Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, along with General Comment 4, explicitly outlines the right of every person to an inclusive education at every level. And yet, even amongst supporters of inclusive education, it is not uncommon for some students to be considered ‘too disabled’ to be included. In this research I draw on the views and lived experiences of 10 parents, living in Australia, who identify their children as having been labelled with ‘severe and multiple’ or ‘profound’ impairments. I ask what inclusion means to these parents and their families, and whether inclusion and inclusive education is important to them. Drawing on these parent perspectives, is the notion of inclusive education for everyone realistic and desirable, or only idealistic? Should inclusion be inclusive or is it ultimately conditional? The perspectives of the research participants hold implications for the realisation of the right to inclusive education.

More than two decades ago, UNESCO’s (1994) Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education galvanised the inclusion movement by providing a framework for inclusive education. The Statement succeeded in raising awareness of the concept of inclusion internationally, yet genuine inclusion is still the exception and not the norm. This is despite inclusive education being a fundamental human right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008; CRPD in July 2008) adopted by the United Nations in 2006 as an international treaty and ratified by 181 countries that are legally bound to uphold its terms. In this paper, we examine education scholars’ uptake of the CRPD and GC4, relative to the Salamanca Statement, by conducting a citation analysis of literature published in journals from the fields of inclusive and special education between 1994 and 2019. We then look at how each document has been used in the literature over time and conclude with strategies to help improve knowledge of the CRPD / GC4 within education and discuss how these documents can be used to progress inclusive education internationally.

This study investigates parent perspectives on the meaning of 'disability'. One hundred and twenty-one parents in Australia, each of whom have one or more children labelled with impairments, participated in this study. Parent definitions of disability are considered in light of the contrasting dominant deficit discourse involved in the medical model pathologizing of children labelled with impairments, and the social model positioning of disability as oppression of a minority group. Thematic analysis is used to examine parent views and to consider the relevance of social and medical models of disability to families. This study, that forms part of a larger study on family experiences of inclusion and exclusion, contributes to developing a deeper understanding of family experiences and the ways in which parents define disability. Overall, Thomas' social relational model of disability was found to be particularly salient to understanding the experiences of the families participating in this study.

The importance of communication partner intervention to support the successful implementation of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies has been established. Despite this, limited knowledge and use of AAC form serious barriers to inclusion. In this study, 196 pre-service early childhood teachers were taught key word signing (KWS), one common form of AAC, along with approximately 80 Auslan signs. Participants were asked to develop ideas for implementing KWS in early childhood settings. Using participant journal entries, we conducted a thematic analysis to investigate the perceived impact of using KWS in early childhood practice. Participants reported the belief that KWS was beneficial for supporting communication development. Participants identified that using KWS can facilitate inclusive approaches through reducing barriers to participation, valuing diversity, and supporting a sense of belonging. Additionally, participants reported that engaging with inclusive approaches to using KWS formed a catalyst for fostering openness to inclusion more broadly. Overall, the findings demonstrate that approaching KWS as a communication partner intervention holds potential for contributing to the conditions for inclusion in early childhood settings in line with social relational and human rights models of disability. Implications for teacher education and inclusive practice are discussed, as are the limitations of this study.

THIS STUDY INVESTIGATED EDUCATORS' attitudes towards the inclusion of a child labelled with autism in a mainstream early childhood education and care (ECEC) setting in Australia. The article provides an overview of three perspectives from which disability in inclusive early childhood education can be approached: the medical model of disability, the social model of disability and the social relational understanding of disability. Findings showed that when educators' beliefs and practices aligned with a social relational understanding of disability, inclusion for a child labelled with autism was facilitated. It is argued that inclusion in early childhood settings can be fostered when educators recognise and dismantle barriers to doing and barriers to being, and view inclusion as ordinary practice.

The Commonwealth of Australia (2016) inquiry into access to learning for students with disability received several submissions on gatekeeping practices in Australian schools, resulting in minimised school enrolment and reduced participation in classrooms. The inquiry also received reports of the use of restrictive practices such as restraint and seclusion. As Australia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), which stipulates the requirement to provide inclusive, safe and effective learning environments and educational experiences for every person (Article 24), these practices warrant further investigation. As part of an Australia–wide survey of families and staff around the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Com Law. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767), data were collected on a range of gatekeeping and restrictive practices from more than 900 respondents, of whom 745 were family members of a student with disability. Over 70% of the families who participated in this study reported having experienced gatekeeping or restrictive practices. This study identifies that the practices were reported to be widespread over all levels and types of schools and for all types of disability, causing concern as to how Australia can meet its obligations as a signatory to the UN convention.