Report on School Exclusion of Autistic Students and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4

The universal right to education, as affirmed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, is a cornerstone of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. However, recent research indicates that this goal is not being met for many autistic students in Canada, who face significant barriers to full inclusion in the classroom.

Analysis of Exclusionary Practices

School exclusion for autistic students manifests in various forms, undermining the principles of SDG 4 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). A survey of 412 primary caregivers in Ontario revealed that 42.3% of their autistic children had experienced some form of school exclusion.

Forms of Exclusion

• Overt Exclusion: Students are formally told they cannot attend school for a specific period.
• Informal or Partial Exclusion: Students are informally requested to attend on modified schedules, sent home early due to insufficient staff support, or barred from activities such as field trips.

Key Factors Predicting Exclusion

Analysis identified several factors that contribute to school exclusion, highlighting systemic failures in creating the safe and supportive learning environments mandated by SDG Target 4.a.

1. Bullying: Victimization by peers leads to isolation and fear, making school avoidance more likely. This directly contravenes the objective of providing safe and inclusive learning environments under SDG 4 and peaceful societies under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
2. Inadequate Staff Training and Resources: A lack of specialized training leaves school staff ill-equipped to support the needs of autistic students, preventing their full participation in school life. This points to a deficit in achieving SDG Target 4.c, which calls for an increase in the supply of qualified teachers.
3. Ineffective Individual Education Plans (IEPs): The study found that greater parental satisfaction with a child’s IEP—a document designed to outline necessary supports—predicted lower rates of exclusion. This suggests that when institutions fail to properly implement these plans, they fail to uphold their commitment to inclusive education.

Socio-Economic Impacts and Contradictions to Multiple SDGs

The exclusion of autistic students from school has cascading effects that impede progress on several Sustainable Development Goals beyond education.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): School exclusions force parents to miss work, jeopardizing their employment and pushing households toward poverty. This undermines targets for full, productive employment and decent work for all.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Research indicates that mothers of autistic children are particularly affected, struggling to maintain full-time employment due to caregiving responsibilities during school hours. This perpetuates gender inequality in the workforce.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The systematic exclusion of students based on disability is a direct violation of the core principle of SDG 10, which is to reduce inequality and ensure the social and economic inclusion of all persons.

Recommendations for Achieving Inclusive Education Goals

To align educational systems with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 4, several critical changes are necessary.

1. Develop Robust Anti-Bullying Initiatives: Schools must implement and enforce effective anti-bullying policies that foster a culture of acceptance and understanding of neurodivergence, contributing to the safe and inclusive learning environments of SDG Target 4.a.
2. Invest in Comprehensive Staff Training: Mandatory, ongoing professional development is required to equip educators with the skills to support autistic students, thereby strengthening the quality of teaching as per SDG Target 4.c.
3. Increase Funding and Resources: Adequate funding is essential to ensure a stable, competitively compensated workforce of skilled support staff and to reduce the student-to-staff ratio, making true inclusion a reality.
4. Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships: Families and autistic youth must be treated as essential partners in the planning and implementation of IEPs, with schools held accountable for their execution to fulfill the promise of SDG 4.
5. Adapt Learning Environments: Classrooms must be designed to be sensory-friendly and flexible, providing predictable routines and spaces for self-regulation, in line with SDG Target 4.a’s call for disability-sensitive education facilities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the exclusion of autistic students from education in Canada connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus is on education, but the consequences of exclusion ripple out to affect economic stability, equality, and poverty.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG addressed. The article’s entire premise revolves around the failure to provide “full inclusion in the classroom” for autistic students, which directly contradicts the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The exclusion of students based on their neurodivergence is a clear issue of inequality. The article highlights how a specific group (autistic children) is denied the same rights and opportunities as their peers, which is a core concern of SDG 10.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article explicitly links school exclusion to the economic well-being of families. It states that these exclusions force parents, “particularly mothers,” to “miss work and jeopardize their employment,” impacting their ability to maintain full-time, decent work.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  A direct consequence of the economic instability mentioned under SDG 8 is the increased risk of poverty. The article notes that school exclusions “drive some households closer to poverty,” connecting the educational issue to the fundamental goal of poverty eradication.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.” The article directly addresses this by focusing on the lack of equal access for autistic students, who are a vulnerable group with disabilities.
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” This target is relevant as the article points to the need for “sensory-friendly and flexible” classrooms, “robust anti-bullying initiatives” to create safe environments, and better resources to make learning environments effective for autistic students.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article’s call to end the various forms of school exclusion is a call for the social and economic inclusion of autistic children and their families.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.” The article highlights how existing policies, like Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and anti-bullying policies, are often ineffective or not followed, thus failing to ensure equal opportunity and perpetuating inequalities of outcome.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.” The article connects to this target by describing how parents, especially mothers, “struggle to maintain full-time employment” due to their children’s exclusion from school, hindering their ability to achieve full and productive employment.

4. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.2: “By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.” The article’s statement that exclusions “drive some households closer to poverty” directly relates to this target by identifying a factor that increases the proportion of families living in or near poverty.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• Indicators for SDG 4 (Targets 4.5 and 4.a)

  • Percentage of students experiencing school exclusion: The article provides a direct quantitative indicator from its survey: “42.3 per cent reported that their autistic children had experienced some form of school exclusion.” Tracking this percentage over time would measure progress towards equal access.
  • Prevalence of bullying: The article identifies bullying as a critical factor in exclusion. Measuring the incidence of bullying against neurodivergent students would be an indicator of a safe and inclusive learning environment.
  • Proportion of teachers with specialized training: The article emphasizes the “lack of specialized training” and calls for “comprehensive, mandatory and ongoing” training. The percentage of school staff who have received such training is a measurable indicator.
  • Parental satisfaction with Individual Education Plans (IEPs): The study found that “greater parental satisfaction with the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP)” predicted lower exclusion rates. This satisfaction level can be used as a qualitative indicator of effective, inclusive policies.

• Indicators for SDG 10 (Targets 10.2 and 10.3)

  • Rate of school attendance for autistic students: The article mentions students being told to “come on modified hours or days or sent home early.” The proportion of autistic students attending school full-time compared to their peers is a direct indicator of inclusion and equal opportunity.
  • Effectiveness of anti-bullying policies: The article questions the “practical application of existing anti-bullying policies.” An indicator would be the measured reduction in bullying incidents following the implementation of such policies.

• Indicators for SDG 8 (Target 8.5) and SDG 1 (Target 1.2)

  • Employment rate of parents of autistic children: The article states that parents, particularly mothers, “struggle to maintain full-time employment.” The employment rate and number of hours worked by these parents, compared to the general population, would serve as an indicator of the economic impact of exclusion.
  • Proportion of affected families near the poverty line: The claim that exclusion can “drive some households closer to poverty” could be measured by tracking the income levels and economic stability of families with autistic children who face school exclusion.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: theconversation.com