Word Change
“That ICPA Qld lobbies for boarding schools to be able to provide for a neurodiverse student’s needs both in the classroom and boarding house so that their selection process supports the student’s diagnosis or symptoms of diagnosis in enrolment.”
Word Change to original Motion
Neurodiverse students deserve the same opportunities as their peers to access boarding education. However, some schools use a student’s diagnosis and/or their symptoms of diagnosis as a reason to exclude students rather than assessing how reasonable adjustments can be made to support them. This contradicts the principles of inclusive education and prevents students from adapting to their new environment like any other boarder. In Australia, every child has the right to an education, free of discrimination against students with disabilities. These students have the right to participate in educational courses and services on the same basis as students without disabilities. The Human Rights Commission states ‘that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ It also states that ‘secondary education in its different forms, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means’.
Boarding schools must be encouraged to implement appropriate adjustments to support neurodiverse students, particularly those from rural and remote areas where boarding school is the only option for continuing their education. These adjustments should be transparent, clearly communicated to families, and aligned with best practices in inclusive education. ICPA Qld must advocate for policies that ensure fair selection processes and equal opportunities for neurodiverse learners.
Case Study
In 2024, I began searching for a suitable boarding school for my son, Dustin, who has an ASD-2 diagnosis and ADHD. While my neurotypical daughter had a smooth experience transitioning to boarding, Dustin’s journey was met with hesitation and exclusion. One school was initially welcoming, engaging with us about his needs and allowing him to attend a two-day boarding experience. However, despite Dustin expressing his enjoyment and eagerness to enrol, the school deemed his adjustment period problematic. They failed to recognize that, for neurodiverse students, feeling safe and regulated takes time. Dustin’s behaviours—such as social exuberance and difficulty following directions—were treated as barriers rather than challenges to be supported.
Despite extensive preparation, including securing support services like speech and occupational therapy, the school rejected his application, advising increased medication and suggesting self-sufficiency in daily tasks as prerequisites for enrolment. We proposed a day school transition program to ease adjustment, but that too was declined. The rejection had significant consequences. Dustin, once excited about boarding life, suffered severe anxiety, requiring medical intervention. This raises the critical question: Would transitioning to boarding have been more challenging than the emotional damage caused by being denied the opportunity? Perhaps most disheartening was the school’s willingness to offer my daughter a place—without knowing her background—solely because she excelled in rowing. This exposed a flawed selection process that values athletic success over inclusivity. Neurodiverse children should have the same grace period and support as neurotypical students when adjusting to boarding life. Schools should not determine enrolment based on a diagnosis or its symptoms but rather on the student’s potential to thrive with appropriate resources.
Case Study
During the process of finding a boarding school for our son, I asked the Enrolments Registrar what learning support would be available. The Registrar told me that learning support was not really available to middle school students and when I stated that my child would likely need support due to his diagnosis, (ADHD & ASD) I was flatly told that our application would most likely be unsuccessful. The Registrar went on to outline why they can’t have too many ADHD children enrolled in their school as they could not cope with “a class full of them, imagine that!” she said. She also outlined other disabilities that she believed their school would not be able to cater for.
We were broken hearted that our first-choice school had been so dismissive of our child. He was supposed to go where his cousin was already attending, his friends from distance education were going there too. We felt like we were not supposed to disclose our diagnosis, like we should hide what we know about our child, just so we could get a spot and then hope for the best. It was devastating. We were already concerned about how he would face the challenges ahead, we had to know he was going to be supported. This clearly wasn’t the school for us.
We were lucky that we found a school who welcomed us, with our challenges and that so far, our boy has adapted very well. The whole process left us very concerned as to what happens to the children that these schools decide not to support? The State Schools who provide boarding facilities in Queensland are limited and for our family their locations were not preferable. If we were relying on State boarding schools we would have been forced to send our child much further away, to a town where we have no family or friend support and limited transport options.
