27 November 2025 | Open PDF
Welcome to this edition of the Special Education Network Update.
Across Queensland, members continue to raise concerns about the widening gap between policy and practice in special education — from the role and structure of special education programs (SEPs) and resourcing pressures in special schools, to confusion about reasonable adjustments and the limits of inclusion. This newsletter brings together key updates, departmental expectations, industrial protections, and committee insights to support members in strengthening safe, sustainable, and policy-aligned special education provision in their schools.
Special education programs revival
Across Queensland, members continue to report inconsistent interpretations of SEP and HOSES roles. Much of this reflects a widening say-do gap — the difference between what the department states in its official guidance and what is happening in some schools.
The department’s fact sheet Students with disability – Reasonable adjustments resourcing: HOSES and SEPs makes it clear that SEPs are a critical part of mainstream schooling. The document states that special education “supports inclusion” and that SEPs play a “significant role” in helping classroom teachers make reasonable adjustments, so that students with disability can learn alongside their peers in mainstream classrooms. SEPs are not optional or peripheral — they are an essential component of a whole-school approach to inclusion.
The department also explicitly states that any change to special education delivery — including altering SEP structures and transitioning away from units — must involve genuine consultation through the local consultative committee (LCC). It confirms that students are not required to stay in the mainstream classroom all day, every day; targeted or intensive small-group instruction remains a reasonable adjustment for many students. The fact sheet also warns against renaming HOSES or SEP roles as “inclusion” positions, noting that this creates the false impression that inclusion is the responsibility of one person rather than a whole-school obligation. Additionally, schools may allocate extra non-contact or administrative time to HOSES where needed, reflecting the complexity of the role.
These statements provide strong leverage for members pushing to close the gap between what the department says and what some schools do. Many issues raised with the QTU stem not from policy itself, but from local decisions that diverge from the department’s own expectations.
Members are encouraged to refer to the fact sheet in LCC discussions, planning conversations, and local advocacy to support safe, sustainable, and policy-aligned special education practice.
SEP roles cannot be spilled
Across Queensland, the QTU continues to hear from members being asked to reapply for their existing special education program (SEP) or inclusion roles as part of annual staffing processes. This practice is not supported and is inconsistent with departmental procedures and the State School Teachers’ Certified Agreement 2022.
SEP and inclusion teachers hold substantive permanent positions. Renaming roles (e.g. differentiation teacher) or adjusting a school’s inclusion model does not create grounds to spill the team or require staff to compete for the roles they already occupy. These positions form part of the school’s established allocation and cannot be treated as temporary, rotational, or subject to yearly EOIs unless a genuine substantive vacancy exists.
Where staffing changes are proposed, clause 2.3 of the certified agreement requires consultation through the LCC — and confirms that changes to staffing mix can only occur where a real vacancy is present. Without such a vacancy, positions cannot be opened, reshuffled, or repackaged.
Members who are asked to reapply for their SEP role, or who believe a schoolwide process is being used to effectively spill the team, should immediately contact the QTU for support.
Reasonable adjustments are not discrimination — but the missing boundary creates risk
Reasonable adjustments are a core requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005. They ensure students with disability can access and participate in education on the same basis as their peers — and importantly, making reasonable adjustments is not discrimination.
What remains unclear is the point at which an adjustment becomes unreasonable, unsafe, or unsustainable. The department’s Inclusion Policy focuses heavily on making adjustments, but does not define when an adjustment amounts to “unjustifiable hardship”. Without this boundary, teachers and school leaders are left balancing competing obligations under the Disability Standards, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 without clear guidance.
Section 10.2 of the Disability Standards states:
“A provider does not have to make the adjustment if it would impose unjustifiable hardship on the provider.”
Read more here: Disability Standards for Education 2005 – Section 10.2.
The absence of departmental guidance results in confusion, inconsistent decision-making, and moral injury, as staff feel pressured to “do everything” even when adjustments exceed what a school can reasonably provide.
The QTU is actively advocating for the department to clarify this boundary so schools can make fair, lawful, and safe decisions with confidence. In the meantime, members are encouraged to raise the concept of unjustifiable hardship when they believe that everything reasonably possible has already been done. Discussing this openly — through consultation processes, risk assessments, and professional dialogue — supports decisions that properly balance student needs and staff safety.
Special Education Committee update
The QTU Special Education Committee met on 29 October to discuss a range of key issues affecting members in special schools, SEPs and inclusion roles. The meeting received updates on the Roselynn Anderson Scholarships, with a strong increase in applications and several recommendations for improving future rounds.
A detailed briefing was provided on special school resourcing, following a long-awaited meeting with senior departmental officers that including discussion of staffing calculators, WHS concerns, regional inconsistencies, and the need for earlier release of 2026 allocations.
Members also received an update on the Enrolment Navigator pilot, which the department plans to expand statewide next year. While the program is producing useful insights, committee members raised concerns about variable practice, communication gaps, and the exclusion of ECDPs from the process. The committee further discussed the evolving inclusion crisis, noting five emerging problem areas: NCCD workload, confusion about reasonable adjustments, the dismantling of special education programs in primary and secondary schools, and special school resourcing pressures.
Subscribe for special education news and updates
Are you interested in joining the QTU Special Education Network and staying updated on the key issues impacting members working in special schools and SEPs? Receive regular information, updates, and resources straight to your inbox by signing up here.
You can also find past updates and other QTU newsletters here.
Kate Ruttiman Chris Smith
General Secretary A/Assistant Secretary – Industrial and Legal