‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers ... · Web view2020/11/24 · Author...

—Centre for Program EvaluationMelbourne Disability Institute

24 November 2020

Centre for Program Evaluation | ‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers and Providers in Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case Study’ –Literature Review of 18

‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers and Providers in Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case Study’ –Literature ReviewPrepared for Laverton Community Education Centre and Yarraville Community Centre

Acknowledgments Version Number Status Date Submitted

Version 1 Draft 13 Oct 2020

Version 2 Complete 24 November 2020

The Melbourne Disability Institute and the Centre for Program Evaluation at The University of Melbourne would like to acknowledge the assistance given to the researchers in this evaluation by the staff, students, parents/carers, teachers and support workers associated with the Laverton Community Education Centre and Yarraville Community Centre. The researchers were very grateful for your time.

Past reports Date Submitted

Rutter, A., & Dennis, M. (2020). Support Workers as Mediators between Learners,

Carers and Providers in Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case

Study. Prepared for Laverton Community Education Centre and Yarraville

Community Centre. Centre for Program Evaluation and Melbourne Disability

Institute, The University of Melbourne.

13 May 2020

Table of Content


Contact DetailsAnthea Rutter (Project Lead) Research Fellow, Centre for Program Evaluation Melbourne Graduate School of Education 6/100 Leicester Street, The University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC Phone: +61 3 8344 6304 Email: [email protected]: 0417 569 649

Ana Garcia-Melgar Research Fellow, Centre for Program Evaluation Melbourne Graduate School of Education Phone: +61383442430 Email: [email protected]

Megan Dennis (Literature Review Author)Research Assistant, Centre for Program Evaluation Melbourne Graduate School of Education

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

s1. Introduction..............................................................................................................41.1. Background.....................................................................................................................4

1.2. Aim..................................................................................................................................5

1.3. Review Structure.............................................................................................................5

2. Methodology.............................................................................................................6

3. Definitions.................................................................................................................53.1. Autism and Intellectual Disability....................................................................................5

4. Findings.....................................................................................................................64.1. Post-Secondary Education for People With Disability.....................................................6

4.2. The Role of the NDIS in Education................................................................................10

5. Discussion and Recommendations...........................................................................115.1. Potential Benefits and Role for NDIS Funded Support Workers in Post-Secondary

Education Settings.........................................................................................................11

5.2. Limitations....................................................................................................................13

6. Conclusion...............................................................................................................13

References.......................................................................................................................15

List of AbbreviationsAbbreviation Full text

CPE Centre for Program Evaluation

LCEC Laverton Community Education Centre

MDI Melbourne Disability Institute

NDIA National Disability Insurance Agency

NDIS National Disability Insurance Scheme

VET Vocational Education and Training

YCC Yarraville Community Centre


1.Introduction1.1. BackgroundYarraville Community Centre (YCC) and Laverton Community Education Centre (LCEC) deliver accredited and pre-accredited programs to people with a disability. With the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) continuing to roll out, students with a disability have increasing access to one-to-one support workers. While the NDIS only funds support workers to facilitate engagement in education (e.g., for functional capacity), experience within educational programs suggests that these support workers are engaging with teachers, providers, and students in ever more diverse and complex ways.

In order to investigate this, the Melbourne Disability Institute, in collaboration with the Centre for Program Evaluation, recently completed an exploratory evaluation titled ‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers and Providers in Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case Study’, conducted for Laverton Community Education Centre and Yarraville Community Centre (Rutter & Dennis, 2020) (hereafter referred to as ‘the evaluation’ or ‘the evaluation report’).

The evaluation sought to explore the role of NDIS funded support workers in the classroom, and their impact on both individual and group learning. The results indicated that support workers were not only improving access to education for their client, but also had a positive impact on communication between client, education provider, and parents/carers, as well as supporting the education of the whole class.

This literature review, presented as a separate document in addition to the evaluation report, seeks to examine the existing research on support workers in education. This review is intended to provide context for the findings from the evaluation report, as well as useful evidence for YCC and LCEC in terms of possibilities and considerations for the role of NDIS funded support workers in the classroom.

While both LCEC and YCC reported similar evaluation results in terms of support workers facilitating whole group learning and improved access for their clients, it was noted that the contexts at the two centres differ. Learners at YCC were adults with disability, of middle age or older, who were primarily accompanied by support workers in the classroom that were NDIS funded and coordinated through Annecto, a local disability organisation. These support workers were provided on a small group basis (roughly three-to-one), however some students were supported on a one-to-one basis through their own NDIS packages. It was noted by YCC that not all students have access to an individual support worker, but that this would be greatly beneficial to their involvement and access to programs. Similarly to YCC, not all students at LCEC had access to an individual support worker, however those that did were all funded on a one-to-one basis directly through their own NDIS packages. Learners at LCEC were also of a different demographic - typically high-school leavers with intellectual disability and/or autism transitioning to post-secondary education (Certificate I in Work Education).

Given the differences in demographic and funding arrangements at YCC and LCEC, it was agreed to focus on one context rather than both in order to provide a more coherent review of achievable scope. After consultation with the research team and management from LCEC (representing both LCEC and YCC in this research) it was decided to focus the review on the context at LCEC, a Learn Local provider where the relationship with NDIS funded support workers was consistently direct through students’ own packages. An initial review of the literature indicated that such focus would be the most beneficial for the review in terms of both available literature and scope, given the direct nature of the NDIS funding and consistent one-to-one ratio. While this review focuses on the context at LCEC it is expected that the findings will also be applicable to YCC in terms of examining current evidence for the use of support workers in education settings.


1.2. AimAn initial search of the literature indicated very limited research on the role of support workers within education. Due to lack of research in the area, the aim of this review is to bring together existing research to provide context and evidence for the role of support workers in education. As such, the presentation of the following research is not a systematic review, but an integrative/critical review which considers the potential role of support workers in education in response to the limitations posed by the disconnect between NDIS and education.

1.3. Review StructureThe following review will cover:

Definitions for autism and intellectual disability Methodology Background and context of post-secondary education for young people with disability, particularly

intellectual disability and autism Current practice for inclusion of students with disability in education Relationship between the NDIS and education systems The potential benefits and role for NDIS funded support workers in education settings

2.DefinitionsThe primary disabilities reported for the student cohort at LCEC were autism and intellectual disability. Definitions of both are offered below in order to frame the language and understanding of autism and intellectual disability used within this review.

2.1. Autism and Intellectual DisabilityThe defining features of autism and intellectual disability are often framed as deficits within the medical model of disability. While useful for identifying and addressing the needs of these cohorts, it is also vital to define autism and intellectual disability by the strengths of individuals (Carter et al., 2015), and in relationship to the social model of disability.

When discussed within the medical model of disability, autism and intellectual disability are defined as neurodevelopmental disorders which can impair social functioning and learning. Intellectual disability refers to impairment in general cognitive and learning abilities, whereas autism is characterised by restricted or repetitive behaviour, interests and/or activities, and can also include impairment in communication (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The social model of disability, however, frames autism and intellectual disability not as a problem with the individual, but by the capacity for society to accept and accommodate all diversities of functioning, including neurodiversity (Graf, 2020; Krcek, 2013). Neurodiversity is an inclusive term for variations in brain functioning, such as autism and intellectual disability, that is preferred by many self-advocates. Particularly for autism, many also prefer the use of identity-first language (e.g. “autistic person”), as autism is considered a key part of their identity, contributes to unique strengths, and is treated with pride. This does not apply to all however, as opinions differ within the community, and as such both identity-first and person first (“person with autism”) will be used within this review (Robison, 2019).

The importance of identifying and acknowledging strengths in neurodiverse young adults was explored by Carter et al. (2015), who found that over 400 young people with autism, intellectual disability or both (aged 13-21 years old) were described as having multiple and unique strengths. These included interpersonal strengths such as loyalty, compassion and genuine care and concern for other people, as well as cognitive strengths such as strong maths skills and impressive memory, easily storing and recalling various facts and details. Other strengths included personality traits such as self-determination, resilience, dedication,


positivity and good sense of humour, and almost all of the young people in the study were described with five strengths or more (Carter et al., 2015).

Crucially, the strengths and needs of neurodiverse young people are as highly unique and individual as themselves. Carter et al. (2015) found that nearly a quarter of the young people described had a completely unique strengths profile from the rest of the sample, and a further quarter had very minimal overlap with other participants. Experiences of intellectual disability and autism are highly individual and variable, and are best understood as encompassing a wide variation in function and sensitivities that are not necessarily linear; e.g. an autistic individual may be non-verbal, but excel at written work. Similarly, the judgement of certain traits or mannerisms as strengths or weaknesses often depends on the lens they are perceived through (Graf, 2020; Krcek, 2013; Robison, 2019). Furthermore, it is important not to conflate autism and intellectual disability as, while there is occasionally overlap in the two groups, it is not always the case. For example, only 15% of NDIS participants with autism report intellectual disability as a secondary disability (National Disability Insurance Agency, 2018). Clearer understanding of each separate diagnosis will allow better targeting of support and resources, again reiterating the importance of understanding the unique and distinct strengths and needs of each individual (Sohn, 2020).

3.MethodologySearch terms and criteria were developed from the evaluation report, along with input from MDI and LCEC, and were refined and expanded as needed.

Databases such as Google Scholar, SocIndex, Medline, ERIC, CINAHL, Scopus, Psycinfo, and EBSCO were searched using combinations and variations of the following search terms: support workers, NDIS, education, 'teacher aide', 'teacher assistant', post-secondary, vocational, transition, intellectual disability, autism, ASD, Australia. Grey literature was searched with similar terms, and ancestral searches of reference lists in relevant articles were also conducted. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance to the topic and inclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria were to focus on research involving students and young adults with autism, intellectual disability, or both, and to focus on current literature (within 10 years) where possible. Australian literature was also prioritised where possible, with the inclusion of international literature where relevant.

4.Findings4.1. Post-Secondary Education for People With Disability4.1.1. Transition to Post-Secondary EducationThe transition from school to post-school activities can be a stressful change for many students and families, but particularly so for young people with disability. Research into the transition from school to post-school activities found that while families were excited to be part of the customary progression into adulthood, this period of time was also stressful for families of students with intellectual disability, with anxiety around the change in routine in combination with a loss of support and rapport with established services (Leonard et al., 2016). Results also showed that only half of students themselves were involved in their transition planning. The need for unique and individualised support in the transition process was highlighted by Carter et al. (2015) as the strengths, interests, and preferences among young adults with intellectual disability transitioning to post-secondary activities are as individual as themselves.

Although no Australian research on the topic of one-to-one transition assistance was found, a US study by Schindler, Cajiga, Aaronson, and Salas (2015) explored the use of a mentoring program for autistic students transitioning to post-secondary education. Eleven autistic students were involved in the program, which consisted of weekly (or twice weekly if desired) one-to-one mentoring sessions with master’s student studying occupational therapy (OT). The sessions aimed to develop goals and provide assistance to achieve


those goals in collaboration with the student, and were supervised by OT staff. Results of the program were positive, with almost all students (9 out of 11) successfully transitioning to, and remaining in, college. The study identified some key characteristics of the program which were believed to contribute to its success. Firstly, that the structure and routine provided by the program was beneficial for students, and secondly that the OT mentors were of similar age to the mentees, creating a positive and age appropriate relationship in which the mentors were also very familiar with the context of student life. Importantly, the authors expressed that supports should be individualised to each student, and extend on the successful supports used in secondary school (Schindler et al., 2015).

4.1.2. Support and Inclusive Education in Post-Secondary EducationPeople with disability are under-represented in post-secondary education, and face barriers to participation (Rillotta, Arthur, Hutchinson, & Raghavendra, 2020). The aim of inclusive education is to assist students to overcome those barriers and increase participation and access for all people with disability, including people with intellectual disability and autism (Rillotta et al., 2020; Venville et al., 2015).

In Australia, inclusive education in post-secondary settings can be conceptualised into three models as described by Rillotta et al. (2020):

Inclusive individual support model: As the name suggests, this is an individualised support system for students in general higher education courses, including certificates or degrees, attending alongside non-disabled peers.

Substantially separate model: This model refers to life skills or transition classes in which all students are students with disability, and can also include employment experience.

Mixed or hybrid model: A combination of both the individual support model and the substantially separate model. Students using this approach are supported to attend higher education, as well as taking part in life skills or transition classes.

As a provider of Certificate I in Work Education, the context at LCEC falls into the substantially separate category, and as a Learn Local provider receives additional state-government funding to support students with disability in Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses through the ‘Skills First’ program (Department of Education and Training Victoria, 2017). Unfortunately, although some research was found on support offered in VET classes, no direct research was found on the supports offered in classes falling under the ‘substantially separate’ model indicating the importance of the evaluation report on the role of support workers in education at LCEC (Rutter & Dennis, 2020). Apart from the NDIS funded support workers discussed in the report, LCEC also employed a teaching assistant as part of the program. While no evidence could be found for the use of teaching assistants in post-secondary education, a large body of literature exists for teaching assistants (also known as teacher aides or integration aides) in secondary and primary school settings.

Teacher AssistantsIn secondary and primary school settings, the responsibility of inclusion and accessibility for students with disability often falls to teacher assistants who are chosen by the school. A review of 61 international and Australian studies (mainly in primary and secondary schools) found that while teacher assistants can be effective in their role when given proper access to training and supervision, this was often not the case (Sharma & Salend, 2016). The authors found that the teacher assistant role was undermined by a lack of clarity around responsibilities, lack of training, and lack of communication resulting in poor outcomes for students. Other Australian studies also confirm this, indicating that the required qualifications and hiring practices of teacher assistants are not reflective of the important role they carry out in the classroom, and teacher assistants may not have the knowledge required to assist students with specific needs (Butt, 2018).

A small Australian study of seven neurodiverse secondary students did find, however, that some students felt that teacher aides helped them with their studies (Yeigh & Evans, 2014). Teacher aides carried out tasks


such as clarifying learning tasks and providing emotional and behavioural support. Students indicated that the aide made school easier for them, and that they did better with their support. Students were also asked what they did not like about teacher aide support, and indicated that there was concern that they might become too reliant on the aide support, and that it might impact their independence. Concerns about what other students might think of them for having an aide were also raised, however, one student indicated that the aide was also helping their peers which increased their acceptance. This study also echoed previous findings, in that teacher aides felt they needed more training and professional development, especially for the use of technology and for more information specific to disability (Yeigh & Evans, 2014). Overall, it appears that although teacher aides can support student learning when given enough access to training and supervision, the role of the teacher aide in school settings is often marred by poor hiring practices and lack of training and professional development specific to disability which may impact their ability to assist students with specific needs.

Reasonable AdjustmentsResearch on inclusive practices for students with disability in Australia primarily focuses on the provision of “reasonable adjustments” in the inclusive individual support model described above, however, not much is known about the details of how these supports are provided and their impact on inclusion and learning (Fossey et al., 2017). Reasonable adjustments include a range of practices to improve student access to education, including flexibility in assessments (e.g. providing more time, or different submission options), providing assistive technology and adaptive equipment, and also providing in class support staff (note-takers or other support personnel) and tutoring (Venville et al., 2015).

In a study on the process of implementing reasonable adjustments in an Australian university and VET institution, results showed that developing a plan and negotiating reasonable adjustments between the student, the disability support planner, and the teachers of each class was a difficult, complex and variable task, and was particularly difficult for students who do not have visible disabilities who reported that their adjustments were less accepted and understood by staff and other students (Fossey et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2015). Of the 25 students surveyed, all students indicated that they would prefer to be involved in a collaborative discussion between themselves, teaching staff, and disability planning staff to plan their reasonable adjustments, but this only occurred for one of the students in this study.

A similar Australian report by Venville et al. (2015) indicated that students felt that reasonable adjustments were enabling their participation in education, however, some students indicated that they were reluctant to ask for more help as they felt the disability services were already overwhelmed. The importance of understanding students with disability as experts in their own needs was highlighted by this report, as disability support planners were less detailed in their description of the support needs of the students. Given the complexity of student needs, disability support planners reported communicating with other institutions and attending conferences in order to keep up with available strategies and supports.

An international systematic review (mainly from the US and UK) of research into supports provided to autistic students in higher education settings also reiterated the difficulty in negotiating the supports required (Anderson, Stephenson, & Carter, 2017). Results from the 23 studies in the review indicated that supports provided internationally are similar to the reasonable adjustments provided in Australia. The research showed that these supports were generally effective for both academic and social outcomes, and that mentoring was a particularly effective support for students which will be discussed in the next section.

Individual Support in Post-Secondary EducationThe previous sections have discussed classroom level supports (e.g. teacher aides), as well as reasonable adjustments which includes a broad range of supports available for students in post-secondary education. This section will specifically explore the use of individual supports in post-secondary education, which includes the use of mentors as well as in-class individual support staff.


In their systematic review of international studies, Anderson et al. (2017) found mentoring in particular to be an effective support for students with autism in higher education settings, particularly as it addressed both academic and social needs. While this was an effective support for most students, similar concerns to those found for teacher assistant in schools also presented in the post-secondary setting; namely that there was concern about dependence on the mentor, and some students were concerned about how the support would be perceived by other students (Anderson et al., 2017). One study from Sweden also noted that working with someone unknown to the student created stress for them, and they found it difficult to communicate what their needs were to the mentor (Fleischer, 2012)

The Australian report on reasonable adjustments in post-secondary education by Venville et al. (2015) also provided some detail on the use of individual support staff. Students expressed that having an in-class support person and tutor was helpful to them, and also that they enjoyed that the support person was of similar age, echoing the findings discussed above from Schindler et al. (2015). Teachers also indicated that having support staff in class was helpful and needed, and discussed that these supports could also be useful for students in the class who may also have additional learning needs but have not yet been identified for disability support. Teachers in the study valued inclusive education, but were concerned about their capacity to dedicate time to assisting students with disability due to high work-load levels, and were concerned that time limitations might also impact their ability to communicate, coordinate and develop relationships with students requiring support. Furthermore, one student in Venville et al’s study indicated that the individual support tutor was removed when their improved academic performance was sustained, as it was assumed the support was no longer needed. The student, however, expressed concern that their grades had then suffered due to the support being removed (Venville et al., 2015).

Only one Australian study discussed individual support in more specific detail. Rillotta et al. (2020) explored the use of peer mentors in an inclusive individualised support model for students with intellectual disability. The participants in the study were four students with intellectual disability, and six peer mentors. The peer mentors did not have intellectual disability, were second year undergraduate students studying courses related to health and disability, and were supervised by a coordinator. The mentors worked with the students at least once a week and assisted with in-class learning and social inclusion. As peers, the mentors and students interacted as friends, and attended social events such as parties, and met other connected friends through this relationship if they chose to. Interviews with the students and mentors found that students really appreciated the support of their mentor in both academic and social settings. One student described that their mentor helped to explain things in class when the initial explanation was too hard to follow, while a mentor described assisting a student to stay in class during a difficult group assignment. Both students and mentors discussed enjoying the friendship and networks that were built between them (Rillotta et al., 2020).

A similar study from Ireland also found that individual support was helpful for autistic students (Quinn, Gleeson, & Nolan, 2014), however, this program was not provided as in-class support but through regular meetings to discuss goals, difficulties and strategies, and was run by experienced occupational therapists as part of the university’s disability services. Interviews with the students showed that many found the interventions were useful for both academic and social purposes. Activities that the students discussed included note-taking, daily planning and prioritising, and goal setting, as well as improving communication skills and self-care. When students were surveyed about what were the practical features of the service, it was noted that meeting with the same occupation therapist each time was particularly important. The authors indicate that the development of a therapeutic relationship and rapport with the student is recommended, especially as autistic students may have difficulty with change and in developing relationships (Quinn et al., 2014).

Overall, from the research reviewed here it appears that individual support for is particularly effective for students with autism and/or intellectual disability, especially due to being able to combine both academic


and social support in one. Individual support can be provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and could prove beneficial to students with disability in post-secondary education, however there is currently tension between what can be funded by the NDIS for educational purposes which is explored in the next section.

4.2. The Role of the NDIS in EducationThe NDIS, administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), commenced full roll-out in Australia in 2016 after a three-year trial period beginning in 2013, and is designed to provide choice, control and flexibility for people with disability in their supports (Ben Whitburn, Julianne Moss, & Joanne O’Mara, 2017a). Autism is the largest primary disability category for the NDIS (29% of active NDIS participants), closely followed by intellectual disability (27% of active NDIS participants) (National Disability Insurance Agency, 2018).

Importantly, although the NDIS is designed to provide choice and increase access to all areas of life, including education, support for access to education is limited under the scheme (Whitburn et al., 2017a; Ben Whitburn, Julianne Moss, & Jo O’Mara, 2017b). While the NDIS funds support for transport needs from the home to education, and for functional capacity (e.g. personal care such as feeding), the NDIS principles outline that the responsibility for access to education, including education supports such as learning assistants, falls to the education system, distinguishing educational access from functional capacity (Whitburn et al., 2017a; Whitburn et al., 2017b). Furthermore, a factsheet for the NDIS and higher education states that “If the education system is responsible for a support, the Scheme cannot fund that support, even if the education system does not provide it” (National Disability Insurance Agency, n.d., p. 2)

Although intended to work together, the separation of the education and NDIS systems has been a frustration for some families. Whitburn et al. (2017a) conducted a qualitative study of five families with children with intellectual or sensory disability attending primary or secondary school, and who have participated in NDIS since 2013 trial phase. Parents/carers took part in semi-structured interviews focusing on the intersection of education and their NDIS planning. Parents described initial difficulty in the planning process, finding it more rushed and formal than they expected. They also discussed the difficulty of accessing certain supports depending on their child’s diagnosis. Importantly, parents discussed the idea that the NDIS should take into account their child’s whole life, of which education is a very significant part.

While some parents expressed frustration and difficulty with the NDIS planning process, it was noted that it was a huge advantage to have the choice of who was supporting their child. One parent discussed how important choice was in selecting the people who support her daughter, which allowed them to work with support providers with whom they were comfortable and shared a strengths-based ideology which was important to the family. The parent felt that her daughter had thrived since being able to choose people to support her who treat the arrangement as a partnership, and who are part of a shared vision.

The authors express that the separation of NDIS supports and education “misses the opportunity for the NDIS to develop a coordinated program that would incorporate all of a child’s needs” (p. 1072), especially when the education system appears not be meeting the needs of student with disability (one parent discusses a wish to be able to use NDIS supports to help educate school teachers on how best to work with her child) and the confusing delineation of where support starts and ends (one parent talks about dropping off and picking up support when the school day starts and ends).

Parents from the study had differing experiences with education depending on how much they could negotiate and word their plans in order to receive the supports they needed. On one side was a parent who had to have speech pathology in their home, as opposed to school, in order to meet the requirements of keeping the supports separate which impacted family time. On the other hand, was a parent who was able to negotiate an OT in the school, which then had the flow on effect of educators having a better understanding of her child and the things that she is capable of. This parent expressed that usually the


funding for her child through education would go into aide support, which was not a holistic approach in their opinion, echoing findings discussed above.

The authors discussed that the successful, albeit surreptitious, negotiation of support in schools was evidence that the NDIS has the capacity to play a meaningful role in a child’s education but is restrained by the disconnect between education and NDIS.

All except the family that had successfully negotiated the inclusion of support in their school expressed frustration and difficulty with the separation of education and NDIS support. It was further noted that the family that did successfully negotiate was only able to do so from extensive knowledge, access to resources, and strong relationships with the service providers involved.

These findings are reinforced by evaluations of the NDIS, in which Mavromaras et al. (2018) found that while the needs within the NDIS and education systems were inter-related, and that education was an important priority in many NDIS plans, the connection between NDIS and mainstream services such as education remined an issue. Funding gaps between the NDIS and education systems were reported, and was justified by the NDIA as not being defined as ‘reasonable or necessary’. The evaluation did find, however, that the NDIS supported transitions and life changes, including educational transitions (Mavromaras et al., 2018).

Ultimately, Whitburn et al. (2017b) conclude that there is urgency required in connecting education and NDIS services in order to benefit participants as well as policy. While the NDIS is built on choice, research in field indicates that the deferral of all learning supports to the education system restricts choice in one of the most important areas of life for young people, and has disrupted the opportunity for seamless access to education for people with disability, despite the intent and publicization of the program (Whitburn et al., 2017b).

5.Discussion and RecommendationsInclusive education aims to reduce barriers and increase participation, however, multiple studies have found that negotiating and accessing appropriate support is complex, especially for students with autism or intellectual disability (Anderson et al., 2017; Fossey et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2015). The evaluation report of the use of individual NDIS funded support workers at LCEC and YCC found that this type of one-to-one support could have multiple benefits for multiple stakeholders (Rutter & Dennis, 2020). Further, an evaluation of the Skills First program found that access and equity in the VET system was an area with opportunity for improvement (Department of Education and Training Victoria, n.d.).

Based on the findings from both the evaluation report and the literature reviewed here, there are multiple areas which could be addressed by the use of NDIS funded one to one support workers in post-secondary education which are explored below.

5.1. Potential Benefits and Role for NDIS Funded Support Workers in Post-Secondary Education Settings

5.1.1. Individualised Knowledge of NeedsAs discussed by Carter et al. (2015), the strengths and needs of neurodiverse post-secondary students are unique to each individual, indicating the necessity for an individualised approach to support. Teacher assistants provided by the education system in school settings may not always be provided on a 1:1 basis, and may not be equipped to provide adequate support for every student (Butt, 2018; Yeigh & Evans, 2014). This is reinforced by Schindler et al. (2015) who, in their study of a one to one mentoring support, expressed the success of individualisation of support for each student.


5.1.2. Ease of TransitionThe process of transitioning from secondary school to post-secondary education is a stressful time, especially with concerns around the impact of losing established supports and relationships (Leonard et al., 2016). This not an unfounded concern, as multiple studies and reviews found that the process of coordinating support in post-secondary education was highly variable, complex and difficult to negotiate, especially for students who do not have a visible disability such as autism or intellectual disability (Anderson et al., 2017; Fossey et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2015). A recent evaluation of the NDIS found, however, that the NDIS was of assistance during life changes and transitions, including transitions in education (Mavromaras et al., 2018), indicating the potential for NDIS support in this area. Furthermore, a US study of a one to one assistance program for the transition to post-secondary education was found to be useful and successful (Schindler et al., 2015)

5.1.3. Allow Choice and Simplify the Relationship between NDIS and Education

Venville et al. (2015) expressed that students should be seen as experts in their own needs, and that disability support planners, while doing their best to continuously update their knowledge, did not demonstrate the same level of detail of understanding as students in the areas students needed support in. Furthermore, they found that support could be removed if the student was doing well and no longer considered to need it – a decision that was not in the hands of the student, and which they described as having a negative impact on their studies. This reflects the need for the decisions around supports to be in the hands of students and their families, which while offered by the NDIS, does not extend to the education system (Whitburn et al., 2017a; Whitburn et al., 2017b). It was found, however, that when NDIS support could be coordinated in education settings, it was considered a significant advantage to the parents who expressed that it meant that their child was receiving support from someone who worked with them and their child in partnership (Whitburn et al., 2017a). Furthermore, a recent evaluation of the NDIS showed that the supports needed across NDIS and education are inter-related, and that gaps between the two system remains an issue (Mavromaras et al., 2018). This was reinforced by findings that some students in post-secondary education were hesitant to access educational support due to the belief that the services were already overwhelmed (Venville et al., 2015)

5.1.4. Supporting the Whole ClassA key finding from the evaluation report was that support workers at LCEC and YCC were not only supporting their individual client, but were also supporting the class as a whole. This concept was not explored in the literature as a key feature, however it was noted in one study that the teacher aide was not just helping their assigned student, but the other students in the class as well (Yeigh & Evans, 2014). Teachers in post-secondary settings also expressed that support staff could be helpful for their classes. Teachers discussed that while they were keen to facilitate inclusion for students with disability, they are often too time-poor to engage in all of the actions that they would like. Teachers also indicated that the presence of support staff might be helpful for other students in the class who were not currently receiving additional support (Venville et al., 2015). As discussed by Whitburn et al. (2017a), the use of NDIS supports could also provide opportunities to educate teachers and other staff in best practices and ways to support a particular student.

5.1.5. Academic and Social Support CombinedAn international review of literature found that one to one support (often described as mentoring) provided effective support to students as it encompasses both academic and social needs (Anderson et al., 2017). The research explored in the current review also confirms this statement; that in-class supports and mentors are providing not only educational support (such as clarifying tasks and explanations, goal setting and prioritisation), but social and behaviour support (e.g. building friendships and developing self-care strategies) as well (Quinn et al., 2014; Rillotta et al., 2020; Yeigh & Evans, 2014). This raises the question if it is possible to draw a line between the two, as the NDIS seeks to do, as both are intertwined and connected to the inclusion, access and success of neurodiverse students in education. As discussed by Whitburn et al.


(2017a) continuing to separate the NDIS and education systems creates a missed opportunity to address all of a student’s needs.

5.1.6. CommunicationWhile the role of support workers in improving communication between students, families and education providers was a key finding from the evaluation, it was not discussed as a specific outcome by the literature reviewed here. What was apparent from the literature, however, was that one to one mentors and support facilitated communication and social outcomes as discussed above, as well as the need for students to be included in conversations about their support needs, and the current lack of communication with students in the support planning (Fossey et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2015), both of which could potentially be addressed with a dedicated support worker.

5.1.7. Importance of RapportA key take-away from the literature reviewed here was the importance of rapport with support staff for neurodiverse students. Quinn et al. (2014) found that students indicated it was particularly important to be working with the same support person over time, and that the development of a therapeutic relationship was vital to the delivery of support, especially as developing relationships and handling change can be challenging for autistic students. Similarly, Fleischer (2012) found that negotiating a new relationship with a new support person created additional stress for some students, and structure and routine was found to be beneficial to students by Schindler et al. (2015). It was also discussed that having support staff who are similar in age was beneficial to students not only in building a relationship but also in their knowledge of student life (Schindler et al., 2015; Venville et al., 2015). The use of support workers could address these areas, as well as address the loss of rapport and established relationships currently felt in the transition from secondary to-postsecondary education (Leonard et al., 2016).

5.1.8. Considerations Some considerations for the use of one-to-one support workers were discussed in the literature, primarily around the concern that students might become dependent on that person (Anderson et al., 2017; Yeigh & Evans, 2014). More research is needed to determine if this is the case, however, and evidence from Venville et al. (2015) indicates that the removal of supports too early can damage academic success, especially when not done in collaboration with the student. Some students also raised concerns about how their use of a support person might be perceived by other students, however, these findings emerged from settings involving non-disabled peers who may not have an understanding of disability (Anderson et al., 2017; Yeigh & Evans, 2014), and further clarification is needed to confirm if this would also be the case in non-mixed settings such as LCEC. Furthermore, Yeigh and Evans (2014) found that the risk of exclusion or judgement felt by the student was mitigated when teacher assistants helped not only their assigned student, but other students in the class as well. Given the whole group support reported in the evaluation of individual support workers at LCEC and YCC, this is already occurring and having positive effect on the acceptance of support workers in the classrooms there and highlights the importance of achieving this group support if it is to be applied in other settings.

5.2. LimitationsAs discussed, this review was not a systematic review due to the limited information on the specific topic. The research covered in this review was based in adjacent education settings (secondary schools and inclusive higher education) however none could be found within a context that was the same as that at LCEC. Of the research reviewed, common limitations were found. Although there were exceptions, many studies were of small cohorts and used mainly qualitative methods, limiting the generalisability of their findings. Also, while much of the research was strong in exploring user perceptions, very few studies provided evidence for the outcomes described, or provided follow-up or longitudinal data to explore impacts over time.


6.ConclusionThe evaluation of ‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers and Providers in Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case Study’, conducted for Laverton Community Education Centre and Yarraville Community Centre revealed that individual support workers could provide multiple benefits for students and other stakeholders in post-secondary education settings (Rutter & Dennis, 2020). The evidence reviewed here highlights the importance of this research, as no literature could be found on this topic, nor on inclusive support practices in the context specific to LCEC as a Learn Local provider for students with disability. Based on both the findings from the evaluation and from the literature found in this review, there is strong evidence to suggest that one-to-one NDIS funded support workers could address the need to improve support for neurodiverse students in post-secondary education (Anderson et al., 2017; Fossey et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2015). Not only could the use of one-to-one support workers remove barriers and improve access and participation for students, the presence of support staff in class also assists teachers and other students in the classroom – a key finding from the evaluation report for both YCC and LCEC, and also supported by findings in the literature (Venville et al., 2015; Yeigh & Evans, 2014). This whole group support is a crucial aspect to consider as it underpins the inclusivity and acceptance of the support worker in the classroom environment. Perhaps most importantly, encouraging the use of NDIS support workers in education could address current gaps and improve collaboration between education and NDIS systems, and secure the provision of choice to ensure the individual needs and strengths of students with disability are met (Whitburn et al., 2017a).


ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®)

(5th ed.): American Psychiatric Pub.Anderson, A. H., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2017). A systematic literature review of the experiences and

supports of students with autism spectrum disorder in post-secondary education. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 39, 33-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2017.04.002

Butt, R. (2018). ‘Pulled in off the street’and available: what qualifications and training do Teacher Assistants really need? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 217-234.

Carter, E. W., Boehm, T. L., Biggs, E. E., Annandale, N. H., Taylor, C. E., Loock, A. K., & Liu, R. Y. (2015). Known for My Strengths:Positive Traits of Transition-Age Youth With Intellectual Disability and/or Autism. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(2), 101-119. doi:10.1177/1540796915592158

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (2017). Skills First: Community Training Providers Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/skillsfirst/Documents/SkillsFirstFactSheets/SkillsFirstFactSheetCommunity.pdf

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (n.d.). Skills First. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/training/providers/funding/Pages/skillsfirst.aspx?Redirect=2

Fleischer, A. S. (2012). Alienation and struggle: Everyday student-life of three male students with Asperger Syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 14(2), 177-194.

Fossey, E., Chaffey, L., Venville, A., Ennals, P., Douglas, J., & Bigby, C. (2017). Navigating the complexity of disability support in tertiary education: perspectives of students and disability service staff. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 822-832.

Graf, W. D. (2020). Beyond Autism: Advocacy for Neurodevelopmental Differences. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(4), 30-33. doi:10.1080/15265161.2020.1730503

Krcek, T. E. (2013). Deconstructing Disability and Neurodiversity: Controversial Issues for Autism and Implications for Social Work. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 24(1), 4-22. doi:10.1080/10428232.2013.740406

Leonard, H., Foley, K.-R., Pikora, T., Bourke, J., Wong, K., McPherson, L., . . . Downs, J. (2016). Transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disability: the experiences of their families. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(12), 1369-1381. doi:10.1007/s00787-016-0853-2

Mavromaras, K., Moskos, M., Mahuteau, S., Isherwood, L., Goode, A., Walton, H., . . . Flavel, J. (2018). Evaluation of the NDIS. Final report. Adelaide: National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University.

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2018). Outcomes for participants with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Retrieved from https://data.ndis.gov.au/reports-and-analyses/outcomes-participants-autism-spectrum-disorder

National Disability Insurance Agency. (n.d.). Supports the NDIS Will Fund in Relation to Higher Education and Vocational Training. Retrieved from https://www.adcet.edu.au/download/attachment/9181-2/

Quinn, S., Gleeson, C. I., & Nolan, C. (2014). An occupational therapy support service for university students with Asperger's syndrome (AS). Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 30(2), 109-125.

Rillotta, F., Arthur, J., Hutchinson, C., & Raghavendra, P. (2020). Inclusive university experience in Australia: Perspectives of students with intellectual disability and their mentors. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 24(1), 102-117. doi:10.1177/1744629518769421

Robison, J. E. (2019). Talking about autism—thoughts for researchers. Autism Research, 12(7), 1004-1006. Rutter, A., & Dennis, M. (2020). Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers and Providers in

Learn Local Disability Programs: An Exploratory Case Study. Prepared for Yarraville Community Centre and Laverton Community Education Centre. Centre for Program Evaluation and Melbourne Disability Institute, The University of Melbourne

Schindler, V., Cajiga, A., Aaronson, R., & Salas, L. (2015). The experience of transition to college for students diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 3(1), 2.


https://www.adcet.edu.au/download/attachment/9181-2/

https://www.adcet.edu.au/download/attachment/9181-2/

https://data.ndis.gov.au/reports-and-analyses/outcomes-participants-autism-spectrum-disorder

https://data.ndis.gov.au/reports-and-analyses/outcomes-participants-autism-spectrum-disorder

https://www.education.vic.gov.au/training/providers/funding/Pages/skillsfirst.aspx?Redirect=2

https://www.education.vic.gov.au/skillsfirst/Documents/SkillsFirstFactSheets/SkillsFirstFactSheetCommunity.pdf

https://www.education.vic.gov.au/skillsfirst/Documents/SkillsFirstFactSheets/SkillsFirstFactSheetCommunity.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2017.04.002

Sharma, U., & Salend, S. J. (2016). Teaching assistants in inclusive classrooms: A systematic analysis of the international research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8), 7.

Sohn, E. (2020). The Blurred Line between Autism and Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/the-blurred-line-between-autism-and-intellectual-disability/

Venville, A., Fossey, E., Chaffey, L., Ennals, P., Douglas, J., & Bigby, C. (2015). Supporting tertiary students with disabilities: individualised and institution-level approaches in practice: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Whitburn, B., Moss, J., & O’Mara, J. (2017a). The National Disability Insurance Scheme and access to education: progressive or coercive policy discourse? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(10), 1065-1079. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1348549

Whitburn, B., Moss, J., & O’Mara, J. (2017b). The policy problem: the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and implications for access to education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 467-479.

Yeigh, T., & Evans, K. (2014). What do elves wish for? A new look at the role of teacher aides. Paper presented at the Australian Teacher EducationAssociation Annual Conference.


https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/the-blurred-line-between-autism-and-intellectual-disability/

https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/the-blurred-line-between-autism-and-intellectual-disability/

Centre for Program EvaluationMelbourne Graduate School of Education 100 Leicester Street, The University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC


Phone: +61 3 8344 8394Email: [email protected]


‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers ... · Web view2020/11/24 · Author...

Documents

Transcript of ‘Support Workers as Mediators between Learners, Carers ... · Web view2020/11/24 · Author...