Much of current inclusive education provision in Australian secondary schools relies on ‘specialist’ support from outside the classroom. Students with diverse abilities are placed within the regular classroom and additional specialist services such as therapy, counselling, psychological assessment and special education teaching are required to support their placement. This form of support often relies upon a diagnostic – prescriptive approach where the specialist assumes responsibility for and has a central role in shaping practices. In this paper, we raise issues regarding this model of specialist support in enacting effective inclusive practices in secondary schools. We suggest that one alternative is to shift the focus from the students who are different, to the community of learners in the school. This alternative approach uses collaborative and evidence-based practices to support inclusive ideals and grounds improvement efforts in changes in teachers’ knowledge as well as the cultural and organisational conditions of the school. The purpose of this paper is to prompt further discussion amongst professional community regarding the unique challenges and issues of inclusive practices in secondary schools.

With an increasing number of students with special needs being included in regular classroom environments, consideration of, and planning for, a smooth transition between different school settings is important for parents, classroom teachers and school administrators. The transition between primary and secondary school can be difficult for students with special needs, particularly in the areas of organisation and social interaction. Technology can be used to assist students to make this transition more effectively and may work to minimise any difficulties involved in the transition. In this article the authors describe transition considerations, and technology use for students with special needs and how technology may be used to address transition issues. The authors conclude by detailing the initial development process of a mobile-optimised website to support students with special needs who are transitioning from a primary to secondary environment in an Australian context. Future directions for the use of the website are explored.

This study investigated the transition of 314 children with disabilities to mainstream kindergarten classes in state schools in New South Wales from the perspectives of parents, sending service providers and receiving teachers. Results indicated that the majority of parents and kindergarten teachers considered the transition and early integration to have been successful, regardless of the child’s disability or the severity of the disability. The factors that related positively and significantly to teacher perception of successful integration were (a) receiving school attitude and school community acceptance of the integrated child, (b) receiving teacher perception of the adequacy of the support received, (c) preparation of the child for the mainstream school placement, specifically classroom skills and self-help skills, (d) preparation of parents of other children in the class, and (e) receiving teacher perception of the value of liaising with parents. The implications of this research for planning and programming for transition to school for young children with disabilities are discussed.

This paper will address issues associated with the use of suspension and exclusion as an intervention for dealing with disruptive behaviour in schools, with a particular focus on secondary students in Western Australia. There is increasing support for the view that many of the students suspended or excluded from school for disruptive behaviour may be socially/emotionally handicapped and as such are being denied access to an appropriate education on the basis of their handicapping condition. The legal and service delivery implications of this position are discussed within the context of current Australian special education policy and international agreements pertaining to the educational rights of children.

A review of research into the acquisition of phonological awareness skills in individuals with intellectual disabilities, the relationship between phonological awareness and reading in these individuals and the effect of phonological awareness training on the development of their phonological skills is presented. Research indicates that children with intellectual disabilities may take a different path to that of typically developing children in the acquisition of phonological skills. Despite this, there is more similarity than difference between the two groups in the relationship between phonological awareness and the acquisition of reading, the indication being that there is a positive relationship between phonological awareness and reading acquisition for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Moreover, the components of phonological awareness that can be associated with the acquisition of reading are similar for both groups. Limited data indicate that, as with typically developing children, the reading related skills of individuals with intellectual disabilities can be developed through explicit instruction that includes a phonological awareness component.

In this study the authors aimed to examine the differentiability of 5 factors that preschool teachers may perceive as essential for successful implementation of inclusive education in regular classrooms. The 5 hypothetically influential factors were teamwork, curriculum, school support, government support, and stakeholders’ attitudes. Teachers from half-day kindergarten and full-day childcare centre settings in Hong Kong with varying teaching experience were surveyed (N = 461). Confirmatory factor analysis defined the 5 distinct factors, all of which displayed high scores (Ms > 4 on a 5-point scale). A 2 (experience: low; high) x 2 (school type: half-day kindergarten; full-day childcare centre settings) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) found some subtle group differences. Less experienced teachers found stakeholders’ attitudes to be important, and more so than more experienced teachers, whereas full-day childcare centre teachers found teamwork, curriculum, and stakeholders’ attitudes more important than did half-day kindergarten teachers. The findings imply that whereas all 5 factors are perceived by teachers as important for the success of inclusive education, some factors are of greater concern to teachers working in full-day childcare centres than teachers working in half-day kindergartens. The findings provide advice on how best to allocate limited resources across settings with the intention of promoting inclusive education.

Using a second cohort of Australian school students, this study repeated the propensity score analysis reported by Dempsey, Valentine, and Colyvas (2016) that found that 2 years after receiving special education support, a group of infant grade students performed significantly less well in academic and social skills in comparison to matched groups of students who did not receive support. Using Longitudinal Study of Australian Children data, the present study found that the second cohort of students with additional needs also performed less well than matched groups of peers and that these results also held true for the specific subgroup of these children with learning disability/learning problems. The ramifications of these results to the delivery of special education in Australia are discussed.

Although qualified special educators are more likely to provide effective teaching for students with disabilities and special education needs, it seems many teachers in special education and support positions are not qualified for this role. The study reported here provided analysis of 219 job advertisements for special education positions in order to ascertain what employers required of applicants for special education positions. Advertisements represented all states and sectors in Australia, although the sample does not fully reflect the relative numbers of schools in each state. Most positions were for class teachers or for teachers providing support within and across schools. Special education qualifications and experience in special education were not common criteria for employment. The concerns raised by this finding are addressed through suggestions for formal recognition for special educators and accreditation of teacher education programs preparing special educators.

Since the early 1970s special education courses at graduate and post-graduate levels have become standard offerings at many Australian universities. As these courses continue to be the main avenue of professional development for special educators in this country, it is pertinent to wonder how often the objectives and content of the courses are examined and revised to ensure contemporary relevance. It must be recognized that the field of special education appears to be in what Tomlinson (1982, p.24) has described as a ‘permanently dynamic state’, with frequent changes in policy, service delivery, roles and responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities of special educators have certainly changed significantly during the past decade (Watts, 1990; Dyson, 1991), and the earlier studies of essential competencies required by special education teachers (e.g. Whitmore,1982; Scott, 1983; Davis, 1983) may not provide reliable data on which to design current courses. There has been renewed interest overseas in the issue of what constitutes essential knowledge and skills for teachers working in special education (Best, 1988; Ramsey & Algozzine, 1991; Ramsey, Algozzine & Smith, 1990; Glomb & Morgan, 1991; Folio, 1990; Cannon, Idol & West, 1992; Reynolds, Wang & Walberg, 1992; Swan & Sirvis, 1992), and it is worth analysing some of this material to determine its relevance for the Australian context. The information could well prove useful as a basis for evaluating special education courses here.

As students who have difficulty in acquiring the basic processes in reading are significantly disadvantaged in later schooling, there is a need for effective interventions for young at-risk students. Reading Recovery is the most widely known and extensively promoted intervention for young struggling readers. However, serious reservations have been expressed about both its efficacy and its cost-effectiveness. An alternative intervention (MINILIT), that incorporates findings and recommendations of recent reviews of research about effective instruction in early literacy, has been developed. This intervention features small-group instruction by tutors. The results of three pilot studies of MINILIT are presented. These studies were carried out with Year 1 and Year 2 students in a variety of settings. The students, who were identified as struggling readers by teachers in their schools, attended tutoring sessions for one hour a day, four days a week, for 15 weeks. Pre-testing of individual students on standardised and curriculum-based tests was carried out prior to the intervention and testing was repeated after 15 weeks. Data indicate that students who completed the intervention made significant and substantial gains in both reading and spelling. Results suggest that MINILIT may be a viable intervention that may achieve results similar to, or better than, existing programs with greater cost-effectiveness.

Technical assistance may be defined as help from an outside agency designed to improve the competence of educational service delivery personnel by increasing their planning, management and organisational or programmatic skills as applied to tasks of service delivery to pupils. Such assistance may function within and between the federal, state or regional levels of governments, tertiary institutions, schools and other agencies concerned with educational service delivery. The limitations of traditional ‘ad hoc’ consultation systems are discussed and a formal model for technical asssistance delivery is proposed. It is argued that a realistic service would combine both formal and informal elements and would include problem analyses, development of inservice training curricula, the conduct of surveys and service needs, assessment, development and review of publications, design and conduct of evaluations, assistance to apply new techniques of service and other means of translating knowledge into practice.

In the United States, a certain percentage of the students cannot meet certain requirements of the school. A portion of these students (approximately 12% of the total school population) are identified as having some handicapping condition, i.e. deaf, blind, mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, or orthopedically handicapped. Many of these identified students with mild to moderate handicaps are served in resource programs. When placed in a resource program, students also receive a portion of their academic instruction in a regular education classroom. Special education resource teachers support the regular program efforts by providing specific assessment of the students academic and social/emotional abilities, some direct instruction to the student, as well as consultation with regular classroom teachers, parents, and other specialists concerned with a student’s progress.

A survey of the prevalence and needs of exceptional students was carried out in Queensland Catholic primary (n = 195) and secondary (n = 40) schools. Within the overall population surveyed 3.13% possessed disabilities, 3.83% behavioural difficulties, 4.19% advanced learning characteristics, and 12.80% learning difficulties. The survey indicated that support services fell short of the demand, particularly for students with behavioural difficulties and those considered to be advanced learners. The data obtained was of the same order as that found in other state, national and international studies. The majority of principals and teachers interviewed held positive attitudes towards integration. However, this was qualified by a strong press for additional professional support, inservice training, and resources to enable the necessary enhancement of the educational experiences being offered. The survey identified a continuing need for communication and cooperation with state and private agencies and the desirability of developing a system which marshalls the available resources, both regular and special, into an efficient and feasible service delivery operation.

In many Western countries in the past two decades, there has been considerable general education reform, typically with increased educational accountability through national reporting. The major features of this accountability process, as it has occurred in the United States, are described, with an emphasis on what this has meant for students with a disability. Key features of the process include the provision of significant federal funding contingent on the achievement of specified outcomes; the introduction of a widespread testing regime using standards-based assessment and the reporting of these outcomes at the state, district and school level; and providing access to the regular curriculum to students with a disability unless there is a good reason not to do so. The education reform process in Australia is also described and contrasted with the US movement. A conclusion of the discussion is that the Australian states and territories have been reluctant participants in the reporting process for students with a disability, and that leadership by the Commonwealth is the only likely avenue by which improvements in reporting for these students may come about.

It is axiomatic that people with intellectual disabilities have the same human and civil rights to education as other citizens and that they must therefore have the same opportunities to attend their local schools and educational facilities. This is a fine vision. But it is far from the reality experienced by the majority of people with intellectual disabilities across the world.

No country in the world has reason to be satisfied with the quality of the educational facilities which it provides for people with intellectual disabilities. But enough examples of good practice exist in different countries to make it possible for all of us to reappraise ways in which a higher quality of inclusive education and schooling could be provided for people with intellectual disabilities and the contribution that we can make personally and professionally to that process.

In the field of intellectual disabilities, we need to define education in very broad terms as anything which systematically promotes learning and development. Defined in this way, education is a lifelong process which neither begins nor ends with schooling. Similarly, it is carried out by many people who are not teachers. Parents are at the heart of this process from the outset. The years spent at school are clearly of vital importance but they are only one element of the educational process. There is a sense in which all work with people with intellectual disabilities is educational, whatever the setting, in so far as it helps them to learn and to develop knowledge, skills and understanding.

Constructivist literature has become increasingly prominent in the area of special education. The nature of constructivism and its relevance and limitations for students with special needs is discussed, as is the importance of appropriate research in determining the efficacy of instructional interventions. A search of the literature into the efficacy of constructivism for students with special needs in K-12 settings revealed a predominance of descriptive and discussion-based research and very limited experimental research. The limited existing experimental research indicates that constructivist instructional approaches may have circumscribed applications in special education. Specifically, they may be appropriate to applications for students with learning difficulties in areas such as science education. Nevertheless, there are major methodological and interpretative problems that undermine confidence in the existing body of research. These problems include an absence of adequate procedural reliability data, interventions that often involve teaching single or very small groups of students, and conditions that do not approximate regular classrooms. There is also evidence suggesting that constructivist approaches may be inappropriate and ineffective for students with intellectual disabilities. The need for considerable caution and extensive further research in this area is evident, in light of the ready adoption of constructivism in schools and the increase of constructivist literature.

Our knowledge of effective practices for improving the academic achievement of students in the primary and elementary years has increased dramatically in the last decade (Simmons & Kameenui, in press; Stringfield, in press). However, implementing an effective practice in one classroom or in a research context is very different from implementing and sustaining effective practice at the school‐building level. There is a great deal of collective wailing in the field these days about the feeble attempts to translate research into effective practice (Malouf & Schiller, 1995) that improves reading achievement in students who are at serious academic risk.

The history of special education is conceived within the integration debate in a way which lends credibility to two broad claims. The first is that governments have been lax in providing educational facilities for children with disabilities, while the second comprises an argument for shifting definitional control of the notion of ‘disability’ from the medical to the educational arena. The recent Report to the Australian Schools Commission on Integration in Australia exemplifies this stance by pointing to the initial reluctance of governments to assume responsibility for educating children with special needs, followed by their eventual involvement in establishing segregated educational facilities. With segregated schooling becoming the norm, the problem now confronting educators is how to integrate these students and their supporting resources into the regular school system.

The Literature on the effects of segregated vs. integrated school experience for mildly intellectually handicapped children is considered in the light of four questions: (1) What is the effect upon the person of being labelled and segregated? (2) Does segregation provide a better learning experience? (3) Does segregation provide for better social and emotional adjustment? and (4) What alternatives are available? In general, the literature supports the view that integration is more desirable both in terms of intellectual and emotional gain.