​​​​​​School culture and access to education

This chapter explores how the culture in educational settings can influence approaches to communication between schools and families, the use of restrictive practices, enrolment of children and young people with disability, and instances of bullying, discrimination and exclusion. It then outlines some of the arguments for and against the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability regarding inclusive education.

Culture in educational settings

This section discusses how school culture can significantly influence access to education for children and young people with disability. Culture within and between schools is the focus of this chapter given the majority of evidence received by the inquiry related to this type of educational setting.

Communication between family and school

A theme that emerged during the inquiry was the difficulty experienced by families in communicating with schools about adjustments. People with Disability Australia reported that one of their main areas of advocacy was around schools that did not, or at times refused to, 'communicate well with parents when they raise concerns about their child's experience of either not receiving an adjustment or receiving an inappropriate response'.^{[footnote 1.]} 

While People with Disability Australia acknowledged that there were many schools who did communicate well, and genuinely wanted to assist families, they also noted that:

The general view for many of our clients is that they are not listened to, there's a poor understa​nding, and there's not clarity around who is to do what, what the roles are and what the approaches involved are.^{[footnote 2.]}

Given the challenges around communicating and understanding specific and complex needs, People with Disability Australia recommended more support for schools to develop effective channels of communication.^{[footnote 3.]} 

Muscular Dystrophy Australia similarly reported that it seems to require a family's substantial effort just to get a meeting with a school to discuss adjustments. Some of their community had encountered instances of schools who did not welcome input from families, due to a mindset that the school are the experts, while other schools lacked the resources or funding to meet a particular need.^{[footnote 4.]}

The following case study illustrates the complexities involved in one family's advocacy for their children with disability to receive adjustments, the potential for misunderstanding, and the challenges around effective communication. 

In contrast, Catholic Schools NSW remarked on the increase in unreasonable expectations by parents regarding adjustments for their child, coupled with a rise in disrespectful interactions with school personnel. They highlighted the importance of establishing 'robust and respectful partnerships' amongst all stakeholders in order to achieve their mutual aims.^{[footnote 6.]}

Implementation of policies around exclusion and restrictive practices

The committee heard that students with disability are over-represented in suspensions and expulsions. The use of exclusionary practices and enforced part-time attendance, and the absence of effective adjustments, are not consistent with meaningful classroom participation.^{[footnote 7.]}

Concerns were raised that the failure to effectively implement an individual learning plan, or a behaviour management plan, can give rise to 'exclusionary discipline',^{[footnote 8.]} with some students with disability being suspended for 'exhibiting behaviours that are directly connected with a disability'.^{[footnote 9.]}

As noted in Chapter 3, the two key Department of Education policies relevant to exclusion and restrictive practices are the:

• Student Behaviour Policy and Suspension and Expulsion Procedures, updated in 2023 after extensive consultation with critical stakeholders, and operational from the start of Term 1, 2024^{[footnote 10.]}
• Restrictive Practices Policy and Framework, which will not be operational until the start of Term 1, 2025. Under this new policy, a restrictive practice is defined as 'any action that has the effect of restricting the rights or freedom of movement of a person, with the primary purpose of protecting the person or others from harm'.^{[footnote 11.]}

The NSW Government submission highlighted that the updated Student Behaviour Policy and Suspension and Expulsion Procedures emphasise 'inclusive and positive student behaviour support. This approach ensures early access to support, addresses diverse student needs including disabilities, trauma, and cultural considerations in the management of behaviour'.^{[footnote 12.]}

Aspect, which operates classes and schools for students with autism, recommended that in order to improve the capacity and capability of mainstream schools to improve inclusion, there should be investment in 'building system-wide capability in positive behaviour support. This will help to reduce the use of disciplinary exclusions and restrictive practices'. In particular, they recommend that there needs to be development of autism-specific positive behaviour support.^{[footnote 13.]}

A number of stakeholders were critical of the 'positive behaviour support approach' to managing behaviour of students with disability:

• there are structural barriers, including 'Hostile and controlling attitudes toward Neurodivergent Children and their families … shaped by a heavy emphasis over time on behaviourist ideology, including "Positive Behaviour Support"'.^{[footnote 14.]}
• 'the current system of behaviourism-based approaches to behaviour management should be replaced with neuro-affirming, trauma-sensitive, culturally responsive and neuroscience-informed approaches'^{[footnote 15.]}
• for a child with autism 'trauma informed practice far outweighs any positive behaviour plan'.^{[footnote 16.]}

Several inquiry participants called for all teachers to be trained in trauma-informed practices to assist with managing student behaviour. This included being armed with the skills required to de-escalate the behaviour and knowledge of non-restrictive practices.^{[footnote 17.]}

The University of Newcastle provided information on its post-graduate courses which incorporate trauma-informed practice. These include their Master of Special and Inclusive Education and associated post-graduate qualifications of Graduate Certificate in Special and Inclusive Support; Graduate Certificate in Early Childhood and Disability Support; and Graduate Certificate in Emotional and Behaviour Support in Education. The University advised that over half of the New South Wales scholarships for teachers to undertake a Masters in special education are held by individuals enrolled in their courses.^{[footnote 18.]}

In order to make the department's exclusion policy framework more inclusive, Youth Law Australia recommended:

• more guidance on when suspensions are appropriate for students with disability
• more effective and inclusive alternatives to suspensions for students with disability
• greater guidance on resolving suspensions including when professional or expert advice should be sought
• provisions for automatic departmental oversight when the number or duration of suspensions reaches a certain threshold.^{[footnote 19.]}

The NSW Teachers Federation linked the use of restrictive practices, suspension and expulsion to the complexities of providing adjustments and proactive support. A student whose need is being unmet in a system that is under-resourced, may exhibit behaviour that poses safety concerns for those around them.^{[footnote 20.]} The impact of inadequate resourcing in mainstream schools will be discussed elsewhere in this report.

Recommendations 6.35 and 6.36 and of the Disability Royal Commission recommended stronger legal frameworks for authorisation, review and oversight of restrictive practices, and immediate action to ensure that certain practices are not used, respectively. In particular, the Commission recommended that the following practices are not to be used in education settings, including the following:

• the use of restrictive practices as a form of discipline, in response to property destruction, or for convenience
• clinical holding as a behaviour support strategy or to punish.^{[footnote 21.]}

People with Disability Australia considered restrictive practices to be 'a substitute for proper early intervention and individual class support' and called for them to be ended.^{[footnote 22.]} Dr David Roy, of Newcastle University, questioned the need for physical restraint in particular.^{[footnote 23.]}

Adjunct Professor Tamara Smith, MP, recommended that restrictive practices in New South Wales public schools be eliminated as soon as possible, in consultation with teachers and unions during the transition period.^{[footnote 24.]} Family Advocacy advocated for teachers and school staff to be trained in alternatives to physical restraint and seclusion.^{[footnote 25.]} The NSW Teachers Federation has said that 'every attempt must be made to reduce and eliminate the use of restrictive practices in schools and [is committed] to that goal'.^{[footnote 26.]}

More specifically, Legal Aid NSW recommended that New South Wales provide legislation to ensure:

• The restraint and seclusion of children in school settings is used as a last resort, and in response to a serious risk of harm to the person with disability or others
• That restrictive practices are not used as a behaviour support strategy.^{[footnote 27.]}

Schools refusing enrolment or telling parents to send their child elsewhere

The committee received evidence that in early childhood, primary and secondary school settings, parents encountered resistance to enrolling their children.^{[footnote 28.]}

In his submission to the inquiry, Dr David Roy cited a 2022 survey of gatekeeping and restrictive practices by Australian mainstream schools. Of 745 families with children with disability, 70 per cent 'had experienced gatekeeping measures including refusal to enrol, encouragement to enrol at an alternative school, frequent suspensions and frequent requests for the early pick-up of a child'.^{[footnote 29.]}

The Federation of Parents and Citizen's Associations of New South Wales told the committee:

Most of the parents that we speak to that want SSPs right now for their kids with disability also would much prefer their kids to be in a mainstream school. But, given the experiences they've had through gatekeeping through numerous schools and maybe even landing in a school where they weren't gatekept, their experience ended up being less than desirable. So they've had to drop the dream of their kid attending and getting educated in a mainstream school.^{[footnote 30.]}

One parent remarked that, while not being told their child could not attend the school 'there are many ways in which principals actively discourage your enrolment at their school [and] keep encouraging you to leave, even after you have started at the school'.^{[footnote 31.]} She also cited indirect ways of gatekeeping, such as not making an allowance for parking near the school for her child who could only walk short distances with a walking frame, and declining permission for teachers who had built a rapport with her child to teach her in her next year of schooling.^{[footnote 32.]}

Adjunct Professor Tamara Smith, MP, noted in her submission to the inquiry that the 'Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education Roadmap recommends a zero tolerance approach' with consequences for gatekeeping practices, and that 'families and schools be assisted to have a better understanding of what this is and when it occurs'.^{[footnote 33.]}

Legal Aid NSW, who assist clients in proceedings for non-compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Disability Standards for Education, supported the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommendations to help 'end gatekeeping in mainstream schools, and require a central record of enrolment refusal/cancellation' decisions and make them subject to independent review.^{[footnote 34.]}

Bullying, discrimination and exclusion

The Disability Council of NSW noted that 'bullying, discrimination, exclusion, and systemic ableism continue to be unfortunate features of education systems'.^{[footnote 35.]} They cited three recent surveys by Children and Young People with Disability Australia of families and students that offered a concerning picture of the experience of young people with disability in educational settings:

Table 1: Incidence of exclusion, bullying and enrolment refusal

1. Early childhood settings

29% of families reported exclusion from excursions, events, or activities  

28% reported bullying from other children or staff  

One in five reported that their child had been refused enrolment   

Nearly a quarter said their child had been limited in the number of hours they were allowed to attend. 

2. School education settings

Only half (54%) of students reported feeling welcome and included

70% of students reported being excluded from events or activities at school 

65% of students reported experiencing bullying, and 13% preferred not to answer

Only 27% reported feeling supported to learn at school

Only 35% of families felt teachers and support staff have adequate training and knowledge to support the student.^{[footnote 36.]}

(End of Table 1)

The Council recommended that the department 'annually publish de-identified data' on the number of complaints made by parents regarding students with disability, the subject of those complaints (bullying, exclusion, discrimination) and the percentage that were satisfactorily resolved.^{[footnote 37.]}

The Home Education Association advised the committee that while there is limited data available through NESA on the reasons for homeschooling, feedback from their telephone helpline indicates students with disability make up a sizeable proportion of homeschooled students, and that school trauma has led some families of students with disability to lose faith in the education system.^{[footnote 38.]}

Due to sensitivities around gathering this data (such as distrust for how it might be used), the Association recommended that NESA proactively engage with families who are home schooling 'to determine the optimal way to obtain accurate data' on the number of children with disability who are being homeschooled. Importantly, the Home Education Association advocated for staff to be trained in trauma-informed practices when working with the families of children and young people with disability who are being home schooled.^{[footnote 39.]}

Evidence was also provided to the inquiry about pathways back into mainstream schooling or other education for students with disability who are at risk of disengagement, or have disengaged, from schooling, such as:

• distance education^{[footnote 40.]}
• transition, or 'satellite' classes co-located with mainstream schools^{[footnote 41.]}
• Careers NSW, which supports young people aged 15-19 years to re-engage with education, employment or training through the 'Get Back in the Game' program. Twenty nine per cent of those using this program have indicated they have a disability.^{[footnote 42.]}

Another advocacy group, Youth Action, reported a mindset of ableism that perpetuated the discrimination and abuse encountered by students with disability.^{[footnote 43.]} In order to share with the committee the voices of young people with lived experience, prior to developing its submission Youth Action sought feedback through an online survey, and face-to-face consultations with students with disability at Five Islands Secondary College in Port Kembla and Verona School in Fairfield.^{[footnote 44.]} Fifty-seven young people from regional and rural, Sydney metro and Western Sydney told Youth Action 'students with disability were frequently subject to bullying and discrimination from their peers, both at school and online'. This was particularly the case for students with disability in mainstream settings.^{[footnote 45.]}

Youth Action reported that:

• Several young people felt their schools did not address incidents of bullying due to their teachers not being equipped to do so, and because many incidents go unseen or unreported due to staff shortages.^{[footnote 46.]}
• Teachers and staff could also be bullying or dismissive, especially to students with an 'invisible' disability. One young person was told that they were not 'special needs enough' to access the support they were asking for.^{[footnote 47.]}
• The anonymous reporting system, Stymie, which is used by some schools, was well received and made it safe to report a wide range of concerns including bullying and discrimination.^{[footnote 48.]}

Youth Action recommended the department consider how anonymous reporting systems could benefit students with disability, and how students might report teachers for bullying.^{[footnote 49.]}

Students in rural areas experienced a particular set of issues in trying to seek a remedy for bullying. The Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales (ICPA-NSW) alerted the committee to the impacts of the department's out-of-zone policy, which prevents students from enrolling outside their designated area.^{[footnote 50.]}

In smaller rural schools, it can be difficult to resolve student bullying.^{[footnote 51.]} The out-of-zone policy prevents students from seeking an alternative public school education outside their zone, leading some parents to home school or to move towns:

In an example from our branch, a child had been bullied to the point where she no longer felt she could attend her zoned school. Despite the efforts of the parents to have the issue addressed at their current school they felt that the only alternative for their child to access education was to move to another school which was accessible from their home but out of their zone. The student was not only denied enrolment to the out-of-zone school but also to School of the Air with the out-of-zone policy used to prevent enrolment. The parents have had to rent a house in the new school zone for their child to be able to attend.^{[footnote 52.]}

ICPA-NSW recommended that the application of the out-of-zone policy to students who are victims of bullying at rural schools be reviewed.^{[footnote 53.]}

Choosing the right educational setting for children and young people with disability

As indicated earlier in this report, the terms of reference for this inquiry sought comment on the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability's recommendations around inclusive education. In recommendation 7.14, three of the commissioners recommended phasing out and ending special or segregated education by 2051. This included no new special schools or classes in support units being built from 2025, and no new enrolments of students with disability in these schools or units from 2032.^{[footnote 54.]}

In recommendation 7.15, two of the commissioners made alternative recommendations seeking to close the gap between mainstream and non-mainstream schools.^{[footnote 55.]}

The committee received numerous submissions and much testimony for and against the above recommendations. This section reflects some of the views put forward for each.

Special schools

One argument put to the committee to retain schools for students with disability, Schools for Specific Purposes and support classes in mainstream schools, revolved around the principle of choice.

Proponents of special education argued that families should be as free to choose a special education environment for their child with disability as other families are to choose for their children to attend religious, performing arts, sports, selective and STEM schools, or Montessori and Steiner schools.^{[footnote 56.]}

Several witnesses also contended that inclusion is a not a physical location, but a type of service provision.^{[footnote 57.]} Others made opposing claims regarding the evidence for and against special education settings.^{[footnote 58.]}

Still others maintained that a truly inclusive and supportive education system requires a range of educational settings.^{[footnote 59.]} 

However, the committee heard from many parents who felt very strongly that a special education setting had proven to be the best fit for their child – their child felt supported and was being enabled to realise their potential. Small class sizes, high staff-to-student ratios, qualified and experienced staff and appropriate resourcing all contributed to this, along with the commitment of school leadership to support children to reach their goals.^{[footnote 60.]} The following three case studies relay how special schools were deemed the best fit for these children with disability.

The committee heard that the recommendation to close special schools had caused great anxiety in many parents. Some parents (and organisations) took exception, even offence, to the use of the term 'segregation'^{[footnote 64.]} and its evocation of the civil rights struggles and racism in the United States.^{[footnote 65.]} 'This is not racism. This is providing special support for the most vulnerable people in the community'.^{[footnote 66.]}

Some inquiry participants firmly rejected the claim of the Disability Royal Commissioner who reputedly remarked they were yet to meet a parent who had chosen a special school.^{[footnote 67.]}

Those who championed special education told the committee the focus should be on ensuring that children are given the best environment to help them grow and learn. For some children with disability this will be a well-run and funded mainstream school, for others, a well-run and funded specialist school.^{[footnote 68.]}

Mainstream settings

As noted above, numerous witnesses endorsed the recommendation from the Royal Commission to close special education settings and transition students into an inclusive education in mainstream settings. Advocates cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, requirements under anti-discrimination legislation and Australia's Disability Strategy 2021 – 2031, and duties under the Disability Standards for Education 2005 as informing their position.^{[footnote 69.]}

Mrs Morgan Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer of Koorana Child and Family Services and National Disability Service divisional committee member, testified to the positive experiences she had witnessed from operating two inclusive preschools. Children with special needs were previously located in a separate room within a larger preschool. With the support of allied health professionals, all children are now in the mainstream classroom:

What has been so beautiful to see is the friendships between the students and the confidence between the students in supporting one another with their needs and understanding each other's needs … If we want an inclusive society of the future, we have to build that now in schools.^{[footnote 70.]}

Advocacy organisation Square Peg Round Whole declared their support for a 'fully inclusive education where disabled children learn alongside their non-disabled peers in the same schools and the same classrooms following the same curriculum with appropriate accommodations and supports for those who need them'.^{[footnote 71.]} Square Peg Round Whole also said:

The mainstream system needs to be – and can be – inclusive enough to accommodate and welcome ALL children without exception. We cannot imagine a circumstance in which any child cannot attend mainstream schools if we implement the right reforms to the environment, training of all staff, behaviour support approaches, and education of and collaboration with the whole school community.^{[footnote 72.]}

The Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People shared the voices of young people about mainstream settings from their extensive consultation with young people with disability:

A number of young people said they enjoyed being offered the same opportunities to access mainstream school and classes as their peers. A student told us: 'I was able to go to a normal school which was able to give me the other side and I was able to learn about people who did not have a disability and mix. I felt like I wasn't disabled as I was the same as another person'.^{[footnote 73.]}

The following three case studies highlight how children and young people with disability can successfully participate in mainstream settings.

Others claimed their experience in special education settings reflected research findings that special education results in limited and poor educational outcomes, and increases the likelihood of bullying, violence, neglect and exploitation.^{[footnote 77.]}

Inclusive Educators Australia rejected claims that inclusive education means a one size fits all approach, saying instead it involves the delivery of education to diverse cohorts of students who share common environments for learning and flexible ways of teaching.^{[footnote 78.]} They were critical of arguments against inclusive education that cite sensational examples and 'focus on poor practices or conditions in mainstream schools that are not inclusive'.^{[footnote 79.]} They also pointed to what they deemed fallacious claims around the efficacy of specialised settings:

We're led to believe that segregated education settings provide practices that are unattainable and untenable by regular schools and classroom teachers.

We're also lead to believe that 'special' practices delivered by 'special' teachers, in 'special' settings results in increased engagement, wellbeing and outcomes ... Despite the increased level of resourcing, including smaller teacher to student ratios and access to more teaching assistants and specialised facilities, segregated education settings continue to experience significant difficulty with supporting and addressing complex and challenging behaviours.^{[footnote 80.]}

The Australian Association of Special Educators agreed that there is much more to be done to make all schools more inclusive and to effectively cater to the diversity of disability. However, they cautioned against an approach that required all students with disability to attend an inclusive regular classroom, where the ratio of teachers to students is lower.^{[footnote 81.]} This would, in effect, be:

… deciding that some children will be denied the education that is going to be more supportive of their educational needs. There are children for whom being placed in that sort of environment is really not going to provide them with an opportunity to maximise their learning and their development towards a more independent life.^{[footnote 82.]}

People with Disability Australia said that:

Our members tell us that choosing an education setting is not a real choice when there are no other options. Parents and carers have indicated a preference to have their child learn in a mainstream classroom in a NSW public school, but are concerned about the lack of school resources to support their child, and persistent ableist attitudes.^{[footnote 83.]}

This view was also reported by Children and Young People with Disability Australia, who noted that if the local mainstream school is not 'prepared' or sufficiently resourced to support a child with disability, this choice has been removed from the parents.^{[footnote 84.]}

Family Advocacy noted that arguments against inclusive education which focus on potential cost tend to 'overlook the fact that segregation itself is extremely resource intensive'.^{[footnote 85.]}

Square Peg Round Whole was adamant that segregated settings are not the best for any child with disability, even where they are happy in that setting:

Some of our members find that their children are happy in segregated settings. And that is to be celebrated, of course, for those individuals at that time. However, those experiences do not negate the fact that is not the best outcome for those children that we could offer as a society. We could offer an education with their peers which results in better academic and better social outcomes. We don't offer that at the moment, and so it makes sense to find the next best option available. But even in the absolute best case scenario, in terms of individual children having a good experience at their segregated school, it is not as good an outcome as it could be and should be.

…

… those decisions are not real 'choices' because the mainstream options are inadequate and often outright abusive towards our neurodivergent children.^{[footnote 86.]}

Mr Andrew Wilson, Chair of Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education (All Means All), quoted the three commissioners from the Disability Royal Commission who had a lived experience of disability and who recommended phasing out segregated settings:

… the structure of education systems influences the choices families make about where to enrol their children. The Royal Commission received evidence and information that parental choice to enrol a child in a special/segregated school or unit is often not a 'free choice' … This has been described as 'coercive choice'.^{[footnote 87.]}

Committee comment

Based on the evidence, the committee understands that school culture greatly influences the approaches taken to children and young people with disability within a school setting. A key example of where this plays out is communication between schools and families regarding adjustments for children and young people with disability.

Recommendation 7.6 (a) of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommended that 'State and territory educational authorities should update their policies and guidance for schools to support the implementation and continuous improvement of requirements for student and parental communication and relationships'. This would be of benefit to many students and families when seeking adjustments and supports, as well as being able to respectfully question the decisions of a school in relation to adjustments and other matters relating to the wellbeing of the student. 

The committee also acknowledges that many education stakeholders, including parents of children with disability, called out the distinct challenges and limitations on the ability of educational settings to achieve effective communication between families and schools, citing capacity issues, teacher and resource shortages, unrealistic expectations, training deficits, and funding, among others.

Whilst we recognise these current limitations on educational settings to achieve this goal, the committee is of the view that communication is critical for facilitating an inclusive environment for students. Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government make it a requirement that schools ensure best practice in creating and maintaining communication between the school and the student, their parents and siblings, in line with Recommendation 7.6 (a) of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

The committee was concerned to hear of cases of unnecessary and inappropriate use of restrictive practices in educational settings in New South Wales. The committee notes the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. In particular, the committee recommends that the NSW Government continue to monitor the use of restrictive practices in educational settings in New South Wales with a view to reducing their application over time in line with recommendations 6.35 and 6.36 of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

It is concerning to hear that many children and young people with disability are over-represented in suspensions and expulsions due to a lack of understanding and that their behaviours may be linked to their disability or a display of frustration due to inappropriate or non-existent adjustments and supports.

The committee was also concerned about evidence that showed, at times, a school's failure to effectively implement an individual learning plan or behaviour management plan was linked to a negative outcome for children's behaviour and consequently their education.

As a result of the evidence received by the committee, we find that the suspension and expulsion policies of the department impact disproportionately on students with disability and their families, are not always effective when based on a positive behaviour approach, and do not overall strike the right balance between students' need for inclusive education with the safety of teachers.

In light of this, the committee considers that more needs to be done to ensure children and young people with disability are not unduly suspended or expelled from educational settings for behaviours that can be managed. We are of the view this can be achieved by ensuring all schools use a collaborative, culturally safe and trauma-informed approach to manage the behaviour of students with disability, as well as provide better education on disability and behaviour management for teachers.

The committee commends the incorporation of trauma informed practice in the post-graduate courses in special education offered for teachers by the University of Newcastle and notes that there is already a level of collaboration and expertise sharing between the university and the department.

Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government ensure that schools manage behaviours of students with disability using a trauma informed approach, in the place of positive behaviour learning and that they provide better professional development and support for teachers to help them avoid using suspension and expulsion to manage student behaviour.

The committee is surprised to learn that many families encounter resistance to enrolling their children in a mainstream school setting, including refusal to enrol, or suggestions that the child be enrolled at a different school. Such resistance is also felt by families who may be already enrolled at a school but who then face active discouragement to leave.

Likewise, instances of bullying, discrimination and exclusion of children and young people with disability, if not adequately addressed, can lead to home schooling as both students and families can be left feeling despondent, traumatised and having lost faith in the education system. We find this to be unacceptable.

In addition, the committee recognises that experiences of bullying, discrimination and exclusion can be even more challenging for those in rural areas.

The committee understands that there are school-aged children with disability who are disengaged from the school system, often due to one or more factors, including exclusion or suspension, bullying, or not having their educational and wellbeing needs met. This can impact on other family members, including parents and carers having to give up employment in order to supervise their child, and also disproportionately impacts parents and carers with disability who face added barriers.

The committee has observed the work of schools such as Ajuga School and the use of support units by Aspect as means of transitioning students with disability back into mainstream schooling.

We were disappointed to hear, however, from families and organisations, that families often feel unsupported when their child with disability is excluded from schooling, especially as this can also lead to future disengagement with the educational system, leading to students with disability in homeschooling, or not being educated at all.

The committee felt that there was a lack of targeted support to assist families, particularly those where parents also have a disability, to re-enter the school environment. The committee is concerned that exclusions can lead to an irreversible journey away from the school system.

As a result, the committee recommends that the NSW Government provide enhanced/additional support for the transition back into school for children with disability and their families where they are at risk of being disengaged or have been regularly excluded from the school system. This support could incorporate features such as:

• ensuring Home School Liaison Officers are trained in trauma informed practice and working with both students and their families with disability.
• ensuring NESA staff are trained in trauma informed practice for enhancing engagement with home schooled students and their families.
• establishment of transition support units specifically for students with disability who have been regularly excluded from school and are at risk of disengagement. These support units should focus on helping students transition back to schooling in a mainstream classroom.
• expanding the number of places in schools for specific purposes (emotional and behavioural disturbance) consistent with the transitional model operating at the Ajuga School.
• greater access to distance education, and part time school attendance, as a transition to mainstream school settings.
• targeted funding for Careers NSW to specifically engage with young people with disability in the 'Get Back in the Game' program, including training for staff in trauma-informed practice.

The committee acknowledges that a key question relating to this inquiry's subject matter is whether children and young people with disability should be placed in mainstream educational settings or in special education settings, and the level of choice that families and schools have in this decision.

The committee acknowledges the array of responses to this inquiry that either supported or opposed the two key recommendations (7.14 and 7.15) of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability around inclusive education. We heard that special education settings offer choice to families similar to that of choosing to send a child to a religious, selective or performing arts school, and that special education settings offer a particular type of service provision. However, we also heard that this 'choice' is not a real one for many, for example when the only 'choice' is between an inaccessible and non-inclusive mainstream setting and a segregated setting.

We understand that the recommendation to close special schools has caused great anxiety for many parents and that many families felt special education settings had proven to be the best fit for their child. However, we also note that there are many circumstances in which children could be accommodated within a more inclusive school setting if an appropriate one was available and accessible for families.

The committee is of the view that children and young people with disability in some special school settings are not always being provided with environments and learning experiences which are designed to improve their educational outcomes or meet their social and wellbeing needs. However, the committee acknowledges that in many cases special school settings are providing the best possible educational and wellbeing outcomes for children with disability in their particular circumstances.

The school system must focus on the rights of the child with disability, not the interests of the school. The committee recognises that for mainstream settings to be at this point where they can be truly inclusive, they must be properly resourced and supported to do so, and there must be a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we view and treat people with disability.

Educational settings should be child-centred and this may require some children to have access to specialist settings which meet their needs.

Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government and the NSW Education Standards Authority work towards a school system – government, independent and Catholic – which enables more students with disability to transition to mainstream, inclusive school settings in circumstances where the child and their parents or carers are of the view that it would be to the benefit of that child. The school system must focus on the rights of the child with disability, not the interests of the school.

End of Chapter 5.

Continute to Chapter 6​ | Return to table of contents​

​Chapter 5 Foonotes

Footnote 1: Evidence, Ms Joanne Yates, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer, People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 28. Back to reference

Footnote 2: Evidence, Mr Julian Laurens, Senior Policy Officer, People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 28. Back to reference

Footnote 3: Submission 73, People with Disability Australia (PWDA), p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 4: Evidence, Ms Laura Howard, Senior Community Support Specialist, Muscular Dystrophy NSW, 22 April 2024, p 28. Back to reference

Footnote 5: Submission 11, Name suppressed. This case study is based on the contents of the submission. Back to reference

Footnote 6: Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 9. Back to reference

Footnote 7: Evidence, Dr Cherry Baylosis, Policy and Communications Lead, Disability Advocacy NSW, 26 March 2024, p 31. Back to reference

Footnote 8: Evidence, Ms Rebecca Belzer, Solicitor, Australian Centre for Disability Law, 26 March 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 9:Submission 32, Youth Law Australia, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 10: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 36. Back to reference

Footnote 11: Department of Education, Restrictive practices, NSW Government, https://education.nsw.gov.au/schooling/school-community/restrictive-practices. Back to reference

Footnote 12: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 36. Back to reference

Footnote 13: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), pp 4 and 16. Back to reference

Footnote 14: Submission 88, ANPA, page 2. Back to reference

Footnote 15: Evidence, Ms Libby Gunn, National and New South Wales Coordinator, Square Peg Round Whole, 22 April 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 16: Submission 52a, Mrs Ciara and Mr Tim McKillop, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 17: See for example, Evidence, Dr Baylosis, 26 March 2024, p 34; Evidence, Ms Gunn, Square Peg Round Whole, 22 April 2024, p 3; Evidence, Mr Jonathan Harms, Chief Executive Officer, Mental Health Carers NSW, 22 April 2024, p 46; Submission 14, Disability Council of NSW, p 5; Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 25; Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 18: Correspondence, Professor Susan Ledger, Head of School – Dean of Education, University of Newcastle, 2 August 2024, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 19: Submission 32, Youth Law Australia, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 20: Evidence, Ms Emma Bruce, Organiser, NSW Teachers Federation, 26 March 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 21: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Executive Summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and Recommendations, September 2023, p 235. Back to reference

Footnote 22: Evidence, Ms Yates, 22 April 2024, p 25. Back to reference

Footnote 23: Evidence, Dr David Roy, Lecturer in Education, University of Newcastle, 12 June 2024, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 24: Submission 53, Adjunct Professor Tamara Smith MP, Member for Ballina, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 25: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 25. Back to reference

Footnote 26: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, pp 23-24. Back to reference

Footnote 27: Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 28: See for example, Submission 33, Early Childhood Intervention Network, p 4; Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 14. Back to reference

Footnote 29: Submission 43, Dr David Roy, p 46, citing Poed, S., Cologon, K., and Jackson, R. 'Gatekeeping and restrictive practices by Australian mainstream schools: results of a national survey' (2022) 26(8) International journal of inclusive education, pp 766-779. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1726512Back to reference

Footnote 30: Evidence, Mr Jason Wong, Executive Director, North Sydney, and Board Secretary, Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales, 22 April 2024, p 45. Back to reference

Footnote 31: Submission 64, Name suppressed, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 32: Submission 64, Name suppressed, pp 5-6. Back to reference

Footnote 33: Submission 53, Adjunct Professor Tamara Smith MP, Member for Ballina, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 34: Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, pp 9 and 11. Back to reference

Footnote 35: Submission 14, Disability Council of NSW, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 36: Submission 14, Disability Council of NSW, pp 1-2, quoting Disappointment and discrimination: CYDA's surveys of the learning experiences of children and young people with disability in 2022 and 2023.Back to reference

Footnote 37: Submission 14, Disability Council of NSW, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 38: Evidence, Ms Janelle Barnes, President, Home Education Association, 22 April 2024, p 44. Back to reference

Footnote 39: Submission 63, Home Education Association, pp 5 and 7. Back to reference

Footnote 40: In camera evidence, Mr Brett Smith, Executive Officer of Operations, AllambiCare, 12 June 2024, page 8, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 41: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 42: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 50. Back to reference

Footnote 43: Submission 61, Youth Action, p 18. Back to reference

Footnote 44: Submission 61, Youth Action, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 45: Submission 61, Youth Action, pp 5 and 17. Back to reference

Footnote 46: Submission 61, Youth Action, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 47: Submission 61, Youth Action, p 18. Back to reference

Footnote 48: Submission 61, Youth Action, pp 18-19. Back to reference

Footnote 49: Submission 61, Youth Action, p 19. Back to reference

Footnote 50: Submission 15, Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales Inc. p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 51: Submission 15, Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales Inc. p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 52: Submission 15, Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales Inc. p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 53: Submission 15, Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales Inc. p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 54: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report – Volume 7, Inclusive education, employment and housing, Summary and Recommendations, https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au, p 24. Back to reference

Footnote 55: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report – Volume 7,Inclusive education, employment and housing, Summary and Recommendations, https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au, p 25. Relevant erratum: This should read: In recommendation 7.15, three of the commissioners made alternative recommendations seeking to close the gap between mainstream and non-mainstream schools.', Errata tabled 4 September 2024.Back to reference

Footnote 56: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 57: Evidence, Dr Sally Howell, President, New South Wales Chapter, Australian Association of Special Education, 23 April 2024, p 2; Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 58: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 12; Evidence, Dr Marika Franklin, Member Advocate, Square Peg Round Whole, 22 April 2024, p 10; Correspondence from Dr Coral Kemp, Institute of Special Educators, to committee, 24 April 2024. Back to reference

Footnote 59: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 60: See for example: In camera evidence, Brian, 22 April 2024, pp 3-13, published by resolution of the committee; Submission 47, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 1; Evidence, Mrs Lyn Caton, Assistant Secretary, Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch, 26 March 2024, p 21; Evidence, Dr Sally Howell, President, New South Wales Chapter, Australian Association of Special Education, 23 April 2024, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 61: In camera evidence, Brian and Fiona 22 April 2024, pp 3-14, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 62: Submission 9, Mrs Eliza McGillivray, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 63: Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 64: Evidence, Dr Howell, 23 April 2024, p 7; Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 65: Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 66: In camera evidence, Brian, 22 April 2024, p 9, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 67: Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 5; Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 68: Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 69: See for example Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 7; Answers to supplementary questions, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, 6 May 2024, pp 2-3, and p 11; Answers to questions on notice, All Means All – the Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education, 17 May 2024, pp 1 and 19-20; Evidence, Ms Loren Swancutt, Chairperson, Inclusive Educators Australia, 23 April 2024, p 2; Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 70: Evidence, Mrs Morgan Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer, Koorana Child and Family Services, and NSW Divisional Committee Member, National Disability Services, 23 April 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 71: Evidence, Ms Libby Gunn, National and New South Wales Coordinator, Square Peg Round Whole, 22 April 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 72: Answers to supplementary questions, Square Peg Round Whole, Answers to supplementary questions 1-4, 17 May 2024, p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 73: Submission 60, Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 74:ubmission 64, Name suppressed, pp1 and 3. Back to reference

Footnote 75: Submission 13, Name suppressed, p 1. This case study is based on the content of the submission. Back to reference

Footnote 76: Evidence, Mr Andrew Wilson, Chair, Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education (All Means All), 22 April 2024, pp 11-12. This case study is based on evidence received at a hearing. Back to reference

Footnote 77: Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, pp 5-6. Back to reference

Footnote 78: Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 79: Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 80: Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 81: Dr Howell, 23 April 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 82: Dr Howell, 23 April 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 83: Answers to supplementary questions, People with Disability Australia, 7 May 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 84: Answers to supplementary questions, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, 6 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 85: Answers to supplementary questions, Family Advocacy, 7 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 86: Answers to supplementary questions 1 - 4, Square Peg Round Whole, 17 May 2024, pp 2 and 5. Back to reference

Footnote 87: Evidence, Mr Wilson, 22 April 2024, p 5.​​ Back to reference