Disability Diversity and Tides That Lift All Boats

Disability, Diversity and Tides
that Lift All Boats:
Review of Special Education in the

ACT
Anthony Shaddock, Nancy MacDonald, Julie Hook,

Loretta Giorcelli & Michael Arthur-Kelly
30 October 2009
Disclaimer
This report is the work of the authors and does not represent, nor claim to represent, the
views of the Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training, the
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, the Association of Independent Schools of the
ACT, or individual Independent schools in the ACT. The report details options for these
sectors and schools to consider only and the options are not intended to represent anything
other than a guide. The sectors and schools are advised to seek their own advice, including
legal advice, before implementing any option contained in this report.
Contents
Disclaimer ..............................................................................................................3
List of Tables .........................................................................................................9
List of Figures......................................................................................................10
Foreword ..............................................................................................................11
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................12
Executive Summary ............................................................................................15
Chapter 1: Background.......................................................................................19
A guide to reading the report ....................................................................................... 19
Understanding of the brief ...........................................................................................20
Framework and methodology ......................................................................................21
Evidence-based theory about what leads to learning .................................................. 22
Appreciation.................................................................................................................24
Chapter 2: Legal and Policy Context .................................................................27

Special education ........................................................................................................31
Disability ...................................................................................................................... 33
Legislative context .......................................................................................................34
ACT Government policy context .................................................................................. 38
Education context ........................................................................................................40
Special education context ............................................................................................41
Chapter 3: Students and Learning Outcomes ..................................................45
Chapter 4: Pedagogy and Learning Outcomes.................................................51

Theory base and empirical support for quality teaching .............................................. 51
Technology ..................................................................................................................53
What makes teaching students with a disability difficult? ............................................ 56
Teacher time ..........................................................................................................57
Wide range of student ability..................................................................................59
Well-being ..............................................................................................................60
Student behaviour.................................................................................................. 62
Chapter 5: Curriculum and Learning Outcomes...............................................65

A differentiated curriculum ...........................................................................................66
Individual plans ............................................................................................................67
October 2009 Page 5

Curriculum and transitions ........................................................................................... 70
Chapter 6: Settings and Learning Outcomes....................................................75

Settings, place and placement issues..........................................................................75
Special Schools ...........................................................................................................76
Units and centres .........................................................................................................82
Chapter 7: Resources and Learning Outcomes ...............................................89

Resource quantum.......................................................................................................91
The ‘Student Centred Appraisal of Need’ .................................................................... 92
Improving disbursing mechanisms...............................................................................96
Use of finances at school level ....................................................................................98
Chapter 8: Partnerships, Personnel and Learning Outcomes.......................101

Parents and carers ....................................................................................................101
Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) ..........................................................................105
Consultancy support for teachers .............................................................................. 107
Multidisciplinary services ...........................................................................................109
Therapy......................................................................................................................110
Mental health .............................................................................................................112
Service integration .....................................................................................................113
Learning support coordinators ................................................................................... 115
Chapter 9: Planning for Change.......................................................................119

Vision 119
Leadership .................................................................................................................119
Planning.....................................................................................................................122
Planning in the Public sector .....................................................................................123
Planning in the Catholic sector .................................................................................. 124
Planning in independent schools ...............................................................................125
Accountability.............................................................................................................126
Learning communities that support change in teaching practices ............................. 129
Principles ...................................................................................................................130
Chapter 10: Options for ACT Public Schools .................................................131

Clarify the vision, goals and scope of ‘special education’ in ACT Public schools ...... 132
Implement policies that support the pivotal role of classroom teachers..................... 132
Clarify policy about special schools, units and centres.............................................. 134
Reorganise multidisciplinary supports for student learning........................................ 134
Reconfigure resource allocation ................................................................................136
Page 6 October 2009

Unify processes to support student learning – the Student Centred Appraisal of Need
and the Individual Learning Plan (ILP) ........................................................... 137
Clarify issues associated with Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) .......................... 137
Implement policies and practices that capitalise on the major contributions that parents
and carers make to their child’s learning........................................................ 138
Extend partnerships with the tertiary education sector .............................................. 138
Plan services for students with a disability................................................................. 139
Chapter 11 Options for Catholic Schools in the ACT.....................................141

Clarify the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a disability in ACT
Catholic schools .............................................................................................141
Develop educational leaders...................................................................................... 142
Support the pivotal role of classroom teachers.......................................................... 143
Reconfigure resource allocation ................................................................................144
Maximise the potential of learning support staff......................................................... 145
Clarify issues associated with Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) .......................... 145
Implement policies and practices that capitalise on the major contributions that
parents and carers make to their child’s learning........................................... 146
Extend partnerships with the tertiary education sector .............................................. 146
Implement accountability measures for students with a disability.............................. 147
Chapter 12: Options for ACT Independent Schools .......................................149

Clarify the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a disability in the
school.............................................................................................................150
Support the pivotal role of classroom teachers.......................................................... 150
Use resources inclusively ..........................................................................................151
Reduce reliance on Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) .......................................... 151
Implement accountability measures for students with a disability.............................. 152
Demonstrate leadership............................................................................................. 152
Implement resourceful solutions ................................................................................152
Develop collaborative relationships ...........................................................................153
Chapter 13: Postscript ......................................................................................155
References .........................................................................................................157
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................187
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference .....................................................................187
Appendix 2: Review Team ................................................................................189
Appendix 3: Reference Committees ................................................................193
Appendix 4: Dictionary of Terms .....................................................................195
October 2009 Page 7

Appendix 5: Methodology.................................................................................201
Appendix 6: Summary of Observations in Schools .......................................203
Appendix 6 (a): Public Schools’ Issues: The Discussion Paper ...................203
Appendix 6 (b): Non Government Schools’ Issues ........................................225
Appendix 7: Student Variables that Affect Learning Outcomes ...................227
Appendix 8: Effective Teaching - Major Theorists & Researchers ...............229
Appendix 9: Principles of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools ......231
Appendix 10: Leading Practice ........................................................................233
Appendix 11: List of Submissions...................................................................235
Page 8 October 2009

List of Tables
Table 1: Number of enrolments by level of schooling and sector, 2005 to 2009................ 28
Table 2: Number of enrolments by special needs and sector, 2005 to 2009 ....................... 29
Table 3: Special education support programs in Public schools in 2009 ............................ 30
Table 4: Perspectives that are relevant to the Review of Special Education in the ACT.... 43
Table 5: Major ‘student variables’ described by prominent researchers and theorists. .... 227
Table 6: Elements of effective teaching ............................................................................ 229
Table 7: Evidence-based principles and practices for services for students with mental
health issues....................................................................................................................... 231
October 2009 Page 9

List of Figures
Figure 1: Causal influences on Student Learning................................................................ 23
Figure 2: Pattern of enrolments of students with a disability in ACT schools.................... 29
Figure 3: Special needs enrolments as % of total enrolments in the ACT .......................... 30
Figure 4: Growth in students accessing Inclusion Support Program, 2003-2009 ............... 87
Page 10 October 2009

Foreword
There are several unique features to the Review of Special Education in ACT Schools. The
Review involved Public, Catholic and Independent schools. As the work progressed, the
Review Team soon realised that a major, potential benefit of reviewing the ACT
government and non-government sectors at the same time was the identification of many
opportunities for collaborations to improve the educational outcomes of students with a
disability.
The Review Team brought unique skills and experiences to the task. Ms Nancy
MacDonald, Ms Julie Hook, Professor Loretta Giorcelli and Associate Professor Michael
Arthur-Kelly have wide experience. All of us are teachers; are actively involved in services
for students with a disability; and have experience as senior leaders in special education
and disability services. Some of us are researchers. All of us care deeply about improving
the educational outcomes of students with a disability.
In addition, the requirement to base future options on an analysis of leading practice gave
priority to evidence as the basis for policy. We attempted to be as thorough as possible in
analysing leading practice. It was a big task that resulted in a big report and we apologise
for its length. However, we hope that the synthesis of the relevant literature will be helpful,
at least in the immediate future.
Furthermore, the Review involved eight months of collaborative work and extensive
engagement with the government and non-governments sectors. So, while the views
expressed are those of the Review Team, many options and proposals have been tested in
conversations with individuals and groups.
In conclusion, my Review colleagues and I trust that the report results in ACT students
with a disability receiving a quality education; an education that is full of fun and
friendships and that prepares them for a satisfying and productive life.
Anthony Shaddock
Principal Consultant
30 October, 2009
October 2009 Page 11

Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the many people who contributed to this Review.
We appreciated the assistance of both Reference Groups. (The names of members of the
government and non-government Reference Group members are listed in Appendix 3).
Throughout the review, these individuals provided valuable input, sometimes robust, but
always collegial and constructive.
We very much valued the expert research assistance of Dr Charlotte Liu and Dr Michelle
Pearce and the administrative assistance of Ms Summer Field and Ms Nancye Burkevics,
The ‘critical readers’ of draft reports were most insightful. These are colleagues with
unique expertise, perspective and experience: Ms Rita Cleveland and Ms Dianne Goosem
from Brisbane Catholic Education; Ms Fiona Forbes, President of the Australian Special
Education Principal’s Association (ASEPA); Dr David Mitchell, Educational Consultant,
New Zealand; Ms Michelle Pearce, Educational Consultant, Perth; Ms Ann Shaddock,
former teacher and Dean of Students at University of Canberra; Mr Mark Tainsh,
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria: and Ms Nicole
Zimmer, Executive Teacher in the ACT Department of Education.
Many individuals provided support in various ways: Ms Denise Bridges, Mr Phillip

Brown, Ms Virginia Buchanan, Mr Greg Burgess, Ms Ros Donohue, Ms Joan Harmer,
Professor John Hattie, Ms Christine & Mr David Kallir Preece, Mr Rod MacDonald, Ms
Jeanette McMullan, Ms Jane Pamenter, Ms Cathy Smith, Ms Estelle Sydney-Smith, and
Ms Christina Towns.
We thank Marijan and Maryanne Rupcic, whose submission prompted the title of the
report - an adaptation of the John F. Kennedy aphorism, “a rising tide that lifts all boats”.
We are most grateful for the generous assistance of the ACT Human Rights Commission –
Mr Sean Costello, Ms Mary Durkin, Ms Julie Field, Ms Brianna McGill, Ms Elizabeth
Cusack, Ms Kezlee Gray, Ms Gabrielle McKinnon, Mr Alisdair Roy, Dr Helen Watchirs
and colleagues.
Staff in the government and non-government sectors provided outstanding support: Mr Ian
Copland and Dr Mark Collis in the ACT Department of Education and Training; Mr
Patrick Kelly, Ms Annmarie Thomas, Mr Michael Traynor and Ms Maree Williams from
Catholic Education of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn; and Mr Jeremy Irvine
and Ms Meredith Joslin from the Association of Independent Schools of the ACT.
Many parents, carers, educators, students, and community members contributed to the
Review via written submissions, email, website posting and/or participation in one of the
nine ‘community consultations’ or many visits. Their input was most valuable and very
much appreciated. We sincerely thank the school communities, organizations, groups and
individuals – principals, teachers, therapists, consultants, assistants, office staff and
students – who spoke so freely with us.

The Review website proved to be an excellent support for communication about the
process and we are most grateful to Dr James Neill for his skilled contribution as
‘webmaster’.
Finally, sincere thanks once again to Ms Thea Moyes who always manages to work
wonders with the senior author’s inexpert word-processing.
Anthony Shaddock, Nancy MacDonald, Julie Hook, Loretta Giorcelli & Michael Arthur-
Kelly.

Executive Summary
This report outlines options for the provision of education services for students with a
disability in ACT schools. Although the report draws attention to deficiencies in services
for ACT students with a disability, it also provides examples of good practices in ACT
government and non-government schools.
The options are based on a) extensive stakeholder consultation; b) examination of leading

practice in ACT Public, Catholic and Independent schools; and c) evidence-based theory
on what leads to productive learning. In addition, considerable effort was devoted to the
analysis of international and national leading practice so as to provide the sectors with a
basis for evidence-based planning.
Consistent with its Terms of Reference, the report proposes options for the future. The
report is not a checklist of recommendations and it would be inadvisable to use it that way.
It is designed to provide a basis for the Public and Catholic systems, and each Independent
school, to develop a well-founded ‘business plan’ that expresses their vision, priorities,
actions, performance indicators and schedule for improving services for students with a
disability.
Government and education policy in the ACT supports inclusive practice, and in this
context, the report urges schools and school systems to work simultaneously towards two
related objectives: a) to provide the adjustments that many students with a disability need
in order to participate in education on the same basis as other students; and b) to adapt
mainstream practices so that adjustments for individual students (whether they have a
disability or not) become less necessary.
This general strategy has been proposed in other jurisdictions, and, more recently, in
Alberta, Canada (e.g. see Alberta Education, 2009). It reinforces the view that students
with disabilities are, fundamentally, students first. Therefore, as recommended by leading
practice, educational services and policies should be universally designed and inclusive of
the needs of students with a disability along with those of all other students. A major
conclusion is that ‘special’ and ‘regular’ education should be increasingly integrated in
terms of pedagogy, curriculum and resourcing. This ‘universal design’ approach is leading
practice and should pervade policy, planning and delivery.
The review concludes that the most important contribution that schools can make to
improve the educational outcomes of students with a disability in ACT schools is to
improve what happens on a daily basis in individual classrooms. Consequently, top
priority is given to the development of capacity of teachers to teach all students. Support
for classroom teachers should be provided through professional learning, consultative and
multidisciplinary support, and carefully targeted policies, including resource allocation
strategies that are known to improve teachers’ skills and improve student learning. More
direct linking of a) teachers’ current concerns/issues with b) their professional learning, c)
consultancy support, d) reflection on, and evaluation of, practice, and e) student learning
outcomes is proposed.
A key component of improving teacher capacity is to ensure skilled and informed

leadership at system and school level.

Education providers have a legal obligation to ensure that students with a disability access,
and participate in, education on the same basis as other students and the review found that
schools and teachers already make many individualised adjustments. However, over-
reliance on ‘individualised adjustments’ is known to be resource intensive and
unsustainable, socially marginalising, and less effective educationally than approaches to
teaching and learning that take place in, and utilise, the social context of the classroom.
The report proposes increased accountability for the learning outcomes of students with a
disability and the adoption of evidence-based policy to inform service development. For
example, while leading practice suggests that separate programs tend not to be as effective
as mainstream settings for students with a disability, the development and continuation of
such programs should be based on the extent to which they improve student learning
outcomes in ways valued by the students, parents and carers, and teachers. Data and
evidence, not conviction and ideology, are the key considerations.
While the report addresses many resource and resource allocation issues, it makes clear
that the important issue is how resources are used. The report proposes the use of a range
of funding mechanisms on the understanding that schools are, or should be, already using
their resources to benefit every student; for example, by careful monitoring of student
progress, early identification of difficulties in learning, and proactive assistance,
particularly in the early years of schooling.
With respect to the Student Centred Appraisal of Need, the report proposes a) clarifying
that in the case of mainstream schools, this process generates supplementary funding
designed to complement the wide range of services that schools should provide for all
students – including those with a disability; and b) linking the Student Centred Appraisal
of Need process directly to each student’s Individual Plan. One additional advantage of this
more deliberate linking of supplementary funding to learning outcomes is that, over time, a
more accurate, needs-based estimate can be made of required resources, for example, in
regard to therapy, equipment and personnel.
The report proposes that the Student Centred Appraisal of Need should be calibrated to the
number of students with a disability in the ACT. The report suggests the use of different
funding strategies in line with the principles summarised in Chapter 7 in order to promote
inclusive teaching and minimise the deleterious effects of single schemes, for example, the
ambit claims that were reported in regard to the Student Centred Appraisal of Need.
The report proposes ways in which schools can involve students, parents and carers, and
community partners to maximize student learning.
The report identifies deficiencies in the provision of multidisciplinary services for students
with a disability and proposes a range of options including urgent attention to the
negotiation of service agreements between and among the relevant organisations to
improve therapy and mental health provision for students with disabilities in all sectors.
While the task of the review was to propose options for the future based on research and
leading practice, the report makes clear that the research base is neither complete nor
conclusive on many pressing issues. Therefore the sectors and schools should continue to
engage in ‘action evaluation’ to inform and review their initiatives and programs for
students with a disability, i.e. function as leaders and knowledge creators, as well as
knowledge consumers. For example, the report proposes development and trialing of a) a

school-based, Learning Support Coordinator (LSC) role designed to improve classroom
pedagogy with a particular focus on students functioning in the lowest quartile; b) valid,
teacher-friendly ways of collecting data on the achievement of educational outcomes of
students with a disability; and c) the alignment of two current processes - Individual
Planning and the Student Centred Appraisal of Need.
As the government and non-government sectors face similar, but not identical, issues, the
options are presented separately in Chapters 10 (Public schools), 11 (Catholic schools) and
12 (Independent schools).
In the Public sector, there is a need for a coherent vision and business plan to provide the
rationale and strategy for service development. It would be desirable for the significant
Public school investment in professional learning for teachers to continue so that teachers
are supported to use a wider range of evidence-based pedagogies.
The report proposes what may be, for some, a different mindset in regard to students with a
disability and emphasises inclusive practice and a ‘diversity mindset’. Therefore, it would
be appropriate to provide school leaders with opportunities to participate in appropriate
professional learning and appraisal processes.
The report proposes more effective and efficient involvement of Learning Support
Assistants (LSAs) and the involvement of supervised paraprofessionals in the delivery of
school-based therapy.
Consideration should be given to the reorganisation of the consultancy services provided to

classroom teachers in Public school so as to achieve greater coherence in philosophy and
delivery with an emphasis on capacity building. One option is to merge services such as
the Inclusive Technology and Inclusion Support Teams and extend their capacity to service
all settings.
Systematic regional planning and delivery of services for students with a disability in the
Public Sector are proposed. New roles for some special (ist) schools, and different models
for meeting the needs of students who currently attend special schools, are also proposed
so as to a) capitalise on the expertise and resources in these facilities; b) extend the
schools’ connections with their communities and surrounding schools; c) reduce travel for
students with disabilities; and d) give students the opportunity to receive an appropriate
education (including school friendship opportunities) in their own neighbourhood.
For Catholic schools, the report invites consideration of the extent to which the
Archdiocese’s vision is comprehensive and includes the full range of Catholic students,
and the ways in which the vision and strategies can be more widely understood and
implemented. This will entail a greater appreciation by school leaders and teachers of their
legal obligations under the Disability Standards for Education 2005 and of the wide range
of means for providing students with a disability with access to the curriculum.
Catholic schools enjoy generally good relationships with parents and carers and, given the
strong evidence of the benefits of parent-teacher collaboration for improving student
learning, they are encouraged to take these partnerships to the next level to improve
students’ educational outcomes. Similarly, extension of the effective work in providing
training for Learning Support Assistants and the clarification of their roles should be
considered.

The investment by the Archdiocese in Learning Support Teachers is a resource-intensive
one that will need to be supported by professional learning, mentoring and monitoring. The
report suggests that the Archdiocese considers trials that involve the extension of the roles
of these personnel to ‘learning across the school’ so as to further integrate ‘special’ and
‘regular’ education.
Independent schools are diverse. They vary markedly in many ways – religious beliefs,
values, size, resources and the sophistication of their support for students with a disability.
Independent school enrolments range from fewer than 20 students to over 1000 and each
school is unique in terms of identity and challenges.
For some Independent schools, a better understanding of legal obligations under the
Disability Standards for Education 2005 and the wide range of ways to meet them should
be given priority.
Those Independent schools with considerable expertise and resources could consider
showing leadership by reaching out to other schools. For example, they could take the lead
in fostering greater collaboration, mentoring, networking and sharing among Independent
schools. In addition, many teachers in the government and non-government sectors
expressed interest in greater cross-sector collaboration, for example, in regard to networks
of support around the needs of students with particular diagnoses such as dyslexia and
autism spectrum disorder. ACT students with a disability would benefit if collaboration
among ACT schools were extended comprehensively and creatively across the sectors, for
example, through partnerships and/or sharing around professional learning, resources,
services and expertise.
Some Independent schools are relatively under-resourced and the report suggests ways to
build capacity via networking, collaboration and the adoption of pedagogies that improve
inclusive practice and reduce expense, for example, through systematic, well-conducted,
peer tutoring.
To conclude, some options will challenge current assumptions and practices and will need
to be discussed at system, school community and staffroom level. Adoption of some
options will involve an element of risk as they involve ‘letting go’ of policies and practices
that may have been, or seemed to be, adequate until now. Some options will require
modelling, trialing and ‘phasing in’ over a period of years, thus highlighting the
importance of a clear vision and skilled leadership.
The fundamental challenge is for ACT schools to continue to make the necessary
adjustments for students with a disability while working systematically and resolutely to
reduce the need for those adjustments in the first place. When this strategy is informed by a
clear vision and monitored through effective accountability measures, it will achieve the
‘practical inclusion’ that is a goal of the ACT Social Plan.
And finally, improvements in educational services for students with a disability in the ACT
are most likely to occur in educational contexts that address the interests of all – students
(with and without a disability), parents/carers, staff and school communities, i.e. the
educational outcomes of students with a disability are more likely to be improved by an
‘educational tide that lifts all boats’.

Chapter 1: Background
This chapter
• Provides a guide to reading the report

• Explains our understanding of the task
• Describes how we conducted the review
• Explains the theoretical perspective that guided the review.
A guide to reading the report

It is difficult to write a slim report on a topic as significant as the education of students
with a disability. The issues and challenges are complex and interrelated and must be
understood before options and solutions are proposed and debated. Therefore, the first nine
chapters summarise leading practice and ‘make the case’ for the options that follow,
providing throughout the text, examples of leading practice in ACT schools and the views
of participants.
Before this report was written, a Discussion Paper was released. This document is
‘essential reading’ because it summarises the issues and concerns raised in visits and
consultations in Public schools (see Appendix 6). Appendix 6 also summarises the results
of subsequent visits, observations and consultations in the non-government sector.
Chapter One outlines the review purposes and processes. It also explains the model that
provided the rationale, direction and focus for the review.
A review of special education requires an understanding of the context in which it is

provided. Chapter Two summarises relevant features of the contemporary legal and policy
contexts.
Chapter Three explains why the focus must always remain on the students themselves;
they make a major contribution to their own learning.
Chapter Four summarises leading practice on pedagogy – the research on how to teach
students with a disability.
Chapter Five summarises leading practice on curriculum – the research on what to teach
and related topics such as individual planning and transition.
Chapter Six deals with where to teach and summarises the research on the impact of setting
and placement on the learning outcomes of students with a disability.
Chapter Seven explores resource and finance issues and makes the case for reconfiguring
resource allocation to improve learning outcomes and to achieve system goals.

Chapter Eight reviews leading practice on partnership and personnel issues, and, in
particular, highlights the impact on student learning of parent-school collaboration.
In themselves, reviews such as this one ‘fix’ nothing. However, they can provide the
rationale and data for sectors and schools to plan a defensible way forward. Chapter Nine
summarises features of service delivery that are known to improve teaching and learning
and concludes with a summary of principles on which the service options are based.
Options for the future are presented for the Public sector in Chapter 10, and for the non-
government sector in Chapters 11 and 12.
Chapter 13 briefly summarises the conclusions and advice on future options for ACT
schools.
Understanding of the brief

This Review commenced in March 2009 as a Review of Special Education in ACT Public
Schools. After considerable public discussion, the Review was extended to Catholic and
Independent Schools in June 2009.
The Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) required a review of leading practice in curriculum

and pedagogy for students with disabilities, with attention to student outcomes and the
identification of future options for services to students with disabilities in ACT schools.
Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching and curriculum refers to the courses or
subjects that are taught and learned. Pedagogy and curriculum directly affect the
achievement of educational outcomes by students with a disability. (Dictionary of Terms,
Appendix 4).
There is a range of views about what constitutes appropriate educational outcomes. The
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)
(2008a, p. 5 & 6) describes the goals of Australian schooling from a government
perspective in terms of “successful learners”, “confident individuals” and “active and
informed citizens”.
Schools tend to emphasise key competencies required by students such as “thinking,

making meaning, managing self, relation to others, and participating and contributing”
(Hattie, 2005, p. 14).
Parents typically focus on happiness, confidence and their child experiencing success
(Martin & Associates, 2006) and students usually mention individual outcomes more
directly related to their personal needs and aspirations, for example, practical learning,
friendships and relationships (Australian Centre for Equity in Education, 2001).
The term, ‘future options’ is understood in the context of rapid, unpredictable, societal
changes that include:
• Exponential growth, uptake and influence of technology;

• Increasing diversity of society and its schools;

• Increasing costs of special education and broad international acceptance of, and
attempts to implement, inclusive education;
• Appreciation of the contribution that school education makes to social equity,
cohesiveness and political stability and of the economic impact of the educational
achievements of all students;
• A consequent focus on measurement, monitoring and benchmarking of student and
school performance; and
• The questioning of the contemporary relevance of educational paradigms, policies and
delivery mechanisms of the past, for example, the adequacy and sustainability of the
program-based model that involves the assessment and differential funding of the
special needs of selected categories of students.
“If students in need of support were identified by their failure to achieve
expected learning outcomes, rather than by narrowly defined disabilities, all
students could potentially benefit from the detailed scrutiny. For example, gifted
and talented students, if they were underachieving, would be identified and
supported and whole school approaches to remediation would be encouraged.”
(School counsellor)
The terms special education and disability do not have precise and/or consistent meanings.
Many students experience difficulties in learning for a variety of reasons and may or may
not have a diagnosed disability. (See Appendix 4, Dictionary of Terms).
Leading practice is an appealing, loosely defined, term for a contestable concept. Leading
practice is used as an alternative to ‘best practice’ – another concept about which there is
considerable disagreement over meaning, validity and applicability. In this review, leading
practice is understood as “a set of educational processes and procedures for which there is
credible evidence of effectiveness with a large number of students and which are
recognised within the profession as effective ways of teaching’. (See Appendix 4,
Dictionary of Terms, and Appendix 10, for further discussion of the term).
Finally, inclusivity is ACT government policy and the majority of students with a disability
in ACT schools are in mainstream schools. Therefore, in addressing the educational
outcomes of students with a disability, the review raises implications for mainstream
education as well. What does or does not happen in one part of the education system
affects the other.
Framework and methodology

The Program Evaluation Standards (Sanders, 1994) guided the design and conduct of the
Review. This authoritative text defines ‘best practice’ requirements for “useful, feasible,
ethical, and sound evaluation of educational programs, projects and materials” (p. xiv.)
The methodology involved a careful approach to:
• Understanding stakeholders’ expectations, desired outcomes, the context and scope;

• Using an ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ framework to identify what is currently working well
in ACT schools because current good practice provides a good basis for service
development;

• Sampling and data collection to gain an appropriate understanding of ACT government
and non-government schools;
• Procedures to ensure systematic, valid and reliable assessment of policy, the research
literature and stakeholders’ views;
• Integrating the findings from four different sources; a) evidence-based theory about the
major influences on students’ educational outcomes; b) research on leading practice; c)
examples of promising practices in ACT schools; and d) stakeholders’ views about
how educational outcomes for students with a disability could be improved;
• Providing multiple opportunities for stakeholders to comment and contribute via
website, email and postal submissions, and through visits, interviews and public
consultations;
• Focus groups with students to get feedback on draft options using methodology
outlined by NSW Commission for Children and Young People (2004); and
• Meta-evaluation, by having draft reports critiqued by ‘critical readers’ with different
perspectives, expertise and roles in educational services for students with a disability.
Further details of the methodology and procedures are presented in Appendix 5.
Evidence-based theory about what leads to learning

One of the benefits of a defensible theory of ‘what leads to student learning’ is that it
provides guidance as to the relevance, validity and usefulness of other sources of data. For
example, stakeholder input, although useful, is typically values-based, perceptual and
subjective. In addition, as much as we would prefer otherwise, the research literature is not
comprehensive, uniform or consistent on every point. Finally, if we were to rely on
‘promising practices’ observed in ACT schools to guide future options we may under-
identify practices that should be considered.
Consistent with Lewin’s (1951) statement that “There is nothing so practical as a good
theory” we have complemented the leading practice literature, the observations in local
schools, and stakeholder perceptions with a well-founded, evidence-based theory of
learning in schools (Walberg, 1984a). A theory of learning not only explains what leads to
learning (and therefore what factors should be considered in a Review of this nature) but it
may also predict or suggest strategies that should be given greater emphasis.
Walberg (1984a, p.21) defines learning as “An individual affective, behavioural, and
cognitive activity that mainly takes place in the social context of the classroom group as
well as in the home and peer groups”. In focusing on social contexts, the classroom and
home, Walberg does not deny the importance of a range of other factors – such as socio-
economic variables, funding, teacher preparation, school policy, organisation and skills –
but shows how the effects of these are less direct, less influential, and mainly mediated
through the classroom and home.
Walberg’s model (see Figure 1) identifies three main factors associated with learning -
student, instructional and environmental variables. The first, student aptitude, includes
ability, level of development and motivation. While ability is clearly important, its effects
are modified by other ‘within person’ variables such as the student’s motivation, interests
and strengths.

The second factor, instruction, includes the quality of instruction (with attention to
curriculum and the psychological climate of the classroom) and the quantity of instruction
or amount of instructional time. The third, environmental factors, includes the home, the
class as a social group, and outside school factors such as peer influence and how students
spend their leisure time.
Figure 1: Causal influences on Student Learning
“Causal Influences on Student Learning” (p 21) from "Improving the Productivity of America’s
Schools", by Walberg, H.J., Educational Leadership, 41(8).
The Walberg model is highly relevant to this review because:
• It focuses on productivity in terms of learning outcomes for all students;

• It is consistent with the educational models of key figures in education including
Bloom, Bruner, Carrol, Glasser and with contemporary research on learning and
teaching, for example, Mitchell (2008) and Hattie (2009);
• It is based on a synthesis of thousands of empirical studies on the factors that lead to
productive learning in schools;

• The relative importance of, and the relationships between and among, the factors that
are influential in learning have been empirically established and replicated in many
school settings with many thousands of students;
• The model highlights the interactive nature of these factors; for example, how low
ability may be moderated by high student motivation, excellent teaching and/or good
collaboration between school and home to support student learning outcomes; and
• The model suggests options that may not occur to many stakeholders and/or may not
be prominent in contemporary literature about school improvement, for example, better
collaborations with parents to improve educational outcomes; greater focus on the
psychological climate of classroom; and/or focusing on ways to build on student’s
strengths, improve their motivation, and in general, encourage engagement, self-
regulation and a disposition towards learning
Appreciation
In the Discussion Paper, Shaddock et al. (2009, Appendix 6 a) 1 drew attention to areas
where improvement was needed in Public schools. Similar examples were subsequently
observed or reported in Catholic and Independent schools and these are briefly summarised
in Appendix 6 b).
The Review Team also saw examples in the government and non-government sector of
good practice, high levels of commitment, and a great desire to improve the quality of
education for students with a disability. Examples of good practice in ACT schools are
presented throughout the Report.
Public schools
The following positive features of services for students with a disability in ACT Public
schools are acknowledged:
• Instigation of, and support for, this external review;
• System-wide, rigorous attention to the Disability Standards for Education 2005 in
policy implementation and professional learning for principals and teachers;
• Provision of extensive professional learning opportunities including scholarships for
advanced studies at various universities and the Canberra Institute of Technology;
• Wide range of educational options for students with a disability and increasing
flexibility within these options;
• Pursuit of more productive partnerships with parents and stakeholder input into policy;
• Provision of highly respected and well-utilised support teams – Inclusion Support,
Hearing, Vision, Inclusive Technology;
• Collaboration with Disability ACT around Post School options for students with a
disability;
• Provision of a wide range of autism-specific programs in response to the increased
prevalence of students on the Autism Spectrum in the ACT community;
1
The Discussion Paper by Shaddock et al. (2009) that was produced as part of this Review is hereafter
referred to as ‘the Discussion Paper’.

• Ongoing refinement to policies and processes, for example, the development of the
Student Centred Appraisal of Need – a process that has improved transparency in the
determination of additional funding for students with a disability; production of
guidelines for the development and use of Individual Learning Plans (ILPs); review of
policy on students with high and complex needs; review of ILPs; development of
programs for students with a disability who have severe challenging behaviour; and the
development of the Student Support delivery model and service practice standards for
Student Support.
Catholic schools
The Review Team noted the following general positive features in Catholic schools:
• Support for this external review;

• Good relationships with parents and carers;
• Inclusive school cultures and a nurturing, pastoral care, ‘whole person’ approach;
• Utilisation of general school resources to support the education of students with a
disability;
• Focus on improving educational outcomes through improvements to classroom
pedagogy;
• Particular schools establishing effective models of support for students with a
disability;
• Particular schools establishing learning support for any students with additional needs;
• Creative and resourceful applications of evidence-based practices;
• Taking on leadership roles in developing appropriate courses for students with a
disability;
• Consistent involvement with external agencies to ensure students have access to a
variety of services for people with a disability in the ACT; and
• Professional learning opportunities for special education staff.
Independent schools
Each Independent school is distinctive in terms of religious beliefs, values and educational
philosophy. Independent schools are also diverse in terms of size, resources and capacity.
Some of the positive features that were observed in some Independent schools included:
• Support for this external review;

• Good communication with, and strong support from, parents and carers;
• Inclusive school cultures that are complemented by very sophisticated counselling and
support services in some settings;
• Flexibility and responsiveness demonstrated in some settings through an ‘open door’
policy for Student Services, modification of courses in the senior years, provision of
‘safe areas’ to which some students retreat as necessary and similar adjustments for
individual needs;
• Attention to the ‘whole person’ - social, emotional, spiritual and physical needs of
students;
• Creative utilisation of resources in some schools to establish systems of support in
which students with a disability, students with gifts and talents, those with ESL needs,

Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students, students with emotional and family
support needs, students from interstate or from overseas, and students experiencing, or
recovering from, medical conditions, receive the support they need;
• In some settings, ongoing review of programs and delivery to ensure inclusivity; and
• Creative options and pathways in some secondary settings for students transitioning to
the world of paid work.
As options for the future must be devised and interpreted with reference to the current
situation in the ACT, the next chapter examines this environment with particular attention
to the legal and policy bases for educational practice.

Chapter 2: Legal and Policy
Context
This chapter:
• Describes services for students with a disability in ACT schools

• Discusses the multiple meanings of ‘special education’ and
‘disability’
• Summarises the legislative context in which services are provided
• Analyses relevant ACT Government policies
• Summarises current educational policy and the implication for
students with a disability in ACT schools
• Outlines major challenges and directions in ‘special education’ and
the implications for students with a disability in ACT schools
• Lists the many perspectives of relevance to the review.
The identification of ‘future options’ implies planning and good planning requires a
thorough understanding of context. The services in ACT Public, Catholic and Independent
schools are first described.
Education of students with a disability in the ACT
The 2009 ACT School Census reports that at February 2009 there were 64 380 students
attending ACT government and non-government schools (ACT Department of Education
and Training, 2009b). Of these, 38 280 students (59.5%) attended the 83 government
schools and 26100 students attended non-government schools. There are 23 Catholic
systemic schools and 17 Independent schools (including 3 Independent Catholic schools).

Table 1: Number of enrolments by level of schooling and sector, 2005 to
2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Public
Primary 1,2 22 611 22 402 22 206 22 239 22 423
High 10 237 10 095 9 998 9 816 9 654
College 5 903 6 013 5 998 5 848 5 875
Special 340 322 338 327 328
Subtotal public 39 091 38 832 38 832 38 230 38 280
Non-government
Independent schools
Primary 3 687 3 709 3 820 4 097 4 6993
High 5 603 5 666 5 775 5 874 5 900
College 2 195 2 245 2 256 2 366 2 379
Catholic Systemic schools
Primary 8 067 8 106 8 162 8 168 8 2163
High 3 671 3 676 3 674 3 608 3 652
College 1 331 1 277 1 263 1 270 1 254
Subtotal non-government schools 24 554 24 679 24 950 25 383 26 1003
Total 63 645 63 511 63 490 63 613 64 3803
1
Includes preschool level enrolments.
2
Includes a small number of Indigenous students or special school students that attend more than one primary school.
3
Break in data series. 2009 data cannot be directly compared to previous years data due to the inclusion of preschool level
students in non-government schools for the first time in 2009.
The Census reports an overall increase in enrolments in students in ACT schools between
2005 and 2009 – up 1.5%. During this period, Public school enrolments decreased by
2.07%; and non-government school enrolments increased by 6.30%.
The majority of ACT students with special needs students attend Public schools. The
census reports that, “in 2009, over eight in 10 (81.3%) special needs students were enrolled
in a Public school, up 25 students since 2008”. These percentages are similar to the
national data reported by the Allen Consulting Group (2005), that is, 82% of students with
a disability in government schools, 13% in Catholic schools and 5% in Independent
schools.
Table two and Figure two illustrate that Public schools have experienced some growth in
the identification of special needs students each year since 2005 – from 1667 in 2005 to
1784 in 2009 – an increase of 7%. In the same period, the identification of students with
special needs in the non-government sector increased by 38%. The overall growth of
enrolments of students with special needs between 2005-2009 was 11.7%.

Table 2: Number of enrolments by special needs and sector, 2005 to 2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Public schools 1 667 1 698 1 711 1 759 1 784
Non-government schools 1,2 297 329 418 424 411
Total 1 964 2 027 2 129 2 183 2 195
1
There were no preschool level students with special needs in non-government schools in receipt of funding in 2009.
2
Includes all students flagged as special needs, including those students not formally assessed at the time of the census.
(ACT Department of Education and Training. (2009b).
Figure 2: Pattern of enrolments of students with a disability in ACT schools
Between 2005 and 2009 students with special needs as a proportion of the total enrolment
increased slightly. In government schools, the proportion rose from 4.3% to 4.7%; and in
non-government schools, from 1.2% to 1.6%. Between 2005 and 2009, the proportion of
students with special needs in ACT schools rose only slightly – from 3.1% to 3.4%.
Figure 3 illustrates changes in the proportion of students with special needs in relation to
overall school enrolments.

Figure 3: Special needs enrolments as % of total enrolments in the ACT
Public schools: As described in detail on the ACTDET website 2, Public schools offer a
wide range of services for students with a disability and these are centrally administered as
part of ‘Student Support’. The services include a range of early intervention options 3;
support services in mainstream schools; and special schools.
Tables 3 summarises the distribution of this support in terms of program type and grade.
Table 3: Special education support programs in Public schools in 20094

Primary Secondary College
Number of schools with special classes 36 14 3
Number of students accessing special classes 397 218 68
Number of students in special classes per providing school 11.03 15.57 22.67
Number of students accessing inclusion support 446 128 47
Average number of students accessing inclusion support per 7.31 7.53 5.88
school
Catholic schools:
The Catholic Education Office provides a range of services for students with a disability.
The model of inclusion and the services provided under this inclusive model are
documented in the Learning Support Handbook (Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn,
2009). The services work to build teacher, school, and system skills and capacity to
support students with a disability in mainstream classes.
2
http://www.det.act.gov.au/school_education/special_education
3
The current review focused on services for students with a disability from kindergarten to college.
4
This table does not include special school data.

Independent schools:
Independent schools are genuinely independent and they differ in many ways. For
example, the ACT Independent schools include Anglican, Catholic, Christian, community,
Islamic, Montessori, Seventh Day Adventist and Steiner schools. Furthermore, the schools
may differ in culture, values, enrolments, school expertise, social capital of the school
community, resources, and/or the range and sophistication of supports for students with a
disability. In terms of size, Independent schools in the ACT range from 16 to 1185
students.
Each Independent school is responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of
the school. The Association of Independent Schools of the ACT represents schools’
collegial views within government, media and the wider education sector. All Independent
schools in the ACT are members of the Association.
Although some Independent schools provide small group tuition for part of the day for
some students with special needs, none of the schools offers fulltime, separate placements.
In conclusion, the slight increase in identification of students with special needs in the
ACT over the last 5 years is somewhat less than that experienced in many other countries
where education authorities struggle to contain the growth of special education. For
example, since 1980, special education in the USA as a total of overall school enrolment
increased from 8% to 12.2% (Mahitivanichcha & Parrish, 2005). Parrish (2001) reports
that the increase is mainly due to the increasing receipt of special services by students with
less severe disabilities.
Recent figures from the United Kingdom indicate that 18% of students in English schools
are considered to have special educational needs, up 3% in five years (Shepherd, 2009).
Closer to home, Graham and Sweller (2009) report a significant growth in students with a
confirmed diagnosis of disability in NSW Public schools – from 4400 students (0.58% of
total enrolments) in 1993/4 to approximately 25,000 students (3.5% of total enrolments in
2006/7).
In addition to the worldwide increase in students receiving special education services, the
different identification rates of special needs in developed countries are noteworthy.
Furthermore, the fact that in some jurisdictions there are increasing numbers of students
with less severe disabilities being referred to special education raises questions about the
extent to which their current mainstream and special education policies may be
contributing to this trend. For example, research shows that when the main means of
securing resources is through assessment and classification of special need, demand is
stimulated (Ferrier et al. 2007; Graham & Sweller, 2009; Victorian Department of
Education, 2001). This outcome is clearly inimical to inclusive practice (Ferrier, 2007;
Graham & Sweller, 2009), and as discussed in Chapter 6, has other negative effects.
Special education
There is a lack of clarity and consensus around the meaning of terms such as ‘special
education needs’ and ‘students with a disability’ (Allen Consulting Group, 2005; Ferrier et
al. 2007; Department of Education, Employment & Training, Victoria, 2001; & Weishaar
and Borsa, 2001). Kavale and Forness (1999, p.3) write, “For a domain that has generated
so much debate, special education is not well-defined.” And Kauffman & Hallahan (2005,

p.1) agree; “Just what special education is, who gets it or who should get it, and why it is
necessary are matters that relatively few teachers, parents, school administrators, or
educators of teachers can explain accurately or with much confidence.”
Weishaar and Borsa (2001) explain how special education services are constituted
differently in different places at different times because of a) terminological differences; b)
different philosophical positions; c) the history of organisations/systems; d) local tradition
within school districts; e) legal foundations; and f) fiscal policies and constraints. As these
influences interact to determine the nature of services, there are wide differences in the
structure and function of special education services throughout the world.
There are good reasons to question the contemporary relevance of ‘special’ as a descriptor
for ACT students with a disability. The term, ‘special education’, is not used in the
Disability Standards for Education (2005) or the Australian Capital Territory Education
Act (2004).
Furthermore, the use of the term ‘special’ to describe particular students is incompatible
with the ACT Government policy about inclusion or inclusivity as expressed in Building
Our Community: The Canberra Social Plan (2004); and in Students with a Disability:
Meeting Their Educational Needs, 2008, (ACT Department of Education & Training,
2008, p.3). Inclusion requires “a focus on all policies and processes within an education
system, and indeed, all pupils who may experience exclusionary pressures” (Ainscow,
Farrell & Tweddle, 2000, p.228). (See Appendix 4, Dictionary of Terms).
Slee (2006)) asks, “Has the reformist agenda for inclusive education been irrevocably
undermined or sent up an epistemological cul de sac by a thoughtless dalliance with
special educational needs?” (P. 113). Slee (2006, p. 118) suggests that the importance of
questions of placement, resources and expertise notwithstanding, the real issues are ‘who’s
in and who’s out’ because these issues relate to “questions of power and powerlessness”
and the possibility of genuine educational reform”. Slee (2005, p. 158) writes, “For, so
long as ‘regular educators’ hold fast to notions of regular students and special needs
students, inclusion is reduced to a chimera.”
“I wouldn’t call it special needs … I’d call it - ‘needing a little extra help’.” (High
school student with a disability)
“There is nothing special about our son’s (who has Down syndrome) needs;
He’s not an alien!” (Parent)
Ainscow, Booth & Dyson (2006 p. 15), in advocating a broad understanding of inclusion
write, “We question the usefulness of an approach to inclusion that, in attempting to
increase the participation of students, focuses on the ‘disabled’ or ‘special needs’ part of
them and ignores all the other ways in which participation for any student may be impeded
or enhanced (italics added).”
In conclusion, the philosophical distinction between ‘special’ on the one hand, and
presumably, ‘not special’ on the other, is hard to sustain in a society that values diversity
and inclusivity, sees itself as more heterogeneous than homogeneous, and prefers to focus
on difference rather than deficit. Furthermore, the policy implications that flow from this
imprecise and outdated construct, for example, ‘special’ programs, services and funding –
may have unfortunate consequences, not the least of which is a focus on students’
limitations.

Disability
An alternative descriptor to ‘special’ needs or ‘special’ education is to refer to ‘students
with a disability’ and the term has a basis in law. Many state departments now refer to
services using some reference to disability, for example, NSW - Disability Programs;
Tasmania - Students with Disabilities; South Australia – Disability Services; and Victoria -
Students with Disabilities.
Although many authorities have attempted to move beyond special education models and
nomenclature, their policies often continue to reflect the special education influence. As
the paradigm shift occurs slowly and inconsistently leadership needs a clear vision of the
‘shape’ of a desirable system so that it can manoeuvre strategically between paradigms to
achieve it.
Some states departments use the term ‘Inclusive Education’ to describe their services.
Western Australian services are known as ‘Inclusive Education’ and Queensland describes
its services as ‘Inclusive Education and Learning and Disability Support’. Although
inclusion is clearly in the spirit and intention of the Disability Standards for Education, the
term itself is not mentioned.
Only the two territory governments, ACT and Northern Territory, currently use ‘Special
Education’ as a descriptor of services – ‘Special Education and Wellbeing’ (NT) and
‘Special Education’ (ACT). In Australia, the use of ’special’ to describe services for
students with a disability is clearly not the preferred option.
Although the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn is
increasingly adopting a ‘Learning Support’ approach, it continues to use special needs
nomenclature to describe some policies and services and so do many school-based staff.
Many ACT Independent schools use special education nomenclature also.
While it seems advisable to locate and define services in an appropriate legal framework,
and so adopt ‘disability’ nomenclature in preference to terms such as ‘special’ or
‘inclusive’, there are issues to be resolved around the need for identification, for example,
“Labeling – some parents use it and some will do anything to avoid it.”
(Learning Support Assistant)
and, which definitions 5 should apply in particular circumstances, for example, for access to
services and/or for access to particular funding programs. This is a confused and confusing
area for education stakeholders in the ACT.
In regard to services, education providers must abide by the relevant legislation. The broad
definition of disability contained in the Australian Government’s Disability Discrimination
Act (1992), the Disability Standards for Education (2005), and particularly in the ACT
Disability Services Act (1991) must be applied. Education providers are obliged to provide
students with a disability with access to educational services on the same basis as students
without disability.
5
These definitional challenges illustrate that ‘disability’ is socially constructed.

In regard to particular forms of support, for example, that provided by governments to
supplement funding for students with a disability, Australian State and Territory
governments adopt their own policies and funding rules for disbursing particular funds and
managing access to particular programs. The programs and policy definitions in different
states and territories are not the same and the eligibility requirements for particular forms
of support (such as supplementary funding) are not necessarily consistent with definitions
contained in the relevant legislation. These issues are further discussed in Chapter Seven.
These definitional issues mean that it is virtually impossible to undertake national data
collection, monitoring and benchmarking of funding, expenditure and performance with
respect to Australian students with a disability. Furthermore, some believe that children
with ADHD and/or dyslexia are educationally disadvantaged by a local definition of
disability that does not allocate supplementary funding for these conditions (through the
Student Centred Appraisal of Need).
“If dyslexia isn’t even recognised as a disability, how can ‘pedagogy, curriculum
and student learning outcomes’ be as effective, when compared to the
recognised disabilities?” (Parent)
“There is inadequate support for children with learning disabilities, e.g.

dyslexia.” (Paediatrician)
“We believe the difficulty with recognising dyslexia as a disability is because it is

perceived, by some, to be a ‘fake disability’ … something that either ‘doesn’t
really exist’ or is used by overly emotional parents as an excuse for why their
child is performing poorly.” (Parent)
“If ADHD student’s needs were addressed much earlier, then I would suggest
that later behavioural issues would not be such a problem. Teaching needs to
be addressing their learning needs and also their organisational skills as well as
self esteem.” (Parent)
Additional legal issues arising from these definitional complexities in terms of compliance
and risk management are discussed below under ‘legislative context’.
Legislative context
Connors (2006) in an address on public education in the ACT cites Martin Luther King’s
“The law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless” and makes the point that
the 2004 Education Act “provides a strong basis for accountability” (p. 9). The Discussion
Paper makes a similar point, “Although it may appear somewhat uninspiring to consider
future options in education with reference to existing legal obligations, the legal ‘bottom
line’ is a good place to start.” Recent events in NSW, for example, the NSW Principals
Association threatening legal action because of alleged failures “to provide students with
learning disabilities with equality of access to education”, highlight the ‘safety net’
provided by legislation (Carr & Rajendra, 2009, p.5).
“The culture that Special Education is a favour rather than a right must be
reversed.” (Parents)
Education for students with a disability in the ACT is underpinned by impressive

legislation. The most relevant acts are:

• Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT)
• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth)
• Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Commonwealth)
• Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
• Education Act 2004 (ACT)
• Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
• Human Rights Commission Act 2005 (ACT).
The Discussion Paper raised additional legal issues that are of particular relevance to the
Review of Special Education including:
• Interpretation of, and accountability for, providing students with a disability with the
opportunity “to participate in the learning experiences of the course or program, on the
same basis as students without a disability” (Disability Standards for Education, 2005
p. 24).
• The needs of many students for specialised services, such as therapy and/or mental
health support, that are not provided directly by the school system but that are essential
components of the curriculum for these students and/or determine the extent to which
they are equipped to access the curriculum on the same basis as other students.
As stated, the relevant provisions of the DDA, and the ACT Discrimination Act, including
their definitions of disability, bind all education providers. So if or when a Court is
considering whether or not a student with a disability has been discriminated against on the
ground of disability, effectively the broadest discrimination law definition will apply. If
providers have complied with ACT law but not the DDA, they can still be found wanting
under the DDA. The same applies if they have complied with DDA but not ACT law – the
more likely scenario.
While it may be seen as ill-advised (for fiscal reasons) to adopt a broad and inclusive
definition of disability for the allocation of supplementary funding, in fact, in the ACT, it
may be ill-advised not to adopt such a definition. A broad definition would be consistent
with other ACT Government legislative and policy initiatives which promote diversity and
inclusion, for example, the adoption of a comparatively broad ACT Discrimination Act;
the fact that the ACT was the first Australian jurisdiction to have human rights legislation;
and the Government’s recent amendments to require public authorities to act and make
decisions in accordance with human rights.
A more cautious, but contentious approach, would be to leave unchanged the definition
and the list of ‘disability categories’ that currently are eligible for supplementary funding
in the ACT and wait until the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Education
(MCEEDYA 6) and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR) deal with the definitional issues about which much has been written (Allen
Consulting, 2005); Ferrier et al., 2007; Shaddock, Smyth King, & Giorcelli, 2007)
6
MCCEDYA was formed in July 2009 following a merger of MCCETYA and MCTEE. See
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/about_mceecdya,11318.html

However, ACT education providers still need to be able to demonstrate that they have
provided ‘reasonable adjustments’ to ensure that any student with a disability as defined by
the DDA, (1992), including those currently deemed ineligible for supplementary funding
such as students with dyslexia and/or ADHD, are catered for. At least one indicator of
reasonable adjustment is the provision of specific resources to support that student. If this
more cautious approach were adopted, the difficult case for excluding some categories of
disability from supplementary funding, rather than the case for including them, would have
to be argued.
“We receive a disability pension from the Government because of our

daughter’s dyslexia diagnosis, so the Government recognises dyslexia.”
(Parent)
Relevant to the consideration of these options is the fact that the ACT is one of only two
Australian jurisdictions to have a test of discrimination without a comparator. That is, a
person only needs to be treated unfavourably because of a disability, rather than less
favourably than those without the disability. This test strengthens the argument that a
broad definition of disability should guide supplementary funding - the ACT
Discrimination Act definition - as a relevant and appropriate indication of compliance with
the ACT legislative and policy framework.
It would also be important for education providers to keep abreast of developments at the
federal level, for example, the recent ratification by the Australian Government of the ‘UN
Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities'; the amendment to the DDA on 25
June 2009, making explicit the positive duty already imposed by Courts to make
reasonable adjustments to accommodate disability; and policy changes in the way DEEWR
provides additional funding to support the education of disadvantaged students.
Human Rights legislation has raised the bar for public authorities. From 1 January 2009,
the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) requires ACT public authorities to act and make
decisions in accordance with human rights. Individuals who allege that their human rights
have been breached by public authorities are now able to apply directly to the ACT
Supreme Court to seek redress.
In addition to the ‘reasonable adjustment’ requirements under discrimination law, Human

Rights legislation in other jurisdictions has required public education providers to not only
avoid discrimination by making appropriate adaptations so that individuals can benefit
from existing provision, but also adapt existing provisions so that they are “accessible,
meaningful and rewarding’ for the individual or group of interest” (MacKay, 2006). So,
public education providers must provide individual accommodations and adjustments and
implement systemic changes that reduce the need for individual level accommodations and
adjustments (Alberta Education, 2009).
Currently, in interpreting the ACT Discrimination Act and deciding on whether or not a
complaint on the grounds of disability appears to have substance, the Human Rights and
Discrimination Commissioner, in complying with section 30 of the HRA, has relied on
section 8 'Recognition and equality provision' and section 12 'Privacy and reputation' - to
decide that complaints do in fact appear to have substance. Section 30 of the HRA
requires that all ACT laws are interpreted so far as possible, in a way that is consistent with
human rights. In interpreting human rights, international law may be considered.
Therefore, if a question of the extent of the ACT definition of discrimination and/or
disability arose, under the HRA, recourse could be had to interpretations of discrimination

and/or disability under United Nations Human Rights declarations and standards. In these
ways, the ACT Discrimination Act may be used to broaden and enhance disability rights.
The ACT has strong legislation. However, enforceability is an issue and it is unlikely that
pedagogy, curriculum and learning outcomes for students with a disability will be
improved by legislation alone (Tisdall & Riddell, 2006). In Chapter Nine, the issue of
accountability is further discussed.
To conclude, it would be appropriate, in determining eligibility for supplementary funding,

to consider adopting a broad definition of disability that is consistent with discrimination
law as this would:
• Demonstrate a commitment to the principles of equality and inclusivity.

• Improve transparency in monitoring and accountability.
• Be unlikely to increase identification rates of special needs to the levels reported in
some other jurisdictions.
• Assist providers to appreciate the extent of their public authority functions.
• Improve consistency between legislation, policy and resource allocation mechanisms.
• Reduce public criticism about ‘unfunded students’ 7 and build trust with parents and
carers.
“But let’s not get into a competitive bidding game to see who has the most
problems or who can portray the worst situation … we are looking at students
who have individual needs and these must be met on an individual basis.”
(Parent)
In addition to making a complaint of discrimination under the DDA or the ACT

Discrimination Act, students and their families also have the right to make a complaint
about a ‘disability service’ or a ‘service for children and young people’ under the Human
Rights Commission Act 2005 (HRC Act). This includes special education services, and
other services provided to students with a disability in the school setting. The Disability &
Community Services Commissioner and the Children & Young People Commissioner
consider such complaints.
Finally, it should be noted that the ACT law, particularly when interpreted through the lens
of the HRA, implies that the system of special education provision should be based on
principles of transparency, consistency, and accountability. Public education providers
should also consider the best interests of the child when making decisions, and listen to,
and seriously consider, students’ views. There are many obvious implications not the least
of which is to increase the extent, type and prominence of consultation with students.
7
It is argued in Chapter Seven, however, that a reliance on supplementary funding as the sole source of
support for students with a disability, is not only inimical to inclusive practice but it may also have a deleterious
impact on students’ learning outcomes.

ACT Government policy context
The Discussion Paper (p. 5) referred to the development of ACT Government policy on
outcomes and opportunities for all Canberrans who have a disability with attention to
strategic priorities based on “key messages from individuals, families, cares and service
providers about type of support, contribution to, and engagement with, the community,
learning opportunities and the requirements of a quality service system for people with a
disability.”
The ACT has adopted strong policies to support students with disabilities and their families
including: Building Our Community: The Canberra Social Plan (2004); the ACT
Children’s Plan 2004-14; Future Directions: A Framework for the ACT 2004-2008;
Challenge 2014: A ten year vision for disability in the ACT; National Public Health
Strategic Framework for Children 2005-2008; The Best Start in Life: The Importance of
Early Childhood Education 2007; and the ACT Policy Framework for Children and Young
People with a Disability and Their Families (2009).
The recently released ACT Government Policy Framework for Children and Young People
with a Disability and Their Families (ACT Health, ACT Department of Disability,
Housing & Community Services, and the ACT Department of Education and Training,
2009) is a progressive document that:
• Lists the principles that underpin all services to children and young people with a
disability and their families, including those provided as universal services;
• Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of agencies 8 that provide services for children
and young people with a disability and their families;
• Provides guidance about the ways agencies should undertake a coordinated response to
needs; and
• Establishes the mechanisms that ensure joint planning to meet the future needs of
children and young people with a disability.
Clearly, this new Disability Policy Framework has huge implications for students with a
disability. As “the collaborative approaches underpinning the Policy are to be codified and
operationalised through the negotiation and signing of Service Partnership Agreements
between the relevant ACT Government Departments and agencies” (4.1) the Policy
Framework should provide the policy leverage to improve:
• Collaboration in relation to specialised services such as therapy provision;

• Equity and access to adaptive 9 technology;
• Data gathering to support planning, for example, personnel preparation;
• Services such as early intervention, transition, and particularly the provision of post-
school education opportunities to assist the transition from school to adult life;
• Community engagement and creative partnerships, for example, between schools,
businesses and employment agencies, to foster careers for people with a disability,
including innovative self-employment; and
8
The roles and responsibilities referred to here are for ACT Government Departments and agencies and for
providers that have service contracts with the ACT Government.
9
See Appendix 4 for definition.

• Opportunities for social inclusion that involve support for friendships and social
networks and programs to reduce bullying.
The Post School Options Expo has become an integral part of the ACT
calendar for students and their families who are looking at options for
school leavers. All year 9-12 students with a disability and their families
from government and non-government schools are invited, and in 2009,
over 500 people attended. The Expo offers sessions for school groups
and for students and families. The attendees are able to visit a large
number of stalls, become involved in interactive demonstrations and
‘Try a Trade’ such as Beauty and Make Up, Hairdressing, and Building.
The expo is an initiative of the ACT Interagency Transition Committee
that is made up of representatives of both government and non-
government agencies and services providers.
Another relevant policy initiative in the ACT is the Sharing Responsibility Framework for
Service Collaboration for the Care, Protection and Well-Being of Children and Young
People in the ACT (Vardon & Murray Steering Committee, 2005). The policy focuses on
“quality care and protection services for vulnerable children, young people and their
families in the ACT” (p. 2) and outlines the respective responsibilities of the ACT
Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services; the ACT Department of
Education and Training; ACT Health; ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety;
ACT Chief Minister’s Department; and ACT Department of Treasury. This policy, while
primarily emphasising ‘care and protection’ needs of young people, lists guiding principles
and outcomes that are, in principle, equally applicable to students with a disability.
In the same vein, the Multi-Agency Response for Clients with Complex Needs outlines a
cross-government policy agreement that is, in principle, applicable to students with a
disability (Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services, ACT Health,
Chief Minister’s Department and Department of Justice and Community Safety, 2004).
The point is that both these progressive, collaborative, child and family-centred, policies
have the potential to be more inclusive, and, in particular, be applied to students with a
disability, many of whom could be considered to have complex needs and/or require
coordinated support from multiple departments and/or agencies.
The Discussion Paper referred to key policies in the ACT Department of Education and
Training such as Students with a Disability: Meeting Their Educational Needs (2008) and
the Inclusivity Challenge: Within Reach of Us All Discussion Paper (2002). The former
reiterates the requirement to provide education services that are compliant with the
Disability Standards for Education (2005) and endorses the provision by the Department
of “special schools and support units/classes, where parents/carers and professionals agree
such placements are in the best interests of the students” (p.2). The latter raises issues for
school communities to consider about inclusive practice, but not just in regard to students
with a disability. For example, “inclusive schools focus on making education better for
those at the margins of schooling so that all students are able to meaningfully engage with
the curriculum and life of the school” (p.10). This document suggests that inclusivity
requires education to be effective for all students.

Clearly these ACT policies are progressive, and, just as with legislation, the critical issue is
the extent to which they are implemented.
Education context
Key goals and features of the national educational agenda and the ACT Government’s
educational agenda were outlined in the Discussion Paper (Appendix 6 a). In moving
quickly to implement its ‘education revolution’ the Australian Government is changing the
context in which the education of all students occurs. Increasingly Australian education
will be shaped towards:
• Stronger partnerships between schools, parents, the community and business;

• Stronger early childhood education and care;
• Support for effective transitions in education;
• Improving the quality of teaching and school leadership;
• Developing world-class curriculum and assessment;
• Improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged young Australians; and
• Increasing accountability and transparency.
McGaw (2008) indicates that necessary improvements in Australian school education

require attention to:
• Equity as well as quality;

• Secondary school completion rates;
• The quality of teachers through higher salaries and status;
• The structure and composition of the school workforce; and
• The use of evidence-based practices in schools.
Therefore in addition to the specific options proposed in chapters 10-12 about the
education of students with a disability, education sectors and schools in the ACT should
give priority to the following practices that have been identified in the general ‘school
reform’ literature:
• Leadership that is results-focused, that builds capacity, and that is engaged;

• Determined focus on teaching, learning and student achievement;
• Specific attention to barriers to learning;
• Early intervention, the long term effects of which include a reduction in the need for
special education and repeating grades, and increased school completion rates
(Donovan & Cross, 2002; Weiss & Stephen, 2009);
• Priority for numeracy, literacy and student well-being and closing the gap between
high and low performing students and those at risk of marginalisation;
• Aspirational, negotiated targets for student achievement with students having high
levels of ownership of their learning;
• Measurable goals and benchmarks – the use of data and evidence by students, teachers
and schools;

• Professional development, networking, and sharing of effective, evidence-based
practices, reduction of class sizes and investment in the ‘core technology of schools’ –
quality teaching;
• Increased investment in education through targeted funding that promotes capacity and
sustainability;
• Parental engagement and involvement; and
• Providing support for educational reform through promoting ‘buy-in’ and support of all
stakeholders for educational reform; building on what is working well now;
recognising that success comes from individuals working together; ‘changing by doing
rather than by elaborate planning’; and engaging external expertise to support schools
where necessary.
(Synthesised from Connors, 2006; Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Fullan, 2003; Fullan,
2007; Fullan, Hill & Crevola, 2006; Parsons, 2005; Smyth & McInerney, 2007; Society for
the Advancement of Excellence in Education, 2004; Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Thurlow,
2000).
Many schools reorganise classes to allow greater focus on students’

development of basic skills. For example, a high school we visited
provides smaller classes for English, Mathematics and Science for
Years 7 through to 10 with modified work and assessment tasks to
enable students to work to their potential and encourage the
development of literacy and numeracy skills.
Special education context

The education of students with a disability is part of education more generally, and across
the world there is an increased emphasis on anti-discrimination and human rights
legislation, policies supportive of inclusive education, and acknowledgement of the
diversity of contemporary schools.
Research continues to identify strategies that are effective with a wide range of students
including those with a disability, (e.g. as described by Mitchell, 2008; Shaddock, Smyth
King & Giorcelli, 2007). At the policy level however, there is major disagreement about
many of the most important issues in the education of students with a disability. For
example, Ysseldyke et al. (2000, p. 28) write, “Because it is not available to everyone,
special education is a controversial practice. The controversy takes up issues of access,
availability and accountability. Concerns about access ask who should receive special
education. Concerns about availability centre on where special education should be
provided and what should be provided. Concerns about accountability address the extent to
which special education makes a difference.”
The ongoing debate about these issues illustrates the recurring dilemmas identified by
Norwich (2008) and described in the Discussion Paper. Similarly, Bateman (1994) refers
to the perpetual issues of “who, how and where” of special education.
Lined up on both sides of these passionate debates are esteemed researchers, thinkers,
advocates, parents, students and ex-students, and a wide variety of stakeholders who, if

they refer to evidence at all, sometimes base their opposing views on almost the same body
of evidence 10. This lack of consensus illustrates that the evidence-base is not as
incontrovertible as some would believe; that evidence needs to be interpreted; and that
interpretations invariably reflect values, assumptions and personal experience.
Very often in special education, proponents adopt a simplistic ‘either-or’ position, denying
the possibility that different perspectives are necessary. As Ysseldyke et al (2000)
conclude, “When more and more students are considered at risk, the concept of specialised
instruction to meet individual learning needs becomes moot. As more students are
identified with special learning needs, multiple, even competing perspectives all begin to
make sense” (p. 27-28, italics added). Table 4 lists perspectives that are relevant to this
review.
10
See, for example, Byrnes, (2005 & 2008).

Table 4: Perspectives that are relevant to the Review of Special Education in
the ACT
Perspective Comment
a) A ‘DDA compliance’ There has been considerable priority given, particularly in Public
perspective and Catholic schools, to the obligations of education providers
under the DDA (1992) and particularly under the Disability
Standards for Education 2005.
b) A ‘Human Rights Strong emphasis in the ACT. Legislation is necessary but not
compliance’ sufficient.
perspective
c) A ‘policy compliance’ ACT already has some excellent, child-centred and disability-
perspective friendly policies but there are issues around how compliance can
be guaranteed.
d) A ‘diversity’ Reflects ACT society and schools. However, if specific disability-
perspective related needs are seen only as an aspect of diversity, they may
become less visible and less likely to be met.
e) An ‘inclusivity’ Reflects ACT society and schools. However, many students are at
perspective the margins for many reasons – social, cultural, family, personal,
and/or behavioural - and so need additional assistance.
f) An ‘individual needs’ All students have individual needs that reflect a wide range of
perspective factors that may include disability. It is difficult to personalise
support to an appropriate degree in a class of 30 students.
g) A ‘disability’ Some students require adjustments to teaching and curriculum
perspective because of disability. However, a perspective that
overemphasises difference may be inimical to inclusive practice.
h) An ‘excellence’ The ACT Government has expressed a goal to be a national
perspective leader in education.
i) A ‘systems’ What happens, or does not happen, in one part of the education
perspective system, e.g. in special education, will affect what happens in the
other.
j) A ‘feasibility’ Ultimately, the ‘buy-in’ of all stakeholders to the ACT vision for
perspective services for students with a disability will determine what actually
happens.
k) A ‘resourcefulness’ The ACT must engage in clever thinking, synergies and
perspective demonstrate a hard-nosed focus on the bottom line – the
educational outcomes of students with a disability in ACT schools.
l) A ‘pragmatic’ Evidence and experience, and not current educational
perspective orthodoxies, should guide the selection of future options for
k) A ‘strategic planning’ Reviews cannot provide immediate or permanent solutions.
perspective However, they can provide the rationale for a revised vision and
indicate what skills, resources, incentives and planning are
needed to implement the vision.
l) A ‘learning organisation’ As many educational issues are unique to the ACT and/or have
perspective not be satisfactorily resolved by research or leading practice
elsewhere, the ACT should show leadership by addressing these
issues in an evidence-based way.

In conclusion, this chapter has focused on the legislative and policy bases for services for
students with a disability in the ACT, on associated definitional issues, and the
appropriateness of current nomenclature and frameworks. In the next six chapters the
Review summarises leading practice on a range of interrelated issues and makes the case
for options to improve the educational outcomes of students with a disability in ACT
schools. Appropriately, we start with a summary of research on the students themselves
because, as identified in the research-based Walberg model, student variables are the major
contributor to their learning.

Chapter 3: Students and Learning
Outcomes
This chapter:
• Describes how students have the greatest effect on their own

learning.
• Overviews the implications for schools and teachers in terms of
a) how to teach and b) how to build relationships that maximise
student learning.
• Reinforces the value, from a ‘learning outcomes’ perspective, of
what most teachers strive to achieve – the establishment and
maintenance of strong personal relationships with their students.
Teaching and learning are different sides of the same coin – teachers teach the curriculum
and students learn it. While both are important, the fundamental priority is that students
learn. This simple fact is acknowledged in the National Declaration on Educational Goals
for Young Australians (MCEETYA draft, 2008a, p. 4) in the commitment of all Australian
Governments to “new levels of engagement with parents, communities, businesses and,
most importantly, students (Italics added).
As described in Chapter Two, Walberg’s (1984a) functional theory of ‘what leads to

learning’ undergirds this Review and identifies three major determinants of learning –
student, instructional and environmental variables. Many researchers and theorists agree.
For example, Hattie (2003) shows that student attributes account for about 50% of the
variance in school achievement; teachers account for about 30%; and that other school and
home factors account for the remaining 20%.
While some student variables are less amenable to change, for example, developmental
level, ability or intelligence, all are malleable to some extent, and all interact to promote or
hold back student achievement. For example, high motivation and/or high self-concept
and/or high levels of engagement can mitigate the effects of low ability and lead to
satisfactory learning.
Student factors moderate the effectiveness of the teacher’s efforts. For example, a teacher
may proficiently strive to use an evidence-based practice such as direct instruction or
reciprocal teaching with a student who is bored, inattentive and/or disengaged and both
may end up dissatisfied and little learning will have occurred.
The prominence of student variables in accounting for learning is supported by thousands

of empirical studies and by prominent theorists (See Appendix 8)

It follows therefore, that while improving the technical skills of teachers is important, for
example, through the provision of professional learning about evidence-based pedagogy, it
is also important that schools organise, and teachers teach, in ways that more
systematically ‘enlist’ student in their own learning. Ferguson (2008a, p. 114) in arguing
for a switch in emphasis ‘from teaching to learning’, advocates “making curriculum more
engaging and meaningful, ‘personalising’ learning for each and every student, and creating
communities of learners who support and share in each other’s learning.”
While many teachers do this automatically and naturally, Csikszentmihalyi, (1990, p. 115)
is correct in concluding, “If educators invested a fraction of the energy they now spend on
trying to transmit information in trying to stimulate the students’ enjoyment of learning,
we could achieve much better results”.
Educators from different theoretical persuasions agree that student engagement in learning
is essential, and for example, referring specifically to behavioural approaches in special
education, Apps and Carter (2006) recall Fuchs’ and Fuchs’ emphasis on “the value of
anchoring learning activities within highly motivating, authentic situations that require
transfer and generalisation of skills instruction” (1996, p.183). Similarly Holt, (1970, p. 3)
cited in Smyth & McInerney, (2007, p. 73) concludes, “True learning – learning that is
permanent and useful, that leads to intelligent action and further learning – can only arise
out of the experiences, interest and concerns of the learner.”
Fullan (2007, p.186) concludes that children “are vastly underutilised resources”. Citing
the research of Black et al. (2003) Fullan quotes a teacher who had understood this
message:
It became obvious that one way to make significant, sustainable change was to
get the students doing more of the thinking. I then began to search for ways to
make the learning process more transparent to the students. Indeed, I now
spend my time looking for ways to get students to take responsibility for their
learning at the same time making the learning more collaborative. (Emphasis
added by Fullan).
Research has found that one way to encourage students to take responsibility for their
learning is to consult them about their learning (Ainscow & Kaplan, 2005; Farrell, 2008:
Rudduck & McIntyre, 2007). Student consultation is highlighted in policy (e.g. Disability
Standards for Education, 2005) and it provides many benefits. Rudduck and McIntyre
(2007, p. 152) found that when students are consulted about their learning the students’
commitment for learning is enhanced through strengthened self-esteem, enhanced attitudes
to learning, promotion of a sense of belonging and the development of new skills for
learning. For teachers, consulting students has been found to improve teaching through
greater awareness of students’ capacity, gaining new perspectives about teaching and
transforming pedagogic practices. Rudduck & McIntyre conclude that consultation
transforms teacher-student relationships from passive and oppositional to more active and
collaborative – with a consequent benefit to student learning outcomes.
Shah (2007) describes how young people with a disability, when given the opportunity,
provide valuable insights into issues that affect their education such as academic
opportunities, support and facilities, and friendships.

One ACT school …
Clearly believes in the ‘Nothing about us without us’ philosophy because

students with disabilities as young as seven years of age were invited to
meet with the Reviewer and give their point of view about school. It was
evident from the way they participated that they were used to being
consulted and that they were not afraid to express their views in the
presence of the principal, teachers and parents, who all listened with
considerable interest (and just a hint of trepidation!)
Consulting with students can be undertaken irrespective of ‘level’ or ‘type’ of disability

and it requires teachers to give priority to the establishment of effective, two-way
communication with each student 11. Farrell, (2008) outlines practical ways for teachers in
mainstream and special schools to consult with students and understand their ‘insider
perspectives’. Referring specifically to students with an autism spectrum disorder, Clark
(2009) reiterates the National Research Council advice for teachers to understand and
utilise students’ strengths and interests to promote their engagement and learning.
Two issues emerge from this analysis. First, if they are not already doing so, teachers
should give the utmost priority to teaching in ways that involve and engage students (c.f.,
Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007). “Managing this environment (the social context of the
classroom) so that it produces a positive influence on pupil’s thinking, feeling and learning
is the key skill of the teachers” (Cowne, 2008, p.33). The literature identifies approaches
such as:
• Promoting independence and self-determination, for example, if the student has an

individual plan, involving the student in determining the content, goals, time frame and
personnel involved (Broomhead, 2003; Villa, et al. 2005);
• Teaching students ways of ‘self-regulated learning’ (Mitchell, 2008);
• Having regular, individual or small group consultations with students about their
learning (Rudduck & McIntyre, 2007);
• Negotiating the curriculum and teaching students how to set and assess their own goals
(Broomhead, 2003; Smyth & McInerney, 2007);
• Reporting to students not just to parents and other professionals (Shaddock, 1983);
• Making the pedagogy explicit so that students do not have to guess what the teacher is
trying to do (Bulgren & Schumaker, 2001; Freebody, Ludwig & Gunn, 1995;
Freebody, Martin & Maton, 2008); and
• Focusing on student well-being because of its proven effects on behaviour,
cooperation, social skills and learning (Tsang & Leung, 2005).
11
Details on the ways in which students participated in this review are provided in Appendix 5

In one school a student with Asperger Syndrome became an
increasingly valued and accepted member of the school community after
lots of specific awareness raising for all of the people he connected
with. Sharing these successes within and across schools and systems is
vital in regenerating practices and morale.
Furthermore, the relational aspects of teaching - the contribution that good relationships, a
healthy class and school climate, and student well-being make to learning outcomes -
should be given greater prominence in classroom practice (Australian Centre for Equity
through Education, 2001; Borman & Rachuba, 2001; Hattie, 2009; Jackson & Davis, 2000
(p 122); Mitchell, 2008; Rudduck & McIntyre, 2007; Smyth & McInerney, 2007; Strategic
Partners: Centre for Youth Affairs and Development, 2001; Te Riele, 2006. The following
practices have been recommended:
• Putting greater emphasis on making improvements to school climate by recognising

student success, developing a sense of community, enhancing safety, and implementing
proactive conflict resolution, peer mediation, anti-bullying programs and similar
(Center for School Mental Health Analysis and Action, 2005);
• Establishing good student-teacher relationships (Cornelius-White, 2007 reported in
Hattie, 2009);
• Creating a positive, motivating, classroom environment (Cowne, 2008; Mitchell,
2008);
• Creating an atmosphere of respect and challenge for all learners (Mitchell, 2008);
• Teaching the ‘positive psychology’ skills that promote student well-being (Tsang &
Leung, 2005); and
• Fostering social relationships among students with and without disabilities, for
example, by providing ‘just enough’ support for meaningful relationships to be
established (Carter, Sweeden, & Kurkowski, 2008).
When adults, famous personages, current and ex students with and without disabilities are
asked about what is/was most important to them at school rarely will they talk about the
particular strategies or techniques used by teachers. Rather they emphasise the significance
of personalities and the impact of relationships with particular teachers on their learning.
Maxine McKew, Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care,
quotes a teacher who ‘got it’ about relationships and teaching:
I’ve come to a frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the

classroom. It’s my personal approach that creates the climate. It’s my daily
mood that makes the weather. As a teacher I have a tremendous power to
make a child’s life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an
instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations
it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated
and a child humanised or de-humanised (Ginott, 1992 quoted by McKew, 2008,
p. 35.)
In conclusion, student factors are those that influence learning the most – almost double the
effects associated with teachers. As research and leading practice highlight the major
contribution that students make to their own learning it is critical that teachers, parents and
carers a) maximise student involvement, engagement and motivation; b) capitalise on

student interests and strengths; and c) as far as possible, align student and teacher priorities
and strategies for learning. Fundamental to these processes is the establishment of effective
two-way communication between each student and their teachers, and for some, this will
require far greater use of augmentative and alternative communication (Light & Drager,
2007).
As the Walberg model highlights the pivotal role of teachers, the next chapter explores
leading practice on the ways in which pedagogy – how teachers teach - improves the
learning outcomes of students with a disability and the implications for the options
proposed in this review.

Chapter 4: Pedagogy and Learning
Outcomes
This chapter:
• Explains how teaching students with a disability can be seen as not

fundamentally different from teaching any student
• Summarises commonly agreed, evidence-based, teaching principles
and practices
• Overviews the contribution that technology can make to student
learning outcomes
• Examines the realities of classroom practice and the impact on
teachers and students.
The Walberg model illustrates how the psychological climate of the classroom, the
techniques used by teachers, and the amount of time devoted to instruction have a major
impact on learning (Figure 1, Chapter 1. There is a vast literature on how to teach students
with a disability and in this chapter we explore its implications and for ACT schools.
Contributors to the review raised the following issues about teaching in ACT schools:
• Are teachers using techniques that have an adequate theory base and evidence of
effectiveness?
• Is appropriate pedagogy available for students throughout their school careers?
• Are there more students with disabilities in ACT schools who pose particular
educational challenges, for example, students with an autism spectrum disorder?
• Are students with a disability the only students who need additional support for
learning?
Theory base and empirical support for quality teaching

Over the last five years government and non-government schools in the ACT have
implemented Quality Teaching (Braden, 2004; Shaddock, 2008; Stephenson et al., 2007).
The Quality Teaching Framework is an Australian extension of research on the factors that
differentiate successful US schools from less successful schools. Locally this framework is
referred to as the ‘Quality Teaching Model’.
While the effectiveness of the approach for students from different ethnic, gender and
socioeconomic groups has been demonstrated there is some debate about its
appropriateness for students with more complex disabilities (Apps & Carter, 2006; Brown,
2008; Braden, 2004; & Stephenson et al. 2007).

However, Skrtic et al. (2005, p. 262) suggest that the constructivist approach of Quality
Teaching and the behavioural approaches so often used with students with complex
disabilities are not incompatible, arguing that “if intensive-explicit learning takes place
within the authentic, holistic learning experiences proposed by constructivist instruction,
students will be more likely to generalise and internalise their learning.” The bottom line is
that the Quality Teaching Model reflects the findings of educational research over many
years and it provides a sound, general guide to teaching practice for all students. (See
Appendix 8 for a summary of evidence-based teaching principles and practices).
There is an argument ‘that anybody who can teach, can teach anybody’, that is, the general
principles of good pedagogy are essentially the same, and the strategies that are effective
for students with a disability are also effective for all students (Giangreco, 1996; Kavale &
Forness, 1999; Mitchell, 2009; Mitchell, 2008; Shaddock, Smyth King & Giorcelli, 2007).
Kauffman and Hallahan (2005) make the point that special education has its most
significant effects when the education of students is the foremost concern rather than the
special.
Stating that “special education is not different from general education in its basic
operations”, Kauffman and Hallahan (2005. p. 48) describe the operational differences
between special and regular education in terms of pacing/rate; intensity; relentlessness;
structure; reinforcement; pupil teacher ratio; curriculum; and monitoring and assessment.
Mitchell, (2008, p.8) agrees: “What is required is the systematic, explicit and intensive
application of a wide range of effective teaching strategies – day-by-day, minute-by-
minute – in classrooms”. However, a key issue is whether the necessary conditions and
supports that facilitate “systematic, explicit and intensive application” can be made
available, particularly in mainstream settings. This issue is further addressed under
‘Teacher Time’ below and in discussion of ‘placement’ issues in Chapter 5.
“Some teachers … they think like … we are just like normal kids. And we’re not!
(High school student)
Many of the adjustments that are made for students with a disability are effective with all
students. For example, a teacher may value having a Learning Support Assistant in the
classroom to assist with a student with an autism spectrum disorder who frequently
becomes confused and has ‘blowouts’ that are hard to manage. However, ultimately, if the
teacher is given the time and support to set up a peer support, buddy and/or mentoring
system, learns to anticipate and respond proactively to signs of distress, and uses quiet,
diffusion routines, the need for that LSA support (the adjustment) may be reduced and
there will be better social and academic outcomes for the student with autism and for
others as well. All students benefit from this type of instruction, whether they have a
disability or not, and students with a disability do not need to be taught in ways that are
essentially different.
Keen and Arthur-Kelly (2009, p. 141) observe that, “The majority of students in today’s
classrooms benefit from core instruction; however, for a small percentage of students with
a disability, learning requires more intensive instruction.” These authors cite the ‘three-
way instructional split’ proposed by Salvia, Ysseldyke and Bolt (2007) to be class-wide
instruction, targeted group instruction and intensive (possibly one-to-one) instruction.

Some students require specialized instruction because they make lack, or fail to achieve,
the skills that are typically assumed to be essential ‘building blocks’ of subsequent
development. For example, in describing meaningful literacy learning by young students
with significant developmental disabilities, Kliewer (2008) showed that when these
students were involved in “meaningfully motivating, communicatively based interactive
activities and opportunities” their literacy was developed without the need to acquire some
skills that a) many believe are essential (e.g. phonics); and b) would have been impossible
for them (e.g. because of their severe communication disorder).
The Discussion Paper concluded the section on teaching with a research synthesis by
Alton-Lee (2003) that summarises what core instruction looks like. Quality teaching for
effective learning:
• Focuses on student achievement (including social outcomes) and facilitates high

standards of student outcomes for all students including those with special learning
needs or vulnerabilities;
• Enables classes and other learning groupings to work as caring, inclusive, and cohesive
learning communities;
• Enables effective links to be created between school and other cultural contexts in
which students are socialised, to facilitate learning;
• Is responsive to student learning processes;
• Ensures that opportunities to learn are effective and sufficient;
• Allows students to engage in and complete learning processes so that what is learned is
remembered;
• Ensures that curriculum goals, resources including ICT usage, task design, teaching
and school practices are effectively aligned;
• Scaffolds and provides appropriate feedback on students' task engagement;
• Promotes learning strength, self-knowledge, student self-regulation, meta-cognitive
strategies and thoughtful student discourse;
• Enables teachers and students to engage constructively in goal-oriented assessment.
The above list is consistent with the Quality Teaching Model and all that we know about
effective pedagogy for all students (See Appendix 8).
Technology
The use of technology presents as a most significant, and potentially pervasive and
student-friendly, teaching adaptation to support student learning. In Westwood’s (2003)
‘CARPET PATCH’ mnemonic (that reminds teachers what aspects of pedagogy they
might need to adapt), technology could contribute to every element –adaptations to
Curriculum content, Activities, Resource materials, Products, Environment, Teaching
strategies, Pace, Amount of assistance, Testing and grading, Classroom grouping and
Homework assignments.
The Discussion Paper noted the increasing use of technology in ACT Public schools and
the high regard that ACT Public school teachers had for the assistance they receive from
the Inclusive Technology Team. However, participants from the government and non-

government sector frequently referred to the need to improve technology support for
“How can I learn to use the technologies and help my students to use them if
there is no time or expertise to support me?” (Teacher)
“Create a shared special education equipment library to provide a pool of

inclusive technology which educators can readily access to find the best fit for
individual students. There is currently an unacceptably long wait to trial
equipment which is vital for educational purposes.” (Advocacy group)
Writing about alternative futures for special education, Gallagher (2006, p. 286) suggests
that, “The most likely wild card in evidence today is that of educational technology.”
Applications of technology in schools range from low-technology supports such as simple
switches and head pointers through to various forms of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs).
The Inclusive Technology Team has created multi-level, multi-

formatted resources to assist teachers to meet the diverse needs of
students. The team has created resource kits that show teachers how
technologies can be used to meet the range of learning needs of their
students. The kits include electronic and hardcopy formats that have
been created using a variety of software such as Clicker 5,
Kidspiration, Inspiration, IWB softwares, Publisher, Microsoft
Word, Powerpoint, and PDF.
A principal approached a teacher consultant from the Inclusive

Technologies Team (ITT) to support her in using technology
inclusively in the classroom in which she was relief teaching. The
team worked with her to select several picture books and develop a
basic term overview; develop her ICT skills; and introduce new
software Clicker 5. The principal shared her digital activities with
the students who were engaged and very excited to have her using
the technology with them.
Gallagher draws a distinction between assistive 12 and instructional technology. Whereas

assistive technology supports children so they are ready to learn, for example, through
hearing amplification, mobility devices or communication aids, instructional technology
assists children to learn. Conway (2005) and MCEETYA, (2005) list a range of
instructional uses such as E-books, handheld computers that allow students to self-monitor,
and SmartBoards.
12
See Appendix 4 for definition.

There is considerable evidence that carefully planned and well-integrated, computer
assisted instruction is effective for students with disabilities (Elliott & Shaddock, 2008;
Lewis, 2000; MCEETYA, 2005). The latter explain how Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) help build learning communities, facilitate students’ engagement in
learning, promote conceptual development, and assist teachers by providing learning
activities, tools and resources, and support for planning, assessing and reporting.
The Review of ACT Government Secondary Colleges (Atelier, 2005, p. 73) noted the
importance of colleges “strongly embracing on-line learning as a core component of
flexible learning arrangements” and concluded that the “Myclasses initiative represents a
significant instance where the system has taken advantage of opportunity to integrate e-
learning into students’ programs.”
One ACT secondary school …
uses Moodle to communicate in student-friendly ways about class tasks

and the content of courses. Other users are parents who access this
information to find out what their children are studying. This school has
also set up a data base that provides timely information for teachers
about students for whom there is a ‘Learning Alert’. Teachers can
access the database on the shared drive to read relevant information.
Precautions are taken to ensure privacy and confidentiality.
In “What Makes a Good School NOW” Brighouse and Woods (2008, p.143-144) give
examples of the many common technological supports “for which we had no vocabulary
ten years ago.” Discussing e-learning, these authors outline functions such as students
accessing homework, lesson summaries, videoed explanations, school reports, timetables
and individual advice; and parents having access to their children’s attendance, grades,
reports and homework. Clearly ICT promises many advantages that research and theory of
‘what leads to learning outcomes’ has identified, and, in particular, opportunities for
student engagement and ownership, more focused and direct instruction, and greater
parent-teacher collaboration to support students’ learning.
A key issue in the application of ICTs is how well the particular technology matches and
supports the teacher’s pedagogy. This implies of course that teachers have the competence
and support they need to incorporate technology appropriately into their teaching
repertoires.
Equity issues are also important. Teachers in ACT Public schools drew attention to the
issues such as having to wait for equipment or support to use it; having unrepaired
equipment in school storerooms; inappropriate purchasing of equipment; and inadequate
maintenance. These sorts of problems can be highly detrimental to the learning of students
with a disability.
Parents drew attention to their child having to wait for a long time to take their turn on
equipment and schools having to fund raise for equipment that was essential support for
their child’s learning.

The future challenges with respect to technology have been identified by many researchers
(Gallagher, 2006; MCEETYA, 2005; Elliott & Shaddock, 2008). First, there are definite
cost issues – not only with the purchase of the equipment but maintenance, repair and
replacement. However “the greatest barrier is not the cost of new technology, it is in
educating teachers and students to rethink what it means to learn and use existing
technologies in useful and meaningful ways (Hasselbring, 1997, cited in Gallagher, 2006,
p. 203).
In addition, technology raises challenging pedagogical issues, particularly in mainstream

classrooms. In addition to the capacity of teachers to make use of technology, rarely will
technology alone allow a student to ‘keep up’ with a lesson. A key question is the extent to
which teachers integrate technology effectively with other classroom supports.
Finally, technology requires space and with some teachers in some ACT government and
non-government schools teaching in converted storerooms and similar spaces, they have
little opportunity to use technology effectively, especially when several students are
working together at the same console.
The Inclusive Technologies team provides assistive technology

assessments for students for whom technology is essential to their
successful achievement of the learning outcomes identified on their
ILP. Teacher consultants provide technology trials and follow-up
support to school staff (teachers and LSAs) to ensure effective use
of the technology. Part of this process includes providing
information to schools regarding funding for assistive technology.
In summary, technology promises significant benefits. However, there are major issues in
Public, Catholic and some Independent schools about its availability and the ability of
teachers to incorporate ICT into their teaching. The professional learning and support
issues for ACT schools are substantial.
What makes teaching students with a disability difficult?

As teachers are the “key to student success” (ACTDET 2004), it is appropriate to examine
research on teachers’ experience in teaching students with a disability. Teaching is
sometimes rewarding and always demanding and the large sample of teachers surveyed by
Shaddock et al (2007) reported that the ‘top five’ factors that make teaching students with
a disability in Australian schools difficult are:
• Demands on instructional time;

• Lack of time for preparation and planning;
• Wide range of student ability;
• High stress level of teaching; and
• Behaviour problems of students.

The following sub sections summarise leading practice on ‘teacher time’; ‘student
diversity’; ‘teacher well-being’; and ‘behaviour and teaching’ with reference to pedagogy
and students’ learning outcomes.
Teacher time
Contemporary classrooms are diverse and the prevalence of some disabilities is clearly
increasing (e.g. Dempsey, 2007; Graham & Sweller, 2009; & Shepherd, 2009). Teachers
need a greater depth and breadth of knowledge to fulfil their expanded role that involves
personalising learning to nurture the academic, social, emotional and moral development
of each student implementing system policies; and realising the ACT vision of an inclusive
society and national leadership in education. Inclusive education increases demands on
teachers and one major resource is time for collaboration and planning time. “The
importance of such preparation time cannot be overstated” (The Alberta Teachers’
Association, 2009, p. 5)
The NSW Inquiry into Public Education (2002, p. xxiii) concluded that “the majority of
teachers are in full support of inclusion and integration for many students, but only if it is,
in their words, ‘adequately resourced’”. Teachers do not see resources simply in monetary
terms, and, for example, Shaddock, Hook, Hoffman-Raap et al. (2007, p. 140) found that:
Although many teachers mentioned resource issues, these were not seen as
the greatest barrier to the provision of a relevant curriculum for students with
disabilities in the mainstream. The lack of time for preparation, planning and
engaging in the necessary consultation was by far the greatest perceived
barrier.
Funding of special needs has increased dramatically yet much of it has been used for
employing teaching assistants, for example, in NSW, up to 95% (NSW Inquiry into Public
Education, 2002). While having a teaching assistant may enable teachers to give students
more individual attention (Pearce, 2008), it actually requires more time for collaborative
planning (Giangreco, 2003).
Student-centred learning depends on collaboration, discussion, networking, observing

colleagues, visiting other schools, mentoring, peer coaching, co-teaching with colleagues
or special education teachers and working with other professionals, consultants, parents
and community members (Buysee, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003). Teachers want to work,
teach and learn collaboratively (McRae et al., 2001; Shaddock, Hoffman-Raap, Smith, et
al., 2007). Effective collaboration leads to lasting and positive improvements in school
reform, quality teaching, inclusion, and teacher morale, student and teacher learning
(Fullan, 2003; Hargreaves, 1990; McRae et al., 2001; Salend, 2008; Stainback &
Stainback, 1990). There is also agreement that collaboration can only occur if teachers are
allocated time (Friend & Cook, 1992; Sarason, 1990). While it does not automatically
follow that additional time, in itself, will guarantee successful reforms or improved teacher
skills (Hargreaves, 1990), it is a fact that review after review, and study after study, report
that teachers fail to learn or work collaboratively due to lack of time (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2002; Meyer, 2001; NSW Inquiry into Public Education, 2002).

In one school a principal told us how she provides time for various
forms of collaboration among classroom personnel. This works best
when she a) specifies the purpose of the meeting/discussion and its link
to student educational outcomes; and b) when there is accountability
around purpose and intended outcomes, e.g. teachers and assistants must
provide a brief report of the results of their meeting on classroom
pedagogy for a student or students.
The applicability of the following strategies raised in the literature on ‘teacher time’ should
be explored, with reference to local needs, existing policy, and legal/industrial
considerations:
1) Free-up time, for example, through peer tutoring, collaborative learning (Friend &
Cook, 1992; Gartner & Lipsky, 1990; involving volunteers, ‘prac’ teachers, community
members (Walther-Thomas, 1997); and executive staff teaching while teachers plan
(Friend & Cook, 1992);
2) Reschedule or restructure time, for example, through combining classes to release one
teacher (Walther-Thomas, 1997); shortening the school day (Walther-Thomas, 1997);
and timetabling creatively to support school priorities (Lacey, 2003; Tewel, 1991);
3) Program for common time, for example, through timetabling to allow for collaboration
at specific times (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Friend & Cook, 1992; Lacey, 2003;
Tewel, 1991; Worrell, 2008);
4) Use time more efficiently, for example, through ensuring that the school is utilising
every available resource (Chadbourne, 1997; Falvey, Coots, & Bishop, 1990); forming
professional teams or networks that can negotiate additional teacher time –
interdisciplinary 13 or subject based (Friend & Cook, 1992; Giangreco, 2003; Shaddock,
Giorcelli & Smith, 2007; Stainback & Stainback, 1990); providing professional
learning on communication and interpersonal skills to ensure limited time is used
effectively (Salend, 2005);
5) Reorganise teaching time, for example, teachers work a notional 9am-5pm day right
through the year; have evenings and weekends off like most other workers; and have
holidays similar to the rest of the workforce (Lacey, 2003); and
6) Purchase time, for example, by adjusting teacher’s workload (Chadbourne, 1997) and
using funding for additional staff such as relief teachers to facilitate collaboration
(Chadbourne, 1997; Friend & Cook, 1992; Lacey, 2003; & Walther-Thomas, 1997).
In summary, as ‘lack of time’ is the biggest issue for most teachers it is counterproductive
to load them up with new demands and expectations, for example, urging them to adopt a
broader range of evidence-based practices, without systematically and decisively
addressing the time issue.
13
See Appendix 4 (multidisciplinary) for a definition.

Wide range of student ability
Teachers’ roles have expanded dramatically as classrooms have become more diverse
(Graham & Sweller, 2009). Traditionally, in mainstream schools, primary teachers taught
basic skills; secondary teachers taught subject knowledge to the academic students and
vocational skills to the remainder; and special education teachers taught students with
disabilities in special classes or schools (Mock & Kauffman, 2002; Thousand, Rosenberg,
Bishop, & Villa, 1997). Student failure in any setting was attributed to student, family or
socio-economic variables (Berlach, 2004); school retention policies such as the current
‘learn or earn’ were unheard of; and students left school relatively early if they were not
benefitting.
Leading practice is moving away from a focus on integrating ‘special’ students to one
which involves systemic change in schools so that ultimately there is reduced need for a
plethora of individual level accommodations (Alberta Education, 2009, p. 6). Two related
concepts are pertinent here – ‘differentiation’ and ‘Universal Design for Learning’ (UDL).
Citing Cole, (2001) and Tomlinson, (2001), Villa et al. (2005, p.34 and 35) write,
“differentiation in curriculum development, instructional delivery, and assessment must
occur to facilitate meaningful and effective instruction not only for students perceived as
disabled, at risk, or gifted, but also ‘allegedly average’ students”. While initial proponents
of differentiation saw it as a way of thinking about the classroom rather than as a set of
strategies or techniques, and interestingly, mainly for students who were gifted and
talented (Tomlinson 2000; Tomlinson 2001), it has now evolved conceptually and
coalesced with the universal design principles (UD) from business and industry where the
focus is on maximising applicability, relevance and usage at no extra cost. Villa et al
(2005, p. 35) state that UDL “refers to the creation of differentiated learning experiences
that minimise the need for modifications for particular circumstances or individuals”. The
previously mentioned, mnemonic - CARPET PATCH (Westwood, 2003) - provides a
useful prompt to what can be adjusted or adapted in the classroom to meet diverse needs.
While not conceptually difficult, differentiation is demanding and resource intensive

(Discussion Paper, 2009; Graham & Sweller, 2009; Westwood, 2002). However,
generally, Australian teachers in all sectors believe they have the skills to differentiate their
teaching (Shaddock, Smyth King, & Giorcelli, 2007) but what they lack is the time and
resources to do so. Indeed the Discussion Paper (pp. 7 & 8) raised particular issues about
differentiation following visits of the Review team to ACT Public schools. Teachers in
Catholic and Independent schools subsequently reported similar issues.
Although teachers teach students, not disabilities, they must take into account particular
features of disability, for example, when arranging physical adaptations to the classroom to
accommodate a student who uses a walking frame; organising the regular supply and
delivery of large print reading material for a student with a vision impairment; setting up a
detailed visual and tactile timetable so that a student with autism has the security of
knowing what’s happening next; liaising with itinerant support staff about classroom
adaptations for a student with a hearing impairment; and/or incorporating into the class
program the specific adaptations recommended by a speech pathologist, occupational
therapist and/or physiotherapist. Irrespective of qualifications, skills and experience, all
this takes considerable time, every time for every student requiring adjustments.
“We are being overwhelmed by the challenge of having to set up everything.”

(Teacher)

Zera and Seitsinger (2000, p. 17) observe that students’ success in inclusive “settings is
dependent on fundamental changes in the way schools treat children”. While we tend to
agree, there is evidence that schools are experiencing an influx of students who require
major adaptations to teaching. Teachers in some ACT schools report what they believe to
be an increase in the prevalence of students with complex needs.
“One third of the students with a disability at our school have formally
diagnosed co morbid conditions, ADHD in every case, and some with,
depression, anxiety or psychotic symptoms”. (Teacher)
The issue of ‘increased diversity’ is not restricted to mainstream education, for example,
Simmons and Bayliss (2007, p. 197) report how a special school “struggled significantly to
provide appropriate learning experiences for pupils with profound or multiple learning
difficulties”.
The critical issue is that proposals for improving service delivery for students with a
disability have to be realistic and feasible, and acknowledge the diverse and challenging
nature of contemporary classrooms and schools.
Well-being
Just as with others in the Australian workforce, the roles of teachers and principals are
continually changing and increasingly demanding. They must respond to government,
system and school initiatives; manage their implementation at school and classroom level;
and work with increasingly diverse school communities and students (National College for
School Leadership, 2007).
In addition to teaching, ACT teachers must a) incorporate curriculum initiatives and

prepare for more (Every Chance to Learn, the National Curriculum, Australian History
Teaching Initiative and the major directions of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational
Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008b)); b) undertake study for registration
and/or for upgrading their qualifications; c) give priority to their school’s performance in
NAPLAN; d) engage in more systematic and frequent reporting of student learning – to
parents and to government; e) implement whole school programs such as Healthy Bodies,
Get a Move On, Safe Schools, KidsMatter, MindMatters, Positive Behaviour Support; f)
implement National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy; g) comply
with Child Protection and other relevant legislation; h) observe national days – Missing
Children’s Day, Bilby Day, Bubble Day.
Somewhere in all these initiatives and policies are the Disability Standards for Education
and the obligation to provide equality of access to the curriculum for students with a
disability.
Very often teachers find themselves ‘in the middle’ because they have to mediate the
effects of policy on students, particularly those who struggle with learning (Smith &
McInerney, 2007). Policies about inclusivity, personalised learning, A-E reporting, school
retention and public reporting of school results and so on do not always cohere particularly
well and teachers need to devise ways of ensuring that some students are not
disadvantaged by the (sometimes) competing policy demands. For example, how do
teachers implement mandatory A-E reporting so as not to damage the fragile motivation of
students who are marked ‘E’ – despite their best efforts? How does a school/college
demonstrate high standards when a disproportionate number of struggling learners decide

to continue their education at that school/college? How can a primary school explain its
performance when, because of parent networking and excellent reputation for its support
for struggling learners, the school attracts a disproportionate number of students who do
not excel on NAPLAN?
Many teachers endeavour to meet an increasing workload by working double shifts – at

school by day, then at home by night, and on weekends and holidays as well (Pocock et al.,
2001). In recent Australian research, Pearce (2008) found that some teachers,
overwhelmed by their workloads, were forced to choose between self-preservation and self
sacrifice. The ‘self preservers’ protected their personal lives by refusing to attend
professional development in their own time, making minimal adjustments to their teaching
to cater for students with disabilities, and vigorously seeking the assistance of teaching
assistants or special education teachers. The ‘self sacrificers’ - teachers who devoted a
great deal of their time at home to planning and differentiation - did so at the expense of
their time with their families and personal interests. These teachers were driven by
dedication and/or ambition, but were left feeling guilty that they had chosen their work
over their families and were susceptible to resignation, stress-related illnesses and burnout.
The burnout literature points out the deleterious effects on clients of stress in human
service workers in general (Maslach 1996) and in special education (Hastings & Brown,
2002; NSW Independent Education Union, 2002; The Alberta Teachers’ Association,
2009).
The general workforce literature reports an established relationship between the

psychological wellbeing of workers and business benefits such as increased productivity
(e.g. Burke & Cooper, 2007; Tinline, 2004) and this finding is replicated in education. For
example, Briner and Dewberry (2007) found in a study of over 24,000 UK school staff,
that average levels of teacher well-being are associated with increased student
performance on standardised academic tests and on measures such a student happiness,
motivation and confidence 14. Many students with a disability require high levels of
consistency from skilled teachers, and arguably, attention to teacher well-being may be
even more significant in the education of students with a disability because of the
relationship between teacher well-being and improved attraction, retention and reduction in
absenteeism.
There is ACT evidence that some aspects of special education are stressful.
“There’s a growing number of children with mental health problems but the only
way we can get help is to put them in the ‘behaviour box’ (Principal) 15
We are … “working a new paradigm under an old paradigm model.” (Teacher)
“Inclusive practice is wonderful but from our point of view, impossible to

service.” (Therapist)
Dinham and Scott (2000) urge systems to take responsibility for stress and dissatisfaction
amongst the teaching profession and reconceptualise teaching into a more manageable
role. For example, in the USA, the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education
14
The study did not examine cause-effect and so it may be that improved student performance increases
teacher well-being.
15
The ‘behaviour box’ is a funding category not a place!

Improvement Act (IDEIA) reduced the amount of paperwork required for IEPs (Gartin &
Murdick, 2005). Similarly, NSWDET limited its outcome statements to reduce the time
required by teachers in interpreting and assessing student outcomes (Eltis, 2003). Collinson
and Cook (2001, p. 276) advise policy makers and administrators to investigate the
feasibility new initiatives (such as Quality Teaching, Literacy & Numeracy initiatives),
taking teacher time into consideration, and where necessary, adjusting roles and
responsibilities.
The implication of this analysis is that as student performance and teacher well-being are
interrelated, the options proposed to improve the educational outcomes of students with a
disability should consider the impact on teachers’ roles, professional learning needs and
well-being.
Student behaviour
It is by no means true that children with a disability will necessarily have difficult
behaviour. However, some do, and their behaviour not only affects their learning and that
of their peers, but also can be physically harmful and emotionally upsetting for teachers
(Murik et al. (2005). Hastings and Brown (2002) report that teacher well-being is affected
by the challenging behaviour of students and that teachers who do not have satisfactory
behaviour management strategies have the highest levels of emotional exhaustion - a key
burn-out factor.
Furthermore, sometimes a student’s behaviour is misinterpreted as misbehaviour because

teachers may have an undeveloped understanding of the characteristics of a particular
disability. For example when a student with autism follows a teacher’s direction to “Hop
back to your desk! Step on it!’ – and obeys each part of the request – literally – this
behaviour might be punished because it disrupted the class. In this connection, AWARES,
(2009, p.3) reports that, “27% of autistic children have been excluded at some point and
that most of those – 23% - have been excluded more than once”.
There is impressive evidence for the positive benefits of whole-school approaches to

teaching, learning and the management of student behaviour. Keen and Arthur-Kelly
(2009, p. 154) conclude, “When effective school-wide interventions are implemented, the
number of students needing more intensive levels of intervention is reduced.”
When whole-school approaches are applied to all students, comments like the following
should be less frequent.
“Kids with really obvious disabilities think they can get away with things or get their own
way- teachers treat them differently. They might say ‘I can’t do this’ or ‘I don’t want to do
this’ so the teacher let’s them not do it. I can’t say that. I’d be in trouble for being a smart
a….” (Student, secondary)
“Boys with disabilities get away with doing stuff other kids get into trouble for.” (Student,
secondary)
Students with autism experience 400% more bullying than other students and Bottroff
(2009) reports that when schools’ anti-bullying policy ensures that these students have a
positive relationships with their teacher, one or two friends, and a buddy who supports
them, that they experience significantly less bullying.

Stressing the link between behaviour and learning Scott and Barrett (2004, (reported in
Mitchell, 2008) found that following the implementation of Positive Behaviour Support
SW-PBS “as a result of decreased student behaviour problems, instructional time across
the school increased by 72.7 learner-days in the first year and 86.2 learner-days over
baseline in the second year.”
One interpretation of the changing nature of enrolments in specialised placements, for

example, as described by Graham and Sweller (2009) with respect to NSWDET, is to
interpret the increase in special placements for some students as reflecting the negative
impact of student behaviour on school communities. For example, enrolments in
NSWDET primary support classes have significantly decreased for students with mild
intellectual disabilities and significantly increased for students with behaviour disorders,
emotional disturbance and autism. Similarly, Graham and Sweller report a 254% increase
of enrolments between 1997-2004 in special schools of students diagnosed with behaviour
disorder, i.e. those whose behaviour is a challenge for teachers.
While there is no doubt that some students are extraordinarily difficult to manage (and
some of them may have a disability), there is little evidence that locating them all in one
place has long-term benefits for them. The implication of the above analysis is that schools
need good policies about behaviour, and teachers need effective behaviour management
skills and timely support from those who can help them manage extremely challenging
behaviour.
This chapter has summarised the research on key features of teacher pedagogy and
collaborations and support that improve student learning. One clear conclusion from the
leading practice literature is that what happens in individual classrooms – how individual
teachers teach – has a major impact on student learning. Therefore, strategies that build the
capacity of individual teachers should be given high priority.
The next chapter focuses on curriculum, with particular reference to a) the ways in which
Every Chance to Learn can support the learning of students with disabilities; b)
improvements to individual planning processes; and c) curriculum issues associated with
the transitions that students make throughout their school careers.

Chapter 5: Curriculum and
Learning Outcomes
This chapter discusses:
• Issues associated with of Every Chance to Learn and the extent to

which it provides an adequate curriculum for all students
• The centrality given to individual planning processes and how these
can be made more effective, cost effective and feasible
• Improving transitions for students with a disability.
Curriculum is “all learning planned, guided and implemented by the school” (ACT
Department of Education and Training, 2007, p.7). Conceptually and practically
‘curriculum’ and ‘pedagogy’ are inextricably linked and many issues discussed under
‘pedagogy’ are clearly relevant to curriculum.
Decisions about curriculum reflect assumptions, values and the needs of diverse
stakeholders who ultimately have to make “hard choices where options all have some
unfavourable consequences.” Norwich (2007, p. 7 & 8) Consequently, “issues in the
domain of curriculum are invariably complex and are invariably highly contested” (Atelier,
2005, p.80).
The National Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA draft,
2008a) states that a major task for Australian Governments in collaboration with school
sectors is to “address inequities and promote expectations of excellence for all children and
young people” (p. 6, italics added).
During visits and consultations, ACT stakeholders raised the following issues about
curriculum in ACT schools:
• The applicability and usefulness of Every Chance to Learn (the curriculum framework
for students preschool to year 10 in ACT schools) and of College Courses for all
students and, more generally, the impact of school-based curriculum policy on students
and teachers;
• The value of individual planning, (called Individual Learning Plans or ILPs in Public
schools and Individualised Education Plans or IEPs in Catholic and Independent
schools); and
• Transition issues – from pre-school to school transition through to school to adult life
transition.

A differentiated curriculum
Differentiation of teaching was discussed in the previous chapter and the discussion is
continued here with particular attention to the ways in which curriculum content may need
to be adapted for some students 16. Norwich (2008, p. 24) describes “the common
curriculum dilemma – whether children with disabilities and difficulties would have the
same learning content as other children or some different content”.
In a general sense, differentiation is what teachers do “to respond to variance among

learners in the classroom” (Tomlinson, 2000a, p. 1). “It is not a recipe for teaching. It is
not instructional strategy. It is not what a teacher does when he or she has time. It is a way
of thinking about teaching and learning. It is a philosophy” (Tomlinson, 2000b).
Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) propose three levels of access to the curriculum – a) primary
prevention focusing on ‘universal design’; b) secondary prevention focusing on
adaptations; and c) tertiary prevention focusing on intensive and explicit attention to
specific skills. The latter two options require considerable differentiation of the curriculum.
Every Chance to Learn is not highly differentiated. It is a framework and not a syllabus –
“Schools are responsible for deciding how they will organise their curriculum to maximise
opportunities for student achievement” (ACT Department of Education & Training, 2007,
p. 19).
ACT schools and teachers are generally not provided with curriculum guides and support
materials that are available to teachers in some other states 17. Consequently, throughout the
ACT, teachers and school-based resource personnel engage in the task of differentiating
school-based curricula. This work may be rewarding but it is also demanding; it tends to
‘reinvent wheels’ (not all of which are round); there are no systematic ways of ensuring
quality; and ‘best local practice’ is not consistently shared within schools, across schools,
and/or among the sectors. International special education authority, James Gallagher
(2006, p. 81) commented on the ‘curriculum development’ expectations placed on teachers
in the following way: “An audience admires the concert pianist who plays the
compositions of others with style and grace. Listeners do not expect him or her to compose
the music. The same should be true for teachers.”
Gallagher’s point aside, teachers strive to use the Every Chance to Learn framework as a
guide to curriculum planning for students with a disability. However, the point was made
in several submissions to the Review that what a student with a disability learns when
participating in a lesson or course may not be what they actually need to learn. This
reported lack of curriculum relevance and focus is evident in some situations, for example,
when the gap between students’ performance and that of their peers is too great; when
students lack the necessary skills to keep pace with the class; and when the focus of the
teacher is more on getting through the course than the mastery of essential content by all
students.
“I am really concerned about the relevance of the secondary Learning Support

Centre in preparing students for life after school.” (Counsellor)
16
It should not be assumed that every student with a disability will require adaptations to the curriculum.
17
Because the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn spans ACT and NSW, many ACT Catholic schools
make use of curriculum supports that are available in NSW.

“ A blind spot in our system is the watered down mainstream curriculum for
students in the secondary LSC.” (Counsellor)
A lack of curriculum relevance often becomes most apparent prior to major transitions, for
example, from primary to secondary school or from secondary school to adult life. It is at
these crucial times that parents and teachers become aware that the curriculum may not
have rigorously addressed the skills students need to succeed in the next environment. This
issue relates to several topics discussed below – individual plans, settings, transition and
the Student Centred Appraisal of Need.
“We support them until the end of year 10 but there’s not a clear picture of what
we are preparing them for --- and they don’t get the personal skills to cope with
college.” (Counsellor)
Special schools in the ACT tend to develop specific curricula that are developmental
and/or functionally based. While these efforts are applauded, they also highlight the
sometimes stark difference in curriculum between special and mainstream schools and the
difficulty, particularly in the mainstream, of providing students with curriculum that is
most relevant for their needs.
Many students with a disability require some form of therapy, and for some students,
therapy goals may be ‘essential curriculum’. Issues around therapy provision are discussed
in Chapter 8, but from a curriculum perspective, it is essential that when therapy is part of
the school program that the therapy goals are integrated with the educational program and
are expressed in the student’s individual plan in terms of educational outcomes.
In summary, differentiation of the curriculum is complex and time-consuming and places

heavy demands on ACT teachers, many of whom may have several students with a
disability in their class. As the National Curriculum will be released in 2010 – and there is
some indication that it may be more prescriptive than Every Chance to Learn – it would be
appropriate for ACT educators to join with other states and territories to advocate for the
needs of students with a disability so that they are considered now. It is essential that the
Australian Government demonstrates leading practice in inclusivity and universal design in
developing the national curriculum.
In the meantime, opportunities for the sharing of curriculum materials, program and lesson
plans - across the education sectors where possible - should be pursued to ensure a relevant
curriculum for each ACT student with a disability.
Individual plans
Some form of individualised planning – (IP, ILP, IEP) - has been special education
orthodoxy for many years throughout the western world (Fish, 2008; Garten & Murdick,
2008; Killu, 2008; Pawley & Tennant, 2008). In Australia, although individual plans are
not required by the Disability Standards for Education (2005) they have been required by
state, territory, system and school policy and they are closely tied to supplementary
funding processes (Forlin, 2006; Jenkins, 2002; & NSW Inquiry into Public Education,
2002).
ACTDET Guidelines explain that the intent of the individual planning process is to enable
stakeholders to share knowledge and information, assist teachers in meeting their

responsibility to teach all students, and help schools and the Department identify and
provide the necessary materials and personnel. Although the logic and purposes of
individual plans appear sound there has been very little research on their effectiveness for
improving student learning outcomes. So, while many parents and educators regard the
individual planning process as pivotal strategy for achieving good educational outcomes,
some question if these plans, in themselves, have succeeded in improving the teaching or
learning of students with disabilities (Frankl, 2005).
“ILPs … a complete and utter waste of time. The year depends on how good
the teachers are, not on how good the ILP.” (Parent)
“ There’s enough good in ILPs to keep them.” (Parent)
“ILPs are the mainstay of special schools – need to continue to be an important

and valued document.” (Teacher)
“Many teachers put significant effort into developing an achievable ILP which
then never gets used. The school year goes past and it never comes off the
shelf until review time and it is obvious that the individual goals haven’t been
met.” (Parent)
“Smaller goals on a term by term basis are sometimes more achievable for
some students: I learnt early on that no matter how good the ILP it is rarely
referred back to once the class starts progressing. “ (Parent)
”The ILP is all we’ve got. It structures our child’s day. Without it, it takes too long
to get things done.”(Parent)
Because individual plans are so resource intensive, it is important to derive maximum

benefit from them and research has identified some of the problems in doing so. The
reasons include the following:
• Many classroom teachers lack the training and knowledge to develop or implement
plans (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Rosas et al., 2009; The Alberta
Teachers’ Association, 2009).
• Students may not be invited to meetings or may not be assisted to participate actively
and thus a powerful opportunity to enlist students in their own learning is lost (Allen et
al., 2001; Martin et al., 2004; Mason, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2004; Pawley & Tennant,
2008);
• Insufficient support for parents, especially those with low socio-economic status or
English as a second language, results in inadequate home-school collaboration to
improve students’ learning (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skritic, 2000);
• Some teachers present IEPs to parents as a finished product (Garriott, Wandry, &
Snyder, 2000);
• Individual planning involves considerable work that often consumes the time of
resource personnel such as therapists who could be better utilised (Pawley & Tennant,
2008; Pearson, 2000); and
• Many plans are incomplete and/or poorly implemented (Rosas et al., 2009; Shaddock
and Bramston, 1991).
One of the major conceptual and practical difficulties with individual plans is that such a
high degree of focus on individualised programs for a few individuals appears

incompatible with the way teaching and learning occurs in schools – to groups of students
working on a class program that is adapted where necessary. Tisdall and Riddell (2006, p.
375) write, “While the centrality of the individual child’s needs has become the major
legitimising discourse within inclusive education (see, e.g. Mittler, 2000), there is a danger
with the individualised approach in that it tends to ignore the social pressures which
structure individual choices and leads to some needs and not others being identified.”
These difficulties surrounding the use of individual planning for some students in group
situations illustrates the tension between perspectives and paradigms referred to in Chapter
One.
Individual plans tend to serve multiple roles and this could be part of their problem. For
example, the same planning document is expected to serve educational, legal, planning,
accountability and resource allocation purposes. The President’s Commission (2002, p. 16)
commented on the “strikingly high number of parents, teachers and administrators who
described how IEPs are not actually designed or used for individualised education”.
Instead, IEPs are written for legal and administrative compliance. Rather than serving as an
“educational roadmap”, they have become “artefacts” for many teachers and schools
(Rosas et al., 2009, p. 47). Similarly, OFSTED inspectors in the UK noted that there was a
surge in the number of IEPs written just before they arrived at schools (Pawley & Tennant,
2008). Submissions to the current Review provided similar examples of these practices in
all sectors.
So, for some, individual plans are seen as ‘compulsory busy work’, written to satisfy
departmental guidelines and to gain funding for students with disabilities (Pearce, 2008).
As a consequence, some schools employ tactics to simplify them and save time, but in
doing so, undermine not only the collaborative process but also the rationale for having
individual plans in the first place. For example, Pearce (2008) found that in some Western
Australian schools Year Co-ordinators or Learning Support Co-ordinators discuss the
student with a couple of teachers and possibly the parents, write the IEP, and distribute it
to the teachers. Teachers from a NSW school reported that their school hired a casual
teacher to write IEPs and Behaviour Management Plans (Pearce, 2008). The lack of
‘treatment fidelity’ has led one researcher to conclude that the ‘I’ in IEP actually means
‘interchangeable’ because many plans are mass-produced and lack genuine
individualisation (Brigham et al. 2004 reprinted in Byrne, 2008).
“There’s such a work load in setting it up (the individual plan); then the teacher
folds it away somewhere and it is never used!” (Special education teacher)
Despite their ‘problems in practice’, individual plans can be valuable – but they first must
be seen as a process that actually helps. Jenkins (2002, p. 68) refers to the desirability of
outcome statements becoming “dog-eared, rolled up, coffee-ringed sheets that are taken on
picnics, consulted by the students and checked with messy notes as student progress is
observed in the field”.

In one secondary school, students with a disability are involved in
setting their own learning goals and the strategies they will use to
achieve them. These more personal goals are not usually directly linked
to a curriculum area because teachers are encouraged to identify these
adjustments within their class program. Each student’s goals reflect the
student’s specific priorities such as organizational, study and social
skills, and aspects of self-regulation. Parents are involved in this
process, usually in providing feedback on progress.
The critical issues about individual planning are:
• The circumstances requiring a student to have an individual plan;

• The need to refine individual plans, for example, by putting primary emphasis on the
plan; then identifying ways that the plan can be implemented with other students; and
only after that, determining what individualisation must occur;
• The need for ‘the student’s next transition’ to be the primary guide to goal-setting and
longer term planning;
• The need for a closer alignment of individual plans and resource allocation processes,
for example, the supplementary funding delivered through the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need;
• The implementation of processes that more systematically involve students in the
development and delivery of their individual plan;
• Reporting and accountability issues; and
• Action evaluation of different approaches to planning that are potentially more
efficient, feasible and equally effective for students with a disability.
Curriculum and transitions

Transitions, in any form, are challenging and stressful, especially when families may well
be dealing with unique situations, for example, negotiating with an education provider
about options for their child. Cowne (2008) refers to three ‘critical action’ times – entry to
school; transition between phases or schools; and leaving school for adult life. For many
parents, relating to large bureaucracies, school systems and/or schools may be very
confronting, regardless of the point of transition.
“High school is like falling into a black hole. Compared to primary school it is
hard to access teachers and to know what is going on.” (Parent)
“Trying to set up some connection with a college is like starting from the
beginning again.” (Parent)
The Discussion Paper summarised the issues in Public schools as:
• Transitions are often highly stressful for the student and parents, particularly the
transition from school to adult life;

• The success of transitions is related to pedagogical, organisational, structural and
resourcing issues;
• Continuity of support across settings is essential; many students require intensive and
ongoing support, despite the known benefits of early intervention; and
• While there are many excellent transition practices in the ACT, these are often
unresourced and highly dependent on informal and personal relationships among
particular schools, colleges and teachers.
Transition raises particular resource issues. For example, Ferrier et al. (2007, p. xiv), in a
survey of over 2400 Australian parents about funding issues, found that:
• 30% of parents have concerns about their child’s transition from primary to secondary
schools;
• 25% were concerned about movements between mainstream and special schools;
• 22% were concerned about movements between sectors; and
• Movement between states and territories was a lesser concern 18.
Leading practice in transition emphasises the importance of:
• Information about the options available;

• A systematic and well organised planning system that starts early and is tailored to the
needs of the individual student and family and that involves all parties, and especially
the student, the family, teachers and other support personnel;
• Clear lines of communication in the provision of information about transitions and the
planning process, especially for families;
• A range of real choices for families with respect to settings, supports and curriculum
priorities. Site visits for families and open discussion about the relative merits and
constraints of the various options available to families, especially in light of the
particular needs of the student;
• Collection, co-ordination and appropriate sharing (consistent with the Privacy Act) of
assessment and progress information that allows the transition support team, including
the family, to make informed decisions about all elements of educational and support
programs relevant to the child; and
• Provision of specific information to the host staff in schools (consistent with the
Privacy Act) on individual needs, including appropriate background and medical data
and the particular issues that may arise for the child.
If families feel empowered in navigating the transition process for their child, there will be
an improved likelihood of follow-through and collaboration around educational goals and
outcomes across home, school and other environments.
18
While this may be generally true, many ACT parents are in occupations of high mobility such as the
Australian Government Public Service or the Defence Forces.

One former special school principal described how the school started
‘Drop In Days’ as a way of providing families with information about a
range of disability services. “This initiative was in addition to the more
formal, information sessions held in the evening for the school
community. The Drop In Days also provided parents and carers with the
opportunity to network over coffee and lunch prepared by the students.
As students came to the school from suburbs throughout Canberra, it
was often difficult for families to establish links with other families in
similar circumstances.”
“The ‘Drop In Day’s were held once a semester. Government and non-
government agencies and service providers set up booths in the school
library. The organisations included Centrelink, Public Trustees Office,
Therapy ACT, a range of Post School Option providers, Disability ACT,
Woden & Belconnen Youth Centres and sporting and recreation groups
such as TenFit and YMCA. These agencies met with individuals and
small groups of parents and carers to discuss options, provide advice,
and offer information on a range of topics. Surveys completed at the
end of each day by the families and participating organisations indicated
considerable success, as did the fact that we had difficulty in getting
families to leave at the end of the afternoon!”
The stakes are particularly high for parents and students at the end of schooling.
Transition at this stage may involve postsecondary education, employment, or income-
generating work, for example, through innovative businesses or ‘self-employment’.
“X’s school life prepared him for a life as a passive service-user, not one as a
worker, businessman or contributor” (Parent)
“You’ve got to come out of your comfort zone and give it a go.” (Student talking
about her experience of work)
“I am talking about individualised, person-centred, supported work experience

which is linked to the skills and strengths of a student and which will be useful in
deciding what kind of employment is possible, enjoyable, sustainable and
productive for a particular student.” (Parent)
College/transition: “These years are critical for preparation for, it’s hoped, work
as an adult, surviving in the community and sustaining some form of social
network. To drop the ball in the final two years of secondary school is to risk
losing the investment that has been put into the kids.” (Parent)
We visited one ACT school that supports transition for Year 10 students
with special needs / 'at risk' behaviours who are leaving school through
a modified work education program that includes paid work one day a
week.

Leading practice indicates that the critical ingredients of planning for the school to adult
life transition include:
• Active involvement of the student and families;

• As suggested earlier, a planned curriculum that has prepared, over a period of several
years, the student for this ‘next environment’, for example, through identifying and
teaching the work and social skills the student needs for employment;
• Adoption of person-centred planning and active support for self-determination;
• Flexible scheduling, staffing and funding and a variety of funding sources;
• Experience of work (as opposed to work experience) prior to leaving school, for
example, through business alliances with schools;
• Interagency collaboration, connections, partnerships and involvement with the job
network; and
• Development of individual mentoring, social supports and friendship networks.
(Synthesised from Certo et al., 2008; Davies & Beamish, 2009; Horne & Hubbard,
1995; Noonan et al. 2009; Patton, 2004; Powers et al., 2001; Horne et al, 1995;
Stodden, Galloway & Stodden, 2003; Wehman, 2001).
In one ACT secondary college, some students with a disability in Years

11 and 12 are successfully undertaking Australian School Based
Apprenticeships (ASBAs). Students are supported in the workplace on
either a short-term basis by college Learning Support staff, or in the
longer term, by Disability Employment Networks (DENs). Ongoing
communication between the workplace, the employment agency and the
college is critical to the success of these placements. Students usually
gain permanent employment at the end of Year 12.
One ACT teacher took the initiative to develop a very comprehensive,

web-based resource to assist young people with an intellectual disability
to transition to adult life. The resource contains elements such as: a
poster about roles, rights and responsibilities; a student introduction to
transition planning; a guide to getting the best out of school; worksheets
about major life domains such as independent travel, social networks
and self determination; and information for parents and teachers. See
bibliography, Ziesing-Clark, (2009).
In conclusion, this chapter has examined issues associated with Every Chance To Learn
and the ways that efficiencies can be introduced into curriculum development for students
with a disability. A case was made for changes to individual planning, with significant
emphasis being placed on ‘the next transition’ as the focus of all individual plans. The
notion of linking individual planning more directly to resource allocation was

foreshadowed and this issue is addressed further in Chapter 7. Leading practice in
transition to adult life was also summarised.
The next chapter summarises leading practice on how educational settings affect the
educational outcomes of students with a disability.

Chapter 6: Settings and Learning
Outcomes
This chapter:
• Discusses the impact of different types of settings on the educational

outcomes of students with a disability
• Examines the role and potential of special schools
• Reviews the evidence for specialised placements such as units and
centres.
The Discussion Paper drew attention to the impact of educational settings on student
learning outcomes in Public schools such as:
• The appropriateness of the ‘Learning Centre’ model for many students and its possible
marginalising effects;
• Inadequate data about the effectiveness of the various program delivery approaches in
units and centres;
• The potential for a degree of isolation among those who teach students with disabilities
in special schools and in mainstream settings;
• Difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled and experienced teachers and Learning
Support Assistants;
• Health and safety issues in some settings; for example, around the physical nature of
the work and the challenging behaviour of some students;
• Issues in infrastructure, space and equipment for meeting students’ highly specialised
needs;
• Evidence of insufficient influence on system policy, for example, around the
development of Every Chance to Learn; and
• Issues with the availability, suitability and location of appropriate educational settings
to which students can transition and related concerns about continuity in terms of
curriculum and pedagogy.
Settings, place and placement issues

Although ‘placement’ is commonly used in education to describe where students receive
their education, the word has a level of passivity, as in ‘being placed’, that does not reflect
the considerable freedom that ACT parents have to choose the most appropriate setting for
their child.
Debates about what constitutes an appropriate setting for students with a disability have
had a long and turbulent history (Dunn 1968). These debates illustrate what Norwich

(2008) referred to as the ‘where to learn’ dilemma. The value of various placements, from
segregation to total inclusion has been interrogated on ideological (e.g. Danforth &
Rhodes, 1997), philosophical (e.g. Taylor, 1988) and empirical grounds (e.g. Canadian
Council on Learning, 2009). For example, strong supporters of special education,
Kauffman and Hallahan (2005, p.63) make the following case:
Since its inception, special education has been conceptualised as special

instruction. But those who invented special education recognised that special
instruction sometimes requires a special place, simply because no teacher is
capable of offering all kinds of instruction in the same place and at the same
time and that some students need to be taught things that others don’t need.
So, as has been recognised all along, the specialised places in which special
education sometimes occurs are necessary for special instruction, especially if
it is to be done well. There is no magic in any place, either the regular
classroom or a special class. Place, by itself, does not represent good special
education. Special education is neither good nor bad because of where it is
offered. The instruction is what matters and what makes special education
special.
Special Schools
Special schools are part of the ‘continuum of services’ offered by ACTDET. In general,
special schools are well supported by parents and the community and several ACT special
schools have received national awards and/or recognition for their initiatives. The non-
government sector does not provide special schools in the ACT.
The last few decades of legislative and policy change and the prominence given to
inclusive practice, have placed special schools in an uncertain and uncomfortable position
(Warnock, 2005; Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). Segregated schooling has been
attacked on ideological grounds by advocates such Bailey & Dowrick, (2001), Lipsky and
Gartner, (1987) and Stainback & Stainback, (1992). What has sometimes happened is that
the known deficiencies and unintended deleterious effects of segregated practice have been
compared unfavourably with the promise of inclusive practice and it is little wonder that
many teachers in special schools feel marginalised and/or relics of a bygone era (Farrell,
2008).
Reviews into the education of children with disabilities in Australia show that parents and
teachers strongly support the continuum of services (McRae, 1996; NSW Public Education
Inquiry, 2002; Commonwealth of Australia, 2002; Nitschke & McColl, 2001). Parents
want the option to move their child to a special education setting if the regular class proves
to be problematic, and the inclusion of some students has certainly proved to be
problematic for some sectors (Department of Education and Training Western Australia,
2001). Parents and teachers have reported bullying, peer rejection, inappropriate curricula,
failure/inability to differentiate, lack of teacher time, inadequate teacher training, limited
funding and resources, students with disabilities being taught by assistants - especially in
secondary schools (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). As Warnock (2005) pointed out,
students with disabilities may be excluded socially and academically in a regular school
and so special schools may be the salvation for many students.
However, research and leading practice also confirm that educators throughout the world
are getting better at including more students with special educational needs in mainstream
schools and classrooms and many parents favour inclusion (Dawson & Kierney, 1988;

Elkins, van Kraayenoord & Jobling, 2003; Ferguson, 2008a). Italy has virtually no special
schools, and countries such as Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway and Portugal and
many more, educate less than 1% of their students in special schools (European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education, 2008). In the ACT, special school enrolments
are similar - accounting for 0.9% of students in Public schools or 0.5% of the total
government and non-government enrolment (ACT Department of Education and Training,
2009b).
When given the choice, many students with a disability express a preference for
mainstream education – despite its challenges (Shaddock & Nye, 1991). It is important
therefore to examine the contemporary relevance of the continuum of services model, the
‘Least Restrictive Environment’ principle that underpins it, and the way special schools
and placements cohere with ACT inclusivity policy. In this regard, the following views of
students about special schools are interesting:
"My little brother has got Down syndrome and he goes to a special school. A
white bus picks him up in the morning. My brother is in preschool and I want
him to come here." (Primary school student).
"At a school like this they wouldn't feel like they are different, they would feel
like they are just normal and they can make lots of friends." (Primary school
student).
"People with disabilities could learn from people without disabilities.” (Primary
school student)
“You learn to work with other people- the same way it’s going to be when we
join the work force” (Secondary school student)
“It’s good to have those kids learn how to socialise with us. If they went to
special schools it would make it harder for them when they grow up because
they’d only have socialised with other people with disabilities.” (Secondary
school student)

The principle of ‘Least Restrictive Environment’ (LRE) provides the conceptual basis for
the educational continuum that extends from mainstream to special schooling. However,
Taylor (1988) has identified potentially deleterious consequences of separate placements,
including that services based on the LRE principle may
• Imply that the separate setting should have a permanent place in the structure and
organisation;
• Confuse segregation with intensity of services, i.e. assume that the student will
automatically achieve better outcomes in the special setting;
• Imply that students do not ‘belong’ in the mainstream setting until they have acquired
the necessary skills;
• Involve time-consuming and costly assessment and verification processes that
underutilise skilled personnel;
• Limit expectations and opportunities;
• Imply that as individuals develop, they must move to new settings and away from their
friends and social networks; and

• Direct attention to place and setting rather than to the services and supports that are
needed.
Research has confirmed many of Taylor’s concerns. In the literature 19, some special
schools have been criticised for having narrow, over-functionalised curricula; depriving
children of opportunities to learn social skills from peers; being over protective; creating
dependency and stigma; having low expectations and for the limited subject knowledge of
their teachers (Shah, 2007).
“We segregate people for years and years and then spend time, money, energy
on how to build inclusive lives.” (Parent)
These concerns are serious, and yet, it seems so sensible and commonsense to consolidate
expertise and resources. Can we ever envision a time when every ACT school will have a
hydrotherapy pool, therapists and skilled teachers on site?
The obvious potential of special schools suggests the need for them to find how their
specialised contribution can support inclusive practice (Baker & Bovair, 1989) particularly
as research has not established that regular schools have clear academic and social benefits
over special schools for all students all of the time (Lindsay, 2007). An OfSTED
assessment of outcomes for children with special needs showed that special and regular
schools were effective if they had specialist teachers, ongoing training, flexibility, catered
for individual needs and an inclusive ethos (Farrell, 2008). Leading practice makes clear
that ‘what happens in the place is more important than the place itself’, as further
discussed below and some ACT special schools are extremely successful in community
engagement.
“In special schools there should be a strong focus on linking students to the
community and encouraging, fostering and sustaining relationships between
students with disabilities and people without disabilities, who live, work and play
in the broader community.” (Parent)
In the UK, Warnock (2005) encouraged special schools to become “specialist schools”
offering services to a broader section of the school population. New models of service
provision and definitions of “inclusion” which included special schools have been
developed (Baker & Bovair, 1989; Gibb et al., 2007; Norwich, 2008). In Australia,
Recommendation 4 of the Senate Inquiry into the Education of Students with Disabilities
(2002) was that “MCEETYA investigate the development of teacher exchange programs
for staff of ‘lighthouse’ special schools and mainstream schools”. The NSW Public
Education Inquiry (2002) and Meyer Report (2001) encouraged special schools to form
linkages with regular schools. The Inquiry suggested that teachers in special schools could
accept roles as co-ordinators to assist regular schools with inclusion, sharing resources and
their expertise with teachers and assistants and providing outreach services.
Consequently, many special schools are re-examining their practices, adapting to

curriculum changes, developing links with regular schools, improving their connections
with parents, school communities and business, creating positive images of their schools,
striving to prevent student dependency and fostering self determination (Allan & Brown,
2001). These directions are consistent with the ACT Government vision, as expressed in
19
These are general criticisms and they are not directed at ACT special schools.

the Social Plan (2004) to use school sites as a base from which to develop community
services that link with local communities.
Cranleigh School provides a good example of the ways in which ACT

special schools are already engaging with families and the community
to enhance the quality of education for the students and to promote an
understanding of individual differences in the wider community. “We
meet both formally and informally with parents and communicate with
them in a variety of ways which now includes more electronic
communication and the use of our website. We have support from local
businesses. In particular, they support our annual Art Show.
Sponsorship and services donated by businesses have increased
considerably this year. The community is also generously supporting
our ‘Garden to Plate’ project with a new vegetable garden and water
tanks.”
Innovative practices documented by Farrell (2008) and by Gibb (2007) involve special
schools in providing outreach services. Exemplary special schools share best practice in
teaching multi-age and diverse classes through professional development, mentoring and
working collaboratively with regular schools. They train teachers and assistants how to
differentiate work; teach specific skills to students individually and in groups; to develop
individual learning and behavioural programs; promote social skill development; teach
living and functional skills; evaluate learning; use appropriate manual handling; cater for
medical needs; and assist students with severe physical disabilities to access the physical
education curriculum. Some special schools offer training in particular approaches such as
Applied Behaviour Analysis, psychodynamic behaviour methods, phonics, Picture
Exchange Communication System, sensory learning, TEACCH, augmentative
communication, Makaton, Compic, Braille and sign language (Farrell, 2008). Working
together has enabled regular and special school teachers to exchange ideas, develop new
skills and increase their knowledge of how to teach in different settings. The Quality
Teaching Model provides teachers across all settings with a common language to discuss
and share these ideas and strategies to improve student learning outcomes.
Farrell (2008) describes other ways in which special schools provide outreach services to
support the integration, transition or the enrolment of students with disabilities through
information on the student or the impact of the disability on the student’s capacity to learn.
Teachers from special schools develop and share resources for students with sensory and
physical disabilities attending other schools. Multi-disciplinary teams from special schools
offer services such as developing individual programs for students, assessing students for
assistive technology, screening the speech and language of students and establishing new
special units in regular schools. Teachers from special schools organise parent information
sessions, IEP meetings and visits from professionals to support their mainstream
colleagues. One school has created a helpline to give teachers advice over the phone.
For regular schools to seek and pay for services, special schools continually upgrade the
skills of their staff (Farrell, 2008). Some have negotiated partnerships with universities to

train their teachers throughout the year. Accreditation encourages teachers and assistants to
pursue further training.
Although less common, Farrell (2008) provides examples of programs that require students
from regular schools or the community to attend special schools to access particular
services or facilities.
"If you're helping them it makes you feel good, and if they help you it makes
them feel even better." (Student, primary school, where there are many
students with a disability)
Students may be withdrawn from regular classes, for example, to attend particular
programs or prepare for full time enrolment in the special school. Special schools offer
early intervention programs in preparation for inclusion, day nurseries and after-hour child
care facilities. Specialist colleges offer vocational courses on car repairs, hospitality,
building, sport and gardening to school-age students and adults after school hours. Some
schools offer short-term placements to students to develop an effective behaviour
management program, with ongoing support when the student returns to the regular school.
The literature on lighthouse special schools shows that they needed systemic support to
become innovative. The expansion of the curricula in England to 16 levels has given
students with severe and profound disabilities access to the curriculum (Humphreys, 2008)
and highlights the need for the new national curriculum in Australia to be genuinely
inclusive. The expanded curricula in England provides teachers in special schools with the
knowledge and materials they need to teach subjects appropriately, and provides teachers
in regular schools with ideas for differentiating the curriculum and evaluating student
outcomes (Humphreys, 2008; Shah, 2007). Allan and Brown (2001, p. 201) claim that “as
well as raising the expectations and achievements of the pupils, the curriculum initiatives
represented a door into mainstream for special school staff, giving them a common
language with which to communicate with mainstream colleagues and allowing them to
consolidate existing good practice.”
In England, a schools’ building program scheduled for 2016-2021 will enable secondary
schools to have specialist facilities and schools contained within or adjacent to them,
which will facilitate relationships between special and regular schools (Farrell, 2008).
Educational authorities have established a specialist schools program involving more than
50 special schools (Farrell, 2008). Each school specialises in one area: cognition and
learning; communication and interaction; physical and sensory; or behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties and has been allocated the necessary time, funding and resources to
share their expertise and resources with other schools, agencies, services and the
community (Farrell, 2008).
In conclusion, special schools in the ACT already make a valuable contribution and, with
appropriate vision and planning at system and school level, this contribution to the ACT
community, schools and students could be extended. Clearly this will involve greater
integration and coordination with the network of schools and possibly cross-sector
collaborations as well. In relation to pedagogy, the special schools’ involvement in
applications of the Quality Teaching Model should improve linkages with mainstream
pedagogy. It is important that school plans in special settings deal decisively with the
possible unintended, negative impacts of separate settings and work towards higher levels
of integration with mainstream education.

In the ACT there are examples of special schooling where considerable integration is being
achieved and these should be supported and extended in future developments.
Two schools provide somewhat different models - Turner and Harrison schools - and they
too may provide a guide to future developments. In different ways, both models have the
potential to provide the specialised services that some students need in contexts that are
less likely to experience the negative effects identified by Taylor (1988).
At Turner Primary approximately 25% of the students have a disability. The

preschool to year 6 school provides students with an inclusive learning
environment in which the whole range of program options is available on
one site. Students with disabilities may be fully included in a regular class,
be part of a small class, or undertake much of their learning in an intensive
program. As well as learning options, the school provides a variety of safe
playground options and a hydrotherapy pool. The inclusive ethos of the
school is evident in the way all students are valued and included in school
activities such as assemblies, camps and sports days. Further evidence of the
school's approach is in the way that the teachers come together to plan the
learning program for all students. Regular and special education teachers
work together, co-teaching and collaborating as necessary.
Harrison School offers an innovative model of inclusive schooling in which

the teachers use evidence-based practices to implement learning programs
that cater for all students. Harrison has an enrolment of 540. Approximately
10% of students have a disability and English is the second language for
30%. Approximately 35 % of students are from DFAT families and so the
school population is somewhat fluid. Teaching and learning are
underpinned by a strong school ethos and values base and supported by
learning statements. Students are enrolled in a multi-age class group within
a ‘learning teams’ community and staff share the responsibility for the
learning of all students. Students with disabilities have an Individual
Learning Plan (ILP) that identifies areas for individual or group work with
an inclusion support teacher, Learning Support Assistant (LSA) or class
teacher. The school is developing personalised learning plans for all
students.

In the ACT education community, there are strongly held, opposing views about the need
for more special schools and what form they might take. The literature suggests that most
parents would favour inclusion over special placement if they could be sure that the
expertise and resources were available in the mainstream (Elkins, 2003). One implication
is that parents and carers must be involved in discussion and planning of future specialised
services.

Units and centres
The Public school sector in the ACT currently provides Learning Support Units (LSU);
Learning Support Units that are autism specific (LSUA); and Learning Support Centres
(LSC) (See Appendix 4). Although these programs are resource intensive there is little
system-wide evaluation data about their effectiveness.
Catholic and Independent schools do not make use of centres and units and all students are
taught in the mainstream.
There has been extensive investigation over many years of the efficacy of programs that
withdraw students and/or teach them in separate programs (Kavale & Forness, 1980; Wang
& Baker, 1985/86; Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). This research has found that, by
and large, the ‘average’ student with a disability would be marginally better off (in terms
of a range of learning and social outcomes) if educated in the mainstream. For example,
Hattie (2005, 2009) reports an effect size 20 in favour of mainstreaming of 0.21. As long
ago as 1987 Epps and Tindall concluded from a reanalysis of the extensive meta analyses
that had been conducted on differential placements that ‘mainstreaming’ was associated
with an effect size of 0.33. Epps and Tindall (p. 226) concluded, “This gross summary
statistic suggested that, overall, mainstreaming appeared to have had somewhat higher
positive performance, attitudinal, and process effects for handicapped students when
compared with non mainstreaming approaches for handicapped students with similar
classifications.”
“These children will have to operate in the mainstream later – unless we

already accept that they’ll be clients of the justice and/or mental health systems.
Why jeopardise their chance by segregating them as children?” (Parent)
“Units in mainstream schools can be isolated from the school population and
have a low priority in the whole of school functioning.” (Educator)
“It is inappropriate to appoint newly graduated teachers into these positions.”

(Counsellor)
Some people argue for special units and classes for students with particular disabilities, for
example, students with learning disabilities, those on the autism spectrum and students
with profound sensory impairment. Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) and Swanson, Hoskyn
and Lee (1999) reported on 180 interventions with students with learning disabilities, and
found a slight benefit for some students in ‘pull-out programs’. However, the researchers
explained the benefits in terms of the quality of the instruction rather than where it was
provided 21.
It has also been argued that regular classrooms may not be set up to assist students with
autism spectrum disorder (Mesibov & Shea, 1996). Sainsbury (2000) reports challenges
faced by even the most able individuals with an ASD, indicating a need for specialised’
curricula and teaching approaches at some point during their education. However, recent
research on autism suggests that even quite specific programs for students with autism (e.g.
TEACCH) can be delivered successfully in the mainstream (Panerai, et al. 2009).
20
See Glossary for a definition and interpretation of ‘effect size’.
21
The elements of effective instruction for these students involved systematic implementation of strategies
that are known to work for all students.

Several researchers have identified critical features for successful education of students
with an ASD. These include:
• An understanding teacher who is knowledgeable of the student’s specific social,

communication, learning and behavioural needs;
• Shared responsibility between general and special educators;
• School community ownership of the students with autism;
• Specific strategies to accommodate the learning needs of students;
• Access to collaborative problem-solving relationships, multidisciplinary 22 teams;
• Availability of appropriately trained support personnel;
• Low staff-student ratios;
• Effective home-school collaboration;
• Development of the student’s social skills in inclusive settings;
• Availability of specialist training for all staff;
• Adequate teacher planning time; and
• Recurrent evaluation of inclusion practice.
(Synthesised from Clark, 2009; Jones, 2002; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Robertson, et al.,
2001; Sainsbury, 2000; Simpson et al., 2003.
In relation to students with other specific needs, for example, those with profound
deafness, while there is considerable debate about inclusive versus specialist educational
placements there are few comparative studies (Handleman et al., 2005).
A recent study by the Canadian Council on Learning (2009) summarised the available
research on the role of educational setting for particular students. The pertinent findings
were:
• For students with learning disabilities, inclusive settings appear to be the preferred
setting, i.e. students with learning disabilities generally achieve better outcomes in the
mainstream;
• For students with intellectual disabilities, the small number of studies tend to favour
inclusive settings;
• For students with language impairment (those characterised by a failure to develop
normal language but not having a major neurological, physical or global impairment),
the evidence generally supports inclusive settings; and
• For students with mixed disabilities, most studies favour inclusion over separate
placement.
“My daughter’s classmates are still one of the best things about school.”
(Parent)
Important caveats to these muted conclusions are that the available body of research is
patchy; that effects in favour of inclusive practice are small; and that the results are not
uniform. Therefore, a conservative interpretation is that “inclusive settings appear not to
22
See Appendix 4 for a definition.

academically disadvantage most students with special educational needs. In most cases
they appear to offer an advantage over separate settings” (Canadian Council on Learning,
2009 p.5).
These students aside, the general conclusion from the research on ‘place’ is that “treating
setting as the independent variable has provided little insight into what constitutes effective
education.” (Epps & Tindall, 1987 in Wang, Reynolds & Walberg), Hehir (2002, p. 31)
concludes that we need to “move away from the current obsession with placement toward
an obsession with results”. Researchers have taken some time to realise that in seeking
answers to questions about placement and setting, they may have been asking the wrong
questions.
Despite the lack of evidence for the beneficial effect of placement on learning many
parents tend to want more special units in primary and secondary schools, not fewer
(Nitschke & McColl, 2001). Another group of stakeholders with a heavy investment in
this issue is the students themselves. Shaddock & Nye (1991) for example, in studying
students’ views of the move from Woden school to the then Phillip College found them to
be unanimously in favour of the move despite some clearly ‘inhospitable’ treatment that
they sometimes received from fellow students.
On the other hand, Swanson (2000) found that some students prefer withdrawal to
inclusion.
During school visits associated with this Review, several college age students with
disabilities explained that they like being in a mainstream class but they are more confident
and get more involved when the classes are small.
“I think it’s good we’re in with normal kids – but in a smaller class!”
“In a small class I might have a go to answer some of the teacher’s questions.”
“I think it’s better to have smaller classes; I can cope better in a small class.”
The views of these students are reinforced by the research on reductions in class size more
generally. For example, Mitchell (2008, p. 81) reports that, “achievement, attitude, teacher
morale and student satisfaction gains are greater in small classes, i.e., classes with 10-15
learners.” Furthermore, the ‘Tennessee Class Size Experiment’ found that three to four
years of small class size in the primary years has benefits that increase from year to year
“and beyond when the resources are removed” (Finn & Achilles, 1999, p. 106). Finn,
Gerber et al., 2001, p. 145) conclude that “starting early and continuing in small classes for
at least three years are necessary to assure long-term carryover effects”.
Specialised, separate settings however, should not be confused with small classes. The fact
that specialised settings are more costly and do not generally produce significantly better
results than mainstream settings, raises question about how they might be improved and
their ongoing availability in their present forms.
In addition to the fact that some parents prefer separate units, another rationale for their
continued existence may be, as suggested by Sorrells et al., (2004, p 66) that separate
classes for ‘difficult to teach’ children may function as a safety valve for schools rather
than as a preferred place of learning for students. These authors further suggest that
specialised programs may simply be part of the repertoire that public schools have to deal

with problems. “Placement decisions are thus pragmatic problem-solving decisions whose
broader consequences are largely unintended.” (P. 67) This conclusion resonates with the
points made earlier about the impact on classroom teachers of student diversity, student
behaviours, and teachers’ perennial lack of time.
“I am sure it’s much easier for the school to put all the hard cases in a corner,
but it is not to the children’s best interests. It’s disheartening to see how children
who used to be with my son (in special class) and not so different from him, are
now far behind and excluded.”(Parent)
“Teachers and STAs (LSAs) in centres and units tend to be isolated from the
rest of the school.” (Counsellor)
“A lot of what units are about is providing a safe and caring environment, and
then, learning might take place.” (Principal)
Studies of ‘ability grouping’, ‘tracking’ or ‘streaming’ have not found benefits for students
with a disability either (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001; Mitchell, 2008;
Sapon-Shevin, 1994; Villa (2005). Mitchell (2008, p. 46) summarises the research in the
following way:
Ability grouping is detrimental to low achieving students because
• Being assigned to low-ability groups communicates low expectations to learners which

might be self-fulfilling;
• Ability groups often parallel social class and ethnic groupings that may increase
divisions along class and ethnic lines;
• Between-class ability grouping reduces learners’ opportunities to move between
groups;
• Low-achieving learners tend to receive less instruction when placed in ability groups
than when placed in mixed-ability groups; and
• Ability groups composed of low-achieving learners do not provide a stimulating
learning environment and lack positive role models.
The fact that students might be lumped together on a broad range of loose criteria is
another concern. If, for example, students are carefully diagnosed and found to have a
similar disorder, then perhaps placing them in the same setting where their educational
needs may be carefully met presents as a commonsense strategy (but one with not much
empirical support!) However, loosely categorising students as having ‘learning problems’
is problematic, and typically, students are not placed on the basis of precise, differential
diagnoses. As Gallagher (2006, p. 262) observes, if students are not grouped on a
defensible pedagogical basis, it is analogous to physicians identifying a category of
“children with high fevers” – and that is just about useless as a guide to pedagogy!
“Just because you have 8 students, for example, in a primary school LSUA that
have autism this doesn’t mean that they all learn the same way or have the
same level of skill – especially given that the age ranges can be quite
significant.” (Parent)
One approach that shows promise for more careful diagnosis and treatment of learning
disabilities is ‘‘Response to Intervention’’ (RTI) (Fuchs, 2003; Fuchs et al., 2003; Marston
et al., 2003; Speece, Case & Molloy, 2003; & Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). RTI involves a)

tracking the rate of growth in core subjects for all students in the class; b) identifying
students whose level and rate of performance are significantly below their peers; and c)
systematically assessing the impact of evidence –based teaching adaptations.
A key component is of RTI is Curriculum-Based Measurement (Deno, 1985), a very

efficient student tracking system that involves ‘Testing what you teach and teaching what
you test’ (which is not the same as teaching NAPLAN!) Madelaine and Wheldall (2009, p
4) summed up the literature on RTI as follows: “There is an enormous amount of support
for RTI in the literature but, while it makes very good conceptual sense, there is relatively
little scientific evidence about its effectiveness as yet in comparison to other models of
identification and remediation.” These authors concluded, “RTI may provide a more
reliable and equitable means of identifying students with learning problems, and for
providing timely support in academic areas. Note that the success of RTI depends on the
presence of effective, research-based, Tier 1 instruction.” Identification issues aside, the
intervention strategies of RTI, particularly with respect to the efficient tracking of the
performance of individual students, makes a lot of sense. These simple ways of assessing
student progress provide school leaders with the sources of evidence for decisions about
establishing or continuing separate services for some students.
The inconsequential impact of separate settings on the educational outcomes of most

students and the negative effects of streaming have refocused researchers’ attention on the
variables that do make a difference and many of these have already been summarised in
Chapter Four. Once again, the research refocuses attention on one critical variable – how
teachers teach in their own classrooms.
“I hate it when the teacher has notes on the board and they talk about it at the
same time. I can’t do two things at once!” (High school student)
These general findings are supported by a 2009 research synthesis by the Best Evidence
Encyclopaedia (BEE) of approaches for helping struggling readers. Classroom
instructional approaches were found to produce effect sizes of over 0.5, while one-to-one
tutoring by teachers, paraprofessionals and by volunteers produced effect sizes of 0.38,
0.24 and 0.16 respectively. This finding seems counter intuitive; surely individual
instruction should be better! Hattie (2009, p. 198) concludes, “ The evidence supporting
individualised instruction, however, is not so supportive.” Obviously the social context of
the classroom is an important contributor to learning and the need for resource-intensive
one to one instruction should be reconsidered.
In ACTDET, students who meet the ACT Student Disability Criteria for intellectual
disability, physical disability, language disorder, ASD, mental health disorders or chronic
medical conditions are eligible for the Inclusion Support Program (ISP). This service is not
unit-based and it provides consultancy support to classroom teachers.
“The expansion of the Inclusion Support Program has been a particular success
in my opinion.” (Teacher)
As figure 4 illustrates, this service has experienced considerable growth and is highly
valued by parents and teachers.

Figure 4: Growth in students accessing Inclusion Support Program, 2003-
2009
Similarly, in Catholic schools and some Independent schools, increasing use is being made
of consultancy and within-class support for students with disabilities.
One ACT school showed us how they are moving from a withdrawal
model of support to one in which classroom teachers are supported in
the classroom (beginning with secondary teachers). Teachers are
supported to introduce curriculum adjustments so that students remain
in the classroom and work on same topics as their peers. The focus of
support is shifting from direct support for the student to collaborative
work with classroom teachers to develop their ability to cater for the
diverse learning needs in their classrooms.
In conclusion, inclusivity is system policy and, by and large, inclusive practice produces
better results for students with a disability. There is also a growing body of evidence that
integrated service models for students with a disability enhance educational outcomes for
all students (Sailor & Burrello, 2009).
Leading practice does not strongly support the further development of separate placements
for students with a disability. As the logic supporting separate provision – preparing
students to take their place in society by educating them separately - is somewhat elusive,
and as separate placements are not strongly supported by empirical research, the case for
such placements should always be the one to be argued.

This said, the point must also be made that, in contrast to real estate, location is not the
prime consideration. This analysis of leading practice refocuses attention once again on the
pivotal role of classroom teachers; it is what happens in each classroom that makes the real
difference.
Our observations in ACT government and non-government schools suggested that not all
teachers are using the range of evidence-based practices available to them. If this
impression is correct, it suggests the need for continued focus on professional learning;
good leadership that provides encouragement, incentive and support for teachers to
develop their teaching expertise; and sufficient opportunities for teachers to plan,
implement and share leading practice approaches.
The next chapter focuses on resources and their impact on students’ learning outcomes.

Chapter 7: Resources and
Learning Outcomes
This chapter:
• Summarises the research on the association between resources and

learning outcomes
• Overviews stakeholder perceptions about the adequacy of funding
• Shows how what the resources are spent on is the prime
consideration
• Suggests improvements to the Student Centred Appraisal of Need.
• Overviews leading practice on principles of funding associated with
inclusive practice
• Summarises strategies that improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of resources at school level.
Stakeholders raised a wide range of ‘organisational issues’ including resources, staffing,

accountability and planning. In the next two chapters these issues are discussed with
reference to Knoster’s ‘business planning framework’. This model has been applied widely
in education and identifies the essential components of change as vision, skills, incentives,
resources and planning (Ambrose, 1987; Knoster, 1995; Salisbury & McGregor, 2005;
Villa & Thousand, 1995). Given that many stakeholders gave high priority to one of these
variables - resource issues - this chapter is devoted to this topic 23.
Resources are an essential component of service delivery and the level of resources for
students with a disability is vigorously debated in the ACT community. Resources are a
major concern for all schools. Stakeholders from the non-government sector, in particular,
frequently referred to resource and resource allocation issues.
“The funding differential is diabolical” (Parent)
“We urge you to, at least, retain the current level of special education expertise
and options – families like us have made very major lifestyle decisions to
remain in this community as a result.” (Parent)
“Do not make the student and their families responsible for add-ons and
adaptations that would suit many more than one student.” (Advocacy group)
The Discussion Paper defined resources to include supports such as:
• Finances;
23
Parts of this discussion have been adapted, with permission of Brisbane Catholic Education, from the first
author’s consultancy report on ‘Resourcing Strategies for Responding to Student Diversity’ (Shaddock, 2008).

• Organisation - stakeholder involvement, planning, timetable, school organisation;
• Personal and personnel support such as leadership, the skills of school-based personnel,
school climate & culture, and support from the wider school community; and
• Technical supports for curriculum, instruction, assessment and technology.
The point first needs to be made that there is not a strong body of research to show that
finance in itself has a direct and major effect on student learning outcomes. For example,
Hattie (2005) reported an effect size on student learning of only 0.14 for ‘finances’ and in
more recent meta-analyses, an effect size of 0.23 (Hattie, 2009).
Hattie suggests that the lack of association is probably due to factors such as the source of
the data (from well-resourced countries only); that most school finances are fixed; and that
disbursements within schools involve whole school expenditure (and, as previous chapters
have shown, the big effects on student learning are attributable to individual teacher
differences). Furthermore most teachers strive to do their best whatever the circumstances.
The stark reality is, however, that available research does not demonstrate a strong, direct
causal relationship between finances and educational outcomes.
Research has found, however, that particular types of expenditure do have a positive
impact on student learning. For example, increased per student expenditure on professional
learning for teachers and paying salaries to attract high quality and experienced teachers,
have modest effects on student outcomes (Hattie, 2009). These findings indicate the
pivotal role of principals and bursars and the value of particular forms of professional
learning.
Examining the issue from a ‘rich schools’ vs. ‘poor schools’ perspective, Itkonen’s and
Jahnukainen’s (2007, p. 19) qualitative study (from which causal conclusions should not
be drawn) drew the obvious conclusion that ‘rich is better’ - that resource allocation is
linked to achievement.
There is evidence that the quality of the learning space affects learning. “Spaces shape and
change practice. Engaging, adaptable spaces energise students, teachers and the
community. Well-designed learning spaces inspire creative, productive and efficient
learning" (MCEETYA, 2009b). After reviewing more than 30 studies, Mitchell (2008, p.
92) concluded, “Learners who spend time in well-designed, well-maintained classrooms
that are comfortable, well-lit, reasonably quiet and properly ventilated with healthy air
learn more efficiently and enjoy their educational experiences”. All aspects of the
environment are important but for some students with a disability, the visual and acoustic
environments are crucial.
In noting that, “studies either have been silent about funding or have failed to find any
systematic relationship between effectiveness and funding” Grubb (2009, p. 9) sums up the
situation as follows:
Some authors have noted that some minimum spending level might be
necessary: as John Gray concludes in the language of NBNS, similar to my
own conclusion: “Adequate levels of resources seem to be a necessary but not
sufficient condition for a school to be effective …. In twenty years of reading
research on the characteristics of effective schools I have only once come
across a record of an ‘excellent school’ where the physical environment left
something to be desired” (1990, 213).

The above analysis suggests that some minimum level of resourcing is necessary, and after
that, the key consideration in regard to finances and educational outcomes is how well the
finances are spent.
Resource quantum
Many ACT stakeholders are concerned about the resource quantum, arguing that the
available funds are insufficient.
“The appropriate level of assistance provided to children in mainstream settings

still needs more resources and really a review itself.” (Parent)
Recent nation-wide, government-commissioned research on ‘portable funding’ for students

with a disability by Ferrier et al. (2007) concluded that reform is needed and it should:
• Increase overall levels of funding;

• Secure national agreement of definitions of disabilities associated with funding;
• Provide parity of funding across sectors. (Interestingly, Ferrier et al. (2007, p. xv)
found that “portability of funding has lower priority than many other issues of special
education funding” and that despite its promised benefits, a voucher-based system for
individual students was not strongly supported in consultations;
• Empower parents to have a greater say in educational decisions;
• Reduce the stigmatisation and segregation of students with a disability and give them
increased access to the curriculum;
• Provide certainty about levels of support; and
• Provide funds to build school systems, resources and programs that provide benefits to
all students with special needs.
Ferrier et al.’s (2007) research reported a disparity in funding levels between government
and non-government schools. This view was frequently echoed during the current review.
“Students with a disability require additional support because of the nature of their
disability, not because of the school they attend.” (Independent Schools Council of
Australia, 2008, p.1) Those who hold this view tend to give ‘in principle’ support to
‘portable funding’ for students with a disability.
“Often students would receive greater services at the local government school,
but parents see the environment and underpinning philosophy as more
important for their child. Whilst this is their choice, it hardly seems fair that
education and real opportunity to access education should be different
depending on where you choose to go to school.” (Principal)
Funding for schools is extraordinarily complex. Resources are delivered from the
Commonwealth through a range of programs and disbursed by state and territory
governments to sectors. The complicated array of Australian Government financial
assistance to the States and Territories to improve the educational outcomes of students
with disabilities in the school sector is largely comprised of:
• The general Recurrent Grants Programme, which is the principal source of

Commonwealth funding to schools (an estimated $27.9 billion over 2005-2008);

• The Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs (LNSLN) Programme, (an
estimated $2.1 billion 2005-2008), which provides additional targeted funding for
students with disabilities through a range of grants including Schools Grants ($1.87
billion); Non-government Centre Support ($146 million over 2005-2008); National
Projects element ($32 million over 2005-2008); and
• Other targeted funding, for example, ‘English as a Second Language’, may also be
used to assist students with disabilities. (Department of Education, Employment &
Workplace Relations, 2008).
In our six months of consulting with ACT stakeholder about the education of students with
a disability in ACT schools not one person, from the government or non-government
sector, suggested that there were enough resources. However, the point should be made
that “perceptions of adequacy are rarely linked unequivocally to data” (Alberta Education,
2009, p.27).
Questions about the adequacy of the quantum should be answered with reference to
objectives. More specifically, the answer to the question of ‘How much?’ depends on the
answer to ‘For what purposes?’
“A lot of people making decisions about funding do so without having to live with
the consequences.” (Teacher)
At school and/or system level, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 require
education providers to make reasonable adjustments so that the student with a disability is
treated on the same basis as a student without the disability. Education providers must
ensure compliance with the Standards and the allocation of resources may be one way to
achieve that.
At the government level, policy always involves consideration of competing equities.

Ultimately, ‘what should be’ with respect to funding for students with a disability in non-
government sector comes down to the way relevant legislation is implemented and policy
objectives are achieved. In this regard the goals expressed in Building Our Community:
The Canberra Social Plan (2004)), to “lead Australia in education, training and life-long
learning” and to “improve learning outcomes for students with a disability” are pertinent.
The ‘Student Centred Appraisal of Need’

In consultations and visits, stakeholders focused almost exclusively on the financial
resources delivered by the Student Centred Appraisal of Need (SCAN), the purpose of
which is to provide “a consistent approach to determining the educational needs of
individual students so that additional resources to support students with a disability can be
allocated to schools on an equitable basis (ACTDET, 2008, p.2). In ACT Public schools,
this process is undertaken at the end of preschool, kindergarten and in years 3, 6, 7 and 10;
in Catholic schools, the process occurs on enrolment and at other times if circumstances
change 24; and in Independent schools, students’ needs are reviewed as required and at
significant transitions, (e.g. when transferring between schools, on commencement in
kindergarten, and when commencing Years 6 and 10).
24
It may be advisable for the appraisal in Catholic schools to occur more frequently, e.g. at years 6/7 and
10/11.

In ACTDET, “every student who is supported with additional resources through the
Special Education Section requires an ILP” (p.2) (Individual Learning Plan) and the
intention is that the Student Centred Appraisal of Need should be “closely linked to
educational planning” (p.2).
“As a parent, I found no value in it (SCAN). Some of the teachers really were
there just to get the resources.” (Parent)
“Those who came to the table wanting to discuss the needs of the child got
more out of it.” (Consultant)
”The focus should switch from ‘this much money to spend’ to ’this level of need
requires this much dollars’.” (Parent)
”I only take part (in the Student Centred Appraisal of Need meeting) for the
benefit of the school.” (Parent)
Current debates about financial resources, for example, about portability, tend to focus on
the funding allocation to support individual students with identified needs, and, in contrast,
give less emphasis to the organisational, personnel and technical resources that are
intended for all students. Generally, the resources available for individual students from
processes such as the Student Centred Appraisal of Need are significantly less than school
budgets to support all students.
Dissatisfaction with the outcomes from the Student Centred Appraisal of Need is fuelled
by what appears to be a widespread misunderstanding that the process is designed to
deliver all of the resources to support the learning of a student with a disability in
mainstream schools 25. That is, the notion that the resources delivered by the Student
Centred Appraisal of Need are for supplementing educational resources that are made
available for all students appears to be neither consistently acknowledged nor accepted
(Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008).
Although some stakeholders appreciate the increased transparency in the allocation of

resources by the Student Centred Appraisal of Need, there is also concern about the overall
level of resources provided.
The Student Centred Appraisal of Need focuses on inputs and presents as demand-driven,
an issue that is discussed below. There are some well-known, unintended effects of
reliance on input models and these include:
• They offer a ‘perverse incentive’ to over-identify and/or ‘play the system’;

• ‘Playing the system’ results in a reduction in funds for each student; and
• The strong focus on disability, difference and deficit is upsetting for parents and has
deleterious effects on inclusive culture and practice.
“I am finding myself increasingly confronted by the clinical situation in which a

family comes to me stating that the school has requested they seek a
psychologist's assessment for autism/Asperger's for their child's
learning/behavioural difficulties. The concerning cases are those in which the
child may have already been assessed once with a negative response, that is,
he/she was found not to fulfil criteria for a diagnosis of autism/Asperger's. The
25
The Student Centred Appraisal of Need generates all of the funding for special schools.

families are invariably told they "will get extra support if their child has an ASD
diagnosis". What they are not told is that this is often a small amount of funding
for a shared STA (LSA) who is neither a teacher nor a special educator. The
long-term implications of a lifelong disability diagnosis for the child are either not
considered or dismissed as something that can be "removed" at a later stage.
Surely there is a conflict of interests when a school initiates ASD diagnostic
assessments specifically to seek additional educational funding. This financial
incentive seriously needs to be re-thought.” (Paediatrician)
“My wife and I cried for 3 days after our last SCAN meeting!”
“Parents need to be prepared by the school for the emotional toll of these
meetings.” (Disability association)
“Labeling children who don’t need it often leads people to focus on the wrong
issues.” (Paediatrician)
“You come out of SCAN and feel like jumping off a cliff.” (Parent)
“The labels are very useful for accessing a bucket of money but not for much
else.” (Principal)

While noting that many believe that the Student Centred Appraisal of Need is a definite
improvement on previous ascertainment processes, the Discussion Paper drew attention to
another issue - the validity of the rationale for the Student Centred Appraisal of Need. For
example, the process focuses on one variable that is of major importance to student
learning – the characteristics of the student – and ignores the rest – particularly the teacher
and contextual variables that are known to have a major impact on learning outcomes.
Furthermore, although the Student Centred Appraisal of Need was designed to support
educational planning (and so answer the key question of ‘funding for what purposes?) it is
not always used that way. “It is essential that finance provisions not be specified in a
vacuum or separate from the overall objectives that they are intended to support” (Alberta
Education, 2009).
“There appears to currently be an absence of a reasonable link between
curriculum outcomes and allocation of supports in inclusive school
environments. Currently SCAN funding is allocated at a point where learning
goals are unclear.” (Educator)
Research shows that demand-led funding that allocates an individual budget for individual
students - is far from perfect (Beek, 2002; Fletcher-Campbell et al., 2003; Pijl & Dyson,
2008). After undertaking a 17 nation study on the distribution of resources to support
inclusion Beek (2002) found that individual budgets reduce inclusive practice. Beek
concluded that demand-led funding “may not be sustainable in the long term and could
draw resources away from other school and pupil expenditure” (p. 9). This point suggests
that reliance on a single funding model is an inadequate way to achieve policy outcomes
such as greater inclusivity and improvement in the learning outcomes of students with a
disability.
Recent Australian research supports this view and highlights additional deleterious effects
of demand-driven funding approaches. Graham and Sweller (2009) report that between
1997 and 2009 the percentage of students in NSW Public schools assessed (and funded) as
having a disability has doubled. “Special education services now represent 12.8% of total

recurrent payments for NSW government schools – up from 7.2% in 1997 (NSW
Government 2008)”. Consistent with the international research reported above, Graham
and Sweller (2009, p.16) point out that ‘needs-based’ and ‘input-driven models’ “produce
incentives to formulate needs”.
“Unfortunately some principals and executive teachers believe that the worst
picture you paint of a student the more funding that comes to the school. I know
of parents who also believe this.” (Parent)
The capping of funding in NSW for additional support (see Sydney Morning Herald, 15
August 2009) has not reduced identification of students with disabilities. Graham and
Sweller (2009, p.16) write, “Each additional student simply reduced the funds available to
all, leaving the NSW Department of Education open to claims of under-funding.” Ferrier et
al. (2007, p. viii) also note that the targeting of funds based on assessed individual need
creates an incentive to game the system (‘category creep’) and that it actually stigmatises
students with a disability and reduces their access to mainstream curricula.
“Parents/carers and teachers find the process extremely difficult and manipulate
it to achieve local resources.” (Parent)
“SCAN is a conversation about the student’s additional needs.” (Educational

administrator)
What appears to be happening in some sectors is that stakeholders ‘medicalise’ diversity in

order to attract additional funds. Graham and Sweller (2009, p. 19) suggest that at least
four incentives combine to drive this trend including:
1. The extra funding attached to a diagnosis of disability;

2. Opportunities to provide an authoritative medical explanation for learning
failure;
3. The lure of segregated placement leading to a reduction in expectations all-
round; and
4. The professional interests held by the satellite industry surrounding the
students who fall by the wayside.
Notwithstanding the analysis above, it could be argued that although the nomenclature is
about response to needs, the Student Centred Appraisal of Need is fundamentally a supply,
rather than a demand, driven one. That is, while the process helps ensure that different
levels of need are differentially and transparently resourced, there does not seem to be any
direct and ‘necessary’ connection between the totality of individual needs of a particular
student and the totality of funding allocation for that student. (In this sense, the process
could be considered “cruel but fair!”). It is perhaps for this reason that there is considerable
discontent with the level of funding currently delivered by the Student Centred Appraisal
of Need to individual students.
As a supply-driven model, the Student Centred Appraisal of Need permits control over
levels and patterns of expenditure. Pijl and Dyson (1998, p. 275) note that the downside of
supply-driven models is that “individual cases have to be fitted into a centrally determined
pattern, sometimes with unfortunate consequences” and, in the ACT, examples of this
downside are that some disabilities such as Attention Deficit Disorder and Dyslexia are
deemed ineligible for supplementary funding. Attention has already been drawn to the
potential equity and legal issues.

“Need to provide a cost/benefit analysis for the SCAN process across the
system.” (Advocacy group)
The above analysis suggests that reliance on the Student Centred Appraisal of Need as the
sole or major funding mechanism, and investing resources to ‘fine tune” it, may simply
result in a more-finely tuned, inadequate, model. An analogy between the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need and the training wheels used by novice cyclists may not be too far off
the mark – initially indispensable; temporarily useful; eventually unnecessary; and
ultimately obstructive.
Improving disbursing mechanisms

Currently the Australian Government provides supplementary resourcing for students with
a disability based on definitional criteria that are narrower than the definition contained in
the Australian Government’s Disability Discrimination Act (1992). That is, while
education providers are required by the DDA (1992) to provide students with a disability
with access to the curriculum ‘on the same basis’ as students without a disability, the
additional funding to support this obligation is not extended to all students who may be
considered to have a disability under Commonwealth legislation. Many stakeholders refer
to these students as ‘unfunded students’. However, it would be more accurate to consider
these students to be ‘unfunded’ only with respect to the supplementary component of
funding for which defined categories of students with a disability are currently eligible.
Throughout the review our attention was drawn to the needs of students who a) have a
disability but not one of the disabilities deemed eligible for supplementary funding (e.g.
ADHD); b) had, but no longer have, a disability, but who still need additional assistance
(e.g. a child recovering from cancer treatment); c) almost certainly have an eligible
diagnosis but have not been assessed (e.g. because parents refuse; or the waiting list for
therapist or specialist is too long); and/or d) are as much in need as students with a
disability but who are ineligible for supplementary funding because the factors that affect
their learning do not constitute a disability (e.g. behavioural difficulties, disrupted home
life, extreme sexualised behaviour, motivational and attitudinal problems). The fact that in
addition to students with a disability, many students have individual needs that are
extremely resource-intensive clearly illustrates the inadequacy of dichotomous ways of
thinking about school diversity (special vs. not special; disabled – non disabled), especially
when used as a guide to school organisation, teaching practice and as the sole basis for
resource distribution.
Research on the impact of different funding suggests that:

• There is no single, ‘best’ funding model;
• Different funding systems (e.g. input or student-based, throughput or service-based,
percentage-reimbursement-based and/or fixed dollar, census-based etc) produce
different effects that may affect particular students differentially;
• Every funding model has strengths and weaknesses, and positive and negative
outcomes, so a combination of funding models seems desirable;
• As long as appropriate accountability measures are in place local or school-based
control of allocation is more effective, more cost effective, and it produces less
‘playing the system’; and

• From an economic efficiency viewpoint, it is best to allocate resources where they will
do the most good, for example, in early identification and intensive education for
students who struggle with learning, and in ways that support system or school policy,
for example, improvements of students functioning in the lowest quartile.
(Synthesised from Ferrier, et al. 2007; Gallagher, 2006; Graham & Sweller, 2009; Itkonen
& Jahnukainen, 2007; Harr et al. 2008; Meijer et al., 1999; Weishaar and Borsa, 2001)
Meijer et al. (1999) raise the potential benefits of ‘output funding’ and Fletcher-Campbell
(2002, p. 20) refers to this model as a ‘theoretical possibility’ in which “schools are
‘rewarded’ for effectiveness and excellence and are funded for tasks completed,
retrospectively, rather than ‘tasks to be done’, as is the case in most cases at the moment.”
While Fletcher-Campbell notes the problem of what could be called ‘perverse
disincentives’ (e.g. a school may be so successful that it no longer qualifies for additional
funding) - the approach deserves further attention as part of the funding mix, because in
focusing on quality outcomes, it aligns special education with the mainstream
accountability agenda. Farrell (2005) argues that ‘student progress’ is a useful funding
criterion because compared with criteria such as ‘evidence of need’ and ‘provision
required to address barriers to learning’, ‘student progress’ can at least be defined – and
presumably measured. However, the benefits of output funding for students with a
disability would depend on the way in which such a policy were implemented.
Beek (2002, p. 10) argued that resource distribution models should:
• Demonstrably support the inclusion of children with additional educational needs

within mainstream schools wherever possible;
• Adhere to the principles of whole school funding;
• Demonstrably support early identification and intervention strategies;
• Be flexible enough to meet the needs of children who experience complex particular
disabilities;
• Distribute resources to meet the additional needs of children and young people in
mainstream settings irrespective of whether or not a statement of special educational
needs is held (i.e. whether they have an identified or confirmed disability);
• Support children with additional educational needs and not just those who experience
special educational needs;
• Enable the requirements of statements to be met;
• Be developed in partnerships with schools and other relevant stakeholders;
• Avoid undue perverse incentives;
• Include arrangements to ensure accountability, including the monitoring of the use of
resources and outcomes for children;
• Clearly outline the relative roles, duties and expectations of schools and LEAs (Local
Education Authorities); and
• Be transparent and equitable, with individual schools clear about the resources
available to them and able to see how this relates to the allocation of resources to
others.

Use of finances at school level
Schools and school systems that have a clear vision and action plan for meeting the needs
of all of their students are well placed to manage and deploy available finances to
implement their vision. The leading practice literature suggests the following strategies to
maximise the use of resources:
1) Program consolidation. This has been defined by McLaughlin (1999, p. 23) as a

strategy for merging or blurring, where permissible, “distinctions among personnel,
services or funding streams that were targeted … for specific populations of students.”
McLaughlin lists the following advantages: greater autonomy; more innovative
programs; increased options for students; reduced costs; greater flexibility; and fewer
divisions and barriers among students and staff.
2) Reorganisation of services and roles. When schools have a clear vision about what
they want to look like, they can begin to reorganise their services to achieve that vision.
For example, Deppeler, Loreman and Sharma (2005, p. 117) and Jenkins (2002)
suggest that services that are funded for particular students might be extended, where
funding rules permit, to other students. Not only does the same funding ‘go further’, it
also provides incidental benefits such as the participation of a broader range of students
in evidence-based practices, for example, peer tutoring.
Similarly, the roles of particular staff, for example, a teacher and/or Learning Support
Assistant, might be adapted, consistent with Enterprise Bargaining Agreements and
school/system policy to assist teachers in the introduction of an extensive, school wide,
peer-tutoring program.
3) Strategic use of resources by the executive. Shaddock et al. (2007, p 162) described the
role of a principal in demonstrating “effective change management to support inclusion
by (a) providing extra time and resources for teachers who were including students
with disabilities; (b) using various incentives to change teacher behaviour; and (c) not
‘forcing’ students with disabilities onto unwilling teachers.”
The strategies listed above are based on an assumption that resources are available for
rearrangement. In our visits to small schools, and in particular, to small Independent
schools, we found this not to be the case, illustrating once again that the totality of
resources that are needed to teach a student with a disability must take into consideration
teacher and contextual variables in addition to student variables.
Some ACT non-government schools have been able to access sufficient

resources to develop on-line programs for some subject areas which have been
popular with many of the special needs students as they are able to work at
their own pace. However, many of the smaller schools do not have access to
sufficient resources to make this sort of initiative possible. (School submission)
Connors (2006, p. 11) comments about public education in the ACT may also be applied to
other sectors:
It will never be possible to share the total workload of education evenly among
schools serving all corners of the ACT community. Therefore, for this system
(public education) to live up to its charter, it will need a system for allocating
resources among schools that reflects as closely as possible the share of the
real workload of educating our children and young people that different schools

accept … and this includes consideration of relative complexity of the workload
in different schools. And then good school leaders have to be capable of
making the best possible use of the resources they have for the students they
serve.
Earlier in this report the point was made that what does or does not happen in mainstream
education affects what does or does not happen in special education Harr et al. (2008, p.
586) express the financial implications of this issue in the following way:
Adequate funding for special education cannot be considered in a vacuum.

Special education students come from the general education student
population, and most special education students continue to be highly reliant on
a mix of general and special education services. As described by Mittnacht
(2005), “Ultimately, it makes sense in our efforts to resolve funding issues that
we not start with how to fund special education, but rather with how to fund
general education.
Parrish’s (2001, p. 8) advice to policy-makers about the allocation of resources is worthy

of further consideration.
We need to support programs that attempt to assist students prior to their
referral to more costly special education interventions – especially in light of
ever increasing student standards and high stakes accountability. We also need
to target supplementary special education aid to districts serving students with
extraordinarily high cost special needs. At the same time it is essential to begin
bridging the gap between general and special education programs and
providers to more fully address the educational needs of all children.
In conclusion, most teachers do not conceptualise their classrooms as comprised of

‘funded’ and ‘unfunded’ students and they strive to improve the learning outcomes of all.
So, it makes sense to allocate resources in ways that are coherent with, and promote,
system policy, for example, towards greater inclusivity, lifting the performance of all
students and particularly those functioning in the bottom quartile 26, and improving equity.
There are sound pedagogical and financial rationales for using resources to further
integrate special and regular education.
Funding should be allocated in ways that give schools the flexibility, within appropriate
accountability frameworks, to implement practices that work for them and assist teachers
to meet the learning needs of students with a disability in the context of accountability for
a quality education for every student.
Achievement of these objectives will involve repackaging and redirecting resources and
using different funding models (e.g. input, throughput, output and outcome), thus taking
the focus off the Student Centred Appraisal of Need as the sole or major resource for
students with a disability. There are good financial and pedagogical reasons for schools to
reduce the reliance on a funding mechanism that is somewhat deficit-oriented and focused
on individual need.
To sum up:
• The funding of education and special education is extraordinarily complex.
26
It should not be assumed that all students with a disability function in the bottom quartile.

• It is difficult to be prescriptive about what constitutes enough resources because
quantity and use are interrelated.
• Resources should be directed to approaches for which there is evidence of

effectiveness in improving students’ learning outcomes.
• ACT funding policy should be consistent with ACT educational policy, for
example, about inclusivity. All students should be included in staffing and funding
processes first, and after that, consideration should be given to the adjustments that
particular students may need to achieve agreed learning outcomes.
The next chapter continues the exploration of resources with particular attention to the
more important human resources – partnerships and personnel - and their impact on
student learning outcomes.

Chapter 8: Partnerships,
Personnel and Learning Outcomes
This chapter reviews leading practice on:
• Parent-teacher partnerships to promote student learning

• Provision of various forms of consultancy support for classroom
teachers
• Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) and their impact on learning
outcomes.
• Therapy and mental health services for students with particular
attention to service integration
• School-based ‘Learning Support Coordination’.
Parents and carers

International, national and ACT education policy highlight partnerships with parents 27 and
many ACT parents of students with a disability are extremely involved in, and influential
advocates for, their children’s education. The Walberg model gives high priority to parent-
teacher collaboration because of the extensive body of research demonstrating the benefits
for students’ learning.
With children in their care most of the time, it is hardly surprising that research shows that
parents have a major influence on their children’s intellectual, social, emotional and
behavioural development, especially ability, motivation and responsiveness to instruction
(Walberg, 1984b; Howland et al., 2008). Parenting is a greater predictor of cognitive and
socio-emotional outcomes than the quality of early childcare or education (Weiss &
Stephen, 2009). Often parents (and students) are a great source of information about
appropriate goals, strategies, learning experiences and assessment methods (Dettmer,
Dyck, & Thurston, 1999).
“Where teachers have worked with parents utilising the vast knowledge they
have of their child’s abilities, there is usually a more successful outcome.”
(Parent)
“We have been educating teachers throughout our son’s career!” (Parents)
Collaboration between parents and teachers enables the exchange of knowledge and skills;
fosters social inclusion; improves teaching, learning and behavioural outcomes; and
27
Family-School Partnerships Framework, in Australia; (Australian Government, 2006); No Child Left Behind,
in the USA (US Department of Education, 2004); and Every Parent Matters, in the UK (Department for
Education and Skills, 2004).

increases school attendance (Compton-Lilly, 2009; Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston; Killu,
2008; Menna & Matthews, 2003; Sailor & Skrtic, 1996; Sanders, 2008; Stainback &
Stainback, 1997; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001; Villa & Thousand, 2000; Weiss & Stephen,
2009; Wenger, 1998).
One school has developed a junior "sensory room" with the assistance
of a qualified parent who has donated one day per week to set it up.
Several students have been known to spend time in the sensory room at
the beginning of the day to reduce anxiety before moving into their
classroom.
Much of the research on parent-teacher partnerships describes programs that individual

schools have developed for, or in conjunction with, parents, and identifies the key factors
and barriers to success. Tayler (2006) reviewed three parent-teacher collaborations around
literacy and found that the key success factors were strong leadership from principals;
belief in, and commitment to, the program; respect and equality among the partners; and
attention to beliefs and values of teachers and parents.
“Parents are crucial – a good partnership might take time in the beginning but
pays off in the long run for everyone!!!” (Executive teacher)
“Can you stress how much teachers and schools have to learn from parents a
bit more? If you accept that teachers need to know their students in order to
match pedagogy to need, then parents have a vital role as educators of
teachers.” (Critical reader)
Sanders (2008) concluded that successful parent-teacher partnerships are based on mutual
respect; cultural sensitivity; a focus on strengths rather than deficits; and attention to the
needs of families as perceived by families rather than by schools. Allen (2008) found that
rewarding partnerships depended on reciprocity and mutual trust and the opportunity to
have extended conversations in which the perspectives of families could be better
understood.
Research on teacher/parent partnerships reviewed by Rock (2000) identified that teachers

in inclusive schools engaged in the following practices:
• Nurtured partnerships with parents by providing positive feedback on their children;

• Encouraged parents to contribute to the individual planning agenda and genuinely to
participate in meetings;
• Organised translators and child care when necessary;
• Utilised professionals, students, community members, retirees, grandparents or ESL
teachers to facilitate communication with families;
• Encouraged parents/carers to bring an advocate if support was needed at school
meetings;
• Avoided the use of educational jargon;
• Continually considered ways to increase parental contributions and comfort;

• Were flexible with individual planning meeting times;
• Organised teleconferencing, and taped meetings for parents;
• Welcomed parents into school on a daily basis and facilitated their involvement in
school activities; and
• Communicated frequently with parents and carers about their child’s progress.
A recent UK survey found that 72% of parents want more involvement in their children’s
schooling (Department for Education & Skills, 2007). However, cultural, economic,
educational, generational and power relationship differences between parents and teachers
often inhibit genuine collaboration on curriculum development, school engagement and
reform (Arndt, & McGuire-Schwartz, 2008; Rock, 2000). Parents with unhappy memories
of their own schooling (Howland et al., 2006) and families from different cultural and low
socio-economic backgrounds (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000) are less likely to work
collaboratively with schools, a finding attributed to parents’ lack of understanding of the
educational process, inflexible or unpredictable work hours, depression and stress, lack of
access to child care and/or communication difficulties.
“From a parent’s perspective, a lot of the interaction with education is negative.”

(Parent)
Risko and Walker-Dalhouse (2009) summarised research on methods for addressing the
power imbalance that sometimes exists between parents and teachers. They found that
teachers strengthened partnerships by communicating with families frequently; focusing on
student success; linking health and social services to families; establishing parent
networks; providing a parent meeting room; developing parent programs in leadership,
language and literacy with the parents; and involving parents in the creation and evaluation
of school programs. These teachers also visited families and attended community events
to learn about their students, families and community, then worked on joint literacy
projects with parents, such as dialogue journaling, newsletters, anthologies of poetry,
stories and plays.
While most parents and teachers are ‘time poor’, time is not the only barrier to effective
collaboration. Some parents regard teachers as the experts and choose to defer educational
decisions to the school (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2009; Weissbourd, 2009). Some
teachers consider themselves to be the experts and are not willing to share power or value
the contribution of parents (Weissbourd, 2009). Teachers may require more training to
develop more positive attitudes and work collaboratively with parents (Dettmer, Dyck, &
Thurston, 1999; Flanigan, 2007; Menna & Matthews, 2003; NSW Public Inquiry, 2002).
Advocating, even legally requiring, schools and parents to work collaboratively, however,
does not make it happen. According to Weiss and Stephen (2009), setting high student and
teacher standards with financial incentives and penalties and giving parents the right to
choose schools has not made a substantial difference to student outcomes. What has been
learned is that it is more adaptive for schools to work with parents as partners to improve
the learning outcomes of students with a disability.
“This year I set my class, which includes two students with intellectual
disabilities, a research assignment on endangered species. I set a series of
detailed questions under specific headings. Most of the research was to be
completed at school although I did send a copy of the project home with a list of
the questions. The mother of one of the students was able to give her child

additional support. The poster the girl produced was outstanding and she had
been practised so well that she spoke for over five minutes and then answered
questions from the rest of the class. I could see the girl standing straighter and
beaming the more she talked. The other students all learnt something from the
presentation and applauded at the end.” (Primary school teacher)
With government investment in partnerships, growing numbers of schools employing

parent coordinators to work with disadvantaged families. In some US districts ‘liaisons’ act
as “cultural mediators” or “brokers (Howland et al., 2006, p. 52). Liaisons are
professionals with experience as teachers or social workers, well-educated role models
with the same cultural background and language as the families. They work with families
with low incomes whose children are under performing, have disabilities or high rates of
absenteeism. Liaisons have four key responsibilities: conflict resolution (mediating issues
between home and school), referral (to agencies, support groups, accessing medical care,
food, goods), direct support (teaching parents skills, providing information), cultural
brokering (supporting families through the school system) (Howland et al., 2006).
Evaluations show that liaisons have increased family and student participation in schools
and improved the advocacy skills of families (Sanders, 2008).
In the United Kingdom, over 2000 Parent Support Advisers (PSAs) have been employed to
work across over 8000 schools (Training & Development Agency for Schools (TDA),
2009). The advisors have five responsibilities: developing partnerships with parents;
helping parents engage with their children’s learning; developing parenting skills; linking
parents to services, and developing their own competence (TDA, 2009).
In summary, given the “outstanding record of success” and the “dramatic improvements”
in student learning outcomes brought about by school/parent partnerships that focus on
student learning (Walberg, 1984b, p. 400) it would be advisable for ACT educators to a)
elevate the priority given to collaborating with parents and carers to support students’
learning; and b) take responsibility for initiating and fostering this type of collaboration
(Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999). Hattie (2005) reports that ‘home encouragement of
learning’ produces an effect size on learning of 0.69, a major influence on learning
outcomes. Given that a) many (but not all) parents, want greater involvement in their
child’s education; and b) the modest costs of supporting them to do so, teacher-parent
collaboration should be given high priority. That said, the complexities must also be
acknowledged. One teacher commented,
“Parents are a fantastic support. They’re great …but (they are) demanding for
teachers.”
Similarly, Ferguson (2008b, p.57) in his analysis of a hundred years of parent/professional

relationships, draws attention to the complexities of these relationships,
It is often a troubled and troubling relationship, characterized by suspicion on

both sides. Then, as now, many parents were both appreciative and resistant
(of professionals), thankful and angry. Perhaps it is an inevitable and awkward
dance between partners, each doubting the other’s capacity to lead but tied
together in an unavoidable push and pull across the floor.

Learning Support Assistants (LSAs)
In classrooms where there are students who are complex and/or challenging the Learning
Support Assistant (LSA) is much appreciated (Broadbent & Burgess, 2003; Chadbourne,
1997; Shaddock, Nielsen, et al. 2007). Many teachers say that they would not survive in
their class without LSA support.
“Without an aide, it would have been dreadful! (Teacher)
However, despite the generally strong support from teachers and parents for LSAs, there
are concerns about the role. The Discussion Paper made the following points:
• There is insufficient role clarity, training and professional development opportunities

for Learning Support Assistants;
• System policy around the skills LSAs need to assist teachers with curriculum and
pedagogy are unclear; and
• There are issues around the current and future availability of appropriately qualified
and experienced LSAs.
Visits by the review team to non-government and government schools revealed extensive
involvement of LSAs in some schools and wide variation in their deployment and skills. In
some schools, LSAs had been given advanced training and were highly skilled in working
with students with disabilities and students with learning difficulties.
At one school, the LSA has been working with a consultant to engage
students in the literacy process - reading , writing and research through
using various inclusive technologies (Clicker 5, Inspiration , Powerpoint
and Word). A report on the work has been submitted for presentation at
a national conference.
“Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) are undervalued. Since being in High

School, my son has had numerous Assistants that have left because they are
not able to gain permanent employment or the flexibility of part time work to
meet their Uni commitments. The LSAs in my son’s life have been invaluable.”
(Parent)
“In practice, some (LSAs) are more highly skilled in basic literacy and numeracy
teaching than some of the teachers they are working with.” (Learning Support
Coordinator)
However, despite these LSAs having specific expertise, for example, in remedial reading,
being very much appreciated by parents and teachers, and working in an inclusive model,
issues were raised about their remuneration, status and working conditions.
Research has identified the following problems, particularly in situations in which LSAs
are the major strategy for supporting students:

• LSAs perform a wide range of roles for which not all may have adequate training;
• The involvement of LSAs can have unintended, negative effects on student
engagement, learning, independence and/or social acceptance;
• In some situations, LSAs are exploited personally, professionally and/or in terms of
salary and conditions;
• The presence of LSAs has been associated with teachers devolving responsibility to
them for students with a disability;
• Some teachers do not have the skills to direct and supervise LSAs;
• Working effectively with another adult in the classroom requires planning and
appropriate time allocation;
• Role confusion, blurring and overlap are frequently reported; and
• There has been a world wide escalation in the deployment of LSAs in schools
(Shaddock, Nielsen et al. 2007, p. 213).
More pertinent to this review, there is little research that shows the benefits in terms of
student learning outcomes of LSAs (Finn & Achilles, 1999; Giangreco, Broer & Edelman,
2001; Giangreco, Edelman et al. 1997; Giangreco & Broer, 2005).
The lack of research support for the positive impact of LSAs on student learning outcomes
has prompted the search for alternatives to LSAs and/or to more carefully define their
roles. For example, Giangreco, Halvorsen, Doyle and Broer (2004) have proposed the
following:
• Using the resources currently devoted to LSAs to employ more teachers, improve
teacher professional learning and networking, reduce class sizes and/or purchase
therapy, equipment, consultancy and other supports for inclusive practice;
• Establishing a mobile pool of LSAs who are available for time-limited involvement
and whose support is systematically phased out and replaced with mainstream
supports;
• Clarifying the LSA role to be indirect support for the teacher;
• Implementing peer-support strategies that replace some roles currently performed by
LSAs; and
• Consulting students about the way they would prefer to receive support.
The additional funds to support the education of students with a disability is provided to
schools in ‘LSA hours’ and creates the impression that the most appropriate way to support
students with a disability is through the appointment of an LSA – entirely the wrong
pedagogical message. The current funding method implicitly endorses the ‘pedagogical
status quo’ and stifles the adoption of alternative strategies that are known to be effective.
“Many teachers rely too heavily on LSAs.” (Parent)
Although the analysis so far has implied that the deployment of LSAs should be
reconsidered, there are other options. For example, the negative research findings about the
impact of untrained staff on student learning outcomes suggest an obvious solution - to
provide training, as occurs in other disciplines such as for paraprofessionals in nursing and
the therapies. The suggestion to provide training for these valued staff raises a key policy
question - “training for what roles?”

“Surprisingly few studies have suggested that the solution to having untrained
staff, is to train them.” (Educator)
LSAs: “… need training and a base line so they can do more than just the day
to day cleaning and hygiene.” (School staff)
McGaw (2008) has proposed another option - employing more, not fewer,
paraprofessionals. Writing about education in general, and acknowledging the fact that
“teachers are the key to high-quality education”, McGaw (2008, p.71) suggests
differentiating “… the labour force in schools, employing teachers for only those aspects
of the work for which professional teaching skills are required and remitting other tasks to
a range of other workers. England provides a good example of this development”.
McGaw’s proposal is worth further consideration and trialing, for example, in special
schools it may be efficient and effective to involve trained and supervised LSAs in more
extensively in labour intensive activities such as implementing therapy. This option would
require significant change in the roles of some personnel with consequent pre-service,
professional learning and industrial implications. However, the idea is not new and even
ten years ago French (1999, p 70) proposed a similar shift in teacher responsibility to that
of “delegator, planner, director, monitor, coach and program manager”.
“The role of the LSA needs to be clearly defined in terms of: what they do; how
they do their work; who they are answerable to and what supervision structures
do they need; what structures need to be in place to ensure quality work; and
what qualifications and training structures are most desirable.” (Educator)
Over the last few years some LSAs in Catholic schools have had access to training and,
anecdotally, this has made a positive difference to classroom practice. Clearly there is a
need for evidence-based policy development in regard to LSAs in the government and non-
government sectors and this should occur before further extensive deployment and training
are undertaken. The clarification of the role of LSAs raises training, career and industrial
issues for them and consequent considerations for teachers and others in regard to their
roles, pre-service preparation, professional development and employment conditions.
Consultancy support for teachers

The type and extent of consultancy services for teachers in government and non-
government sectors is varied and there is wide variation in access to these services among
Independent schools. Within ACTDET, these services include school counsellors (mainly,
psychologists, most of whom have teaching qualifications), itinerant teachers for hearing
and vision impairment, inclusion support and technology consultation.
Catholic schools provide counsellors (mainly social workers) and limited psycho-
educational assessment services but nearly all assessments are outsourced. A Learning
Support Teacher coordinates services in each Catholic school, sometimes assisted by a
School Special Needs Learning Support Committee.
In Independent schools, support services range from sophisticated models involving

integrated psychological, educational and social support for students and families, to
virtually no access to additional services unless they are purchased by the parents of the
student with a disability.

Needless to say, classrooms teachers generally value the expertise and support provided by
all of these consultants.
“The support provided by the Itinerant Hearing Support Teachers (IHST) is

invaluable.” (Disability organisation)
The support services that are particularly valued by teachers include:
• Assessment, consultation or support focused on individual students, for example, those

with a sensory impairment requiring very specific knowledge and expertise;
• Writing, refining or individualising curriculum and teaching materials;
• Data collection, for example, assisting schools to monitor ‘at-risk behaviour’ such as
suspensions, absences and relationship difficulties with teachers or peers; and
• Provision of professional learning for school staff, particularly ‘just in time’ learning
about issues or students of current concern.
The Discussion Paper noted positive features of the support provided to classroom teachers
in ACTDET and then listed several concerns - lack of role clarity; too few consultants to
meet demand; and a degree of compartmentalisation and fragmentation illustrated by
inadequate coordination of support and /or role confusion, at the classroom. The latter
problems were not mentioned in the non-government sector, either because the services
were well integrated and coordinated in the schools that had them, or, because some
schools had hardly any consultancy services to coordinate.
The leading practice literature suggests that consultants should try to engage in more
‘upstream’ activity, for example, in cultural, policy, organisational and systemic change
that focuses on whole school and proactive change. Such activities include:
• Developing and implementing systems to screen, monitor and detect problems in

learning;
• Liaising with the school community, for example, with parents and/or establishing
partnerships with business; and
• Supporting systemic change, for example, as described by Bryer and Beamish (2005)
with reference to supporting students with problem behaviours.
(Synthesised from Australian Psychological Society, 2009; Bernard et al. 2007; Power,
2003; Green, Grant, A., & Rynsaardt, J. 2007; Rowling, 2003; Strategic Partners and
Centre for Youth Affairs and Development, 2001.)
A significant trend in the roles of school counsellors, in particular, is to assist with the
coordination of services from external agencies, for example, those with which most
teachers would have limited experience, such as mental health services. The multiple roles
of school counsellors, and the significant demands placed on them for assessing students
with disabilities for funding eligibility purposes, suggests the need for a more strategic use
of these valuable, generic, resources for schools.
The research also suggests that consultancy services are more effective when they are
coordinated with, and oriented towards, the class program (Bellini et al., 2007; McGinty
and Justice, 2006).

Some specialist services in ACT schools provide a service delivery function in classrooms
and assist in coordinating services through liaising with families and specialist agencies.
While the highly specific needs of some students, for example, those with vision and
hearing impairment, may sometimes require direct support from itinerant teachers, the
primary goal of consultancy support should be strategic and systematic capacity-building
at classroom level.
“The Vision Support Teachers will refer to us and consult with us. Consistently
ACT students with a vision impairment appear to be less frustrated than
students with a vision impairment from outside the ACT Public system.”
(External organisation)
An important goal for the highly regarded services for vision and hearing impaired
students would be to continue to give priority to building the skills of classroom teachers.
Operation of a whole school consultancy in public schools: Possible

model
• Senior executive of school identifies needs and approaches senior

executive of Student Support.
• In consultation with the school, Student Support develops a package
designed to change culture and practice at a whole school level.
• Targeted consultants (Inclusion Support consultants, school
counsellors, Student Management consultants, Support Teachers
Hearing and/or Vision) work at all levels within the school
(dependent on needs) to embed change, e.g. play ground approaches
to support social skills programs; assistance for teachers with
curriculum and pedagogy; team teaching and modeling of relevant
technology or strategies; and/or professional learning workshops.
• Senior executive in school monitor implementation, support teachers
in action evaluation and reflective practice, and provide regular
feedback to embed change.
Multidisciplinary services
This section overviews leading practice and models for the provision of multi-agency and
multidisciplinary services for students with particular attention to the provision of therapy
services, (e.g. physiotherapy, occupational therapy and/or speech pathology), and mental
health services. For many students, these types of services are essential if they are to access
the curriculum. The Disability Standards for Education (2005, p.14) note that, “Many
students with a disability require multidisciplinary assistance in order to achieve learning
outcomes, participate in courses and programs and to develop independence”.

Therapy
Therapy services may include direct service, consultation, monitoring and/or a
collaborative or transdisciplinary 28 approach (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2004).
There is not much evidence on the differential effectiveness of these various clinical
approaches to therapy provision (McWilliam, 1996) and there is little research about the
relative merits of various models for providing therapy in schools, for example, whether
Education Departments should employ therapists or whether there should be contracts with
other Departments or agencies to supply these services.
The Discussion Paper documented problems in regard to therapy for students in Public
schools. These included: referral and waiting time, coordination and communication;
particular issues for students with a disability in mainstream schools; and the absence of a
service agreement between the relevant departments. The issues were similar in the
government and non-government sectors.
“We (parents) are not educators. This is not right. In the last two years I have
spent around $5000.00 on O.T. (private). Psychologist testing, $600.00
(private), Speech test $450.00 (private), Tutor $2200.00 (private), resources –
have no figure, way too much, computer program, $600.00.” (Parent)
“My issue is the lack of therapy support. Some children need lots of physical
support. A huge gap is the provision of therapy.” (Teacher)
“I have brought in Speech Pathologists and Psychologists into the school on

many occasions to assist the teacher to deal with behaviours and issues
affecting my son’s ability to participate in the classroom. This assistance has
not always been welcome but where it has, the results were astounding.”
(Parent)
“The biggest special education issue/problem for me is our therapy program

sitting separate to education and requiring time away from school.” (Parent)
”Huge differences in therapy provision from preschool to primary school –

preschool therapy is home-based, and often not seen at the school level.”
(School submission)
Despite the problems, therapy services are valued.
“The Therapy ACT OT and physios have been particularly good in coordinating
visits with the school.” (Parent)
“Therapy ACT has been providing some valuable professional development to

teachers in special education and mainstream schools.” (Teacher organisation)
Current policies and practices within Therapy ACT are consistent with many leading
practice principles for therapy provision for young people. The literature on effective
practice indicates the importance of:
• Accessibility and equity in provision;

• Student-centred and family-centred practice based on need and with specified
outcomes;
28
See Appendix 4 (multidisciplinary) for a definition.

• Early and, if necessary, ongoing therapy;
• Case management, transdisciplinary teamwork and collaborative approaches with
teachers with time allocated to support that collaboration;
• The integration of therapy goals with the school curriculum and/or ILP and student
involvement in decisions about therapy;
• Indirect and consultative services;
• Therapy, delivered in natural settings (such as school) and targeting goals that are
functional for the student;
• Provision, training and maintenance of necessary equipment;
• Whole of government and interagency collaboration; and
• Service quality monitoring.
(Synthesised from Bundy et al. (2008); Cameron et al., 2001; Farrell, 2005; Lacey, 2003;
New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2007; Western Australian Department of Education
and Training, 2004).
Access to therapy services remains difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is the supply of therapists in the ACT, an issue that perhaps suggests the need for more
creative attraction and retention strategies. Not unexpectedly, ‘demand management’ is a
frequent topic in the therapy literature, for example, WestWood Spice (2004); Bundy et al
(2008).
“Services like those provided by Therapy ACT … are invaluable. However,

these services can be described as ad hoc and insufficient to fully meet the
sometimes complex health needs of students in special schools. The few
therapists available are ‘spread too thinly’ between their community, family and
school caseloads and most students miss out on receiving adequate support.”
(Teacher organisation)
Consideration is needed about ways to use the available resources more efficiently. For
example, Bundy et al (2008) outline the role of therapy assistants – skilled technical
workers who work under the supervision of therapists and in accordance with the policies
of the relevant professional organisations – an idea that is consistent with the McGaw
suggestion to increase the number and role of paraprofessionals in schools. “There is
growing recognition that indirect therapy is a viable and effective adjunct or alternative to
direct therapies” (Dreiling & Bundy, 2003). Another strategy that requires further
examination is ‘group therapy’. Bundy et al. (2008) conclude that the advantages to this
approach include time efficiency, caseload management and incidental benefits of group
dynamics. While group therapy is possible in settings with larger numbers of students with
a disability it is less feasible in mainstream schools.
Making better use of existing resources is a more efficient response than establishing
mechanisms for controlling demand. Bundy et al. (2008) report research that shows that
various forms of gate-keeping are ineffective. Such tactics create a ‘battle mentality that is
inimical to effective working relationships between service providers and parents.
“You get tired of fighting with services – respite care, therapy, the Education
Department …” (Parent)
The current provision of therapy services in schools is not family, school, teacher or
student-friendly. There is clearly a need for more effective ways of delivering therapy to

school aged children at school and a greater supply of therapists to do so. Currently there is
little chance of implementing the following recommendations that were made in
submissions to the Review:
“Co-locate therapy services in schools – therapists 4 days in schools; one day

meetings, professional support etc. Model is currently being used in mainstream
high schools by Mental Health nurses.” (Disability Association)
“Therapists must be school-based, and able to service a cluster placed at the

school for as many days as is appropriate for demand. This is similar to the way
in which school counsellors operate. Removal of children from school to access
a therapist is disruptive to the child and the school. It also requires parents to be
present.”
“There is a need to fund a wraparound approach incorporating employment of

in-school professionals such as therapists and music specialists, similar to what
is happening in the new Early Childhood schools.” (School board)

Thirteen years ago a Review of Special Education in the ACT similar to this one
(Andrews, 1996) reported fragmentation, poor coordination, problems with referrals and
waiting time and insufficient alignment of therapy and education goals for students with a
disability in ACT Public schools. Despite a greater focus on early intervention, the
adoption of consultation models, provision of ‘resource packs’ for schools, increased
allocation of therapist hours to schools and the satisfaction expressed by clients who do
receive therapy, therapy provision for students with a disability in the ACT is far from
ideal.
Mental health
Nationally and internationally there is a growing number of students experiencing
emotional problems (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004; Australian Institute of Health
& Welfare, 2003; Campbell, 2004; Frydenberg et al 2006; Graham & Sweller, 2009; Green
et al. 2007; McGraw et al. 2008; School Mental Health Project, 2007). In a recent review
of special education “the dearth of services for children and youth with emotional or
mental health problems” was the most frequently cited unmet need (Alberta Education,
2009, p.8).
In Australia, 14% of children between 4 and 17 are considered to have mental health
problems (Sawyer et al. 2001; Zubrick et al. 2000). Among the adolescent group, the
prevalence may approximate 25% (Zubrick et al. 2000). The summaries of school visits
and observations in ACT schools confirm the growing concern of teachers and counsellors
about mental health issues in the government and non-government sectors.
Schools are very unfriendly places for people with mental health issues. They
can be overwhelming and frightening and students with these issues are
battling on a number of fronts. The assistance they require is often to be at
school, or get to school, (but) thinking about learning outcomes is often way
outside their range of ability. There is pressure on these students to keep up
with their school work and whilst some assistance is available to help with this,
it is not nearly sufficient to enable them to collect, retain and utilise the
curriculum information sufficiently whilst trying to deal with their mental health
issues. (School submission)

ACT schools make use of national, evidence-based, health promotion initiatives such as
Kidsmatter, MindMatters and Headspace. These programs stress the links between good
mental health and good educational outcomes, and, consistent with leading practice, seek
to assist individuals in the social context of the school (Patton et al. 2003; Principals
Australia (n.d.).
Although the ACT Government has increased funds for promotion, prevention and early
intervention by 16% over the past 4 years, and despite national priority for adequate
school-based mental health services, there are many concerns about the adequacy of
assistance for students with mental health problems in ACT schools.
“The mental health service has very tight eligibility and concentrates on
adolescents with anxiety and depression.” (Paediatrician)
“There is inadequate support for behaviourally disturbed children with ADHD.”

(Paediatrician)
“Unless the student is suicidal there is virtually no support.” (Counsellor)
“The mental health burden of children and adolescents is not responded to – it’s
not for ADHD and Aspergers.” (Paediatrician)
One school has set up in the senior school a study centre which provides
small classes and individual work to support students with special needs
in the curriculum areas. A teacher also provides a program of relaxation
and managing behaviours within the centre. An LSA with qualifications
in mental health is also available.
Recent ACT reports confirm the perceptions of parents, teachers and doctors of gaps in
coordination; support for specific client groups; professional learning for school staff;
backup for school social workers and counsellors; services for the full range of mental
health problems experienced by students; and setting priorities for access to services (ACT
Health, 2009; Sprague & Brann, 2008).
See Appendix 10 for a summary of evidence-based principles and practices for services for
students with mental health issues.
Service integration
A feature of leading practice throughout the world is a move towards ‘integrated support’,
‘service integration’ or ‘wraparound’ – the delivery of specialised services in a more
coordinated and integrated manner (Bruns et al. 2004; Evans, 1996; Department for
Education & Skills; Kolbe et al. 1999; Peterson, 2009).
Given the growing complexity of the issues faced by schools and the diversity of their
students, service integration presents as a necessity (Evans, 1996). The literature on service
integration highlights:

• The active involvement of the child and support for parents as the primarily responsible
party;
• Conceptualisation of schools as the predominant living and learning environment for
youth and as a community resource;
• Co-location of services where possible;
• Alignment of client assessments and case management; and
• Clear and realistic objectives of service integration; leadership support; time allocation
for joint planning; and clarity around administrative arrangements, funding and
resources.
(Synthesised from Commonwealth of Australia, 2001; Dryfoos, 2008; Fine et al., 2005
Government of Quebec, 2003; Tett, 2005; UK Department for Education and Skills, 2007;
Weiss & Stephen, 2009).
However, interagency work is not without complications, for example,

“There are legal issues associated with the interagency delivery of services,
e.g. privacy of records and information.” (Parent)
One of the gaps in children’s services in the ACT is that there is no comprehensive,
multidepartment, multidisciplinary diagnostic service for children with developmental
difficulties.
“Getting a diagnosis is an awful journey for parents.” (Paediatrician)
“Parents might go to a variety of places and take the best part of a year.”
(Paediatrician)
A collaborative, interagency ‘assessment clinic’ may be an appropriate, feasible and cost

efficient way to fill this need.

“If somewhere the size of Canberra can’t do this (establish such a centre), it
would be absurd.” (Paediatrician)
”The only way there can be satisfactory progress (on the development of such a
centre) is by working together.” (Paediatrician)
In conclusion, the level and type of therapy and mental health services provided to students
with a disability do not meet demand. Improvement of therapy, mental health and related
services – assessment and treatment - for students with a disability in ACT schools
requires service contracts between the relevant agencies and agreement of an operational
model for a cost effective, evidence-based approach to delivery. The non-government
school sector has expressed interest in collaborating with the public sector in pursuing
these objectives. The proposed service agreement/s would involve therapy and mental
health services viewing education sectors and/or schools, as well as children and/or
families, as clients.

For assessment services, consideration should be given to models that have been
implemented elsewhere for cost-efficient, multi-agency collaboration”29. For therapy
provision, consideration should be given to the multiple advantages of making greater use
of the resources and equipment of special schools, systematically deploying supervised
paraprofessionals – perhaps in a regionally-based way, and involving supervised university
students in Education, Psychology and the Therapies as part of their course work.
Learning support coordinators

Some school systems are beginning to employ Learning Support Coordinators (LSCs) -
school-based educators who have special education knowledge and experience and who
have school-wide responsibilities for raising the quality of teaching and learning, with
particular focus on students who struggle with the curriculum. Recent Australian research
is supportive of this role, for example, Shaddock, Smyth King, & Giorcelli, (2007) found
that schools in which an experienced special educator managed learning support across the
school achieved good outcomes for students with a disability.
The appointment of LSCs has been adopted, with various adaptations, by some major
educational authorities, for example, the English SENCo model (Special Education Needs
Coordinator), the Western Australian Department of Education and Training and the NSW
Department of Education and Training. Learning Support Coordinators (LSCs) are not
currently widespread in ACT government and non-government sectors, but some schools
have organised their services and appointed staff who fulfil similar roles to LSCs.
The SENCo in England is a school-based expert who has a total or significant reduction in
face-to-face teaching hours, in order to:
• Oversee day-to-day operation of special education needs (SEN) policy;

• Coordinate provision of services for students with SEN;
• Liaise with and advise teachers;
• Manage Learning Support Assistants;
• Oversee the records of students with special education needs;
• Contribute to in-service training; and
• Liaise with external agencies including health and social services and voluntary bodies
(Cowne, 2008 p. 12).
In DETWA the LSC:
• Facilitates the work of Learning Support teams;

• Consults and collaborates with teachers with regard to meeting the educational needs
of students with disabilities and learning difficulties;
• Supports classroom teachers to develop, implement and monitor learning plans for
individual and groups of students with disabilities or learning difficulties; and
29
The model of the New England Educational Diagnostic Centre in Armidale NSW provides an example of
relatively low cost collaboration between government departments, government and non-government school
systems, universities and the community to provide such a service.

• Models effective teaching and supports classroom teachers who have students
requiring significant teaching and learning adjustments.
The proposed NSW Learning Support Coordinator involves web-based training,

networking and support of LSCs. For example, the 140 Learning Support Coordinators
undertake training that is a) delivered on-line; b) based on UK experience and training; and
c) accredited with the NSW Institute. In each Region selected ‘student services’ personnel
mentor the LSCs and they too undertake training. The NSW model is new and no publicly
available evaluation data are available 30.
The Western Australian Learning Support Coordinators are appointed from existing staff
in schools and receive ongoing training and participate as part of the Building Inclusive
Classrooms Professional Learning Program. This involves an initial 12 days of fully
funded professional learning in their first two years.
The above initiatives are ‘disability, and learning difficulties-specific’, but they need not
be. One implication of the ACT’s broader understanding of inclusivity is that if the LSC
approach were to be adopted in the government or non-government sector, a major aim
would be to build pedagogical capacity at the school and classroom level. That is, the LSC
would support classroom teachers to meet the individual learning needs of any students,
for example, students with a disability or learning difficulty; those experiencing temporary
difficulties with learning because of personal or family circumstances; and, if necessary,
students with gifts and talents who were not performing to potential.
One ACT college provides an exemplary local example of the model.

The LSC is qualified, skilled and experienced. She works directly to the
Assistant Principal (Curriculum) to assist curriculum development,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation across years 7-12; assist
staff with teaching and management strategies; ensure appropriate
integration of technology; promote whole school literacy initiatives; and
ensure that strategies are in place for gifted students, students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander students.
Further refinements of the LSC approach in the ACT could involve:
• Greater focus of the LSC on school-based professional learning for teachers;

• Support for organisational changes so that teachers adopt and share a wider range of
evidence-based teaching practices; and
• Orchestration of learning support across the school, for example, through assisting
classroom-based personnel to implement initiatives to improve literacy and numeracy;
integrating the additional support for students with disabilities and students functioning
30
At the time of writing, the NSWDET roll-out had been halted because of a range of professional and
industrial issues.

in the lowest quartile; and assisting external personnel such as therapists to integrate
therapy goals and strategies with the classroom program.
The effectiveness of the LSC role depends on how well the following issues are managed:
a) recruitment and selection processes; b) training - content and delivery; c) adequacy of
support, networking and mentoring; d) the integration and/or relationships of the LSC with
others providing support for classroom; and, e) the sheer availability of personnel with the
qualifications and skills in learning support, mentoring and system change. The role may
prove to be an effective one, but at this stage, full-scale implementation is not proposed.
In conclusion, this chapter has reviewed partnership and personnel issues that impact on
the learning outcomes of students with a disability. It is critical that schools give high
priority to partnerships with parents and carers. Major policy directions were proposed
with respect to Learning Support Assistants, the roles of consultants, relationships with
therapy and mental health services, and whether a school-based Learning Support
Coordinator is likely to be effective, particularly in consolidating services for any students
who struggle with learning. The next chapter examines planning and accountability issues.

Chapter 9: Planning for Change
This chapter explores leading practice about the impact on students with
a disability of:
• Vision
• Leadership
• Planning
• Accountability
• Learning communities that support change in teaching practices.
Vision
The Australian education and special education policy environments are complex and
fluid. Paradigms compete, policy initiatives align poorly, and old regulations and
guidelines complicate progress. School leaders need to be clear about the features of a
desirable school environment for each of their students because the realisation of that
vision depends on the many decisions they make each day. Addressing his comments to
decision-makers, Gallagher (2006, p. 289) writes, “Their first need is to think about what
they want the future special education enterprise to become and then to work toward it”.
This course may have to be adjusted on a daily basis and the outcome may be uncertain
because “changing schooling is like trying to design a 747 in mid air. You don’t know
what it’s going to turn into and you can’t let it fall down while you’re trying to find out”
(Thomson, 1992, p. 25 quoted in Smyth & McInerney (2007, p.182).
“There is little point in focusing on improvements to curriculum and pedagogy
unless it is matched by a major strategic repositioning in the way special
education services are understood and managed.” (School Board)
Without a carefully conceived and clearly expressed vision, ongoing debates and tensions
will undermine efforts to achieve quality outcomes for students with a disability, and at the
classroom level, teachers will be faced with the frustrating task of synthesising competing
perspectives as they teach. The Knoster model overviewed in Chapter 7 provides an
example of the type of planning that is necessary and Havelock and Hamilton (2004) detail
ways of bringing about change at school level.
Leadership
Hattie’s (2009) distinction between transformational and instructional leadership helps to
cut through the somewhat confusing body of literature on educational leadership. Hattie
makes clear that transformational leadership (somewhat inspirational) is less effective than

instructional leadership (somewhat perspirational!!) in affecting measurable improvements
in students’ learning outcomes.
Research on the role of leadership in school reform and student improvement has identified
what needs to happen at the state, territory, jurisdiction level to improve student learning
outcomes. Key elements include:
• A vision that focuses directly on student outcomes and that is understood throughout
the system;
• Recognition that the principal is the instructional leader in schools;
• The need to support principals so that they are more informed about evidence-based
pedagogy and more competent in goal-setting, monitoring outcomes and building
capacity within their team;
• Engagement with community partners including agencies, associations, groups and
individuals who can help support student learning;
• The use of data to inform teaching and learning;
• The use of data to measure student and school performance and to benchmark that
performance; and
• Support (through professional learning and other resources) for teachers to implement
evidence-based practices in a collaborative, ‘whole school’ ethos that encourages them
to evaluate and improve their teaching through professional learning that is embedded
in classroom practice.
(Synthesised from Chrispeels & Gonzalez, 2006; Chrispeels & Harris, 2006; Hattie,
2009; Maguire, 2003; Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education, 2004)
At school level, principals influence student learning outcomes through the policies,
structures, and practices that they can put in place, and where, and how, they deploy
resources. Schools that are performing well usually have competent principals. “Good
schools pay attention – because of leadership, teacher selection and staff development,
consistency between students and teachers (and parents), support services, the internal
organisation of schools – to a large number of practices. Dismal schools seem to be able to
pay attention to few such practices” Grubb (2009, p.74).
“I found the principal’s ignorance on inclusion and disability to be astonishing.
She told my husband and I at a meeting that there were two types of children
with Down syndrome, those who could learn and those who couldn’t and went
on to ask which sort our daughter was.” (Parent)
Grubb’s (2009, p. 90) quantitative research confirms how “appropriate leadership, vision,
capacity building, internal accountability, teacher support and improvement” contribute to
effective schools. Principals with a clear vision have some capacity to move resources
around in a targeted way. Teigland (2009, p. 12), a superintendant of schools, writes
Leadership must start at the top – the Superintendent and Board of Education
must support the vision for inclusion. When done correctly, inclusion takes fiscal
and human resources, comprehensive professional development, and strategic
planning. These things cannot occur unless system leadership provides full and
unwavering support.
Research by Ainscow et al. (2006, p. 25) shows that successful inclusive practice relies on
“the restructuring of cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the

diversity of needs in their locality”. Australian research on “Improving the Learning
Outcomes of Students with Disabilities in the Early, Middle and Post Compulsory Years of
Schooling” also confirms the key role of principals in fostering inclusive practice
(Shaddock, Smyth King & Giorcelli, 2007; Shaddock, Hook et al, 2007; Shaddock, Hook,
Hoffman-Raap et al., 2007; Shaddock, Nielsen et al. 2007).
This analysis implies that all principals need to a) be aware of their legal obligations under
the DDA (1992); b) know what to focus on to make their school more effective; and c)
lead the implementation of evidence-based pedagogies to improve the learning outcomes
of all students in their school. They also need, as Lashley (2007, p. 182) observes, “to
develop the dispositions necessary to embrace the needs and enhance the performance of
all children (italics added) as central to their leadership.”
“The real change (that needs to occur) is in people’s heads.” (Educational

leader)
Teacher unions have an important leadership role in improving the learning outcomes of
students with a disability also. Chrispeels and Harris (2006) list ways in which teacher
unions have improved the work conditions of teachers and made it possible for them to
teach better, for example, by securing time for teachers to collaborate. Locally, education
unions have advocated for appropriate resourcing to support the needs of students with
disability (staffing, funding, facilities, professional development) and for students with a
disability to have equitable access to education.
It would be desirable for ACT Teacher unions to continue to demonstrate leading practice
by pursuing policies that, while focusing on teachers, explicitly address the interests of
students with a disability. Future enterprise agreements in ACT Public schools, for
example, should ensure that ‘Teacher Transfer’ clauses (aka Mobility) benefit all students
including those with a disability. Students with a disability should continue to benefit from
the training, experience and expertise of personnel with specialist knowledge about
particular disabilities and pedagogies.
“We already have anecdotal evidence that the mobility clause has degraded
teacher morale and has probably made transferring to the ACT less attractive
for trained teachers of the deaf, and in the longer term, it will likely discourage
younger teachers from choosing a specialised vocation … Exempt teachers of
the deaf (and teachers of other disability groups, such as teachers of the blind)
from the mobility clause”. (Submission)
“You can’t pick up Braille in two weeks.” (Consultant)
“You can’t leave deaf education for ten years and come back.” (Consultant)
Many ACT schools are well connected with their community, and they strategically build
‘social capital’. Caldwell (2004, p. 2) summarised research in several countries that
demonstrates the ways in which successful schools pursue formal and informal
partnerships with “individuals, agencies, organisations and institutions that have the
potential to support and be supported by the school.” These strategies start with school
leaders articulating a strategy for engaging parents and the community actively and
extensively.

Planning
Across ACT educational sectors there is a level of school independence that is generally
regarded as a strength and a level of competition that many believe to be a weakness.
Furthermore there is evidence of within-sector competition among schools.
ACT schools have a relatively high degree of autonomy in delivering education services.
While school-based management (ACTDET), subsidiarity (Catholic education) and
autonomy (Independent schools) are generally considered strengths of ACT education,
they can have unfortunate consequences for students with a disability. For example, the
level of discretion afforded to schools in curriculum development results in considerable
variation in school curricula and the Discussion Paper noted that particular pedagogies and
supports for primary school students with a disability are not always available in their local
high school.
“Something I did not bring up on the day was my concern regarding secondary
school. The (High school) does not follow the Primary’s philosophy of inclusion
as they segregate the student with learning difficulties/disabilities. Is it up to
parents to lobby the Department or the school itself? Is it up to the Principal as
to how the school is set up in regard to segregating students? I don’t have a
solution other than insisting on inclusive practice.” (Parent)
The literature suggests that a perspective that promotes a ‘collaborative network’ or

‘community of schools’ orientation facilitates service planning and delivery. Indeed, in a
situation of growing demand for high cost services and strong legislative obligations,
increased ACT-wide, collaborative planning seems sensible.
Planning involves listening to stakeholders’ voices, and, in the education of students with a
disability, many voices need to be heard. Two groups who perhaps could be more
prominent in current consultative processes are parents and students. With respect to the
latter, Shah (2007, p. 440) describes how young people with a disability can “take an
active part in the education process”. During this Review, young people frequently
reminded us that the quality of their education directly impacts on their futures. This issue
suggests that priority be given to the adequacy of consultative mechanisms implemented
by ACT education systems and schools and the need for tangible support for students with
a disability, parents and carers to participate.
This Report has stressed the importance of ‘universal design’, i.e. planning and delivery
with the needs of all service users in mind. ‘Universal design’ applies to all developments -
from curriculum to construction. Education sectors and schools should consider the needs
of students with a disability in all phases of planning.
“Special Education Services is a small process and small crowd – a variation

and distraction in the delivery of mainstream education services.” (School
Board)
“The acoustic environment in many ACT schools, especially those that feature
open planning, is problematic for hearing impaired people.” (Disability
organisation)
This report has noted opportunities for collaboration so as to achieve greater effectiveness
and efficiency, for example, with respect to sharing of good practice in curriculum
differentiation. Good examples of collaboration, including cross-sector collaboration, exist

in the ACT and in the literature, for example, Ainscow et al. (2006, p. 74-76) describe
collaboration between a Catholic and a state school in order to raise educational standards
and reduce racial tension. Locally, excellent, cross-sector collaboration to establish support
networking among teachers with a particular interest in students with autism has been
fostered by the DEEWR-funded Positive Partnerships autism initiative.
“If schools are serious about young people with disabilities getting the best
education and life they can and being prepared for life after school, I think there
needs to be positive partnerships between all the people and agencies that
might assist. There is no time or room for turf protecting, professional jealousy
or defensiveness. This is not about the school, the teachers, or me – this is
about each individual life at that school and how we, as professionals, teachers,
community members and businesses, can prepare that person for the best life
they can have.” (Parent)
There are many more opportunities for Public, Catholic and Independent schools to
collaborate, for example, in professional learning, securing and delivering
multidisciplinary services, curriculum development and sharing of practices that improve
the learning of students with a disability.
Planning in the Public sector

Special Education within Public schools is described by program types and by operational
and funding guidelines, but the area is not formally defined. While the ACTDET vision for
services for students with a disability can be inferred from the range of policies, service
planning and delivery could be more proactive if the vision and business plan were more
clearly articulated.
“Long term planning must provide for the ‘growth’ of teachers of the deaf in the
ACT to replace the current IHST when they retire.” (Disability organisation)
A particular issue for ACTDET is to integrate centrally the array of professional learning
and consultative services that it provides so that it is not left to teachers to synthesise good
initiatives at classroom level, for example, around Quality Teaching, Literacy and
Numeracy, and Inclusion Support.
The Discussion Paper (p.22) noted that while Public schools have considerable autonomy
over curriculum, pedagogy and school policy “these features are somewhat at odds with
national developments (e.g. towards a national curriculum) and they complicate Special
Education planning, the delivery of specialised services and programs in the required
locations, and accountability for outcomes.” Connors (2006, p.9) notes that “there is also
the problem with overly devolved systems that there can be a loss of capacity and
flexibility for systemic action; a risk of fragmentation and unnecessary duplication of
effort; or of gaps in provision.”
The recommendations of the Review of School-Based Management are not known at this
stage and they may be pertinent to the following conclusion. However, the Review of
Special Education concludes that the current level of devolution has a negative impact on
system-wide planning for students with a disability and that a more appropriate balance
between central administration and school autonomy would be desirable.

“Kids with ASD have received support in primary school and high school
(whether totally adequate is another story). However, if they go to college the
support framework is withdrawn. There is at best STA support available, but not
a qualified teacher with the skills and experience and with the specific role of
managing the kids through college.” (Parent)
Leading practice suggests the need for increased inter-school collaboration to support
diversity. For example, MacBeath et al. (2006) argue that the planning and sharing of
resources at the cluster or network level may make it easier for districts to provide
appropriate services for all students.
There is greater scope for regionalisation within ACTDET services for students with a
disability. Each region could systematically plan and develop regional capacity to provide
the type and range of services required by legislation. Increased emphasis on regional
‘self-sufficiency’ of services for students with a disability would foster more extensive and
systematic collaboration, improve transitions by providing more continuity in pedagogy
and curriculum, and allow students to attend a school in their neighbourhood, thereby
reducing the costly, educationally deleterious, socially isolating, extensive travel for many.
“Review the current special needs transport scheme, including a review of the
facilities on school buses, the length of time students are on the bus both
morning and afternoon, and professional development for drivers and carers
including an understanding of the basic characteristics of students with a
disability. Parents often have other children to consider arrangements for.
Review why transport is currently not available to children with disabilities who
access mainstream schools. Transport is not a privilege, but a necessity for all
student’s education.” (Advocacy group)
More thorough and systematic regionalisation in ACTDET would also stimulate

innovative developments in services currently provided by special schools.
“There needs to be better college level units as a half way between special
school and mainstream college.” (School board)
Existing special schools are not spread evenly across the ACT and depending on which
options with respect to special schools are pursued in any regionalised model, different
ways of providing similar services could be developed and evaluated in different regions.
These should incorporate the ‘best practice’ features outlined in this report and not
duplicate existing facilities.
Planning in the Catholic sector

The vision for services for students with a disability in Catholic schools is well understood
at ‘office level’. Current policies illustrate a transition from a special education model to a
‘learning support’ model; reforming structures and adopting pedagogies so that all students
benefit; and improving the skills of principals and teachers to implement these initiatives.
Catholic schools, by and large, have good relationships with parents and carers but the
sector has aspirations to take this to the next level – to move from asking “How do we
involve parents?” to “How do we partner parents to support their child’s learning?” A
major challenge for the Catholic sector is finding the capacity to articulate, develop, write,
transmit and share these policies and implement them in the schools.

Another key issue for the Catholic sector is leadership development and professional
learning for educational leaders about the implications of the learning support model.
Similarly, professional learning for teachers, and particularly those in support roles, is a
major need.
A particular issue for the Catholic sector is the extent to which it will offer comprehensive
services in the future. Some Catholic students currently attend government schools
because their parents believe that their local Catholic school cannot provide the type or
intensity of resources and needed services.
“Some parents would prefer their children to attend non-government schools

but find that their HI (hearing impaired) children would not be supported by the
IHST (Itinerant hearing support teacher) in those schools. This forces parents to
make a very difficult choice between itinerant hearing support and a preferred
educational setting. These parents believe that children with special needs
should have access to the same public funding and services regardless of the
school.” (Disability organisation)
“We would love to be able to send our child to a Catholic school but his needs
are too great for a Catholic school.” (Parent)
It may be appropriate to investigate the feasibility of an option reported by a ‘critical

reader’ who wrote that in one state, the government
“funds students with severe intellectual disabilities who are eligible for special
schools to attend Catholic and Independent schools by giving them the same
level of funding they would give them if they attended a special school”.
(‘Critical reader’)
In addition, the sector has limited access to assistive technology and multidisciplinary
services to support students with a disability, and clearly, there are considerable resource
implications. Many in the Catholic sector believe that increased cross sector collaboration
may assist in addressing at least some of these issues.
Planning in independent schools

Independent schools in the ACT, although associated, are truly independent and so policy
and planning are primarily issues for each school. The findings of Jenkins (2002) with
Western Australian Independent schools are relevant to some Independent schools in the
ACT. Jenkins’ research suggests that services for students with a disability in Independent
schools would be improved by the development of school-wide policy and effective
leadership; informed, equitable enrolment policies and practices; workforce capacity-
building; improvements to educational programs and implementation; increased teamwork
at school level; and more extensive networking and collaboration, particularly by, and
among, the smaller schools.
Stakeholders from the Independent schools also expressed an interest in increased

collaboration among the sectors.

Accountability
Many participants in this review called for more effective accountability for the learning
outcomes of students with a disability, emphasising legislative and policy compliance,
equity issues, and the cost benefit of specialised services.
It would be hard to argue with the need for service audits. The Public and Catholic sectors,
and a number of Independent schools, already engage in periodic internal reviews of their
policies and services for students with a disability.
In one school a commissioned review suggested a reconsideration of the

in-class support vs. withdrawal balance of support. The school then
adjusted its model of support to pleasing effect for staff and students.
It would be appropriate for these reviews to focus on benchmarking processes and

outcomes against recognised leading practice. For example they could assess and report on
a) methods for managing and deploying resources to support all students; and b) the
manner in which the system/school implements leading practice such as early intervention,
student performance monitoring, and partnerships with parents.
One ACT primary school shared its strategy for tracking the learning of
all students but with particular attention to students from Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander culture. Student assessments, including self-
assessments, teacher observations and reflection fed into a cycle of
continuous improvement. Their structure for the program evaluation is
Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect-Recommend-Celebrate-Plan etc.
There was strong support from some individuals and groups for external auditing, for
example, of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Acts, the Education Act 2004
and the Human Rights Act 2004. There is precedent for these types of reviews, for
example, the NSW Auditor General’s Report (2006), and, as they have the potential to
improve services, increase transparency and build public confidence, they are most
appropriate. Accountability for compliance with the relevant legislation should not depend
solely on individual complainants.
“I would suggest that accountability as noted in ‘continuing the conversation’ for

this section of the Discussion Paper is more than desirable, but is in fact an
obligation under the Disability Standards for Education and the Disability
Services Act 1991.” (Educator)
“There should be a complete independent audit of Disability ACT and other

bodies such as Community Health and the Department of Education, and how
they measure against the Human rights Act. This should occur regularly, for
example, every three years.” (Advocacy group)

The rising costs of services for students with a disability make a powerful case for
increased accountability for student outcomes. For example, such data should drive
decisions about the appropriateness of particular services and models of delivery such as
special schools and programs (Simmons & Bayliss, 2007).
“No systematic monitoring currently happens. Children come in and go out of

our programs, but there is no tracking of these children as they progress
through the education system.” (Educator)
Referring to education more generally Hattie (2005, p 12) writes, “If we, as educationalists
in classrooms and schools do not provide evidence that increased resources make a
difference to student learning outcomes, then we will soon be on the back foot, arguing
why there should not be decreases in resources.” This agreed, there are some vexed
questions about how to measure the educational performance of students with a disability.
The first challenge is to establish the principles that should underpin accountability for the
learning outcomes of students with a disability, for example, along the lines of those
articulated by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (Thurlow et al. 2008).
A second consideration is the need for the “intelligent accountability” suggested by Crooks
(2003). Generally, teachers are not opposed to accountability as long as the mechanism “is
student-centred, includes teachers’ own assessments and provides teachers with feedback
that helps them to improve their practice.” (The Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2009, p. 6).
Crooks (2003, pp 2-5) argues for accountability processes that
• Preserve and enhance trust among the key participants in the accountability process;
• Involve participants in the process, offering them a strong sense of professional
responsibility and initiative;
• Encourage deep, worthwhile responses rather than surface window dressing;
• Recognise the severe limitations of our ability to capture educational quality in
performance indicators;
• Provide well-founded and effective feedback that promotes insight into performance
and supports good decision-making; and
• Ensure that as a consequence of the accountability process, the majority of the
participants are more enthusiastic and motivated in their work.
“So that limited resources are not chewed up in complex processes of
measurement and reporting, it would be helpful if the accountability
mechanisms were as simple as possible, preferably in a standard format
developed centrally with teacher input” (Parent)
A third issue relates to those students with a disability who do not participate in NAPLAN.
Difficult questions about what to measure, how to measure, the accuracy of measurement,
and the meaning/significance of the results obtained by measurement must be answered
(Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005 p.12 & 13). Disability is not a unitary variable and hence it is
difficult to develop a meaningful, common metric. It is not surprising that there is a lack of
comprehensive information about the outcomes of students with a disability in Australian
schools and that there is no national benchmarking of their performance against national
standards (Wu & Komesaroff, 2007).

Because accountability for the outcomes of students with a disability is so important, ACT
educators should take the lead in finding ways to do it - despite the difficulties. For
example, could NAPLAN data be separately analysed and reported for students for whom
test adjustments are provided and/or who derive support from the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need?
For students who do not participate in NAPLAN, some of the following approaches may
be worth exploring, as, collectively, they may provide useful data on educational outcomes
and/or the factors that are likely to affect educational outcomes:
1. Data on results such as program and level of schooling achieved; timeliness of

additional support; participation and suspension rates; graduation rates; students’
postsecondary outcomes; students’ time in segregated/integrated settings; parent/carer
satisfaction; students’ satisfaction; parents’/carers’ and students’ participation in
individual planning; and
2. Outcomes of Individual Learning Plans and Individualised Education Plans.
(Synthesised from Alberta Education, 2009; Auditor General, 2006; Alberta Teachers’
Association, 2009; Department of Education & Training, Victoria, 2001).
Until more is known about the new National Curriculum and the extent to which it is
universally designed and useful for all students, it is appropriate in the ACT to continue to
give prominence to the individual plan. Although each plan sets individual objectives,
there are valid and reliable ways of measuring student progress against individualised
learning goals, for example, through Curriculum-Based Assessment (Allinder, Fuchs et al.
2004) and the Target Monitoring and Evaluation System (TME) of Dunsmuir et al. (2009).
With respect to TME, the data that it generates about each goal - Decline in Performance,
No Progress, Some Progress, Expected Progress, or, Better than Expected Progress - can
easily be aggregated and reported. If nothing else, the adoption of a common metric for
measuring goal attainment in individual plans will make such plans more realistic and
achievable.
“Accountability – very important point. What needs to be established is a
philosophy and understanding that all students can learn and have the right to
achieve their individual potential. The ILP, LA and ESL reports are an integral
part of the report structure. Are all ILP goals achieved?” (Executive teacher)
The critical conclusion is that no student should be left out of accountability policies. A
combination of external and internal mechanisms is desirable. Accountability mechanisms
should be efficient and teacher friendly. As the task of measuring and reporting on the
educational outcomes of students with a disability has so far proved too difficult, the
government, non-government and tertiary education sectors in the ACT should consider
working collaboratively to develop, trial and evaluate defensible approaches that are
applicable in the ACT.

Learning communities that support change in teaching practices
The Public and Catholic sectors and some Independent schools have invested heavily in
teacher professional learning and the leading practice literature supports this priority.
“Creating schools for the 21st century and for 21st century learners is no simple task; it
demands an intellectual investment in schooling and a courageous investment in our
teaching profession (Whitby, 2009, p.9).
Leading practice in professional learning is characterised by:
• Replacement of a ‘topics du jour’ approach with one that focuses on current teaching
challenges and needs of classroom teachers;
• Structuring professional learning so that teachers are actively involved and take
responsibility for mastering targeted knowledge and practices;
• Linking professional learning with classroom applications and trialing of evidence-
based practices, for example, through collaborative inquiry and action evaluation and
research with external support where necessary;
• Establishment of, and support for, ongoing ‘knowledge networks’ involving face-to-
face and web-based interactions to promote and sustain teacher reflection and
discussion about teaching and learning;
• Joint participation in professional learning of teachers and the learning support
assistants who work with them; and
• ‘Just in time’ learning provided by consultants about particular classroom challenges,
for example, to support the enrolment of a student with a vision impairment.
(Synthesised from Dunst et al. 2009; Havelock & Ellis, 2004; Jackson, 2006; Maguire,
2003; National College for School Leadership, 2003; Shaddock, Hoffman-Raap et al.
2007; & Teddlie & Stringfield, 2006).
Contemporary professional learning is increasingly making use of technology to provide

information and networking opportunities.
“Consider the use of Web 2.0 technology to bring larger groups together,
including better use of email or blogs or wikis in schools to coordinate the ILP.”
(Professional association)
In a very detailed ‘best evidence synthesis’ on the impact of teachers’ professional learning
on student outcomes, Timperley et al. (2007, p. xxvi) identified the following seven
important elements:
• Sufficient time for extended opportunities to learn and using that time effectively;
• Engagement of external expertise;
• Focus on engaging teachers in the learning process rather than being concerned
whether they volunteered or not;
• Challenging teachers’ problematic discourses;
• Opportunities to interact in a community of professionals;
• Professional learning content being consistent with wider trends;
• School leaders’ active leadership of professional learning opportunities at school level.

What is needed is an integrated approach to professional learning that emphasises
‘research to practice’, action learning, collaborative inquiry and capacity-building at
classroom and school level to achieve immediate and ongoing improvements in teaching
and learning. In addition, some of the very practical barriers to professional learning need
to be addressed, for example,
“It’s not professional learning days that’s the issue, it’s getting relief (staff).”
(Principal)
Principles
Implicit in the preceding chapters are the principles on which advice on future options
should be based. ACT services for students with a disability should:
• Comply with general, and disability-specific, legislation;

• Comply with, and be supportive of, ACT Government policies;
• Be conceived as part of mainstream educational administration that considers the needs
of all students in planning and delivery (universal design);
• Be evidence–based in regard to both policy and practice, for example, implement
practices that are known to improve the educational outcomes of all students – those
with, and without, a disability;
• Improve the educational outcomes for students with a disability in the context of
improving the learning outcomes of all students;
• Adopt different and complementary funding and resource allocation mechanisms that
achieve system goals, build school and teacher capacity, are cost effective, and that
provide flexibility for schools;
• Implement accountability procedures for the learning outcomes and adequacy of
services for students with a disability in ways that are time efficient and that support
teaching and learning;
• Give priority to ways of capitalising on the contribution that students can make to their
own learning;
• Build the capacity of classroom teachers and school leadership.;
• Support teachers to trial, evaluate, reflect, share and network about pedagogy in ways
that promote continual learning;
• Demonstrate high levels of collaboration between parents and teachers in support of
student learning;
• Adopt policies that avoid perverse incentives, the marginalisation of students with a
disability, over-identification of disability, and unnecessary exclusion of students with
a disability from mainstream learning experiences, social relationships and
opportunities; and
• Be characterised by cross-sector partnerships that make more efficient use of resources
and expertise.
In the next three chapters specific options for consideration by Public (Chapter 10),
Catholic (Chapter 11) and Independent (Chapter 12) schools are proposed.

Chapter 10: Options for ACT
Public Schools31
This chapter proposes options for ACT Public School Sector related to:
• Vision and scope

• Support for teachers and capacity-building at classroom level
• Policy about special schools, units and centres
• Multidisciplinary services
• Resources and resource allocation
• Individual Learning Plans
• Learning Support Assistants
• Collaboration with parents and carers
• Partnerships with the tertiary sector
• Planning and accountability.
The task of the review was to review leading practice and propose options for the future
with a focus on improving the learning outcomes of students with a disability.
The extensive range of services for students with a disability in ACT Public schools and
their overall quality are first acknowledged. Although deficiencies in some aspects of
services were observed, it is heartening that many of the criticisms came from within the
sector - from teachers and educational leaders who want to improve services.
The options proposed in this chapter are not intended to be a checklist of recommendations
to be implemented in a linear way. The options are framed to provide a basis for sector
planning. Furthermore, while some options could be implemented immediately or in the
short term (and we believe some should be), others may require further development,
modelling and trialing before full-scale adoption.
Some options will require high level, interdepartmental and/or interagency collaboration.
For example, the significant challenges around the provision of therapy and mental health
services are unlikely to be resolved by ACTDET alone.
Some options will be challenging because they involve reducing reliance on previous
supports – a situation similar to that experienced by the child with a disability who
eventually takes the risk of walking unassisted. There will be some falls. It is essential
therefore that planning involves serious consideration of risks, incentives and interim
31
Although Public schools in the ACT experience distinct issues, there is some overlap with issues raised in
Chapter 11 (Catholic schools) and Chapter 12 (Independent schools).

arrangements so that all stakeholders – educators, parents and carers, students and the
community – are confident and comfortable enough to support any new directions.
Clarify the vision, goals and scope of ‘special education’ in ACT

Public schools
Special education in ACTDET is currently defined operationally by programs, and
procedurally by funding guidelines, but the area is not formally defined and it does not
have a business plan 32. This situation complicates both planning and delivery and acts as
an impediment to proactive leadership and the implementation of leading practice.
Achieving coherence among the many services and options provided by the Department
presents as a major priority. It is proposed that ACTDET, in collaboration with key
stakeholders considers:
1. Clarifying the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a disability within
ACTDET;
2. Adopting disability-related nomenclature, for example, ‘Students with Disability’ or
‘Disability Services’ and discontinues using ‘special’, for example, special needs,
special education, special schools; and
3. How the definition of disability contained in the ACT Disability Discrimination Act
(1991) might guide eligibility for additional funding support for students with a
disability in ACT Public schools.
Implement policies that support the pivotal role of classroom

teachers
While systems, schools, parents and students contribute to student learning in essential
ways, what classroom teachers actually do – how and what they teach – has a singular
effect on student learning. Consequently, it would be appropriate to give absolute priority
to improving the knowledge, skills, attitudes and commitment of classroom teachers in all
settings. Teachers in contemporary classrooms need the skills to provide the adjustments
required by students with a disability while simultaneously using teaching strategies that
are effective for all students so that fewer adjustments are required.
The following options all focus on capacity-building at classroom level. It is proposed that
ACTDET considers the following:
1. Integrating and extending the capacity of support services for students with a disability
in all settings. This proposal involves increasing the numbers and level/seniority of
consultants in the Inclusive Support and Inclusive Technologies Teams and selecting
them on merit/skills, in order to permit greater coverage and influence. Consideration
should be given to conceptualising and organising services provided by other
Departmental consultants, for example, in vision and hearing, as ‘Inclusion Support’,
so as to reduce fragmentation and to increase coherence in policy and procedures.
32
One of the purposes of this review is to inform such planning.

2. Extending the already significant professional learning opportunities provided to
classroom teachers. This option involves focusing professional learning on teachers’
current issues and concerns; linking professional learning to teachers’ use of evidence-
based practices that are effective with students with a disability; challenging beliefs
that are inimical to inclusive practice; providing teachers with time, support, mentoring
and opportunity to observe in other schools and settings; and teachers evaluating the
effectiveness of their approaches for all students including those with a disability.
3. Collaborating with colleagues in Catholic and Independent schools to improve the
applicability and relevance of web-based sharing of effective teaching practices for
students with a disability. These activities may include sharing user-friendly examples
of linking with Every Chance to Learn; accessing teacher (and parent)-friendly
curriculum supports and guides; sharing examples of differentiated curriculum for
students with complex needs; networking and mentoring; and/or accessing videoed
lessons in You-Tube style in which local leading practice is shared.
4. Conducting trials of the ‘Learning Support Coordinator’ (LSC) model as described –
one that has the prime function to improve pedagogy across the school with a particular
focus on any student who finds learning difficult, and particularly those whose
performance is in the bottom quartile. This position is not a relabeling of the special
education teacher. This is an experienced and qualified educator with developed skills
in change management, and occupying a school leader position. The prime function is
to assist classroom-based personnel to implement evidence-based pedagogy for all
students. The establishment of this position would involve significant professional
development for LSCs. It may also involve amalgamation of existing positions and/or
cross-school collaborations. In operational and organisational terms, the approach may
adopt relevant features of the existing ‘Pastoral Care Coordinator’ model in high
schools.
5. Reinforcing the key role of the principal as the schools’ educational leader and
supporting principals through targeted professional learning and appraisal processes
pertinent to the learning outcomes of students with a disability. Such a model of
support for principals is already being used successfully in the Hume Region’s
Common Curriculum model (in Victoria) where all principals access advanced learning
about the curriculum, ethical decision-making, equity leadership, technology for the
classroom, inter alia.
6. Providing funding and technical support for schools and teachers to implement
evidence-based strategies, or to buy in the necessary expertise to support them, for
example, on how to engage in extensive collaboration with parents and carers to
support learning; how to use the ‘Response to Intervention’ approach previously
outlined; and/or how to implement the practices detailed by Mitchell 33 (2008).
7. Clarifying and re-focusing the roles played by LSAs in the classroom and encouraging
schools to use the highly regarded work of Giangreco at the University of Vermont to
identify any inadvertent dependency-based models that have evolved around the use of
classroom assistants. Similar work is already being done in several districts and
dioceses in Victoria.
33
Mitchell, D. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education: using evidence-based strategies.
London: Routledge.

Clarify policy about special schools, units and centres
Many examples were provided of the ways in which the human and physical resources of
special schools could be better utilised. While the contribution of the special schools is
acknowledged, leading practice would suggest even more engagement with, and
engagement by, mainstream education. It is proposed that ACTDET considers the
following:
1. Working with stakeholders in special schools to reconceptualise special schools and to

support them to re-engineer their vision, policies and practices to increase the synergy
between specialist and mainstream schools in terms of expertise, personnel, pedagogies
and learning opportunities for students and staff.
2. Developing and evaluating options that are consistent with the leading practice
summarised in this report. Examples include co-location arrangements that further
develop the models operating at Turner Primary and the Harrison Schools and their
extension to all level of education with wraparound, co-located services from other
relevant departments and agencies.
Many units and centres are appreciated by parents and teachers. As long as they continue
to demonstrate success in meeting the educational needs of students with a disability they
should remain as options in the continuum of services. It is proposed that ACTDET
considers:
3. Taking a more proactive, evidence-based stance with respect to the establishment and
maintenance of units and centres, and carefully monitoring the learning outcomes of
students in all units and centres; and
4. Providing principals of special schools, and schools that have units and centres, with
professional learning about contemporary best practice for students with a disability
and the ways in which principals can maximize the benefits and minimise any
unintended deleterious effects that are often associated with such settings.
Reorganise multidisciplinary supports for student learning

Although ACTDET does not currently employ therapists, a case can be made that
ACTDET, as the education provider responsible for ‘reasonable adjustments’ to support
the education of students with a disability, has considerable responsibility for therapy
provision. The situation with respect to therapy provision requires decisive and immediate
action and should serve as a good test of the ‘cross department’ and ‘whole of government’
policies that already exist.
With respect to the provision of therapy in ACT Public schools, it is proposed that
ACTDET considers the following:
1. Negotiating with the Department of Disability Housing and Community Services and
Therapy ACT a service level agreement that guarantees a specified supply of therapy
services for students with a disability in ACT schools, with ACTDET as the client.
2. Negotiating with the Department of Disability Housing and Community Services and
Therapy ACT to establish an acceptable service delivery model for therapy services in
schools, for example, one that has features of a transdisciplinary model, that has a

curriculum focus, is designed to build capacity in schools, makes use of trained and
supervised paraprofessionals in the delivery of therapy, and systematically involves
community agencies that assist with curriculum goals, for example, fundamental
movement skiing, horse riding and similar.
3. Collaborating with the Department of Disability Housing and Community Services and
Therapy ACT to more accurately identify the extent and nature of therapy needs in
ACT schools.
4. Exploring with the Department of Disability Housing and Community Services,
Therapy ACT and the Department of Health the establishment of multidisciplinary
hubs (e.g. North, South and Central) from which school-based therapy and mental
health services could be organised and coordinated.
5. Negotiating with Therapy ACT to make more generally available therapy services that
schools and teachers have found valuable, for example, provision of professional
learning, therapy guides for teachers and similar.
If agreements cannot be reached promptly about therapy provision in Public schools, it is

proposed that ACTDET considers
6. Employing therapists to provide/supervise services for students with a disability in its

schools in the ways already indicated.
The situation with respect to meeting the needs of students with serious mental health
issues also revolves around the availability, supply, and style of services provided by a
separate department. With respect to the provision of mental health services for students in
ACT Public schools, it is proposed that ACTDET considers:
7. Negotiating with the Department of Health a service level agreement that guarantees a
specified supply of mental health services for students with a disability in ACT schools
with ACTDET as the client;
8. Negotiating with the Department of Health a mutually acceptable service delivery
model for mental health services for students in ACT Public schools, for example, one
that takes into account the need for rapid response in some circumstances, an
appropriate array of service options, and provides consultative support for school-based
personnel, particularly school counsellors, for example, at referral and/or school re-
entry points;
9. Collaborating with the Department of Health to more accurately identify the extent and
nature of the needs of ACT schools for assistance with mental health issues; and
10. Exploring with the Department of Health its involvement in the regional
multidisciplinary hubs referred to above (e.g. North, South and Central) from which
school-based mental health and therapy services could be organised and coordinated.
Many students with a disability have complex needs and/or require coordinated support
from multiple departments and/or agencies, i.e. they need ‘wraparound’ care and the
support of well-integrated services. It is proposed that ACTDET considers:
11. Applying the existing policy ‘Framework for Service Collaboration for the Care,
Protection and Well-Being of Children and Young People in the ACT’ and the ‘Multi-
Agency Response for Clients with Complex Needs’ to students with a disability who

require multi agency services and monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of
such policies for improving service delivery.
ACT parents often experience a great deal of stress in trying to get a diagnosis for their
child’s developmental difficulties, often going from one specialist to another in search of
answers. It is proposed that ACTDET, in collaboration with relevant Departments and the
Non-Government sector, investigates:
12. Establishing a collaborative ‘diagnostic and assessment centre’ for the ACT, along the
lines of similar, multidisciplinary centres that have been successful in other places, for
example, the New England Educational Diagnostic Centre in Armidale NSW.
Reconfigure resource allocation

There are two main funding challenges. The first is to secure the necessary resources and
the second is to use them effectively. Attention has focused almost exclusively on the first
and it remains a real problem. Not one participant claimed that resources were adequate in
either sector. Providing the necessary support and adjustments for students with a disability
is costly.
However, attention needs to focus on the other major resource issue as well – how to use
the available resources to shape education environments in which fewer adjustments are
necessary. Recent Australian research confirms this view and thus queries overreliance on
mechanisms such as the Student Centred Appraisal of Need as the sole or major funding
model for students with a disability.
It is proposed that ACTDET considers:
1. Making clear that resources provided to mainstream schools and derived from
mechanisms such as the Student Centred Appraisal of Need are to complement the
system/school funding that is made available for all students and that students with a
disability should be beneficiaries as well 34;
2. Setting the quantum available through the Student Centred Appraisal of Need with
reference to the number of students requiring educational adjustments, and making
public the educational rationale for decisions with respect to the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need;
3. Establishing a resource library and register in each region to facilitate the maintenance
of, and access to, equipment and technological infrastructure; and
4. Extending the current ‘Technology & Support Equipment Fund’ so that necessary
technological supports can be more easily purchased for students with a disability and
supplied promptly.
5. Trialing approaches to funding that recognise the achievement of educational

outcomes. That is, complement input, throughput and output funding schemes with
those that recognise the achievement of outcomes;
34
It also should apply, where guidelines permit, that students who do not have a disability may receive
‘incidental benefit’ from disability-related resources.

Unify processes to support student learning – the Student
Centred Appraisal of Need and the Individual Learning Plan (ILP)
The options that follow are designed to focus these labour and resource intensive activities
more effectively and efficiently on curriculum and learning. In general, it is proposed that
there be more emphasis on outcome achievement and less on income generation, and more
attention given to the relevance of the plan and less to its individualisation. It is proposed
that ACTDET considers the following:
1. Refining and integrating the processes of the Student-Centred Appraisal of Need and of
Individual Planning to put the focus on the student’s curriculum needs and the funding
necessary to support them. This would involve conducting the Student-Centred
Appraisal of Need after initial consideration of the student’s Learning Plan. The
facilitation and moderation around this process would require expertise in child
development and education.
2. Refining the ILP requirements for some students, for example, those who meet
specified criteria such as ‘in receipt of multidisciplinary services’ and/or ‘experiencing
a major transition within the next two years’, so that their ILP has additional features,
for example, longterm goals.
3. Requiring that the ILPs of students in special schools, units or centres have specific
goals and strategies related to community inclusion.
4. Simplifying processes for some students, for example, those who meet specified
criteria such as ‘not in receipt of services from outside the school’, or ‘needing
adjustments no different to classmates’, i.e., that would only require documentation in
the teacher’s program or the development of a group plan.
5. Requiring that all ILPs specify goals that focus on transition, i.e. on the knowledge and
skills needed by the student to succeed in their next setting, for example, from primary
to secondary school.
6. Instituting audits of ILP quality, implementation and achievement of outcomes.
7. Providing training and/or support, for example, translators for parents and carers and/or
support for students to be active participants in the ILP process.
8. Aggregating ILP data as a way of documenting resource needs at school/system level
in order to improve planning and budgeting, for example, for technology, therapy
support and adapted equipment.
Clarify issues associated with Learning Support Assistants

(LSAs)
The report raised many issues associated with LSAs. It is proposed that ACTDET
considers:
1. Adopting an alternative currency to LSA hours (such as cash) for disbursing

supplementary resources for students with a disability;
2. Actively encouraging flexibility in the use of these funds and recommending preferred,
evidence-based, forms of support;

3. Developing system-wide policy with respect to appropriate roles and creative
involvement of LSAs – when and where LSAs might be involved, for what purposes,
for how long, with what students;
4. Exploring the development of a course or courses within the National Qualifications
Framework that will equip LSAs for their roles;
5. Undertaking the necessary negotiations to permit LSAs’ access to training, for
example, through on-the-job training;
6. Exploring the business case for providing a career structure for LSAs;
7. Negotiating with local tertiary institutions for significant numbers of undergraduate
students from relevant courses, for example, Education, Psychology, Nursing,
Physiotherapy, Sports Studies, Disability Studies and similar, to receive ‘course credit’
for undertaking LSA work for a semester or more; and
8. Ensuring that principals and executives are informed of the range of alternative options
for supporting the learning of students with a disability.
Implement policies and practices that capitalise on the major

contributions that parents and carers make to their child’s
learning
A strong case was made for schools and parents and carers to collaborate to promote
students’ learning. It is proposed that ACTDET considers:
1. Giving priority in professional learning for principals, teachers and other personnel to
the ways in which parents and carers can be maximally involved and engaged in their
child’s learning, for example, developing skills in cultural awareness, communication,
conflict resolution that promote successful collaboration with parents around student
learning;
2. Providing learning opportunities for parents and carers to assist them to be maximally
involved and engaged in their child’s learning, for example, knowledge of the
curriculum and strategies for working collaboratively with teachers and other school
staff to support their child’s learning; and
3. Providing opportunities for parent and carer participation in appropriately constituted
advisory groups.
Extend partnerships with the tertiary education sector

ACTDET already collaborates with local universities and the CIT in many ways. With
particular reference to teacher preparation, it is proposed that ACTDET considers liaising
with local universities to ensure that the curriculum for pre-service teachers:
1. Provides them with knowledge and skills of evidence-based strategies that are
appropriate for all students, including those with a disability;
2. Provides them with knowledge and skills of evidence-based strategies for working
effectively with parents and carers and learning support staff, such as LSAs, to improve
student learning outcomes;

3. Teaches them how to engage all students to the maximum in their own learning;
4. Prepares them for teaching in the digital age;
5. Teaches them how to engage in ongoing, action evaluation of classroom teaching;
6. Provides opportunities for interdisciplinary studies, for example, shared units of study
for students in education, the therapies, sports studies and other courses that prepare
students to work with people with a disability; and
7. Establishes ‘course credit’ arrangements to encourage undergraduate students in
relevant disciplines to gain experience in working with students with a disability.
It is also proposed that universities consider ways to:
8. Ensure that staff model the use of good pedagogy and ICT in their classes; and
9. Make available post-graduate courses and subjects that deal with specific ICT
applications for students with complex disabilities; teaching students who have
complex educational, medical and/or behavioural needs; and specialist studies related
to particular diagnoses, for example, autism spectrum disorder.
It would be appropriate to further develop current research collaborations with the tertiary
sector. For example, the development of accountability measures for students with a
disability is a research topic of national interest and one that would be a good candidate for
funding under one of the national research schemes.
It is proposed that ACTDET and local universities:
10. Collaborate on research and evaluation projects that are central to improving the
educational outcomes of students with a disability in ACT schools.
Plan services for students with a disability

Features of the current governance and policy context in public education in the ACT, for
example, school-based management and the significant parental choice in schooling
options, complicate the Department’s capacity to plan and so meet its legal responsibilities
under the DDA 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005. It is proposed that
ACTDET considers:
1. Planning and delivering services for students with a disability on a regional basis (e.g.
North, South, Central);
2. Establishing in each region a broadly equivalent set of supports for students with a
disability that involves regionally-based coordination of ancillary services such as
multidisciplinary support and coordination and the provision of more regionally
accessible resources and equipment;
3. Supporting each region to collaborate around services and resources for students with a
disability so that each regional network or community of schools is reasonably self-
sufficient;
4. Planning new services in each region with reference to leading practice, for example,
new services should demonstrate innovative, interagency collaboration and co-location
arrangements with respect to specialist schools;

5. Establishing an information management system for monitoring and predicting
demand, planning services for students with a disability, and implementing personnel
attraction and retention strategies, for example, for those who work with students with
very specific learning needs in vision and hearing;
6. Implementing, and if necessary developing, internal accountability mechanisms for
legal and policy compliance and for the educational outcomes of students with a
disability;
7. Initiating regular external reviews, for example, three yearly reviews by the Auditor
General, of compliance with the Disability Standards for Education 2005; and
8. Collaborating with the non-government sector in initiatives that realise the
Government’s priority (as expressed in the Building Our Community: The Canberra
Social Plan (2004)), to “lead Australia in education, training and life-long learning”
with respect to students with a disability in ACT schools.

Chapter 11 Options for Catholic
Schools in the ACT35
This chapter proposes options for the Catholic Education Office of the
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn related to:

• Educational leadership
• Individual Learning Plans
• Learning Support Staff
• Learning Support Assistants (LSAs)
• Collaboration with parents and carers
• Partnerships with the tertiary sector
• Planning and accountability.
The purpose of the review was to provide advice on future options for the provision of
special education services in ACT government and non-government schools and to show
how these services would improve student outcomes. ACT Catholic schools have a good
record of educating students with a disability in mainstream educational environments and
have plans for further development of services for students with disabilities. The options
below have been written to assist the planning process.
Currently the delivery model in ACT Catholic schools is transitioning from a ‘special
education’ to a ‘learning support’ model and this is evident in the written policies that
underpin services. The approach to the education of students with a disability in ACT
Catholic schools is clearly ‘between paradigms’.
Clarify the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a
disability in ACT Catholic schools
The vision is clear at ‘office level’ and some sophisticated processes are being trialed, for
example, for profiling student’s needs to guide the development of Individualised
Education Plans (IEPs). However, more policy refinement, elaboration, discussion and
dissemination are necessary if the ‘new’ approach of meeting the needs of students with a
35
Although Catholic schools in the ACT experience distinct issues, there is some overlap with issues raised in
Chapter 10 (Public schools) and Chapter 12 (Independent schools).

disability in the context of ‘learning for all’ is to be thoroughly understood and
implemented.
Some service gaps have not been formally addressed. For example, some Catholic parents
would like to send their child to a Catholic School but fear that the school may not be able
to meet their child’s extensive educational needs. It is proposed therefore that the Catholic
Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn:
1. In collaboration with key stakeholders, including parents and school communities,

clarifies the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a disability in its ACT
schools 36;
2. Considers renaming its services for services for students with a disability and ‘special
needs’ using disability-related nomenclature, for example, Services/Supports for
Students with a Disability;
3. Encourages school staff to discontinue using ‘special’, with respect to students with a
disability (special needs, special education);
4. Considers how the definition of disability contained in the ACT Disability
Discrimination Act (1991) might guide eligibility for additional funding support for
students with a disability in ACT Catholic schools.
5. Considers ‘leading practice’ options with respect to Catholic students with severe and
complex disabilities whose parents desire a faith-based setting, (e.g. as described in
Chapter 6) but who believe that their child’s needs could not presently be met in the
mainstream environment of a Catholic school;
6. Further explores options for meeting this need, if appropriate, for example through
different funding arrangements (as described in Chapter 9) or through possible
collaborative arrangement with ACTDET;
7. Further develops the collaborative, ‘student profiling’ processes that support the
development of the IEP; and
8. Allocates sufficient resources, including personnel, to the important task of developing
policy and ensuring that the implications of policy are fully understood at school level.
Develop educational leaders

The leading practice literature confirms the pivotal role of school leaders in implementing
an inclusive vision and during this review we encountered Catholic school leaders with the
necessary disposition, knowledge and skills. Informed leadership is particularly important
in regard to students with a disability in Catholic schools because of the generally limited
access that the schools have to specialist and consultancy support, for example, in
comparison with some of the Independent schools and with the Public sector. It is
proposed that the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn
considers:
1. Reinforcing the key role of the principal as the schools’ educational leader through the
leadership framework and supporting principals through targeted professional learning
36
The Archdiocese operates schools in NSW as well as in the ACT

and appraisal processes pertinent to the learning outcomes of students with a disability.
For example, a model of support to principals already being used successfully is the
Hume Region’s Common Curriculum model in Victoria where all principals access
advanced learning about the curriculum, ethical decision-making, equity leadership,
technology for the classroom, inter alia; and
2. Assisting principals through quality professional learning, the leadership framework,
and appraisal processes to understand their responsibilities under the relevant
legislation, and the ways in which they, as school leaders, ensure that students with a
disability participate in education on the same basis as other students.
Support the pivotal role of classroom teachers

effect on student learning. Consequently, improving the knowledge, skills, attitudes and
commitment of classroom teachers should be given absolute priority.
The success of the inclusive model in Catholic schools is highly dependent on the quality
of the classroom teacher. It is proposed that the Catholic Education Office of the
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn considers the following:
1. Giving priority to professional learning for classroom teachers. This option involves
focusing professional learning on teachers’ current issues and concerns; linking
professional learning to teachers’ use of evidence-based practices that are effective
with students with a disability; challenging discourse that undermine inclusive practice;
providing them with time, support, mentoring and opportunity to observe in other
schools and settings; and teachers evaluating the effectiveness of these approaches for
all students including those with a disability. The current consideration by Catholic
Education of the Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) action research cycle (e.g. as described by
Marino & Haggerty Raines, 2004) is a promising initiative.
2. Collaborating with colleagues in the Public sector and Independent schools to develop
the applicability and relevance of web-based sharing of effective teaching practices for
3. Establishing a “Leading Practice Innovation Fund” or similar for schools and teachers
to access resources to implement and trial evidence-based strategies such as engaging
in extensive collaboration with parents and carers to support learning, using the
‘Response to Intervention’ approach previously outlined, and/or implementing the
practices detailed by Mitchell 37 (2008). A community-based project in Liverpool, UK,
the ADHD Project under the auspices of by the Children's Fund, funded by all school
systems and local council, provides a specific example. The project focuses on parental
37
London: Routledge.

empowerment and rebuilding home-school relationship to reduce inappropriate and
disruptive behaviours and increase the engagement of students with ADHD.
4. Exploring opportunities for sharing professional learning within the Catholic sector
(systemic and congregational schools) as well as with the Public sector and with
Independent schools. The reviewers were given several examples of excellent
professional learning in particular schools which would have benefited nearby schools.
Reconfigure resource allocation

The Catholic Education Office (2006) support document, Using School and System
Resources to Support Students with Special Needs (including students with disabilities)
states that any “additional resources are not directly for the student but for the teacher, who
has the responsibility, first and foremost for all students in the class”. The document
comments on “the traditional ‘deficit’ way of thinking of disability (that) attach(es)
funding directly to a student”.
This interpretation - at Office level- is accurate in terms of the purposes of supplementary

funding, and it reveals an understanding of the factors that support inclusive practice.
However, many school-based personnel do not think this way and complain that they must
use ‘school funds’ to support students with a disability. In regard to Catholic schools, the
differing views illustrate how important it is for policy to be appreciated in the schools,
particularly as this way of thinking about students with a disability (i.e. that they are a
drain on school funding) can impede inclusive practice and successful education. It also
highlights the need for funding to be delivered in a variety of schemes (e.g. input,
throughput, output, outcomes) so that the unintended, deleterious effects of any one
funding distribution scheme are minimised.
It is proposed that the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and
Goulburn considers:
1. Collaborating with ACTDET and the Independent Schools Association in any

reconfiguration of resource allocation strategies so that they reflect the principles
(outlined in Chapter 7) for enhancing inclusive practice;
2. When allocating resources within ACT Catholic schools, implementing the principles
(outlined Chapter 7) for enhancing inclusive practice, including the use of evidence-
based pedagogy, greater school level flexibility in the use of funds, and increased
accountability for learning outcomes;
3. Making clear that resources derived from the Student Centred Appraisal of Need are to
complement the system/school funding that is made available for all students and that
students with a disability should be beneficiaries as well 38;
4. Investigating opportunities for collaboration with the Public sector and/or the
Independent schools and/or tertiary institutions in sharing, gaining access to, and/or
buying into professional learning and research opportunities, multidisciplinary services
(e.g. through the proposed hubs and the diagnostic centre), early intervention services,
technology support and similar; and
38
It also should apply, where guidelines permit, that students who do not have a disability may receive
‘incidental benefit’ from disability-related resources.

5. Establishing, or buying into, a resource library to facilitate the maintenance of, and
access to, equipment and assistive technological infrastructure.
Maximise the potential of learning support staff

The Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn has adopted a
model that utilises school-based Learning Support Teachers with a primary focus on
students with special needs/ disability. As outlined in this report, there is evidence, that
with the right people with the right skills, the role can be very effective. Indeed, this report
has proposed trials of a model of ‘Learning Support Coordination’ by ACTDET in which
the Learning Support Coordinator would assist the principal in implementing support for
all students who experience difficulties in learning, i.e. the role would not be disability-
specific.
The cost however of these approaches is not inconsequential and expenditure on Learning
Support Teachers may makes expenditure on other options less possible, for example,
further class size reductions. As the model needs to be given every chance of success it is
proposed that the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn
considers:
1. Giving priority to extensive professional learning for the Learning Support Teachers,
ranging from ongoing, ‘within system’ networking, to formal, postgraduate
qualifications in inclusive practice;
2. Conducting trials of the extension of the responsibilities of Learning Support Teachers
to students who may be underperforming for any reason (including disability), with the
aim of integrating schools’ pedagogical approaches for students functioning in the
lowest quartile, i.e., trial the ‘Learning Support Coordination’ model; and
3. Monitoring the effectiveness of the ‘Learning Support Teacher Model’ and, if trialed,
the ‘Learning Support Coordinator model’ and sharing the results with the non-
government and government sectors.
Clarify issues associated with Learning Support Assistants

(LSAs)
The Catholic Education Office has developed policy and fostered training for LSAs for
several years and the results have been very favourable. Individual schools have built
LSAs into their array of supports for students with a disability in effective ways. However
dependency issues around the deployment and employment of LSAs still remain. For
example, some schools rely on the LSA to deliver the education program for the student/s
with a disability.
Goulburn considers:
1. Adopting an alternative currency to LSA hours (such as cash) for disbursing

supplementary resources for students with a disability;
2. Encouraging flexibility in the use of these funds and recommending preferred,
evidence-based, forms of support;

3. Developing and disseminating system-wide policy with respect to appropriate roles and
creative involvement of LSAs – when and where LSAs might be involved, for what
purposes, for how long, with what students; and encourages schools to use the highly
regarded work of Giangreco at the University of Vermont to identify any inadvertent
dependency-based models that have evolved around the use of classroom assistants.
Similar work is already being done in several districts and dioceses in Victoria, for
example, Sandhurst and Ballarat;
4. Continuing to support training courses for LSAs;
5. Exploring the business case for providing a career structure for LSAs;
6. Negotiating with local tertiary institutions for significant numbers of undergraduate
students from relevant courses, for example,, Education, Psychology, Nursing,
Physiotherapy, Sports Studies, Disability Studies and similar, to receive ‘course credit’
for undertaking LSA work for a semester or more; and
7. Ensuring that principals and executives are informed of the range of alternative options
for supporting the learning of students with a disability.
Implement policies and practices that capitalise on the major

contributions that parents and carers make to their child’s
learning
Catholic schools already enjoy strong parental support and this report has highlighted the
major contribution of parent-teacher collaboration around student learning. It is proposed
that the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn
considers:
1. Providing opportunities for parents and carers to be maximally involved and engaged
in their child’s learning, for example, knowledge of the curriculum and strategies for
working collaboratively with teachers and other school staff to support their child’s
learning, assistance with interpreters and similar;
2. Providing opportunities for parent and carer participation in appropriately constituted
advisory groups; and
3. Providing opportunities for parents to participate in, lead, and/or be consulted about
disability-awareness raising programs and activities that are already used locally and in
other Catholic jurisdictions, for example, ‘Circle of Friends’, ‘Grief in Families’,
‘Seasons for Growth’ and ‘Seasons Loss and Grief’.
Extend partnerships with the tertiary education sector

As teacher quality is a major determinant of student learning, ongoing collaboration with
the tertiary sector is essential. It is proposed that the Catholic Education Office of the
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn consults with the tertiary sector to ensure that the
sector:
1. Provides teachers in training with knowledge and skills of evidence-based strategies

that are appropriate for all students, including those with a disability;

2. Provides them with knowledge and skills of evidence-based strategies for working
effectively with parents and carers and learning support staff, such as LSAs, to improve
student learning outcomes;
3. Teaches them how to engage all students to the maximum in their own learning;
4. Prepares them for teaching in the digital age;
5. Teaches them how to engage in ongoing, action evaluation of classroom teaching;
6. Provides opportunities for interdisciplinary studies, for example, shared units of study
for students in education, the therapies and other disciplines courses that work with
people with a disability; and
7. Establishes ‘course credit’ arrangements to encourage undergraduate students in
relevant disciplines to gain experience in working with students with a disability.
It is also proposed that universities:
8. Ensure that staff model the use of good pedagogy and ICT in their classes; and
9. Make available post-graduate courses and subjects that deal with specific ICT
applications for students with complex disabilities; teaching students who have
complex educational, medical and/or behavioural needs; and specialist studies related
to particular diagnoses, for example, autism spectrum disorder; and
Goulburn and local universities:
10. Collaborate on research and evaluation projects that are central to improving the
educational outcomes of students with a disability in ACT Catholic schools.
Implement accountability measures for students with a disability

The Catholic Education Office already engages in some good accountability measures, for
example, checks are made on IEP processes in every school. It is proposed that the
Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn considers:
1. Implementing, and if necessary further developing, internal accountability mechanisms

for legal and policy compliance and for the educational outcomes of students with a
disability;
2. Participating in regular external reviews, for example, three yearly reviews by the
Auditor General, of compliance with the Disability Standards for Education 2005; and
3. Implementing its mission and purpose to provide an inclusive Catholic education and
assists in the realisation of the Government’s priority (as expressed in the Building Our
Community: The Canberra Social Plan (2004), to “lead Australia in education, training
and life-long learning” with respect to students with a disability in ACT schools.

Chapter 12: Options for ACT
Independent Schools39
This chapter proposes options for ACT Independent Schools related to:

• Learning Support Assistants (LSAs)
• Accountability.
• Educational leadership
• Resourceful service delivery
• Collaboration.
The presentation of options for the consideration of Independent schools begins with an
important clarification - Independent schools are independent. The operations and
governance of each Independent school are the responsibility of their respective governing
bodies. That is, the 17 Independent schools in the ACT are owned and operated by 17
separate and different boards. While there is an Association of Independent Schools, the
Association does not have jurisdiction over the Independent schools.
Furthermore, each ACT Independent school is unique. Independent schools differ in many
ways including religious beliefs, culture, values, enrolments, school expertise, the social
capital of the school community, resources, and/or the range and sophistication of supports
for students with a disability.
The options outlined below are derived from the review of leading practice and the views
of stakeholders as presented in the previous chapters. The primary consideration is to
improve the learning outcomes of students with a disability. As it is difficult to specify
options that are pertinent to each school, school boards and principals should study the
whole report and assess the relevance and implications for their school
The following are general options only.
39
Although each Independent school in the ACT experiences distinct issues, there is some overlap with
issues raised in Chapter 10 (Public schools) and Chapter 11 (Catholic schools).

Clarify the vision, goals and scope of services for students with a
disability in the school
Many Independent schools espouse inclusive values and provide inclusive services for
students who find learning difficult. Personnel in some schools, however, were not well
aware of their legal obligations in regard to students with a disability. Furthermore, the
way services were provided for students with a disability in some schools was somewhat
marginalising. It is proposed that school boards and principals:
1. Where necessary, clarify their understanding of their responsibilities under the relevant
legislation and the obligations of the school to ensure that students with a disability
participate in education on the same basis as other students;
2. In collaboration with key stakeholders, including parents and the school community,
clarify the school’s vision, goals and scope of services for students with a disability;
3. Consider the adoption of a learning support, rather than a special needs delivery model,
so that support for students with a disability is conceptualised and delivered to meet the
diverse learning needs of all students, irrespective of the source of the need; and
4. Consider discontinuing the use of ‘special’ with respect to students with a disability.
Support the pivotal role of classroom teachers

effect on student learning. Consequently, improving the knowledge, skills, attitudes and
commitment of classroom teachers should be given absolute priority.
The success of the inclusive model that operates in most Independent schools depends on
the quality of the classroom teacher. It is proposed that school boards and principals
consider the following:
1. Giving further priority to professional learning for classroom teachers. This option
involves focusing professional learning on teachers’ current issues and concerns;
linking professional learning to teachers’ use of evidence-based practices that are
effective with students with a disability; providing them with time, support, mentoring
and opportunity to observe in other schools and settings; and teachers evaluating the
effectiveness of these approaches for all students including those with a disability.
2. Collaborating with colleagues in the Public sector and Catholic schools to develop the
applicability and relevance of web-based sharing of effective teaching practices for
3. Supporting teachers to trial evidence-based strategies, or buying in the necessary
expertise for them to extend their teaching repertoires, for example, engaging in
extensive collaboration with parents and carers to support learning; using the

‘Response to Intervention’ approach previously outlined; and/or implementing the
practices detailed by Mitchell 40 (2008).
4. Exploring opportunities for sharing professional learning with Public, Catholic and/or
other Independent schools.
Use resources inclusively

Many believe that Independent schools are under-resourced for students with a disability.
It is certainly true that students with a disability, like all students in Independent schools
and Catholic schools, receive less public support than if they were educated in a Public
school. The case for Governments to provide more funding for students with a disability
irrespective of the sector in which the student is educated is frequently debated (see
Chapter 7). The consensus of opinion is that increased funding is needed in all sectors.
Some principals, teachers and parents from Independent schools mentioned the use of
‘school funds’ to support students with a disability. A premise that school funds are not for
students with a disability is contestable. Furthermore, an assumption that the sole or major
resource support for students with a disability should be that derived from the Student
Centred Appraisal of Need is incorrect and this way of thinking works against inclusive
practice and successful education.
It is proposed that school boards and principals consider:
1. Collaborating with ACTDET and Catholic Education in any reconfiguration of

resource allocation strategies so that they reflect the principles outlined in this report
for enhancing inclusive practice;
2. Investigating opportunities for collaboration with the Public sector and/or the Catholic
schools and/or tertiary institutions in sharing, gaining access to, and/or buying into
professional learning and research opportunities, multidisciplinary services (e.g.
through the proposed hubs and the diagnostic centre), early intervention services,
technology support and similar;
3. Establishing, or buying into, a resource library to facilitate the maintenance of, and
access to, equipment and assistive technological infrastructure; and
4. Establishing an information service to assist schools in locating services and supports
Reduce reliance on Learning Support Assistants (LSAs)

Although practices differ markedly across schools, some rely heavily on the LSA to
deliver the education program for the student/s with a disability.
It is proposed that school boards and principals:
40
London: Routledge.

1. Consider the benefits of using funds on a wider array of supports, for example, on
teacher professional learning; giving teachers time for networking; reducing class
sizes; assisting teachers implement new approaches to teaching that require ‘set-up
time’; and/or purchasing therapy, equipment, consultancy and other supports for
inclusive practice.
Implement accountability measures for students with a disability

1. Implementing internal accountability mechanisms for legal and policy compliance and
for the educational outcomes of students with a disability; and
2. Participating in any regular external reviews, for example, three yearly reviews by the
Auditor General, of compliance with the Disability Standards for Education 2005.
Demonstrate leadership
Some Independent schools are relatively well-resourced, have staff with considerable
expertise and/or engage in practices that are examples of ‘leading practice’. For example,
many Independent schools display a genuine sense of community, welcome and involve
parents and carers in significant ways and/or consult with students about their learning as a
matter of course. Some have sophisticated multidisciplinary teams and some have
implemented systems for the early detection of learning difficulties.
1. Sharing these leading practices within the government and non-government sector, for
example, through web-based postings.
Implement resourceful solutions

Some Independent schools in the ACT have a small resource base in terms of finances and
social capital; limited expertise in regard to students with a disability; small enrolments;
and/or limited opportunities for economies of scale. Some are physically isolated as well.
It is proposed that the boards and principals of these schools:
1. Work on building the capacity of the school as a whole to respond to diversity because
such an approach is more sustainable;
2. Implement the evidence-based strategies that supplement funded support, for example,
peer tutoring and cooperative learning;
3. Consider different staff configurations, for example, try to have at least one staff
member with qualifications in Inclusive Education; and/or share a Learning Support
Coordinator with one or more schools;
4. Consolidate resources from different funding allocations (where permissible) to fund
integrated support for any student in need; and

5. Invite academics and researchers into the school to assist school staff to become more
research-engaged, e.g. ‘researcher in residence’.
Develop collaborative relationships

In addition to the proposals for greater collaboration already made, it is proposed that
school boards and principals:
1. Invite local tertiary institutions to routinely place students in Education, Psychology,

Nursing, Physiotherapy, Sports Studies, Disability Studies and similar at the school for
their practicum;
2. Invite tertiary institutions to provide relevant professional development courses for
school staff;
3. Explore with other schools and relevant organisations the extension of networks,
meetings and web-based interactions for those responsible for learning support or
‘special needs’ in the schools, for example, a meeting once a term to share promising
practices; development of an ‘advisory service’ to share knowledge of resources –
financial and pedagogical;
4. Establish buddy, mentoring and/or consultancy arrangements with a school that has
more expertise and/or resources for students with a disability; and
5. Implement the unique mission and purpose of the school and assist in the realisation of
the Government’s priority (as expressed in the Building Our Community: The
Canberra Social Plan (2004)), to “lead Australia in education, training and life-long
learning” with respect to students with a disability in ACT schools.

Chapter 13: Postscript
Everyday in the ACT, parents, carers, teachers, assistants, support staff, therapists and
consultants assist students with disabilities to reach their potential. The task is sometimes
difficult, frequently rewarding and always challenging.
While acknowledging the effective work that occurs in ACT schools to improve the
educational outcomes of students with a disability, the review drew attention to many areas
where improvements are not only possible but necessary. The immediate task for sectors
and schools is to consider the options that have been proposed and to adjust their course.
The review concludes that contemporary responses to disability are more likely to be
successful if they are framed within a diversity mindset. The idea is hardly novel. Over 15
years ago, a UNESCO report concluded,
Special needs education - an issue of equal concern to countries of the North
and of the South - cannot advance in isolation. It has to form part of an overall
educational strategy and, indeed, of new social and economic policies. It calls
for major reform of the ordinary school (United Nations Educational, Scientific &
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), pp. iii & iv, 1994)
In summary, the challenges for ACT Public, Catholic and Independent schools into the
immediate future revolve around three major issues: coherence, capacity and
collaboration.
Coherence relates to the clarity and internal consistency of the vision for students with a
disability that is adopted by sectors and schools. Schools need to articulate their position
on a fundamental issue raised by Hardman and Nagle, (2004, p.286),
At the heart of the argument is the belief that special education policy has
served its purpose of obtaining access for students with disabilities and should
be dismantled. The new focus for discourse should be on how best to educate
all students, not just a few who manifest the required disability characteristics.
Public Sector education services for students with a disability are extensive and
differentiated, with many services having been added on over time. The achievement of
coherence requires drawing together, and giving a common purpose and understanding to,
the array of services. For example, the place of special schools, units and centres in the
context of inclusivity needs to be expressed unambiguously as does the extent to which
‘capacity-building’ becomes the prime function of consultancy services.
For Catholic schools, the coherence at Office level needs to be matched in the schools. The
challenge is to ensure that the inclusive practice vision is understood, appreciated and
implemented and this will require discussion, policy development, monitoring and support
for implementation.
Each of the Independent schools is at a different place with respect to coherence. However,
all schools could benefit by assessing where they stand on, for example, the Index of
Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow 2002) that guides schools through a self-examination of
school cultures, policies and practices, or on Jenkins’ (2002) Continuum-Based Model of

Inclusion, that helps schools clarify the extent to which their teaching and learning policies
are supported by their use of resources.
In terms of capacity, Public schools have a variety of supports for students with a
disability. However, on average, Public schools also teach students who are more complex
and challenging. No one associated with the education of students with a disability in
Public schools claimed that resources were adequate. Some students are extraordinarily
difficult to teach and manage no matter how extensive the resources and expertise.
The continuing success of the inclusive model in Catholic schools will depend to a large
extent on the capacity of the Learning Support Teachers, on how they are supported, and
how well they support classroom teachers.
Independent schools vary greatly in capacity, but for each, the task is to make the best use
of the available resources to improve students’ learning. This must often be done in a
context in which there are high parental expectations.
Throughout this report, the benefits and desirability of collaboration between the
government and non-government sectors and with other stakeholders was stressed. In the
relatively small Australian Capital Territory, there are good examples of, and huge
potential for, collaborations to support the educational outcomes of our students with a
disability.
Finally, the ‘appreciative inquiry’ methodology that guided the review required the
reviewers to first gain an appreciation of ‘what is’. This was followed by work on ‘what
could be’ and ‘what should be’, and the data sources for these tasks were conversations
with stakeholders, observations of good practice in schools and an extensive review of
leading practice.
Armed with the options that have now been proposed, school systems and schools need to
undertake the work suggested in the Discussion paper – to “chart a way forward together in
solutions-focused, data-based and defensible ways”. In doing so they will complete the
last task of the appreciative inquiry model – determining what ‘will be’. Central to this task
is the implementation of strategies that ensure that ACT students with a disability receive
an education ‘on the same basis’ as all other students. This is their legal right.

References
ACT Department of Disability, Housing & Community Services, Department of Education
& Training, Chief Minister’s Department, & Department of Justice & Safety (2004).
Multi-agency response for clients with complex needs: Memorandum of
understanding. Canberra: Author.
ACT Department of Education & Training, (2004). Teachers: The key to student success.
Canberra: Author. Available
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/17964/sei_TeachersKeyToStu
dentSuccess.pdf
ACT Department of Education & Training, (2007). Every chance to learn: Curriculum
framework for ACT schools preschool to year 10. Canberra: Author.
ACT Department of Education & Training, (2008). Student Centred Appraisal of Need:
Booklet for parents, carers and staff. Canberra: Author.
ACT Department of Education & Training, (2008). Students with a disability: Meeting
their educational needs. Canberra: Author.
ACT Department of Education & Training, (2009a). Curriculum requirements in ACT
public schools preschools to year 10. Canberra: Author.
ACT Department of Education & Training. (2009b) ACT School Census.
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/54278/ACT_School_Census_
Publication_February_2009.pdf
ACT Government (2004 & 2009). Education Act 2004. Canberra: Author.
ACT Government (2009). ACT Government policy framework for children and young
people with a disability and their families: Canberra: Author.
ACT Health (2009). Building a strong foundation: A framework for promoting mental
health and wellbeing in the ACT 2009-2114 (Consultation draft). Canberra: Author.
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for
students with significant disabilities: what it means to teachers. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 123-133.
Ainscow, M., & Kaplan, I. (2005). Using evidence to encourage inclusive school
development: possibilities and challenges. Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 29, 106-116.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion.
London: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P. & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive
education: A study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 4, 211-229.
Alberta Education (2009). Setting the direction for special education in Alberta: A review
of the literature. Alberta, Canada: Author.
Alberta Teachers’ Federation, (2009). Success for all: The teaching profession’s views on
the future of special education in Alberta. Edmonton, Canada: Author.

Aljunied, M. (2009). Cognitive assessments of children with autism: Are there better
indicators than IQ scores for predicting success in inclusive settings? Paper
presented at the Asia Pacific Autism Conference, Sydney Convention and Exhibition
Centre, Sydney 20-22 August.
Allan, J., & Brown, S. (2001). Special schools and inclusion. Educational Review, 53(2),
199-207.
Allen Consulting Group, The (2005). Scoping study: Assessing the costs of schooling for
students with disabilities in Australia, interim report. Sydney: Author.
Allen, J. (2008). Family partnerships that count. Educational Leadership, 66(1), 22-27.
Allen, S.K., Smith, A.C., Test, D.W., Flowers, C., & Wood W.M. (2001). The effects of
“self-directed IEP” on student participation in IEP meetings. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 4, 107-120.
Allinder, R.M., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Issues in curriculum-based measurement:
Monitoring instruction to increase student learning. In A.M. Sorrells, H.J. Rieth &
P.T. Sindelar, (Eds.). Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and
accountability (pp.106-124). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Almazan, S. (2009). What the state statistics say about inclusive education. TASH
Connections, 35(1), Summer.
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence
synthesis, New Zealand, Ministry of Education. Available:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959.
Ambrose, D. (1987). Managing complex change. Pittsburgh, Pa: The Enterprise Group,
Ltd.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2009). Learning difficulties, dyslexia, and vision.
Pediatrics, 124(2), 837-844. Available:
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/124/2/837
Andrews, R.J. & Associates (1996). Report on the Review of Special Education in the
Australian Capital Territory. Paradise Point, QLD: Author.
Apps, M & Carter, M. (2006). When all is said and done, more is said than done: Research
examining constructivist instruction for students with special needs. Australasian
Journal of Special Education, 30, 107-125.
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Catholic Education Office (2009). Learning
support handbook and support documents (2009). Available:
http://www.ceocg.catholic.edu.au/publications/learning_support/index.htm
Arndt, J.S., & McGuire-Schwartz, M.E. (2008). Early childhood school success:
Recognising families as integral partners. Career and Technical Education, 84(5),
281-285.
ARTD Consultants (2009). Dyslexia stakeholder forum: Forum summary report. Sydney:
Author.
Askell-Williams, H, Russell, A., Dix, K.L., Slee, P.T., Spears, B.A., Lawson, M.J., Owens,
L.D., Gregory, K. (2008). Early challenges in evaluating the KidsMatter national
mental health promotion initiative in Australian primary schools. International
Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 10(2): 35-44.

Atelier Learning Solutions (2004). Essential learnings for all: Report of the review of
services for students with special and/or additional educational needs. Author.
Atelier Learning Solutions (2005). Evaluation of the Australian Government Quality
Teacher Programme 1999 to 2004. Retrieved, 7 November 2007 from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/Ev
aluationOfTheAustGovQualTeacherProg1999_2004.htm
Atelier Learning Solutions (2005). Report of the review of government secondary colleges
on behalf of the ACT Department of Education and Training. Author.
Auditor General NSW (2006). Educating primary school students with disabilities:
Department of Education and Training. Sydney: NSW Audit Office.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2008). National Survey of Mental Health and
Wellbeing: Summary of results, 2007 (cat. No. 4326.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau
of Statistics.
Australian Capital Territory (2007). Disability Services Act 1991, (republication).
Canberra: ACT Parliamentary Counsel.
Australian Government (2006). Family-school partnerships framework: A guide for
schools and families. ACT: Department of Education, Employment & Workplace
Relations. Retrieved from: http//www.familyschool.org.au/pdf.framework.pdf
Australian Government (2007). Federalist paper 2: The future of schooling in Australia.
Retrieved, 24 October 2007 from
http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/2007/federalist-
paper.pdf
Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. (1999). The
Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century -
Preamble and Goals. Retrieved 24 October 2007 from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/national
_goals_for_schooling_in_the_twenty_first_century.htm
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003). AIHW. (2003). Mental health services
in Australia 2000- 2001. Canberra: Author.
Australian Psychological Society (2009). Standards for the effective delivery of school
psychological services. Available:
http://aeutas.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/psychologists/ed_standards1.pdf
Bailey, J., & Dowrick, M. (2001). Teacher morale in special schools. Special Education
Perspectives, 10(1), 15-28.
Baker, D., & Bovair, K. (Eds.). (1989). Making the special schools ordinary? Volume 1:
Models for the developing special school. London: The Falmer Press.
Balaban, N. (2006). Everyday goodbyes: Starting school and early care. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Bateman, B.D. (1994). Who, how, and where: Special education’s issues in perpetuity. The
Bauwens, & Hourcade, J.J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for
all students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Beek, C. (2002). The distribution of resources to support inclusive learning. Support for
Learning, 17, 9-14.
Bellini, S., Peters, J., Benner, L., & Hope, A. (2007). A meta-analysis of school-based
social skills interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and
Special Education, 28(3), 153-162.
Benz, M.R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment
outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives.
Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.
Berlach, R. G. (2004). Outcomes-based education & the death of knowledge. Paper
presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference,
Melbourne, Victoria.
Bernard, M.E., Stephanou, A., & Urbach, D. (2007). Report on student social, emotional
health and wellbeing. A report of a research project commissioned by the Australian
Scholarships Group (ASG). Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Best Evidence Encyclopaedia (2009). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best
evidence synthesis. Available: http://wwwbestevidence.org.
Biesta, G. (2005). Knowledge production and democracy on educational research: the case
of evidence-based education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19, 1334-
1349.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the
democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1-22.
Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and
participation in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Borman, G.D., & Rachuba, L.T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority
students: An analysis of competing models of school effects (John Hopkins
University Centre for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR) Report No. 52). Retrieved June 4, 2006, from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report52.pdf
Bottroff, V. (2009). Issues in education. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Autism
Conference, Darling Harbour, Sydney.
Bowers, T. & Parrish, T. (2000). Funding of special education in the United States and
England and Wales. In M.J McLaughlin & M Rouse, (Eds.) Special education and
school reform in the United States and Britain. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Braden, J.P. (2004). Productive pedagogies, quality teaching, and inclusion: High
intellectual quality and students with disabilities. In B. Bartlet, F. Bryer and R.
Roebuck (Eds.) Educating: Weaving Research into Practice. Brisbane: Griffith
University.
Brennan, D., Blaxland, M. & Tannous, K. (2008). A strategic assessment of the children’s
services industry. Sydney: University of NSW Social Policy Research Centre.
Brigg, J. (2009). Des English Memorial Lecture. The approach to the education of students
with autism in Australia. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33, 1-5.

Brigham, F.J., Gustashaw, W.E., Wiley, A.L., & Brigham, M. (2004). Research in the
wake of the No Child left Behind Act: Why the controversies will continue and some
suggestions for controversial research. In M. Byrnes (Ed.) (2008). Taking sides:
Clashing views in special education. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw Hill
Brigharm, N., Morocco, C.C., Clay, K. & Zigmond, N. (2006). What makes a high school
a good high school for students with disabilities? Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 21, 184-190.
Brighouse, T. & Woods, D. (2008). What makes a good school now? London: Network
Continuum.
Briner, R. & Dewberry, C. (2007). Staff wellbeing is key to school success. London:
Department of Organizational Psychology, University of London.
Broadbent, C. & Burgess, J. (2003). Building effective inclusive classrooms through
supporting the professional learning of special needs teacher assistants. Communities
of Learning: Communities of Practice. The 43rd Annual National Conference of
Adult Learning Australia (ALA), November 2003, University of Technology,
Sydney.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Broomhead, C. (2003). Education for an inclusive adult life: Policy for the 16-19 phase. In
C.E. Tilstone & R. Rose, (Eds.). Strategies to promote inclusive practice (164-173).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, B., & Karvonen,
M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states'
alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 165-181.
Brown, P. (2008). Adapting QTF for students with severe disabilities/high support needs:
A discussion paper. Canberra: Author.
Bruns, E.J., Walker, J.S., Adams, J., Miles, P., Osher, T.W., Rast, J., vanDenBerg, J.D., &
National Wraparound Advisory Group. Ten principles of the wraparound process.
Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Portland State University.
Bryer, F. & Beamish, W. (2005). Supporting students with problem behaviour in school
settings. In B. Bartlet, F. Bryer and R. Roebuck (Eds.) Stimulating the “action” as
participants in participatory research (pp. 146-159). Brisbane: Griffith University.
Bulgren, J.A. & Schumaker, J.B. (2001). Promoting success in the general education
curriculum for high school students with disabilities: Instructional processes
designed to promote success for students with disabilities in inclusive secondary
content classes. IDEAs that Work. Washington: US Department of Education.
Bundy, A., Brentnall, J., Hemsley, B. & Marshall, E. (2008). Therapy services in the
disability sector: Literature review. Sydney: NSW Department of Ageing, Disability
and Home Care.
Burke, R.L. & Cooper, C.L. (2007). Building more effective organizations: HR
management and performance in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

Buysee, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice:
Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-277.
Byrnes, M (Ed.) (2005, 2nd edition). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues
in special education. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw Hill.
Byrnes, M (Ed.) (2008, 3rd edition). Taking sides: Clashing views in special education.
Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw Hill.
Cairney, T., & Munsie, L. (1992). Talk to a literacy learner. Sydney: UWS Press.
Cairney, T., & Munsie, L. (1995). Beyond tokenism: Parents as partners in literacy.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Caldwell, B. (2007). Leadership for radical transformation in school leadership.
Available: http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Managing-your-school/Managing-
organisational-demands/Managing-key-resources/Leadership-for-Radical-
Transformation-in-School-Education
Cameron, J. & Associates with Stanton, J. Consultancy (2001). Review of therapy services
for school students with a disability. Author.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of
early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College
Record. Available: http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=15440.
Campbell, M. (2004). Identification of ‘at-risk’ students for prevention and early
intervention programs in secondary schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 14, 65-77.
Canadian Council on Learning (2009). Does placement matter? Comparing the academic
performance of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings.
Retrieved on June 19 from http://www.ccl-
cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/LinL20090318SpecialNeeds.htm
Carey, J. (2003). Massachusetts needs a standards-based model for school counseling.
Center for School Counseling Outcome Research. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts.
Carr, K . & Rajendra, H. (2009). Legal action planned against DET. Education. Journal of
the NSW Teachers Federation, 90(7), 5.
Carrington, S. & Elkins, J. (2002a) Comparison of a traditional and an inclusive secondary
school culture. The International Journal of Inclusive Education. 6 (1): 1-16.
Carrington, S. & Elkins, J. (2002b) Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and
inclusive culture in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17 (2) 51-57.
Carrington, S. & Holm, K. (2005). Students direct inclusive school development in an
Australian secondary school: An example of student empowerment. Australasian
Carter, E.W., Owens, L., Swedeen, B., Trainor, A., Thompson, C., Ditchman, N., & Cole,
O. (2009). Conversations that matter: Engaging communities to expand employment
opportunities for youth with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(6), 38-
46.

Carter, E.W., Sweedeen, B., & Kurkowski, C. (2008). Friendship matters: Fostering social
relationships in secondary schools. TASH Connections, November- December, 9-12
& 14.
Case-Smith, J. & Cable, J. (1996). Perceptions of occupational therapists regarding service
delivery models in school-based practice. Occupational Therapy Journal of
Research, 16, 23-44.
Cavarretta, J. (1998). Parents are a school’s best friend. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 12-
15.
Center for School Mental Health Analysis Research (2005). Why is school climate
important? Baltimore, MA: School of Medicine, University of Baltimore.
Center for Social Organisation of Schools (CSOS) (n.d.). Retrieved, 9 August 2007 from
http://web.jhu.edu/csos/about.html
Certo, N.J., Luecking, R.G., Murphy, S., Brown, L., Courey, S., & Belanger, D. (2008).
Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual
disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 85-95.
Chadbourne, R. (1997). Including children with intellectual disabilities in regular schools:
A Review of the Western Australian Project. Perth: Education Department of
Western Australia & Disabilities Services Commission.
Chrispeels, J. H. & Gonzalez, M. (2006). The challenge of systemic change in complex
educational systems. In A. Harris & J. Chrispeels, (Eds.). Improving school and
educational systems: International perspectives. (241-273). Milton Park, Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Chrispeels, J. H. & Harris, A. (2006). Conclusion: Future directions for the field. In A.
Harris & J. Chrispeels, (Eds.). Improving school and educational systems.
International perspectives. (295-307). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Clark, T. (2009). Developing a comprehensive approach to educating students with autism
spectrum disorder – the Aspect comprehensive educational approach. Paper
presented at the Asia-Pacific Autism Conference, Darling Harbour, Sydney.
Coffield, F. & Edward, S. (2009). Rolling out ‘good’, ‘best’ and ‘excellent’ practice: What
next? Perfect practice? British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 371-390.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T.F. (2001). “I don’t have enough time: Teachers’ interpretation of
time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration,
39(3), 266-281.
Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992: An Act relating
to discrimination on the ground of disability. Canberra: Author.
Commonwealth of Australia (2001). National evaluation report: Full services schools
program 1999 and 2000. ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Commonwealth of Australia (2002). Report on the education of students with disabilities.
Integration and Inclusion (chap.3), Parliament of Australia: Senate Committee.
Retrieved from:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-
04/ed_students_withdisabilities/report/report.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (2005). Disability Standards for Education. [Online].
Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/forms_guidel
ines/disability_standards_for_education.htm
Community Action Network (2009). Children’s mental health best practices: Prescription
for wellness. Austin, Texas: Author.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). Listening to families over time: Seven lessons learned about
literacy in families. Language Arts, 86(6), 449-457.
Connors, L. (2006). Public education – looking in the future. Educational Seminar Series:
Shaping the Future of Public Education. Canberra, Stirling: Centre for Teaching &
Learning.
Conway, R. (2005). Adapting curriculum, teaching and learning strategies. In P. Foreman
(Ed.) Inclusion in action. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson.
Cooperrider, D.L., Sorenson, P.F., Whitney, D. & Yaeger, T.F. (Eds.), (2000).
Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking organization toward a positive theory of change.
Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Cowne, E. (2008). The SENCo Handbook: Working within a whole-school approach (5th
edition). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Continuity and change in special school provision: Some
perspectives on local education authority policy-making. British Educational
Research Journal, 26(2), 177-190.
Crooks, T. (2003). Some criteria for intelligent accountability applied to accountability in
New Zealand. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, Spring, 115-
140.
Danforth, S., & Rhodes, W.C. (1997). Deconstructing disability: A philosophy for
inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 357-366.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A.M., Husbands, J.L., LaFors, J.R., Young, V.M., &
Christopher, C. (2006). Building instructional quality: ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’
perspectives on San Diego’s school reform. In A. Harris & J. Chrispeels, (Eds.). (pp.
129-185) Improving school and educational systems. International perspectives.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Davies, M.D. & Beamish, W. (2009). Transitions from school for young adults with
intellectual disability: Parental perspectives on ‘life as an adjustment’. Journal of
Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34, 248-257.
Dawson, R. & Kierney, J. (1988). A survey of parents’ views. British Journal of Special
Education, 15(3), 123-125.
Dempsey, I. (2007). Trends in the placement of students in segregated settings in NSW
government schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 73-78.
Dempsey, I. & Arther-Kelly, M. (2007). Maximising learning outcomes on diverse
classrooms. South Melbourne, Victoria: Thomson.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37,
229-237.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional
Children, 52, 219-232.
Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Every Child Matters: Changes for Children
in schools. Available:
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/07CD1E89BFFA749324DC47F707DD5
B7F.pdf
Department for Education and Skills. (2007). Every parent matters. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.
Department of Education and Children’s Services South Australia (2007). On the same
basis: Implementing the Disability Discrimination Standards for Education:
Available’
http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/speced/pages/specialneeds/OnthebamebasisDDAEducatio
nStandards/?reFlag=1
Department of Education and Training Western Australia (2004). Pathways to the future:
Building inclusive schools. Perth: Author.
Department of Education and Training Western Australia. (2001). Review of educational
services for students with disabilities in government schools. Perth, Western
Australia: Author.
Department of Education Tasmania. (2003). Inclusion of students with disabilities in
regular schools. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.tas.gov.au/equitystandards/disability/inclusion.htm
Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria (2001). Better services,
better outcomes in Victorian schools: A review of educational services for students
with special educational needs. Melbourne: Author.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2005). Literacy,
numeracy and special learning needs. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_
categories/key_priorities/literacy_numeracy_initiatives/
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008). Funding for
students with disabilities. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_
categories/special_needs_disadvantage/funding_for_students_with_disabilities.htm
(18.4 KB)
Deppeler, J., Loreman, T. & Sharma, U. (2005). Improving inclusive practices in
secondary schools: Moving from specialist support to supporting learning
communities. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29, 117-127.
Dettmer, P.A., Dyck, N.T., & Thurston, L.P. (1999). Consultation, collaboration, and
teamwork for students with special needs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dinham, & Scott, (2000). Moving into the third outer domain of teacher satisfaction.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379-396.
Donovan , S. & Cross, C. (Eds.) (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dreiling, D.S., & Bundy, A.C. (2003). A comparison of consultative model and direct-
indirect intervention with preschoolers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
57(5(, 566-569.
Dryfoos, J.G. (2008). Centers of hope. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 38-43.
Dunlap, G. & Fox, L. (2007). Parent-professional partnerships: A valuable context for
addressing challenging behaviours. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 54, 273-285.
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.
Dunsmuir, S., Brown, E., Iyadurai, S., & Monsen, J. (2009). Evidence-based practice and
evaluation: From insight to impact. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(1), 53-
70.
Dunst, C. & Dempsey, I. (2007). Family-professional partnerships and parenting
competence, confidence, and Enjoyment. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 54, 305-318.
Dunst, C. & Trivette, C. (2009). Let’s be PALS: An evidence-based approach to
professional development. Infants and Young Children, 22(3), 164-176.
Dyer, J. A. (2003). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary educational
models and nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(4), 186-188.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C., & Slagor, M. (2007). Defining access to the
general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1-15.
Dyson, A. (2004, March). Inclusive education: A global agenda? The Japanese Journal of
Special Education, 41, 613-625.
Education Queensland (n.d.). Service delivery models used by therapists in schools.
Retrieved, http://www.learningplace.com.au/deliver/content.asp?pid=21895
Efron, D., Sciberras, E., & Hassell, P. (2008). Are schools meeting the needs of students
with ADHD? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 187-198.
Elkins, J, van Kraayenoord, C. E. & Jobling, A. (2003). Parents’ attitudes to inclusion of
their children with special needs. Journal of Research in Special educational Needs,
3(2), 122-129.
Elliott, A. & Shaddock, A.J. (2008). The promise of ICTs for students with disabilities in
the mainstream. Education Technology Solutions, 23, 70-72.
Eltis, J. (2003). Time to teach, time to learn: Report on the evaluation of outcomes
assessment and reporting. Sydney: NSW Government Schools.
Epps, S. & Tindal, G. (1987). The effectiveness of differential programming in serving
students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In
M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J Walberg (Eds.) (213-248). Handbook of special
education research and practice: Volume 1 Learner characteristics and adaptive
education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Erickson, F. (2005). Arts, humanities, and sciences in educational research and social
engineering in federal education policy. Teachers College Record, 107, 4-9.

Evans, P. (1996). Coordinating services for children at risk. The OECD Observer, No. 202,
October/November 1996. 26-29.
Fagg, S. (2003). The role of LEAs in promoting inclusion. In C.E. Tilstone & R. Rose,
(Eds.). Strategies to promote inclusive practice (174-186). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Falvey, M.A., Coots, J.J., & Bishop, K.D. (1990). Developing a caring community to
support volunteer programs. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support
networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education (pp. 231-239).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Farrell, M. (2005). Key issues in special education. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Farrell, M. (2008). The special school’s handbook: Key issues for all. Milton Park,
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ferguson, D. (2008a). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge
to teach one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 109-
120.
Ferguson, P. M. (2008b). The doubting dance: Contributions to a history of
parent/professional interactions in early 20th century America. Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 48-58.
Ferrier, F., Long, M., Moore, D., Sharpley, C., Sigafoos, J. (2007). Investigating the
feasibility of portable funding for students with disabilities. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/517A32CD-1BCC-4A7E-81F9-
7380B24B0221/25817/Investigating20the20Feasibility20of20Portable20Fun.pdf
Fine, M., Pancharatnam, K. & Thomson, C. (2000). Coordinated and integrated human
service delivery models. Sydney: Social Policy Research Unit.
Finn, D. (1997). Class size: What does research tell us? Spotlight on Student Success,
EDRS 461 693, Number 207, 1-4.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C.M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications,
misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.
Finn, J.D., Gerber, S., Achilles, C.M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of
small classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145-183.
Fish, W.W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive
special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 8-14.
Flanigan, C.B. (2007). Preparing pre-service teachers to partner with parents and
communities: An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. The School
Community Journal, 17(2), 89-109.
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (2002). The financing of special education: Lessons from Europe.
Support for Learning. 17, 19-22.
Ford, J. (2007). Educational supports for students with disabilities and significant
behavioural challenges: Teacher perceptions. Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 31, 109-127.
Foreman, P & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2008). Social justice principles, the law and research, as
bases for inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 109-124.

Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI(3), 265-277.
Frankl, C. (2005). Managing Individual Education Plans: Reducing the load of the special
educational needs coordinator. Support for Learning, 20(2), 77-82.
Freebody, P., Martin, J.R. & Maton, K. (2008). Talk, text, and knowledge in cumulative,
integrated learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 188-201.
Freebody. P., Ludwig, C. & Gunn, S. (1995). Everyday literacy practices in and out of
schools in low socio-economic urban communities. Report to the Commonwealth
Department of Employment, Education and Training. Curriculum Corporation.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.
New York: Longman.
Frydenberg, E., Bugalski, K., Firth, N. Kamsner, S., & Poole, C. (2006). Teaching young
people to cope: Benefits and gains for at risk students. The Australian Educational
and Developmental Psychologist, 23, 91-110.
Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based
measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 11, 183-192.
Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of
mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 16(2), 85-95.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The
Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. 4th edition. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.F., Hill, P. & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Gallagher, J. J. (2006). Driving change in special education. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes
Publishing Co.
Garriott, P.P., Wandry, D., & Snyder, L. (2000). Teachers as parents, parents as children:
What is wrong with this picture? Preventing School Failure, 45(1), 37-43.
Gartin, B.C., & Murdick, N.L. (2005). IDEA 2004: The IEP. Remedial & Special
Education, 26(6), 327-331.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1990). Students as instructional agents. In W. Stainback & S.
Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent
integrated education (pp. 81-91). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. & Broer, S. M. (2003). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance
on paraprofessionals. Retrieved 8 August 2008 from
http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/evolve/evolvegsa.pdf
Giangreco, M. (1996). What do I know? A teacher’s guide to including students with
disabilities. Educational Leadership, 53, 56-59.
Giangreco, M. (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership, 61, 50-
53.
Giangreco, M. & Broer, S.M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in
inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10-26.
Giangreco, M., & Edelman, S. W. Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. (1997). Helping or
hovering? Effect of instructional assistant proximity on student with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 64, 7-18.
Giangreco, M., Broer, S. M. & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students
with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. The
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 75-86.
Giangreco, M., Halvorsen, A. T., Doyle, M. B. & Broer, S. M. (2004). Alternatives to
overreliance of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Retrieved 4 August 2008
from http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/evolve/JSEL0417(2)82-90.pdf
Gibb, K., Tunbridge, D., Chua, A., & Frederickson, N. (2007). Pathways to inclusion:
Moving from special school to mainstream. Educational Psychology in Practice,
23(2), 109-127.
Gillard, J. (2008). House of Representatives Schools Assistance Bill 2008: Second reading
speech. Retrieved 29 November 2008 from
http://www.aacs.net.au/imagesDB/news/Secondreadingspeech-SchoolsA.pdf
Government of Newfoundland & Labrador (1997). Coordination of services to children
and youth. Retrieved 19 June 2009 from
http://www.mcscy.nl.ca/modelcoordinationservices.html
Government of Quebec Ministry of Education (2003). Two networks, one objective: The
development of youth. Quebec: Author.
Graetz B, Littlefield L. Trinder M, Dobia B, Souter M, Champion C, Boucher S, Killick-
Moran C, Cummins R. (2008). KidsMatter: A population health model to support
student mental health and wellbeing in primary schools. International Journal of
Mental Health Promotion, 10(4) 13-20.
Graham, L.J. & Sweller, N. (in review). International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Presented earlier as Graham, L.J. (2009). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Trends in
the placement of students with disabilities in New South Wales. American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Diego, April.
Green, S., Grant, A., & Rynsaardt, J. (2007). Evidence-based life coaching for senior high
school students: Building hardiness and hope. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 2, 24-32.
Groundwater-Smith, S. (2000). Evidence based practice – towards whole school
improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education, Sydney, December.

Grubb, W.N. (2009). The money myth: School resources, outcomes, and equity. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Handleman, J.S., Harris, S.L. & Martins, M.P. (2005). Helping children with autism enter
the mainstream. In F. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of
autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd Edition), (pp. 1029-1042). New
Jersey: J. Wiley.
Hardman, M.L. & Nagle, K. (2004). Public policy: From access to accountability in special
education. In A.M. Sorrells, H.J. Rieth & P.T. Sindelar, (Eds.). Critical issues in
special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp.277-293). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Hargreaves, A. (1990). Teachers’ work and the politics of time and space. Qualitative
Studies in Education, 3(4), 303-320.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in
the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Harr, J.J., Parrish, T. & Chambers, J. (2008). Special education. In H.F. Ladd, & E.B.
Fiske (Eds.) Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 573-589).
New York: Routledge
Harris, A. & Chrispeels, J. (Eds.) Improving school and educational systems. International
perspectives. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Hartman, M.A. (2009). Step by step: Creating a community-based transition program for
students with intellectual disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(6), 6-11.
Harvey, S.T., Boer, D., Meyer, L.H., & Evans, I.M. (2009). Updating a meta-analysis of
intervention research with challenging behaviour: Treatment validity and standards
of practice. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34(1), 67-80.
Hattie, J (1992). What works in special education. Presentation to the Special Education
Conference, May 1992 NZ Available:
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/FileGet.cfm?ID=C302783E-1243-4B65-AC54-
B7FD4A5B7EF7
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper
presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, October.
Hattie, J. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? Paper
presented at the ACER Conference, Melbourne. Retrieved from:
http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/HattieSlides.pdf
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London: Routledge.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Havelock, R.G. & Hamilton, J.L. (2004). Guiding change in special education: How to
help schools with new ideas and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 1-
32.
Holt, J. (1970). The underachieving school. London: Pitman Publishing.

Hook, J. (2009). Supporting students with an ASD: a whole-school approach. Paper
presented at the Asia-Pacific Autism Conference, Darling Harbour, Sydney.
Hopkins, D. (2007). Every school a great school: Realizing the potential of system
leadership. Maidenhead. New York: McGraw-Hill/Open University.
Horne, R.L. & Hubbard, S. (1995). Youth transition program: case study report.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Work and Learning, Academy for
Educational Development.
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2006). Special education needs:
Third report of session 2005-5. Vol. 1. London: The Stationery Office.
Houston, D., & Thomas, J. (2003). Translating research into practice for instruction of
students with moderate disabilities. American Educational Research Association
Meeting. Chicago, Illinois.
Howland, A., Anderson, J., Smiley, A., & Abbott, D. (2006). School liaisons: Bridging the
gap between home and school. School Community Journal, 16(2), 47–68.
Howlin, P. (1998). Children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome: A guide for
practitioners and carers. Chichester: John Wiley.
Humphreys, K. (2008). The challenge of raising student levels of achievement in an
inclusive national curriculum. In C. Forlin & M-G. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion
and teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific
Region (pp. 111-118). London: Routledge.
Hyatt, K.J. (2007). The new IDEA: Changes, concerns, and questions. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 42(3), 131-136.
Itkonen, T. & Jahnukainen, M. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland
and the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 54, 5-23.
Jackson, A.W. & Davis, G.A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the
21st century. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Jackson, D. (2003). The creation of knowledge networks: Collaborative enquiry for school
and system improvement. In A. Harris & J. Chrispeels, (Eds.). Improving school and
educational systems: International perspectives. (274-291). Milton Park, Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Jarvis, M. (2002). Teacher stress. Stress news. 14(1). Available:
http://teachersupport.info/news/well-being/teacher-stress.php
Jenkins, H. (2002). A choice for all: West Australian independent schools’ responses to
students with disabilities and learning difficulties. Osborne Park, WA: Association of
Independent Schools of Western Australia.
Jenkins, H. (2002). A continuum-based approach to inclusive policy and practice in regular
schools. Special Education Perspectives, 11(2), 56-71.
Johns, B.H., Crowley, E.P., & Guetzloe, E. (2006). Working with families of students with
emotional and behavioural disorders. Counselling and Human Development, 38(5),
1-12.

Johnson, M & Austin, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice in the social services:
Implications for organisational change. Berkeley, California: School of Social
Welfare.
Jones, G. (2002). Educational provision for children with autism and asperger syndrome:
Meeting their needs. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Jordan, R. (2003). School-base intervention for children with specific learning difficulties.
In M. Prior (Ed.), Learning and behaviour problems in autism. (pp. 212-243). New
York: Guildford Press.
Jordan, R., & Jones, G. (1999). Meeting the needs of children with autistic spectrum
disorders. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Jung, L.A., Gomez, C., Baird, S.M., & Keramidas, C.L. (2008). Designing intervention
plans: Bridging the gap between individualized education programs and intervention.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(1), 26-33.
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of
culturally diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 47(2), 119-136.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2007). Educational service interventions and reforms.
In J. W. Jacobson, J. A. Mulick & J. Rojahn (Eds.), Handbook of intellectual and
developmental disabilities (pp. 173-188). New York: Springer.
Kauffman, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. (2005). Special Education: What it is and why we need
it? Boston: Pearson.
Kauffman, J.M., McGee, K. & Brigham, M. (2004). Enabling or disabling? Observations
on changes in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 613-620.
Kavale, K.A. (2001). Decision making in special education: The function of meta-analysis.
Exceptionality, 9(4), 245-268.
Kavale, K.A. & Forness, S.R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related services.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Keen, D. (2007). Parent, family, and professional relationships (Editorial). International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 271-272.
Keen, D. (2007). Parents, families, and partnerships: Issues and considerations.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 339-349.
Keen, D. & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2009). Assessment, disability, student engagement and
responses to intervention. In CM. Wyatt-Smith & J.J. Cummings (Eds.). Educational
assessment in the 21st century. New York: Springer.
Killu, K. (2008). Developing effective behaviour intervention plans: Suggestions for
school personnel. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 140-149.
Kliewer, C. (2008). Joining the literacy flow: Fostering symbol and written language
learning in young children with significant developmental disabilities through the
four currents of literacy. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
33, 103-121.
Knoster, T. (1995). Personal communication in R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.) Creating an
inclusive school. In Thousand, J. & Villa R., (Eds.) Managing complex change

towards inclusive schooling. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Kolbe. L.J., Talley, R.C. & Short, R.J. (2000). Integrating education, health, and social
services for young people: Current status and future directions. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10, 297-313.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, M.A.: Harvard Business School Press.
Lacey, P. (2003). Effective multi-agency work. In C.E. Tilstone & R. Rose, (Eds.).
Strategies to promote inclusive practice (84-96). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework.
Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright
(ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Lewis, R.B. (2000). Project LITT (Literacy Instruction Through Technology)): Enhancing
the reading skills of students with learning disabilities through hypermedia-based
children’s literature. Final report. San Diego: San Diego State University.
Light, J. & Drager, K. (2007). AAC technologies for young children with complex
communication needs: State of the science and future research directions.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 204-216.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of
inclusion/mainstreaming, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1-29.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1987). Beyond special education. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 367-395.
Loreman, T. J. (2001). Secondary school inclusion for students with moderate to severe
disabilities in Victoria, Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash
University, Victoria.
Los Angeles Unified School District (n.d.). The Los Angeles Unified School District
physical therapy program position paper. Los Angeles: Author.
MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A. & Page, C. (2006). The costs of
inclusion: A study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary
and special schools. Retrieved 27 July 2008 from
http://www.teachers.org.uk/resources/pdf/CostsofInclusion.pdf
MacKay, W.A. (2006). Inclusive education: A review of programming and services in New
Brunswick. Fredericktown, New Brunswick: Ministry of Education.
Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. (2009). Musec briefings: Response to intervention. AASE
NSW Chapter Newsletter, July, 4.
Maguire, P., (2003). District practices and student achievement: Lessons from Alberta.
Kelowna, BC Canada: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
Mahitivanichcha, K. & Parrish, T. (2005). The implications of fiscal incentives on
identification rates and placement in special education: Formulas for influencing best
practice. Journal of Education Finance, 31(1), 1-22.
Marginson, S. & James, R. (Eds.) (2008). Education, science and public policy: Ideas for
an education revolution. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Marino, J. & Haggerty Raines (2004). Quality across the curriculum: Integrating quality
tools and PDSA with standards K-5. Milwaukee, Wi: American Society for Quality.
Marsh, A.J. (2003). Funding inclusive education: The economic realities. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P. Lau, M & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for
decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 187-200.
Martin and Associates (2006). The Learning Assistance Program: A reflective study. Lane
Cove, NSW: Author.
Martin, J. K., Huber Marshall, L., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high,
and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 285-297.
Martin, J.E., van Dycke, J.L., Greene, B.A., Gardner, J.E., Christensen, W.R., Woods,
L.L., & Lovett, D.L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings:
Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children,
72(2), 187-200.
Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Available:
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Instruction/5982RR_InstructionMeta_Analysis.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory. (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mason, C., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (2004). Implementation of self-determination
activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 441-451.
McGaw, B. (2008). How good is Australian school education? In S. Marginson, & R.
James (Eds.) Education, science and public policy: Ideas for an education revolution
(pp. 53-77). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
McGinty, A.S., & Justice, L. (2006). Classroom-based versus pull-out language
intervention: An examination of the experimental evidence. EBP Briefs Electronic,
1(1). AGS Publishing.
McGraw, K., Moore, S., Fuller, A., & Bates, G. (2008). Family, peer and school
connectedness in final year secondary school students. Australian Psychologist,
43(1), 27-37.
McKew, M. (2008). Imagining and implementing policy. In S. Marginson, & R. James
(Eds.) Education, science and public policy: Ideas for an education revolution (pp.
24-36). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
McLaughlin, M. & Rouse, M. (Eds.) (2000). Special education and school reform in the
United States and Britain. London: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
McLaughlin, M.J. (1999). Consolidating categorical educational programs at the local
level. In T.B Parrish, J.G. Chambers, & C.M. Guarino, (Eds.). Funding special
education (pp. 22-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

McRae, D. (1996). The integration/inclusion feasibility study. Sydney: NSW Department
of Education and Training.
McRae, D., Ainsworth, G., Groves, R., Rowland, M., & Zbar, V. (2001). PD 2000
Australia: A national mapping of teacher professional development. Canberra:
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
McWilliam, R.A. (1996). Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional
resource. Baltimore MD: Paul H Brookes.
Meijer, C.J., Pilj, S.J. & Waslander, S. (1999). In Parrish, T. B., Chambers, J.G. &
Guarino, C.M. (Eds.). (1999). Funding special education (pp. 63-85). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Menna, R., & Matthews, D. (2003). Solving problems together: The importance of
parent/school/community collaboration at a time of educational and social change.
Education Canada, 43(1).
Mesibov, G.B., & Shea, V. (1996). Full inclusion and students with autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26(3), 337-346.
Meyer, L. (2001). Meyer Report. Melbourne, Victoria: Victoria Department of Education,
Employment and Training.
(2005). Pedagogy strategy: Learning in an online world. Carlton South: Curriculum
Corporation.
(2008a). MCEETYA action plan 2009-2012 (Draft). Available:
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Goals_-_Action_Plan_-
_draft_for_consultation.pdf
(2008b). Melbourne Declaration on Education Goals for Young Australians.
Available:
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educ
ational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
(2009a). Assessing student achievement in Australia 2009. Available:
http://www.mceetya.edu.au
(2009b). Learning spaces framework. Available:
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/ICT_LearningOnlineWorld-
LearningSpacesFWork.pdf
Mitchell, D, (2005). Contextualising inclusive education: Evaluating old and new
international perspectives. London: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education? Using
evidence-based teaching strategies. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (2009). An evidence-based approach to enhancing learning. Paper presented
at Second Experts’ Meeting: Defining Areas of Action to Enhance Learning – From
Access to Success, Paris and Workshop on the Provision of Inclusive Quality

Primary and Junior Secondary Education for Children with Disabilities in Brunei
Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and East Timor.
Mock, D.R., & Kauffman, J.M. (2002). Preparing teachers for full inclusion: Is it possible?
The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202-215.
Molenaar, M. & Luciano, M. (2007). Financing special education in New Jersey.
Retrieved on 7 November 2007 from http://www.hallnj.org/cm/listing.jsp?cId=12
Murik, J., Shaddock, A.J., Spinks, A.T., Zilber, D. & Curry, C. (2005). Teachers’ reported
strategies for responding to the aggressive and extremely disruptive behaviour of
students who have special needs. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 21-39.
Nation, M. Crusto, C. Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K.L., Seybolt, D.. Morrissey-Kane, E.,
& Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention. American Psychologist, 58(6/7),
449-456.
National Alliance on Mental Illness (2007). Ten best practice for schools. Available:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Schools_and_Education&template=/Co
ntentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=47652
National College of School Leadership (NCSL) (2003). Leading the research-engaged
school” Why and how school leaders engage with educational research. Retrieved
on 16 August 2007, from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7B/94/randd-engaged-
full.pdf
National College of School Leadership (NCSL) (2007). A life in the day of a head teacher:
A study of practice and well-being.
http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=17101&filename=a-life-in-the-day-
of-a-headteacher.pdf
National Council on Disability (2004). Improving educational outcomes for students with
disabilities. Available:
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/pdf/educationoutcomes.pdf
Naylor, N. (2001). The Ontario special education funding model. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 14 (1) 21-26.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (2006). Summary report: Scoping project on
integrated effective service provision for children and young people with physical
disabilities. Retrieved 6 June 2007 from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/15734
Nitschke, D., & McColl, M. (2001). Schooling options for students with disabilities in
South Australia: A parent survey. Adelaide: Ministerial Advisory Committee:
Students with Disabilities SA.
Noonan, P.M., Morningstar, M.E. & Gaumer Erickson, A. (2008). Improving interagency
collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and
communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 132-143.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1996). Critical issue: Providing effective
schooling for students at risk. Retrieved on August 10, 2007 from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at600.htm
Norwich, B. (2002). Special school placement and statements for English LEAs 1997-
2001. Exeter: CSIE, University of Exeter

Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability. International
perspectives and future directions. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Norwich, B. (2008). What future for special schools and inclusion? Conceptual and
professional perspectives. British Journal of Special Education, 35(3), 136-143.
NSW Commission for Children and Young People (2004). Participation: All aboard.
Surry Hills: Author.
NSW Independent Education Union, (2002). Stress! Burnout! Among teachers. Available:
http://www.ieu.asn.au/1149.html
NSW Public Education Inquiry. (2002). Schools, communities and social disadvantage
(Chap. 8). Retrieved from:
http://www.pubedinquiry.org/reports/interim/03/Chapter8.html
NSW Public Education Inquiry. (2002). The inclusion of students with disabilities in
mainstream classes (Chap. 9). Retrieved 19 June 2007 from: http://www.pub-ed-
inquiry.org/reports/final_reports/04/Chapter9.html
O’Connor, M.P. (2009). Service works! Promoting transition success for student with
disabilities through participation in service learning. Teaching Exceptional Children,
41(6), 12-17.
Panerai, S., Zingale, M., Trubia, G., Finocchiaro, M., Zuccarello, R., Ferri, R. & Elia, M.
(2009). Special education versus inclusive education: The role of the TEACCH
program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 39(6), 874-882.
Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services (2008). Schools Assistance
Bill 2008. Bills Digest no 37 2008-09. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 29
November 2008 from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2008-09/09bd037.pdf
Parrish, T.B. (2001). Special education in an era of school reform: Special education
finance. Palo Alto California: Federal Resource Centre and Federal Center Network.
Parrish, T.B. (2001). Who’s paying the rising cost of special education? Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 14 (1), 4-12.
Parrish, T.B. (2003). Financing (or the cost of) special education. American Institutes for
Research, Education Writers’ Association. Available,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-
us&q=Parrish+Financing+(or+the+cost+of)+special&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Parrish, T.B. & Wolman, J. (1999). Trends and new developments in special education
funding. In T.B Parrish, J.G. Chambers, & C.M. Guarino, (Eds.). (1999). Funding
special education (pp. 203-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Parrish, T.B. & Wolman, J. (2004). How is special education funded? Issues and
implications for school administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 88, 57-68.
Parrish, T.B., Chambers, J.G. & Guarino, C. M. (Eds.). (1999). Funding special education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Parsons, C. (2005). School disaffection perspectives from across Europe. The International
Journal on School Disaffection, 3(2), 39-43.
Patton, G., Bond, L., Butler, H., & Glover, S. (2003). Changing schools, changing health?
Design and implementation of the Gatehouse Project. Journal of Adolescent Health,
33(4), 231-239.

Patton, J.R. (2004). Transition issues: Process, practices, and perspectives. In A.M.
Sorrells, H.J. Rieth & P.T. Sindelar, (Eds.). Critical issues in special education:
Access, diversity, and accountability (pp.180-204). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pawley, H., & Tennant, G. (2008). Student perception of their IEP targets. Support for
Learning, 23(4), 183-186.
Pearce, M. (2008). Towards inclusive standards. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Perth: Edith
Cowan University.
Pearce, M., & Forlin, C. (2005). Challenges and potential solutions for enabling inclusion
in secondary schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 93-106.
Pearson, S. (2000). The relationship between school culture and IEPs. British Journal of
Special Education, 27(3), 145-149.
Peterson, R.L. (2009). Effective responses: Wraparound. Indiana: Safe and Responsive
Schools. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/wraparound.pdf
Petty, G. (2006) Evidence-based teaching: A practical approach. Cheltenham; Nelson
Thornes.
Pijl, S.J. & Dyson, A. (1998). Funding special education: A three-country study of
demand-oriented models. Comparative Education, 34(3), 261-279.
Pillay, H., Goddard, R., & Wilss, L. (2005). Well-being, burnout and competence:
Implications for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 22-33.
Pocock, B.; van Wanrooy, B.; Strazzari, S. & Bridge, K. (2001) Fifty families: What
unreasonable hours are doing to Australians, their families and their communities.
Melbourne: ACTU.
Pomerantz, E.M., Moorman, E.A., & Litwack, S.D. The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of
Educational Research, 77(3), 373-410.
Power, T.J. (2003). Promoting children's mental health: Reform through interdisciplinary
and community partnerships. School Psychology Review, 32, 3-16.
Powers, L.E., Turner, A., Westwood, D., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Phillips, A.
(2001). TAKE CHARGE for the future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote
student involvement in transition planning. Career Development of Exceptional
Individuals, 24(1), 89-103.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era:
Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC:
Department of Education.
Principals Australia (n.d.). Learning and leading in schools. Available:
http://www.apapdc.edu.au/
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Carroll, A. (2002). A review of the research on interventions for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: What works best? Review of Educational
Research, 72, 61-99.
Putnam, W. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education
and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional
Children, 61(6), 553-576.

Queensland Government (2004). The ministerial taskforce on inclusive education (students
with disabilities). Brisbane: Author.
Reynolds, C. R. & Fletcher-Janzen, E. (Eds.) (1990). Concise encyclopaedia of special
education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Risko, V.J., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2009). Parents and teachers: Talking with or past one
another – or not talking at all? The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 442-444.
Roberts, J.A., Keane, E., & Clark, T. (2008). Making inclusion work: Autism Spectrum
Australia's satellite class project. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(2), 22-27.
Robertson, C. (2003). Towards inclusive therapy. In C.E. Tilstone & R. Rose, (Eds.).
Strategies to promote inclusive practice. (97-115). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B. & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers’
relationships with included children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 33, 123-130.
Rock, M.L. (2000). Parents as equal partners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 30-
37.
Rosas, C., Winterman, K.G., Kroeger, S., & Jones, M.M. (2009). Using a rubric to assess
individualized education programs. International Journal of Applied Educational
Studies, 4(1), 47-57.
Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’
experiences and outcomes of schooling. Background paper to Keynote address,
ACER Research Conference, 19-21 October: Melbourne. Available:
http://www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Rowe-
The%20Importance%20of%20Teacher%20Quality.pdf
Rowe, K. (2005). Evidence for the kinds of feedback data that support both student and
teacher learning. Retrieved on 16 August 2007 from
http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2005_Rowe.pdf
Rowling, L. (2003). Guest Editorial: School mental health promotion research: Pushing the
boundaries of research paradigms. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of
Mental Health, 2, 1-3.
Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (2007). Improving learning through consulting pupils.
London: Routledge.
Sackett,D. L., Richardson,W. S., Rosenberg,W., Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence based
medicine: How to practice and teach. EBM (2nd Edition). Edinburgh: Churchill
Livingstone.
Sailor, W. & Burrello, L. (2009). The methods: Best practices in taking inclusive practice
to scale. TASH Connections, 35(3), 14-16.
Sailor, W., & Skrtic, T.M. (1996). School/community partnerships and educational reform.
Remedial and Special Education, 17, 267-270.
Sainsbury, C. (2000). Martian in the playground. Understanding the schoolchild with
Asperger’s syndrome. Bristol, UK: Lucky Duck Publishing.
Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Salisbury, C. & McGregor, G (2005). Principals of inclusive schools. Retrieved 10 June
2008 from
http://www.urbanschools.org/pdf/principals.inclusive.LETTER.pdf?v_document_na
me=Principals%20of%20Inclusive%20Schools
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J.E. & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive
education. (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Miflin.
Sanders, J.R. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of
educational programs 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sanders, M.G. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home-school gap. The
Journal of Educational Research, 101(5), 287-298.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favourites: Gifted education and the disruption of
community. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform: Can we change the course
before it’s too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, R.J., & Kosky, R.J.
Nurcombe, B., Patton, G.C., Prior, M.R., Raphael, B., Rey, J.M., Whaites, L.C., &
Zubrick, S.R. (2001). The mental health of young people in Australia: Key findings
from the child and adolescent component of the national survey of mental health and
well-being. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 806-814.
School Mental Health Project (2007). Mental health services in schools: More than
services for just a few. Addressing Barriers to Learning, 12(4), Fall. Available:
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/news/newshtml/12-4-1.htm
Schwartz, I.S., Odom, S.L., & Sandall, S.R. (n.d.) Including young children with special
needs. Retrieved: 19 June 2009 from
http://www.newhorizons.org/spneeds/inclusion/information/schwartz3.htm
Shaddock, A.J. (2005). Students with autism in high schools: A challenge for inclusive
practice. In C. Newell & T. Parmenter (Eds.). Disability in education: Context,
curriculum and culture. (pp. 22 – 36). Canberra: Australian College of Educators.
Shaddock, A.J. (2007). Improving learning outcomes for all students: Strategies for
teachers who don't claim to be super heroes. Keynote address to the University of
Sydney “Successful Learning Conference”, Harold Park Conference Centre, Glebe,
Sydney, 25 & 26 June.
Shaddock, A.J. (2008). Research on quality learning environments. Paper presented at the
Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Conference, National Science Centre,
Canberra, September.
Shaddock, A.J., Giorcelli, L. & Smith, S. (2007). Students with disabilities in mainstream
classrooms: A resource for teachers. Australian Government Department of
Education, Science and Training. Retrieved 24 October 2007 from
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/D3113371-7E2C-49FE-8017-
8495030736BF/18846/learning_outcomes_students_disabilities_resource.pdf
Shaddock, A.J., Hoffman-Raap, L., Smith, S., Giorcelli, L. & Waddy, N. (2007). What are
the professional development needs of mainstream teachers who have students with a
disability in their classrooms? Report to the Australian Government Department of
Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Shaddock, A.J., Hook, J., Giorcelli, L. Smith, S., Elliott, A., Hoffman-Raap. L., Kilham,
C., Murik, J., Spinks, A. T., Thornton, S., Waddy, N. & Woolley, G. (2007).
Improving the learning outcomes of students with disabilities in mainstream classes:
A review of the literature from a practice standpoint. Report to the Australian
Government Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.
Shaddock, A.J., Hook, J., Hoffman-Raap, L., Spinks, A.T. & Woolley, G. & Pearce, M.
(2007). How do successful classroom teachers provide a relevant curriculum for
students with disabilities in their mainstream class? Report to the Australian
Government Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.
Shaddock, A.J., Nielsen, Giorcelli, L., Kilham, C. & Hoffman-Raap, L. (2007). What are
the critical factors in ensuring successful collaboration between mainstream
teachers and teaching assistants? Report to the Australian Government Department
of Education, Science & Training, Canberra.
Shaddock, A.J., Smyth King, B. & Giorcelli, L. & (2007) A project to improve the learning
outcomes of students with disabilities in the early, middle and post compulsory years
of schooling. Part 1: Research objectives, methodology, analyses, outcomes and
findings, and implications for classroom practice. Final Research Report to the
Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Available,
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/lea
rning_outcomes_students_disabilities.htm
Shaddock, A.J. & Bramston, O. (1991). Individualized service plans: The policy-practice
gap. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17, 73-80.
Shaddock, A.J. & Nye, C. (1991). Going to college: Evaluation of the Woden School -
Phillip College project. Report to the Department of Employment, Education and
Training (Integration Projects), Canberra, p.245.
Shah, S. (2007). Special or mainstream? The view of disabled students. Research Papers
in Education, 22(4), 425-442.
Shepherd, J. (2009, 30 June). Rise in number of pupils with special educational needs. The
Guardian.
Shulman, (2004). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. In S.M.
Wilson (Ed.). The wisdom of practice (pp. 219-248). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Simmons, B. & Bayliss, P. (2007). The role of special schools for children with profound
and multiple learning difficulties: Is segregation best? British Journal of Special
Education, 34(1), 19-24.
Simpson, R.L., De Boer-Ott, S.R., & Smith-Myles, B. (2003). Inclusion of learners with
autism spectrum disorders in general education settings. Topics in Language
Disorders, 23, 116-133.
Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamics of school development. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Skrtic, T.M., Harris, K.R., & Shriner, J.G. (2005). Special education policy and practice:
Accountability, instruction, and social challenges. Denver Colorado: Love
Publishing Company.
Slee, C. (2003). Naming, framing and inclusive practice (2003). Perspectives on
Educational Leadership, 13 (3).

Slee, R. (2000). Talking back to power: The politics of educational exclusion.
International Special Education Congress. Including the Excluded. (Retrieved, July
15 2005, from http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/keynotes/slee.html
Slee, R. (2005) Education and the politics of recognition: inclusive education - an
Australian snapshot. In: D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualising inclusive education:
Evaluating old and new international perspectives. (p.140-165). London: Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Slee, R. (2006). Limits to and possibilities for educational reform. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 10, 109-119.
Smyth, J. & McInerney, P. (2007). Teachers in the middle: Reclaiming the wasteland of
the adolescent years of schooling. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Soan, S. (2006). Are the needs of children and young people with social, emotional and
behavioural needs being served within a multi-agency framework? Support for
Learning, 21, 210- 215.
Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education (2004). District effects on
achievement. Education Analyst, Winter, 1-3.
Sorrells, A.M., Rieth, H.J. & Sindelar, P.T. (2004). Critical issues in special education:
Access, diversity, and accountability. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P. & Molloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education
instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 147-156.
Sprague, T & Brann, P. (2008). Australian capital Territory Child Adolescent mental
Health Service: making a good service better in six steps – a review of ACT CAMHS.
Canberra: ACT Health.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1992). Controversial issues confronting special
education: Divergent perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W., (Eds.). (1997). Inclusion: A guide for educators.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling:
Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Stephenson, J. (2003). Inclusion of students with high support needs: the place of the
special educator. Special Education Perspectives, 12(2), 13-33.
Stephenson, J., Bo, T., Chavez, D., Fayle, L. & Gavel, J. (2007). Authentic pedagogy and
students with severe disabilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 55-
68.
Stodden, R.A., Galloway, L.M. & Stodden, N.J. (2003). Secondary school curricula issues:
Impact on postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 9-
25.
Strategic Partners and Centre for Youth Affairs and Development (2001). Innovation and
best practice in schools: Review of literature and practice. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/inn
ovation_and_best_practice_in_schools.htm

Swanson, H.L. (2000). Issues facing the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23, 37-50.
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational
Research, 68(3), 277-321.
Swanson, H.L., Hoskyn, M. & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: The Guilford Press.
Tannock, (2009). Tangible and intangible elements of collaborative teaching. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 44(3), 173-178.
Tayler, C. (2006). Challenging partnerships in Australian early childhood education. Early
Years, 26(3), 249-265.
Taylor, G.R. (2006). Trends in special education: Projections for the next decade.
Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the
least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for the Severely
Handicapped, 13, 41-53.
Teigland, C. (2009). What inclusive education means for overall student achievement.
TASH Connections, 35(3), 12-13,
Te Riele, K. (2006). Schooling practices for marginalized students – practice-with-hope.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 59-74.
Teddlie, C.B. & Stringfield. (2006). A brief history of school improvement research in the
USA. In A. Harris & J. Chrispeels, (Eds.). (pp. 23-38) Improving school and
educational systems. International perspectives. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Test, D.W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Wood, M., & Neale, M. (2004). Student
involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children,
70(4), 391-412.
Tett, L. (2005). Inter-agency partnerships and integrated community schools: A Scottish
perspective. Support for Learning, 20, 157-161.
Tewel, K.J. (1991). Breaking the scheduling straitjacket. The Clearing House, 65(2), 105-
109.
Thatchenkery, T. and Chowdhry, D. (2007). Appreciative inquiry and knowledge
management: A social constructionist perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Thomas, T. (2007). The impending special education qualifications crisis in Victoria.
Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 139-45.
Thousand, J.S. & Villa, R.A. (1995). Managing complex change toward inclusive
schooling. In R.A. Villa, & J.S. Thousand, (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school 51-
79). Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thousand, J.S., Rosenberg, R.L., Bishop, K.D., & Villa, R.A. (1997). The evolution of
secondary inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18(5), 270-284.
Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., Lazarus, S.S., Moen, R.E., Johnstone, C.J., Liu, K.K.,
Christensen, L.L., Albus, D.A., & Altman, J. (2008). A principled approach to

accountability assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 70).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, national Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Tilstone, C & Rose, R. (2003). Strategies to promote inclusive practice. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning
and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington New Zealand:
New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Tinline, G. (2004). Workplace stress: Assessing and reducing psycho-social risks. UK:
Robertson Cooper Ltd.
Tisdall, E.K. & Riddell, S. (2006). Policies on special needs education: Competing
strategies and discourses. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, 363-
379.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable difference? Standards based teaching and
differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11. Retrieved on 23 June 2007
from http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el200009_tomlinson.html
Tomlinson, C. (2001). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved June 19, 2007 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-
2/elementary.html
Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). (2009). Parent support advisers:
Practice and impact. London: Author.
Trent, L. (1997). Enhancement of the school climate by reducing teacher burnout: using an
invitational approach. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 4(2), 103-114.
Tronc, K. (2004). Inclusion: The dying dream. The Practicing Administrator, 4, 10-40.
Tsang & Leung (2005). Positive psychology and enhancement of home-school support for
students with dyslexia: An evaluative study. Paper presented at the 12 International
Conference on Learning. Granada, Spain: University of Granada.
Turnbull, & Turnbull (2001). Families, professionals and exceptionality: Collaborating for
empowerment. New Jersey: Merrill.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). The No Child left Behind Act. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Department of Education (2006). Parent and family involvement in education: 2002-
03. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (1994). The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.
Resolution of the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and
Quality, Salamanca, Spain.
Van Kraayenoord, C.E. (2006). Des English Memorial Lecture. Special education,
evidence-based practices and policies: Re-think? Re-butt? Re-make? Revalue?
Respond. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 30, 4-20.
Vardon and Murray Steering Committee (2005). Sharing responsibility: A framework for
service collaboration for the care, protection and well-being of children and young
people in the ACT. Canberra: ACT Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (Eds.). (2000).

Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together.
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response
to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Difficulties Research &
Practice. 18(3), 137-146.
Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. (Eds.) (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices
in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 33-50.
Walberg, H. (1984a). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational
Leadership, May, 19-27.
Walberg, H.J. (1984b). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(6), 397-400.
Walter-Thomas, C. (1997). Inclusion and teaming: Including all students in the
mainstream. In T.R. Dickinson & T.O. Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give:
Teaming in middle schools. Ohio: National and Middle School Association.
Wang, M.C. & Baker, E.T. (1985/86). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and
effects. Journal of Special Education, 19, 503-525.
Warnock, M. (2005). Impact. Special educational needs: A new look. Great Britain:
Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
Wehman, P. (2001). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people
with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Wehmeyer, M., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Prinker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general
curriculum for middle school students with mental retardation. Remedial and Special
Education, 34(5), 262-272.
Wehmeyer, M., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002). Teaching
students with mental retardation: providing access to the general curriculum.
Baltimore: Paul H Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M., Smith, S. J., Palmer, S. B., & Davies, D. K. (2004). Technology use by
students with intellectual disabilities: an overview. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 19(4), 7-21.
Weishaar, M.K. (2001). The regular educator’s role in the IEP process. The Clearing
House, 75(2), 96-98.
Weishaar, M.K & Borsa, J.C. (2001). Inclusive educational administration: A case study
approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Weiss, H.B., & Stephen, N. (2009). From periphery to center: A new vision for family,
school, and community partnerships. In S.L. Christenson & A.L. Reschly (Eds.),
Handbook of school-family partnerships, (Chapter 21). London: Routledge.
Weissbourd, R. (2009). The schools we mean to be. Educational Leadership, 66(8), 27-31.
Weist, M., Sander, M.A., Walrath, C., Link, B., Nabors, L., Adelsheim, S., Moore, E.
Jennings, J., & Carillo, K. (2005). Developing principles for best practice in
expanded school mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(1), 7-13.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westwood, P. (2002). Are we making teaching too difficult? A critical look at
‘differentiation’ in the classroom. Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 5(1), 13-29.
Retrieved on June 21, 2007 from
http://www.countryschool.com/ylsig/documents/Difficult.swf?POPUP_ENABLED=
true
Westwood, P.S. (2001) Making special schools ordinary: Is this inspirational or confused
thinking? International Journal of Special Education, 16(1). Retrieved from:
http://www.internationalsped.com
Westwood, P.S. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with special educational
needs. Strategies for the regular classroom (4th edition). London: Routledge.
WestWood Spice (2004). Best practice service delivery models: Therapy ACT. Canberra:
Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services.
Whitby, G. (2009). School improvement: It’s about effective teachers. Professional
Educator, 8(3), 8-9.
Worrell, J.L. (2008). How secondary schools can avoid the seven deadly school “sins” of
inclusion. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 43-56.
Wu, C. & Komesaroff. (2007). An emperor with no clothes? Inclusive education in
Victoria. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 2, 129-137.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1999). Improving teaching and learning: A thermos bottle keeps things
hot and cold, but how does it know? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22,
133-147.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B. & Thurlow, M. (2000). Critical issues in special education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Zadkovich, G. (2009). Sweeping changes proposed for special education. Education.
Journal of the NSW Teachers Federation, 90(7), 1, 5.
Zera, D. & Seitsinger, R.M. (2000). The oppression of inclusion. Educational Horizons,
Fall, 16-18. Retrieved on June 19 from http://www.pilambda.org/horizons/v79-
1/on_balance.pdf
Ziesing-Clark, S. (2009). Negotiating the maze: Transitioning from school to adult life.
Special Education Perspectives, 18(1), 3-6. Available:
http://www.disabilitycoordinationoffice.com.au/content/view/894/344/
Zubrick, S.R., Silburn, P.B., Burton, P., and Blair, E. (2000). Mental health disorders in
children and young people: Scope, cause and prevention. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 570-578.

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference

The Consultant will research leading practice, both nationally and internationally, in
curriculum and pedagogy for the ranges of students with disabilities in ACT public and
non-government schools: and provide detail of how these services improve student
outcomes.
The Consultant will provide advice on future options for the provision of special education
service in ACT public and non-government schools.

Appendix 2: Review Team
Anthony Shaddock
Tony initially worked as a mainstream teacher in inner city schools and in the western
suburbs of Sydney. He subsequently worked in the Department of Health as a psychologist
at Grosvenor Diagnostic Clinic in Summer Hill. In the late seventies Tony was Program
Director and Head of Psychological Services at Marsden Hospital and Rehabilitation
Centre, a large residential facility for children and adults with complex developmental
disabilities.
After gaining his PhD in Special Education from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Tony was appointed Director of the New England Educational Diagnostic
Centre in Armidale, NSW. In addition, Tony coordinated the Department of Health’s
developmental disability services in the New England Region, a role that involved the
establishment of accommodation alternatives to institutions and the provision of
community-based services for children and adults with complex learning and
developmental needs.
Tony’s most recent research includes studies of teachers’ responses to the challenging
behaviour of students with special needs; mainstream options for secondary students with
autism; and national research on improving the learning outcomes of students with
disabilities in the mainstream. Tony has published over one hundred books, chapters and
articles and he is a frequent contributor to national and international journals and
conferences. In 2006, Tony and his University of Canberra colleagues were awarded a
national Carrick award for outstanding contributions to the learning of university students
about students with disabilities. Currently Tony heads the Evaluation Team of the
Australian Autism Education and Training Consortium (AAETC), the group contracted by
DEEWR to provide a national program of professional development for teachers and
school staff and information sessions for parents about improving the learning outcomes of
students on the autism spectrum. In 2009 Tony was made a Fellow of the Australian
College of Education for services to students with disabilities.
Nancy MacDonald
In over 35 years, Nancy’s career in education has involved teaching placements in Canada
and Australia; classroom teaching and executive positions in both mainstream and special
school settings; experience in primary, secondary and university sectors; central office
experience as executive officer and 7 years as Principal of a special school. In her career, a
primary focus has been the commitment to special education. In 2007, Nancy was
recognised for her service to special education in ACT through the presentation of the
Commissioner for Public Administration Award for ‘providing an exceptional learning
environment for students through outstanding leadership and demonstrated personal
commitment’. She has also been awarded the 2002 Departmental Award for ‘outstanding
commitment to leadership within the department by an individual’. Nancy has been an
active member of various committees concerned with the delivery of quality educational
programs in special education, including the Special Education Reference Group and the
Australian Association of Special Education Inc (ACT President for two years). Nancy is

currently retired and provides part time support to special education in the area of principal
mentoring and consultative work.
Julie Hook
Julie has over 26 years experience working in the special education / disability field in a
range of roles, including classroom teacher, school principal, consultant and manager of a
state wide team responsible for supporting schools to meet the needs of students with high
and complex support needs. She has worked across educational settings (primary,
secondary and special school) and has also worked with each of the education sectors in
NSW in a consultancy and support role. Julie has had experience in working in the
Tasmanian education system in a support teacher role as well as extensive experience
teaching in the university sector at an undergraduate and post graduate level.
Her current role is Project Manager of the Australian Autism Education and Training
Consortium (AAETC), responsible for the development and national delivery of
professional development workshops for school staff and workshop and information
sessions for parents/carers of school aged children with autism (a DEEWR component of
the Australian Government’s Helping Children with Autism initiative).
Loretta Giorcelli
With a Bachelor’s degree in Education, a Master’s degree in Education, a Master’s degree
in Special Education, and a PhD in Linguistics and Communication Disabilities, Loretta
has worked as a teacher, consultant, school principal in Queensland and London schools,
university lecturer, and as the NSW Director of Special Education and Equity Programs.
Loretta is a visiting professor in Special Education at San Francisco State University and
has been associated in honorary capacities with Macquarie University, the Children’s
Hospital of Sydney, the University of Western Sydney and the Beijing ENT Institute.
Since 1996, Loretta has headed her own educational consultancy company, working for the
European Union and United Nations as a government advisor in Cyprus and China and for
the Australian Government on overseas development projects in PNG. She also works
extensively in Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Malta, Britain, as well as
throughout Australia. From 2004-2007, she worked with Tony Shaddock (Project
Manager) and Julie Hook on national, DEEWR-funded, research on improving the learning
outcomes of students with a disability in mainstream schools. She was awarded an OAM
for services to education in 2007 and made a Fellow of the Australian College of
Education in 2009.
Michael Arthur-Kelly
Michael has conducted applied research in a range of areas in disability and special
education including communication intervention for people with severe disability and staff
training in managing challenging behaviour. He is internationally known for his research
into behaviour state assessment protocols for people with multiple and severe disability.
With Professor Phil Foreman he recently conducted an evaluation of educational programs
for the Alice Betteridge School, part of the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children.

Michael has published extensively in the area of special education. In recent years, he is
the author of 13 journal articles, 6 book chapters, and the co-author of 5 books. In his
academic career, Michael has also been the winner of 10 collaborative and independent
grants. Currently, he is involved in a $500,000 grant for Research and Training in Social
and Communication Supports for Young Children with Autism for the NSW Department
of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and a $152,000 ARC Discovery Grant for Partner
Training and Communication Outcomes in Students with Multiple and Severe Disability.
Michael is an Associate Professor at the University of Newcastle.

Appendix 3: Reference
Committees
Public Schools’ Reference Committee
Dr Mark Collis Director, Student Services
Mr Ian Copland Manager, Student Support Section
Ms Sue Northmore Secondary Principals
Ms Lyn Woodbury Primary Principals
Ms Karin Wetselaar Special School Principals
Ms Lyndall Read Manager, Early Years Learning
Ms Estelle Sydney-Smith ACT Council of P&C Associations Inc
Ms Cathy Smith/Bill Book Australian Education Union
Mr Russel Hertel Special Needs Counsellors
Ms Roslyn Hayes Manager, Therapy ACT
Dr Chris Kilham Australian Association of Special Education
Ms Julia Bocking Advocacy for Inclusion
Ms Lisa Grant National Disability Services
Ms Gay von Ess Autism Asperger ACT Inc
Ms Jenny Bottrell ACT Down Syndrome Association
Ms Alex Turner Canberra Deaf Children’s Association
Ms Christine Kallir Preece ACT Council of P&C Associations Inc
Mr Josh Braham Student Representative (Lake Tuggeranong College)
Ms Fiona McIntosh Disability ACT
Ms Summer Field ACT Department of Education and Training
Ms Nancye Burkevics ACT Department of Education and Training
Ms Kim Bryant ACT Department of Education and Training.

Non-Government Schools’ Reference Committee
Ms Alyssa Bullman Student
Ms Rita Evans Parent Representative-St Vincent’s Primary School,

Aranda
Ms Jackie Groom Independent Education Union
Ms Joan Harmer Learning Support Teacher, Saint Francis Xavier, Florey
Mr Jeremy Irvine Association of Independent Schools of the ACT
Ms Meredith Joslin Association of Independent Schools of the ACT
Ms Susan Just Principal Canberra Girls Grammar School
Mr Patrick Kelly Catholic Education Office
Ms Kate Lyttle Parents and Friends Association
Ms Jane Pamenter Congregational Schools Representative
Ms Lyn Renno Independent Education Union
Mr Dhushantha Sheales Student
Ms Judy Spence Principal, St Thomas the Apostle Primary School,

Kambah
Ms Annmarie Thomas Catholic Education Office
Mr Michael Traynor Catholic Education Office
Ms Maree Williams Catholic Education Office

Appendix 4: Dictionary of Terms
Adaptive technology
“Adaptive technology is the name for products which help people who cannot use regular
versions of products, primarily people with physical disabilities such as limitations to
vision, hearing, and mobility. Adaptive technology promotes greater effectiveness for
persons with functional limitations or disabilities by enabling them to perform tasks that
they were formerly unable to accomplish, or had great difficulty accomplishing. Adaptive
technology provides changed methods of interacting with or enhancements to the
technology” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_technology).
Assistive technology
“Assistive technology (AT) is a generic term that includes assistive, adaptive, and
rehabilitative devices for people with disabilities and includes the process used in
selecting, locating, and using them. The Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals
with Disabilities Act of 1988 (US Public Law 100-407) states that it is "technology
designed to be utilized in an assistive technology device or assistive technology service."
AT promotes greater independence by enabling people to perform tasks that they were
formerly unable to accomplish, or had great difficulty accomplishing, by providing
enhancements to or changed methods of interacting with the technology needed to
accomplish such tasks” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology).
Curriculum
Curriculum is “all learning planned, guided and implemented by the school” (ACT
Department of Education and Training, 2009a, p.2).
“In its entirety, curriculum develops the whole child – intellectually, physically, socially,
emotionally and spiritually (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2007, p.7).
“Educational curriculum is what students learn or the content of instruction” (Reynolds et

al. 1990).
Disability
In the Discrimination Act 1991 (Section 5AA )
“disability" means—
1. (a) total or partial loss of a bodily function; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) malfunction of a part of the body; or
(d) malformation or disfigurement of a part of the body; or
(e) the presence in the body of organisms that cause or are capable of causing disease;
or

(f) an illness or condition which impairs a person's thought processes, perception of
reality, emotions or judgment or which results in disturbed behaviour; or
(g) an intellectual disability or developmental delay.
(2) Except in section 49 (Work related discrimination) and section 50 (Discrimination by
qualifying bodies etc), "disability" includes a disability—
(a) that the person has, or is thought to have (whether or not the person in fact has the
disability); or
(b) that the person had in the past, or is thought to have had in the past (whether or not
the person in fact had the disability); or
(c) that the person will have in the future, or is thought will have in the future (whether
or not the person in fact will have the disability).
In the Disability Standards for Education 2005

“disability”, in relation to a person, means:
a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or
f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person
without the disorder or malfunction; or
g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of
reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour; and includes a
disability that:
h) presently exists; or
i) previously existed but no longer exists; or
j) may exist in the future; or
k) is imputed to a person.
In the ACT Policy Framework Government Policy Framework for Children and
Young people with a Disability and Their Families (2009)
Disability is defined according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability
and Health (ICF) description of disability, that is, as a multi-dimensional concept, relating
to the body functions and structures of people; the activities they do; the life areas in which
they participate, and the factors in their environment that affect these experiences (WHO,
2001).

Effect size
The source for this reasonably accessible definition of ‘effect size’ is Wikipedia 41.
In statistics, an effect size is a measure of the strength of the relationship

between two variables in a statistical population, or a sample-based estimate of
that quantity. In scientific experiments and observational studies, it is often
useful to know not only whether a relationship is statistically significant, but also
the size of the observed relationship. In practical situations, effect sizes are
helpful for making decisions, since a highly significant relationship may be
uninteresting if its effect size is small. Effect size measures play an important
role in meta-analysis studies that summarise findings from a specific area of
research
For Cohen's d an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 might be a "small" effect, around 0.5 a
"medium" effect and 0.8 to infinity, a "large" effect.
Lenth's concerns:
"The terms 'small,' 'medium,' and 'large' are relative, not only to each other, but
to the area of behavioral science or even more particularly to the specific
content and research method being employed in any given investigation....In
the face of this relativity, there is a certain risk inherent in offering conventional
operational definitions for these terms for use in power analysis in as diverse a
field of inquiry as behavioral science. This risk is nevertheless accepted in the
belief that more is to be gained than lost by supplying a common conventional
frame of reference which is recommended for use only when no better basis for
estimating the ES index is available."
As an effect size of over 0.54 is considered ‘major’, the effect size for ‘home
encouragement’ puts it well ahead of mastery learning (0.53), professional development
(0.48), individualised instruction (0.42), remedial programs (0.35), instructional time
(0.34), within-class grouping (0.31), team teaching (0.06) and ability grouping (0.05).
Although, for example, direct instruction (0.93), reciprocal teaching (0.86) and feedback
(0.81) are highly efficacious, home encouragement of learning (0.69) is clearly very
effective.
Inclusion
A term used by the educational community to refer to how a student participates in school.
It is not only referring to placement in general education classes, but to a sense of
belonging to a school community as an equally valued member. In order for a student to be
truly included, three components are necessary:
• physical placement in age appropriate general education classes with access to the
physical environments and routines of the school,
• social interactions and relationships with peers that are similar to what peers
experience,
41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size#.22Small.22.2C_.22medium.22.2C_.22large.22, retrieved 26 August
2009.

• meaningful participation in the general education curriculum with supports and
services to make progress in that curriculum and on the goals and objectives of the
IEP (Almazan, 2009, p.9).
Leading practice
We have defined ‘leading practice’ as “a set of educational processes and procedures for
which there is credible evidence of effectiveness with a large number of students and
which are recognised within the profession as effective ways of teaching’.
Learning Support Centres

LSCs are a small class in some ACT Public schools for students with a borderline to mild
intellectual disability or a significant learning difficulty. In primary school LSUs there are
14 students who are usually taught by one teacher and one LSA. In secondary schools, one
teacher and one LSA are usually provided to teach 16 students. Students are eligible if a)
they meet the ACT Disability Criteria for intellectual disability or b) have an IQ measured
as ‘borderline’ and demonstrate significant deficits in academic achievement or meet the
ACT Student Disability Criteria for ASD.
Learning Support Units (LSUs)

LSUs are small classes in some ACT Public schools of 8 students that are typically
supported by one teacher and one Learning Support Assistant (LSA). Students in LSUs
must meet the ACT Disability Criteria for intellectual disability. There are 15 Learning
Support Units in Primary schools (10 schools); five in high schools (5 schools); and 5 in
secondary colleges (2 colleges). In addition, there are 9 Learning Support Centres (in 10
primary schools); 4 in Secondary schools (4 schools); and 2 in secondary colleges (2
colleges).
Learning Support Units Autism (LSUAs)

LSUAs are small classes in some ACT Public schools of 6 students who meet the ACT
Student Disability criteria for ASD and they are usually taught by one teacher and one
LSA (primary and high schools only).
Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary

‘Multidisciplinary’ has two somewhat different meanings. In its widest sense, it refers to
situations in which there is involvement of more than one discipline, for example, when a
student receives assistance from a teacher, counselor, physiotherapist and speech
pathologist.
More narrowly, and when applied to the model in which the different disciplines deliver
services, ‘multidisciplinary’ means that one member of the team determines which other
disciplines are invited to participate in an independent, discipline-specific team that

conducts separate assessment, planning, and provision of services with little coordination
(Dyer, 2003).
‘Interdisciplinary’ work expands the multidisciplinary team process through collaborative

communication rather then shared communication. Establishing collaborative team goals
produces a collaborative service plan. In this model, team members are involved in
problem solving beyond the confines of their discipline (Dyer, 2003).
‘Transdisciplinary’ work extends the teamwork among the disciplines. It involves each
individual working with others to develop an integrated approach to treatment that
synthesizes the contributions of the various disciplines to promote an efficient response to
needs. Transdisciplinary work values the knowledge and skills of team members and it
depends on effective and frequent communication among members (Dyer, 2003).
Pedagogy
Pedagogy is “the art and science of teaching. Pedagogy can be seen in the activity that
takes place in classrooms or other educational settings, as well as in the nature of the
learning and assessment tasks set by teachers” (ACT Department of Education and
Training, 2009a).
Special Education
1. Classroom or private instruction involving techniques, exercises, and subject matter
designed for students whose learning needs cannot be met by a standard school
curriculum.
2. Special education refers to a range of educational and social services provided by the
public school system and other educational institutions to individuals with disabilities.
Both definitions are from Children’s Health Encyclopedia (USA). Available:

http://www.answers.com/topic/special-education
3. Special education has been an attempt to increase the fairness of universal public
education for exceptional learners (those with specific difficulties or extraordinary
abilities in learning. (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005, p.10).
4. Special education exists for the primary purpose of providing better instruction to
students at the extremes of statistical distributions of achievement (Kauffman &
Hallahan, 2005, p. 54).
Note: ‘special’ is not clearly defined in any of the definitions. In addition, the first
definition includes the contestable assumption that the standard school curriculum should
not be inclusive of all students, and thus appears inconsistent with the Disability Standards
for Education 2005.

Student outcomes
‘Student outcomes’ are understood in the Review in terms of ‘Curriculum Requirements in
ACT Public Schools, Preschool to Year 10’ and the ‘ACT Guidelines for the Individual
Planning Process’. Learning outcomes refer to priorities for learning that are “developed
through a collaborative planning process between school, parents/carers and other relevant
services and agencies” (P 3 ILPs)

Appendix 5: Methodology
There were several phases in the review.
The evaluation phase involved visits, consultations and document analysis. The Review
Team visited 45 schools, agencies and/or sites associated with Public schools; 28 related to
Catholic schools; and 18 related to Independent schools. Nine community consultations
were held in north, south and central locations on evenings and/or weekends.
Some methods and procedures of Appreciative Inquiry were used and focused on aspects
of the current programs and services that were working well. In the evaluation phase,
attention focused on ‘What is?’ with the reviewers attempting to gain a good understanding
of the current services, issues and stakeholder views.
Towards the end of the review, more attention was given to ‘What could be?’ and ‘What
should be?’ (Cooperrider, Sorenson, Whitney, & Yaeger, 2000: Thatchenkery &
Chowdhry, 2007).
Two draft reports were discussed with the Reference Groups prior to the finalisation of the
report.
Example of data protocol (non-government schools 42)

Thank you for commenting on the delivery of services for students with disabilities and
special needs in ACT non-government schools - what is working well and how it could be
improved. Your participation is voluntary and your comments are anonymous. Please visit
(website) if you need further information about the Review. The Terms of Reference
are summarised on the website and you will note the emphasis on student learning
outcomes. The following points will be explored at consultations – interviews, visits, focus
groups and similar.
• What is the extent of your experience with Special Education in ACT non-government
schools
• What are the strengths? What is working well? What allows you to draw these
conclusions? (Evidence? Data?)
• With specific reference to pedagogy, curriculum and student learning outcomes, how
effective is Special Education in ACT non-government schools? What current good
practices should be extended? Why?
• With specific reference to pedagogy, curriculum and student learning outcomes, what
‘might be’?
• How well aligned are “Mainstream Education” and “ Special Education” policy and
practice? What makes you conclude this way?
42
A similar protocol was used in public schools.

• How efficient is Special Education in ACT non-government schools in terms of
organisation, operational model, teamwork & collaboration? What allows you to draw
these conclusions? (Evidence? Data?)
• Would you say that Special Education services are user friendly? For students? For
classroom teachers? For parents? For school communities more generally? What
allows you to draw these conclusions? (Evidence? Data?)
• In relation to Students with Special Needs, what is your view of the
o Current procedures for identification of needs and allocation of resources?
(Evidence? Data?)
o Current service delivery model? (Evidence? Data?)
o Services for students with communication disorders, sensory impairments, chronic
medical conditions, mental health issues, and/or those on the autism spectrum?
(Evidence? Data?)
o Provision of services to students not identified through current disability criteria?
• What are the best features of the current supports for schools and families in
responding to behavioural and mental health issues and ‘what might be’?
• How do we know if Special Education is making a significant difference for a) students
and b) schools? How are you measuring the success of your intervention programs and
services?
• Are there any other points you would like to make about any aspect of Special
Education in ACT Schools?

Appendix 6: Summary of
Observations in Schools
Appendix 6 (a): Public Schools’

Issues: The Discussion Paper
1. Introduction
This paper aims to contribute to the ‘Special Education Review’ by stimulating
community-wide conversation about curriculum and pedagogy for the range of students
with disabilities in ACT public schools (see Terms of Reference, Appendix 1 & Dictionary
of Terms, Appendix 4). The Review is forward-looking. It was initiated by the Australian
Capital Territory Department of Education and Training to assist in future planning and
delivery. The discussion of issues and options raised in this paper is one part of a process
that commenced with visits and community consultation in March 2009 and will lead to a
report and set of recommendations to the ACT Department of Education and Training in
late July 2009.
This paper discusses issues raised in submissions and visits and we are most grateful for
the input received so far. Many submissions focused on very specific issues, often related
to a single student, or to a particular group of students. In this Review however, we are
required to take into account the needs of all students receiving special education services.
We have been most impressed by the range and quality of services and programs that are
available to students with a disability in ACT public schools and even more impressed by
the motivation of all stakeholders to improve them. Even when perceived deficiencies have
been mentioned, the motivation for raising them is clearly the great desire of all
stakeholders to provide an excellent educational service for every student with a disability
in ACT public schools.
The Discussion Paper reflects the Review Team’s current appreciation of the developing
Special Education context in the ACT, of international issues and trends, and of the
evidence for practices that reflect ‘leading practice’ (see Appendix 4, Dictionary of Terms)
in meeting the needs of students with a disability. As we aimed to write a relatively brief
and readable paper and focus on significant issues for the future, we did not attempt to
address every issue that was brought to our attention. However, the conversations that the
Review Team will now have with the ACT community will help us to improve our
understanding of the issues before moving towards recommendations about future options.
The Discussion Paper is organised around three broad, interrelated issues. Section One
examines Contextual issues. Section Two discusses Curriculum and Pedagogical Issues.
Section Three examines Organisational Issues.
To conclude this introduction we draw attention to the statement in the Terms of Reference
about “Provid(ing) advice on future options for the provision of special education services

in ACT public schools within the existing budget provision.” We well understand that
decisions and planning must consider a range of determinants including legal obligations,
government policy and budgetary and resource constraints. However we take the view that
the initial focus of this Review should be on curriculum, pedagogy and future options
based on leading practice.
2. Contextual issues
2.1 The legal bases
Future options (what could be?) for students with a disability in ACT Public Schools must
be based on a clear understanding of existing legal rights and obligations (what must be!).
ACT legal foundations are provided through the Education Act 2004, the Discrimination
Act 1991, and the Human Rights Act 2004. Legal obligations are also imposed and
elaborated by the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the
Commonwealth Disability Standards for Education 2005.
In opening this Discussion Paper by focusing on the legal basis for the education of
students with a disability we make one simple point. That is, although it may appear
somewhat uninspiring to consider future options in education with reference to existing
legal obligations, the legal ‘bottom line’ is a good place to start.
The ACT Education Act 2004 states that education should aim to develop every child’s
potential and maximise educational achievements, improve the learning outcomes of
students who are disadvantaged for a range of reasons and recognise the individual needs
of children with disabilities. In addition the Act mentions the need for innovation, diversity
and opportunity within and among schools; outlines the need for a combination of central
and school-level policies and decision-making; requires effective quality assurance
mechanisms and accountability; stresses the importance of partnerships between home,
community and educational providers; and emphasises the primary responsibility of the
principal for the educational outcomes of every student at the school.
The ACT Discrimination Act 1991 prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in
the area of education, as does the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992
(DDA).
The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 requires that, as far as possible, all ACT laws must be
interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with the human rights guaranteed in
that Act. In the area of special education, a number of those rights might be relevant, such
as the right to recognition and equality before the law and the right to protection of the
family and children. From 1 January 2009, the Human Rights Act also expressly requires
public authorities to act consistently with human rights and when making decisions to give
proper consideration to relevant human rights.
The Disability Standards for Education 2005, (‘the Standards’) were formulated under the
DDA. The Standards elaborate the legal obligations of education providers in relation to
enrolment, participation, curriculum, student support and avoidance of harassment and
victimisation for students with a disability. The Standards also provide specific and non-
binding examples of the ways education providers may comply with obligations under the
Act. These provisions are further articulated for schools and parents in the On the Same

Basis As materials produced by the Department of Education and Children’s Services
South Australia (2007).
Several features of the Standards, and the obligations of anti-discrimination law more
generally, have particular relevance for the current Review of Special Education in ACT
Public Schools.
First, the description and meanings of ‘disability’ in anti-discrimination legislation at both

the ACT and Commonwealth level are broad compared with definitions of disability that
are contained in the eight categories in the ACT Department of Education and Training
policy – Intellectual, Physical, Vision, Hearing, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Language,
Mental Health and Chronic Medical Condition.
Secondly, many students with a disability require specialised services in order to access the
curriculum and to achieve appropriate learning outcomes, e.g., some may need therapy or
mental health support that may be provided by individuals and organisations that are not
under the direct control of the ACT Department of Education and Training. In these
circumstances, the Standards require that the education provider takes appropriate steps to
ensure that collaborative arrangements with specialised service providers are adequate.
Thirdly, the Standards do not mention ‘special education’ or ‘inclusion’ or ‘inclusivity’.

The Standards simply state and re-state the fundamental right of a student with a disability
to participate in education on the same basis as a student without a disability. (The phrase,
‘on the same basis’ is used 33 times in the Standards and Guidance Notes).
Continuing the conversation
1. What lessons might be learned from other jurisdictions that are either more or less
prescriptive of education services for students with disabilities?
2. What could the provision of educational services to students with disabilities with ACT
public schools look like in the future if the ACT rigorously adopted the ‘on the same
basis’ orientation of the Disability Standards for Education 2005?
2.2 Education, Special Education and the ACT

International practices, priorities and trends influence Australian education policy. In the
past, students with ‘special needs’ in many countries did not participate in public education
and this exclusion was based on assumptions and values about what is ‘normal’ or ‘typical’
and the purpose of ‘mainstream’ education. These dichotomous ways of thinking are
inadequate for understanding and responding to the diversity in contemporary society and
its schools but they continue to exert an unhelpful influence on educational structures,
policies, service delivery models and resourcing mechanisms in special education and in
education more generally.
Current international trends influence Australian education policy. For example, the
international school reform literature urges school systems to focus on:
• Developing learning environments that stimulate student engagement, satisfaction,

commitment and learning;
• Organising educational experiences to meet the individual needs and interests of
students;

• Facilitating transition from school to work;
• Connecting schools and families in ways that promote student success; and
• Re-thinking school administration and funding policies to promote whole-school
reform. (Centre for Social Organisation of Schools, CSOS, n.d.).
In England the strategies for school improvement include ambitious standards; clear
targets, good data and accountability; access to best practice professional development;
and devolved responsibility with intervention in inverse proportion to success. With its
Every Child Matters: Changes for Children policy (Department for Education and Skills,
2004), the United Kingdom has embarked on a revolutionary, whole of government multi-
departmental strategy to provide wraparound services that aim to maximise opportunity
and minimise risk for all children and young people.
The Melbourne Declaration (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and

Youth Affairs, 2008) and its support documents state that the two main goals of
contemporary Australian education are that “Australian schooling promotes equity and
excellence”; and that
“All young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative

individuals and active and informed citizens”.
Contemporary education policy emphasises:
• Greater flexibility with a focus on improving the educational outcomes of all students;
• Assessment of learning against specified educational standards;
• Lifting literacy and numeracy standards particularly for disadvantaged students;
• School leadership and teacher quality; and
• Increased transparency and accountability and decreased reporting and red tape.
The actions proposed to achieve these goals include the facilitation of the following:
• Partnerships with parents, local community groups and agencies;

• Partnerships between schools, sharing facilities and school-to-school mentoring;
• Improving the performance management of schools;
• A focus on the educational needs and well-being of individual students, including
personalised planning for learning, provision of targeted support to address the learning
of disadvantaged students and the mobilisation of tailored services from outside the
school;
• Value-added measures for schools’ performance and analysing student results over
time; and
• The establishment of ways of tracking student performance from the first year of
compulsory schooling to post-school education and training.
The ACT has numerous policies that are relevant to the current Review. For example, the
ACT Social Plan has expressed a priority for the Territory to “Lead Australia in
education, training and life-long learning” and has given priority to:

• All young people completing 13 years of schooling and achieving a Year 12 certificate
or equivalent vocational qualification;
• Industry links for senior secondary students;
• Improving the capacity of government schools to increase literacy and numeracy levels
through intensive support for underachieving students;
• Improving learning outcomes for students with a disability;
• Providing early education for Indigenous children;
• Ensuring that government schools are resourced to deliver information and
communication technology (ICT) to students irrespective of school size and financial
capacity; and
• Having environments that are conducive to effective learning.
The ACT Government is currently updating policy on outcomes and opportunities for all
Canberrans who have a disability. Strategic priorities are being developed with the
community around key messages from individuals, families, cares and service providers
about type of support, contribution to, and engagement with, the community, learning
opportunities and the requirements of a quality service system for people with a disability.
Within the ACT Department of Education and Training, key documents include Students
with a disability: Meeting their educational needs (2008) and The Inclusivity Challenge:
Within Reach of Us All Discussion Paper (2002). These and many other documents outline
the Department’s policies and procedures for supporting the diverse range of students in
ACT public schools. There is a strong commitment to ensure access and participation in
school curriculum, programs and activities by students with a disability.
1. How effective is the policy framework around the provision of educational service to
students with a disability in ACT public schools? What, if any, are the implications,
e.g. for policy development/refinement?
2. What other policy-practice issues are relevant?
2.3 Students with a disability in a diverse society

Australian society and its schools are becoming more diverse and while students with a
disability contribute to this diversity, they are certainly not the only source. Improving
pedagogy and curriculum for students with a disability needs to be understood with
reference to diversity more generally and the demands it places on schools, teachers and
students. For example, over 100 languages are spoken in the homes of students whose
families are coming to Australia in large numbers as migrants, refugees or as humanitarian
entrants. Some of these students have experienced trauma and abuse. As well, about 90
indigenous languages are spoken in Australian homes.
A key requirement of contemporary education is to improve the educational performance

of the lowest performing school students (Fullan, 2006). These students are sometimes
referred to as ‘at-risk’ and ‘disengaged’, implying that the ‘problem’ is in the student.
However, they are also referred to as ‘put at risk for disengagement’, implying that societal
and/or educational factors may be the cause. In any case, research shows that raising the
literacy and numeracy scores of these students contributes significantly to economic

prosperity and social cohesion. Many of these students engage in behaviour that is
challenging for teachers and is disruptive of the learning of other students. The recent
decision in the ACT to increase the participation age to 17 will no doubt add to school and
classroom diversity at high school and college level.
‘Students with a disability’ contribute to school diversity and they are an extremely diverse
subsection of the school population. Descriptions of individual students in terms of typical
‘categories of disability’ – Intellectual, Physical, Vision, Hearing, Autism Spectrum
Disorders, Language, Mental Health and Chronic Medical Condition - cannot convey the
unique nature of each student and their needs. Children who share the same diagnostic
category may be very different. Furthermore, many students who experience difficulties in
learning do not quite ‘fit’ under any particular disability category, yet, because of a
combination of social, educational, behavioural and/or other reasons, they need additional
educational support.
Advances in medical science and technology are contributing to school diversity. Many
children who once would have not survived because of pre, peri and/or postnatal
complications, or who have contracted serious illnesses such as cancer, attend school and
many continue to experience severe or subtle learning and developmental difficulties. The
prevalence of some conditions is also increasing, or, at the very least, these conditions are
being more correctly diagnosed and managed in educational settings, e.g. Autism
Spectrum Disorder and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.
About 6% of children have a primary speech and language delay and many will require
additional educational support.
Many students experience the stress of living in a dysfunctional family. Furthermore,

research suggests that about 14% of Australian students experience poor social-emotional
wellbeing at some stage and 20% experience depression before adulthood.
Approximately 2-5% of students have exceptional gifts and talents and some experience
classroom difficulties with social relationships, engagement with the curriculum and
conformity with school routines.
While many local educators are working successfully and creatively in this complex and
demanding milieu, the contemporary educational environment is extremely diverse and
challenging.
1. How might decision-making about the most appropriate programs for individual
students in schools be improved?
2. What opportunities are provided by current circumstances and this Review for the ACT
to improve education services for all students while improving education services for
students with a disability?
3 Curriculum and Pedagogical Issues

3.1 Curriculum
Curriculum is all learning planned, guided and implemented by a school or college.

The aims of the ACT Curriculum Framework, Every Chance to Learn, are that:
• Students will have every chance to learn the essential knowledge, understandings and
skills that will allow them to be active, effective and responsible participants in society;
• Students will have every chance to learn a core of discipline-based study from the eight
key learning areas of English, Mathematics, Science, the Social Sciences, Technology,
Health and Physical Education, Languages and the Arts;
• Students will be prepared to take part in further education, training and work in the
21st century;
• Students will be encouraged and enabled to enjoy learning and to realise their
individual potential and to contribute to a fair and just society that values diversity; and
• The curriculum will promote continuity and coherence of learning across year and
school transitions.
The intent of Every Chance to Learn is that it should be applicable to all children from pre-
school to Year 10. While the framework identifies learning that is essential for all ACT
students, it gives teachers “the professional freedom and responsibility to determine how
best to organise that essential learning and to make adjustments to meet the particular
needs of their students”. Thus, the adequacy of each student’s educational experience
depends to a great extent on their teacher’s ability to ‘differentiate’ the curriculum by
making pedagogical adaptations, changes or adjustments to accommodate the different
needs of students.
The following curriculum issues are pertinent to the Review of Special Education:
1. Differentiating the curriculum is a demanding and time-consuming task even for highly
skilled and experienced teachers;
2. Differentiation is typically conducted by individual teachers, teams of teachers,

sometimes with expert assistance from support services;
3. Differentiating the curriculum for particular students and student groups can be
exceptionally difficult e.g. those with very high support needs. This may be a function
of the complex needs of these students and the necessary focus on preparing them for
future life;
4. Successful differentiation at the high school and college level is complicated by a

variety of factors – structural, pedagogical and organisational. The relevance of the
curriculum for some students has been questioned, e.g. for those students who struggle
to appreciate the relevance of the curriculum to their lives and aspirations;
5. The linking of Every Chance to Learn to the student’s Individual Learning Plan (ILP)
can be complex, particularly in the mainstream, when a the student has very precise
and functional needs that require systematic instruction over a significant period of
time to ensure that the knowledge and skills are learned and can be applied, e.g. the
development of social and interpersonal skills; and
6. The ACT’s school-based curriculum policy results in considerable variation in

curriculum across the system.

Although better teacher preparation and professional development in differentiating the
curriculum are obvious options to consider, teachers also value more context-specific,
student-specific, and timely assistance with differentiating the curriculum, and indeed, for
navigating the complex terrain of ‘special needs provision’. There are a number of
effective ways of providing this support, e.g. through having a skilled, school-based person
who provides mentoring and coordination and who also acts as the lynchpin connecting
teachers with the specialised services and supports with which they may be unfamiliar.
Jurisdictions elsewhere are increasingly making available to school-based personnel web-

based supports that provide accessible, practical, teacher-oriented guidance and examples
of pedagogy for all students. More systematic ways of sharing ‘leading practice’ in ACT
special and mainstream schools and ‘system learning’ about curriculum differentiation
might be desirable.
Curriculum differentiation takes time. Some schools are already adapting their schedules
and organisation to generate the time for teachers to undertake curriculum planning and
differentiation.
1. Would a more detailed differentiation of Every Chance to Learn, with the needs of all
learners in mind, be desirable? The process of further articulating the curriculum, and
linking it to the functional outcomes that many students must achieve, may be
educative for teachers and parents, ultimately efficient of teacher time and effort, and
benefit a wide range of students.
2. How can a better integration of the class curriculum and the student’s ILP (Individual
Learning Plan) be achieved in effective, efficient and feasible ways?
3.2 Individual Learning Plans

Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) in the ACT Department of Education and Training
schools are an adaptation of the general model of Individualised Education Plans (IEPs)
that have been a part of special education for over 30 years. They were mandated in USA
legislation to bring structure, relevance, coordination and accountability into service
delivery for individuals with a disability. ILPs are mandatory for specified students in
ACT public schools.
Some individuals commented that the ILP process provides opportunities for teachers to
share and act on the knowledge of various participants including family and
multidisciplinary colleagues. Others mentioned that the ILP is the key process for planning
and delivering an agreed educational program for students with a disability.
Since 2001, the ACT Department of Education and Training has put considerable
resources into professional learning to increase the effectiveness of the ILP. A Professional
Learning Package was researched and developed and system-wide professional learning
has been provided by the Inclusion Support Team.
However, operational issues have been raised in relation to ILPs including the following:
• Varied quality and usefulness;

• Difficulty in measuring progress because of the way goals are stated;

• While some ILPs change little from year to year, others change dramatically and
appear to have insufficient connection with previous plans;
• Some ILPs do not sufficiently focus on the life skills that students need in order to
function successfully in present and future environments;
• The coordination benefit of plans may not be realised because a student may have
several plans;
• ILPs have to be developed quickly, sometimes before the student can be known well by
those who should have input, e.g. itinerant support staff and/or therapists;
• Some teachers see the ILP more as a bureaucratic requirement than a teaching tool;
• Perhaps for reasons of efficiency, some plans are ‘pre-drafted’, but this leaves
insufficient opportunity for parent involvement;
• Accountability for ILP quality and outcomes is needed; and
• The success of ILPs depends to some extent on the availability of resources.
The literature suggests that individual planning is most effective when it is genuinely
student-centred, strengths-oriented and focused on specific learning outcomes that relate to
the student’s immediate and longer-term goals. The student’s learning needs for
functioning successfully in present and future environments should provide the framework
and logic in which short-term objectives are identified.
Integral to the original IEP concept was the role of a ‘case manager’ or similar, with
responsibility for the quality of the plan and accountability for its implementation. One
way to achieve this might be to strengthen ‘Case Coordination’ at school level.
The ILP is a pivotal process in curriculum planning, delivery and evaluation. Currently the
ILP Guidelines state “Many schools provide a line/time allowance for the case
coordinator”, suggesting the importance of resource allocation at school level so that the
full benefits of the individual planning process can be realised.
1. The development and implementation of ILPs is time-consuming, resource intensive,
and time-demanding. What could be done to make the ILP a more effective, efficient,
accountable, and feasible support for student learning?
2. Might there be advantages in aligning general policies and procedures for all ILP
processes in ACT public schools, e.g. for Indigenous students, gifted and talented
students and for students with a disability?
3.3 Transition
Commencing pre-school or school, and making the transition from primary to high school,
high school to college, and college to adult life are crucial occurrences in each student’s
life. Transitions are often highly stressful for students and parents and carers. The child’s
transition from the education system to adult life is a major source of concern for most
parents and carers of children with a disability.
Transitions raise many issues – systemic, structural, organisational and pedagogical.

Transition also raises issues about the necessary skills and infrastructure in the settings to
which students are transitioning and the logistics of getting them there. For example, our

attention was drawn to the need for basic arrangements that directly affect curriculum and
pedagogy such as school location and transport. Teachers and parents know very well that
a student who has had a long and upsetting bus trip across the ACT to school may have a
bad day, learn little, and disrupt the learning of others.
Early intervention is important but rarely does it remove the need for ongoing support to
access the curriculum. Many parents and teachers worry that the good work done in the
early years of schooling may be undone if the student’s ‘next environment’ is unable to
build on earlier achievements.
At a system-wide level, the availability of appropriate educational settings to which

students can transition is an issue. In particular, transition can be a major issue for some
year 10 students in special schools.
The relevance of curriculum and pedagogy at the ‘next’ setting is an issue for some parents
and teachers. For example, students who have made good progress throughout primary
school where the possibly specialised, differentiated pedagogy matched their needs, may
not have access to the same pedagogy in the ‘next’ setting.
Although many teachers and school staff work hard to engage in the necessary
communication and liaison to facilitate smooth transitions for all of their students, many of
these arrangements are unresourced and informal and may not be sustainable.
Leading practice suggests that senior students with a disability benefit from systematic
career guidance and support. In United States planning for adult life is legally required to
commence at age 14 and must be incorporated into the student’s individual plan.
In Australia and elsewhere, school-based, innovative ‘experience of work’ initiatives (in

contrast to ‘work experience’) are having great success in assisting senior students,
including those with very high support needs, to have meaningful employment and to
develop essential friendship networks as they leave school. These initiatives often involve
practical, grassroots, community partnerships, e.g. with Chambers of Commerce or
particular businesses or industries, such as are recommended in Australia’s Goals for
Schooling.
1. Transition to school is very important and it builds upon the work done in early
intervention services. How might students with a disability and their families be
supported in making this transition?
2. A key transition for students with a disability is the transition from adolescence to
adulthood. Options are available in ACT Department of Education schools targeting
this period. How might services be better deployed to improve transition outcomes?
3.4 Pedagogy
Pedagogy is the term used to describe the art and science of teaching. Pedagogy can be
seen in the activity that takes place in classrooms or other educational settings, as well as
in the nature of the learning and assessment tasks set by teachers.
In ACT schools there is a tradition of giving priority to pedagogy and to strategies to

improve it, e.g., professional learning about good pedagogy. Currently, considerable

resources are being directed towards implementing the Quality Teaching Model (known in
NSW as the Quality Teaching Framework) through post-graduate training, provision of
teaching and resource materials and the establishment of intensive support and networking
opportunities for teachers from resource personnel. A commitment to ongoing
improvement in pedagogy is a feature of ACT schools and this is reinforced through
teacher and principal appraisal processes.
Some school-based staff commented positively on the range of available in-service courses
aimed at meeting the individual needs of students in the classroom although these tend to
be pitched to the needs of mainstream teachers. The Department has also sponsored many
teachers to undertake post-graduate studies and has worked with the University of
Canberra to construct courses so that the learning has an impact on pedagogy across the
system. All beginning teachers are now required to have completed at least one
compulsory unit on special education in their teacher training.
Issues raised about pedagogy during consultations and visits included the need for:
• The theoretical framework and rationale for pedagogy and curriculum to be made clear
to parents;
• Teachers to use strategies that have an adequate research base;
• Pedagogy that is available in one setting, e.g. in an autism-specific unit in a primary
school, to be available when the student moves to another setting;
• Students to learn relevant ‘life skills’, e.g., important social skills should be taught for
long enough and in sufficient depth for the student to be able to use them.
Research shows that ‘individual teacher variables’ have a huge impact on student learning,
i.e. students’ outcomes are directly affected by the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the
classroom teacher.
A synthesis of relevant research by Alton-Lee (2003) describes what quality teaching and
learning look like. Quality teaching for effective learning:
• Focuses on student achievement (including social outcomes) and facilitate high

standards of student outcomes for all students including those with special learning
needs or vulnerabilities;
• Enables classes and other learning groupings to work as caring, inclusive, and cohesive
learning communities;
• Enables effective links to be created between school and other cultural contexts in
which students are socialised, to facilitate learning;
• Is responsive to student learning processes;
• Ensures that opportunities to learn are effective and sufficient;
• Allows students to engage in and complete learning processes so that what is learned is
remembered;
• Ensures that curriculum goals, resources including ICT usage, task design, teaching
and school practices are effectively aligned;
• Scaffolds and provides appropriate feedback on students' task engagement;
• Promotes learning strength self-knowledge, student self-regulation, meta-cognitive
strategies and thoughtful student discourse; and

• Enables teachers and students to engage constructively in goal-oriented assessment.
There is a growing body of research on effective strategies for special and inclusive
education (e.g., Mitchell, 2008). The extent to which teachers are using the full range of
strategies available to them is unknown.
The provision of just-in-time learning support, i.e., timely assistance, encouragement and
professional learning about currently encountered issues, is valuable for teachers. Schools
intent on continuous learning and change which matches the needs of students with
disabilities must match high expectations with resources such as coaches and mentors and
foster collaborative practice such as study groups, action research groups and networking
opportunities to encourage the most effective practice among school personnel.
Contemporary research on teaching also emphasises the social context and ‘climate’ of the
school and classroom, reinforcing the point that good pedagogy is not just a technical
matter of adopting evidence-based techniques.
Finally, leading practice indicates that effective teaching involves establishing good
relationships with students and families, consulting students about their learning and
organising schools and delivering educational services in student-friendly ways.
1. Do some students require particular pedagogy? What are the implications?
2. Is there a balance to be achieved between mainstream and specialised pedagogies?

Does the Quality Teaching Model provide a language and unifying conceptual
framework?
3.5 Providing support for classroom-based personnel

Many teams have been established to support schools and teachers to meet the specific
needs of students, including those with a disability. Relevant to this Review are School
Counsellors; Inclusion Support; Transition Support; Inclusive Technologies; Support for
Learning Support Units; Disability Services Officers; Vision Support; and Hearing Support
Teams. Some of these teams have highly specialised skills, excellent reputations and enjoy
strong support from parents and school communities.
Depending on the needs of specific students, teachers and schools may also need support
from multidisciplinary personnel employed by other agencies, e.g. services of Speech and
Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists or the Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Service.
Many individuals spoke highly of particular support services and valued their contribution
to individual students and schools. For example, they commented favourably on:
• Support for ILP development, including where necessary, the development of

specialised teaching materials;
• Support in communicating and working with families;
• Detailed and educationally useful assessments; and
• Provision of helpful professional learning and resource materials.

The following issues were raised in relation to support services provided by the ACT
Department of Education and Training:
• Some schools and teachers are unclear about how to access additional support and what
processes to follow;
• Although some staff have commented positively on the quality of support provided by
Central Office, some believe that there are too few consultants to assist with specific
disability-related issues;
• Links with these services are sometimes ‘personal’ and when key staff are transferred,
communication with the particular support service is interrupted;
• Documentation about these teams is fragmented;
• The services appear to be somewhat compartmentalised and not sufficiently integrated,
but this may not be the perception of service users;
• While there was evidence of a case management approach for students with more
complex needs, there was considerable variability in philosophy and operation;
• The success of some teams in providing support has led to increased demand and their
capacity being stretched;
• Policy around the role of teams to ‘build capacity’ in schools lacked specificity. It was
unclear what this meant operationally; and
• Some support staff find it difficult to integrate what they do for the student with the
classroom program.
In relation to support services provided by other agencies it was observed, generally, that
there are issues around:
• Referrals and the waiting time for necessary services;

• Coordination and communication between schools and these agencies;
• Absence of service protocols or agreements about levels of service to be provided; and
• Particular difficulties around providing therapy for students with a disability in
mainstream schools.
Research and contemporary leading practice highlight the importance of:
• A clear philosophical underpinning and vision for the operation of support services in
schools with a focus on student learning outcomes;
• The integration of curriculum, pedagogical and support perspectives and goals;
• A case management approach for students with more complex needs;
• Good coordination at school level of the ways services provided by external agencies
are managed and integrated with school policies, organisation and routines;
• A focus of student support personnel of building school capacity through:
• A clearly articulated, jointly developed philosophical framework/rationale for ‘student
support’;
• Development of plans to implement a cohesive approach to student support;
• Identification of the support that schools need to develop their capacity to meet needs
of all students; and

• Data on the extent to which schools are developing the capacity to meet the complex
needs of students; and
• Opportunity to rethink ways of delivering support and identifying the necessary skills.
1. What options might be considered to improve students’ access to specialist services
provided by outside agencies (such as Speech Pathology, Mental Health Services)?
2. What might be done to ensure the integration of support and therapy services with
students’ educational programs?
4. Organisational Issues
4.1 General models of service delivery
There is consistent anecdotal evidence that one factor that motivates families to move to
the ACT is the quality of the educational services provided for students with a disability.
The ACT Department of Education and Training provides a wide range of options for
students with a disability, and as summarised on the website
(http://www.det.act.gov.au/school_education/special_education) there is a diverse range of
services from early intervention to the senior school years, specialised programs of many
different kinds in regular settings and in special schools. Many of these options have a
specific focus, e.g. on students who share the same diagnostic category. In addition,
students with a disability are also eligible for assistance from a wide range of Student
Support services.
In general, public education in the ACT is characterised by the following:
• A tradition of good classroom practice with regard to students with disabilities;

• Recognition of excellence. Some schools provide outstanding services and have
national reputations;
• School-based curricula that have the potential to link closely with student needs;
• Many initiatives in early intervention and early childhood education;
• Increasing attention, in some schools, to the individual needs of all students;
• Provision of quality, on-going professional development opportunities for teachers;
• Increasing use of technology in schools; and
• System wide adoption of the research-based Quality Teaching Model.
Despite these positive features, a number of service delivery issues deserve mention.
These include:
• The ‘Learning Centre’ model may be inappropriate for many students and may have
marginalising effects. (Students attending a Learning Support Centre do not necessarily
have a disability under Australian Capital Territory Education and Training policy);
• There is huge diversity of program delivery approaches in units and centres but little
data about overall outcomes;

• Services for students with a disability or special needs in some schools could be better
coordinated;
• As noted already, difficulties are encountered in accessing externally provided
specialist services in a timely way and to the level of intensity needed;
• There is a lack of networking in special education. For example, some mainstream staff
who teach students with disabilities have expressed the need for improved links with
other special education teachers;
• There is insufficient role clarity, training and professional development opportunities
for Learning Support Assistants (LSAs); and
• Staff find it difficult to attend professional development courses for a range of reasons
such as the shortage of appropriately skilled relief teachers, the burden their attendance
places on their colleagues, and the negative effects on their students of having a ‘new’
teacher for the day.
The diversity of educational practices and programs in the ACT is impressive and the
variety of offerings seems to reflect not only school autonomy, but, at a more fundamental
level, the interplay among different service delivery paradigms. These paradigms include
the Special Education or Psych-Educational discourse (which tends to focus on how
students are different and to provide special programs and facilities); the Diversity or
Inclusion discourse (which tends to focus on how students are the same and favours
mainstream curriculum and location); and, the variously named ‘Multidisciplinary Service
System’ discourse, that seeks to provide, coordinated, multidisciplinary wraparound
services based on need in the mainstream and with a strong emphasis on learning outcomes
(e.g., as described by Gallagher, 2006). While the first two models are essentially delivered
by education authorities with some involvement of other agencies, the latter requires
considerably more inter-agency commitment, coordination and collaboration.
Differences of opinion about the relative merits of the paradigms described above are
evident in the ACT in ongoing debates about whether ‘the management of Special
Education’ should be further separated from regular education; whether a functional
curriculum or one derived from the regular curriculum should be followed; the manner in
which therapy services (such as Speech, Occupational and Physiotherapy) should be
provided; and/or whether students with a disability are bettered catered for in the
mainstream or in specialised programs.
While the literature is not consistent or complete enough to allow a definitive statement
about what is ‘best’ in any literal sense or ‘best’ for every student in this regard, there is a
growing body of research about ‘what works’ in terms of delivery models and school
organisation (e.g., Mitchell, 2008). For example, the research we have referenced points to
the effectiveness of:
• A school focus on learning outcomes – academic, personal, social and vocational;

• Challenging and supportive school ethos – a ‘community of learners’ approach;
• Professional learning that is focused on improving student outcomes;
• Flexibility and responsiveness to individual needs;
• Whole-school, as opposed to withdrawal or separate programs (generally, but not
universally);
• Intervening early – early and proactive interventions;

• Having a specifically identified person in the school with the required training, skills
and knowledge to coordinate ‘special education delivery’, e.g. support for
programming and differentiation of the curriculum; coordination; liaison with
therapists and other support personnel; accessing resources; and leadership in
professional development; and
• The commitment of school leadership to, and support for, the planning, organisation
and resourcing of supports for students with a disability at the school.
This analysis raises a number of questions for a school system that provides a relatively
wide range of program types and delivery models. For example the desirability of
incorporating relevant ‘best practice’ features into all programs might be considered. It
might also be desirable to consider strengthening accountability for student outcomes
around all programs. This information might assist teachers and schools to provide the
evidence for particular programs and also inform parent choice and system planning.
The range of program options suggests the desirability of making available to parents and
carers up to date and accurate information so they can make informed choices about
educational services for their child.
Other obvious implications are that teacher training and professional development give
high priority to evidence-based practice and that school communities are further supported
to engage in the ‘practitioner inquiry’ that is building the knowledge base and informing
professional practice at school level.
1. Is there any problem/advantage in having multiple service delivery models? What are
the implications?
2. Increased accountability for the learning outcomes of all students is mentioned

frequently in the literature. Is it desirable? For students? For teachers? What would
need to happen to ensure that the task was fair and feasible for schools and teachers
and that it benefitted students?
4.2 Resourcing student learning

We draw attention to the statement in the Terms of Reference about “Provid(ing) advice on
future options for the provision of special education services in ACT public schools within
the existing budget provision” and first make some general observations about resourcing:
• Schools receive significant resources that are provided for every student;
• Resources are not just points/money. Examples of resources include:
o Organisational - stakeholder involvement, planning, timetable, school organisation;
o Personal and personnel – leadership, the skills of school-based personnel, school
climate & culture, engagement with school community, communication; and
o Technical – curriculum, instruction, assessment, use of technology;
o The ACT uses a Student Centred Appraisal of Need (SCAN) process for making
decisions about the allocation of supplementary resources to support the learning of
students with a disability in schools across the system.

Many participants agreed that the SCAN process is a definite improvement on the previous
ascertainment process and it leads to more consistency and system-wide understanding of
resourcing.
However, it is inadequate, as an appraisal of a student’s classroom needs, as suggested in

the following views of parents and carers and/or education personnel:
• SCAN-based resourcing purports to be needs-based, but SCAN funding may not match
student need or provide the capacity to implement system policy, e.g. around the
Quality Teaching Model;
• The way in which SCAN scores are converted to an allocation is unclear;
• Some schools use the resources derived from SCAN in limited ways, i.e. they select
from a narrow range of options; and
• The somewhat negative focus of the SCAN process is confronting and upsetting for
many parents.
Special Education budgets in educational jurisdictions throughout the world are

experiencing pressure and many potential solutions are being trialed. The following
observations from the literature are relevant to the situation in the ACT.
• Funding mechanisms play a big part in determining the characteristics of service

systems. Therefore, resourcing strategies should be designed so that they
simultaneously direct resources where they are needed and support the achievement of
system goals, e.g. towards more inclusive and integrated service delivery, and the use
of evidence-based pedagogy;
• Inclusive settings tend to view the points/resources gained through disability-specific
processes as supplementary. These resources are not the only source of support for
students with a disability;
• Consequently, resourcing that is whole-school focused and flexible rather than strictly
individual and student-focused has better outcomes but there needs to be transparency
and equity in allocation across schools, accountability in regard to the learning
outcomes of each student, and a vision and plan within the school of ‘good pedagogy
for all’;
• Better outcomes are achieved when funding from different sources is pooled at school
level (consistent with guidelines and regulations) to foster whole-school approaches to
teaching and support for learning;
• A combination of funding mechanisms (such as input, throughput and outcomes-based)
is preferable because there are fewer unintended negative consequences than when
there is reliance on a single approach; and
• Resource allocation strategies that are developed in partnership with schools and other
relevant stakeholders are more acceptable.
1. The SCAN process is a resource intensive procedure that focuses mainly on student
variables. However, theories of learning, and practical experience in classrooms,
indicate that learning is dependent not just on student characteristics but on a range of
contextual variables. How might the SCAN take these into account and, for instance,
become a LOCAN (Learning Outcomes Centred Assessment of Need)?

2. If schools were allocated resources and supported to use them flexibly to meet the
needs of each student, what might need to happen to ensure appropriate allocation of
resources and accountability for the learning outcomes of students with a disability?
Could a future be envisaged in which SCAN-like processes were no longer necessary?
4.3 Staffing
This section discusses more general staffing issues, such as supply, demand, deployment,
utilisation and workforce planning. All of these issues impact on curriculum and pedagogy
The ways in which teachers are appointed to units and centres was raised. It was asserted
that some Learning Support Units and Learning Support Centres are staffed by relatively
inexperienced teachers who may not have sufficient qualifications or experience in
teaching students with a disability. Although there is variation among schools, some
teachers in units and centres experience a degree of professional isolation from mainstream
and special education colleagues and may lack necessary mentoring opportunities.
The ‘Mobility Clause’, a requirement for teachers to transfer within the Department at
certain stages in their careers, concerns many educators and parents and carers. It was
reported that highly skilled school-based and staff in support roles, e.g. those who provide
specialist advice to classroom teachers, are required periodically to move to a different
setting and undertake different responsibilities that are possibly unrelated to their specific
expertise. Although the arguments for this requirement were understood, it appears to be a
policy in need of fine-tuning. Attention was drawn to the apparent inefficiency of this
policy for the Department, the disruption and lack of professional control over
appointments for schools, disruptions to the careers of teachers committed to special
education, and, more importantly, the potential impact of this requirement on students with
a disability.
The effective utilisation of staff was frequently mentioned. In relation to therapy staff,
there is uncertainty in the ACT about the optimal way to deploy therapists in mainstream
schools. In relation to school counsellors, it was reported that they currently devote
considerable time and resources to assessing students for ‘program eligibility’. Their skills
as educational and clinical psychologists may be underutilised, e.g. in identifying and
recommending support for students with forms of dyslexia. In relation to Learning Support
Assistants (LSAs), system policy around the nature and scope of their role and the skills
they need to assist teachers with curriculum and pedagogy are unclear.
Issues around the current and future availability of appropriately qualified and experienced
itinerant staff, special education teachers, learning support assistants, and a range of
therapy staff were frequently raised.
Improving the pre service preparation of teachers was frequently mentioned. Currently, all
teacher education students at the University of Canberra receive an introduction to
responding to individual needs. Some students, perhaps 20-30 per cohort, may choose to
undertake a six subject Major in Inclusive Education. However, the Major in Inclusive
Education is not designed to prepare graduates to work in special schools.
Training and professional development for LSAs is needed, but prior to that, a clear role
that is consistent with current research needs to be developed. The research evidence

reinforces the classroom teacher’s primary responsibility for teaching and learning and
indicates that the LSA role should be essentially to support the teacher to fulfil this role.
The literature suggests that specialist staff such as counsellors should seek to engage in
more ‘upstream’ and preventative interventions and minimise, or seek efficiencies in,
resource-intensive functions that only indirectly improve curriculum and pedagogy.
Recommended proactive interventions might include assistance with the implementation of
whole-school, evidence-based programs that contribute to student learning, e.g. peer
tutoring and/or assisting teachers to implement efficient monitoring systems for tracking
student outcomes and/or a school’s implementation of school-wide Positive Behaviour
Support.
There is a need for better data about the system’s capacity to ensure it has the staff to
implement current policy, e.g. the number of teachers with the types of expertise required
in special education schools, in specialised programs and for itinerant specialist support.
Such data would allow benchmarking, the development of recruitment and retention
strategies, and inform workforce training and professional development policy.
1. What actions need to be taken to ensure the supply of appropriately skilled staff –
teachers, Learning Support Assistants, visiting ‘specialist’ teachers, counsellors and
others?
2. What other staffing issues should be considered in the Review of Special Education?
4.4 Special schools

ACT special schools deliver positive outcomes for many students and their families and
their contribution to public education in the ACT is greatly appreciated and acknowledged
in the community. Although unique in character and role, the special schools demonstrate a
commitment to tailoring educational programs for students with extraordinarily diverse
needs; leadership in data-based instruction; the development of curriculum to meet special
needs; and, in particular cases, a very strong commitment to research-based teaching
techniques. Enrolments in special schools seem to be relatively stable over time.
It appears that staff with the necessary interest, qualifications and/or experience are
attracted to the focused instructional efforts made by special schools (notwithstanding
‘mobility clause’ issues). Special schools have the resource potential to be lighthouses of
exemplary practice and several of the ACT Department of Education and Training special
schools have already received national recognition for the quality of their programs.
Some staff in special schools have expertise that would benefit other teachers if there were
capacity to reach out and support/network with staff who are teaching students with a
disability in units and mainstream classrooms. For example, many special school staff
produce high quality, tailored instructional and curricular support material that has
application system-wide.
However, there are some issues around special schools. Philosophically, the separate
locations and history of special schools emphasise ‘difference’. Physical separation and
history may result in insufficient recognition of their place within the overall system – a
perception of a lack of system coherence experienced by some as ‘not belonging’. For

example, some special school staff expressed the view that the manner in which
‘inclusivity’ has been promoted has not positioned special schools well.
Within special school communities many practical issues were raised including:
• Difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled and experienced teachers and Learning
Support Assistants;
• Health and safety issues, particularly around the physical nature of the work and the
challenging behaviour of some students;
• Issues with infrastructure, space and equipment for meeting students’ highly
specialised needs;
• Insufficient influence on system policy, e.g. around curriculum development; and
• Issues with the availability, suitability and location of appropriate educational settings
to which their students can transition and related concerns about continuity in terms of
curriculum and pedagogy.
The literature reports that some special schools have ‘reinvented’ themselves as hubs of
best practice (Farrell, 2008). Their focus has switched from one of relative isolation to
‘what special schools can offer the entire educational community?’
Others have developed the ‘extended school concept’, one that provides, often on a fee for
service basis a “range of services often beyond the school day to help meet the needs of its
pupils, their families and the wider community’.
Special schools can be also become staging points for in-school therapy provisions,
professional development and research into exemplary practices.
1. How might the level of integration of special schools into educational planning and
provision in the ACT Department of Education and Training be further developed?
2. What might be some of the elements in a desirable vision for special schools in the
ACT? How might special schools be best configured to be coherent with the primary –
high school – college structure?
4.5 Planning
The Review of Special Education must ultimately identify ‘future options for the provision
of special education services in ACT public schools within the existing budget provision’.
This requirement emphasises the need for Special Education services in the ACT to be
resourceful and efficient, as well as effective.
An effective, efficient and resourceful delivery system requires vision, planning, resources,
skills and incentive. While there are many examples in the ACT of individual schools
‘leading practice’ by engaging in processes to define their vision and identify processes to
realise it, the systemic vision for special education in ACT public schools needs
refinement. As implied throughout this Discussion Paper, better outcomes for students are
likely to be achieved when Special Education, the ACT Department of Education and
Training, other services for children and young people, and school communities share a
vision for a desirable service for students with a disability. It is to be hoped that the

conversations stimulated by this Discussion Paper might lead stakeholders to move
towards such a vision.
As has been noted, schools in the ACT have considerable autonomy over curriculum,
pedagogy and school policy and management and this degree of freedom is an
acknowledged strength of the ACT system. However, these features are somewhat at odds
with national developments and they complicate Special Education planning, the delivery
of specialised services and programs in the required locations, and accountability for
outcomes.
Inclusive practice implies ‘universal design’, i.e. the needs of all students are considered in
planning and delivery. ‘Universal design’ is not just about curriculum, pedagogy and
physical access. The concept has implications for all aspects of educational provision,
including specific architectural conditions (such as space and rooms with appropriate
acoustics) that are essential for some students.
A feature of leading practice in education is the use of data. Good policies already exist but
good data is required for planning the type and location of needed services, for monitoring
policy implementation, and for quality monitoring at system, program, and school and
student level. It would be appropriate to consider how data collection and data
management might be given increased priority in ACT Special Education, and, consistent
with a refined vision for Special Education, it would be appropriate to consider desirable
targets and key performance indicators.
1. What information needs to be collected to ensure that ACT schools are able to provide
programs to meet the needs of all students with disabilities in the next planning cycle?
2. Would more regionally-based planning improve collaboration, networking, and the

provision of complementary services?
5 Conclusion
This brief paper has aimed to identify issues of fundamental importance to the future of
Special Education in ACT public schools. We are most grateful for the contribution of so
many individuals and groups to its development.
The paper did not try and cover every issue. So if readers believe we have missed the
significance of particular matters that were mentioned to us, they are urged to raise them
again in the conversations that will follow.
Education and teaching are relational activities. They work best when there is cooperation
and collaboration that are motivated by a common purpose. That does not of course imply
‘group think’. We appreciate that the quality of the educational opportunities provided to
students with a disability is such a crucial matter that there will be strongly held
differences of opinion among the various stakeholders. However, if the focus remains on
what’s best for the students, if we are respectful of the views of others, and if we attempt to
be as evidence-based as possible, the process will produce good results. As in education
itself, the success of the Review process is dependent on healthy relationships and good
communication.

Although there is a rich and expanding literature about the delivery of special education, as
far as we know, no ‘off the shelf’ solutions are available to many of the issues we must
address. Throughout the world, various jurisdictions are trying a range of different
strategies to provide an excellent service and to do so without expanding costs.
Very often, as noted by Norwich (2008), stakeholders find themselves debating and
making choices about recurring dilemmas: whether to identify – the identification
dilemma; what to teach – the curriculum dilemma; whose views should be heard – the
parent-professional dilemma; and where to learn – the integration dilemma.
One of the major advantages that the ACT has over just about any other state or territory
anywhere in the world is the extent and depth of the talent in its educational settings and in
the community more generally. The ACT community is well-educated, knowledgeable and
multi-skilled.
These advantages provide the opportunity, challenge and invitation to chart a way forward
together in solutions-focused, data-based and defensible ways – to become creators of
leading practice in special education.
Service development is a journey and we need to chart a course – one that values, but is
not constrained by, where we have been. We look forward to the conversations about the
desirable destinations and routes for Special Education within ACT public schools.

Appendix 6 (b): Non Government
Schools’ Issues
The Discussion Paper for Public Schools (appendix 6 a), dealt with issues and concerns
that arose from visits and consultations in relation to ACT Public schools. However, this
consultation process was open to the ACT community and so the Discussion Paper also
includes issues raised by non-government education leaders, educators and parents and
carers. What follows is a listing of matters that arose during the visits and consultations in
non-government schools. As, by and large, the issues and concerns across Public, Catholic
and Independent schools are similar, the points below list the more significant issues
facing non-government schools and/or nuances of issues experienced across the sectors.
Catholic schools
Despite the very positive features of ‘special education’ delivery in ACT Catholic Schools
that were listed in Chapter One, issues of concern were raised at visits, consultations and in
submissions. These included:
1. Considerable need for professional learning for some principals and classroom teachers
about their obligations under the DDA 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education
2005;
2. Considerable need for professional learning for teachers and Learning Support
Assistants (LSAs) about evidence-based pedagogies for students with a disability;
3. An over-reliance on LSAs in the delivery model in some schools;
4. Need for policy development around the roles and responsibilities of LSAs;
5. A strong belief in some schools that the resources arising from the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need are the sole source of support for students with a disability;
6. Difficulties for some schools in accessing specialised equipment and particularly in

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT);
7. Inadequate choice in settings for some students with disabilities in Catholic schools, for
example, Catholic special schools and preschools.
8. Limited access in some schools to timely consultation, advice and support, for
example, around students with mental health issues;
9. Inadequate multidisciplinary supports and a consequent burden on parents and carers,

particularly in regard to therapy assessment and treatment;
10. Inadequate networking with local schools in other sectors and sharing of resources, for
example, for professional learning; and
11. Strong perception that resources are inadequate.

Independent schools
It is important to stress that Independent schools are genuinely independent and that each
school is separate and different. Given their diversity, it would be incorrect to generalise
about Independent schools. Therefore, it should not be assumed that the issues and
concerns that were raised or observed in particular Independent schools apply to all
Independent schools. With these caveats clearly understood, the following points should be
noted:
1. Some principals and classroom teachers need to be more cognisant of their obligations
under the DDA 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005. There is a need
for professional learning and ready access to relevant support documents, for example,
copies of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 and the On the same basis:
Implementing the Disability Discrimination Act resource (Department of Education and
Children’s Services of South Australia, 2007);
2. Considerable need for professional learning for some schools and teachers about legal
issues, curriculum differentiation, individual planning, alternative pathways,
responding to the particular needs of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder and those on the autism spectrum;
3. A view in some schools that the only way to support a student with a disability is to
have a Learning Support Assistant (LSA) work solely with that student;
4. Some Independent schools have a very high proportion of students with additional
needs, for example, English as a Second Language (ESL) and the parents of these
students face similar language and cultural challenges;
5. Very limited resources to provide and/or enhance pedagogy in some schools, for
example, in ICT, and a belief that there is a lack of equity in resource distribution to
support students with a disability, for example, re equipment and information;
6. A strong belief in some schools that the resources arising from the Student Centred
Appraisal of Need are the sole source of support for students with a disability;
7. Little access in some schools to consultation, advice and support, for example, around
students with mental health issues;
8. Inadequate multidisciplinary assessment and treatment services in some schools and a

consequent burden on parents and carers; and
9. A degree of professional isolation in some schools evidenced by inadequate

networking and sharing resources with local schools in other sectors and/or with
Independent schools in other states and territories.

Appendix 7: Student Variables that
Affect Learning Outcomes
Table 5: Major ‘student variables’ described by prominent researchers and
theorists.
Student characteristics that are associated with learning 43 Theorist/researcher
Ability Walberg (1984a)

Prior achievement
Motivation
Self concept
Perseverance
Biological structures & functions Mitchell (2008)
Primary memories and associations
Motivational states, e.g. personal goals, self confidence, self
concept, trust in their environments
Strategies and ‘executive’ functions, e.g. cognitive strategies, self-
regulation
Memory, short and longterm
Cognitive attributes, e.g. memory & information processing, Marzano (1998)
communication, knowledge utilisation.
Metacognitive attributes, e.g. goal setting, process monitoring,
disposition monitoring and self-regulation.
Self-attributes, e.g. relationships and acceptance, beliefs about self-
efficacy, the purpose/personal relevance of the task, motivation and
attention.
Prior knowledge of learning Hattie (2009)
Expectation
Degree of openness to experience
Beliefs about the value and worth to them from trying to learn
Engagement
Sense of self from engagement in learning
Student attentiveness Rowe (2003; 2005)
Student needs and interests
Enjoyment
Perceived usefulness of the curriculum
Student perception that teacher cares, is helpful & responsive
43
Most teachers attribute students’ unsatisfactory learning to student, parent or home factors also (Hattie,
2009; Lipsky et al. 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1996).

Appendix 8: Effective Teaching -
Major Theorists & Researchers
Table 6: Elements of effective teaching
Theorist/Researcher Descriptor Elements
Christenson et al. Critical Effective classroom management

(1989) reported in factors in Positive school environment
Kavale & Forness learning and
Appropriate instructional match
(1999) teaching
Clear goals & expectations
Instructional support
High opportunity to respond
Teachers monitor student progress
Frequent and appropriate evaluation of performance
Hattie (2009) Examples of Formative evaluation
teacher Micro teaching
bahaviour
Teacher clarity
associated
with learning Reciprocal teaching
Feedback
Teacher student relationships
Meta cognitive strategies
Direct instruction
Mastery learning
Peer tutoring
Cooperative learning.
Quality Teaching Conditions Intellectual quality – Deep knowledge, Deep
Framework necessary for understanding, Problematic knowledge, Higher order
students to understanding, metalanguage, substantive
produce work communication.
of high Quality learning environment – Explicit quality
intellectual criteria, Engagement, High expectations, Social
quality support, Student’s self-regulation, Student direction.
Significance – Background knowledge, Cultural
knowledge, Knowledge integration, Inclusivity,
Connectedness, Narrative.
Institute for Academic SMARTER Select critical outcomes; what students need to learn
Success (University of strategies of Map (organise) critical content
Kansas Effective
Analyse difficulty
Teachers
Reach enhancement decisions so the student can
learn
Teach strategically – Cue-Do-Review
Evaluate mastery
Re-evaluate outcomes, i.e. reflect on strategies and
change them if necessary.

Algozzine & Ysseldyke Effective Planning
(1999) instructional Decide what to teach by assessing gaps, considering
practices context & establishing logical sequences
Decide- how to teach, e.g. set instructional goals,
establish performance criteria, choose instructional
methods, determine pace, establish groupings
Communicate realistic expectations
Prepare students for instruction – class rules, manage
disruptions, student self-management
Use time productively
Establish positive classroom environment
Deliver instruction – gain/maintain attention, review
students’ prior knowledge, present the lesson in an
orderly way.
Deliver instruction in a way that
Motivates students
Assists them to engage with the learning & be actively
involved
Provides relevant practice
Provides relevant feedback
Adapts and adjusts to meet students’ needs.

Appendix 9: Principles of Effective
Mental Health Services in Schools
Table 7: Evidence-based principles and practices for services for students
with mental health issues
Principles Type of School Resources Resources from outside
Support the school
Giving students ‘voice Systems for School policy on social Youth engagement and
and choice’ Positive & emotional development programs
Care & compassion for Support development, wellbeing Recreation, leisure and
students and families & positive relationships enrichment
Proactivity Health promotion, e.g. Support for school and
re drug education teacher professional
Flexibility
Accommodation to learning
Safety & success
support learning and
Strengths-based, behaviour
student and family-
Partnerships with
centred support in
parents and carers
natural contexts
Systems for Whole school, Short-term, out of school
Early evidence-based, timely interventions
Intervention programs targeting Out of home placements
and treatment specific issues –
Family support
violence, bullying.
school dropout
Crisis prevention and
intervention strategies
Individually-tailored
support for individuals
within the social
context of the school
Short-term counseling
and therapy case
managed by the school
Systems of Specific programs for Timely support for
Education and students with emotional emergency and crisis
Care for Long- disturbances and interventions
term, Severe chronic mental health Long-term therapy
Problems problems coordinated with school
Coordinated referral, services
treatment and return to Hospitalisation
school with external
agencies
(Synthesised from American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004; Community Action Network,

2009; Nation et al, 2003; National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2007; Patton et al. 2003;
Power, 2003; & Rowling, 2003).

Appendix 10: Leading Practice
We have defined ‘leading practice’ as “a set of educational processes and procedures for
which there is credible evidence of effectiveness with a large number of students and
which are recognised within the profession as effective ways of teaching’. As this
definition adopts some of the principles of ‘best practice’ the caveats that apply to ‘best
practice’ are equally applicable, for example, are evidence-based practices necessarily
applicable across time, students, settings and personnel?
We caution against dogged and/or dogmatic prescription that teachers must use only
research-based practices. The research base is not complete and it does not always address
the challenges experienced by teachers.
Specific applications (of research-based practices) require the sagacity and

perspicacity of the individual special education practitioner that should not be
limited by any research-based over-specification of the teaching–learning
process. Like doctors and engineers, special education practitioners will need to
go beyond the scientific basis of their work. A special education student is quite
likely to present problems where scientific generalisations, principles, and
suppositions will not apply directly and must be mediated through the teacher’s
own creative rendering of best practice. Therefore, the creativity of the
individual special education practitioner must not be stifled, because quality
education for special education students will always be based on the artful
application of science. (Kavale & Forness, 1999, p. 93)
The term ‘best practice’ is problematic for a number of reasons. Often there is inadequate
comparative data to support the conclusion that any one approach, treatment of method is
literally ‘the best’. Furthermore, ‘best practice’ may not be best for everyone … so what
may be ‘best practice’ in one teacher’s classroom may not be best for others.
There is also the issue of ‘procedural integrity’ or ‘treatment fidelity’ in the application of
‘best practice’. Obviously a particular ‘best practice’ will be effective only to the extent
that it is replicated faithfully and thoroughly in the different or new context.
Another frequently used term is ‘evidence-based practice’ (EBP) and it raises similar
difficulties. For example, Johnson & Austin (2005) restate the original definition
developed by “a Canadian medical group at McMaster University. This group defined EBP
as a process that considers ‘the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best
evidence in making decisions about the care of individuals (Sackett, Richardson,
Rosenberg, & Haynes, 1997)”. Johnston and Austin then discuss the uncertainties
surrounding the following:
1. The traditional hierarchy of evidence and the judgement/discretion exercised in giving

more or less weight to particular research;
2. The fact that different questions require different methodologies;
3. The privileging of scientific knowledge over the views of service users; and
4. The possibility that a reliance only on strategies for which evidence exists will stifle
innovation.

Arguing that underlying the ‘evidence-based’ agenda in education (one that is derived
from the medical research paradigm) has a ‘social engineering’ purpose, esteemed
educational researcher, Frederick Erickson, recounts a conversation with a medical
researcher who had worked for many years at the Salk Institute. He said, “If knowledge
development in polio research had had to depend only on conclusive findings from
experiments, research on polio would today consist mainly of studies of the treatment
effects of the iron lung.” (p. 9)
Similarly, Biesta (2007) argues that the evidence-based agenda restricts decision-making to
questions only of effectiveness and in so doing is somewhat elitist and anti democratic.
Biesta argues that reliance on evidence-based practice puts control of education in the
hands of those who are preoccupied with ‘technique’ while depriving others of the
opportunity to be involved in decision-making. Commenting on the political dimensions of
US educational policy, Erickson (2005, p. 8) writes, “Make no mistake: the Blue Meanies
have taken over the Yellow Submarine.”

Appendix 11: List of Submissions
Many formal and informal (e.g. short email) submissions were made to this Review.
66 submissions were posted on the website or were received anonymously.
In addition, the following 53 identified written contributions were received in person or via
email or mail.
ACT Chapter of the Australasian Association of Special Education Inc.

ACT Council of P & C Associations
ACT Human Rights Commission
M. Adorni
Australian Education Union
Autism Asperger ACT
Rachel Baker
Tim Bavinton, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT Inc.
Liz Blakey
Phillip Brown
Greg Burgess
Denise Caddy
Canberra & Queanbeyan ADD Support Group Inc.
Canberra Deaf Children’s Association
Cranleigh School
Dale Daniels
Jim Docherty
Barb Donnan, Educational Pathways
Pete Halsey, ACT Deafness Resource Centre
Sue Healy
Martin Hehir, Chief Executive, Department of Disability, Housing & Community
Services
Margo Hodge
Andrew Hunt
Inclusion Support Team
Independent School Counsellors’ Association
Jeremy Irvine, Executive Director, Association of Independent Schools of the ACT
Chris Jenkins
Jenny Kaye
Chris Kilham
Jan Kruger
Bridget Larsen
Renee Leon

Kate Lyttle, Executive Officer, Association of Parents and Friends of ACT Schools
Malkara School staff
Kathy Melsom, Director, Indigenous Education and Early Years Learning, ACTDET
Moira Najdecki, Director, Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Canberra
& Goulburn
Karna O’Dea
Viv Pearce
Pegasus, Riding for the Disabled of ACT Inc.
Jodie Reid
Sally Richards
Marijan and Maryanne Rupcic
Lyndee Savage
Rebecca Shee
Special Education Advocacy Group
Alan Stewart
Estelle Sydney-Smith
Therapy ACT
Trinity Christian School
Varjavandi family
Woden School Board
Woden School Board and Teachers
Nicole Zimmer


Disability Diversity and Tides That Lift All Boats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disability Diversity and Tides That Lift All Boats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disability, Diversity and Tides

that Lift All Boats:

Review of Special Education in the

Anthony Shaddock, Nancy MacDonald, Julie Hook,

List of Tables .........................................................................................................9

Executive Summary ............................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Legal and Policy Context .................................................................27

Chapter 3: Students and Learning Outcomes ..................................................45

Chapter 4: Pedagogy and Learning Outcomes.................................................51

Chapter 5: Curriculum and Learning Outcomes...............................................65

October 2009 Page 5

Chapter 6: Settings and Learning Outcomes....................................................75

Chapter 7: Resources and Learning Outcomes ...............................................89

Chapter 8: Partnerships, Personnel and Learning Outcomes.......................101

Chapter 9: Planning for Change.......................................................................119

Chapter 10: Options for ACT Public Schools .................................................131

Page 6 October 2009

Chapter 11 Options for Catholic Schools in the ACT.....................................141

Chapter 12: Options for ACT Independent Schools .......................................149

Chapter 13: Postscript ......................................................................................155

Appendix 1: Terms of Reference .....................................................................187

Appendix 2: Review Team ................................................................................189

Appendix 3: Reference Committees ................................................................193

Appendix 4: Dictionary of Terms .....................................................................195

October 2009 Page 7

Appendix 6: Summary of Observations in Schools .......................................203

Appendix 6 (a): Public Schools’ Issues: The Discussion Paper ...................203

Appendix 6 (b): Non Government Schools’ Issues ........................................225

Appendix 7: Student Variables that Affect Learning Outcomes ...................227

Appendix 8: Effective Teaching - Major Theorists & Researchers ...............229

Appendix 9: Principles of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools ......231

Appendix 10: Leading Practice ........................................................................233

Appendix 11: List of Submissions...................................................................235

Page 8 October 2009

October 2009 Page 9

Page 10 October 2009

October 2009 Page 11

Many individuals provided support in various ways: Ms Denise Bridges, Mr Phillip

Page 12 October 2009

October 2009 Page 13

The options are based on a) extensive stakeholder consultation; b) examination of leading

A key component of improving teacher capacity is to ensure skilled and informed

October 2009 Page 15

Page 16 October 2009

Consideration should be given to the reorganisation of the consultancy services provided to

October 2009 Page 17

Page 18 October 2009

• Provides a guide to reading the report

A guide to reading the report

A review of special education requires an understanding of the context in which it is

October 2009 Page 19

Understanding of the brief

The Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) required a review of leading practice in curriculum

Schools tend to emphasise key competencies required by students such as “thinking,

• Exponential growth, uptake and influence of technology;

Page 20 October 2009

Framework and methodology

The methodology involved a careful approach to:

• Understanding stakeholders’ expectations, desired outcomes, the context and scope;

October 2009 Page 21

Evidence-based theory about what leads to learning

Page 22 October 2009

Figure 1: Causal influences on Student Learning

The Walberg model is highly relevant to this review because: