Discuss the inclusion of students with ASD in English method

Given ethical considerations, legislative obligations and policy requirements of the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers (APST), it is incumbent on teachers to provide inclusive

education (IE) to all students. Western society’s understanding of disability is shifting from a

medical model, whereby disability is defined as a health condition to be cured (PWD, 2017),

to a social model, defining disability by ‘the result of the interaction between people living

with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and

social barriers’ (PWD, 2017). This change in understanding is reflected in legislative

instruments. Where the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (Disability Discrimination Act)

defines disability by the medical model, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

(Cth) (NDIS Act) has brought the social model into Commonwealth legislation. In education,

this shift is reflected in the move from special education, self-contained schools or classes for

identified students (Dunn, 1968), to IE. IE is broadly defined as involving no segregated classes

and full membership in the mainstream classroom, where children with disability spend the

vast majority of their time and participate in all class activities (Loreman, 2007). Through a

discussion of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), these changing views and the implications for

teaching practice can be demonstrated. The personal and professional attributes that

teachers require are discussed generally, and by specifically addressing the English teaching

method, particular adjustments, accommodations and appropriate outcomes for students

with ASD, this discussion will demonstrate how a teacher may effectively practice IE in their

classroom.

Definitions of IE and ASD are important considerations of the discussion, and will be

shown to affect teaching practice. Anderson and Boyle (2015) identify that while IE has been

part of the lexicon of Australian education for two decades, the terminology is no longer used
exclusively for education provided to students with disability, but ‘[encompasses] the delivery

of a high‐quality education to all students.’ Loreman’s (2007) definition of IE (above) is a

useful starting point, but should be understood as being open to challenge and negotiation in

different contexts and jurisdictions. For the purpose of this discussion, IE is taken to mean the

broad project of integrating children with disability into mainstream classrooms (Thompson,

Fisher, Purcal, Deeming and Sawrikar, 2011) with the aim of reducing educational inequalities

and exclusions, and embracing all students in successful learning (Anderson and Boyle, 2015).

ASD is a diagnosis made by medical professionals in accordance with the American Psychiatric

Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-V)

and contains (within the diagnosis) three severity levels; Level 1 – Requiring Support, Level 2

– Requiring substantial support, and, Level 3 - Requiring very substantial support. Given

different diagnostic criteria between the DSM-V and its predecessor, Diagnostic and

statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV), teachers should be aware that

students who were diagnosed under the DSM-IV, with Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder,

Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder or Pervasive Development Disorders-Not

Otherwise Stated (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), ‘should be given the diagnosis of

autism spectrum disorder.’ (Positive Partnerships, n.d)

A discussion of the inclusion of students with ASD in the English teaching method

requires an investigation of how changing attitudes towards disability, specifically ASD, affect

teaching practice. This investigation includes an examination of social attitudes and

behaviours, and the relevant legislative instruments. In analysing Australian community

attitudes to people with disability, Thompson, Fisher, Purcal, Deeming and Sawrikar (2011)

identify three policy framework levels at which attitudes may be examined; the personal

level, the organisational level and the structural level, each of which are discussed below.
 At the personal level, Thompson et al. (2011) identify policy actions to move individual

attitudes about people with disability from negative to positive. These policy actions include

awareness campaigns, disability training and information, the public portrayal of people with

disability in mass media and the arts, and social contact programs. While in a school setting

students and teachers will almost inevitably be exposed to such policy actions, these actions

merely enhance IE, given that IE is underpinned by similarly positive attitudinal policies. This

will be further discussed below in the context of teachers’ personal and professional

attributes.

At the organisational level, Thompson et al. (2011) note that organisational policies

within education affect ‘children’s attitudes to disability in other spheres and later stages of

their lives.’ Education is one of the ‘particular life domains,’ that Thompson et al. (2011) use

to define the organisational level. Other particular life domains include health and

employment. Anderson and Boyle (2015) identify that globally, from the 1990s, a paradigm

shift in educational thinking has taken place where the exclusion of students from

mainstream classrooms based on difference is increasingly being challenged. The move from

segregated special education to IE for students with disability is one example of this paradigm

shift and has, as argued by Boyle, Scriven, Durnin, and Downes (2011), benefits to teachers

and students, both with disability and without. Boyle et al. (2011) identify the benefits to

students as including improved social relationships and improved academic development in

comparison to segregated classrooms. Teachers’ professional development in the teaching of

all students is particularly assisted by three inclusive pedagogic strategies; direct instruction,

cognitive strategies and co-operative learning. The realisation of these benefits is not without

its challenges. At the organisational level, for IE to be effective it must be well resourced

(Boyle et al., 2011). Forbes (2011) articulates the challenge of resourcing through the example
of specialist disability educators, as the move from segregated classrooms to IE risks losing

these specialised teaching positions to programs that are inclusive in rhetoric but are not

always resourced sufficiently to achieve effective inclusion of all students.

At the structural level, legislation significantly affects teachers’ practice. Australia has

ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (UN, 2008), which

adopts a social definition of disability as affecting ‘those [persons] who have long-term

physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various

barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with

others’ (emphasis added). As well as defining disability, the CRPD defines the rights of persons

with disability and mandates that governments will implement policies to realise and protect

these rights (UN, 2008, Thompson, et al., 2011). Prior to Australia’s ratification of the CRPD,

a medical definition of disability was provided by the Disability Discrimination Act (see

Appendix 1 for specific examples). A significant effect of the Commonwealth’s ratification of

the CRPD was the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the

legislation of which explicitly incorporates Australia’s obligations under the CRPD (s 3, NDIS

Act). The direct implication of the NDIS to teachers is the funding and provision of supports

to assist students and their families, including assistance with daily personal activities,

assistance in coordinating or managing life stages, transitions and supports (DHS, 2018).

Further provisions which may attract NDIS funding include; aids and equipment, specialist

support and training, and therapeutic support (DHS, 2018). The Disability Discrimination Act

is of importance to teachers given it allowed for the development of the Australian

Government’s (DET, 2005) Disability Standards for Education (DSE). The DSE ‘clarify and

elaborate the legal obligations in relation to education’ and cover enrolment, participation,

curriculum development (including accreditation and delivery), student support services and
harassment and victimisation (DET, 2005). Beyond legislation, Australian teachers are also

required to comply with government policy, notably the APST (AITSL, 2011). Standard 1.6 of

the APST, ‘Strategies to support full participation of students with disability’ explicitly requires

proficient teachers to ‘design and implement teaching activities that support the participation

and learning of students with disability and address relevant policy and legislative

requirements’ (AITSL, 2011). The personal and professional attributes that this legislative

framework requires will be further explored with particular reference to students with ASD

in the English teaching method.

For an English teacher teaching students with ASD in a NSW school, the practical

implications of this discussion occur with reference to teacher attitudes, collaboration with

stakeholders (e.g. support teachers, parents/caregivers, NDIS support coordinators) and the

differentiation of content delivery. Applying the policy framework of Thompson, et. al. (2011),

teacher attitudes occur at the personal level and teachers must actively engage in policy

programs at this level. Sharma, Forlin and Loreman (2008) identify a range of attitudes

towards diversity among pre-service teachers, and Thompson, et. al (2011) identify concern

regarding the inadequate preparation of teachers to educate students with disability. In NSW,

opportunities exist to professionally develop teachers in this regard, and actively seeking out

and engaging in these opportunities demonstrates a positive professional attribute in

teachers. Collaboration with stakeholders is crucial to effectively teaching a student with ASD.

As has been discussed, a diagnosis of ASD is not complete without a required support level.

As such, teachers must communicate with parents/caregivers, as the primary stakeholders,

to ensure these levels are being met. Beyond the diagnostic levels, teachers must be

responsive to the individual student’s abilities particularly given the nature of ASD, where

symptoms are multiple, varied and may include co-morbidities. Teachers’ engagement with
stakeholders is not limited to the student’s proximal connections, but may extend to

community groups and disability support services engaged with the student and the school,

to promote and increase understanding and embracing of difference and diversity, and the

student's participation and learning outcomes.

Differentiation of content delivery is mandated to all teachers by APST Standard 1.5

(AITSL, 2011). In effect, a teacher must know what strategies are required for teaching a

student with ASD in their classroom. In the English teaching method, examples of pedagogy

applicable to teaching a student with ASD include the provision of adjustments and

accommodations and the development and implementation of appropriate outcomes. The

use of individualised learning plans or student profiles allows a teacher to collect relevant

data and thus monitor a student’s learning needs, as well as identify patterns in behaviour.

Adjustments and accommodations in this context may include physical adjustments to the

learning space such as use of visuals, given the propensity for people with ASD to have

strengths in visual areas (Larkey, n.d.). Such an accommodation fits with a model of strength-

based practice, whereby ‘capacity building is a process and a goal’ (Hammond, 2010) and the

focus is on the student’s ability. The inclusion of appropriate visuals as part of the learning

space ensures exposure to the rest of the class, and allows for discretion in implementation

(Boutot, 2007). Another example would be to adjust an assessment task to ensure a student’s

participation. Oral presentations, for instance, may be allowed to be pre-recorded either at

school or home if this would increase the likelihood of meaningful participation. Appropriate

outcomes will vary based on the individual student’s circumstances, and settings such should

be developed in collaboration with stakeholders across the personal and organisational

levels, including the wider school, parents, caregivers and medical professionals., and
example of such would be to adjust an assessment task to ensure a student’s participation.

Oral presentations, for instance, may be allowed to be pre-recorded either at school or home.

The implementation of IE is part of a wider paradigm shift in education which argues

for greater access for previously marginalised peoples to the education provided in the

mainstream classroom. As social attitudes towards disability change, the Australian education

sector has adopted IE in order to provide quality education to all students, not only those with

disability. The legislative framework in which Australian teachers operate demands that

teachers know how to effectively provide education to students with disability. In the case of

a student with ASD in a NSW English classroom, specific adjustments and accommodations

should be made to ensure an ASD student’s full and effective participation in the classroom.
Appendix 1 – Definition of disability, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (emphasis

added)

‘disability, in relation to a person, means:

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body;

or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a

person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes,

perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed

behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that

disability); or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour

that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.’

References

Anderson, J., & Boyle, C. (2015). IE in Australia: Rhetoric, reality and the road ahead. Support

for Learning, 30(1), 4-22.

Australian Government, Department of Education and Training. (2005). Disability Standards

for Education 2005. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from

https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3145784-dt-content-rid-

25004086_1/courses/102084_2018_1h/Disability%20Standards%20for%20Educatio

n%202005.pdf

Australian Government, Department of Human Services (2018). ‘Planning, Appendix 1.’ NDIS

Operational Guideline. Retrieved from: https://www.ndis.gov.au/operational-

guideline/planning/appendix.html#school-education

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-

source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Commonwealth of Australia (2013). National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

Boyle, C., Scriven, B., Durnin, S. And Downes, C. (2011) Facilitating the learning of all

students: the ‘professional positive’ of inclusive practice in Australian primary

schools. Support for Learning, 26, 2, 72–78. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.588312

Dunn, L. (1968). Special Education for the Mildly Retarded: Is Much of It Justifiable?

Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.

Loreman, T. (2007) Seven Pillars of Support For IE: Moving From “Why?” To “How?”

International Journal of Whole Schooling Vol. 3, No. 2.22-38

People With Disability Australia. (2017) The Social Model of Disability. Retrieved 5 April

2018, from http://www.pwd.org.au/student-section/the-social-model-of-

disability.html

Sharma, U., Forlin, C. & Loreman, T. (2008) Impact of training on pre‐service teachers'

attitudes and concerns about IE and sentiments about persons with disabilities,

Disability & Society, 23:7, 773-785, DOI: 10.1080/09687590802469271

Thompson, D., Fisher, K. R., Purcal, C., Deeming C. & Sawrikar, P. (2011) Occasional Paper

No. 39 Community attitudes to people with disability: scoping project. Social Policy

Research Centre, Disability Studies and Research Centre, University of New South

Wales. Retrieved from

http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-

bibliography/other-

publications/2013/Thompson_etal_community_attitudes_to_disability_op39.pdf

United Nations. (2008) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional

Protocol. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf