18656435

Student with Disabilities and Gatekeeping

As evidently seen by the support for the Disability Standard for Education (2005) it is
clear that creating an inclusive education system for all diverse learners is the aim of the
Australian department of education. However, a major aspect that hinders this goal is
when children with disabilities are faced with hurdles such as gatekeeping. Gatekeeping
is the practice upheld by some schools, both government and nongovernment, that
seeks to minimise students with disabilities enrolment into said school or participation in
the same school activities as their peers (Poed et al, 2020). The Disability Standard for
Education 2005 clearly states “that Australian students with disability are entitled to
enrol in their local neighbourhood school and access their education on the same basis
as their peers” (ComLaw 2015, cited by Poed 2020 p.1) and yet the process of
gatekeeping is restricting from allowing this to happen. Therefore, in order eliminate the
issue of gatekeeping change towards a more inclusive education needs to occur. To
accomplish this, one must first analyse the reason behind the occurrence of
gatekeeping which most notably seems to be to maintain the schools image and
standard among other things, and create strategies that will assist in diminishing this
practice.

Education and Students with Disabilities

Within contemporary society, education has become a powerful tool in securing a

reliable job, earning an income and staying away from poverty (Teather & Hillman
2017). Non completion of school is known to be associated with “unemployment
underemployment, lower wages and the greater likelihood of imprisonment” (Polesel &
Keating 2011, p.369), justifying the Australian government’s attempt at making
schooling available for all children. However the same cannot be said for students with
disabilities, as young people with disabilities have lower levels of education and
employment rates (Carroll et al 2018). Australia has one of the worst percentage of
employment rates with “45 per cent of people with disability live at, or near, the poverty
line” (Teather & Hillman 2017 p.558). When it comes to education, students with
disabilities have a much lower rate for attaining the year 12 certificate compared to
their peers with it being 62 per cent to 78 per cent (Ibid). Gatekeeping has

1
18656435

undoubtedly been one of the factors that contribute to these statistics, and yet one is
left to wonder why some schools are still being overlooked when they practice the act
of gatekeeping and why these schools believe it is more favorable to turn away a
student with a disability compared to adjusting to inclusive education.

The Catalyst to Gatekeeping

Australia’s schooling system suffers from the pressure of constantly striving to

improve their rank both nationally and globally through standardised testing methods
such as the National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Harris
et. al 2020). Therefore as gatekeeping is defined “as a barrier process that serves to
maintain the status quo of an organization” (Barga 1996 p.416) it is to no surprise that
many students with disabilities suffer from its effects. Students that may pose a threat
the schools rank or image may not be welcome or may not be made to feel as
welcome as their peers and may at times be withdrawn from school activities or
standardised exams such as the NAPLAN test without first discussing it with them or
their parents (Teather & Hillman 2017). Thus, the answer of how to put an end to the
practice of gatekeeping is not as difficult as it may first seem, it is the adjustment or
removal of standardised exams. Not only do these exams serve as a catalyst to
gatekeeping for students with disabilities but they also influence a teachers teaching
pedagogy and teaching capabilities. For example, due to the influence of
standardised examination, one may start to question if teachers are following the
curriculum and maintaining essential teaching qualities such as the Australian
Standard for Teachers which specifically states to differentiate ones teaching for
diverse learners (AITSL 2017), or if they are teaching to attain NAPLAN results. The
standardised exams leave open the possibility that the pressures of competition have
forced teachers to push aside the needs of students, specifically students with
disabilities and the option for an inclusive approach (Harris et al, 2020).

How it Can be Done Better

It can be argued that the standardised exams such as the NAPLAN exam are
necessary in order to understand the level of a school, both nationally and globally,

2
18656435

and therefore the information can be used to benefit the students education and
increase learning and teaching quality. However, one country has managed to
demonstrate to the rest of the world the ideal method of teaching and assessing.
Finland has been able to produce some of the highest academic scores from their
students and standardised testing has not been the reason for these successful
results, on the contrary, students are “encourage to engage in interaction such as
play and socializing” (Sahlberg 2012 cited by Teather & Hillman 2017 p.556). They
have shifted the focus from academic result to focusing more on a student’s individual
learning by making changes such as adjusting the national curriculum to not require
standardised testing and by instructing the teachers that education should focus on the
needs and requirements of the students instead of statistics (Ibid). Not only does the
system cater to students with disabilities but teachers put effort into making adjustments
for students struggle in other ways, such as gifted students, with hopes in creating a
truly inclusive education system. In addition the system has trained teachers to make
adjustments for their students learning needs at the earliest possible stage even without
the need of a diagnosis, whereas Australian schools tend to wait for diagnosis in order
to make adjustments which may result in putting students at an even more deficit due to
delayed adjustments (Ibid). Adopting a system similar to the Finnish education system,
which has proven to work better than standardised testing, will be the first major step in
annihilating gatekeeping and creating a more inclusive education system for students
with disabilities. Not only will the removal of the pressure allow the teacher to focus on
the diverse needs of their students, but it will also contribute in order aspects such as
equal treatments of schools and equal funding (Ibid).

Change to Improve Inclusive Education- Benefactors

A change that can significantly improve inclusive education is the addition of many
benefactors that will be accessible for students with disabilities. Benefactors may
include teachers, assistant teachers, parents, family, etc and they should be well
informed and educated on disabilities specific to the students. As simple as the strategy
sounds, the extent in which it should be addressed should not be taken lightly. It not
only requires the contribution of all staff members but of the community as well. The

3
18656435

level of involvement should be one that will never allow the students to fell uncertain of
their acceptance of at the school. A research article completed by Barga (1996) that
interviews students with disabilities stated “repeatedly, the students in this study
verbalized the need for school personnel … to become better acquainted with learning
disabilities and the issues that surround them. They stressed the need for more training
of teachers, professors, administrators, and other school personnel.” (p.420). The
strategy will not only be of assistance for the students, but it help counter the practice
gatekeeping with the excuse there is no one qualified to assist a student with disability.
There should not be only some experts, all teachers must be accessible for the students
at all times. This can be done through educational workshops help by professionals for
both students and community members that will allow them a deeper insight on how to
assist the students.

Change to Improve Inclusive Education- Funding

As prior mentioned, gatekeeping occurs due to the pressure of rank which can also
effect the funding supplied to a school. However, if funding is equally distributed to all
schools, not only will this lower the pressure put on schools and hence lower the
possibility of gatekeeping but it will also allow more schools to remove social barriers
and become more inclusive for students with disabilities. This strategy is adopted by the
Finnish education system as “funding unlike Australia in Finnish education is not based
on a schools’ performance as all schools are treated equal” (Graham & Jahnukainen
2011 cited by Teather & Hillman 2017 p.556). Being fortunate enough to have a
perspective of the change being implemented successfully is also the affirmative aspect
to the strategy. The extra funding may also help with further educating teachers on
disabilities and making things more accessible for students with disabilities such as ICT.
It will also allow for the school to make changes that will assist in making adjustments
for students with disabilities to be able to participate in all school activities both internal
and external. The implementation of these strategies will allow for more inclusive
education.

4
18656435

References

Australian Government. (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005.

Australian institute for teaching and school leadership. (2017). Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Barga, N. K. (1996). Students with Learning Disabilities in Education. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 413-421. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1177/002221949602900409

Carroll, P., Witten, K., Calder-Dawe, O., Smith, M., Kearns, R., Asiasiga, Lanuola, . . .
Mavoa, S. (2018). Enabling participation for disabled young people: Study
protocol. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 712-11.

Cologon, K. & Lassig, C. (2020). Universal approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and

assessment. (Graham, L.J). Inclusive education for the 21st century : theory,
policy and practice. (179-207). Allen & Unwin

Harris, J., Ainscow, M., Carrington, S. & Kimber, M. (2020). Developing inclusive school
cultures through ethical practices. In L. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive education for the
21st century: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 247 - 265). Allen & Unwin.

Poed, S., Cologon, K., & Jackson, R. (2020). Gatekeeping and restrictive practices by
Australian mainstream schools: Results of a national survey. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1726512

Polesel, J., & Keating, J. (2011). School completion targets and the 'equivalence' of
VET in the Australian context. Oxford Review of Education, 37(3), 367-382.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/03054985.2010.547316

5
18656435

Teather, S., & Hillman, W. (2017). The invisible students with disabilities in the
Australian education system. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 36(6), 551-565. DOI:10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0029