each specific student will be the main professional currency rather than the current use of separate programs (Governments, 2010).
References
ABS. (2009). ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers 2009: Summary of Findings . Sydney.
AIHW. (2006, June ). Disability Updates: Children with Disabilities. 110.
COAG. (2012). SA Department for Education and Child Development Implementation Plan for the More Support for Students with Disabilities Initiative.
Commission, V. E. ( 2012 ). Held Back: The Experience of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools.Main Findings Fact Sheet p1 . Melbourne.
Council, N. P. (2011). No More Wasted Years, A systemic reform approach to learning and development for students with disabilities in Australia, Submission to the Review of Funding for Schooling. Canberra.
FAHCSIA. ( 2008 ). Developing a National Disability Strategy for Australia. Canberra.
Governments, C. o. (2010). National Disability Strategy. Canberra.
Leadership, A. I. (2011). National Professional Standards for Teachers.): Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. Melbourne.
Network, I. E. (2006). Inclusive Education in Victoria It’s about Will, Skill and Capacity. Victoria.
