‘Repugnant’ decision bars boy with a learning disability from summer school
Victoria school rejected application even when mother offered to waive LSE support
A boy with a learning disability was blocked from attending summer catch-up classes simply because he gets one-to-one help at school.
The decision by the education authorities has been slammed as “repugnant” by the Ombudsman’s Commissioner for Education, Vincent De Gaetano, who criticised the lack of flexibility shown in the boy’s case.
It all started in March, when the boy’s mother – herself a teacher – applied for her son to attend catch-up classes at a school in Victoria. The application was acknowledged and she even received a link to join a parents’ meeting scheduled for July.
To make things easier for her son, she transferred him from the Skola Sajf in their village to the summer school in Victoria. But during the online meeting she was told she was ineligible because children with one-to-one learning support educators (LSEs) are automatically ruled out of these classes. Only those with shared LSEs could take part.
The mother offered to waive her son’s one-to-one LSE support, saying she was confident, based on twice-yearly school reports, that he could manage the programme without such assistance. But the authorities didn’t budge.
She complained to the ombudsman on July 15.
After reviewing the case, De Gaetano said the education department had relied on a blanket rule rather than assessing the boy’s individual needs. He said there was plenty of time to consider the application properly. Instead, they relied on a pre-determined exclusion.
He deemed her complaint justified and said he was “appalled at the insensitivity shown towards, and lack of empathy with, parents of one-to-one LSE-supported children over this issue of catch-up classes”.
The permanent secretary defended the move, saying it followed long-standing eligibility rules based on students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP). The director general for curriculum also weighed in, saying the fast pace of the catch-up programme might be overwhelming and counterproductive for many one-to-one LSE students.
De Gaetano rejected this reasoning, noting that the so-called “long-standing criteria” amounted to a blanket prohibition, with no evidence of an individualised assessment in this case. That, he concluded, was not just poor administration, it was wrong in principle, as it relied almost entirely on excluding one-to-one LSE-supported students from registering for and attending catch-up classes.
“An approach that is repugnant to all avowed commitments to inclusive education for all,” De Gaetano said.