Poed, Shiralee (2015) Adjustments to Curriculum for Australian School-Aged Students with Disabil- Ities:What’S Reasonable
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Poed, Shiralee (2015) Adjustments to curriculum for Australian school-aged students with disabil- ities:What’s reasonable. PhD thesis, Griffith University Queensland. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/201394/ c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https:// research-repository.griffith.edu.au/ handle/ 10072/ 365259 Adjustments to curriculum for Australian school-aged students with disabilities: What’s reasonable? Shiralee Poed Dip. Teach. Sec., 1989 (BCAE); B.Ed.St., 1991 (UQ); M.Ed.St., 2001 (QUT) School of Education and Professional Studies Arts, Education and Law Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 2015 Page | ii Abstract This study explored Australian discrimination cases involving students with disabilities to identify why adjustments to curriculum were a source of tension, and then further examine what were reasonable adjustments? Despite parents and educators citing tensions surrounding the provision of adjustments in discrimination claims, few studies have examined how commissioners and judges have determined the reasonableness of curriculum adjustments. Using a qualitative line of inquiry, 134 Australian judicial decisions involving 84 students with disabilities were initially identified and examined using the explanation of reasonableness, outlined in section 3.4 of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE). Analysis of the 134 decisions revealed an upward trend in litigation, with claims mainly emerging in Government schools, particularly in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland. After eliminating cases where issues around curriculum were not discussed, 92 judicial decisions involving 54 Australian students with disabilities remained, and were the focus for detailed analysis. The first sub-question explored what counted as a disability when determining adjustments to curriculum. Findings revealed tensions around the qualifications of practitioners diagnosing disabilities, and the validity of assessment measures used with some populations. Findings further revealed tensions relating to the record-keeping practices of both families and schools. Concerns were noted in relation to students who chose not to disclose their disability, students ineligible for additional resourcing, and students where the impact of the disability on learning fluctuated. A key implication from these findings was the need to address the discrepancy between the legislated definition of disability, and that used Page | iii by schools to identify students eligible for additional resourcing to support their educational needs. The second sub-question explored whose voice was heard when determining adjustments to curriculum. The findings showed it was reasonable that students with disabilities have a voice in decision-making whenever possible, although the voices of students with disabilities were rarely heard. Typically the student’s parent was consulted, with schools at times not acting on the desires of families, especially where the school determined it was not in the student’s best interest. Issues were noted in cases where parents self-represented during litigation. A key finding from this analysis identified the need to improve ways in which students, and their families, can meaningfully engage in educational decision-making. The third sub-question explored whose interests were considered and how these were balanced when determining whether adjustments to curriculum were reasonable. Findings revealed limited attention in litigation on the benefits of providing adjustments, with families arguing some adjustments were in place for the benefit of the school, rather than the student. When balancing interests, behaviour that impacted on the learning of others or that posed a risk to health and safety of others received significant attention, as did hardships imposed by additional costs related to staffing, resources, administration, and modifications. A major finding showed further scrutiny is required in the way benefits are measured, and how economic rationalism can be balanced against theoretical and philosophical arguments for inclusion. The final sub-question considered how academic integrity was maintained when providing curriculum adjustments. Findings revealed academic integrity received limited attention for school-aged students with disabilities. Recommendations were proposed for: (a) Page | iv families, (b) professional practice, (c) policy, and (d) future research based on the findings from this study. As the first comprehensive Australian study that has extensively examined disability discrimination issues with a specific focus on adjustments to curriculum, this research has made an important contribution to the field by clarifying how schools and parents understood the concept of reasonableness, and how it was treated in judicial decision-making. This better understanding of the phrase reasonable adjustments, as relevant to curriculum, has served two purposes. First, it has added to the knowledge about one of the variables (curriculum) that contributes to tensions between parents and educational authorities in relation to disability discrimination. Second, it offers educators and parents a better understanding of how to negotiate curriculum adjustments to minimise the likelihood of future litigation. Page | v Statement of Originality This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. Shiralee Poed August, 2015 Page | vi Statement of Appreciation And the Oscar goes to ... Best Supervisor in a Leading Role Best Supervisor in a Supporting Role Professor Deb Keen Dr Barbara Garrick Thank you Deb. You’ve been with me from the You joined me on this journey right at the end, start, and completion of this work would simply but it was your supportive comments and helpful not have happened without you. advice that shaped this final version. Other nominees: Professor Joy Cumming Professor Rod Gardner Dr Elizabeth Dickson Best Editing (joint winners) Best Production Design (joint winners) Professor John Hattie & Dr Kerry Woods Dr Jenny Tannock-Bland, Dr Nick Hopwood & Associate Professor Susan Edwards As colleagues at the University of Melbourne, For research training and ideas that have you kindly read the final draft of this work, and I strengthened the design of my thesis, I offer my am indebted for your feedback and generosity. thanks. Runner up (Draft script editors): Professor CT Patrick Diamond Professor Ralph Mawdsley Best Lead Actor Best Supporting Actor (joint winners): Gerard Poed Natalie Swayn, Satine Winter & Digger the Wonder Dog (Awarded posthumously) For reading countless drafts, editorial assistance You are my sunshine. (Satine), fielding countless phone calls, and being/laying beside me every step of the journey. For family, friends, colleagues from Griffith University and the University of Melbourne, fellow HDR students, and ice skating coaches and team-mates, who encouraged, listened, supported, understood when I missed important events, and cared – thank you. And to the Australian students, their families, and the educators and practitioners whose stories are captured within this thesis, I thank you. Page | vii Note on Citation Style This thesis crossed the fields of both law and education. This posed an issue in relation to citations. I have adhered to using the American Psychological Association (APA) format, as required by the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University. APA does not provide guidance on how to format Australian legislative materials, including legislation and case law. Alternatively, citation of Australian legal material is set out in the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). The AGLC adopted the convention of footnoting, at odds with how to reference in APA. To resolve this issue, I have chosen to follow the convention of attribution authorship of all legislation to the ComLaw website and, after first use, adopted a consistent abbreviation for the full name of each Act. To improve readability of the judicial decisions cited throughout, I have used the name of the complainant, year and page, paragraph or section information as the pinpoint reference, rather than