The role of parents in facilitating safe, quality, inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities: the position of the Disability Royal Commission

Abstract

Parents play key roles in the facilitation of safe, quality, inclusive schools for students with intellectual disabilities. They have an impact on the school life of their children in three key ways: their choice of school; their involvement in educational decision-making; and advocacy on behalf of their children when there are concerns about school decisions and practices. Parents were crucial witnesses at the Royal Commission on Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability providing their views on inclusive education and testimony about their children’s school experiences. The role and perspectives of parents regarding safe, quality and inclusive education were of key concern to the Commissioners. This article explores the Commission’s investigations about the roles of parents when students have intellectual disabilities and critiques the Commission’s findings and recommendations regarding school choice, parents’ involvement in educational decision-making and complaints processes.

Keywords:

• Parent views
• parent--teacher partnerships
• Disability Royal Commission
• intellectual disabilities
• inclusive education

Parents play key roles in the education of their children (Barger et al., 2019). As lifelong educators of their sons and daughters, parents have an essential voice in educational decision-making (Pushor & Amendt, 2018) and their involvement in the work of schools leads to numerous benefits for their children, for example, academic (Berkowitz et al., 2021) and social benefits (Goodall, 2018). Parents are even more crucial when children have intellectual disabilities (Gilmore et al., 2022) and can help to foster inclusive school cultures (Bennett et al., 2020). When students have intellectual disabilities, the role of their parents is important for three reasons.

First, parents are accorded the authority to make important decisions on behalf of their children, and for those with intellectual disabilities, one such decision is school enrolment. While school choice is considered the right of all parents, when students have intellectual disabilities their parents have the additional choice of special or mainstream enrolment, a significant responsibility given the impact this decision will have on long-term outcomes for their child, for example, on post-school education, employment, and independent living (Mazzotti et al., 2016). Although it is not the only choice parents have regarding enrolment (e.g., there might also be options for separate support units or support classes), the choice between mainstream and special schooling is a particularly controversial theme for parents of students with intellectual disabilities and a heated topic of debate between those who advocate for the closure of special schools and those who fiercely defend them (see, e.g., Carrington et al. (2022); Aspland et al. (2021)). Polarised views about special schools are a theme that returned again and again through the course of the Royal Commission on Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (The Commission).

Second, parents are experts on their children and important partners in educational decision-making and planning. While teachers are experts in curriculum and pedagogy, only parents “can offer insights into the general abilities or difficulties of their child” and a full understanding of the outcomes of the actions that professionals take (Gascoigne, 2012, p. 6). The parent–teacher partnership is particularly important in the context of inclusive education given the more complex environment of mainstream schools. The relationship between parents and educators is critical for successful inclusive practices (Bennett et al., 2020).

Third, parents can be crucial advocates for students with intellectual disabilities who are often subject to low expectations and poorer school outcomes than students who do not have disabilities (Mann, 2017). Parents bear witness to the educational practices of schools, and when students cannot speak up for themselves, are well placed to be their voice (Harry & Ocasio-Stoutenburg, 2021).

Parents have been key participants in numerous Australian reviews into education for students with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities. Some examples include: reviews of the Disability Standards for Education (DSE) (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2020); and various state inquiries (e.g., Deloitte Access Economics, 2017; Victoria State Government [Education and Training], 2016). Parents also feature in recommendations made as a result of those inquiries. For example, in the three reviews of the DSE, the need to keep parents informed about their children’s rights has been a key conclusion. All reviews have recognised the importance of parents in ensuring students with disabilities achieve positive educational outcomes. Similarly, the work of the Commission around education relied heavily on parents’ testimony and drew important conclusions regarding parents. Parents were described as “the litmus test of what is actually happening in schools” (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7, p. 147]). More than this, Commissioners recognised that parents are an important resource in creating safe, quality, inclusive schools (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), for example, good working relationships with parents are critical to providing the supports that students with disabilities need (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). It is important, therefore, to consider the Commission’s findings and recommendations with regard to parents of students with disabilities, particularly to understand conclusions about the role of parents in keeping students with disabilities safe, welcome, and engaged in Australian schools.

The Commission’s primary questions and coverage of the parental role in education when students have intellectual disabilities

Parents were the first to give testimony at the Commission (Hearing 2) and were key witnesses in all three education hearings (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7; Hearing 7, transcripts, 2020, Oct. 12–16; 2021, May 7; & Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). They gave evidence about both their own experiences while trying to negotiate an education for their children with disabilities and also about their children’s experiences of school. Parents of children with intellectual disabilities testified at all education hearings and were particularly well represented at Hearing 24 (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, The experience of children and young people with disability in different education settings]). Given their pivotal role in the lives of students with disabilities, parents were of interest to Commissioners in three key ways (each aligning with the literature on parental roles in schools as discussed in the opening section of this article). These key ways are: how parents choose a school for their child, particularly a special school; how parents are involved in educational decision-making about their children; and what parents do if they want to complain about or challenge school decisions and practices. While the Commissioners’ questions regarding parents were not specific to parents of students with intellectual disabilities, they were especially pertinent to this cohort, given that more than half of Australian children with disabilities have intellectual disabilities (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary, p. 45) and that safe, quality, inclusive education is particularly difficult for students with intellectual disabilities to access (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary, p. 95). The question of parental choice regarding a special or mainstream school was predominantly a question for parents of children with intellectual disabilities as intellectual disability is typically a key criterion for enrolment in special schooling (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A).

Parent choice was a focus from the first hearing (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]) and many witnesses, including parents, advocates for parents, educators and academics gave their views on the entitlement of a parent to choose a school for their child. Parents also provided extensive insights into their experiences of choosing a school, particularly around special school enrolment, leading the Commissioners to hone in on this complex issue during Hearing 24 (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). In his preamble to Hearing 24, the Chair of the Commission said: “Australia is a country that allows students and their families a very wide array of educational options. We would like to understand what choice means for students and families of students who enter or are considering entering the special segregated education system. What factors prompt the choice? Is the decision made with the benefit of advice and support? In practice, what options are available?” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, p. 5]).

Another key interest of the Commissioners was “the way in which parents and students are involved in decision-making” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, p. 12]), and extensive evidence was provided to the Commission about interactions between educators and parents. For example, the issue of consultation with parents came up in each education hearing and was a feature of other Commission work such as the Research Report—Legislation and Regulation in Australia: Children and young people with disability in primary and secondary education settings (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2021, Jul. 22). This focus was no doubt influenced by findings from the 2020 review of the Disability Standards for Education (DSE) that educators could do a “better job of reaching out, genuinely, to students with disability and their families” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A, p. 204). Testimony from parents about their involvement in educational decision-making and the factors that helped and hindered their participation in this work was a constant thread through the Commission’s investigations. It is no coincidence that many of the final education recommendations include strategies for facilitating the involvement of parents in the work of schools.

Finally, a third focus led to investigations of what parents can do if they disagree with school decisions or witness school practices that they perceive as harmful or both. The Commissioners were interested in the opportunities parents have for “raising and escalating concerns that they might have about the progress of their child’s education” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, p. 12]). This focus led to in-depth discussions about the complaints’ mechanisms provided in schools, particularly in Hearing 24, but also in other investigations of the Commission, including the Research Report specifically targeting complaints (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2022, Nov. 28). While this report did not focus solely on schools, it did include education in its scope.

In addition to education hearings, evidence about the experience and role of parents was gathered through submissions made to the Commission and private sessions. More than half of participants in private sessions were supporters of people with disabilities, most commonly parents, and one of the common settings discussed in private sessions was schools (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2023, Sep. 10). The Commission also touched on parental roles in several commissioned research projects. Notably, the research reports on Restrictive Practices (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2023, Jul. 25) and Complaints’ Mechanisms (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8) highlight how the safety of students with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, relies on parent reporting. These reports also described the extent of the barriers parents experience when seeking to report violence, abuse and neglect regarding their children. While not topics of their own in the course of the Commission, the role and perspectives of parents regarding safe, quality and inclusive education were of key concern to the Commissioners.

The Commissioners’ stance on the parental role in education when students have intellectual disabilities

Focus 1: parental choice

There are two main themes in the evidence about parental choice; the first of these is a difference in views on whether parents have the right to choose a special school and the second is whether school choice was actually accorded to parents. Regarding the first theme, in some evidence, we see robust protection of the concept of parent choice, and the entitlement to choose a special school is particularly sacrosanct. “It is fundamental in a free society that parents and guardians should be entitled to make decisions in good faith about the education setting that best suits the interests and needs of their children” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A, p. 343) wrote Commissioners Mason, Ryan, and Sackville as a rationale for maintaining special schools. All state school bodies are keen to protect this entitlement and consequently continue the provision of both mainstream and special schools (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). Parents’ right to choose a special school was argued using Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A), and also, it seems from the quote cited previously in this paragraph, as just a matter of common sense.

Parents’ right to the choice of a special school was not unanimously endorsed, however. Scattered through the extensive evidence supporting parents’ right to choose are dissenting voices. Primarily, while not seen as binding by some witnesses, General Comment No. 4 (GC4) (United Nations, 2016) was cited to elevate the right of a student to an inclusive education over parental rights regarding school choice (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A). Additionally, it is noted in the Research Report Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Shining a Light on Social Transformation (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2020, Sep. 18) that the parental right to choose a school, as delineated in ICESCR, was not in the context of special versus mainstream enrolment but rather regarding the freedom to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in alignment with their own beliefs. It was argued by Kayess and Sands that the parental right to choose a special school is “not supported by international law” any more than a parental choice of segregated education based on race would be (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A, p. 310). Furthermore, in different contexts, the question of parent voice versus child voice was raised. For example, Bigby highlighted how difficult it is for parents to put aside their views and think about what their children with disabilities would want (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 3, transcripts, 2019, Dec. 2–6]). Similarly, Devine described families discouraging individuals from the sorts of life choices that they themselves would make (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 9, transcripts, 2020, Dec. 7–11]), raising the question of whether parents necessarily make the best choices on behalf of their sons and daughters. Furthermore, it is noted in the Research Report on Restrictive Practices (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2023, Jul. 25) that while parent views are important, this is not the same as knowing the views of people with disabilities themselves. Overall, views on parents’ right to choose a special school were a powerful theme in the Commission’s deliberations on education and had a significant influence on the split recommendations made by the Commissioners on whether or not to maintain the binary system of mainstream and special schooling.

The second key theme concerns whether school choice was authentically accorded to parents. For example, “the Royal Commission received evidence and information that parental choice to enrol a child in a special/segregated school or unit is often not a ‘free choice’” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A, p. 311). Parents and their advocates gave evidence that enrolment in special schools is often the result of inadequacies in the mainstream rather than parental “choice.” For example, there is extensive testimony that mainstream schools do not accommodate the needs of students with disabilities or provide appropriate support (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary). Families described wanting their children in mainstream schools but feeling this was not a viable option; for example, one parent testified: “I felt unwelcome and pushed to make another choice. I felt very disappointed, I truly felt he did not belong in a special school” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7, p. 44]). Parents reported failed attempts to engage the school in discussions about how best to include their child (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), fear for their child’s safety (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), including fears of the use of restraint and seclusion (CoA, 2023, Jul. 25), being constantly on-call to pick up their child from school (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 7, transcripts, 2020, Oct. 12–16]) and being worn down by difficulties experienced in the mainstream (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). Similarly, gatekeeping was described whereby families whose choice was a mainstream school were directed elsewhere (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]).

Focus 2—parents’ involvement in educational decision-making

Two themes are evident in parent testimonies about their involvement in educational decision-making, and both refer to barriers that parents experienced when trying to work with educators, that is, tension in the parent--teacher relationship and the negative impact on their participation when parents are not well informed. As a powerful illustration of the first theme, during Hearing 7 (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 7, transcripts, 2021, May 7, p. 524]), Commissioner Atkinson described the “antagonism” of the teacher--parent relationship as a “huge issue” that is reported to the Commission “time and time and time again” and called on educators to find ways to address antagonistic relationships with parents. This conclusion paints a picture of parents’ involvement, or lack thereof, in decision-making with educators. There was extensive evidence given during the hearings that many relationships between educators and parents of students with disabilities are strained, adversarial (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]) and hostile, with “heightened emotions on all sides” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7, p. 308]). Disagreement between parents and educators about student diagnoses (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]) and suitable adjustments and supports (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2020, Oct. 27, Hearing Report 2) were cited as reasons for strained relationships. Parents felt blamed for the challenges experienced by their children and left out of decision-making; or asked to sign off on decisions already made by educators rather than being part of the process (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]). Overall, a power imbalance between parents and educators was evident with some parents testifying that professionals oppose their input, resist new ideas, and tell parents what is best (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). “A common theme in evidence was that students with disability and their parents or supporters feel school leaders and teachers do not listen to them” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary, p. 98).

It was acknowledged by the Commissioners, however, that good working relationships between parents and teachers enable problem-solving and effective support for students with disabilities (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), a conclusion that can also be found in the literature on parent-teacher partnerships (Solvason & Proctor, 2021). There are examples of positive collaboration between teachers and parents and of school cultures in which parent input is valued (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), and where “staff work extremely hard to make contacts with parents” (p. 236). Furthermore, the evidence suggests that difficulties in parent-educator relationships do not all stem from educators. Just as parents described difficulty with engaging some educators in discussions about their children, so too did educators describe the challenges of engaging some parents (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]). It is interesting to note the tone of one bureaucrat who seemed sceptical of parents’ testimony regarding their experiences with educators, repeatedly observing that what parents testified was their “perception” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, p. 262]), and implying that educators would have a different view.

A second theme regarding parents’ involvement in school decision-making was the need for parents to be well-informed if they are to partner successfully with educators. There was evidence that parents do not know enough about, or understand, their children’s rights (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), education policy (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]) or school processes (CoA, 2020, Oct. 27, Hearing Report 2). Additionally, it was clear in their testimonies that parents could be overwhelmed by the information they do receive and that schools need to make information easy for parents to navigate (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]). Some parents also testified that they do not know enough about what is happening day-to-day for their children (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), and can find out about critical school news from other parents rather than from the school. The importance of this theme is highlighted by the many education recommendations made by the Commissioners that advise the provision of information to parents, for example, Recommendation 7.1, which suggests the dissemination of “clear, accessible, transparent material for students with disability and their families on their rights and the obligations of schools” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Rec. 7.1, p. 239).

Focus 3—parental complaints

While not universal experiences for parents of students with disabilities, parent testimonies repeatedly illustrated their difficulties when choosing a school and antagonism in their relationships with teachers, so it is not surprising that a third focus of the Commission was parental complaints. This focus is particularly important given that parents are likely to be key witnesses of student neglect, abuse, and violence. A key theme in this third focus area is the important role that parents play in speaking out when they witness harm, either to their own child or to other children because with “limited or no options for students to make complaints … relying on parents was the only option” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary, p. 253). The second theme is the mechanisms through which parents could speak out. Regarding theme one, parents reported to the Commission examples of student bullying (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), restrictive practices (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), repeated suspensions and informal exclusions (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), low teacher expectations (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), limited school resources (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), lack of classroom adjustments (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7; Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), their children being shamed and humiliated (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]), and “the gap between what is being promised and what they’re [students] experiencing” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7, p. 62]). Although the evidence was clear that parental advocacy is critical, and that positive outcomes for some students with disabilities rely heavily on active campaigns by parents (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8), advocacy comes at a cost, as illustrated by parent comments about the “emotional toll of constantly and proactively intervening to ensure that reasonable adjustments were made by the school” (CoA, 2020, Oct. 27, Hearing Report 2, p. 68) and about “absolutely exhausting and frustrating” experiences (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7, p. 83]).

Perhaps one reason that advocacy is necessary is the lack of independent mechanisms through which parents can make complaints, the second theme in this focus area. While educators and bureaucrats gave evidence of processes available to parents who wish to complain, there was also evidence that no Australian state offers an independent complaint mechanism, with parents having to complain to those about whom they wish to complain. As the Chair of the Commission wryly observed, this “does seem a little conflicted” (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10, p. 308]). This is but one of the many barriers to making a complaint that parents described. Other barriers include the financial and emotional resources required to make complaints, limited access to support from advocates (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A), the stress associated with making complaints (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 7, transcripts, 2020, Oct. 12–16]), the difficulty of navigating the complaints process (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8), and the lack of outcomes. Investigations of complaints were described as inadequate, slow and ineffectual with complaints upheld but leading to no substantial change (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 7, transcripts, 2020, Oct. 12–16]) and “years of complaints leading nowhere” (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8, p. 191). Perhaps the most chilling testimony in this regard was the parents’ fear of negative consequences should they make a complaint. For example, some parents feared being punished for complaining (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8), some feared that complaining would put their child’s enrolment at risk (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A), others worried about going back to schools where their child was not wanted (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 24, transcripts, 2022, Jun. 6–10]), while others felt blamed themselves when raising a complaint (CoA, 2022, Nov. 8). It was concluded that parents may be “compelled to either accept situations of violence and mistreatment or, alternatively, complain and face loss of educational opportunity and/or further violence” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A, p. 254).

Final Commission recommendations involving parents

Overall, of the 15 recommendations made by Commissioners to overcome barriers to safe, quality and inclusive education, 7 make specific reference to parents (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Recs. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.9, & 7.10). To facilitate parental involvement, five recommendations include directions to better inform parents (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Recs.7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, & 7.10) and three recommendations make suggestions relevant to consultation with parents (Recs. 7.2, 7.3, 7.6). Clauses regarding the provision of ways parents can complain or appeal against school decisions and/or practices are included in three recommendations (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Recs. 7.1, 7.2, 7.10). Recommendation 7.6 highlights the importance of positive parent--educator relationships and Recommendation 7.9 includes parents in the work of schools by involving them in data collection. Two recommendations are of relevance to parental choice, although they do not reference parents explicitly. These are 7.14 and 7.15 (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Recs. 7.14 & 7.15), which refer to the closure of special schools and the maintenance of special schools respectively. The Commissioners were divided on the place of special schools going forward, hence made two separate recommendations in this regard. Both are of relevance to parental choice, the former protecting the choice of mainstream schools (and against gatekeeping), and the latter protecting the choice of special schools.

Critique of the Commission’s position on the role of parents in education when students have intellectual disabilities

Parents clearly play a critical role in their children’s lives, including their school lives. Within the purview of the Commission, this translates to the impact of parents on the provision of safe, quality, inclusive schools for children with disabilities. It has been argued in this article that parents have an impact in three key ways and that these were all investigated by the Commission: the school choices parents make, particularly the choice of special versus mainstream schooling; parents’ involvement in educational decision-making; and parents’ advocacy on behalf of their children. The following critique explores the potency of the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations regarding these parental roles in facilitating positive school lives for students with intellectual disabilities.

Given the polarised testimonies on the topic, it is no surprise that the Commissioners themselves were split on the issue of parents’ entitlement to choose a special school enrolment. Although all Commissioners supported parents’ entitlement to choose a mainstream enrolment and made recommendations to protect that right, they were not in agreement about whether parents should also be entitled to choose a special school for their children. The Commissioners’ split views are reflective of broader community division on this topic, particularly among parents of students with disabilities (Carrington et al., 2022) and raise questions about progress towards safe, quality, inclusive schools should special schools be maintained to protect parent choice.

First, there is the question of whether parental choice aligns with the goal of safe schools. It has been argued that protecting parental choice is a key reason for maintaining the binary system of mainstream and special schools and is therefore implicated in the systematic segregation of students with intellectual disabilities (Mann, Carrington et al., 2023), a practice unequivocally condemned by the Commissioners and described as “unacceptable” (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Executive Summary, p. 23) and “incompatible with the principle of inclusive education” (p. 25). Further, while not guaranteed in mainstream schools, the notion of “safety” is irreconcilable with the restraint and seclusion that were found by the Commission’s own research to be “almost guaranteed” in special schools (CoA, 2023, Jul. 25, p. 113).

Second, there is the question of whether supporting parental choice for special schools is consistent with the Commission’s goal of quality, inclusive schools. Maintaining the binary of both mainstream and special schools, so that parents can have a choice, has significant implications for resourcing and for capacity building in staff (see, e.g., Banks, 2021). Binary education systems provide little impetus for the development of inclusive teaching practices and skills (Buchner et al., 2021) yet these skills were identified by the Commissioners as exactly what Australian teachers urgently need to ensure quality, inclusive schooling (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A). Furthermore, given the evidence from the Commission that numerous factors sway parental enrolment choices (for example, gatekeeping, systemic inadequacies, coercion, lack of information about rights and research), that parents are choosing to enrol their children in special schools for the quality of the education would be a dubious claim. Arguably, it will not be parental choice that ensures safe, quality and inclusive schools, but sound evidence-based, inclusive practice, the law, and committed, courageous leadership (Mavropoulou et al., 2021).

Regarding parental involvement in decision-making and the work of schools, evidence from the Commission and subsequent recommendations align closely with what is already known about parent-teacher partnerships, for example, that the contribution of parents is a key factor in school success when students have intellectual disabilities (Gilmore et al., 2022) but that interactions between parents and teachers can be fraught (Mann & Gilmore, 2021). The problematic nature of parent-educator partnerships is well documented and evidence to the Commission attests to its complexity. While the Commission’s recommendations support the involvement of parents and seek to address the issue of antagonistic relationships between educators and parents of students with disabilities, particularly through Recommendation 7.6 (Student and Parental Communication and Relationships) (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Rec. 7.6), in our view, they do not go far enough. Recommendations focus too heavily on information sharing and legal obligations and not heavily enough on relationship building and true partnership work. The passing on of information is reflective of a Transmission rather than a Partnership Model of parent involvement (Hornby, 2011, citing Swap, 1993) with the latter outlining parental involvement in schools as more than just being kept passively “informed” by teachers (Mann et al., 2020). Information is necessary but insufficient to change the pattern of problematic relationships between educators and parents of students with intellectual disabilities. It is particularly insufficient regarding the resolution of disagreements between parents and educators whose perspectives on what constitutes a safe, quality, and inclusive school are likely to be very different (Lalvani, 2015). That being said, there are also numerous examples of positive, collaborative practice between educators and parents (e.g., (CoA, 2019–2023 [Hearing 2, transcripts, 2019, Nov. 4–7]); Mann et al., 2023; Queensland Government, 2023); it is not helpful to student outcomes to only cast parents and teachers as adversaries.

The emphasis on complaints mechanisms in the Commissioners’ recommendations also reflects a skewed approach to addressing the important goal of parents working productively with educators for the benefit of students. For all parents to be confident education partners—not just those who are privileged and well resourced (Lalvani & Hale, 2015)—the development of advocacy skills must be a priority, yet there is very limited reference to advocacy in the Commissioners’ recommendations. Certainly, Recommendation 7.10 (Complaint management) and the review processes outlined in Recommendations 7.1 (Provide equal access to mainstream education and enrolment) and 7.2 (Prevent the inappropriate use of exclusionary discipline against students with disabilities) are very welcome and important (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Recs. 7.1, 7.2, & 7.10). However, to be most effective, these recommendations must sit alongside efforts to strengthen parent voice from the outset and, again, to build home--school relationships, so that the need for making complaints can be reduced. As referenced in the Final Report (CoA, 2023, Sep. 29, Vol. 7, Part A), many complaints by parents involve “a fundamental breakdown in communication, trust and respect between schools and families” (p. 204).

Conclusion

So much that was discovered through the investigations of the Commission has already been uncovered through robust research into the experiences and perspectives of parents of students with disabilities. We know already that parents find it difficult to exercise authentic school choice when their children have disabilities (Poed et al., 2022), and that there are competing views on whether parents should be entitled to choose a special school (Carrington et al., 2022). There is also considerable evidence of how hard parents find it to be involved in educational decision-making (Love et al., 2017), and of the difficulties they experience when trying to speak out on behalf of their children (Rossetti et al., 2021). The findings of the Commission affirm the critical role parents play in the lives of their children with disabilities and highlight the barriers parents experience when trying to play those roles. Recommendations made by the Commissioners go some way to strengthening parent roles but do not go far enough, particularly regarding facilitation of strong, confident parent voice and positive parent-educator relationships. Findings from the Commission also indicate that what we know already about parents’ experiences and perspectives has done little to change their circumstances. Will these latest recommendations from the Commission make a difference? We can only hope.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the QUT Women in Research Grant Scheme, which provided funding support for the preparation of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).