Loading Consultations Welcome

Schools and Youth Cluster – July 2014

Loadings consultations leadership team

Session 1: Students with Disability Loading

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date COAG agreed to work towards a nationally consistent approach Expert Advisory Group established Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 commenced

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date COAG agreed to work towards a nationally consistent approach Expert Advisory Group established Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 commenced 1 st Trial of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data Joint Working Group established

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date COAG agreed to work towards a nationally consistent approach Expert Advisory Group established Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 commenced 1 st Trial of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data Joint Working Group established Review of Funding Released MSSD commences 2 nd NCCD Trial NCCD model agreed

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date COAG agreed to work towards a nationally consistent approach Expert Advisory Group established Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 commenced 1 st Trial of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data Joint Working Group established Review of Funding Released MSSD commences 2 nd NCCD Trial NCCD model agreed Ministers agreed to implement the NCCD - 20% of schools participated MSSD continues PD Modules

Timeline: Collaborative National Progress to Date COAG agreed to a nationally consistent approach Expert Advisory Group established Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 commenced 1 st Trial of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data Joint Working Group established Review of Funding Released MSSD commences 2 nd NCCD Trial NCCD model agreed Minister agreed to implement the NCCD - 20% of schools participated MSSD Continues PD Modules New needs based funding model Project on Additional Resourcing 80% schools in 2014 NCCD MSSD extended Ministers to consider future funding arrangements and NCCD QA

Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on Students with Disability Model All school students Students who meet the definition of disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Students who are provided with adjustment in school Levels of Adjustment Supplementary Adjustments Substantial Adjustments Extensive Adjustments Physical Cognitive Sensory Social/Emotional Physical Cognitive Sensory Social/Emotional Physical Cognitive Sensory Social/Emotional

Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability NCCD will provide nationally consistent information on: – how many school students with disability there are – where they are – the level of adjustment provided for them to participate in schooling on the same basis as other students. The NCCD is being implemented nationally through a phased approach over 2013 – 2015: – 20% of schools undertook the NCCD in 2013 – target of up to 66% of schools to participate in 2014, before 100% of schools undertake the NCCD in NCCD will help to reinforce the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Disability Standards for Education 2005.

National Quality Assurance Framework The National Quality Assurance Framework addresses quality assurance issues at each of the following NCCD stages: – Information and Consent – Local Compilation and Reporting (including identifying students with disability) – State and Territory/ Sectoral Compilation and Reporting – National Compilation and Reporting – Evaluation and Review

MSSD Outcomes 4,983 assistive technology items provided for 1,072 schools with 11,997 teachers from 1,744 schools trained 1,147 health professionals supporting 4,180 teachers and 1,092 schools DSE – 19,395 teachers trained from 1,693 schools 9,988 school principals from 5,291 schools have undergone training 25,316 teachers from 2,470 schools – training to assist assessment of students and curriculum adaptation 1,451 paraprofessionals have been assisted to develop their skills in supporting students with disability

Impact of eLearning about Disability Standards for Education on Australian school staff Over 80 per cent of schools have access Over 46,000 participants completed units in first year 5,000 new registrations each month SCHOOLING GROUP | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Drivers of Adjustment Costs in Schools Adjustment Cost School Size Disability Percentage Other School Context Year Level Other Student Context School Variance Student Variance Adjustment Level

Drivers of Adjustment Costs in Schools Adjustment Cost School Size Disability Percentage Other School Context Year Level Other Student Context School Variance Student Variance Adjustment Level School Context Schools behave differently depending on their local context. School Size and the percentage of students receiving adjustments are the strongest school level drivers of cost.

Drivers of Adjustment Costs in Schools Adjustment Cost School Size Disability Percentage Other School Context Year Level Other Student Context School Variance Student Variance Adjustment Level Student Context Every Student is different and where these differences are known they help us to predict per student costs.

Drivers of Adjustment Costs in Schools Adjustment Cost School Size Disability Percentage Other School Context Year Level Other Student Context School Variance Student Variance Adjustment Level Students are within schools Students are grouped within schools and costs vary much less within a school than they do between schools. To accurately understand students, we must first understand schools.

Drivers of Adjustment Costs in Schools Adjustment Cost School Size Disability Percentage Other School Context Year Level Other Student Context School Variance Student Variance Adjustment Level Once these factors have been controlled for, we can get a more accurate picture of costs by Adjustment Level

Costs of Adjustments No. of Students Costs of Adjustments

Group Discussions- Key Issue: NCCD ‘What is not counted doesn’t count’ - Graeme Innes Focus Questions 1.What are your perspectives of and experiences of the NCCD to date? 2.Where should we invest our effort and what strategies should we be focussing on to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of data from the NCCD?

Group Discussions- Key Issue: Use of students with disability loading and resourcing Focus Questions Currently the loading calculation for government and Catholic systems and for independent school approved authorities is based on 186 per cent of the SRS for eligible students with disability in mainstream schools and 223 per cent of the SRS for students in special schools. We are getting a better understanding of students with disability and their needs through the NCCD. 1. What are some ways to refine the disability funding loading formula to get to arrangements that are more closely aligned to need and support the loading being used effectively to supports students with disability? 2. What are some strategies for using resources more effectively to support the needs of students with disability? We are interested to hear the full range of perspectives from parents, principals, teachers, sectors and systems?

Summary of Discussion

Key Messages

Students with Disability - Next Steps Synthesise and analyse feedback for: The Joint Working Group: 19 August Schools Policy Group: 11 September AEEYSOC: 3 October Education Council: 17 October Ongoing work

End of Session 1

Finalisation of the English Language Proficiency Loading

Intent of the ELP Loading Low English proficiency can be a major barrier to student learning engagement and achievement. The loading aims to cover the extra costs of educating students who are educationally disadvantaged due to limited English language proficiency. 29

Calculation of the ELP Loading Based on the number of Disadvantaged LBOTE students where: the student is identified as having a language background other than English and at least one parent has completed school education only to Year 9 (or equivalent) or below. At the pure SRS level - calculated at 10 per cent of the per student amount for students who have low English proficiency: $927 for primary school students $1 219 for secondary school students 30

The size of the ELP loading envelope 31

Example schools - loading breakdown 32

Coverage of ELP loading Of schools that receive an ELP loading: – 100% receive Low SES – 99% receive SWD – 89% receive ATSI 33

Limitations of DLBOTE Low parental education levels and LBOTE does not necessarily equate to low English proficiency. Evidence suggests DLBOTE does not capture all students with low English proficiency or their true level of educational disadvantage. The measure appears to be patchy in relation to Indigenous students. It is assumed that very remote schools with a high proportion of Indigenous students would also have high DLBOTE proportions. However, analysis shows that this is not the case… 34

Example: DLBOTE and very remote schools with majority Indigenous students 35

Example: DLBOTE and very remote schools with majority Indigenous students 36

ELP Loading Presentation – NSW DET English as as additional dialect (EAL/D) measure

ELP Loading Policy Hubs (15 minutes x 3) 1. Maintain current arrangements (David Pattie) 2. Advancing (EAL/D) measure (Gabrielle Phillips) 3. Developing a new measure/approach (Patrick)

Next Steps-ELP Loading Implementation Timing will be determined by the parameters of any proposed/agreed changes arising from the consultations. Consultation Further consultations will be managed through working groups – Schools Policy Group/Data Strategy Group/ Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee

Next Steps-ELP Loading Key Dates Schools Policy Group – update 11 September; final recommendation 6 November AEEYSOC - draft recommendation 3 October; final recommendation 28 November Education Council 12 December

Review of the Low Socio Economic Status Loading 41

Intent of the Low SES loading Provides additional resources to schools to help them address the educational needs of students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. 42

Socio-educational Advantage (SEA) The Socio-Educational advantage (SEA) was developed by ACARA, and is derived from data relating to parental education and occupation. The Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) model calculates a low SES loading for a school. This is based on the proportion of students at the school who are in the lowest two SEA quartiles 43

Calculation of the low SES loading 44

The size of the Low SES loading 45

Improvements in 2013 SEA data In 2013 ACARA reviewed the process of calculating ICSEA and SEA by using student-level data obtained directly from students’ families, rather than indirect (ABS) Census data. As a result of recent improvements to ICSEA data, ACARA modelling shows that ICSEA can explain 81% variance when school performance is predicted by its ICSEA. 46

Low SES Loading Improvements in ICSEA and SEA ACARA Presentation

Low SES Loading Policy Hubs (30 Minutes X 1) 1. SEA Vs SES (David Pattie) 2. Individual Vs area based (Gabrielle Phillips) 3. Concentration of disadvantage (Patrick)

Next Steps – Low SES Loading Implementation Timing will be determined by the parameters of any proposed/agreed changes arising from the consultation and submissions. Consultation Further consultations will be through Schools Policy Group/Data Strategy Group/ Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee

Next Steps – Low SES Loading Submissions Invitation to tender your submission via website (TBA) Closing date 10 th September

Next Steps Low SES Loading Key Dates August to September - Department analysis of submissions Verbal update to SPG 11 September Paper to AEEYSOC 3 October/28 November Paper to Education Council 12 December

Loading Consultations Thank you