Student with a Disability or Disabled Neurodiverse Student?

Literally Ausome Opinion

Are our Neurodiverse children, ‘Students with a Disability’ or are they ‘Disabled because they are students’?

Allow me to apologise if that heading punched you in the face. I've literally been in the ring doing rounds with it for the past few weeks & I really need to step out of the ring because my best fighting is done when I can see everything that's in front of me. Being stuck ring-bound is obscuring my vision & I need clarity.

I recently wrote a piece about my relationship & acceptance of the word ‘disabled’ in relation to my children. I concluded, that it didn’t matter how I felt about this label or description; if my children identified as being disabled based on their lived experiences, it doesn’t matter how it makes me feel or what I think about it.

In that post, I commented that the older my children get the more I can see how ‘the environment is disabling them'.

I'll leave that there for you to marinade on.

To dig deep into this, we need to go back & get an understanding of how the education system currently works in relation to disabled students.

For those that don’t need to brush up on their knowledge around the Disability Discrimination Act, the Disability Standards for Education, the definition of ‘student with a disability’, SSG’s & IEP/ILP’s, feel free to scroll down to the paragraph that says, 'so in a nutshell....'.

The Disability Discrimination Act and the Disability Standards for Education

The Disability Discrimination Act says it’s against the law to discriminate against someone because of their disability.

The Disability Standards for Education explain what these laws mean for students with a disability. The standards say students with a disability have the same right to take part in their education as students without disabilities.

The Disability Standards for Education also state that schools are required to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to the curriculum to support any student with a disability.

The Disability Standards for Education also goes on to define what 'Student with a Disability' is. This is any student who has a physical disability, visual impairment, severe behaviour disorder, intellectual disability, hearing impairment, autism spectrum disorder &/or severe language disorder with critical educational needs. See more here.

Program for Students with Disabilites (PSD)

For students that are eligible, funding is available, called Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD), for those students that meet the criteria. Not to sugarcoat here, but, it’s literally impossible for high-masking Autistic children to be provided funding for additional support.

The PSD funding criteria are: the child has to have an intellectual disability or a severe language disorder with critical educational needs. This criterion has been updated recently as it also included students displaying severe behaviour or conduct (which was extremely difficult to prove). For eligibility & access, cognitive & language assessments for both categories must be completed & all assessments need to be carried out by qualified & fully registered Psychologists & Speech Pathologists.

While I’ve got you, let me direct you to a fascinating little chestnut about this funding. Check out the Education Rights website, where it states that the PSD funding criteria was amended in 2009 in order to reduce the number of Autistic students becoming eligible for funding. I know right!

Student Support Groups (SSGs) and Independent Education/Learning Plans (IEP/ILPs)

Any student with a disability, funded or unfunded has the right to have 'Student Support Group' (SSGs) meetings each term with the school (principal, wellbeing coordinator, teacher & parents) to go over your child’s education & wellbeing needs. All Autistic children, no matter the 'level' at which they've been diagnosed or whether or not they are eligible for the PSD funding, has the right to have SSGs as they fall under the 'Student with a Disability' criteria. If a school rejects or refuses a request for SSGs once per term, they are in breach of the Government's Disability Standards for Education. Unfortunately & what’s often the case, is that parents/carers/guardians etc are the ones that request these meetings as schools may not ‘offer’ them on without being prompted.

In these SSG meetings, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) (also known by other names including Individual Learning Plan or ILP) is developed, which outlines all the ‘reasonable adjustments’ that need to be made to provide students with access to teaching, learning & the schooling experience generally.

The provision of ‘reasonable adjustments’ for students with disabilities is mandated by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 & the Disability Standards for Education which apply across Australia.

IEPs enable Australian schools to demonstrate that they have met their legal obligations to:

Ensure that students with disabilities participate in education & training on the same basis as non-disabled students;
Plan for & provide teaching & learning adjustments for students with disabilities; and
Consult with the student’s parents or guardian (their ‘associate’ under the Disability Standards for Education) in developing the educational plan & formulating any appropriate adjustments.

In a nutshell, that’s essentially all you need to know & what your child is entitled to in terms of school & education in relation to 'Student with a Disability' & the Disability Standards for Education.

Let's start to explore whether Neurodiverse children are categorised appropriately as ‘Students with a Disability’? Or are they ‘Disabled because they are students’?

Now, I’m going to tell you straight away to remove the suspense, but please keep reading the post as my supporting statements are not only educational & informative & also, quite entertaining.

By applying the insight gained that it’s ‘the environment that disabling our Neurodiverse children’, it’s becoming quite apparent that the environment itself, the school & the curriculum, is what is disabling our kids.
Stay with me here.

The Department of Education has taken the Disability Standards for Education’s sentiment too literally by saying, ‘students with a disability have the same right to take part in their education as students without disabilities’.

The same right. Yep. Gotcha..... But they also 'access' the same curriculum.

So the Department of Education doesn’t want to appear as though they’ve taken the Disability Standards for Education too literally, so they’ve cleverly identified potential issues with ‘access’ by adding, clarifying & even anticipating the requirement ‘to make reasonable adjustments’ to the curriculum to support any student with a disability.

So, same rights. Same access. And ‘reasonable adjustments’ to assist with accessibility.

Ausome. Literally. But…..

Broadly speaking, this kind of ‘unspecific language’, & although this is terminology has been specifically & carefully outlined for schools in terms of policy & law, it’s also lent itself to the opening of floodgates for schools & educational settings to use their discretion around what these terms & applications actually mean, or what they want them to mean for them.

The ‘unspecific’ language, or its interpretation by a school, is as stretchy as a rubber band & every school is pulling & twisting its band to fit its overall vision, its brand, its ranking & position according to academic excellence & whatever else they deem as essential to be awarded community accolades & possibly additional Government funds for their efforts. You can pull & twist the rubber band any which way to suit your desired outcome, but the inclusion of students with a disability puts too much strain on the rubber band that the likelihood of it snapping is too imminent. By removing our kids from your rubber band, it’s back to being malleable & fluid with no possible risk of rupture.

Each and every school setting has its own personalised menu of what they consider and what they can offer in terms of 'reasonable adjustments'..... and they all use different terminology for adjustments making it more confusing and misleading for everyone.

This 'unspecific' language ultimately determines students' 'access' to their education.

If that wasn’t confusing or frustrating enough, different schools use different terminology ‘around these policies’, using ‘accommodations’, ‘modifications’, ‘provisions’ & others (I’m at a blank). But, no matter what words are used or how they’re interpreted, these provisions are legally bound & failing to do so is blatant discrimination.

What’s becoming clearer by the day is that these accommodations’, ‘modifications’, ‘provisions’ that schools ‘have to do’ has resulted in our kids becoming unwanted strains or tensions in the rubber-banded school system.

Now, I want to be very clear; I don’t want to defame this setting as we’re genuinely working together to clarify & confirm this issue & their willingness to support us has been positive, so if you know me personally, I ask that you do not name the school in your comments or if you share this post not doing so as the consequences of this would be unfortunate &, obviously, avoidable if treated in the respectful manner which it is intended. I might get ‘annoyed’ or ‘frustrated’ in the way I share the story, but I’m hopeful & confident that we’ll have a positive & clarified outcome.

This is our personal experience & one example where the language & interpretation is unclear & as I mentioned above, we’re working with the school to resolve &/or clarify it all.

My daughter has an IEP. The allowances and modifications have been requested based on our daughter’s ongoing & current challenges which have been identified in primary school as well as expertly by an educational Psychologist in undertaking further assessments - specifically to identify the areas of support that are required. Teacher feedback was also sought & included in the development of this plan following their observations of our daughter in class & based on the results of her tasks. The modifications that we have all agreed on are to be applied to her classwork, her assessments, assignments & exams.

There are two ‘modifications’ we’ve requested specifically in relation to her assessments. The first one is that she be provided multiple-choice questions in subjects like English & Humanities where the likelihood of her misinterpreting a question is high. What I mean is, if a question can be taken literally, which for her WILL be taken literally, that multiple-choice answers be provided to support, or guide her to understand the actual question asked. The likelihood that she will get an incorrect answer due to misunderstanding the question/task is highly likely & is not a true indication of whether or not she knows the information.

The second modification we requested was for her not to be provided ‘worded’ questions in maths, for the same reason.

To be clear, we have not asked for any content to be changed.

The ‘outcome’, what the teacher is assessing, is also the same as all the other students.

It’s just asking it in a way she’ll understand. This is called 'access'.

A little side comment was made to me by one of my daughter’s teachers in relation to reporting a few week back. I was advised that as a result of our daughter being provided a ‘modified test/exam’ she would be scored ‘below average’ as it’s considered that she has not ‘met or achieved the skills she needs to reach that level’.

Makes sense.

But. Does it?

She’s not allowed anything to be re-worded to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. She’s not allowed an aide to ‘clarify’ was it being asked to ensure she answers it to the best of her knowledge & ability.

Her literal interpretation won’t & doesn’t ‘reduce’ as she gets older. Actually, it gets more refined, like a good wine. Anyway. In two years’ time, she will still misunderstand or misinterpret something, which will disadvantage her. She might know the answer, but the language used….. here we go folks…… DISABLES her into answering it correctly.

I know it doesn’t seem like a huge disadvantage, but it is. It’s literally the same as not allowing a blind student to have their questions read out to them. This is the very essence & definition of ‘access’.

And our children will never have appropriate or adequate access to their education any time soon.

The education system itself is disadvantaging, or equally ‘disabling’ our children.

There will never be an even playing field.

And our children will never have appropriate or adequate access to their education any time soon.

The education system itself is disadvantaging, or equally ‘disabling’ our children.

There will never be an even playing field.

How do we know this?

Any modifications that are permitted in junior secondary school will stop at senior secondary school. It’s literally pulling the rug from underneath our children.
Would we even want our children being ‘allowed’ modified tasks in junior secondary school because they’ll get lulled into a false sense of security, followed by a rude awakening?
Could we reframe what these provisions are & why they’re put in place in the first place?

What I mean is, could they be considered supports to reduce the level & amount of disengagement for disadvantaged students?

Could these be props or scaffolding to keep students’ self-esteem & confidence up with the aim of having them finish their secondary schooling?
How can we support our children to stay engaged in their learning if/when their reports are filled with ‘below average’& low marks/grades, despite their efforts?
How will our children maintain any level of engagement if they don’t understand the lessons, the tasks, the requirements, the anything when they’re worded in a way that will only lead to failure?

Now, I re-iterate that the issue around modifications & grades is still in discussion with the school, so I’m not concluding that this is discrimination by any means.

But what it does is highlight the disparity between each & every school & their interpretation of the language used around the Disability Standards for Education.

Let's ask again. Based on what we now know, are our children ‘Students with a Disability’ or are they ‘Disabled because they are students’? And, are they disabled because the education system disables them?

I have another example. This one relates to a girl in third grade. She is Autistic, has ADHD, is Dyslexic & has dyscalculia. Now, we’re well aware that her semester one report would not be filled unicorns & rainbows, despite her being tutored outside of school to support her learning difficulties.

Her report wasn’t surprising in terms of results, but completely surprising that at no stage were her parents made aware that her grades would be low, in some cases lower than expected, because it would highlight that they’d not been providing her with any learning or additional learning support. (Yes I know what I wrote. They’re not the same thing).

Despite the child having regular SSG’s & an IEP in place, whether or not she will ever actually read/see her report, she’s also said that she feels stupid, is dumb at school things & can’t see how she will ever be good enough. This child is at serious risk of disengaging, in year three.

I mean learning can still be very fun at that level or throughout primary school, but she’s not being adequately or appropriately supported.

How do I know this?

Because she scored year one level in Japanese.

But what’s that got to do with anything?

Because….. Why on earth is she doing Japanese?

Why does she need to learn another language when she struggles with English?

I’d give the school a pass if it was Italian or French because they use the same alphabet as English. But Japanese? It’s literally a language made out of characters that look like squiggles or brush strokes.

How about, instead of Japanese, that she spend that time doing some remedial reading? Or catching up on work she’d not completed in class? Or have additional support in the areas she’s struggling with?

Once again, I’m not pointing at this particular school & calling them out, as I’ve got no idea if they’ve tried to initiate something like this & been under-staffed or under-funded to support this particular child.

What this example illustrates, potentially, is that educational settings/schools face their own roadblocks with the Department of Education when they’re genuinely & desperately trying to support our children.

I’ve shared these two examples because I can’t help to think about the countless families that were not ‘gifted’ a flyaway comment from a teacher around their child’s grade in relation to the accommodations, adjustments, modifications etc made like I was.

How many students & families simply aren’t aware of what rights their children have or what accommodations can be & should be made, for example, requesting that their child not have to do another language?

How many other children & families have been impacted by this ‘possible’ flaw, loose interpretations & schools ticking the ‘legal’ boxes with little thought about how their indifference disadvantages students with a disability?!

My acceptance of terminology referring to my children being disabled is new. But in truth, the education department has given me no choice but to adopt this terminology, whether I was ready to or not, because using their terminology is the only way that I & other parents in this position, can effectively & appropriately advocate for our kids.

What I was not ready for & what’s been highlighted by my experience (1.5 years of secondary school), is that the outcomes are not favourable for children like mine.

Their education is literally inaccessible to them.

Neurodiverse students are 'disabled' by this fact; not because of their Neurology.

Why?

Because, it’s near impossible for our children to receive PSD funding as they don’t meet the stringent criteria (the criteria, mentioned earlier was amended in 2009 to reduce the number of children who may be eligible). The most common provision of assistance to children with disabilities in schools is an aide. This personnel can be referred to as Integration Aide, or Education Support Officer.
- They require no qualifications or training.
- Aides (& teachers) may have attended short workshops on disabilities, or have qualifications relating to integration aide work aren’t equipped them to begin work with children with complex individual needs, as their training will have been too ‘general’ or ‘an overview’ of disability issues which is likely to be insufficient.
- Many aides won’t be provided with support or structure they require to adequately or appropriately assist their students.
- Children &/or their parents do not have any input or involvement around the selection of an aide & can’t request a change of aide, due to personality clashes or ineffective assistance. To say this doesn’t align with the ‘value placed on the opinions of parents’ as set out in the Student Support Group guidelines is an understatement.

(There are thousands of incredible support staff. When they’ve had sufficient training in the area of the child’s particular disability, is working from a formal & professional IEP or for example, from a language program developed & supervised by a speech pathologist, this support can be really beneficial to a child with a disability).

Specialised schools with adequate support aren’t accessible to our children as their IQ is greater than 70 (which is the cut-off for these settings). Our children are forced into the mainstream schooling system because their IQ is ‘average’ & there are no ‘intellectual differences’. But, boy are there differences!
Specialised schools, even if our children were eligible, would be extremely difficult to adjust to socially for our children, as their classmates would consist of children with various levels of impairment & possibly little opportunity to establish friendships with classmates unable to talk (used to known as ‘non-verbal’).
Our children aren’t able to be supported in assessments in VCE which increases the chances of them misinterpreting the question & getting it wrong. All this demonstrates that they’ve misunderstood the question, & not their aptitude.
If our children are provided support, they may be graded ‘below average’.
The likelihood of student disengagement is significant stating that they’re ‘bored’ with their learning. Bored could also mean ‘it’s not interesting enough’ or they simply don’t understand it.
There seems to be this understanding that our children’s learning difficulties/challenges correlate to their level of intelligence. It doesn’t. Our children’s learning difficulties/challenges correlate to their neurological differences & levels of sensory sensitivities. What it does correlate to, is our children’s level of avoidance, non-participation & reports of ‘needs improvement’, ‘not submitted’ & ‘ungraded’.
LOTEs (Language Other Than English) seem to be compulsory. Why? (Yeah I know they look good in the school’s brochure).
The curriculum doesn’t take into account learning challenges. There will be subjects that are too difficult for some of our children to engage in; either due to sensory sensitivities, learning difficulties or because of their social communication challenges.
- For example, food technology. The theory part is ok, but the practice part; is complete hell. Assuming the curriculum can’t/won’t change & practical classes are still required. Let’s create virtual pracs; students still learn to gather & measure their ingredients, follow a recipe, combine their ingredients, prepare them for baking/cooking & then place them in virtual ovens/on stoves. This is basically Pizza Store on Roblox! It’s enabling our children to access their education without the sensory assault & still within the curriculum framework.
- Another example, media study. This might be a subject of interest from a technical perspective & accessible as projects could be done independently. But, the curriculum outlines the requirements for this & one requirement is ‘making a silent movie’. Now I understand it’s not about the movie or the actual content itself, rather learning the programs, the technology & the discipline of media as a whole. The challenge starts with not providing the student with options/choices of movie. Decision-making is the first hurdle. Storyboard; might be challenging but such an important skill for our kids to learn (& apply in life) to assist in understanding social dynamics, seeing how a story evolves & seeing how a scenario might end. The issue here is the silent movie, which I imagine would rely heavily on character facial expressions, body language & gestures. That is the second to infinite hurdle. How about students that struggle with social communication skills can make ANY movie (but, for the love of all things holy, give choices) which illustrates that the student has learnt or understands all the skills needed in this discipline.

There are too many obstacles to their learning.
- Here’s one. Teamwork. Why is this an essential requirement or skill for our children? Aside from the communication difficulties, add the emotions around not being listened to/heard/included, & then the absolute injustice of scoring the whole group when only two group members did the work?I’m no mind-reader, but you’re going to say that teamwork is an important skill for when our children enter the workplace/workforce, right? So, allow me to ask, how likely will it be that a child/teenager/young adult will consider entering industries, careers, areas etc that rely solely on group/teamwork? And if they do or are looking at areas where this is required, they will be hired based on their skills & not whether or not they ‘work well with others’. This person might be skilled because they don’t need to work with others. They are hired to focus on thier job & not get distracted by industry & work politics. Again, someone who struggles with their communication won’t be applying to any job that specifically & fundamentally requires this skill.

(I know there are examples where this wouldn’t work, but I need to just keep going).

- Another obstacle, and one that would get overlooked more times than garden fences; The school uniform. The itchy fabrics, the strangling tie, the too-tight collar that goes too high & shoes that no matter how well-engineered & technological they are will never be as comfortable as runners. The fabrics of school uniforms are not made from sensory-friendly fibres & without tags. It's one thing for the lights in the classroom being too bright, the wooden floors too echoey or the science lab reeking of chemicals, but our kids are already at 80% sensory overload wearing what can only be described as an assault on their senses. This is absolutely a barrier to them being able to be comfortable enough 'to access' their education.

The lack of support & resources for neurodiverse student creates issues such as behaviours of concern, absconding, depression, mental health problems & school refusal.
Disadvantage after disadvantage can/may/is likely to contribute to our children receiving lower VCE scores, which can impact their being accepted into entering tertiary study; university or TAFE.

(Yeah, again I could be really wrong & this won’t apply to all students like my children, but I’m pushing on).

Our children might not be entitled to any additional learning support at University/Higher Education/TAFE if there’s no evidence of any precedence during their secondary school education, that can be referenced &/or endorsed.
There’s a new ‘Diversity & Inclusion’ role throughout schools. It’s their job to assist the students with disabilities in their schools. But they can only do so much when the law outlines what they can do & then the school itself can accept or reject any strategies/suggestions offered to a family.

Those are just *some* of my observations, based on what I know & what I’ve experienced so far. So how about we refer to some Research Studies & Statistics for additional backup, or as the NDIS like to refer to is as, 'supporting evidence'

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
Held back: the experience of students with disabilities in Victorian schools > what parents told us

About 776 parents took part in our research by completing a survey, participating in a ‘have a say’ day or a phone-in or submitting a case study. The majority (617) completed a survey. Their children had a range of disabilities including physical, sensory, and intellectual disabilities, mental health disorders, language disorders, illnesses and Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Half the parents we surveyed (53%) indicated their child was not able to participate fully in education. They nominated a range of reasons why their child was unable to participate. The most common reasons were:
- a lack of teacher training to support children with disabilities (244 parents)
- lack of teacher time (199 parents)
- lack of access to specialist support services such as aides (197 parents).

71% of parents said that the school had consulted with them about reasonable adjustments to support their child.
- Most parents said that the adjustments they requested were partially made (58%).
- 10% said that the adjustments had not been made at all.
The failure to make adjustments in full had affected their child. Parents reported that their children becoming angry, anxious, upset, disengaged from school or ostracised by their peers. Some had left school altogether.
57% of the parents that we surveyed had applied for funding through the Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD). About three-quarters of parents told us that their child’s application was successful. This is lower than the actual rate of approval for PSD funding. According to DEECD data, approximately 88% of all PSD applications meet the eligibility criteria.
- Over half of these parents said that, after a successful PSD application, their child received only partial support to participate at school.

Just over half of the parents reported that their child had been discriminated against at school.
- Parents were more likely to report discrimination if their child; was in years 7 to 10; had a language disorder, behaviour-related disorder or learning disorder, or was attending a non-government school.

68% of the parents surveyed said they had complained about discrimination.
- Most parents raised their complaints with the school principal (168 parents), school staff (140 parents) or DEECD (94 parents).
- Some parents said that they did not complain because they thought it would not make any difference (35 parents). Some others were afraid there would be repercussions if they complained (22 parents).

Source: https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/static/a249b58be47f371a70d6d012f297dc1d/Resource-Held_back_fact_sheet_What_parents_told_us-2012.pdf

Need more? I thought so.

Community Attitudes & Behaviours towards Autism; and Experience of Autistic People and their Families

Prepared by Centre for Health and Social Research, Australian Catholic University, Social Research Centre for AMAZE 12 December 2017.

35% of Autistic students do not complete year 10 or above.
44% of Autistic students in secondary school had to move schools because they weren’t supported.
74% of Australians agree that schools should make adjustments for Autistic people.
56% of Autistic people reported being treated unfairly in education.
97% of Autistic students experience educational restrictions
Australians overwhelmingly agree that Autistic people are discriminated against (84%) and that more should be done to support Autistic people in schools (74%) and workplaces (70%).
The only adjustment reported by more than half of respondents was to identify a person/teacher at school for them to contact/exchange information about the child’s needs and progress at school (58.1%); although this suggests that a substantial proportion of schools have not taken even this minimal step.
The only other modifications reported by one-third or more of respondents were the establishment of clear routines and avoidance of changes (43.4%), provision of an education aide to meet the student’s needs (39.7%), and modification of the curriculum (33.2%).
Just under one-quarter (23.3%, n=178) reported that their family member/person they care for has had to change schools due to the school not being able to support their autism. This was more common amongst students of secondary school than primary school age (44.% compared to 19%, p < 0.001)

Lucky last, I promise. I need to add that this study was completed in 2016. Seven years & as far as I know, nothing has changed.

Meeting the Needs of Students on the Autism Spectrum and with Dyslexia

The Victorian State Government: Review of the Program for Students with Disabilities

Currently, there is no clear inclusive education policy or framework that articulates how the Department plans to provide inclusive education for students with disabilities.

There is no disability specific workforce capability strategy and although there are a range of existing professional learning opportunities, there remains a lack of consistent disability-specific professional learning for most school leaders and teachers. This means that the education workforce is often not well equipped to provide an inclusive environment or to respond to the differing needs of students with disabilities.
The existing approach to Individual Learning Plans is inconsistent, cumbersome and fails to adequately drive the progress of individual students. This is, at least in part, due to the lack of comprehensive systemic guidelines on their use and how the progress of students with Individual Learning Plans should be measured.

Students on the Autism Spectrum who are not supported under targeted PSD funding are not consistently well supported in their specific needs by all schools.

Again this brings me to my main question; are our Neurodiverse children ‘Students with a Disability’ or are they ‘disabled’ because they are students?

Sadly it’s very much leaning towards our children being disabled because the education system disables them.

It’s as though the Department of Education has specifically labelled or identified my children as ‘disabled’ or ‘student with a disability’ because they can’t very well call it a ‘student that’s going to be well & truly disadvantaged/disabled by the time we’re done with them’.

The terminology the Department of Education uses is in essence a visionary tale as it predicts our children’s future & their levels of success within their system. Because the Department of Education knows that no matter how it’s worded or referenced, our children are disabled by the very system that professes to support them.

This is devastating for our children & disheartening for parents. So many of us are literally faced with the decision of whether to focus on our children’s education or their long-term happiness/emotional well-being. I can tell you now if my children have to use all of ‘their spoons’ just to get through their days at school which leaves nothing left for anything else & it starts to affect their overall functioning & well-being, the choice between whether their education is more important than their life, I can tell you know which option would get dropped quicker. Their education would take a back seat to their overall well-being. And by back-seat, I mean at a whole other ballpark.

What is SO hard about *really* looking at the curriculum to see if the content is inclusive. How can education become more accessible?

Let’s give teachers the support & permission to modify tasks & requirements if they can see that what’s in the framework is just not going to work for some students.
We need educators & support staff to apply the ‘effort vs benefit’ method to amendments &/or accommodations they’re considering. For example, suppose it takes five minutes to develop a visual display outlining the set task. In that case, this will reduce the frequency of interruptions of those students who will need the task to be re-explained & keep the students who have understood the requirements, to stay on task, prompt them to check their work & ensure they’ve completed everything. In conclusion, that’s five minutes of effort invested, that literally assist & benefits ALL students.

Whether or not our children have the same rights to an education as others becomes insignificant if their access is disabled.

I have to believe that this isn’t all hopeless.

All the organisations, foundations & Government bodies such as the Disability Royal Commission that's currently taking place are all listening to the voices of our children, listening to the voices of the parents, & documenting the roadblocks & challenges that our children face in accessing their education, we have to hold onto hope that there will be systemic change & we will see real inclusion.

But for now, I feel resigned by the fact that our Neurodiverse children are likely to graduate from school being ‘Disabled for being Students of an unsupportive & inaccessible system’ & a system is anything but inclusive.

From what I know & what I’ve experienced so far this is literally the most unAusome thing ever!