This invited Lecture is held at each National Conference of the New Zealand Special Education Association to honour the memory of Len (Leyland Duvalle) Cosson (1933–1987), and is sponsored by the Len Cosson Memorial Trust. Len was a distinguished New Zealand special educator, and at the time of his untimely death he was Principal Lecturer in Special education at Christchurch College of Education. At Christchurch, had established New Zealand’s first special 1‐year training course for teachers in special education; he wrote many influential handbooks and articles aimed at improving teaching practice in special education; and played a major role in the establishment of NZSEA.

The topic we are addressing in this session is improving teaching and learning. We are talking about improving teaching and learning. I assume our focus is on improving teaching and learning for those students who are resistant to instruction and for whom we need to intensify our instructional efforts. These students are present in all of our classrooms. There are three things that are necessary in order to improve teaching and learning. We must know:

• Where we are going (goals)

• How best to achieve the goals (effective strategies and tactics)

• Whether we have achieved the goals (accountability)

The presentations at this conference have highlighted the level of professional commitment, concern and compassion with which researchers and teachers have attempted to address the task of improving educational services for students with special educational needs. The focus of this conference upon the theme “Excellence In A New century”; is appropriate and it is organisations such as AASE that will have to take up the advocacy role in trying to ensure that this objective is realised. Major impediments to attaining this objective are present in existing legislation, teacher training programs and educational service delivery systems. I believe that the removal of these impediments and the creation of an “excellent”; educational system will take much time and effort but this should not deter AASE from proceeding towards its stated objective.

A quasi‐experimental matched pre‐test, post‐test control group design was used to investigate the impact of individual student focussed teacher inservice on the progress of students with disabilities enrolled in mainstream kindergarten classes. Twelve student pairs in one district of the NSW Department of Education and Training were matched on pre‐test scores collected at the end of the term prior to kindergarten entry. The kindergarten teachers of each student pair were assigned to a training and non‐training group. Teachers in the training group were involved in a 2 day inservice training program which focussed on the assessed needs of the students with disabilities in their classes. Teachers in both groups were surveyed to gauge their perceptions of the support they received in the identified students’ transitions to school and of their efforts to include the students. The students were reassessed at the end of kindergarten. Although the students as a whole made gains in all areas assessed, there were no statistically significant differences in the post‐test scores of the students in the classes of the teachers in the training versus the non‐training group. The implications of these findings and the results of the teacher survey are discussed.

Teachers of students with severe disabilities in three NSW Department of School Education regions were surveyed to obtain their views on a set of 42 statements reflecting possible “best practices” in the education of students with severe disabilities. Teachers were also surveyed regarding their reported extent of implementation of each practice, their training needs and the perceived barriers to implementation. A total of 99 responses were received, 83 of which were appropriately targeted. Results indicated that teachers agreed for the most part with the statements but reported they were not always able to implement fully every practice for reasons such as inadequate staffing, lack of time, insufficient funds and inadequate access to therapy services. Teachers indicated that their greatest needs for inservicing were in the areas of managing challenging behaviour and teaching communication and social skills.

This paper reports on an investigation of the attitudes of 225 principals employed in Queensland state schools, toward inclusion of students with disabilities. The justification for the study lay in the important role of school principals in implementing social justice strategies, together with the need to focus on attitudes toward inclusion, as opposed to mainstreaming or integration. The approach to inclusion taken in this study was the placement of students with disabilities and special needs in classrooms with children who do not have such disabilities or needs, together with the provision of support for the included student. A 30‐item scale measuring attitudes toward inclusion was developed and administered. In an attempt to identify the influence of factors which might be seen to influence inclusion attitudes, the following demographic variables were used for analysis: principals’ age and gender; type and size of school; previous and present experience with students with disabilities; and special education qualifications. The results showed the large majority of school principals were positive about inclusion. It was found that the demographics age, gender, and school size had no impact on attitudes toward inclusion. Using a two‐factor solution and a clustering of types of disability, significant differences emerged on the basis of type of school (secondary vs primary), type of disability (a combination of sensory, learning, intellectual, speech) vs aggressive behaviour, and previous teaching experience with students with disabilities. In terms of the implementation of inclusion, all respondents were equally cautious, pointing to the need for further training of teachers, aides and principals, and additional resources to ensure effective inclusion.

Quality of life is now well developed in the disability literature yet there are few studies that relate to children. In this paper the implications of quality of life models for the field of inclusion are discussed. Quality of life is seen as an attribute of well being and the principles relevant to this are outlined. Inclusion is not seen simply as an educational process, for the authors argue that educational inclusion can only be effective when it is set within proactive community and family behaviour which is also inclusive. Together these concepts give rise to broad educational criteria and it is the discussion of these which forms the central focus of this paper. Implications for family and community as well as the education system including professional education are also discussed.

This research study was designed to investigate the effects of inclusion on regular class teachers in Queensland schools. While education departments promote inclusion there is frequently insufficient notice taken of the impact of such programs within the classroom context where inclusion actually happens. For the majority of children, and for most of the time, inclusion occurs within the four walls of a regular classroom. This paper reports the findings of focus group interviews with primary school teachers involved with inclusion. The research was undertaken in 1997 with 17 teachers from 13 primary schools within one region in Queensland. All teachers involved in this study taught in regular classrooms that included a child with either an intellectual or physical disability. Discussion of the analysis of the interviews focuses on three main areas within the classroom context: (1) the children in the classes (2) the classroom learning environments; and (3) the teachers. This project is highly significant as policies of inclusion rely on teachers’ acceptance of them, belief in their worth, and ability to cope. It is essential to determine if the reality of the current situation is likely to support further trends towards greater inclusion.

The present study surveyed the views of parents about the education of students with special needs in regular classrooms. The survey involved 81 parents of students without disabilities and 29 parents of students with special needs. The children attended an Australian primary school. The school provided special education to 35 students with special needs and some of their education was provided in regular classrooms. Both groups of parents provided a range of supportive comments, but also expressed concerns about the implementation of special education in regular classrooms. Specific concerns included the extra time and added stress of educating children with special needs in the regular classroom, the potential disruption and disadvantage to other students, and the lack of support and resources, which may decrease the amount of learning. These views are consistent with those expressed by teachers and students without special needs as reported in the companion paper (Wright & Sigafoos, 1997) to the present study.

The relative quality of Physical Education and Sport for students with and without disabilities was examined by surveying the views of students, teachers, and support staff in a sample of West Australian schools. The findings indicate differences in quality of Physical Education and Sport for students with and without disabilities. Students with disabilities did not receive the same quality of Physical Education and Sport experiences, although they tended to be enthusiastic about what they did receive. A higher proportion of this group completed activities other than fully participating in Physical Education and Sport. Depending on individual circumstances, this may suggest that in addition to the inclusion model, there may be a need to establish parallel or segregated and personalised programs for some students. The findings also highlighted the urgent need for (a) inclusionary practice to be an integral part of pre‐service teacher education, (b) a range of professional development and networking opportunities for teachers of Physical Education, and (c) greater resources to be allocated for equipment, facilities and support staff to assist students with disabilities.