​​​​​​​​Adequacy and appropriateness of resources for students with disability​

This chapter discusses the adequacy and appropriateness of resources available to students as they move through the education system.^{[footnote 1.]} Resources include the teachers and other staff who assist the student with their education and other support needs while in school, the equipment provided, and the built environment. It then outlines issues and barriers for children and young people with disability that have arisen due to structural and regulatory frameworks. This is followed by an examination of the complaints process for families when they wish to raise concerns about the treatment of children and young people with disability. The chapter concludes by discussing the experiences of young people with disability in post-secondary settings.

Adequacy and appropriateness of resources

In response to the online questionnaire conducted by the committee as part of this inquiry, a number of teachers and other allied health staff were of the view that there is inadequate support for children with disability at school to get a good education. For example:

• '… working in schools, I have noticed that teachers, SLSOs, and principals are extremely overloaded and most do not have the capacity to learn, reflect and change. So many disabled children and teenagers are not receiving the support they deserve in schools… Many highly masked children slip through the cracks, do not get access to ANY services, and given extremely harmful labels from as young as 5. It is so unfair and heartbreaking to watch'. (Speech pathologist)
• 'No … there is not enough capacity/ resources/ time to adequately support all children in the classroom, let along meet the specific and complex needs of children with disabilities … There is also a significant under diagnosis of children with DLD [Developmental Language Disorder], and inadequate awareness amongst teachers about DLD … ' (Teacher and speech pathologist)
• '… there is lack of attention on the impact of the environment for learning. Classrooms are often very busy spaces, in terms of visual, auditory distractions. Noisy, busy classroom can be a real impediment to learning for many students… support for students with ADHD requires particular attention'. (Parent and occupational therapist).^{[footnote 2.]}

Classroom teachers' knowledge and expertise

A sample of responses from the online questionnaire indicate there is a need for better training for teachers to support and accommodate students with disability in schools. For example:

• 'They need training in trauma informed practice, UDL [Universal Design for Learning], CPS [Creative problem solving] and neuro affirming training'. (Parent/carer with disability)
• 'There are members of staff who seem to be well trained, informed and switched on. But it is inconsistent and seems to be self-driven knowledge and understanding. Older staff members are often the biggest problem, with little to no understanding of behaviours that relate to autism …' (Parent/carer)
• 'The teachers we have worked with were very well meaning but clearly had only a vague idea about neurodivergence, and little understanding of how it varies from individual to individual. There was often a one-size-fits-all approach, as though an adjustment that worked for one student in the past should be expected to work for all autistic students' (Parent/carer)
• 'There is no special training for staff, other than basic literacy and numeracy training. There is training on catering for diverse needs and specific training may be given on areas such as working with children with ASD, blindness and deafness. There is no intensive training for teachers who need to address significant emotional trauma, ODD [oppositional defiant disorder], moderate to severe intellectual disabilities etc … or how to actually teach children within a whole cohort of other children while giving the attention needed to kids with special needs'. (Teacher)^{[footnote 3.]}

Conversely, one response to the online questionnaire spoke positively of the level of training for teachers:

My school has a learning hub where students with disability can access one-to-one intervention and support. We have rigorous systems in place for identifying and supporting disability in students and communicate reasonably well with families. Training is frequently offered to teachers and there are specialist staff who can support teachers to differentiate for students with a disability. (Teacher)^{[footnote 4.]}

As described in Chapter 4, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) requires all teaching graduates in New South Wales schools to 'possess a foundational understanding of addressing the learning needs of students with disability'. NESA also provides materials for teachers, learning support staff and others to help them meet the needs of their students with disability. This is also a priority area for teacher professional learning in New South Wales.^{[footnote 5.]}

A number of stakeholders were concerned about the level of knowledge and expertise held by classroom teachers. While NESA has mandated that all courses must contain one unit of special education, according to stakeholders this was seen as not sufficient.^{[footnote 6.]}

For example, the NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association advocated for initial teacher education to include coursework and practical experience in special education, including practicums in specialist schools and classes. Similar views advocating for improved teacher training were expressed by other stakeholders.^{[footnote 7.]}

The Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales NSW was of the view that initial teacher training should include a mandatory unit on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). They suggested that the high likelihood of a teacher having a student with ASD in their class made it more cost effective than relying on teachers obtaining these skills via further professional learning.^{[footnote 8.]}

Likewise, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) highlighted the need for teachers to be supported to have better teaching practices, curriculum and assessment methods for students with autism.^{[footnote 9.]} They went on to propose, similar to processes in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia, that there should be autism specialists or coaches to build the capacity of mainstream schools, education leaders and teachers to deliver differentiated teaching practices and curriculum and assessment adaptations.^{[footnote 10.]}

Ms Jennifer Stephenson, Director, Institute of Special Educators, also drew the committee's attention to the potential detriment in mainstream schools where lack of special education expertise can result in 'limited and light-touch adjustments which often do not meet student needs. It can also result in inappropriate use of school learning support officers'.^{[footnote 11.]}

Youth Action, representing the voice of young people with disability, relayed the concerns of young people about the need for teachers to be better equipped to support them:

• 'Teachers need better education. Ongoing education. They need to understand that some disabilities affect every part of their student's life and that by trivialising the disability you are rejecting that student'.
• 'I was in a learning support unit and some of my teachers didn't even know where it was which says a lot about the separation and isolation'.^{[footnote 12.]}

The Department of Education advised it has developed resources to help fill this knowledge gap, in particular the Inclusive Practice Hub which was launched in 2021, and provides resources for staff for evidence-based inclusive education.^{[footnote 13.]}

Teacher capacity

The committee heard extensive evidence about the growing demands on teachers to support the diverse learning needs of students in the classroom and the possibility that student needs are not being met. Stakeholders attributed this to a variety of factors including insufficient in-class and specialist support; a growth in the proportion of students with disability, particularly in mainstream classes; and time spent developing individual learning plans and collecting data on students with disability for the NCCD. These are discussed in more detail below.

The Advocate for Children and Young People highlighted the experiences of young people with disability and their need for increased access to specialist support, particularly in mainstream schools:

• Many children and young people reported that there was just one School Learning Support Officer (SLSO) in a class where several students needed intensive support.^{[footnote 14.]}
• Others felt overlooked: 'teachers never really understood me, so they ignored me'.^{[footnote 15.]}
• Students reported there was a need for 'increasing the presence' of teachers and support staff with qualifications and experience working with young people with disability.^{[footnote 16.]}
1. The NSW Teachers Federation gave evidence that, while the ideal is for every student with disability to have an individual learning plan and agreed adjustments (as relevant), the reality is that developing plans and implementing adjustments pose resourcing challenges.^{[footnote 17.]}
2. In their submission, the NSW Teachers Federation outlined some of the demands on the skills and responsibilities of teachers and principals:
• There has been an increase of 30 per cent between 2020 and 2022 in the number of students with mental health issues requiring targeted support in mainstream classes.^{[footnote 18.]}
• There are not enough school counsellors to counsel and assess the needs of students with disabilities.^{[footnote 19.]}
• There is no reduction in face-to-face teaching time for teachers to compensate for the additional workload for teachers in collecting NCCD data and creating individual learning plans.^{[footnote 20.]}
• The need to create individualised learning plans 'to justify the adjustments' leaves specialist learning support teachers with less time to teach students with disabilities, with some teachers advising there is no support for implementation of the adjustments.^{[footnote 21.]}

Conversely, Catholic Schools NSW were concerned about potentially misleading narratives around the effect of the NCCD data collection process on teachers' workload. They emphasised 'the importance of the NCCD and personalised planning for supporting students with disability as a core part of a teacher's work and essential for meeting responsibilities under the AEA, Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and Disability Standards for Education (DSE)'.^{[footnote 22.]}

Mrs Lyn Caton, Assistant Secretary of the Independent Education Union, noted there were shortages of special education teachers, and 'those we have are exhausted'.^{[footnote 23.]} She noted that some individual learning plans were up to 19 pages 'on average'. The workload to create this and other documentation was 'exacerbated by inadequate staffing and release time'. This was in part due to duplication in data requirements.^{[footnote 24.]}

The NSW Teachers Federation described some examples of adjustments made for students with disability in the classroom, which are not funded but potentially add to the teachers' workload:

• a student with vision impairment whose needs are accommodated by being seated at the front of the classroom with printed resources provided at a larger magnification^{[footnote 25.]}
• adjusting communication approaches for a child with trauma^{[footnote 26.]}
• a student who requires the use of an augmented communication systems – such as an iPad, or Picture Exchange Communications System – needing support to use it.^{[footnote 27.]}

In addition, Ms Watt noted that 'the NCCD data collection tells us that about 30 per cent … of students last year are having an adjustment that attracts no funding'.^{[footnote 28.]}

In the early childhood sector, the Early Childhood Intervention Best Practice Network indicated that programs such as High Learning Support Needs only go so far, and limits opportunity for 'input into curriculum to assist with inclusion [and] capacity building'.^{[footnote 29.]}

Continuing professional development

As described previously, accredited teachers must undertake 100 hours of continuing professional development over a 5 year period in order to be accredited to teach in any school in New South Wales. However, there is no requirement for classroom teachers to undertake professional learning relating to students with a specific disability.^{[footnote 30.]}

NESA has advised, however, between July 2021 and June 2024, a total of 35,709 teachers have undertaken at least one accredited professional development course in the students with disability priority area, and that there are 538 accredited professional development courses available for this priority area.^{[footnote 31.]}

In their submission, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) advised that it supports a system wide approach, 'beyond web-based resources or a one-off professional development session' that gives teachers practical help to adapt their teaching practises to the needs of students with disability. This could include 'working with staff teams to design and implement effective strategies; coaching and consultancy regarding curriculum, assessment and teaching adaptations'.^{[footnote 32.]}

The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association advocated for specialised training and ongoing professional development for teachers and support staff. They proposed this could include inclusion specialists to provide in-classroom support and guidance to teachers, and collaborative teams which include psychologists, speech and occupational therapists and support teachers.^{[footnote 33.]}

Vision Australia also supported the proposal to increase workforce capability as expressed in Recommendation 7.8 of the Royal Commission, in particular they noted that it is:

… vital for educators to be armed with the requisite knowledge needed to support children with disability in the education sector. We would urge that part of this should include the development of on-demand training programmes with respect to lower incidence disability types such as blindness and low vision.^{[footnote 34.]}

Specialist teachers for students with disability

This section discusses the evidence received by the committee about issues associated with specialist teachers for students with disability, also known as special education teachers, or learning and support teachers (LASTs) in the public school system. Concerns raised by stakeholders ranged from the level of direct teaching provided by these specialist teachers; shortages of specialist teachers; and the qualifications and experience of those in these roles.

The Institute of Special Educators highlighted the shortage of qualified special educators, estimating that only one-third of those in special education positions are qualified. They were concerned that this lack of expertise in mainstream schools can mean that students' needs are not being met. This view was echoed by other stakeholders.^{[footnote 35.]}

Dr Coral Kemp, Chair of the Institute of Special Educators, was concerned that there is not a requirement to hold a special education qualification to be a special education teacher. She noted that departmental advertisements for special education teachers had a requirement for 'approval' to be a special educator. This concern was echoed by other stakeholders.^{[footnote 36.]}

Dr Kemp also relayed evidence that those with additional qualifications such as a masters in special education are not getting additional pay for becoming a specialised teacher.^{[footnote 37.]} This was echoed by Dr Jennifer Stephenson, Director, Institute of Special Educators: 'Qualified special educators need to be recognised by pay and status as specialist teachers'.^{[footnote 38.]}

Mr Martin Graham, Deputy Secretary, Teaching, Learning and Student Wellbeing, Department of Education, advised that approval to teach special education is gained either through holding the appropriate qualification or through 'recognised and verified experience' which includes endorsement by a school principal stating a teacher has the relevant teaching experience and skill set.^{[footnote 39.]}

The NSW Teachers Federation was concerned that the majority of students with disability in public schools (86 per cent) are in mainstream classes and are not getting the level of specialised teaching support they would in a specialist support unit.^{[footnote 40.]} They went on to say that in some schools the learning and support teacher may have all their time taken up in developing individual learning plans for students with disability and 'the actual teaching work that kids in the mainstream are getting at that school is with the support of the SLSOs'.^{[footnote 41.]}

The Teachers Federation also noted that reforms to special education staffing policies has lead to potential uncertainty in allocation of specialist teachers to individual schools:

• Learning and support teacher allocations are revised every three years based on school enrolments and a measure of student learning needs.
• While many schools receive a specialist teacher allocation, for some schools this can be as little as 0.1 full-time equivalent.^{[footnote 42.]}

The NSW Teachers Federation cited data which indicated that there were nearly 500 vacancies for specialist teachers to support students with 'physical and intellectual disabilities, autism, ADHD and other complex needs'.^{[footnote 43.]}

More specifically, the committee heard of examples of shortages of teachers specialising in support for specific disabilities. For example, in their submission, Parents of Deaf Children indicated their concerns with the shortage of qualified teachers of the deaf, as they are necessary to provide education 'tailored to the unique needs' of deaf children.^{[footnote 44.]}

In response to questions about an Auslan syllabus for K-10, which schools can elect to teach from 2026,^{[footnote 45.]} Deaf Connect noted that there is a shortage of appropriately skilled teachers to deliver the Auslan syllabus.^{[footnote 46.]} Deaf Australia noted that a teacher of the deaf and a teacher of Auslan are two very different things; to teach Auslan requires a separate degree.^{[footnote 47.]}

Deaf Connect noted that the level of Auslan language qualification required to teach this course and a strategy to address a 'national Auslan skills workforce shortage – including Auslan teachers' have not yet been indicated.^{[footnote 48.]}

Deaf witnesses reported the value of a bilingual education to inclusive education practice, and to building a vital sense of identity amongst deaf students.^{[footnote 49.]} This extended beyond teaching Auslan in schools, to being truly bilingual by offering entire educational programs in both Auslan and English.^{[footnote 50.]} An example of such a bilingual school with programs for children with significant hearing loss and/or vision impairment is the NextSense School at Macquarie Park.^{[footnote 51.]}

Mr Martin Graham, NSW Department of Education, noted that there are no government schools for specific purposes solely for students with hearing loss. Students can receive hearing supports and attend 'hearing classes' in some mainstream settings.^{[footnote 52.]}

Vision Australia emphasised the importance of specialist vision teachers for students who are blind or have low vision. Specialist teachers are necessary for these students so they may acquire braille literacy, learn how to use adaptive technology, enhance their orientation and mobility, are trained in compensatory skills, have independent living skills, acquire social skills, and obtain career counselling.^{[footnote 53.]}

With regard to students with autism, Ms Natasha Watt, NSW Teachers Federation, noted the large proportion of students in mainstream classes with autism who are not getting proper support, particularly for behavioural issues which can lead to exclusion. She advocated for itinerant support teachers for students with autism, to support students in mainstream classes. She contended that this would also reduce the incidence of suspensions and expulsions in the cohort at the same time as meeting the educational needs of these students.^{[footnote 54.]} The need for mobile behaviour specialists to support children with autism was also advocated by Autism Awareness Australia.^{[footnote 55.]}

Teachers with lived experience of disability

The importance of having teachers with lived experience of disability and/or a relevant cultural background was highlighted by several witnesses, including the First Peoples Disability Network, Deaf Australia and the Cerebral Palsy Alliance.^{[footnote 56.]} The Disability Council NSW, a statutory body that advises the Minister for Disability Inclusion, noted that only 2.7 per cent of the New South Wales public sector teaching service had disability, which is significantly lower than the government target of 5.6 per cent.^{[footnote 57.]}

The First Peoples Disability Network advised that there is a demand for the kind of expertise the Network offers in training teachers about the issues that impact Aboriginal children with disability.^{[footnote 58.]} Mr Damian Griffis, Chief Executive Officer, First Peoples Disability Network advised that there is not the workforce to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability to place First Nations expertise within inclusive education units, and would require significant investment to implement.^{[footnote 59.]}

In the course of their visit to Aspect Central Coast School, the committee learned that the schools provide ongoing training to support staff in their work with students with autism. The committee heard that professional learning programs are co-designed with people with autism, and are often delivered by staff with autism.^{[footnote 60.]}

Ms Shirly Liu, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Deaf Australia, advised that there are barriers for deaf teachers 'registering' with the Department of Education. Unlike the other states and territories, some deaf teachers are being required to pass hearing tests, and there are no deaf teachers who use Auslan working in New South Wales public schools.^{[footnote 61.]} She emphasised the importance of a deaf teacher for deaf children in providing role models and access to the Deaf community, particularly with respect to those children from hearing families.^{[footnote 62.]}

In response to the evidence from Deaf Australia, Mr Martin Graham, NSW Department of Education, advised such claims are incorrect: 'We have many who hold approval to teach who are hard of hearing or deaf, and the department supports them, including in the interview and being able to provide interpreters for the interview as well'.^{[footnote 63.]}

The department also advised it does not collect statistics on types of disability amongst its staff, however, staff completing the department's voluntary Equal Employment Opportunity can report if they have a disability and whether it requires an adjustment. ^{[footnote 64.]}

Non-teaching support staff

This section discusses non-teaching support staff who assist teachers in educating students with disability. This may include those who assist students with learning in the classroom but are not teachers, those who provide medical assistance, school counsellors, translators, and behaviour support staff. Issues identified by stakeholders included insufficient numbers of support staff, whether they be in classroom support (generally called School Learning Support Officers – SLSOs in public schools) or access to specialised support. Other concerns included support staff who were not appropriately trained to meet student needs, or who were left to perform a teacher's role in the classroom.

School Learning Support Officers (SLSOs)

Evidence was provided about the important role of School Learning Support Officers (SLSOs) in the public education system and the pressures they are under. SLSOs are 'directly responsible for the integration or the supervision of children with a disability', however, as expressed by Mr Troy Wright, Acting General Secretary of the Public Service Association, they are 'overwhelmed'.^{[footnote 65.]} He highlighted the current absence of policy guidance for SLSOs in managing student behaviour. He said SLSOs are

… concerned that this leaves both them, as individuals and workers, and the department in a potential black hole of liability where they're unsure of their roles and responsibilities and unsure of what they're supposed to practice in the event of a difficult behavioural episode by a student.^{[footnote 66.]}

In addition, Mr Wright noted that SLSOs need more training and professional development. He raised the issue that there are growing numbers of children with complex medical and health needs that require treatment at school and that SLSOs are performing tasks that they do not feel 'comfortable, trained or qualified' to carry out. He was of the view that these tasks should be carried out by a SLSO - Student Health Support, which are more specialised roles.^{[footnote 67.]}

The Australian Association of Special Education advised that SLSOs, while vital, need to be used appropriately in the classroom, and cannot replace the role and expertise of the classroom teacher.^{[footnote 68.]} Family Advocacy went on to highlight the benefits and limitations of teacher assistants:

They can act as interpreters or mediators, discouraging harassment or belittling, but can limit opportunities for peers to speak to each other freely. There is the concern that the student[s] with the greatest need end up receiving instruction from a teaching assistant (who is the less educated on how to teach), and spending less time with their teacher.^{[footnote 69.]}

The Disability Council NSW reported on a survey of families and students with disability conducted by Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) in 2022 and 2023 which found that approximately only a third of respondents considered that teachers and support staff had adequate training and knowledge to support the student.^{[footnote 70.]}

Other specialist support staff

In another example, Mr Brent Phillips, Chief Impact Officer, Deaf Connect noted there is a shortage of skilled Auslan interpreters in the classroom. He said it is a 'serious concern' that many Deaf children are accessing interpreters with only 6 months experience in the classroom, whereas 'it should be the most professional and the most skilled interpreters, with 20 or 30 years of experience, entering the classroom and interpreting for our children'.^{[footnote 71.]} This concern was also reflected in advice from the Disability Council NSW.^{[footnote 72.]}

Allied health professionals

Allied health professionals include psychologists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists. Access to these professionals is vital for children and young people with disability as they are relied on for diagnosis, support and ongoing treatment. These experts can help inform student learning plans, and have the potential to work with teachers and early educators. As described by UTS Childcare Inc, guidance from health experts helps educators understand the child's 'development in relation to their disabilities' and access additional support for them,^{[footnote 73.]} a view shared by many stakeholders.^{[footnote 74.]} However, there was extensive evidence that the absence of this support can be detrimental to the student's achievement and wellbeing, as illustrated in some examples below.

In-school services

These services may be provided by schools. In New South Wales public schools, for example, there is the Specialist Allied Health and Behaviour Support Provider Scheme, whereby schools can use their budget to access services such as occupational therapy, speech pathology, physiotherapy and specialist behaviour support.^{[footnote 75.]} Since 2020, 5,390 public school students have been supported by this scheme.^{[footnote 76.]}

Occupational Therapy Australia (OTA) urged the committee to adopt recommendation 7.8 of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability specifically to employ occupational therapists and other allied health professionals directly in the department as part of regional teams.^{[footnote 77.]}

These teams could work with teachers to build staff capacity, an issue canvassed earlier in the report. OTA provided a case study outlining the value of school-based, rather than external, occupational therapists, where the student benefitted far more from occupational therapy within a small class group, rather than by accessing an external service:

The school occupational therapist began taking a small group of students each week to work on barriers for each of them, bringing the students into the fold to problem solve as a group. Through this collaboration the students were able to brainstorm ideas, like where to go that's not as noisy, who's someone that's not scary to ask for help, is there anyone who's nice to meet in the morning before going to class, etc ... ^{[footnote 78.]}

The Australian Psychological Society noted that there is approximately one school psychologist to every 1,500 students, despite a Federal Parliament inquiry recommending one psychologist to every 500 students. Existing vacancies in schools are difficult to fill, with up to 60 per cent of positions in in rural and remote areas remaining unfilled.^{[footnote 79.]}

Access to external allied health services

Students with disability also access allied health professionals through external settings, including those funded by the NDIS. However, there were many accounts provided to the inquiry about the cost and difficulty for children and young people and their families being able to access this support, both for initial diagnoses and ongoing therapies and treatment.

The Association of Independent Schools NSW indicated that students and their families can struggle to access support from allied health professionals, particularly in rural and regional areas, and reported wait lists for speech pathology in excess of 12 months.^{[footnote 80.]} The Isolated Children Parents Association also highlighted the difficulty of those in remote areas accessing allied health professionals, providing an example of parents having to travel over 300 kilometres one way to access a speech or occupational therapist.^{[footnote 81.]}

Ms Grace Fava OAM, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Autism and Advisory Support Services, suggested that school counsellors could be used to assess students, in particular for autism or ADHD, to overcome the issues of long waiting times for families to get their child assessed and diagnosed:

… you've got long waitlists and it's very expensive and out of reach for most of the people who we serve. Having it in the schools, it is on the spot. You can offer … collaboration with the family … every school counsellor is now a psychologist. They should be able to do those tests.^{[footnote 82.]}

In their submission, Legal Aid NSW advocated for 'a holistic approach' where NSW Department of Education, NSW Health and the Department of Communities and Justice work together to provide diagnostic services in schools, in response to the difficulty for many families in getting a formal diagnosis of disability.^{[footnote 83.]}

The committee sought feedback from the department about the possibility for school counsellors to provide diagnoses for conditions such as ADHD and autism, particularly in rural and remote areas where access to specialists is particularly difficult. Mr Martin Graham, Deputy Secretary, Teaching, Learning and Student Wellbeing, NSW Department of Education, expressed caution about school counsellors making a diagnosis for the purpose of accessing medical services:

One of the issues with our service making a formal diagnosis would be how that connects through to the health services. We provide education, and our supports are very much focused on what support is required to access education on the same basis as other students. That question about what the therapeutic supports might need to be is the basis of that diagnosis. For example, accessing NDIS services and so on, that moves off education and into that other space. We can certainly understand the logistical challenges over all areas, but whether the counselling service can expand to take on a medical as well as that educational purpose, I think, would be a challenge for us.^{[footnote 84.]}

He emphasised that school counsellors provide functional assessments of student need and that the NCCD also provides the opportunity for students to be provided the necessary adjustments, without the need for a formal diagnosis.^{[footnote 85.]}

Access to early intervention

Early intervention services for children with disability are vital, they can 'prevent or mitigate the long-term effects of developmental delays and disabilities' and potentially reduce the need for specialised intervention later in the child's life.^{[footnote 86.]} The following sections outline some of the effects on children and their families where early intervention support is not available.

Parents of Deaf Children emphasised the importance of early exposure to both sign and spoken language for deaf and hard of hearing children. If they suffer 'language deprivation' in the early years there can be a significant impact on all aspects of their lives, including academic, social integration and mental health.^{[footnote 87.]}

Ms Grace Fava, Autism and Advisory Support Services decried the lack of early intervention units for children with autism: 'about half a dozen early intervention units to serve thousands of kids'. She went on to describe how those children were often in preschools, that don't have the resources to support them, resulting in suspensions.^{[footnote 88.]}

The Australian Psychological Society outlined the impacts on the schooling of children with disability when access to appropriate psychological care is limited:

• There are negative effects on the inclusion and participation in early childhood settings, which can further affect the entire early childhood setting if students with disabilities 'express distress through behaviours that disrupt, or even endanger, children and staff'.
• There may be poor transitions to formal schooling if young children have missed out on early childhood assessments, which are critical for planning support for the transition to school.^{[footnote 89.]}

Mrs Nicole Rogerson, Director, Autism Awareness Australia, also described the importance of early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism. She outlined the effect of a lack of diagnosis prior to starting school, and hence no early intervention, which can compound as the child progresses through school, and potentially result in school exclusion.^{[footnote 90.]}

Many witnesses talked about the role of NDIS funding to support early intervention. A number noted that the recent review would change how early intervention is facilitated and funded, with a greater focus on delivery in early childhood settings and schools (Foundational Support).^{[footnote 91.]}

For example, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) explained in their submission how important the transition to Foundational Supports (Early Intervention) will be:

Schools and early learning centres are set to become key delivery locations for anticipated Foundation Supports (Early Intervention) that will replace NDIS support for many children. NSW needs to make a coherent and coordinated contribution to the Foundational Support Strategy that is being developed. A new advisory body that includes autism expertise could help build this contribution and inform implementation.^{[footnote 92.]}

Other resources to support students with disability

In addition to support provided by teachers, support staff, and allied health professionals, students with disability often rely on physical supports and adjustments to help them access education. These may include adaptations to the built environment to meet their mobility, sensory or other physical needs, or special technology to help them access curriculum materials.

Built environment

When asked in the online questionnaire for this inquiry, about the adequacy and adaptability of the built environment in educational settings for students with disability, a range of responses were received. A number of responses indicated that schools were accessible and facilitated student mobility:

• 'Yes. My school had ramps and lifts provided. My school also made special accommodations such as lowering the office window for me personally and creating a personal study schedule to allow me to leave class early in order to ensure my safety'. (Student with disability)
• 'Neither of my children have physical disability, however, all classrooms and facilities are easily accessed and accessible with ramps for those that do'. (Parents/carers)
• 'Yes. They have lifts and painted areas for vision impaired. We have a lot of stairs …' (Parents/carers)
• 'Yes. We have accessible classroom and are well equipped for physical disability'. (Teacher)
• 'We are a fully accessible school'. (Principal)^{[footnote 93.]}

Other responses provided examples where schools were not physically accessible, including for students who were neurodivergent:

• 'Many schools have demountable classrooms, which are inaccessible by design. Older schools also tend to have older buildings, which are not accessible. I have heard teachers complain about having to move their classes from their usual classroom to an accessible one, because a new student has a physical disability or a current student has been injured in a way that affects their mobility'. (Person with disability)
• 'There are ramps but no lifts …' (Parent/carer)
• 'Ramps in most places, but generally not a good place for anyone on wheels as there are narrow paths and dirt paths throughout the school'. (Parent/carer)
• 'For neurodivergent/sensory overload kid – long noisy corridors and hot assembly halls where they sit on the floor are a major problem that is often overlooked'. (Parent/carer)^{[footnote 94.]}

Comments from teachers and educators indicated ongoing difficulties with physical access, including in older schools:

• 'Our school is old, and although it has ramps and lifts, the classrooms are inaccessible, small and crowded'.
• '… a kindergarten peer of my younger child who broke their leg was unable to access school for the 6 weeks he was on crutches because he couldn't safely navigate the stairs to his classroom'.^{[footnote 95.]}

The Advocate for Children and Young (ACYP) told the committee of concerns it had received about the impact of inaccessible school buildings and facilities. For example, students described situations where classrooms and toilets had limited or no wheelchair access, or where their classes were held on the third floor, making it challenging for students with physical disability to access.^{[footnote 96.]}

The Department of Education has infrastructure design, planning and advisory services for inclusive design as part of School Infrastructure, in line with the requirements of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. As outlined in the NSW Government submission:

All new school buildings are designed and built with accessibility in mind and in accordance with the DDA Access to Premises – Building Standards 2010, to ensure equal access. Schools are built to be welcoming and fully accessible. Some examples of accessible features include lifts, ramps and accessible bathrooms. All new buildings meet the Building Code of Australia and DoE's Educational Facilities Standards and Guidelines. Targeted upgrades of existing buildings can include ramps, handrails, tactile ground surface indicators, accessible sanitary facilities and passenger lifts.^{[footnote 97.]}

Despite the above requirements, the NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association pointed to inadequate infrastructure in special schools, including special schools that were not purpose-built, lack therapy and break out rooms, and appropriate toilet and change facilities.^{[footnote 98.]} This view was echoed by the Public Service Association in relation to mainstream classes, where facilities are not adequate for the needs of children with disability.^{[footnote 99.]}

The Public Service Association noted that there are many classrooms with accessibility issues, and expressed concern that few mainstream schools could accommodate children without extensive modifications, such as specialist wheelchair lifts.^{[footnote 100.]} Similar views were expressed by the NSW Teachers Federation.^{[footnote 101.]} Ms Natasha Watt from the Federation indicated:

Over the last decade, until about 2021, capital investment in public schools was also half that of the private school counterpart. If we were to talk about that in aggregate figures, in the year of 2021 that was a $2.7 billion gap between private school kids as an aggregate and public school kids.^{[footnote 102.]}

In the course of visiting Ajuga Special School, some committee members heard how the school site's history, in addition to its heritage protections, was challenging for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.^{[footnote 103.]}

Ms Tina Kordrostami, Director of Mental Health Architectural Design, advocated for specific school designs to meet the needs of neurodiverse students. She noted that the physical environment can be adapted to meet their needs and avoid environmental 'triggers' which may cause them to 'act out'. She outlined adaptations that could be applied to both indoor and outdoor spaces and could incorporate features such as 'thermal and acoustic comforts', appropriate lighting, sensory spaces, and transition spaces between outside and the classroom. She also noted that schools need to be designed to be adaptable to meet the different needs of children, incorporating features such as moveable walls and partitions.^{[footnote 104.]}

Technology

Assistive technology is vital for many people with disability to participate in education. Mr Chris Edwards, Vision Australia, described examples of important assistive technology for blind and low vision children. He described the importance of screen reader applications¾while noting that students will need support to learn how to use them ¾and relayed that while schools may be willing to make adjustments, they make not have the capability and competency to do so.^{[footnote 105.]} This concern about schools being unable to implement assistive technology was similarly reported by Parents of Deaf Children in their submission. They noted that schools require adequate funding and professional development support in implementing these technologies.^{[footnote 106.]}

Funding for students with disability

As discussed in Chapter 4, all schools receive public funds from the Australian and NSW Government in accordance with the Schooling Resource Standard. The NSW Department of Education allocates funds to specific schools using a base and targeted loading as part of the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), which incorporates data from the NCCD to determine funding levels for individual students.

Many stakeholders were concerned that resourcing levels for schools in the public and private sector are insufficient to meet the needs of the growing numbers of students with disability in schools.^{[footnote 107.]}

In particular, the NSW Teachers Federation expressed a strong view that funding for students with disability in New South Wales public education has not kept pace with growing student need. They argued that public education is '$1.9 billion short this year alone'.^{[footnote 108.]} Ms Watt, from the Federation, highlighted that schools for specific purposes and support classes have high levels of funding but was of the view that students with disability in mainstream classes are under-resourced.^{[footnote 109.]}

Family Advocacy supported the need for more funding but noted that funding is not the 'silver bullet'. Entrenched cultural issues were just as important in creating barriers. They noted a '[l]ack of funding can be used as a scapegoat when a principal does not have the "willingness" for this student to come to their school'.^{[footnote 110.]}

Advocacy support

Barriers to education for children and young people can arise where parents do not have the resources or knowledge to advocate to educational institutions for a quality education for their child.

Stakeholders argued strongly for better support for the families of students with disability so they know how to advocate for their rights in the education system, and have the necessary advocacy support.^{[footnote 111.]} Family Advocacy emphasised that families and young people with disability need 'greater access to individual advocacy' to help them address 'inequitable access, unfair decisions…'. Family Advocacy estimates that only 50 per cent of the demand for advocacy is being met.^{[footnote 112.]}

The Australian Centre for Disability Law noted that parents and education providers are not always aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and recommended 'that all parents across public and private schools are provided with knowledge of rights and [are equipped] with appropriate communication tools to advocate on behalf of their child'.^{[footnote 113.]} Ms Meredith Hagger, Youth Law Australia, proposed that advocacy and legal advocacy services should be funded, and students with disability should be made aware of these services as soon as they enter the education system.^{[footnote 114.]}

Systemic and structural framework

This section of the report discusses issues and barriers for children and young people with disability that have arisen due to structural and regulatory frameworks. This can include agency level policies, government programs, or legislative requirements.

Implementation of learning plans and adjustments

As outlined in Chapter 3, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (which apply to all educational institutions) detail the obligations on education providers to make 'reasonable adjustments' to assist a student with a disability to participate in education and training on the same basis as students without a disability.

Likewise, learning plans are developed by schools to outline the education needs and learning goals of a student, and are usually developed with input from parents and relevant professionals. A range of factors will be considered when developing a plan, such as a child's 'reading and numeracy skills, their language and communications skills, social skills … their health care needs and their personal and cultural background'.^{[footnote 115.]}

The committee heard many different examples of adjustments that have been provided within educational settings including:

• providing a social story for a student ahead of new activity or change in schedule, accompanied by images. This could help allay anxiety and include where one was going and how they would get there, who they would meet, what the room they would meet in would look like, what would happen at that location, and what might be discussed^{[footnote 116.]}
• having a student's occupational therapist or speech pathologist visit the classroom, assess the environment and make recommendations to their teacher. These allied health supports may be privately or NDIS-funded^{[footnote 117.]}
• allowing additional time in exams, or movement breaks, or providing quiet spaces so a student can take time out and reduce stress^{[footnote 118.]}
• providing assistive technology, such as dictation software or augmented communication systems.^{[footnote 119.]}

Ms Rebecca Belzer, Solicitor, Australian Centre for Disability Law observed that making adjustments in mainstream settings benefits not just the child but their whole peer group, the school cohort and ultimately the community:

As a community, we have people from all walks of life, backgrounds and abilities in our society, and school should be like that as well. The benefit for my son is he learns to be a confident member of our community in a safe school environment. But the benefits extend to his peers and teachers as well. They develop skills and confidence in building friendships with someone who appears a little different to them, and are also better prepared to succeed in a post-school environment.^{[footnote 120.]}

However, the committee heard evidence that even where adjustments may have been made, and outlined in a student's learning plan, they can be unsuitable, ignored, or not updated as the student's need changes. Additionally, implementation of learning plans was inconsistent both within and between schools.

There were many examples provided to the committee where adjustments were made for students which were not suitable.^{[footnote 121.]}

Ms Sarah Abdou, Australian Centre for Disability Law, spoke of a lack of consistency in the implementation of adjustments, noting the experience of one student who required an occupational therapist to attend the classroom, and the difference in implementation by the teachers:

One parent … inform[ed] me that between one teacher and another, the adjustments that were implemented in the classroom were quite different. The particular adjustment that she wanted for her child was an occupational therapist to attend the classroom for a couple of hours a fortnight. One year with one teacher that adjustment was refused, and in the same school, with a different teacher, that adjustment was allowed and greatly benefited the child.^{[footnote 122.]} 

Dr Cherry Baylosis of Disability Advocacy NSW said 'students in the education system are often let down … [sometimes due to] … a lack of willingness from education staff to provide reasonable adjustments … We also see a lack of meaningful adjustments …'. ^{[footnote 123.]}

There were many instances of schools not understanding their obligations towards students with disability, for example providing adjustments for participation in NAPLAN, or parents being required to access NDIS funding to provide support for their son to attend school camp.^{[footnote 124.]} Vision Australia noted that a survey of students and families in New South Wales found 'a lack of consistency in the educational supports and services being provided to students who are blind or have low vision in NSW schools, including with respect to specialised vision teachers and Braille instruction'.^{[footnote 125.]}

The Australian Centre for Disability Law told the committee that the Centre's advice is often sought by parents in disputes over delays to the development of learning plans, and where learning plans have not been followed and adjustments implemented:

… more often than not we do hear, 'My child has a learning plan in place, they need to be given 10 minutes extra exam time. They weren't given that exam time'. Or, for example, 'It took three months to even get a learning plan in place, even though I've provided the diagnosis to the school right at the beginning of the school term'.^{[footnote 126.]}

People with Disability Australia said there was strong feedback from their members and clients that schools were sometimes unable to provide advice on which adjustments were even available, let alone optimal, for their child:

What came through on a number of occasions was that they, the parents, were then having to go away and do their own homework and find out all about these reasonable adjustments and about what would work in that environment et cetera and then go back to the school and then see what the school says. They were really upset about this.^{[footnote 127.]}

When asked about the issue of consistency in adjustments, the Department of Education noted the development of the inclusive education hub to drive teachers' professional learning and improve consistency in adjustments.^{[footnote 128.]}

Legal Aid NSW called on the Department of Education to provide guidelines and improve transparency around adjustments for students with disability including:

• Development of guidelines, regulations, rules and policies to ensure adjustments are appropriately used and that schools comply with obligations under the Disability Standards.
• Development of procedures to ensure greater transparency and record keeping around the provisions of adjustments.^{[footnote 129.]}

Higher School Certificate disability provisions

Another issue faced by students with disability relates to access to adjustments to support them to complete their Highter School Certificate (HSC) exams. Concerns raised by stakehold​ers included having to re-prove disability.^{[footnote 130.]} An example of the challenges for students with disability is outlined in the case studies below.

When asked about the issue of having to provide further information on a lifelong disability to access HSC disability provisions, Mr Paul Martin, Chief Executive Officer of NESA responded that the extra information required relates to 'how the disability manifests in the exam' and should not be about needing to re-prove a disability.^{[footnote 133.]} Further advice from NESA stated that:

The functional impact of a disability in an exam situation may change over time, so there is a need to obtain updated evidence closer to the HSC exam period to ensure students are appropriately supported. NESA is working with the Department of Education and school systems/sectors to improve the process.^{[footnote 134.]}

In addition to these challenges, the Disability Council NSW noted the following barriers for students and their families seeking HSC disability provisions:

• Some families cannot afford to pay for the assessments required to prove to NESA the need for provisions.
• Some families find it re‐traumatising to be required to advocate for their child for the provision and then for the request to be denied.
• The current HSC process does not allow for students with disability to demonstrate their capacity.^{[footnote 135.]}

In response to questions about this issue at the hearing, Mr Paul Martin, Chief Executive Officer, NESA, described some of the nuances of disability provisions processes:

• Provisions for the HSC exam are not teaching and learning provisions or adjustments, and differ from those adjustments a school may make for a student to complete internal assessments.
• Disability provisions relate to a judgement about the capacity of a student to sit and do a written exam which differs from the 'broader' and 'deeper and richer' expectations of a student's ability to complete their regular classroom work at school.^{[footnote 136.]}

Mr Martin subsequently noted that 97 per cent of applications are approved. He acknowledged that it is a difficult issue, and that NESA is continuously working to improve understanding of the processes, including ensuring that the application process is outlined in great detail.^{[footnote 137.]}

In response to questions about the lower rates of provisions granted in the public sector, Mr Martin Graham, NSW Department of Education, provided evidence of the supports now in place to help schools and parents apply to NESA. This has included identifying and supporting schools with low numbers of applications. He acknowledged that barriers remain, such as access to diagnoses from health professionals.^{[footnote 138.]}

Issues with inconsistent exam adjustments at universities were also raised. The Cerebral Palsy Alliance recounted the experience of one of its members, who was frustrated that the adjustments from their learning plan were not able to be transferred between universities:

… at the first university I studied at I was given the provision of an extra hour per hour for written tests taking into account such things as my slow typing skills. However, when I enrolled in the second degree and met with disability services, they were not even slightly interested in sighting my current EIP meaning that I had to advocate and fight for additional 30 minutes per hour for exams after they wanted to give me only 15 minutes.^{[footnote 139.]}

Reasonable adjustments and the legal framework

A number of stakeholders called for changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, including to incorporate a positive obligation to consult with and make reasonable adjustments for a student with disability.^{[footnote 140.]} Ms Meredith Hagger, Youth Law Australia, indicated that the equivalent legislation in Victoria is stronger compared to the New South Wales legislation. The current New South Wales legal framework requires families to advocate for reasonable adjustments, whereas the Victorian legislation has a 'standalone duty on educational authorities to make reasonable adjustments'.^{[footnote 141.]} The NSW Ombudsman noted that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 was currently under review, and 'sees value' in introducing a positive obligation to the legislation.^{[footnote 142.]}

NDIS coordination and funding problems

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides funding and support for people with disability. This includes access to allied health support. It is funded by the Australian Government, with individuals accessing support directly from local partner organisations within each state and territory. Broadly, the NDIS funds supports 'that are associated with the functional impact of their disability on activities of daily living, such as personal care and support'. The NDIS does not fund adjustments which assist with educational attainment.^{[footnote 143.]}

The inquiry heard of issues where NDIS-funded therapies were expected to be delivered at the school in class time. As described below, some schools have been overwhelmed by requests from external practitioners to visit the student during class time, while parents have been concerned that their child was being denied access to therapies that were most effective if they occurred in an educational setting.

In their submission, Early Childhood Intervention Best Practice Network identified the following benefits and concerns:

• It is beneficial for the child when educators are able collaborate with allied health practitioners in the early education or classroom setting. Therapists can observe classroom behaviours, assist with upskilling teachers, identify and help resolve any barriers to accessing the curriculum.
• On the other hand, there are instances of schools having excessive numbers of providers wishing to access the school (some schools report 180 providers a week needing access to students).
• This has resulted in some schools restricting access to therapists, for example, no therapies in Terms 1 or 4, and only 5 minute visits.^{[footnote 144.]}

The Department of Education, when asked about this issue at a hearing, acknowledged the tensions between the requirement for schools to educate children and the need for children to access therapies. They advised that schools strive to achieve a 'balance between educational provision and the appropriate time for therapy' and it is 'student by student, school by school, context by context, family by family, because that is the most appropriate response'. For example, in areas where it is hard for families to access therapy outside of school, schools will be more accommodating.^{[footnote 145.]}

Low expectations for children and young people with disability

The inquiry heard evidence from stakeholders about the barriers faced by children and young people with disability which relate to low expectations. These may be expectations, or rather a lack of expectations, relating to achievements in schooling, participation in school activities, or transitioning from school to further education or employment.^{[footnote 146.]} Low expectations can be entrenched as part of the system, by curriculum offerings, or due to the educational setting.

For example, All Means All described how mainstream education is set up in such a way that often students with disability cannot effectively participate, in part due to 'a systemic culture of low expectations'.^{[footnote 147.]}

While Inclusive Educators Association shared this concern, they were of the view that segregated education is a contributor, due to 'low expectations curriculum that limits students access to a range of knowledge and skills'.^{[footnote 148.]}

Family Advocacy outlined some of the barriers faced by students as they transition from high school, including students being 'funnelled' into the Life Skills program, which provides limited pathways beyond school. They argued that there is no evidence that Life Skills prepares students for work and adulthood. They recommended that the program, including the outcomes for participants be 'further examined'.^{[footnote 149.]}

Ms Joanne Yates, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer of People with Disability Australia, highlighted the role of ableism in sustaining low expectations, and how low expectations contribute to the 'entrenchment' of segregation.^{[footnote 150.]}

Ellen Armfield, a person with lived experience and also a carer for a young woman with Rett syndrome, described the woman's experience:

My client and her parents found that her schooling experience was a series of missed opportunities, as many teachers and the system as a whole had low expectations of her, that despite her eagerness and ability to learn, she was constantly aged down because she is non-verbal.^{[footnote 151.]}

Complaints processes

This section deals with the frameworks and processes in place for families when they wish to raise concerns about the treatment of children and young people with disability. Broadly, there are two pathways which families may take, depending on the educational institution and the nature of their complaint.

For complaints relating to public schools they may use internal agency processes; pursue their complaint via the Ombudsman; Anti-Discrimination NSW; or the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The pathway may depend on the nature of the complaint and whether the complainant considers it to be satisfactorily resolved.

Public universities and TAFE NSW also fall within the remit of the NSW Ombudsman.^{[footnote 152.]}

As noted in Chapter 3, for those attending private education providers families may pursue their concerns with the institution or through the AHRC.

Complaint process within the school system

The complaints handling process in educational institutions was the subject of many concerns in evidence to the inquiry. This dissatisfaction with the process has led to a number of stakeholders supporting^{[footnote 153.]} the recommendation 7.10 of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability which said:

State and territory governments should create or expand existing complaint management offices that operate within educational authorities at arm's length from schools to help resolve complaints about schools, specifically complaints concerning the treatment of students with disability.^{[footnote 154.]}

Many stakeholders raised concerns about the process followed when they wish to make a complaint about adjustments provided in the classroom, or around decisions to suspend a child with disability due to poor behaviour. Often, the complaint was handled at the school level, or escalated to the department (in the case of public schools) to investigate or respond to.^{[footnote 155.]} Many stakeholders expressed concern at the department investigating itself.^{[footnote 156.]} Family Advocacy highlighted the power imbalance that occurs between the school or school system and the student and their family, by noting that 'schools can exercise unfettered discretion … Schools continue to investigate themselves which leads to a potential conflict of interest'.^{[footnote 157.]}

A Vision Australia survey of families it supports revealed the following:

• approximately a quarter had made a complaint about a school, directly to the school, the department or the Diocesan office
• 80 per cent of those who had made a complaint said it was not resolved to their satisfaction, including some who said they had no response at all to their complaint.^{[footnote 158.]}

In response to questioning about the potential for an independent decision maker, the Department of Education was of the view that the majority of complaints are best handled at the local level. They advised that the Professional and Ethics Standards unit will be able to offer the option of independent mediation for complaints from parents and students, a relatively new process for complaints handling.^{[footnote 159.]}

Gemma, a parent of a young boy with disability, provided evidence to the committee that she is currently in mediation with the department as the result of her appeals against his suspensions from school. She noted that it will be a 'whole day process with the deputy principal, but any decisions will not be binding'.^{[footnote 160.]}

The department also noted that the NSW Ombudsman and the AHRC were appropriate 'escalation pathways' for those unsatisfied with the department's response to concerns.^{[footnote 161.]}

Legal framework and complaints processes

As outlined in Chapter 3, discrimination in educational settings on the grounds of disability is unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA, with exemptions for private educational settings) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA, which applies to both public and private providers).

Anti-Discrimination NSW notes that the 'complex and overlapping legal protections … can be challenging to navigate' for people with disability experiencing discrimination. For example, they noted that individuals may risk losing their rights by bringing a complaint to Anti-Discrimination NSW that would be 'better dealt with by the AHRC'.^{[footnote 162.]}

The NSW Ombudsman has power to investigate complaints about 'maladministration' by a New South Wales government agency, which can include complaints about provision of adjustments and support. The Ombudsman, Mr Paul Miller, noted that there is jurisdictional overlap between the Ombudsman, Anti-Discrimination NSW and the AHRC. He advised that his office may decide not to pursue a complaint 'if there is an alternative and satisfactory avenue for redress'.^{[footnote 163.]}

Evidence to the inquiry was also critical of the comparator test in the ADA, which means that students with disabilities that affect their behaviour find it hard to show that 'exclusionary discipline constitutes discrimination'. Youth Law Australia noted this was also an issue with the DDA, and was subject to recommendations by the DRC.^{[footnote 164.]}

Throughout the inquiry, the ADA has been contrasted with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Equal Opportunity Act).^{[footnote 165.]} Under the Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of disability. In comparison to the ADA, the Equal Opportunity Act:

• does not include the comparator test for direct discrimination^{[footnote 166.]}
• includes an explicit requirement that an educational authority make reasonable adjustments for a person with a disability.^{[footnote 167.]}

Complaints against public educational institutions

As outlined in Chapter 3, Anti-Discrimination NSW (ADNSW) has the power to investigate and mediate complaints from families about discrimination in public educational institutions.

ADNSW provided the following information and observations on complaints they have received relating to disability discrimination in educational settings:

• complaints 'primarily' concern children with psychosocial disabilities
• more than half the complaints received between 2018 and 2023 concerned children in rural and remote areas
• complaints often relate to termination of care without prior notification; reduction of hours of care; refusal of enrolment; and exclusion from excursions unless parents accompany their children.^{[footnote 168.]}

There were calls for changes in the way ADNSW operates, including a reduction in time to process complaints, and the ability to make binding decisions in cases of discrimination in educational settings.^{[footnote 169.]} Ms Rebecca Belzer, Australian Centre for Disability Law, advised that ADNSW does not have powers to compel parties to participate in the process.^{[footnote 170.]}

Ms Meredith Hagger, Youth Law Australia, proposed that the department should have a 'decision maker' that can make binding decisions about resources, which would help families having to make a complaint to ADNSW concerning discrimination on the basis of disability.^{[footnote 171.]}

With regard to the university sector, the National Union of Students described difficulties in the complaints process. Ms Mairead Foley, National Disability Officer, described how the NSW Ombudsman says that it can address complaints processes for public universities in New South Wales, however, it will usually then refer the matter to a Federal body.^{[footnote 172.]}

Complaints against private institutions

As noted in Chapter 3, non-government schools in New South Wales are exempt from provisions in the ADA. New South Wales is the only jurisdiction in Australia that provides exceptions to allow private education providers to discriminate against a person on the basis of disability. Families who wish to make a complaint must do so through the AHRC for breach of the DDA.

Ms Sarah Abdou, Australian Centre for Disability Law, was supportive of amending the ADA to include non-government schools, as the process for having a complaint investigated and resolved is faster and less costly.^{[footnote 173.]}

ADNSW, the body responsible for administering the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, supported a proposal to amend the ADA to remove the exceptions for private educational institutions. They note:

Private schools are the recipients of public funding which should carry a responsibility to provide access to all. Similar exceptions do not exist federally and in other states and territories and NSW is the only jurisdiction in Australia that allows private educational institutions to discriminate based on disability.^{[footnote 174.]}

Data collection and reporting

Some stakeholders raised that publicly reported data on students with disability was generally limited to data on the NCCD. Ms Sue Tape, Project Coordinator, Inclusive Education, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, outlined the following gaps in information on students with disability identified by her organisation:

• student outcomes
• student experience and engagement with their education
• student achievement in NAPLAN^{[footnote 175.]}
• expenditure on student adjustments.^{[footnote 176.]}

The department advised it is currently developing an assessment for students with disability who do not reach the minimum levels of NAPLAN. The new assessment will be available to schools to use on a voluntary basis. The department is also developing a broader skills 'passport' which will provide feedback on students' acquisition of social skills.^{[footnote 177.]}

The Home Education Association also advocated for collection of data on students with disability who are home schooled. As noted in Chapter 4, these students are not counted in the NCCD, and there is very little other information available on this cohort.

In response to a question from the committee, Mrs Lyn Caton, Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch, advised that there is no sector level collation or reporting of data on suspensions and expulsions in the Catholic sector,^{[footnote 178.]} unlike the public school system.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended there should be improvements to data collection and reporting on students with disability, including data on student outcomes and wellbeing.^{[footnote 179.]}

Students with disability in post- secondary settings

As noted by Ms Mairead Foley, National Union of Students, having post school qualifications such as a bachelor's degree or TAFE qualification increases the likelihood of students with disability being in employment.^{[footnote 180.]} The following section describes the challenges and issues for students with disability as they move from school into university or study at TAFE. These challenges include the need to be proactive in asking for support, a lack of oversight of universities around providing adjustments for students with disability, and limited access to support. Cultural issues were also raised, particularly in the university sector.

Ms Keira Ademovic, Student Advisor, National Union of Students, described her experiences in TAFE:

I was terrified to reach out for help. If there had been proactive support, if the actual system had been set up better for all students so that I wasn't the one with the burden of having to reach out for support, to have to do the paperwork for support, to call three different agencies and say, 'Hey, I need support for this'—that is a huge burden on people with disabilities. There was a reason why I didn't reach out for that help. I also knew that it didn't exist.^{[footnote 181.]}

In response to a question about pathways into TAFE for students with disability, Mr Stephen Brady, of TAFE NSW, advised that while there were no courses specifically for students with disability:

We tend to work on an individualised basis, so we've got disability teacher consultants who tend to work with individual students about what their support needs are and then would work with the teachers to help them work out what sort of adjustments might be required, whether there are notetakers or whatever other supports might be required for that student^{[footnote 182.]}

TAFE NSW advised that there are 400 students with disability enrolled in the Educational Pathways Program.^{[footnote 183.]} This program is 'designed to improve education and career outcomes for young people by introducing students to a range of vocational training and employment pathways. This program is highly valued by schools and shows excellent benefits, for example improving the numbers of school-based apprenticeships and traineeships (SBATs)'.^{[footnote 184.]}

Ms Foley relayed some examples of the barriers and challenges for university students:

• There is 'zero oversight' of the provision of academic adjustments across universities, particularly in the Group of Eight universities.
• The conditions for accessing support via the Disability Support Program can restrict access to other supports for students. Further, universities do not advertise the availability of some supports, such as access to student travel concessions for students with disability working part time. ^{[footnote 185.]}

Ms Foley provided examples of discrimination and failure to make adjustments for students with disability, such as:

• Not allowing a student to use a laptop in a written exam, even though they couldn't hold a pen.
• The lack of flexibility in the requirement to complete course practicums on a full-time basis.
• Deaf students being denied access to Bluetooth stethoscopes as the university considered them too expensive.^{[footnote 186.]}

Evidence from representatives of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Australian Autism Alliance provided support for the development of a national road map for inclusive education for the higher education sector, similar to that proposed for the school sector by the Disability Royal Commission.^{[footnote 187.]} They focused on the following:

• Ensuring complaints processes are accessible, for example by providing Auslan interpreters for deaf complainants.
• Better training, knowledge and understanding in the university sector of the rights and educational adjustments required by students with disability
• Better and more representative governance of universities.^{[footnote 188.]}

Committee comment

The committee heard extensive evidence about deficits in a variety of educational settings for children and young people with disability. Of concern were the variety of issues raised regarding teachers' skills, knowledge and expertise relating to the needs of students with disability.

The committee is concerned that initial teacher education requirements, even in New South Wales, may not be sufficient to prepare teachers for the growing cohort of students with disability in education, particularly in mainstream school classrooms.

The committee notes, in particular, the increasing number of students with disability in mainstream classrooms, and the impact on students who are not being accommodated in their learning needs. We also find that many classroom teachers do not have the skills required to teach students with disability. There was evidence which suggested that in particular, that teachers need more knowledge and understanding of the educational and support needs of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), particularly given the high probability that they will have at least one child with ASD in any given class.

This leads the committee to recommend that the NSW Government increase the requirements for accreditation of initial teacher education courses to ensure teachers are better equipped to meet the learning needs of students with disability, and to consider options for requiring content to specifically address the needs of students with ASD.

The committee recognises the growing demands on teachers to support the diverse learning needs of students in the classroom and the possibility that student needs are not being met as a result. The committee heard of the growing workload imposed on classroom teachers, due to requirements such as data collection, creating and implementing individual learning plans, and more generally supporting the diverse learning needs of the students in their classroom. The committee notes that approximately a third of adjustments provided to students with disability are not funded, as they are provided with adjustments within teaching practice, the lowest level of adjustment reported for the NCCD. The committee is of the view that this workload could be ameliorated by additional support from specialist teachers, including learning and support teachers.

The committee also notes evidence that it is not mandatory for teachers to undertake ongoing professional learning relating to any specific disability, although they must undertake professional development in the priority area of students with disability. However, it notes advice from NESA that in a 12 month period, over 35,000 teachers in New South Wales have undertaken accredited professional development in this area, which is encouraging, although it is not clear what proportion of the teacher population this represents, nor the type of skills that might be acquired or updated by these undertakings.

The committee was encouraged by the evidence of mandatory continuing professional development for teachers in the area of students with disability. However, given the plethora of evidence to the inquiry that some classroom teachers are finding it difficult to meet the educational needs of students with disability in the class, the committee recommends that the NSW Government expand the length, reoccurrence and content of mandatory continuous professional development courses relating to students with disability.

We note that there is a current shortage in the number of special educator teachers or learning and support teachers (LASTs) and are alarmed by concerns raised that many individuals who hold these positions are not actually qualified. Based on the evidence received, the committee finds that there are insufficient numbers of teachers who have the appropriate qualification for special educator roles in schools.

The committee heard from a number of experts in special education who advised that teachers with post-graduate qualifications in special education were not being financially rewarded for holding additional qualifications. While we note that the scholarships provided by the department are encouraging the upskilling of teachers, we are concerned that there are still insufficient incentives for teachers to consider specialising in this vital area.

Therefore, we recommend that the NSW Government investigate options to increase and enhance incentives for qualified teachers to acquire post graduate qualifications to become special educators for students with disability. This could include:

• More scholarships for teachers to undertake post-graduate qualifications in inclusive/special education.
• Relief time from their employment to undertake this study.
• incentives, including pay structures, for those teachers who hold specialist post-graduate qualifications in special/inclusive education, for example paying such teachers at the same rate of pay as that of Highly Accomplished and Leader teachers (HALTs).

The committee heard from many families that consistency and stability is key to ensuring children and young people with disability feel safe, supported and encouraged in educational settings. We are of the view that the current funding allocation model for mainstream public schools does not provide certainty for ongoing employment of learning and support teachers or encourage consistency in classroom support for students with disability. In many cases funding fluctuates year to year depending on the needs of the student population, making it difficult for schools to retain additional staff.

In order to provide stability to both students with disability and the learning and support teachers that work with them, the committee recommends that the NSW Government investigate means such as adjusting the resource allocation model to ensure there is targeted funding to employ learning and support teachers (LASTs) on a permanent full-time basis in mainstream public school settings to provide consistency and certainty for both teachers and the students with disability they support.

We were pleased to hear from a number of witnesses from the Deaf community, who were strong advocates for the need for more Deaf teachers and teachers who are qualified teachers of Deaf children. They told of the need for bi-lingual education for Deaf students, but were concerned that there was a shortage of appropriately qualified teachers, particularly those who are also Deaf. Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government increase the number of appropriately qualified Deaf teachers, and implement professional development strategies based on an inclusive education capability framework for principals, teachers, teaching assistants and teachers of Deaf children.

Similarly, Vision Australia told the committee there was a lack of teachers with the specialist skillset required to meet the unique needs of students who are blind or vision impaired. The committee recommends that the NSW Government increase the number of qualified specialist vision teachers for blind and low vision students, to be engaged for all students who are blind/ low vision, to provide them with:

• Braille literacy
• adaptive technology training
• orientation/ mobility
• compensatory skills and independent living skills
• social skills
• career counselling.

The committee also notes evidence that it is not mandatory for teachers to undertake ongoing professional learning relating to any specific disability, although they must undertake professional development in the priority area of students with disability. However, it notes advice from NESA that in a 12 month period, over 35,000 teachers in New South Wales have undertaken accredited professional development in this area, which is encouraging, although it is not clear what proportion of the teacher population this represents, not the type of skills that might be acquired or updated by these undertakings.

Further, the committee finds that representation of teachers with disability in the teacher workforce is below that of the general population and is not meeting NSW Government targets. This is particularly the case for the number of teachers specialising in support for specific disabilities, for example blind and deaf students.

The committee notes the department was unable to provide responses to questions relating to statistics on the types of disability amongst its staff. We consider this to be insufficient if we are to address the representation of teachers with disability in the teacher workforce.

To combat this, the committee recommends that the NSW Government continue to improve the proportion of teachers and support staff with disability in the school sector and consider how more students with disability can be supported and encouraged to gain a teaching degree.

The committee heard from representatives of First Nations people with disability and the demand for training for teachers about issues that impact Aboriginal children with disability. The committee was concerned to learn that there is currently insufficient workforce capacity to place First Nations expertise within inclusive education settings. As a first step to support the needs of First Nations students with disability the committee recommends that the NSW Government establish culturally safe policies and procedures for First Nations students with disability, in consultation with First Nations peoples and their representatives.

It would be remiss of the committee if we did not acknowledge the hard work and dedication of non-teaching support staff in educational settings, such as school learning support officers (SLSOs) or other specialist support staff who assist teachers in educating students with disability. However, we note the concerns of inquiry participants that SLSOs are under pressure, under-resourced and do not always have adequate training or knowledge to support the student. Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government provide incentives to existing school learning support officers to acquire a Certificate III or Certificate IV in School Based Education Support, to allow them to commence and complete this training while in employment as a school learning support officer (SLSO).

In a similar vein, the committee recognises that access to allied health professionals such as psychologists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists is vital for children and young people with disability as they are relied on for diagnosis, support and ongoing treatment. However, access is not always guaranteed due to cost, location, and ability to access such services.

In particular, the committee was shocked by the high proportion of young people in out of home care who have a disability. The lack of access to a medical diagnosis exacerbates the challenges these young people face, particularly when it makes it difficult for them to qualify for the specific supports they need to access education.

The committee is concerned that the shortage of appropriate specialist and allied health workers has a knock on effect that leads to restricted access to appropriate educational support. Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government invest in specialist and allied health workforces to support children and young people with disability.

Related to this, the committee welcomes the increased use of functional assessment by the department to determine what educational supports may be required for a student with disability. This reduces the need to rely on a medical diagnosis, which cannot always be accessed, particularly by groups already disadvantaged, as described in the paragraph above.

However, the committee understands that the department still relies on medical diagnosis to determine eligibility for the highest levels of support via Integration Funding Support. While the department has advised that it is intending to transition away from requiring a medical diagnosis, and instead rely on a functional assessment, the committee is concerned that some students are missing out on vital support as they are unable to access a medical diagnosis. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of Education transition to the eligibility criteria for Integration Funding Support relying on functional assessments of students' needs, rather than medical diagnoses.

The committee also heard how access to early intervention is imperative to children and young people with disability as it can prevent or mitigate the long-term effects of developmental delays and disabilities and potentially reduce the need for specialised intervention later in the child's life. Based on the evidence received during this inquiry, the committee finds that there is great benefit for children with disability when they access early intervention. A delay or absence of early intervention has a detrimental effect on a child's educational outcomes, social wellbeing and employment opportunities.

Another key resource used to support students with disability is the built environment, with respondents to the online questionnaire to this inquiry providing mixed responses as to whether schools were accessible. This was illustrated to members of the committee during a site visit to a school in south-western Sydney where infrastructure improvements such as making buildings more accessible were limited by heritage restrictions.

We note advice from the department stating that all new school buildings will be designed and built with accessibility in mind, however, this does not address concerns or issues with current public schools where necessary facilities are often non-existent. As a result, the committee recommends that the NSW Government consider using principles of inclusive design in school buildings to improve accessibility for all students. Accessibility considerations for students should be prioritised above heritage requirements.
 

In addition, more broadly, the committee was concerned at the potential underinvestment in appropriate building infrastructure for students with disability and recommends that the NSW Government commit to a sustainable long-term investment in quality and appropriate capital and infrastructure for educational settings.

Throughout this inquiry, the committee heard differing experiences from participants about the implementation of adjustments and learning plans for children and young people with disability. While some students have positive experiences in having their adjustments and learning plans being implemented successfully, others are not so fortunate. Instead, adjustments for these students may be inappropriate, applied inconsistently or in some instances not implemented at all. This has resulted in many students and their families not feeling heard and having few avenues to seek independent review of school decisions and actions.

This leads the committee to recommend that the NSW Government create clear and direct guidelines for schools to enable compliance with statutory obligations to provide reasonable adjustments for students with disability.

Such inconsistencies with adjustments were highlighted by the Higher School Certificate disability provisions. We note that many students need to re-prove their disability in order to seek appropriate adjustments to complete their exams. In addition, we heard that in seeking these adjustments students and their families face further hurdles of having to pay for the required medical assessments, only to have requests for adjustments denied. We concerned to hear that in some cases, this leads to families being re-traumatised. It is also of concern that this is a 'deficit' approach, where students are being required to prove they lack ability, rather than being able to access examinations to show their knowledge and mastery of a subject.

As a result, the committee finds that the requirements to access Disability Provisions for the Higher School Certificate examinations can be onerous and excessively focused on students having to re-prove their need for adjustments which they are already accessing in the classroom. In some instances students and their families are required to provide extensive evidence of the need for adjustments, which can be costly, time-consuming and stressful.

To address this, the committee recommends that NSW Government consider a streamlined process, including a line of communication between the relevant agencies, for granting disability provisions for the Higher School Certificate. The process should incorporate recognition of pre-existing conditions and adjustments already provided in the classroom.

The committee notes that all schools (government and non-government) must comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the associated Disability Standards for Education 2005. The Standards oblige education providers to make reasonable adjustments for a student with disability so they can participate in education and training on the same basis as students without a disability.

While we acknowledge that NESA has embedded these requirements into the regulatory framework for New South Wales schools, the committee is of the view that schools need to be reminded of this obligation. Therefore, the committee recommends that the NSW Government create clear and direct guidelines for schools to enable compliance with statutory obligations to provide reasonable adjustments for students with disability.

In relation to NDIS coordination and funding, the committee recognises the tensions between schools and concerned parents regarding expectations and capacity for NDIS-funded therapies to be delivered at school in class time. As it currently stands, the committee is of the view that more guidance and direction is required for schools to better work with parents and NDIS providers to enhance and facilitate student access to NDIS-funded support in the school setting. This would help to address the overwhelming requests received by schools from external practitioners to visit during class time and allay concerns of parents that their child was being denied access to therapies that were most effective if they occurred in an educational setting.

The committee recommends that the NSW Government provide support to the Department and schools to ensure they work with parents and NDIS providers to enhance and facilitate student access to NDIS-funded support in the school setting in order to achieve maximum benefits for the student and enhance teacher capability to address student needs.

Many stakeholders raised the importance of families being able to advocate for their children to ensure they received the assistance they were entitled to, or were able to raise concerns when they felt their child's learning needs were not being met. More importantly, this was a major theme in submissions from individual parents, and the committee heard many distressing stories of parents and children being ignored, or their concerns dismissed, or even being restricted in their access to the school or to staff. This has led the committee to consider how the voices of these children and their families can be supported so that they are heard, and the child's educational needs are met. Of particular concern to us is the handling of complaints by individual schools and school systems.

The complaints handling process in educational institutions was the subject of many concerns in evidence to the inquiry. The committee acknowledges that due to such dissatisfaction with the current complaints process within, and about schools, inquiry participants' supported Recommendation 7.10 of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability for complaint management offices with educational authorities be arms' length from schools to help resolve complaints about schools concerning the treatment of students with disability.

We do not agree with the department's position that majority of complaints are best handled at the local level, that is schools, and that the Professional and Ethics Standards unit can act as an unbiased umpire. While the committee noted there is option now offered by the department of independent mediation for complaints from parents and students, these decisions are non-binding, and unlikely to resolve the issues, concerns and hurt experienced by families and children. This is particularly with regards to decisions to suspend students with disability, particularly when their behaviour may be the result of disability, or poorly implemented adjustments to meet their learning needs.

Following from the above, the committee considers the current complaints handling process to be severely inappropriate. As a result, we see merit in the recommendation put forward by the Disability Royal Commission.

In line with the above, the committee recommends that the NSW Government investigate and review options for an independent oversight function or body to support, advocate and investigate on behalf of children and young people with disability and their families. The independent body could include the following features:

• Jurisdiction over the education of school-aged children in government and non-government schools, TAFE, vocational education providers, universities, early childhood education settings, home education or not in any educational setting in New South Wales.
• The ability to review and adjudicate on decisions to suspend or expel students with disability.
• The ability to review and adjudicate on decisions by schools about adjustments, and decisions by NESA about Disability Provisions.
• The ability to investigate and respond to allegations of discrimination, abuse, neglect and exploitation of a child with disability in a registered school.
• The ability to review and investigate issues of systemic disability discrimination and ableism.
• The ability to collect and report on data relating to suspension, expulsion and restrictive practices.
• The ability to advise on a transition to a more inclusive education school system.
• A clear and accessible dispute resolution mechanism for parents and carers to make complaints or raise concerns, and procedures to collect, analyse and report on these complaints.
  

Notwithstanding the powers and role of the body proposed above, all families should have recourse to the legal system if they consider they have been discriminated against by an education provider.

In particular, we note that discrimination in educational settings on the grounds of disability is unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, with exemptions for private educational settings, meaning they can discriminate against a student or prospective student on the basis of disability.

The committee is of the view that private institutions should be accountable in the same way as public institutions under the same legislation. We consider that such a legislative change would make the complaints process faster and less costly for those attending private educational settings. The committee therefore recommends that the NSW Government refer the issue of the removal of exemptions which allow private educational institutions to discriminate against a person on the basis of disability to the NSW Law Reform Commission for consideration as part of its review into the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.​

Similarly, the committee recommends that the NSW Government seek to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to include a positive duty on educational institutions to provide reasonable adjustments for a person with disability.

The committee learned that there is limited data collected on children and young people with disability that is not linked to the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD). As a result, there are significant gaps in data relating to student outcomes, student experience and engagement with their education, student achievement in NAPLAN, suspensions and expulsions in the non-government sector as well as data on those who are home schooled. Evidently, considerable improvements are required in data collection and reporting on students with disability, including data relating to suspension, expulsion and restrictive practices in government and non-government schools, students refused enrolment in their school of choice due to disability, and students with disability who are homeschooled.

The committee therefore recommends that the NSW Government improve its data collection and reporting on students with disability who are school-aged and/or in school settings, including collecting data on the following:

• collect and report on data relating to suspension, expulsion and restrictive practices in government and non-government schools
• collect and report data on students refused enrolment in their school of choice due to disability
• collect data on students with disability who are homeschooled in the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on students with disability.
• collect data on outcomes of requests for reasonable adjustments and HSC Disability Provisions
• where relevant, this data should be disaggregated to report on children who are in out of home care.
  

The committee also heard how the challenges faced by young people with disability can continue as they move from school into further study at university or TAFE. We note that such challenges include lack of oversight of universities in providing adjustments for students with disability, limited access to support, and discrimination.

The committee acknowledges that there was a limited amount of evidence provided to this inquiry regarding the experiences and challenges of students with disability as they move into post-compulsory education, particularly in comparison to the experiences of children in school. The evidence from witnesses about their experiences in the tertiary sector was, however, powerful and moving, and the committee is strongly persuaded that there needs to be a move to an inclusive education model in the tertiary sector.

The committee acknowledges the importance of TAFE as a transition pathway from school to employment or further education for young people with disability. However, it notes the evidence that young people do not feel supported in their transition from school into further education settings such as TAFE, vocational education and training and higher education. The committee recommends that the NSW Government increase support for young people with disability transitioning from school to study at TAFE.

​The committee also recommends that the NSW Government, in cooperation with the Australian Government, seek to review the governance of NSW public universities, particularly with respect to their policies and processes for meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities and their complaints handling processes.

​​End of Chapter 6.

Return to Table of Contents.​

Chapter 6 Footnotes​​

Footnote 1: The majority of the evidence provided to the committee relates to schooling, and generally public schooling provision. Where evidence is provided concerning a setting other than public schooling it will be clearly identified. Back to reference

Footnote 2: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnaire summary report (2024), pp 5-6. Back to reference

Footnote 3: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnaire summary report (2024), p 16. Back to reference

Footnote 4: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnaire summary report (2024), p 13. Back to reference

Footnote 5: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 26. Back to reference

Footnote 6: Evidence, Dr Cathy Little, Associate Professor Special Education and Chair, Initial Teacher Education, New South Wales Chapter, Australian Association of Special Education, 23 April 2024, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 7: See for example, Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 3; Submission 35, Australian Association of Special Education, pp 4 and 7; Submission 43, Dr David Roy, p 68; Submission 49, Autism Awareness Australia, p 3, Submission 30, The Association of Independent Schools NSW, p 6; Submission 17, The Institute of Special Educators (InSped), p 1. Back to reference

Footnote 8: Submission 15, The Isolated Children's Parents' Association of New South Wales Inc. p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 9: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 10: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) pp 13 and 15. Back to reference

Footnote 11: Evidence, Dr Jennifer Stephenson, Director, Institute of Special Educators, 23 April 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 12: Submission 61, Youth Action, pp 21-22. Back to reference

Footnote 13: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 22. Back to reference​

Footnote 14: Submission 60, Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People (ACYP), p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 15: Submission 60, Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People (ACYP), p 12. Back to reference

Footnote 16: Submission 60, Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People (ACYP), p 13. Back to reference

Footnote 17: Evidence, Ms Natasha Watt, Senior Vice-President, and Ms Emma Bruce, Organiser, NSW Teachers Federation, 26 March 2024, pp 15-17. Back to reference

Footnote 18: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 19: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 20: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 18; Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, pp 9-10. Back to reference

Footnote 21: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 22: Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 9. Back to reference

Footnote 23: Evidence, Mrs Lyn Caton, Assistant Secretary, Independent Education Union, 26 March 2024, p 21. Note: the IEU represents teachers in non-government schools in both the Catholic and independent sector. Back to reference

Footnote 24: Evidence, Mrs Caton, 26 March 2024, pp 20-21. Back to reference

Footnote 25: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 26: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 27: Evidence, Ms Emma Bruce, Organiser, NSW Teachers Federation, 26 March 2024, p 16. Back to reference

Footnote 28: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 29: Submission 33, Early Childhood Intervention Best Practice Network, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 30: Evidence, Mr Paul Martin, Chief Executive Officer, NSW Education Standards Authority, 12 June 2024, p 14. Back to reference

Footnote 31: Answers to questions on notice, NSW Department of Education and NSW Education Standards Authority, 25 June 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 32: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 33: Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 34: Submission 24, Vision Australia, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 35: Evidence, Dr Stephenson, 23 April 2024, p 3; Submission 35, Australian Association of Special Education, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 36: Evidence, Dr Coral Kemp, Chair, Institute of Special Educators, 23 April 2024, p 3; Evidence, Ms Sally Howell, President, New South Wales Chapter, Australian Association of Special Education, 23 April 2024, p 4; Evidence, Ms Loren Swancutt, Chairperson, Inclusive Educators Australia, 23 April 2024, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 37: Evidence, Dr Kemp, 23 April 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 38: Evidence, Dr Stephenson, 23 April 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 39: Evidence, Mr Martin Graham, Deputy Secretary, Teaching, Learning and Student Wellbeing, NSW Department of Education, 23 April 2024, p 46. Back to reference

Footnote 40: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 16. Back to reference

Footnote 41: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 42: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 16. Back to reference

Footnote 43: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 20, citing Lucy Carroll and Nigel Gladstone 'Perfect storm of teacher shortages hits English, maths and special needs, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 January 2024, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/perfect-storm-of-teacher-shortages-hits-english-maths-special-needs-20240124-p5ezp5.html. Back to reference

Footnote 44: Submission 83, Parents of Deaf Children, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 45: Evidence, Ms Deborah Summerhayes, Deputy Secretary, Public Schools, NSW Department of Education, 23 April 2024, pp 45; NSW Education Standards Authority NSW Curriculum, K-10, Auslan K-10 Syllabus, https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/languages/auslan-k-10-2023/overview. Back to reference

Footnote 46: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Connect, 6 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 47: Evidence, Ms Catherine Miller, Policy Officer, Deaf Australia, 22 April 2024, p 36. Back to reference

Footnote 48: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Connect, 6 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 49: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Connect, 6 May 2024, pp 3-5 Back to reference

Footnote 50: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Australia, 7 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 51: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Australia, 7 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 52: Evidence, Mr Graham and Ms Summerhayes, 23 April 2024, pp 45-46. Back to reference

Footnote 53: Submission 24, Vision Australia, p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 54: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, pp 16-17. Back to reference

Footnote 55: Submission 49, Autism Awareness Australia, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 56: Evidence, Mr Damian Griffis, Chief Executive Officer, First Peoples Disability Network, 23 April 2024, p 19; Evidence, Ms Shirley Liu, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Deaf Australia, 22 April 2024, p 35; Submission 39, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 57: Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 58: Evidence, Mr Griffis, 23 April 2024, p 19. Back to reference

Footnote 59: Evidence, Mr Griffis, First Peoples Disability Network, 23 April 2024, p 21. Back to reference

Footnote 60: School site visit summary report, Appendix One of this report p 151. Back to reference

Footnote 61: Answers to questions on notice, Deaf Australia, 7 May 2024, p 1; Evidence, Ms Liu, 22 April 2024, p 35. Back to reference

Footnote 62: Evidence, Ms Liu, 22 April 2024, p 35. Back to reference

Footnote 63: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, p 45. Back to reference

Footnote 64: Answers to supplementary questions, NSW Department of Education, 10 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 65: Evidence, Mr Troy Wright, Acting General Secretary, Public Service Association, 26 March 2024, p 26. Back to reference

Footnote 66: Evidence, Mr Wright, 26 March 2024, p 26. Back to reference

Footnote 67: Evidence, Mr Wright, 26 March 2024, p 28. Back to reference

Footnote 68: Submission 35, Australian Association of Special Education, p 9. Back to reference

Footnote 69: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 18. Back to reference

Footnote 70: Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, pp 1-2. Back to reference

Footnote 71: Evidence, Mr Brent Phillips, Chief Impact Officer, Deaf Connect, 22 April 2024, p 37. Back to reference

Footnote 72: Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 73: Submission 34, UTS Child Care Inc, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 74: Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 14; Submission 64, Name suppressed, p 17; Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, p 7; Submission 23, Occupational Therapy Australia, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 75: Submission 29, NSW Government, p 27. Back to reference

Footnote 76: Answers to questions on notice, Department of Education 10 May 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 77: Submission 23, Occupational Therapy Australia, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 78: Submission 23, Occupational Therapy Australia, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 79: Submission 65, Australian Psychological Society, pp 4-5. Back to reference

Footnote 80: Submission 30, Association of Independent Schools NSW, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 81: Submission 15, Isolated Children Parents Association of NSW, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 82: Evidence, Ms Grace Fava OAM, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Autism and Advisory Support Services, 22 April 2024, p 22. Back to reference

Footnote 83: Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, pp 18- 19. Back to reference

Footnote 84: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, p 42. Back to reference

Footnote 85: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, p 42. Back to reference

Footnote 86: Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 23. Back to reference

Footnote 87: Submission 83, Parents of Deaf Children, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 88: Evidence, Ms Fava, 22 April 2024, p 22. Back to reference

Footnote 89: Submission 65, Australian Psychological Society, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 90: Evidence, Ms Nicole Rogerson, Director, Autism Awareness Australia, 22 April 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 91: Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, p 7; Submission 26, National Disability Service, p 4; Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, p 19; Submission 72, Catholic Schools NSW, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 92: Submission 31, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 93: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnairesummary report (2024), pp 14-15. Back to reference

Footnote 94: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnairesummary report (2024), pp 15. Back to reference

Footnote 95: Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education, NSW Legislative Council, Online questionnairesummary report (2024), pp 14-15. Back to reference

Footnote 96: Submission 60, Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, p 12. Back to reference

Footnote 97: Submission 29, NSW Government, pp 23 and 28. Back to reference

Footnote 98: Submission 37, The NSW Special Education Principals and Leaders Association, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 99: Evidence, Ms Julie-Ann Bond, Industrial Manager, Public Sector Association, 26 March 2024, p 29. Back to reference

Footnote 100: Submission 66, Public Service Association of NSW, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 101: Submission 74, AEU NSW Teachers Federation, p 12. Back to reference

Footnote 102: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 103: School site visit summary report, Appendix One of this report, p 157. Back to reference

Footnote 104: Evidence, Ms Tina Kordrostami, Director, Mental Health Architectural Design, 12 June 2024, pp 10-11. Back to reference

Footnote 105: Evidence, Mr Chris Edwards, Director, Government Relations, Advocacy, NDIS and Aged Care, Vision Australia, 22 April 2024, p 37. Back to reference

Footnote 106: Submission 83, Parents of Deaf Children, pp 2-3. Back to reference

Footnote 107: Evidence, Mrs Lyn Caton, Assistant Secretary, Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch, 26 March 2024, p 22; Evidence, Ms Sarah Langston, Policy Co-Lead, Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association, 22 April 2024, p 22; Evidence, Mr Julian Laurens, Senior Policy Officer, People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 30. Back to reference

Footnote 108: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 15. Back to reference

Footnote 109: Evidence, Ms Watt, 26 March 2024, p 16. Back to reference

Footnote 110: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 19. Back to reference

Footnote 111: Evidence, Ms Rebecca Belzer, Solicitor, Australian Centre for Disability Law, 26 March 2024, p 3; Evidence, Ms Meredith Hagger, Principal Solicitor, General Practice, Youth Law Australia, 26 March 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 112: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, pp 29-30. Back to reference

Footnote 113: Submission 75, Australian Centre for Disability Law, p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 114: Evidence, Ms Hagger, 26 March 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 115: Department of Education, Personalised learning and support planning, Education, https://education.nsw.gov.au/schooling/parents-and-carers/inclusive-learning-support/primary-school/ongoing-support-planning. Back to reference

Footnote 116: In camera evidence, Fiona, 22 April 2024, p 7, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 117: Evidence, Ms Sarah Abdou, Solicitor, Australian Centre for Disability Law, 26 March 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 118: Evidence, Ms Belzer, 26 March 2024, pp 7- 8. Back to reference

Footnote 119: Evidence, Ms Abdou, 26 March 2024, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 120: Evidence, Ms Belzer, 26 March 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 121: For example, Evidence, Ms Abdou, 26 March 2024, p 5, Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, pp 9-10. Back to reference

Footnote 122: For example, Evidence, Ms Abdou, 26 March 2024, p 5; Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 123: Evidence, Dr Cherry Baylosis, Policy and Communications Lead, Disability Advocacy NSW, 26 March 2024, p 31. Back to reference

Footnote 124: Evidence, Ms Charlotte Sangster, Chief Executive Officer, Muscular Dystrophy NSW, 22 April 2024, pp 26 and 30. Back to reference

Footnote 125: Submission 24, Vision Australia, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 126: Evidence, Ms Abdou, 26 March 2024, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 127: Evidence, Mr Julian Laurens, Senior Policy Officer, People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 31. Back to reference

Footnote 128: Evidence, Mr Martin Graham, Deputy Secretary, Teaching, Learning and Student Wellbeing, NSW Department of Education, 23 April 2024, p 57. Back to reference

Footnote 129: Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 130: Submission 39, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 131: Submission 18, Mr Nicholas Lapsley. This case study is based on the contents of the submission. Back to reference

Footnote 132: Answers to questions on notice, Muscular Dystrophy NSW, 17 May 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 133: Evidence, Mr Paul Martin, Chief Executive Officer, NSW Education Standards Authority, 12 June 2024, p 21. Back to reference

Footnote 134: Answers to questions on notice, NSW Department of Education and NSW Education Standards Authority, 25 June 2024, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 135: Submission 14, Disability Council NSW, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 136: Evidence, Mr Martin, 12 June 2024, pp 15-16. Back to reference

Footnote 137: Evidence, Mr Martin, 12 June 2024, p 17. Back to reference

Footnote 138: Evidence, Mr Graham, 12 June 2024, p 18. Back to reference

Footnote 139: Submission 39, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 140: Evidence, Ms Belzer, 26 March 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 141: Evidence, Ms Hagger, 26 March 2024, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 142: Evidence, Mr Paul Miller, NSW Ombudsman, 23 April 2024. Back to reference

Footnote 143: Department of Parliamentary Services, Research Paper, Children and young people with disability in NSW educational settings, 29 January 2024, p 18. Back to reference

Footnote 144: Submission 33, Early Childhood Intervention Best Practice Network, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 145: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, pp 43-44; Evidence, Ms Summerhayes, 23 April 2024, p 44. Back to reference

Footnote 146: See for example, Submission 39, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, p 5; Submission 53, Adjunct Professor Tamara Smith MP, Member for Ballina, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 147: Answers to supplementary questions, Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education (All Means All), 17 May 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 148: Answers to supplementary questions, Inclusive Educators Australia, 17 May 2024, p 6. Back to reference

Footnote 149: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 12. Back to reference

Footnote 150: Evidence, Ms Joanne Yates, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer, People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 25. Back to reference

Footnote 151: Evidence, Ms Ellen Armfield, person with lived experience, 23 April 2024, p 25. Back to reference

Footnote 152: Ombudsman NSW, Making a complaint, https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/Making-a-complaint. Back to reference

Footnote 153: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 27; Submission 24, Vision Australia, p 12; Submission 28, Legal Aid NSW, p 7; Submission 38, Federation of Parents and Citizens of NSW, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 154: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report, September 2023, Executive Summary, p 246. Back to reference

Footnote 155: Submission 43, Dr David Roy, p 63; Submission 52, Mrs Ciara and Mr Tim McKillop, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 156: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 4; Evidence, Dr David Roy, Lecturer in Education, University of Newcastle, 12 June 2024, p 7. Back to reference

Footnote 157: Submission 62, Family Advocacy, p 27. Back to reference

Footnote 158: Submission 24, Vision Australia, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 159: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, p 52. Back to reference

Footnote 160: In camera evidence, Gemma, 22 April 2024, p 15, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 161: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, p 52. Back to reference

Footnote 162: Submission 36, Anti-Discrimination NSW, p 4. Back to reference​

Footnote 163: Evidence, Mr Miller, 23 April 2024, p 32. Back to reference

Footnote 164: Submission 32, Youth Law Australia, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 165: Submission 32, Youth Law Australia, pp 2 and 5; Submission 36, Anti-Discrimination NSW, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 166: Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), s 8. Back to reference

Footnote 167: Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), s 40. Back to reference

Footnote 168: Submission 36, Anti-Discrimination NSW, p 8. Back to reference

Footnote 169: Evidence, Ms Belzer, 26 March 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 170: Evidence, Ms Belzer, 26 March 2024, p 10. Back to reference

Footnote 171: Evidence, Ms Hagger, 26 March 2024, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 172: Evidence, Ms Mairead Foley, National Disability Officer, National Union of Students, 12 June 2024, p 5. Back to reference

Footnote 173: Evidence, Ms Abdou, Solicitor, Australian Centre for Disability Law, 26 March 2024, p 11. Back to reference

Footnote 174: Submission 36, Anti-Discrimination NSW, p 4. Back to reference

Footnote 175: NAPLAN achievement is disaggregated at the state and territory level for a number of groups, including gender, indigeneity and remoteness, but not for students with disability. See ACARA, NAPLAN national results, https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/naplan-national-results. Back to reference

Footnote 176: Evidence, Ms Sue Tape, Project Coordinator, Inclusive Education, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, 22 April 2024, p 9. Back to reference

Footnote 177: Evidence, Mr Graham, 23 April 2024, pp 48-49. Back to reference

Footnote 178: Evidence, Mrs Lyn Caton, Assistant Secretary, Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch, 26 March 2024, p 23. Back to reference

Footnote 179: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Inclusive education, employment and housing, summary and recommendations, Final Report, Volume 7, September 2024, pp 19-20. Back to reference

Footnote 180: Evidence, Ms Foley, 12 June 2024, p 2. Back to reference

Footnote 181: Evidence, Ms Keira Ademovic, Student Advisor, National Union of Students, 12 June 2024, pp 3-4. Back to reference​

Footnote 182: Evidence, Mr Stephen Brady, Managing Director, TAFE NSW, 23 April 2024, p 53. Back to reference

Footnote 183: Answers to questions on notice, TAFE NSW, 13 May 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 184: Submission 29, NSW Government, NSW Government, p 48. Back to reference

Footnote 185: Evidence, Ms Foley, 12 June 2024, p 3. Back to reference

Footnote 186: Evidence, Ms Foley, 12 June 2024, pp 3-4. Back to reference

Footnote 187: In camera evidence, Mr B, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 12 June 2024, p 2, published by resolution of the committee. Back to reference

Footnote 188: In camera evidence, Mr B, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 12 June 2024, pp 2 and 4, published by resolution of the committee.​ Back to reference​