Page 4827 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
current practice. Two areas of particular concern to the committee were, firstly, more effective monitoring of the outcomes of disability education services. The ACT government should ensure that students’ educational achievements are measured, as is expected for all ACT students, and that these results can be used to inform better teaching practice. The measurement of learning outcomes, rather than indicators of disability itself or parent satisfaction, would improve transparency in the delivery of education services to students with a disability. This includes the individual learning plans. A number of people expressed their concern about the development and implementation of ILPs. I understand through evidence that was given by the department to the committee that the ILP process will be reviewed and that is encouraging to hear.
The second particular area of concern was around greater transparency and accountability in the source and allocation of funding for disability education services, and this is also a priority. At the very least, all parents should have clarity about the way services for their children are funded, what they are entitled to in terms of specialist funding and details about how they can expect this funding to be administered within the school environment.
Another area of particular concern was the adequacy of post-school options and the effectiveness of transition planning available. This was a consistent issue that came up not just from parents but from a number of organisations and representative groups. The committee was aware that this can be a particularly difficult time for parents of students with disabilities, with one group describing it as a “fork in the road” decision. The committee considered that more attention needs to be paid to this aspect of students’ lives, particularly since the ACT government can predict the number of students graduating from the school system and thus should be able to ensure and plan for adequate resources to be available to meet this need.
Students with disabilities are one group within a diverse student body within both the government and non-government education systems. As such, these students should be confident in the recognition they receive within the education system broadly and be able to anticipate that reasonable adaptations will allow the education services they receive to meet their particular needs and maximise their potential for individual achievement.
In relation to the Shaddock review, the committee was particularly encouraged by the cross-sectoral approach to this issue which had been initiated by the review and has encouraged the ACT government to support collaboration between sectors to improve the capacity of both government and non-government schools to meet the needs of these students and their parents.
The inquiry identified a number of concerns. While I have outlined the key concerns, I would just like to point out another two areas which the committee believes require some attention. The first is in regard to the differences in definitions of disability used in anti-discrimination legislation and for educational funding purposes. The second is in regard to the number of specialist disability teachers and the current level of training and development in disability education practices for teaching support staff.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video