Disability Standards for Education
An example of the DET approach to the education of children with disabilities in reality, as opposed to what is included in its publications, is its interpretation of the Disability Standards for Education. In AB v State of Victoria the DET submitted that in this case – where a child made a claim for the provision of an aide and speech therapy (borderline IQ, severe language impairment, ADHD symptoms) – that it had complied with the Disability Standards for Education, and as a result of their submissions, the Federal Court decision was as follows:
[147] “Some features, which are common to both ss 5.2(2) and 6.2(2) should be noted. The first is that both provisions require a school to consult a student or his or her parents about prescribed matters. They do not, however, require that such consultation take any particular form or occur at any particular time. Those involved may meet formally or informally. Discussions can be instigated by either the school or the parents. Consultation may occur in face-to-face meetings, in the course of telephone conversations or in exchanges of correspondence. Once consultation has occurred it is for the school to determine whether any adjustment is necessary in order to ensure that the student is able, in a meaningful way, to participate in the programmes offered by the school. The school is not bound, in making these decisions, by the opinions or wishes of professional advisers or parents. The school is also required to determine whether any reasonable adjustment is possible in order to further the prescribed aims. There may, therefore, be cases in which an adjustment is necessary but no reasonable adjustment is able to be identified which will ensure that the objectives contained in the relevant Disability Standards are achieved.”
In other words, the formal DET position is that no matter how complex the child’s medical conditions or disabilities, it is a teacher who has the final say on whether supports are needed at all for the child, and if so what they will be, regardless of the views and requests of the students themselves, their parents and the advice of disability experts such as paediatricians and speech pathologists.
This should be examined in the light of the many formal reports referring to Victorian and Australian teachers, the low requirements to enter into teaching courses, and falling teaching standards. The DET itself, in its publication ‘New Directions to Action: World class teaching and school leadership’, bodies such as the Productivity Commission, Australian Council for Educational Research, and various researchers in the last 10 years have expressed significant concerns about the abilities of teachers to simply effectively teach. These concerns do not relate to children with disabilities, simply the general school population.
Some may find it disturbing that DET is raising concerns about the core skills of teachers, (being teaching), but happy to allow them to experiment on students with disabilities using behaviour analytical methods. This could be seen as further discrimination against students with disabilities.
The Court finding above is yet another extremely narrow and rigid interpretation of discrimination legislation, arrived at after submissions by the DET, and render the Disability Standards for Education virtually unusable. However it does provide students and parents with an insight into how DET believes the Standards should be interpreted, and the weight and value it gives the views of students with disabilities, their parents and their treating practitioners.