PREPARATION TO TEACH STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN

MAINSTREAM CLASSROOMS IN AUSTRALIAN INITIAL PRIMARY

TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ashley Rowan
2016

Abstract: This paper aims to investigate the state of Australian

primary pre-service teaching preparation for teaching students with
disabilities, in the context of an increasingly inclusive educational
landscape. The right to inclusion of all students, and the development
of expectations and provisions to be made in support of this situation,
is informed by both Australian and international policy, and enshrined
in legislation at a national level. The effect of these measures for the
role of general education teachers is significant, who are under
increasing demand to accommodate for the diverse needs of all
students, including those with disability. Research into the efficacy of
teacher education programs in preparing pre-service teachers for this
situation has produced mixed results, and suggests a high degree of
variability in initial teacher education quality. Efforts to address this
issue are ongoing, and implications for future programs in the context
of current and proposed measures are discussed.

Introduction

A number of initiatives and strategies have been developed through government

legislation and policy at national and state levels to address the right to inclusion of students
with disabilities, with these measures having a significant effect on the role of general
education teachers, who are under increasing demand to accommodate for the diverse needs
of all students, including those with disability. Research into the efficacy of teacher education
programs in preparing pre-service teachers for this situation has produced mixed results, and
suggests a high degree of variability in initial teacher education quality. Approaches to ensure
adequate training of teachers have been suggested within the research literature, such as
increased collaboration between universities, schools, and other relevant parties; and an
increased emphasis on quality practical experiences. Plans at a policy level include measures
such as a clearer alignment of teacher training with the criteria set out within the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers. These efforts to address this issue are ongoing, and
implications for future programs in the context of current and proposed measures are
discussed.

Policy and Legislation

The education of children identified as having a disability in Australian mainstream

schools has been promoted since the 1980’s (Council of Australian Governments [COAG],
2011, p. 12), following an international shift towards the normalisation principle, and
recommendations made in the 1970’s Schools in Australia report (Karmel, 1973, in Forlin,
2006), with trends for both integration and mainstreaming enduring in more recent times (pp.
265-6). Australian approaches to inclusive education have been framed by international
policy regarding the universal rights of students with special needs and disabilities to
education, including the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), and Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (United Nations General
Assembly, 1994). In addition, Australia is a signatory of the UN CRPD, which explicitly
includes the right to an inclusive education [Article 24] (NCID, 2013, p. 3).

National policy supporting this vision has included the Melbourne Declaration
(MCEETYA, 2008), with aims pertaining to equality of opportunity and equitable outcomes
for all young Australians through the improvement of educational outcomes, set out within
two key goals. The first, that ‘Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence’, includes
objectives to provide access to schooling that is of a high quality, and free from
discrimination based on factors such as health or disability. With the intent to reduce
disadvantageous effects of disability on education, the Declaration endorses personalised
learning in order to fulfil the diverse capacities of young Australians (pp. 7, 15).

Within the scope of this paper, use of the term ‘disability’ conforms to the definition
outlined within the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, in which disability is defined to
include:
 Physical, intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological, and learning
disabilities, as well as physical disfigurements, and the presence of disease-causing
organisms in the body. The definition includes past, present and future disabilities as
well as imputed disabilities and covers behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation
of the disability.

(DEEWR, 2010, p. 3).

This definition was adopted in subsequent subordinate legislation, the Disability

Standards for Education 2005 (Department of Education, 2005), which aims to provide
students with disability the right to access and participate in education on the same basis as
students without disability, setting out the legal obligations of education providers under the
Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Specifically, these rights relate to student enrolment,
participation and support services; curriculum development, accreditation and delivery; and
harassment and victimisation (pp. 1-4). Obligations of education providers include
appropriate consultation with relevant parties, making reasonable adjustments for students,
and eliminating harassment and victimisation (DEEWR, 2010). The first five-year review of
the Standards, The Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005
(DEEWR, 2010) was based on over 200 submissions and revealed issues related to clarity of
the Standards and subsequent difficulties in practical application. Despite this, the Review
was found to provide a decent framework for the promotion of equity in education access,
with 14 recommendations provided to improve future effectiveness of the Standards (URBIS,
2015).

Subsequent policies have included the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, and
the More Support for Students with Disabilities Initiative, providing policy frameworks for
the inclusion of students identified as having a disability in mainstream educational settings
(URBIS, 2015, pp. 12-14). The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (COAG, 2011) aligns
with a principle of universality in providing an inclusive and accessible educational culture to
address the requirements of students of all abilities. This policy additionally acknowledges
the critical need for teacher training and development as both a right and responsibility in
order to meet these diverse educational needs (p. 54-6).

In order to achieve targets aligned with COAG aspirations to create a high quality and
high equity Australian schooling system by international standards by 2025, reforms to be
implemented between 2014 and 2019 contained in the National Education Reform
Agreement’s ‘National Plan for School Improvement’ [NPSI] (2014) include the provision of
inclusive education to meet the needs of individual students, by providing reasonable
adjustments for students with disability which reflect national definitions (COAG, 2011).

Consequences for teacher education

These developments have resulted in increased demands and responsibilities for the
role of general educational teachers. In 2009, of 292,600 students with disability attending
school in Australia, 65.9 per cent attended mainstream classes (NCID, 2013, p. 5). TEMAG’s
Teacher Education Issues Paper (2014) outlines the requirements of graduate teachers within
this challenging and diverse context, which has been precluded by the growing number of
students identified as having special needs. The Issues Paper suggests that graduates require
a high level of confidence in both subject knowledge and pedagogy in order to meet these
demands, including a broad range of skills to teach diverse student populations effectively
(pp. 4-6, 8). In addition to an amplified requirement for understanding of the diverse forms of
disability, teachers require a deep knowledge base for teaching diverse learners (Darling-
Hammond, 2006, p. 304) through a variety of curricular and instructional modifications
(COAG, 2011, p. 56).

According to Van Laarhoven et. al. 2007), these current conditions and associated
concerns may be addressed in the reconstruction of teacher training programs to better focus
on these required skills and experiences (Van Laarhoven et. al. 2007, p. 440), including both
subject knowledge and pedagogy (TEMAG, 2014, p. 6).

However, survey of the research into the preparedness of pre-service teachers entering
this environment, and the necessary skills and attitudes for successful inclusion practices,
suggest a deficit in some areas of the education of future teachers. The Australian Education
Union’s New Educators Survey 2008 (AUE, 2008), based on the results of 1,545 responses,
reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents felt that their training provided inadequate
preparation to teach particular groups of students, including those with disabilities (pp. 3-4).

More recently, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]
has released the Initial Teacher Education: Data Report 2014, consisting of data collected
from national data collections and surveys, including the Staff in Australia’s School Survey
(McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley, Murphy & McMillan, 2014) and The Longitudinal Teacher
Education and Workforce Study. The paper identified approximately 400 accredited initial
education programs across 48 providers, from which 16, 650 students had graduated in 2012
(AITSL, 2014, pp. 4-5).

The Staff in Australia’s Schools 2013 [SiAS] survey (AITSL, 2014), aligned with the
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, collects data including early career teachers’
perceptions of the helpfulness of their initial teacher education program, and employer
satisfaction of teaching graduates. The SiAS survey revealed that graduates’ preparation in
‘supporting students with disabilities’ was rated lowest among elements of employer
satisfaction in principal responses, with only 5.6 per cent of principals considering their
graduates as ‘well-’ or ‘very well prepared’ in this area (AITSL, 2014, p. 51). In reference to
views of initial education primary program preparation for ‘supporting students with
disabilities’, as part of the Know students and how they learn standard, 27.9 per cent of 5,213
respondents indicated that they found their preparation ‘Very helpful/helpful’, while 21.9 per
cent found it ‘not helpful’ (pp. 45-6). These findings may be precluded by the fact that only
25.4 per cent of primary graduates engaged in professional development activities related to
supporting students with disabilities as a part of their tertiary qualification, while 44 per cent
underwent self-directed professional activities. This area was also identified as the second-
highest area (43.2 per cent) for which early career primary teachers felt the need for more
opportunities for professional learning, behind dealing with difficult student behaviour (45
per cent) (McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley, Murphy & McMillan, 2014, pp. 71, 74).

Research conducted by Stephenson, O’Neill and Carter (2012) attempted to determine

the extent to which Australian teaching programs in 2009 included both theoretical content
and practical experiences related to students with disabilities and special needs. The authors
concluded that there is insufficient specific, evidence based theoretical and practical content
of this nature, which may have detrimental consequences for future teachers in an
increasingly inclusive classroom setting.

However, as the authors concede, the research method employed to gather data
hindered the attainment of exact unit content specifications. Relying solely on information
provided publicly on university websites, as opposed to detailed unit structure and content
overviews, the data obtained by the researchers was not always sufficient in providing precise
unit information, some offering only ‘blanket descriptions’ of the unit content. Despite the
lack of precise data, the study nonetheless provides valuable insight into the extent of the
incorporation of content relevant to disability inclusion. The research is consistent with
Reupert, Hemmings, and Connors’ (in Woodcock, Hemmings & Kay, 2012) assertion that
with the exception of “a one-off introductory subject” (p. 3), there is limited incorporation of
specific scholarship in inclusion and its myriad forms and issues in teacher education
programs.

Attitudes towards students with disabilities present an additional area to be addressed

in initial teacher education programs. Woodcock and Vialle’s (2011) work aimed to identify
the understandings and attitudes of a group of 444 Australian primary pre-service teachers
towards students identified as having learning disabilities. The researchers present an
interesting insight into pre-service teachers’ understandings and attitudes towards students
identified as having learning disabilities. The findings of the study reinforce earlier research
concerning judgements made by teachers of students with learning disabilities (Lackaye &
Margalit, 2006; Tournaki, 2003 in Woodcock and Vialle 2011, p. 9), in which such negative
perceptions are based not on the needs, attributions and characteristics of students, but rather
on their labelling as students with learning disability. Woodcock’s study illustrates that pre-
service teachers may not be entering the profession with the perceptions and attitudes towards
students with disabilities desired within increasingly-inclusive classrooms.

A later study aimed to ascertain 97 third-year pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes

and concerns prior to, and following, the completion of an inclusive education subject and
four-week practicum experience. Findings identified a hierarchy of concerns which changed
insubstantially over the course of the study, in relation to the factors acceptance, workload,
resources, and academic standards; with apprehension related to resources of most concern.
The authors note that while self-efficacy levels remained largely unchanged over the course
of the study, these levels were originally, and remained, low. The authors present a number of
possibilities for the outcomes of the investigation, such as increased time in classrooms to
observe modelled effective practices. However, they concede that the complexities of the
teaching profession and the number of variables which exist may account for the lack change
apparent in their findings and definitive clarification as to the influence of one pre-service
inclusive education unit and practicum. The researchers present a comprehensive review of
the current state of inclusive education practices, and the occasionally conflicting research
related to this subject; for example, in the findings of Carroll et al. (2003, in Woodcock et. al.
2012, p. 2) and Lancaster and Bain (2007, in Woodcock 2012, p. 2), whose conviction that
the positive outcomes of compulsory inclusive education courses is contrasted with the
assertion that such scholarship contributes insignificantly on attitudes towards inclusion and
disability (Stella et. al. 2007, and Nagata 2005, in Woodcock 2012, p. 2). Regardless of such
conflicts, the authors of this study maintain that the pre-service stage represents the optimum
occasion for future educators to gain valuable knowledge and practical experience in relation
to inclusive education.

In response to research and findings of the TEMAG study, the Advisory Group has
set out 38 recommendations have been set out for development and delivery within two
years, for the purpose of examining how ‘the right mix’ of both academic and practical skills
can better prepare new teachers (TEMAG, 2014, p. 1). The recommendations address the
following areas:

 stronger quality assurance of teacher education courses

 rigorous selection for entry to teacher education courses
 improved and structured practical experience for teacher education students
 robust assessment of graduates to ensure classroom readiness
 national research and workforce planning capabilities.

Additionally, the Group suggests that universities, schools and school systems,
teacher regulatory authorities, and governments must form collaborative partnerships in order
to facilitate successful reform, a cooperative vision supported in earlier study (Darling-
Hammond, 2006; TEMAG, 2014, p. 10). However, Australian Government dismissed Report
consultation submissions’ recommendations for the formation of a new national regulator of
teacher education courses, instead extending greater responsibility to AITSL in working with
state and territory regulatory authorities to improve initial teacher education quality (p. 2).

The importance of aligning initial teacher education with an inclusive educational

culture is echoed in research both nationally and internationally (Darling-Hammond, 2006),
with the National Council on Intellectual Disability [NDIS] promoting a shift in pedagogical
focus from ‘adaptations for special needs or disability’ to ‘universal design pedagogy’.
(NCID, 2013, p. 10). More recently, during a 2014 policy roundtable on students with
disability and learning difficulties, focusing on teacher education, Minister for Education and
Training, Christopher Pyne, noted the critical need for initial teacher education programs to
adequately prepare graduates within this context of inclusive education (Education
Roundtable…, 2014).

Increased national focus on the improvement of teaching quality has resulted in a

number of initiatives at both state and federal government level, including the formulation of
national professional standards and national accreditation of teacher education courses
(Dinham, 2013, pp. 91-2). Through the National Education Reform Agreement, the Council
of Australian Governments (2013) have agreed to reforms concerning the improvement of
initial teacher preparation through measures which include review of teacher education
programs, and development of a national approach to the delivery of high quality pre-service
practicums (p. 14).

Speaking in the context of the United States educational system, Darling-Hammond

(2006) suggests that a crucial feature of a successful approach to preparing pre-service
teachers for the diverse range of students in inclusive classrooms is the undertaking of
extensive and intensely supervised practical experiences which provide expert modelling of
practice and are closely integrated with course work (p. 307). Further, research has suggested
that encouraging positive attitudes of pre-service teachers entails direct contact with people
with disabilities (Forlin, 2006, p. 271).

As part of the Australian Government’s Students First initiative, the 2015-16 Federal
Budget the Education and Training Portfolio includes measures aimed at raising the quality
of initial teacher education programs, providing $16.9 million from 2015-16 to 2018-19
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2015) to support activities recommended in TEMAG’s Action
Now: Classroom Ready Teachers report (2014), such as stronger quality assurance of teacher
education courses, improved and structured practical experience for teacher education
students, and robust assessment of graduates to ensure classroom readiness. In order to
adequately inform the development of initial teacher education courses, the Federal
government has additionally proposed measures to address the need for reliable research and
data, including a review of the Graduate level of the Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers.

Conclusion
 It is apparent that initial teacher education programs must be formulated and delivered
in line with the development of education policies, pedagogical practice, and schooling
structures aimed at attaining the goals of inclusive education (Graham & Jahnukainen 2011,
p. 1). While initiatives to facilitate the enhancement of initial teacher training have
commenced, future research is required to ensure the growth and improvement of this
training (Varcoe & Boyle, 2014, in Anderson & Boyle, 2015, p. 16).
 References

Anderson, J. & Boyle, C. (2015). Inclusive education in Australia: Rhetoric, reality and the
round ahead. Support for Learning, 30(1), pp. 5-22. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.1074.
Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2F1467-
9604.12074?r3_referer=wol

Australian Education Union [AUE] (2008). New Educators Survey 2008: Results and Report.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] (2014). Initial Teacher
Education: Data Report 2014. AITSL, Melbourne. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initial-teacher-education/data-report-2014

Commonwealth of Australia (2015). Budget Related Paper No. 1.5, Education and Training
Portfolio. Portfolio Budget Statements 2015-16.

Council of Australian Governments [COAG] (2013). National Education Reform Agreement.

Retrieved April 27, 2015, from
http://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_education_reform_agreement_201
3.docx

Council of Australian Governments [COAG] (2011). 2010-2020 National Disability Strategy.

Retrieved May 15, 2015, from
https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_disability_strategy_2010-
2020.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, (56)3, pp. 300-314. Doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962. Retrieved
April 27, 2015, from
http://jte.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/57/3/300.full.pdf+html

Department of Education (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005: Factsheet 2.

Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Education and Training [DET] (2015). Portfolio budget statements 2015-16:
Budget related paper no. 1.5. Budget 2015-16: Education and Training Portfolio.
Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from
 https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/education_and_training_portfolio
_budget_statements_2015-16.pdf

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR] (2010). Review

of Disability Standards for Education 2005: Discussion Paper December 2010.
Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia.

Dinham, S. (2013). The quality teaching movement in Australia encounters difficult terrain:
A personal perspective. Australian Journal of Education, (57)9, pp. 91-106. DOI:
10.1177/0004944113485840.

Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European
ournal of Psychology of Education, (XXI)3, pp. 265-277.

Graham, L. J. & Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the
development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Finland and Alberta.
Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), pp. 263-288.

Lancaster, J. & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and
their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(2), pp. 117-18, DOI: 10.1080/13598661003678950. Retrieved May 11,
2015, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13598661003678950

MCEETYA (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
Retrieved April 27, 2015, from
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentar
y_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/SchoolNPSI

McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M. & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in
Australia’s Schools 2013: Main Report on the Survey. Australian Council for
Educational Research. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf

National Council on Intellectual Disability (Australia) [NCID] (2013). The Right of Persons
with Disabilities to an Inclusive Education without Discrimination. Submission to the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved May
 11, 2015, from http://ncid.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/UN-Inclusive-
Education.pdf

Stephenson, J., O'Neill, S., & Carter, M. (2012). Teaching students with disabilities: A web-
based examination of preparation of pre-service primary school teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5). DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2012v37n5.5.

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG] (2014). Teacher Education

Ministerial Advisory Group Issues Paper. Australian Government.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (1994). The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World
Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7-10
June, 1994.

United Nations General Assembly (1994). Agenda item 109: Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.

URBIS (2015). Discussion Paper for the 2015 Review of the Disability Standards for
Education 2005.

Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J. and Rouse, J. (2007). A Model for
preparing special and general education preservice Teachers for inclusive education.
Journal of Teacher Education,(58)440. DOI: 10.1177/0022487107306803.

Woodcock, S., Hemmings, B. & Kay, R. (2012). Does study of an inclusive education subject
influence pre-service teachers' concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion?. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 1-11. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2012v37n6.5.

Woodcock, S. & Vialle, W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students' learning disabilities? An

investigation of preservice teachers' attributions of the educational outcomes of
students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61(2), pp. 223-241.

[N/A] (2014). Education Roundtable: Teacher Training the Key to Helping Students. [media
release]. Retrieved from https://www.pyneonline.com.au/media-centre/media-
releases/education-roundtable-teacher-training-the-key-to-helping-students