S - Department of Education and Training · Web viewDue in part to the bullying and in part to...

Submission to the Department of Education and TrainingOn the proposed changes to Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing with concern about the proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017 and specifically the section dealing with home education.

I home educate my son 8, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) together with an abnormally high level of anxiety. He also has Attention Deficit & Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) presenting him with multiple learning challenges. He was bullied in school because he was “different to the other kids.” The school staff did not want to admit they had a “bullying problem” at their school so they ignored complaints from both the child and the parents.

Due in part to the bullying and in part to the teaching staff at the school refusing to address his educational “special needs” the child would come home at the end of his day emotionally exhausted and highly stressed. As a result he couldn’t sleep properly, he would have constantly recurring emotional “meltdowns” and eventually he wasn’t able to go to school. This was an extremely difficult time for us as his parents and it took a full six months for him to “calm down” after we took him out of the school environment.

I include here a copy of the letter that I sent to the office of The Hon. James Merlino MP the Minister for Education, together with a carbon copy to The Hon. Nick Wakeling the Shadow Minister for Education; asking, “Would you be so kind as to address the following items please?”

a) The current mainstream education system is failing to cater adequately for children with special needs due to medically caused learning difficulties; in both public and private schools.

b) Where a school is not providing a safe learning environment for a special needs child, the parent needs to have adequate recourse to hold the school concerned culpably responsible for their action or inaction in relation to that child.

For example, a special needs child is repeatedly bullied by older children in the playground, out of sight of the playground staff. The child complains and is growled at for doing so and the parent’s complaints are also either dismissed or ignored by staff.

c) Misappropriation of funding provided for a special needs child.For example, when a parent (at the insistence of the school) goes to the expense of obtaining relevant medical support information, and submits an application for a special needs, in-class aid for their child. The relevant funding and the aid is provided to the school for that particular child. Then the school blatantly ignores the needs of that child they have been funded for and posts said aid person, to another child, in another class, leaving the funded child to fend for himself.

d) Teaching staff show no regard for the needs of the special needs child concerned, expecting their (the child’s) performance to be the same as a normally healthy child; despite their (the staff) having been provided with evidence of that child’s special needs from the child’s paediatrician, psychologist, speech and behavioural therapists.

e) During parent meetings, the school staff maintained, “the child is performing well in class and we have no problems with him.” Meanwhile, the child’s school term reports showed well below standard performance, with no mention at all of the child’s special needs or learning difficulties, despite the school staff having full awareness of these problems.

of 31

In situations such as these a conscientious parent has no option but to remove the child from the offending school immediately, and home educate. With the inception of the proposed changes to the regulations, such action by the parent will be nigh-on impossible. Rendering the affected child at further risk of abuse and neglect from within the school system.

The parent will be unable to take action to ensure the care and safety of their child, which is a direct violation of the rights of the child under international law and UN treaty agreements.

In support of my concerns mentioned above, I respectfully request you seriously consider the safety of our children in schools, in order to avoid such problems in future. There are many instances that clearly demonstrate my sad experiences with the current education system are not in isolation. (see Appendix C).

Home education has been a wonderful experience for our family as it has allowed us to structure his learning to suit his special needs and his abilities. I have the full support of his medical professionals team. His paediatrician, psychologist, behavioural therapist and our family GP; as well as his Pinarc case manager. (Pinarc is a disability services organisation in Ballarat).

As a home schooling parent I have a number of major concerns with the proposed changes to the regulations governing home education. Many details too open-ended and therefore open to abuse or the varied interpretation of members of the DET and/or VRQA who are not able to make decisions for changes that are in the best interests of my child, and free to alter or increase these regulatory requirements at any point without oversight or consultation with interested or affected parties outside of their respective departments.

The proposed regulations specify the requirement of a plan. However, there is absolutely no detail given as to what type of plan they are likely to require. There is also no detail as to how those plans are to be assessed, the criteria to be used, the processes under which a plan would be accepted, rejected or a rejection appealed. This is not a draft of proposed regulations, which fills me with any confidence whatsoever.

The proposed changes show no understanding of the nature of home education or the needs of children with additional needs in this type of education.

The VRQA staff have shown themselves to be quite unsupportive of home education. If these are the people who will be assessing the plans, they will need a huge attitude change. If plans are required they should be assessed by people who are comfortable with, and knowledgeable of and have at least 10 years of experience with various methods of home education.

There was no substantial consultation with stakeholders at any point in this process. Experienced home educators should be a key part of any discussion to change regulations. They have our contact details through our registration - they should have consulted us! However, yet again DET and VRQA staff fail to realise that any child’s parent is that child’s primary educator and world expert (bar none) in relation to that child’s needs; educationally medically, emotionally and spiritually.

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) claims that these changes are in order to collect data on the success or otherwise of home education. This seems like an expensive and ineffective method of data collection. It would make far more sense to commission research to find the data they desire than to alienate the entire community with these draconian changes. I am quite confident that any such research would support the already available body of research which shows that home educated students do as well as, or better than, school-educated children in every aspect.

Perhaps that’s why they don’t want to implement such a research project. They’re fully aware they have a faulty system that doesn’t deliver especially where special needs kids are concerned. They’re too hard to cope with, so they just fail them. I’m not impressed with the way mainstream education whether public or private, handles special needs students.

of 31

The safety of our children is at stake and this is where the system fails the special needs students the most. The changes propose that, if a child needs to be withdrawn from school to be educated at home, the parents would need to research and write a plan for the next 12 months before submitting that plan and waiting up to 28 days for it to be accepted. Only then would they be able to withdraw their child from school.

Given that many families home educate as a last resort for the mental or physical well-being of their child, this is an extraordinarily dangerous proposal. To leave a bullied child, or one struggling with a disability of mental illness, for months in an environment causing them irreparable harm while the parents try to manage the red tape, is insupportable!

The proposed regulations go beyond the charter of human rights:Here is an easy to follow summary of how the proposed regulations go beyond the charter of human rights and responsibilities act 2006, Education and training reform act 2006 & the Universal declaration of human rights.

Universal declaration of human rights article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the education of their own children.

Breach of the charter of human rights and responsibilities act (2006) Page 15, Protection of families and children 17 (2) Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

Breach of the Education and training reform act (2006) Page 19 Part 1.2, Principle 1.2.1 (d) Parents have the right to choose an appropriate education for their child.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee:

The functions of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee are –(a) to consider any Bill introduced into the Council or the Assembly and to report to the Parliament as to whether the Bill directly or indirectly –

For the reasons stated Part 6 Home schooling in the proposed draft education regulations, SARC regulations review should find that:

Functions Section 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 provides—(1) The Scrutiny Committee may report to each House of the Parliament if the Scrutiny Committee considers that any statutory rule laid before Parliament

(a) does not appear to be within the powers conferred by the authorising Act; (The Act does not give the Minister the power to make this kind of regulation.)

(b) without clear and express authority being conferred by the authorising Act- (The draft Regulations contain no criteria by which an application for registration of a child as a student for home schooling may be decided. This creates a risk that these powers will be exercised arbitrarily, which is inherently undesirable in a society which values the rule of law and accountability for the exercise of public power).

(ii) imposes any tax, fee, fine, imprisonment or other penalty; (makes rights, freedoms or obligations dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions; is non reviewable unless taken to VCAT? This is also a breach which will consider registrations of homeschoolers possibly at the costs of the family, parents or guardians which will also inadvertently place a significant and unacceptable financial and psychological burden on home educating families due to the unknown decisions of full powers being granted to VRQA) or

(iii) purports to shift the onus of proof to a person accused of an offence; (The draft education regulations contain no requirement for the VRQA to afford procedural fairness when considering applications for registration including plans, this shifts the onus onto parents, guardians and families if registration is rejected because there is no criteria for what plans are acceptable to VRQA.)

(b) appears to be inconsistent with the general objectives of the authorising Act; (The draft education regulations were done without any consultation with stakeholders, home educators etc.P, the VRQA have all the current emails of 31

of registered homeschoolers and no one from the department of education and training attempted to contact them for consideration when the draft was prepared. Not to mention the numerous studies done on home education in Australia, see here:

Fundamental Elements in Examining a Child's Right to Education: A Study of Home Education Research and Regulation in AustraliaJackson, Glenda; Allan, SoniaInternational Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, v2 n3 p349-364 Jul 2010

Home education provides valuable educational and developmental opportunities for children. An examination of Australia's research indicates many best educational practices, including more informed mediation, contextualised learning, and opportunities to exercise autonomy. Key features include learning embedded in communities and program modification in response to students' needs. Current state and territory legal requirements are examined within the context of this research and Australia's obligations to international human rights treaties. All jurisdictions accept home education as one way to meet compulsory education requirements. The extent to which respective laws then reflect understanding of home education research and practice varies. Most jurisdictions allow for a variety of educational approaches. Some oversight regulation could however be modified to reflect a better understanding of home education. Consultation with home educators and reference to research would assist the development of more uniform legislation and policy across Australia, and enable better regulatory practice.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052038

Other countries such as New Zealand struck out reviews of homeschoolers in 2009; due to the low risk they posed and that they could not justify the costs involved. Go to this link to find the relevant information: http://hef.org.nz/2009/no-more-ero-reviews/

(d) makes unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the authorising Act having regard to the general objectives of that Act. This creates a risk that these powers to VRQA will be exercised arbitrarily, which is inherently undesirable in a society which values the rule of law and accountability for the exercise of public power.

(f) unduly trespasses on rights and liberties of the person previously established by law; The draft Regulations trespass on the Education Act (2006) Principle 1.2.1 (d) as noted above; also on the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) Part 2 - Human Rights, Section 17 (2) Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

The draft Regulations contain an implicit bias against home schooling:The draft Regulations contain an implicit bias against home schooling, contrary to the principle that parents have the right to choose an appropriate education for their child. Parents who want to home school their children will need to satisfy the VRQA that they are able to adequately teach their children. But the VRQA has no obligation to be satisfied that there are satisfactory alternatives to home schooling. If the VRQA refuses an application, the parent will be required to register the child with a school.

This assumes that there are school options available which provide adequate instruction and which are otherwise suitable for the child. However, this will not always be the case. Parents who decide to home school their children typically do so due to inadequacies and failings with the school system, including wanting to ensure their children are free from bullying, abuse or for mental health etc.

The proposed changes to the draft education regulations are discriminatory:The proposed changes to the draft education regulations are discriminatory in that this may have the outcome that a parent is required to register their child with a school system that has already failed to provide a safe and satisfactory educational experience, and which in some cases, may have actively harmed the child either physically, emotionally or both.

(g) makes rights and liberties of the person unduly dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions (VRQA are administrative and will be making decisions about rights under Education Act 2006 Page 19 Part 1.2 –

of 31

Principle 1.2.1(d), and about children's rights. Also under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) Page 15 Protection of families and children Section 17 (2) Protection of families and children (2) Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

(g1) unduly requires or authorises acts or practices that may have an adverse effect on privacy of health information within the meaning of the Health Records Act 2000; (It is unknown how VRQA will establish it’s power over parents, guardians, children and families, therefore it is unknown as to whether VQRA will expect families who register for homeschooling to go through a procedural process such as medical proof etc., which could have adverse effects on privacy and health.)

(h) is inconsistent with principles of justice and fairness; (for same reasons as written above)

(i) requires explanation as to its form or intention; (for same reasons as written above)

(k) is likely to result in administration and compliance costs which outweigh the likely benefits sought to be achieved by the statutory rule. (Again please see the similar information in New Zealand which couldn’t justify costs, see here: http://hef.org.nz/2009/no-more-ero-reviews/ )

(2) A report of the Scrutiny Committee under this section may contain any recommendations that the Scrutiny Committee considers appropriate, including a recommendation that a statutory rule should be-

(a) disallowed in whole or in part; or;

(b) amended as suggested in the report.

Legal Responsibility For and Regulation of Home Education in Australia.

Having considered the research on home education in Australia, it is possible to consider where Australia lies with respect to legal responsibility and regulation of home education. The extent to which it reflects understanding of Australian home education is also examined.

Australia as a Party to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Rights of the Child.Australia as a Party to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child That every child has a right to an education is recognised in international instruments such as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) (1990) to which Australia is a signatory. The UDHR provides that ‘education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages’ [and] that ‘elementary education shall be compulsory...’; and that ‘parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children’ (Article 26(3)). Similarly, CROC provides ‘states parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right ...shall make primary education compulsory and available free to all; and encourage the development of different forms of secondary education...’ CROC also provides that ‘states parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.’ (CROC, Article 2(2)). This supports the argument that a child should not be discriminated against or punished should their parents choose to undertake the responsibility for educating their child/ren themselves because of their beliefs.

These documents therefore require that education should be compulsory and place responsibility for such education in the hands of both parents and the state. Neither the UNDHR nor CROC dictate what must be taught, however they do emphasise certain values that compulsory education should reflect. They both provide that education be ‘directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’ (UNDHR Article 26(2), CROC (Article 29(1)(b)), and that ‘it shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups...’ (UNDHR Article 26(2), CROC (Article 29(1)(d)). Further CROC emphasises education should include ‘the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own’ (Article 29(1)(c));

of 31

and ‘the development of respect for the natural environment’ (Article 29(1)(e)). The extent to which Australia has adopted such principles is now discussed.

The Law in Australia.Australia is a federation, under which the Commonwealth, state and territory governments each have responsibility for governing different matters (Australian Constitution Act, 1900). Education is a matter that falls to the individual states and territories and is therefore regulated separately in each jurisdiction. Australia is a party to both the UNHDR and CROC. In Australia all states and territories have legislation requiring compulsory education from the age of six to seventeen years (Education Act, 2004 (ACT), s10(2); Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic), s2.1.1; Education Act 1972 (SA), s75; School Education Act 1999 (WA), s9; Northern Territory of Australia Education Act 2010 (NT), s21; Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld), s9; Education Act 1990 (NSW), s21B, Education Amendment Act 2009 (NSW); Education Act 1994 (Tas), s4). All jurisdictions recognise home education as a legal pathway to meet compulsory education requirements, subject to parents registering their child for home education (Education Act 2004 (ACT), s10(2); Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic), s2.1.1; School Education Act 1999 (WA), s10(b), s48; Northern Territory of Australia Education Act 2010 (NT), s21(1)(b); Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld), Chapter 9 Part 5; Education Act 1990 (NSW), ss70-74; Education Act 1994 (Tas), s17) or gaining an exemption from the compulsory attendance requirements (Education Act, 1972 (SA), s76). This reflects the principles discussed above in relation to the UNHRD and CROC in that education is compulsory and that parents may choose what kind of education their child will undertake (both of which are enshrined by the state). The extent to which the laws operate and/or the state plays a role thereafter varies amongst jurisdictions, as does a reflected understanding of what home education is and how it may be best facilitated. It is to discussion of our state’s respective jurisdiction that I now turn.

In Victoria.In Victoria paper application and yearly notification is required that demonstrate a commitment to provide regular and efficient instruction, substantially addressing eight key learning areas in a manner which is consistent with the democratic principles outlined in the Education and Training Reform Act (Education and Training Regulations, 2007 (Vic)). Review may occur where there is a concern that democratic principles and/or key learning areas are not being addressed. Victorian legislation prohibits Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority personnel from visiting the residences of homeschooling parents without their consent (Ibid, s5.8.4.1(b)). If such a visit is agreed to, the child being home schooled is not required to be present and an advocate for the parent may be present (Ibid).

Health Australia Party's policy on Home Education:1. HAP supports home education as a viable schooling choice. Conducted responsibly, home education has

been shown to result in positive learning outcomes, and balanced, happy children. Child-led learning has been substantiated as an effective learning model, congruent with childhood developmental requirements.

2. The home education community is diverse, but shares a fundamental respect for the individual needs of children. HAP echoes the thoughts of the Home Education Association INC which among other things, believes "...home educators must be allowed to deliver an educational program that is based on the individual needs of the child and not constrained by year levels or subject boundaries..."

3. Home education reduces the financial and infrastructure burdens upon government and HAP firmly believes that the administration of home education should be made approachable and user friendly. HAP supports an in-depth review to quantify the Government savings generated by home education, and believes guidance around the future financial assistance model offered to the homeschooling community would be valuable.

CONTRADICTION:If I have understood it correctly; referencing from RIS pp31 and 35 that the weighted scores for criteria indicate the department gives 'ZERO' value to parent choice?

Parent choice scored '0' and '0' under the base case and option 1. Yet the paragraph immediately following the score table says something about "balance between quality and regulatory burden and the parents right to choose." ????

of 31

Recommended Outcomes:1. To disallow the proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017 for the reasons

cited in this submission, and in consideration of the fact that many of the proposed changes amount to clear breaches of current international and Australian legislation.

2. Because of the reasons stated above and elsewhere herein; the Homeschooling section Part 6 Pages 30-33 in the proposed draft education regulations should be struck out or appropriately amended.

3. To use the Health Australia Party's policy on Home Education as an integral part of the proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017.

4. That the concerns and negative experiences of parents of children with special needs; such as those children with ASD, ADHD, ODD, and associated varying levels of anxiety; are seriously considered and allowed for in the proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017.

5. That the proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017 include an education reform modelled on the Finnish education system, which is already considered one of the best in the world; and to incorporate the changes proposed in the renewal of their educational program as outlined in the item discussing the matter. (see Appendix C below).

6. These proposed changes to the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017, and the accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) are contrary to and in direct breach of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (see Appendix B below), which Australia as a signatory is obliged to legislate into both Commonwealth and state laws.

7. These proposed changes, as written, constitute a direct beach of Australian Commonwealth and Victorian state law regarding human rights issues (see Appendices A & D below). This could conceivably incur easily avoidable, future litigation aimed at DET, VRQA and the prevailing governments of both the state of Victoria and the Commonwealth of Australia in relation to aforesaid breaches.

Further to my own statement above, I fully concur with the findings and the recommendations of the following authors listed in the various appendices listed below.

Sincerely yours,

David A Chapman

14 February 2017

of 31

Appendices:

Appendix A:Concerns with the Draft Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017

1. The Department of Education and Training has issued draft Regulations which are proposed to be made under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

2. They are available at: www.education.vic.gov.au/about/department/legislation/Pages/act2006regsreview.aspx

3. The draft Regulations will empower the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) to refuse parents the ability to home school their children.

4. This document summarises the key concerns from a legal and human rights perspective. The draft Regulations undermine human rights.

5. The draft Regulations undermine the human rights of parents and their children. They propose to confer on the VRQA the power to refuse parents the ability to register their child for home schooling, without specifying any criteria relating to the exercise of that power, and without containing any requirement of procedural fairness.

6. Refusing an application for registration of a child as a student for home schooling would deny parents the right to determine the most appropriate education for their children, and may have a significant impact on a child’s educational, emotional and psychological wellbeing. The draft Regulations are not authorised by the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

7. The draft Regulations go beyond the power conferred by the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, which means that it is likely that they could be struck down as invalid. This is because:

a) The courts will not readily find that regulations can confer power to refuse the ability to home school without express authorisation in the Act.

b) The Act does not give the Minister the power to make this kind of regulation.c) The Act states that “parents have the right to choose an appropriate education for their child”.

The courts will likely not allow the Minister to make this kind of regulation when it contradicts a foundational principle of the Act.

The draft Regulations contain no criteria:8. The draft Regulations contain no criteria by which an application for registration of a child as a student for home schooling may be decided.

9. This creates a risk that these powers will be exercised arbitrarily, which is inherently undesirable in a society which values the rule of law and accountability for the exercise of public power.

The draft Regulations contain no requirement of procedural fairness:10. The draft Regulations contain no requirement for the VRQA to afford procedural fairness when considering applications for registration.

of 31

11. This means that the VRQA could refuse an application without giving the parent any prior warning of its intention to do so, and without providing reasons for the refusal. The draft Regulations are biased against homeschooling.

12. The draft Regulations contain an implicit bias against homeschooling, contrary to the principle that parents have the right to choose an appropriate education for their child.

13. Parents who want to home school their children will need to satisfy the VRQA that they are able to adequately teach their children. But the VRQA has no obligation to be satisfied that there are satisfactory alternatives to home schooling.

14. If the VRQA refuses an application, the parent will be required to register the child with a school. This assumes that there are school options available which provide adequate instruction and which are otherwise suitable for the child.

15. However, this will not always be the case. Parents who decide to home school their children typically do so due to inadequacies and failings with the school system, including wanting to ensure their children are free from bullying.

16. This may have the outcome that a parent is required to register their child with a school system that has failed to provide a satisfactory educational experience, and which, in some cases, may have actively harmed the child. Suggested changes to the Regulations.

17. For these reasons, the draft Regulations expose the VRQA, the Department and the Minister to significant legal and reputational risk.

18. The sections of the draft Regulations which relate to home schooling should be struck out.

19. If not, the draft Regulations should be amended to include requirements of procedural fairness and criteria by which an application may be decided.

20. The draft Regulations should also include a “satisfactory alternative” criterion: that is, before rejecting an application for registration, the VRQA should be required to be satisfied that there is a satisfactory school alternative to home schooling reasonably available to the child.

Additional comments:21. Regulations can be disallowed by either house of Parliament. This would require a majority of members of the Assembly or the Council to vote in favour of disallowance. The government has a majority in the Assembly and would be unlikely to disallow the Regulations.

22. A court will also have the power to strike down the Regulations as invalid.

23. Note that any decision made by VRQA will be subject to review in VCAT. If VRQA refuses an application for home schooling, the affected parent will have the right to apply to VCAT to have the decision overturned, and will also be able to require the VRQA to provide reasons for the decision.

Ben SaundersConstitutional human rights lawyer and lecturerDeakin UniversityGeelong Victoria Australia

3 February 2017

of 31

Appendix B:United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Article I:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4:No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5:No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6:Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7:All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8:Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10:Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

of 31

Article 11:1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14:1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15:1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16:1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17:1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18:Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

of 31

Appendix C:Finland Will Become the First Country in the World to Get Rid of All School Subjects

Finland’s education system is considered one of the best in the world. In international ratings, it’s always in the top ten. However, the authorities there aren’t ready to rest on their laurels, and they’ve decided to carry through a real revolution in their school system.

Finnish officials want to remove school subjects from the curriculum. There will no longer be any classes in physics, math, literature, history, or geography.

The head of the Department of Education in Helsinki, Marjo Kyllonen, explained the changes:

“There are schools that are teaching in the old-fashioned way which was of benefit in the beginning of the 1900s — but the needs are not the same, and we need something fit for the 21st century.“

Instead of individual subjects, students will study events and phenomena in an interdisciplinary format. For example, the Second World War will be examined from the perspective of history, geography, and math. And by taking the course ”Working in a Cafe," students will absorb a whole body of knowledge about the English language, economics, and communication skills.

This system will be introduced for senior students, beginning at the age of 16. The general idea is that the students ought to choose for themselves which topic or phenomenon they want to study, bearing in mind their ambitions for the future and their capabilities. In this way, no student will have to pass through an entire course on physics or chemistry while all the time thinking to themselves “What do I need to know this for?”

The traditional format of teacher-pupil communication is also going to change. Students will no longer sit behind school desks and wait anxiously to be called upon to answer a question. Instead, they will work together in small groups to discuss problems.

The Finnish education system encourages collective work, which is why the changes will also affect teachers. The school reform will require a great deal of cooperation between teachers of different subjects. Around 70% of teachers in Helsinki have already undertaken preparatory work in line with the new system for presenting information, and, as a result, they’ll get a pay increase. The changes are expected to be complete by 2020.

of 31

Appendix D: Review of the Education and Training Reform Act Regulations

Submission to the Department of Education and Training

Review of the Education and Training Reform Act Regulations

6 February 2017

of 31

Contact: Julie PhillipsDisability Advocate

of 31

Introduction.......................................................................................3

A. RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM STANDARDS41. Quality of Education for Students with Disabilities. 4

1.1 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission....................4“Held Back” Report

1.2 Victorian Auditor General’s Office “Programs for Students.......................6with Special Learning Needs”

1.3 Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s Inquiry Into …6Violence, Abuse and Neglect against People with Disabilities

1.4 Review of Program for Students with Disabilities...............................7

2 What Has Changed Since Reports/Inquiries?............................................8

B. REGULATION 25 - ABUSE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.................11

C. PROPOSED HOMESCHOOLING REGULATIONS.........................................12

1. Context for students with disabilities attending Victorian....................12government schools.

2. Regulations...........................................................................................................132.1 Regulation 72 (3) (c)...................................................................................132.2 Regulation 74..............................................................................................142.3 Regulation 76..............................................................................................15

D. SUMMARY..................................................................................................................15

E. RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................17

of 31

IntroductionThe writer is a Disability Advocate who has been working in the disability sector since 1990. Since 2000 the writer has been assisting people with disabilities through general advocacy, and by assisting them to make complaints of discrimination, supporting law firms who require specialised assistance to work effectively in this area.

Her history includes working for disability service providers at a grassroots and senior management level, and involvement on numerous Boards in the disability sector, current today. The majority of her work is voluntary.

A significant number of students being home-schooled are students with disabilities, and this submission is made in that context.

The majority of the writer’s work consists of complaints against the Department of Education and Training (“DET”) due to high demand, many of which settle at the Federal Court of Australia.

Due to her work, the writer has a unique insight into the formal and genuine position and attitude of DET towards students with disabilities and their rights, assuming that documents prepared for the purpose of litigation are true and correct.

As has been set out in discrimination cases that DET has settled, students with disabilities have suffered the following due to their school experiences:

self-harm psychological damage depression anxiety suicidal ideation trauma lack of education

In the above discrimination cases, the parents of those students have suffered: psychological damage depression anxiety suicidal ideation

The above reflects the critical nature of education for students with disabilities in Victoria.

of 31

A. RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM STANDARDS1. Quality of Education for Students with Disabilities

1.1 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission “Held Back” Report

1.1.1 In 2012, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission ("the Commission") released its report into the quality of education for students with disabilities in Victoria.1

1.1.2 The Commission undertook its research project into this area in response to concerns expressed by parents, advocates and community members relating to inaccessible education for many students with disabilities in Victoria.

1.1.3 The Main Findings are numerous and can be found in the report but include:

1.1.3.1 discrimination still exists in Victorian schools;

1.1.3.2 one in four educators had witnessed discrimination;

1.1.3.3 significant barriers still exist for students with disabilities;

1.1.3.4 barriers include funding limitations, lack of specialist supports, inadequate knowledge and training in disability among teachers, lack of time for teachers to provide an individualised approach for students with disabilities, and discriminatory attitudes;

1.1.3.5 some educators care deeply about their students and are frustrated by resource and capacity constraints;

1.1.3.6 DET has developed many valuable programs, policies, guidance and curriculum supports – these have the capacity to make an enormous difference, however, these are applied inconsistently by schools and are not effectively monitored by the DET;

1 http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/our-resources-and- publications/reports/item/184-held-back-the-experiences-of-students-with-disabilities-in-victorian- schools-sep-2012

of 31

1.1.3.7 a decent education is “hit and miss”;1.1.3.8 schools continue to refuse to enrol

students with disabilities;1.1.3.9 schools continue to refuse to allow

students with disabilities to attend full time;

1.1.3.10 requested adjustments could be partially made or not at all;

1.1.3.11 there was a lack of teacher training and specialist supports;

1.1.3.12 students with disabilities were refused access to excursions, school camps and other extracurricular activities;

1.1.3.13 bullying is a significant widespread problem for students with disabilities requiring urgent attention;

1.1.3.14 inconsistent Student Support Groups, if any;

1.1.3.15 inconsistent Individual Learning Plans, if any;

1.1.3.16 suspension and expulsion due to disability;1.1.3.17 restraint and seclusion was a significant

problem and was often unrecorded;1.1.3.18 students with disabilities were having their

human rights breached;1.1.3.19 students with disabilities often travelled for

many hours on buses to get to specialist schools without food, water and toileting facilities, violating their rights;

1.1.3.20 parents feared repercussions if they complained to DET;

1.1.3.21 the Program for Students with Disabilities was an inadequate tool to address supports for students with disabilities;

1.1.3.22 there are no systems for routinely monitoring how students with disabilities are faring in school;

1.1.3.23 there are no key performance indicators for the Program for Students with Disabilities.

of 31

1.2 Victorian Auditor General’s Office “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” 2

1.2.1 In 2012 Victorian Auditor General’s Office released its report and found the following.

1.2.1.1 students with disabilities are receiving very different levels and types of supports across different schools;

1.2.1.2 schools required greater access to specialised support;

1.2.1.3 DET does not monitor the quality of Student Support Groups or Individual Learning Plans compromising the quality of support provided to students with disabilities;

1.2.1.4 students with disabilities were discouraged from enrolling in particular school;

1.2.1.5 despite the millions of dollars being spent on supports for students with disabilities, DET does not measure the effectiveness of that support;

1.2.1.6 policies and procedures are not being consistently implemented;

1.2.1.7 the DET complaints system is inadequate for the purpose of identifying areas of concern;

1.2.1.8 there was a lack of clarity around restraint and seclusion practices;

1.2.1.9 measurable performance indicators for the Program Students with Disabilities were needed.

1.3 Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s Inquiry Into Violence, Abuse and Neglect against People with Disabilities

1.3.1 This National report 3 dealt with restrictive practices in schools across Australia at 4.100-4.141.

1.3.2 The Committee’s views included:

2 http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20120829-Special-Learning-Need/20120829-Special- Learning-Need.pdf

3http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_abu

se_neglect/Report

of 31

1.3.2.1 the treatment of students with disabilities did not meet community expectations and standards;

1.3.2.2 there appeared to be systemic problems within the education system that led to many inappropriate practices;

1.3.2.3 parents were not able to refuse the use of “restrictive practices”, or be involved in the decision-making process;

1.3.2.4 proven positive behavioural management tools needed to take the place of restrictive practices;

1.3.2.5 the Committee was highly disturbed at the evidence around “restrictive practice”;

1.3.2.6 some of the practices constituted a national shame in the Committee’s view.

1.3.3 In terms of how the report related to the Victorian DET, the numerous Victorian examples of abuse were provided to DET Secretary Gill Callister for comment. Ms Callister replied with the assistance of the head of the DET Legal Division Kate Rattigan. Neither employee refuted one example of abuse, and instead personally attacked the writer by providing misleading information to the Committee. See Submission 131, DET Response toSubmission, and Julie Phillips Response to DET.4

1.4 Review of Program for Students with Disabilities

1.4.1 This review completed by DET in 2015 included the following observations:

1.4.1.1 even students with low-level disabilities complete Year 12 at a rate that is 25% lower than their peers;

1.4.1.2 the design and operation of the Program for Students with Disabilities needs to be improved;

1.4.1.3 some schools are refusing to enrol students with a disability;

1.4.1.4 the lack of coherent and visible policy has meant that it has been difficult to develop a culture of inclusion;

4http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_abu

se_neglect/Submissions

of 31

1.4.1.5 additional training and specialist expertise needs to be provided to schools;

1.4.1.6 teachers’ scope to support students with disabilities needs to be improved;

1.4.1.7 schools do not understand how to maximise the use of integration aides;

1.4.1.8 professional development needs to be increased;

1.4.1.9 schools do not implement individual support planning consistently;

1.4.1.10 there are issues with teachers measuring the progress of individual students;

1.4.1.11 there is a lack of data on the outcomes for students with disabilities;

1.4.1.12 there is not adequate transparency and accountability;

1.4.1.13 there needed to be improved data collection, linkages and analysis to support enhanced planning, reporting and accountability;

1.4.1.14 the transition from Year 6-7 needed to be improved;

1.4.1.15 there needed to be a new funding model which involve comprehensive monitoring and tailoring of support to meet student needs;

1.4.1.16 the current Program for Students with Disabilities results in inequitable outcomes;

1.4.1.17 schools do not use evidence based interventions when supporting students with autism and dyslexia;

2 What Has Changed Since Reports/Inquiries? 2.1 Very little has changed since these reviews and inquiries, indicating that DET has

little appetite to address the issues raised over the years. It is important to note that the reports set out above only cover the last five year period, not the reports noting similar failings that have been written prior to that period.

The DET response to the Review of the Program Students with Disabilities is typical of its response to all of the previous enquiries and reviews. In the main, recommendations that are “low hanging fruit” and which will not

of 31

substantially address the systemic and numerous problems for students with disabilities are the recommendations that DET is willing to put into place.

The recommendations from the above-mentioned Review that DET have accepted include the following:

providing opportunities for further actions; providing guidance, policies and strategies - none that are

mandatory; undertaking feasibility studies; considering issues and actions; developing options; trialling tools; making training “available” (rather than mandatory); having more investigations; raising awareness

The most significant recommendation which would have positively affected access to education for students with disabilities, which was reform of the entire Program for Students with Disabilities and its funding method, has not been accepted.

2.2 Similarly, in relation to the previous reports, research and reviews going back to 2015, few if any of the “big ticket” items have been addressed.

Individual Education Plans continue to be produced in any format or not at all. There is no mandatory template. DET has made its formal position on Individual Education Plans very clear - it does not believe them to be a reasonable adjustment for students with disabilities. DET accepts and defends plans that are “unwritten”.

Student Support Groups continue to occur in an ad hoc fashion or not at all. DET has made its formal position on Student Support Groups very clear - it does not believe them to be a reasonable adjustment for students with disabilities.

Behaviour Plans continue to occur in an ad hoc fashion or not at all. There is no mandatory template. DET has made its formal position on Behaviour Plans very clear - it does not believe them to be a reasonable adjustment for

of 31

students with disabilities. DET accepts and defends plans that are “unwritten”.

Restrictive Practices/Assault and False Imprisonment

As can be seen in Section C, DET propose to continue to rely upon what has been Regulation 15, and which is now proposed to be Regulation 25. This is despite widespread calls for it to be removed. Regulation 25 will continue to override any behaviour guidelines.

Measurable Outcomes

Teachers continue not to understand what a measurable outcome is. A quote from Acting Principal Anna Rigoni in a letter dated 15 August 2016 which had the imprimatur of the Legal Division states: “It seems you are requesting goals with measurable outcomes developed in a style similar to those a clinician will provide, rather than an educator. Teachers work within an educational model not a clinical or therapeutic model. Teacher observations inform judgement about students’ current level of ability, their learning needs (goal setting) and their learning progress.”

Therefore despite criticisms beginning with the Victorian Auditor General’s Office in 2012 - continuing to 2015 in the Review of the Program for Students with Disabilities about a lack of measurable outcomes, it seems that DET have no intention of enforcing any requirement for measurable outcomes.

The lack of knowledge about the difference between “judgement” versus data, and what the word “measurable” means, is clearly insurmountable while the current DET leadership is in place.

School Buses

Students with disabilities continue to travel for hours in school buses without any access to food, liquid or toileting facilities, in breach of their human rights, with the imprimatur of DET.

of 31

B. REGULATION 25 - ABUSE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESRegulation 25 Restraint from danger

A member of staff of a Government school may take any reasonable action that is immediately required to restrain a student of the school from acts or behaviour that is dangerous to the member of staff, the student, or any other person.

Regulation 25 is unacceptable.

The interpretation of “reasonable action” is completely subjective. “Behaviour that is dangerous” is completely subjective. Regulation 25 allows, for example, for the physical restraint of a student if they are about to kick another student in the shins. It allows violence against a student by a school staff member if a student is predicted to, for example, throw a ruler at another student.

Regulation 25 (Regulation 15 in the current regulations) has been used by the Legal Division, and by DET Regional Offices, to excuse any type of assault or false imprisonment of students with disabilities to date. This is documented.

Behaviour policies and guidelines are irrelevant to DET when reports are made of assault and false imprisonment of students. While work is currently being carried out on new behaviour policies and guidelines, it is anticipated that once again they are to be only “guidelines” and will not be mandatory. Therefore, teachers can always be excused of violence against students with disabilities with behavioural problems, as Regulation 25, having the legal standing it does, will be seen as being superior to any “guidelines” for staff.

Recommendations by the Commission in relation to the Education and Training Reform Act in relation to restrictive practices have been ignored.

It could be seen to be that Regulation 25 does not comply with the rights of children under domestic and international human rights legislation, as it allows the abuse of students with disabilities in broad circumstances.

If Regulation 25 is retained, it is likely that the abuse of students with disabilities with behaviours of concern will continue in:

the absence of mandatory procedures for staff; the continued use of behavioural “trainers” with martial arts

backgrounds; the use and endorsement of “behaviour analysts” with no relevant

qualifications to carry out behaviour analytical tasks; the recent push for teachers to carry out behaviour analytical tasks.

of 31

[REDACTED – Case Study 1: consisting of three sentences about another individual]

It is important to note that Minister James Merlino did not make any censure of Bendigo Special Developmental School when an investigation at the end of 2015 confirmed reports of internal cages in classrooms.

This is the environment that applies to students with disabilities under the current Minister.

C. PROPOSED HOMESCHOOLING REGULATIONS1. Context for students with disabilities attending Victorian government schools.

Given that set out in Section A, the current environment for students with disabilities in Victoria can be described as follows.

1.1 DET are spending millions of dollars defending and settling complaints by students with disabilities of discrimination against it, without addressing the systemic issues that are causing such discrimination.

1.2 Students with disabilities do not have the same access to education as students without.

1.3 Students with disabilities with behaviours of concern are at significant risk of physical violence in the form of restraint from DET staff if Regulation 25 remains.

1.4 Students with disabilities with behaviours of concern are likely not to have their behaviours mitigated until DET makes responses to behaviours of concern mandatory, adopts mandatory evidence based approaches and makes a decision to engage qualified practitioners. There is no indication from DET that this will occur.

1.5 The basic supports for students with disabilities such as Student Support Groups and Individual Education Plans continue to be

of 31

inconsistent and ad hoc. There is no indication from DET that this will change.

1.6 There are no measurable outcomes for students with disabilities, either from an individual perspective or program perspective. There is no indication from DET that this will change.

1.7 Bullying of students with disabilities is a significant and widespread problem.

1.8 Students with disabilities travelling on buses to special schools are at risk of dehydration and humiliation through no access to toileting facilities.

Due to the above, a reasonable person can conclude that the Victorian school system presents an educational, physical and psychological risk to students with disabilities.

2. Regulations2.1 Regulation 72 (3) (c)

This regulation requires, amongst other things, that learning plans must accompany applications for home schooling.

Given that schools do not need to produce learning plans, it is a mystery as to why parents should be required to.

It is fact that many Victorian schools have often not been able to produce:

evidence of any learning any minutes of meetings to plan the education of a child individual education plans behaviour plans data on learning or behaviours evidence as to how assessments of educational attainment have

been arrived at modified curriculum

Given the above and that set out in Section 1, it seems that home educators are being held to a far greater standard than Victorian public schools. Parents of students with disabilities who are forced into educating their students at home, and those that choose such an education without such pressure, deserve an explanation as to why they are being held to such a high standard.

of 31

Any delay approving the plan may engage human rights legislation due to a delay in withdrawing the child in hostile circumstances.

2.2 Regulation 74

Given that set out in Section C (1), it is inappropriate that students with disabilities are expected to wait 28 days in a setting which may be physically and/or psychologically harmful to them while bureaucrats make a decision on home education.

Home education is often due directly to the inability of DET to meet the educational and safety needs of students with disabilities, and often not a decision that parents take voluntarily or lightly.

Forcing a student with a disability to continue in an environment which is causing them harm could expose those that make the decision to prolong such an experience to further legal action.

Deliberately exposing a child to physical or psychological harm may be seen to engage domestic and international human rights legislation.

The proposed regulations seem to infer that parents are making considered decisions about home-schooling due to a simple preference for such, when for many parents of students with disabilities, it is a decision forced upon them by DET in order that they protect their children.

Decisions to home school are often made after protracted and unsuccessful negotiations with individual schools and regional offices to provide reasonable adjustments or protection for children with a disability.

To make withdrawal of these children difficult is reckless and does not take into consideration all the circumstances in Section

of 31

Case Study 2.A primary school age girl with Autism Spectrum Disorder was routinely subjected to restraint and seclusion over a period of several years, until her psychologist recommended that she be home-schooled and not attend any school due to trauma. Her mother had no intentions of home-schooling but was forced into the decision due to the treatment of her daughter by school staff.

2.3 Regulation 76

The need for permission to exempt a student from key learning areas is something which is again, not required or expected of Victorian schools.

Students with disabilities are often prevented from accessing particular subjects in the school situation.

Indeed, students who are denied full-time attendance due to their disability are by virtue of this, denied access to numerous subjects. DET does not need to give parents an explanation, or ask for their permission to exclude them from segments of their education - they simply do it, whether with the agreement of the parent or not .

Yet parents of disabilities who home school are again expected to meet a higher standard than DET. Parents deserve an explanation as to why.

3. SUMMARYThe Regulatory Impact Statement at page 7, first paragraph, states that “Parents have the right to choose an appropriate education for their child.” They do not.

They do not have the right to:

have an Individual Education Plan in place for their child which they endorse;

have a Behaviour Plan in place for their child which they endorse; decide whether their child should repeat a year due to academic or

social lag; have Student Support Groups that meet DET guidelines; have reasonable adjustments put in place for their children; be involved in the selection of integration aides that will be working with

their child; prohibit the physical restraint of their child; a functional communication method for their child; academic teaching.

Given the lack of those rights, the option of home-schooling is vital, and needs to be made as simple as possible.

of 31

Case Study 3.A recent school report for a secondary student for 2016 did not include English or Maths subjects. The student had been deemed “not academic” by teaching staff because he had an intellectual disability

On page 7, DET states “The Department considers the current regulatory approach for home schooling to be unable to adequately assure quality in the instruction or educational progress of home-schooled children.”

The question has to be asked as to why home schoolers should be required to assure quality in instruction when all reports and reviews conclude that DET do not.

If there is any misconception about the adequacy of the qualification of teachers in Victoria/Australia, one only needs to refer to the many reports about their general lack of ability - such reports being numerous over the last decade. To quote the most recent reports5, which are not new, teachers themselves are experiencing difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy.

DET states that home-school parents do not “have to demonstrate any specific understanding of instructional practices that will meet their child’s needs” as if this is a problem. Neither do DET teachers. It is put as a problem that home schoolers do not have to provide any detail about how they will “address key learning areas”. Neither do DET teachers, as Individual Education Plans, can be in teachers’ heads according to sworn evidence and submissions given by DET to the Federal Court.

DET are concerned about children receiving “low quality learning experiences due to poor teaching and will instructional practices within a school, or may suffer poor health or well-being outcomes due to their learning environments.” p14

Numerous state and federal inquiries and reports indicate that students with disabilities already are receiving those experiences in Victorian government schools.

More disturbingly, the evidence is that despite receiving this information repeatedly over decades, DET have no intentions of rectifying the situation. This begs the question overall as to why home schoolers should be held to standards that DET are not.

The argument for NOT making regulations tighter for home schoolers is not simply a “they don’t so why should we” argument. It is much deeper and more disturbing than that.

When there is a perfectly good alternative to home-schooling for students with disabilities which is clearly superior to that of home-schooling, then it may be appropriate for authorities to press for details as to how a home schooling option will achieve the same standard which could be achieved at a local government school.

of 31

5 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-teachers-fail-to-meet-literacy-and-numeracy-test-before- entering-classrooms-20170130-gu1nn6.html

of 31

However the evidence is that for many students with disabilities, the local government school, and in particular special schools with their lack of belief in capacity, is not only not superior, but grossly inferior to home-schooling and sometimes dangerous to health and safety. For some students whose school experience is fraught with violence from school staff, even without academic teaching, home-school offers at the very least, safety.

In these situations, keeping a child at home just in order to protect them from harm is not only a sensible choice but a loving parent’s obligation and responsibility.

Lastly, the claim by DET that “The proposed regulations provide for the care, safety and wellbeing of students in government schools, particularly relating to student behaviour and responses to dangerous behaviour”p15 is so blatantly false it cannot stand.

Regulation 25 permits “”any” reasonable action (undefined) against students, and has been used repeatedly to defend assault and false imprisonment. As is consistent with DET’s refusal to approach the education of students, and particularly behaviours of concern, with any evidence-based approaches, the frequent use of restrictive practices according to the research, causes trauma - not only for the children, but for the adults using it. It does not affect behaviours of concern in any positive way and can worsen them.

The Regulatory Impact Statement contains a plethora of motherhood statements that indicate DET has genuine concerns about the education of students. These concerns are not reflected in any of the reports and enquiries into the treatment of students with disabilities by DET. It is not reflected in their responses to such reports and enquiries. It is certainly not reflected in the manner in which they approach litigation, which is hostile. Therefore the Regulatory Impact Statement is disingenuous and cannot be taken to be a serious document which supports the proposed Regulations.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommendation 1.That Regulation 25 be omitted from the new Regulations entirely and those that subject students with disabilities to physical violence are governed by the same criminal laws as the rest of the community.

Recommendation 2.That until there is evidence that DET can provide a superior and safe alternative to educating students with disabilities than parents, or simply a safe environment, that authorities actively support home-schooling rather than put in place some of the new restrictions and limitations mentioned in this submission.

of 31

S - Department of Education and Training · Web viewDue in part to the bullying and in part to...

Documents

Transcript of S - Department of Education and Training · Web viewDue in part to the bullying and in part to...