1

Program for Students with Disabilities Review – What Does It Actually Mean?

In 2015, a review of the Program for Students with Disabilities (“PSD”) was undertaken. In April 2016, the report of the review was released, along with the government’s response. Overview Perhaps the one key finding that sums up the results of the review is this. “While the PSD delivers substantial funding to support students with disabilities, there are significant weaknesses in its design, implementation and accountability.” The most concerning aspect of the PSD review, particularly given that it is only one component of the broader approach by the Department of Education and Training (“DET”) to educate students with disabilities, is the re-statement of flaws, limitations and barriers that have been documented for decades. This indicates that the senior bureaucrats responsible for the education of students with disabilities have to date disregarded previous findings and recommendations students with that suggest students with disabilities cannot access their education on an equal basis to others. DET itself partially addressed this history on p35 of the PSD review report1 setting out the numerous publications addressing Victoria’s attempts to ensure students with disabilities were able to access their education. Curiously, referring to reports between 1982-1992, DET claims the impacts of the reports were the “Beginning of cultural shift that placed Victoria at the forefront of national and international practice.” Apart from the fact that there is no evidence for this statement, more recent findings on the Program for Students with Disabilities include, but are not limited to, the following. May 2007 Turner v Department of Education and Training (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 873

Fourth, my findings indicate that there are a number of serious shortcomings in different aspects of the PSD, particularly the language disorder category of that program. There seems to be an urgent need for comprehensive and expert review of the program. I would urge the government to undertake that review. [594]

[emphasis added]

August 2012

“Conclusions” Victorian Auditor General Report “Programs for Students with Special

Learning Needs”. (“Special Learning Needs Report”)

Since 2006, DEECD has distributed more than $2.6 billion to schools through the PSD. However, DEECD does not have the information it needs to determine whether PSD funding is being used efficiently and effectively. Concerns raised about this by VAGO in 2007 still have not been adequately addressed and instead of having five

1 http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/PSD-Review-Report.pdf

2

years worth of high-quality data about the program, the department still knows very little about its impact on the educational outcomes of supported students. pviii

[emphasis added]

September 2012

First ‘Main Finding’ in relation to the PSD, amongst other critical main findings, from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission's "Held Back - the experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools” (“Held Back Report”)

While over 20,000 students currently receive additional assistance through Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD) funding provided to government schools, feedback from parents and educators reveals considerable concerns about how the program is structured, delivered and held accountable for educational outcomes. p152 [emphasis added]

The snapshot above raises issues either about the competence of DET senior personnel over the years, or the absolute disinterest in ensuring that students with disabilities can access their education. Or both. Through many Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Regional Directors, the situation has remained unchanged. This indicates that at the Minister/Secretary level, no one has felt it necessary or important to act on past reports and require employees of DET to have key performance criteria that involved outcomes for students with disabilities. The recent media around the investigation into Bendigo SDS, with Minister James Merlino, Secretary Gill Callister, and Acting Deputy Secretary Bruce Armstrong all indicating support for the school despite staff being trained in the use of pressure points, the use of cages in classrooms, the prolific use of locked pens throughout the school and many more barbaric and inhumane practices, indicates that the humane treatment of students with disabilities is unimportant. This does not augur well for a genuine interest in their academic welfare. Recent Initiatives In the government’s response to the review2 it outlines a number of recent initiatives that will allegedly “improve students’ achievements, engagement and well-being”.

1. A positive initiative is that from September 2016, all registered teachers will have to have either undertaken relevant professional development in the last two years or take it before renewing their registration in September 2017. This initiative, unlike a number of others, has a mandatory component which means that Victorian parents can assume that it will actually happen.

2. The new Principal Practice Leader position is a completely inadequate response to

the problem of violence against students with disabilities by teaching staff throughout Victorian, in multiple Victorian schools. At the same time this position was created, DET for the first time endorsed the formally seclusion of students with disabilities3.

2 http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/PSD-Review-Response.pdf

3 October 2015 DET behaviour policies will

3

3. Improving early years screening for learning difficulties by enhancing an online tool is only useful if it is mandatory, and teachers know what to do after learning difficulties have been diagnosed.

4. All Victorian government schools are now able to access the ABLES curriculum assessment and reporting tool. This non-evidence based assessment tool has already been available for years. It is rarely used, and as with other assessments, unless teachers know what to do with the assessment findings, it is of little use.

5. There is a focus on buildings.

6. Direct funding to students is absent. The Findings Putting aside the overall finding that the PSD is failing students with disabilities, there were a number of findings that have already been brought to the attention of DET through reports, parent complaints and numerous legal claims against DET under discrimination legislation. The key findings can be found on p8 of the government response document. Consistent with the repetition of earlier broad-based findings over the decades about the failure by DET to adequately educate students with disabilities, these recent findings continue to highlight distinct problems that have already been raised with DET, and which they have ignored. One example is in relation to Individual Learning Plans.

“Currently, the way tailored Individual Learning Plans are developed is inconsistent, and fails to adequately record and drive the progress of students.” p14 government response.

This may be familiar to parents and advocates. This is why.

“Individual learning plans (ILP) are the lynchpin in the government school system for setting and delivering on learning goals for students with disabilities. However, not all students who should have a plan have one. The development, quality and monitoring of these plans is inconsistent and there is no systemic monitoring to ensure that these plans are of a reasonable quality and are being implemented.” Held Back Report p 82, 2012 Schools are not .. “developing consistent, high quality Individual Learning Plans..” “DEECD does not identify and monitor the progress of individual students with special learning needs so is not informed of their educational outcomes.” Special Learning Needs Report p 21, 2012 [all emphasis above added]

Of equal concern to the fact that DET receive the same information repeatedly and do not meaningfully respond, DET’s report to the Victorian Auditor General in 2014, in relation to their progress against recommendations in relation to individual learning plans states this

“An online professional learning program is also being delivered, statewide, to provide clearer guidance and training for teachers on how to get the most from student support groups and how to develop and implement meaningful and effective individual learning plans. Further work will occur in 2014 in accordance

4

with the Commonwealth response to the recommendations of the Report on the Review of the Disability Standards for Education”.p554

[emphasis added] Two years later, nothing has changed. And in relation to integration aides, or ‘education support staff’.

“Despite this, stakeholders reported some concern that not all ES staff are adequately qualified to support students with disabilities to learn, and that this has become the ’default’ use of PSD funding.” “Stakeholders also raised the issue of employing unqualified staff in education support roles.” PSD Review Report pp 80, 81

Again, this may be familiar to parents and advocates.

“The sole qualification for an integration aide or education support worker is a working with children check. Most principals reported that they selected aides based firstly on ‘personality fit’ and then experience. “A senate inquiry into the education of students with disabilities in December 2002 concluded that most teacher aides have no specialist training in teaching for disabilities and a great many lack even basic training. The report recommended that, within a reasonable period, all teacher aides should be qualified in special education from an accredited teacher aide training course. A decade on, the issue of unqualified aides remains unresolved. This is compounded by broad role definitions, which in some cases result in aides taking on teaching responsibilities for students with special learning needs.” Special Learning Needs Report p 24 2012 [emphasis added]

And from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. “Four out of 10 integration aides in our survey reported that they did not feel adequately trained and supported. This is disturbing when, for many students with disabilities, the integration aide is the person on whom they are most reliant at school.“ “There are currently no formal qualifications required to work as an integration aide in a Victorian school. Submissions also highlighted problems faced by integration aides, due to the significant pressures they face, a lack of experience and a lack of formal training to address the needs of students with disabilities.” “Overall, the combined responses from both parents and educators indicate that the role of integration aides, including their remuneration, qualifications and status in the school, needs urgent attention given the crucial role they play in supporting teachers and students with disabilities in Victorian schools.” Held Back Report pp173-174 2012 [emphasis added]

The above only addresses a few of the findings in the report. Multidisciplinary teams are another area that have been repeatedly raised and continue to be, with no action. There are more. However critically, these findings raise a number of important questions.

4 ‘Responses to Audits 2012-13 Performance Audit Recommendations’ Victorian Auditor General's

Office February 2015

5

Is DET actually capable of addressing these problems? How can the same problems been raised with DET, some of them for decades, and

not be addressed? Is the issue one of supreme indifference, rather than competence?

Stakeholders are entitled to understand what is stopping DET from meaningfully and competently responding to problems that, while prolific, are not difficult to remedy. Until we know the answers to these questions, there can be no confidence in any of the actions DET will take forward. Recommendations DET have accepted 21 of the 25 recommendations, the four left being the most important of the 25, reform of the PSD. This review will not list every recommendation, but gives the following guidance to readers. When reading the recommendations and their acceptance, it is important to note the following context of DET operations.

The formal position of DET is that anything that is labelled a “guideline”, does not need to be adhered to.

Similarly “frameworks”, “guidance” and “support materials” lack purpose unless teaching staff are directed to follow them.

Anything that is an “opportunity”, does not need to be taken advantage of. When teachers are given “access to” tools, that access is optional. When resources are made “available”, one can take advantage of them, or not. When a recommendation calls for someone to “consider” an idea, the consideration

without action meets the recommendation outcome. An “investigation” does not require any action at the end. The “encouragement” of schools and teachers to participate in something means

nothing. “Raising awareness” means little, as opposed to mandated training and direction. Unless any “strategy” developed is mandated, it is of little use. Anything “online” is usually optional. Despite the word “evidence” being used prolifically throughout the review report and

government response, DET continue not to identify or mandate evidence-based programs to support students with disabilities in schools.

When one reads every recommendation and response, immediately those recommendations that rely on the language used above need to be seen in the context of possibly, meaning nothing. That takes care of most of the recommendations. It seems that a great deal of money is being spent on regional office staff and developing materials. This is a great concern for parents, advocates, parents and principals who simply want schools/students resourced directly. The $3 million funding to support the student is transitioning to Year 7, has not indicated an understanding of solving the problem of what happens after the transition. It is not clear that the $17 million for children with autism and dyslexia is being provided directly to schools, rather than another optional resource program.

6

The suggestion to establish a “Victorian Inclusive Education Institute”, and holding up the Victorian Deaf Education Institute as a model, is another example of money being directed into jobs for DET staff rather than direct funding to schools. It is of particular concern when one thinks of the millions of dollars that have gone into the Victorian Deaf Education Institute, which has not managed, despite being in operation for years, to write or in fact implement a policy that guarantees deaf students the right to Auslan Interpreters, despite such a right to being clearly enshrined in case law and international human rights law. However the most frightening recommendation, is Recommendation 7, which is “Develop options to support special schools to become ‘centres of expertise’ to support local mainstream schools to implement inclusive education.” There is no evidence at all that Special Schools have expertise that either warrants them becoming “centres of expertise” or being in any position to be advising mainstream schools. Simply the fact of doing something for decades does not equal “expertise” unless one can prove successful outcomes. Given the DET aversion to data collection and analysis, there are no recorded outcomes. Therefore we are left to form a view on the evidence of individuals, and anecdote, and the anecdotes are frightening. The recent Federal Senate report on violence, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities5 sets out the treatment of students with disabilities in schools in Chapter 3. It is special schools that are best known for their internal and external lockable seclusion rooms, physical and mechanical restraint. The recent Federal Senate report on the educational outcomes of students with disabilities in Australia6 indicates our nation’s failing in this regard, however the anecdotes indicate that it is special schools that are the least interested in academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The culture of special schools is often incompetence in dealing with behaviours of concern leading to violence, and to quote the Senate report above, “babysitting” of students with disabilities. So in the absence of any evidence of expertise, but with a plethora of anecdote, and evidence of individual student experience, we have a recommendation to have special schools pass on their practices to mainstream schools. If anything, generally speaking, mainstream schools at least have a culture of learning and expectation. Students with disabilities are utterly surrounded by students who are learning and role modelling positive behaviours. For an indication of some of the Victorian special schools and their history of dealing with students with disabilities, go to www.educationrights.com.au/Schools List.

5http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_ab

use_neglect/Report 6http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/stu

dents_with_disability/Report

7

Summary Unless the following is put into place, it is unlikely that academic, behavioural and social outcomes for students with disabilities will improve:

1. DET senior personnel having key selection criteria in relation to academic outcomes and inclusion for students with disabilities.

2. The cessation of almost every DET policy, procedure and guideline being optional. 3. Clear directives given about evidence-based programs and approaches. 4. Mandatory professional development rather than online opportunities. 5. Immediate engagement of external professionals to begin working with schools that

have a history of violence against students with disabilities. 6. PSD becoming a program that responds to individual need rather than diagnosis.

Julie Phillips 23 April 2016