The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability has shared its final report. In this series, we unpack what the commission’s 222 recommendations could mean for a more inclusive Australia.
The release of the disability royal commission’s final report ignited a public debate about the future of “special schools” and whether we can phase out segregation in education. During one radio discussion this week, an irate parent asked me:
But how can a mainstream school have a hydrotherapy pool like the one our local special school has?
The future of special schools is important and discussed in the report. But it’s not the main story here. In fact, focusing on specialist schools for students with disability misunderstands the report’s point and misses its major implications for all schools.
What the report says
Most educational recommendations in the report aim to strengthen inclusion in mainstream “regular” schools and prevent them from undermining inclusion or dodging their legal responsibilities toward students with a disability.
The report recommends a “legal entitlement for students with disability to enrol in a local mainstream school”. Currently, some mainstream settings do not welcome such students and use gatekeeping practices. These may include persuading parents the school cannot meet their’s child’s needs or to informally prevent enrolment.
Gatekeeping means mainstream school is not an option for many parents, and explains why the number of special schools has risen across Australia over the past decade.
The report also recommends mainstream schools take early, preventative actions before suspending or excluding students who have a disability. It urges transparent processes, so parents understand decisions and how to appeal.
Read more: Here's why we need a disability rights act – not just a disability discrimination one
Exclusion from the mainstream
Rising numbers of students with disability enrolled in the mainstream sector have faced suspension and exclusion from school over the past decade, typically due to “problem behaviour”.
Expensive safety net programs known as Flexible Learning Options have become popular across Australia as an emergency policy reaction to this trend. They are intended to support students at risk or already disengaged from education.
In our research, my colleagues and I found that, in 2019, more than 70,000 Australian high-school-aged students were enrolled in flexible learning programs. This number had almost tripled since 2016 and students with disability are over-represented. Such programs exist outside the mainstream system and provide personalised learning using a variety of education providers. But concerns have been raised about the quality of provision.
A national organisation called School Can’t – a peer support community for parents and carers of students with school attendance difficulties – told a recent senate inquiry into school refusal about the growing numbers of children with a disability being home schooled. The organisation reported its membership had grown tenfold since 2019 to almost 10,000 and it had been overwhelmed by the volume of parents seeking support.
International research consistently shows the devastating psychological impacts exclusion from school creates for affected students and their families.
The bigger issue
In its report, the disability royal commission acknowledges that inclusion is failing in many mainstream settings.
Although split on some aspects of strategy, the commissioners detail progressive plans to invest in the skills and knowledge of the education workforce and steps to deliver greater inclusion in mainstream schools. For example, the report recommends we:
[…] strengthen initial teacher education in inclusive education and attract and retain people with disability and others with expertise in delivering inclusive education.
Establishing a national database to gather reliable information on “student experiences, school outcomes for students with disability and progress in addressing barriers to inclusive education practices” is another welcome recommendation. This will be vital to check whether the intended benefits are flowing down to more inclusion at classroom level.
But there has been scant public or media attention so far to the “elephant in the room”. That is the stressed state of today’s public education system.
Capacity is key
The big issue here is the capacity of our disintegrating public education system to adopt the report’s vision for higher-quality, inclusive mainstream public education. Gatekeeping and excessive use of suspensions and exclusion can be understood as predictable responses by schools under pressure.
That said, the report recommendations should be reframed as a powerful case for targeted educational reforms. With funding and investment, we can raise the quality of mainstream public education so it can include students with a disability.
In the name of greater inclusion, the disability royal commission’s proposed reforms represent a positive, visible investment in the whole of Australia’s public school system. The value of this contribution at this time of crisis cannot be underestimated. Well-funded inclusive education is better for everyone.