In Volume 35, Issue 1 of the Australasian Journal of Special Education, Carter, Stephenson and Strnadová (2011) replicated a study by Burns and Ysseldyke (2009). In Carter et al.'s study, 194 Australian special educators were asked to rate the extent to which they used eight instructional practices. These practices were applied behaviour analysis, direct instruction, formative evaluation, mnemonic strategies, modality training, perceptual-motor training, psycholinguistic training, and social skills training. The first four of these practices had moderate to high effect sizes (and were regarded by the authors as more desirable techniques), and the final four practices had low effect sizes, on the basis of past meta-analytic research. Carter et al.'s findings were that while the Australian teachers used some desirable strategies relatively frequently, they also used some less desirable practices frequently and so desirable instructional practices should be encouraged at the expense of less effective practices. While these results are of interest, they also have the potential to mislead readers and later sections of the current article examine these potential misconceptions.

This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study of the integration of an exceptional child with Down syndrome into a regular primary school. In investigating the demands made on the teachers in this situation, the researcher attempted to discover personal, professional development and support needs. The data revealed that there were greatly increased demands placed on the teachers of the exceptional child and their personal and professional needs were significant. The study concluded that it is only with adequate professional, financial and moral support of the entire school community that justice for teachers of exceptional children in integrated classrooms is both done and seen to be done.

The Des English Memorial Lecture provides an unique opportunity each year to reflect on the history that has brought us together and has carried us to this point in the evolution of the discipline of special education. It provides us with a time to dream, a time to foreshadow, a time to hint or guess at the better world that we strive to create in our classrooms each day, in our schools each week and in our administrative or academic systems each year. There are many lessons from the educational past for us to heed as we move forward towards the 21st Century and help forge the changes that our schools and services must necessarily undergo in order to serve well future generations of students with special academic and social needs.

This paper examines, from a philosophical perspective, some of the main ethical problems pertaining to the special education field. It is argued that while special education practice has been strongly grounded in psychological theory, it has not always been adequately justified by reference to general moral principles. Rationales for intervention are mostly couched in descriptive or explanatory terms while the over-riding prescriptive or evaluative dimensions are often presupposed without explicit justification. Particular issues such as diagnostic assessment, educational placement and behavioural management can be seen to entail complex ethical problems concerning the consideration of individual rights and interests, equality of educational opportunity, and respect for personal autonomy. Examples of the moral dilemmas inherent in particular special educational practices are examined. Finally, it is claimed that special educators must be able to defend not only the empirical bases of their educational theories, but also the value judgments implicit in them.

Recently Maggs described a model for the delivery of technical assistance in special education settings in which he emphasized the importance to service delivery of the role played by consultant personnel. This paper identifies three fundamentally important influences on the work performance of consultants, whether they are working “traditionally” or within a model such as that proposed by Maggs.

The extent to which young people with emotional and behavioural disturbances can remain integrated within the normal school is contentious. The article proposes that every effort should be made to maintain integration and that an Alternative Unit is one means of helping to bring this about. The Alternative Unit would not only work with students in the mainstream but could also function as an intermediary between mainstream and special education.

Although international research has accumulated significant evidence on inclusive practices and their benefits for children, how this translates into early childhood settings is often unsatisfactory within and across countries. Against the background of general acceptance of the principles incorporated in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, we examine how 3 countries who are signatories to this convention, Australia, Greece, and Malaysia, are making progress towards inclusion in early childhood. Using an implementation science framework, the key components of enabling contexts, research-based practices, and effective implementation supports are explored. In this framework, each of these components is essential for achieving the desired outcomes of inclusion. The country profiles of Australia, Greece, and Malaysia are examined (including similarities and differences in legislation, policies, early childhood services, and practices) in an effort to support understanding of factors facilitating and challenging early childhood inclusion.

This article describes the evolution of inclusive education in Hong Kong, moving from segregation via integration to inclusion. The outside influence of education policies and trends from Britain, Australia, and the United States are identified, and the current situation is described. In particular, obstacles that are encountered on the route to inclusion are compared with those found in other countries. These obstacles include large class size, teachers’ often negative attitudes, parents’ expectations, teachers’ lack of expertise for adapting the curriculum and for providing differentiated teaching, and ongoing conflicts between the notion of ‘inclusive schooling for all’ and the ‘academic standards agenda’.