Submissionto:

CommonwealthDepartmentofEducationand

Training

ReviewoftheDisabilityStandardsforEducation2005

5June2015

Contact: Julie Phillips Manager

DisabilityDiscrimination Legal Service

Email:

Ph:96548644

1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 3

TheReview–Opportunityto Participate…………………………………..3

HavetheStandardssucceeded inachieving participation for

studentswith disabilities?...... 5

TheProvision of ReasonableAdjustments/Consultation………………..7

Awarenessof the Standards…………………………………………………. 10

Lackof Detail in theStandards………………………………………………. 11

ModelLegislation……………………………………………………………….. 12

Consideration of Other Issues………………………………………………. 13

Conclusion and Recommendation…………………………………………….14

1

Introduction

TheDDLSisastatewideindependentcommunitylegal centrethatspecialisesin disabilitydiscriminationlegal matters.

Our goal is towork towards the eradicationof unlawfuldisabilitydiscrimination; and tofacilitateandpromotejusticefor peoplewith disabilities.We dothis through casework, advice andcommunitylegal educationto professional andcommunity groups toraisedisabilityawareness andprovideinformationonthe Disability DisabilityAct1992(Cth) andtheEqual Opportunity Act1995(Vic).

Theimpactofthecurrentlegislativeframework on thelevel of participationand educational attainmentbystudentswith disabilitiesisdeterminative oftheir successfulinclusion.Limited participationand constantstrugglesto access education arerecurring themes raisedbytheyoungpeople,parentsandcarersthat access our serviceforlegal assistance.

A largepartofDDLScaseworkrelates to claims ofexclusionandfailededucationagainst public,religious or independentschools,withtheState ofVictoria beingthe mostcommonrespondent

This submissionispartofour broader commitmenttoworkingwithstudents, families,carers, schools,governmentand disabilityadvocates toeradicate discriminationineducation.

TheReview–Opportunityto Participate

DDLS is ofviewthat theeffectivenessoftheStandardsis critical notonlyin preventingunlawfuldiscriminationbutalsoinusheringin progressiveapproachesto providingeducation tostudentswithvaryingtypes ofdisabilities. Hence,we

considerthereviewoftheStandardsquitecrucial andfindthatthemanner in which theReviewhas beenconductedis regrettable.

Weareconcernedattheshort timelinesprovided tostudentswith disabilitiesand thoserepresentingthem,to providefeedbackontheReview.The provisionofa period ofonemonth,subsequentlyextendedbyoneweek,is grosslyinadequate. Theshorttimeframe providedcouldbeseentobe discriminatoryfor studentswith disabilitieswhomayneedtimeandsupport torespond.

The Standards comprisea28pagedocumentwhichformfederal anti-discrimination legislation applicabletoeducation, anareawhich has themostsignificant effecton a person's life,

1

A Review whichis hurriedanddoesnotseekacomprehensive andbalanced responsedoespeoplewith disabilitiesaninjustice.Theyare the primary stakeholders,howeverthereviewprocess itselfdisplayelementsofthembeing indirectlydiscriminated againstthroughthe imposition ofanunreasonabletime frameformeaningful participation.

Weareconcernedthat despitethis beingraisedwith the Reviewers,anddespitethe impactof thisnotification,thedatefor submissionswasmerelyextended byone week.

Weare alsoconcernedwithwhat appears tobeagiven premise ofthereview,which is thatthestandards have beensuccessful.Thesubmission template asks:

"Towhat extent(andinwhatways) dothe Standards supportaccess and participationineducation bypeoplewith disability onthesame basis as others?",as opposed to“HavetheStandards supportedaccess andparticipationofstudentswith disabilities?"

There is littleattempttoposequestions inamanner thatengageswith allthe objects oftheStandards,or thatmayelicit negativeresponses.

Questionsfocusingoncommunityawareness,suchas:

How aware doyouthink peopleintheeducationcommunity are ofthe barriers faced bypeoplewithdisability whowantto access education?

areirrelevantastowhethertheStandardsareoperatinginthemannerintended, whichis:

(a)toeliminate,asfaraspossible,discriminationagainstpersonsonthe ground ofdisability intheareaofeducation and training;and

(b)toensure,asfaraspracticable,thatpersonswithdisabilitieshavethe same rights to equality before the lawin the area of education and trainingas therestofthecommunity; and

(c)topromoterecognitionandacceptancewithinthecommunityofthe principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as therestofthecommunity.1

1DisabilityStandardstheEducation2005p6

1

HavetheStandardssucceeded inachieving participation forstudentswith disabilities?

Our clientsreport thattheir experienceaccessing/participatingineducationand training is oftenfrustrating,stressful, andvery difficult.TheStandards haveraised expectationsforour clients,their parents andcarers, thatschools will takestepsto make reasonableadjustmentstoensurethatparticipationandeducational attainmentisavailableto allstudents..

Our clientsdescribearangeof barriers andchallenges thatpreventthem from accessingandparticipatingin education.Specifically,theserelateto:

  • Havingtheirdisabilityrecognisedassuchbytheschool.
  • Accessingappropriateassessmentsthatidentifyappropriateadjustments requiredfor thestudent’s participationandeducational attainment.
  • Receiving appropriateadjustmentsrequiredtoenableparticipationin the establishedcurriculum andprogressacademically.
  • Not beingsupportedtopursuethe establishedcurriculumand progress towards educational attainment.
  • Beingsubjectedtodisciplinarystandardsand processes thatdonottakeinto accountbehavioursthat are symptoms oformanifestationsofthe disability.

For asignificantnumber ofour clients,their experienceof being denied the opportunityfor educationinprimary,secondaryor tertiaryschools settings has substantiallydisadvantaged theminregard to attainingtheeducation andskills necessaryfor them toparticipateintheworkforce or highereducation.

Childrenandyoung peoplearefrequentlydenied access andopportunitytoreceive arobusteducationand attainqualifications due totheinability or refusalofthe educationprovider tomakeadjustmentsthatmakesuchattainmentpossible.Yetthe mathematicsdoesnotseemcomplicated, Theinfusionoftheresources theyrequire atschool level guarantees theirfutureproductivityinsteadofon goingrelianceon social services andbenefits.

In Victoria,theexperiencesofstudentswithdisabilitiesandthebarriers they experienceinaccessingtheireducationhave alreadybeenwellsetoutin quantitative andqualitativereports bythefollowingstatutoryauthorities:

Victorian Equal OpportunityandHumanRights Commissioninits2012report "HeldBack-theExperiencesofStudentswithDisabilitiesinVictorian Schools" ("HeldBack")

VictorianAuditor General'sOfficeReport ‘Programs for Studentswith Special LearningNeeds’ 2012.

Thesereportsprovide thereader withsignificantdetailregardingtheissues that preventfull participation bystudentswith disabilitiesinthe Victorianeducation system.Itisourviewthatthesereports shouldinform ftheReviewoftheStandards

1

Whileacursoryreading oftheStandards reflectsabroadintentionthatstudentswith disabilitiesshouldbe abletoparticipatein theireducationonthesamebasis as others,themoresalient points tobeconsideredinanyreviewis howeffectivethey are when:

  • astudentwitha disabilityattemptstousethemto upholdtheir rights; and
  • educators are seekingclarificationonhowtocomplywith theDisabilityDiscrimination Act.

TheStandardshavenot providedsupportfor positivechangeor increased participationandattainmentas reportedto us, andas reportedthroughstatutory authorities.

Our clientsareoftenattendingor attempting to attendpublic primary andsecondary schools,andhavesought assistanceandadjustmentstosupport theirparticipation throughtheschooldirectly, andwhenthere isdispute,throughtheDepartmentof Educationand Training.

TheStandardshavebeenin placefor10years. Duringthelastdecade,the deficiencyinthecurrentapproachtosupportingparticipationandeducationfor peoplewith disabilitieshas beenwelldocumented.

There has,andcontinues tobe,frequentformal complaintsof discriminationin school settings.Therehas,andwill continuetobe,reports thatidentifythe shortcomings ofthecurrent educationsystem,includingthosereports mentioned above. Thelevel of educationparticipation,attainmentandoutcomesfor people with disabilitiesremainssubstantiallyless thanpeoplewithoutdisabilities.

In2012the AustralianBureauofStatistics reportedintheir Disability,Ageingand Carers, Australiareportthatthere was asignificantdifferenceintheeducational attainmentfor peoplewitha disabilitycompared topeoplewithoutadisability. Completion ofYear12was achieved by36per centofpeoplewithadisability, comparedwith 60percent ofpeoplewithouta disability. TheStandards hadbeenin placefor 7years atthetimethis datawas collected.Thestudentswouldhave been

inYear 7whentheStandards were introduced andonly36% achievedYear 12. Thisdifferenceincreases markedlyfor highereducation, with 15percent ofpeople witha disabilityattaininga bachelor degree orhigher, comparedwith26% ofpeople withouta disability.

Whilst therehavebeenmarkedimprovements in accessfor students with physical disabilitiesfollowingtheintroductionofthe Standards. However, there hasnotbeen thesamelevel ofimprovementin accessfor studentswithcognitive,sensoryor intellectual disabilities,andeducation providers are strugglingto, or refuseto, make appropriateadjustments toensurethatstudentswithcognitive or intellectual disabilitiescan accesstheireducation.This is lamentable as thelatter arethetype ofdisabilitiesthat areoftenless understood,attimessubjectedtomisguided assumptions,andyetthesophistication oftheirspecificneedsbecomeboundaries for support.Ontheother hand,theDisabilityStandardsonAccessto Premises

1

provide additionalmeans topeoplewith physical disabilities.Itisnotour intentionto comparedisabilitiesbutit is apparentthatinclusionisneeds driven.

Thelackofoptions andsupportprovidedforstudentswithintellectual andcognitive disabilitiesis veryconcerningandseemsundeterredbytheStandards. Educational providers are optingtorespond totheuniquechallenges ofthesedisabilitieswith punitive and disciplinaryresponses thatfocusonthebehavioursthatoccur as a result offrustration,rather than providing adjustmentstofacilitateengagementwith education.Significantwork needs tooccurandinvestmentinspecialiststhatcan design appropriateeducationmodelsandtrain teachers torespondappropriately andnotexcludestudentsfromlearningopportunitiesduetothebehaviours

associatedwith theirdisability. Thisemerging area ofneedandthemismanagement ofstudentswithchallengingbehavioursoftenculminateinrestrictive practices2.The Standardsdo notseemto havehadanyeffectinamelioratingaserious problem whichcancause,andhas caused,injuryor deathtopeoplewith disabilities.3

The Standards,due totheirbroadnature,donotassisteducationproviderswho do nothavethespecialistskills or resources tounderstandhowto provideadjustments andaccesstoeducationforstudentswith disabilities

TheProvision of ReasonableAdjustments/Consultation

The heartofthe Standardsis thepositive dutyof education providers toconsultand to providereasonableadjustmentstoastudentwhose disabilitiesmakethemunable toparticipatesubstantiallyin their education.Theways by whichschoolshave interpretedtheseprovisions andcarriedouttheirmandatelegitimise discriminatory conduct..

Schoolseffectivelydecidewhatconsultation andreasonableadjustmentmeansand themeaning given tothesetermsare quiteconvenientfor theirpurposes. Educators are not experts indisabilities,yet are thearbiters inrelationtotheextentofthe consultationnecessary,students with disabilities needanyadjustments atall,andif theydoneed them,whatthoseadjustmentsshouldbe.Theyhaveaninherent position ofconflict ofinterest.Theconflictsarisewhere adjustmentsmayrequire funding, andthereforecompete among thebusiness priorities oftheheadofschool.

Whilefundingis notalways required to enableastudentwithadisabilityto fully participateintheir education,there aremanysupports/adjustmentsthatdorequire funding.Theseinclude, butarenotlimitedto:

  • communicationdevices;
  • trainingfor staffto usecommunicationdevices;

2HeldBack-Experiencesof StudentswithDisabilitiesin VictorianSchools,Chapter10

3Stateof Victoria,OfficeofSeniorPractitioner,PhysicalRestraintDirectionPaper2011p9

1

  • equipmentsuchas RadioFrequencyUnits;
  • Auslaninterpreters;
  • IntegrationAides;
  • Computer programs such as voice-activatedsoftware,software which expands text or speaks text;
  • SpeechPathology,OccupationalTherapy,Physiotherapysupport to undertake assessments,writestudentprograms,monitor andevaluatethem;
  • paymentfor consultants toattendStudentSupport Groupmeetings

Current commonwealthcaselaw4acceptsthis interpretation ofthedutytoconsult under theStandardsas follows:.

"Thefirstis thatboth provisions requireaschool toconsult astudent or his or her parentsaboutprescribedmatters. They do not,however, requirethat suchconsultationtakeany particular formor occur atanyparticulartime. Thoseinvolvedmay meetformally or informally. Discussions canbe

instigated byeither theschoolor theparents.Consultationmay occur in face- to-facemeetings,in thecourseoftelephoneconversationsor in exchanges of correspondence."

Walker vStateofVictoria [2011]FCA258decision [284]

Tocompoundthe problem,andnotwithstandingthattheStandardsspecifically provide andreiteratethedefence ofunjustifiablehardship under theDisability Discrimination Act,there is atleastoneVictoriandecisionthatstatesthat reasonableadjustmentsdonotneedtowork5.

DDLS is oftheviewthatadjustmentsinthe provision of education,(whichincludes participation,curriculumandassessment) that arenoteffective,cannotbe consideredreasonable. Iftheadjustmentsare noteffective,thentheyhave not levelled theplayingfield or given thestudentequitableservices.The dutyis not unlimited,butthe limit tothe provisionofreasonableadjustments asclearlystated under the Disability Discrimination Actand theStandards,is thatprovidingthesame mayconstituteunjustifiablehardship.

If this viewis incorrect andiftheTribunal’s decisionis thelawonthematter, then there isaseriousdraftinganomalywhichrequires a promptandtacitclarificationthat schools cannot evadetheircommonlaw,statutoryor contractualdutyto provide servicesthat arefit and proper tothe needsofapersonwitha disabilityor

disabilities.

In thesamecase,theTribunal heldthatan:

"Adjustment maybeconsideredreasonableevenifitis notinwriting6.

4WalkervStateof Victoria[2011]FCA258decision[284] Abelav Stateof Victoria[2013]FCA832[147]

5USLobohersonvBallaratChristianCollege(HumanRights)[2014]VCAT623

6Paragraph214,Ibid

1

Wefindthat themostcommoncauses oftensionbetweenschools andparentsare thecontentsandtheimplementation ofIndividual Learning/Education Plans.These Individual LearningPlansdocumenttherecommendedmeasuresfollowingawell informedconsultationbetweenand amongtheschool, teachers, parents,health practitioners and/ordisabilityexperts.Theyarealsointendedtobealiving document,subjecttoreviewandrevision.Thus,the propositionthatanyformal setting of educationcan bedeemedcompliantwiththe Standardsonthebasisofan arrangement,theterms andpurposesofwhich aresubjecttomisunderstandingas theyare unwritten, deprives studentsofanimportanttool. Itismorethecasethan

notthat,headsofschools, integrationcoordinators, teachers and aides takeaunited positionwhenmakingclaims aboutwhatconstitutedan"unwritten"plan. Incontrast, thechild or theparentfind themselves alone,strugglingtofindcorroboration.

In thesamevein,iftheStandardsdoinfactexcluderecordingas arequirement in thedetermination ofwhatconstitutesreasonableadjustments,thenthelawneeds urgentamendment inorder to amplifyandbetter promotethebestinterestsofa studentwithadisability.

Thefactthatsuchamendments wouldsimplyrectifygoodeducational practicewould beabonusfor students with disabilities.

TheVictorian Equal OpportunityandHumanRightsCommissioninitsHeldBack reportfoundthat:

Despiteconsiderableinvestment bytheVictorian Government,there continuestobe significantunmetneedfor support services for studentswithdisabilities,including integrationaides,occupational therapists,speechtherapists,other specialist staff andassistivetechnology.Ifthese arenot providedwhenrequired,studentswith disabilitiescannotparticipate effectivelyineducation. p60 [emphasis added]

Havingthe ultimatedecision-makersonadjustmentsfor studentswith disabilities being thosewhomayexperiencedetrimentthrough the making ofsuchdecisions (duetounderfunding bytheDepartmentofEducationandTraining),is notin thebest interests ofstudentswith disabilities.Whilethe Standards remainastheyare inthis respect,itis unlikelythatparticipationofstudentswith disabilitiesinschools will improve.

1

Awarenessof the Standards

Teachersandstaffassociatedwith ourclientsdonotdemonstratean understanding thatinmanycasestheschoolitselfpresents themostsignificantbarrier to participationandattainmentfor students witha disability.

TheHeldBackreportsinits Executive Summary7 that40per centof educators were unaware oftheDisabilityStandardsforEducation2005andtheirobligation to

comply with theStandards.

Thestudyrevealedthat despitetheintentoftheStandards,students with disability are still:

• Refusedenrolmentinschoolsbasedontheschools inabilityto accommodatefor thestudentsneeds

• Deniedparticipationin external assessments anddonotreceive the necessaryadjustmentstoparticipatefullyinexams andassessments

• Deniedequal accessto attend excursions,school campsandother extracurricular activities

Inadditiontothis,thereport identifiedthateducation providers aretakinga haphazard approachtosupportingstudents,developingindividual learningplans and sharinginformationwithstudentsandtheirfamilies.

Thereport alsoidentifiedthatrestraintandseclusion arestill being used asa behaviourmanagementtool, with noreportingor accountabilityrequirementsand lackofindependent professional oversight,(such astheinvolvementoftheOffice of theSeniorPractitioner),when theseinterventions arebeingconsidered.

Thesefindings are consistentwith the experiences ofour clientsandthelack of expertise andcapability demonstrated by educationproviders.

Itwould beamistake,however, toconcludethatanincreased awarenessofthe

Standards will effectivelyaddress theseissues.

7HeldBack-Experiencesof StudentswithDisabilitiesin VictorianSchools,ExecutiveSummaryp8

1

Lackof Detail in theStandards

WhiletheStandardsmakeitclear thatstudentswith disabilities haverights, as an enforcementtool, theyfaildue totheirlackofspecificity.

The Standardsare toobroadtobe effective.Itis importanttoremember thatthe Standardsare part ofdiscriminationlegislation,beingtheDisabilityDiscrimination Act 1992.Theyshouldnotbeviewedsimplyas guidelinesor educationtools.Their purposeis toassisteducation providers comply with theirlegal obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act1992. Iftheycannotachieve that aim, or donotgreatly assist that aim,theyfail.

Australians with disabilitiesrelysolelyon anti-discriminationlegislation,standards andpoliciesto eliminate disabilitydiscrimination byeducationauthorities and providers.Whilethe Standardsaimedtoimposeapositive obligationoneducation providers tomake‘reasonableadjustments’ to accommodatetheneeds ofstudents with disabilities, this hasoftennotoccurred due totheirbroadnatureanddrafting errors.

Thelast10years hashighlighted thattobe effective,the Standards need tobe supportedwith expertise andresources that:

  • enablestudentsto access assessmentsandrecommendationsfrom specialists relatingtotheirdisability.
  • require educationproviders toimplementreasonablerecommendations provided bytheprofessionals andnottorelyontheirownjudgement(as is currentlysupportedbytheStandards).
  • provide for regular reviewand assessmentbya professional regardingthe efficacyofthesupportandadjustmentsprovided, withflexibilityto adapt further tothestudentsneeds.
  • require outcomesmeasurementsforeducationinstitutions relatingto educational attainmentandpostschool outcomesfor studentswith disabilities.

Unless theStandardsexplicitlyrequire thespecificmeasuresthatneedtobetaken to achieve theabove,they willcontinuetobeineffective.

Despitewhatatfirst blushseemsaclear intenttoprovide accessfor studentswith disabilities,theStandards, when used asalegal instrument,provide alldecision- making powers to theeducationproviderassetoutabove.

Achievingthe aimsoftheStandardsandeliminatingdiscriminationineducation requires an evidencebasedapproachthatis responsive to the diverse characteristics,challenges andstrengthsofpeople with differentphysical, mental, intellectual or sensoryimpairments. Toachieve the aimsoftheStandards,education providers needtodrawonexpertise specific to the disabilityofthestudent,

recognise and pro-activelyaddress thephysical,cognitive andsocial

1

barriers thatpreventstudentswith differentimpairmentsanddisabilities from taking part ineducationandlearningcommunitieson anequalfootingwith others.The Standardsdonotrequire this.

TheStandardshaveproven themselves tobechallengingandunworkablefor families,individuals,andeducationproviders. Itisour positionthatcaselaw demonstratesthattheStandardshave beenappliedcontraryto their statedaimsand have preventedpeople with disabilitiesfrom accessingtheir education.

ModelLegislation

The Standardsrely,forthemostpart,ontheprovisionof"reasonable adjustments". Theconceptof "reasonableadjustments"can bearguedbylawyers andinterpreted inanumber ofways.This does not assist students with disabilities.

Given thecaselawaroundindirectdiscrimination8andtherestrictiveinterpretations aboutwhatcanconstitutea"requirementor condition",theconcept ofproviding "reasonableadjustments"is heavilyrelied upon asamatter of necessitybystudents with disabilities makinglegal complaints.

Given theCourtstodateconcludingthat decision-makingregardingreasonable adjustmentsis therole ofeducational providers pursuantto the Standards, the Standards’ relianceontheprovisionofreasonableadjustmentsas themanner in which discriminationineducationmightbeeliminated,isflawed.

Itis therefore,inour view, necessarytodeveloplegislationwhichsets outsome basic requirementsinthesupportofstudentswith disabilities. Inother words, itis necessarytosetouttherightsofstudentsinanunambiguousfashion.

TheIndividuals withDisabilitiesinEducationAct 2004("IDEA") hasexistedinNorth Americanlegislationinsomeform oranothersince theearly1970s.Itis anexample oflegislationthathashadasignificantnumber ofyears tobetestedandtried,and as is commonlythecasewithlegislation, hasbeenthesubject oflawreformona numberofoccasions.Suchreform,wecanassume,madeimprovementstothe legislationin order thatitcouldbestmeetitsaims andobjectives,and theintent of government.

The IDEAprovides astark contrastto the Standards.WheretheStandardsare broad,the IDEAis explicit.Suchclarityshouldnotonlybeseentobe supporting studentswith disabilities, butalsoeducationproviderswho are keentounderstand their obligations.

Onlyonesuch example,butonethatis critical, is theeducationplanningprocess whichis containedinthe IDEA,butinadetailedfashionin order thatneither teacher, studentnorfamilymembercouldbeconfused abouttheir obligations/rights.

8DisabilityDiscriminationAct1992Section6

1

The IDEAsetsouttherequirementsfor planningandindividualisededucation program,howmeetings mustbeconductedregardingsuchaprogram,andwho shouldattend.9There isnorequirementwhatsoever in theStandards,(nor bythe VictorianDepartmentofEducationandTraining) forformal Individual Education Plans.In Victoria,suchplanmaynotbeinphysical existence,theschoolmaymeet

itsobligations toconsult byclaimingtohavehadatelephonecallwithaparent,and this will satisfythe Standards.ExcerptsfromSections614and ofthe IDEAcovering individualisededucation planningaresetoutin AttachmentAtothissubmission.

Individualisededucation planningis onlyonesmall part ofthiseducation antidiscrimination legislation,however thelegislationtacklesnumerous important aspectsof educationofchildrenwith disabilitiesinsimilardetail.

Consideration ofOther Issues

TertiaryEducation

WhiletheDDLSdoes receivecomplaintsfromtertiaryinstitutions, access to educationseems toimprovemarkedlyuponleavingprimaryandsecondary schools. Howeverwe are cognisant ofthefactthatmanystudentswith disabilities willnot have theopportunitytoattendtertiaryinstitutions duetothefactthattheyhavenot mastered basic literacyandnumeracyskills in primaryandsecondaryschool.

Economic disadvantage and dispute

Inmanycases,thefamilies andcarersof peoplewith disabilitiesexperience significanteconomic disadvantage.Inworkingwith thesefamiliestotryto asserta student’s basic rightof access toeducation,theimbalanceinresources availableto familiesincontrastwith theeducationprovider, usuallythe State,is significant. In thesecases,theeducational outcomeandattainmentoftheyoungpersonhasnot appearedtobetheeducation provider’s/State's paramount concern.

FamiliesdonothavethelimitlessfundingtheStatehas tolitigate.This is one, amongsta numberof othermoreobvious reasons,whythe Standards mustbe strong,informativeandprescriptive.

Delays in educationalparticipationduetolitigationandlongtermimplications

Insomecases,achildor youngpersonhasbeendeniedaccess toadjustmentsand participationinschoolingwhilealegal complaintis resolved. Sucha process results in monthsandinsomecases years oflostopportunityfor learning. This is particularlythecasewherefamiliesdonothave theresources tomove andfinda

9IndividualswithDisabilitiesin EducationAct2004ss614,615

1

schoolthatis willingto tryto provide adjustmentsandwork with thefamilyandyoung persontoachieve theireducational goals.There shouldberecourseand accountabilityin thisareainorder thatthereis amitigationofrisk ofthestudent's educationbeingparalysedwhilelegal proceedings takeplace.

Conclusion and Recommendation

WhiletheaimsoftheStandards remaincrucial,itis theviewofDDLS

thattheStandardsthemselves donotgive effecttotheiraimsand needtobe replaced withmore robustand effectiveStandards/legislationwithclear compliance requirements.

TheDDLSbelieves thattheStandardsmustbereplacedwithlegislationthatmodels itself on Americananti-discriminationlaw –theIndividualswithDisabilitiesin EducationAct2004.Reading ofthis legislationshouldformpartoftheReview.

1