Disability inclusion in early education can’t just be promised – it has to be practised

Australia's early childhood education and care (ECEC) system is failing to keep pace with the families who rely on it most. As a parent carer, I've experienced this firsthand – and after working with hundreds of others across the sector, I can say with confidence: the most significant barrier isn't the disability. It's the system that's meant to help.

Late last month, the federal government released the results of its consultation on proposed amendments to the Disability Standards for Education 2005, which for the first time will explicitly include most ECEC providers. On the surface, this sounds like a long-overdue step forward – and many parents, carers, and providers agree it's a good move. It promises clearer obligations, better awareness, and more consistent protections for children with disability. But here's the hard truth: if we don't address the structural limitations of ECEC settings themselves, no change in language will be enough.

Families aren't asking for the world. They're asking for their children to be welcomed, accommodated, and understood. But right now, too many are being turned away, left out, or offered support so diluted it barely qualifies as inclusion. And if you think this is rare – it's not. It's a weekly, sometimes daily experience for the families we work with.

The reality behind the reform

The promise of inclusion doesn't match the practice. The current ECEC system wasn't built with neurodivergent children or children with disability in mind – and the cracks show early.

Educators often lack the training, resourcing, or confidence to make reasonable adjustments. Families are told a service is "inclusive," only to discover that means their child can attend if they don't require too much support, or if they don't impact the day too much for others. Children are excluded from excursions, separated during group time, or worse – quietly discouraged from coming back at all.

The consultation report itself made this clear. Submissions from parents and peak bodies echoed the same concerns²: limited understanding of legal obligations, poor implementation of reasonable adjustments, and a system that rarely centres the voice of the family.

One of the most alarming things I see, time and again, is how early children are "othered." At just three or four years old, they begin to internalise that they don't belong – not because of who they are, but because no one built the environment around them with their needs in mind.

Policy must move beyond paper

Including ECEC under the Disability Standards is important, but inclusion on paper doesn't guarantee inclusion in practice. The consultation revealed concerns from providers around funding, compliance red tape, and whether they'd be equipped to meet new standards. These aren't unreasonable concerns. But they're also not new.

If we want inclusion to be real – not just aspirational – then it must be backed by systems-level investment: in training, staffing, infrastructure, and family partnerships. You can't mandate outcomes without resourcing implementation.

It also means listening – not just to bureaucrats or sector leaders, but to the families living through this. Families who've sat through meetings where their child's needs were described as "too complex." Who've been told "we don't have the staff for that." Who've cried in carparks after being told their three-year-old isn't "a good fit."

A better model exists - if we've brave enough to use it

At RippleAbility, we work alongside families navigating these systems. Our approach is built on lived experience – not just policy. We've seen what happens when the right scaffolding is in place: when families are partnered with, not managed; when services are proactive, not reactive; when inclusion is a process, not just a promise.

But organisations like ours shouldn't have to exist to bridge these gaps. The fact that families are relying on advocacy networks and specialist navigators just to access basic rights should be a wake-up call for policymakers.