Despite aspirations to be a world-class national curriculum, the Australian Curriculum (AC) has been criticised as ‘manifestly deficient’ (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2014 p. 5) as an inclusive curriculum, failing to meet the needs of all students with disabilities (SWD) and their teachers. There is a need for research into the daily attempts of educators to navigate the tension between a ‘top-down’ system-wide curriculum and a ‘bottom-up’ regard for individual student needs, with a view to informing both policy and practice. This article is the first of two research papers in which we report the findings from a national online Research in Special Education (RISE) Australian Curriculum Survey of special educators in special schools, classes, and units regarding their experience using the AC to plan for and teach SWD. Survey results indicated (a) inconsistent use of the AC as the primary basis for developing learning objectives and designing learning experiences, (b) infrequent use of the achievement standards to support assessment and reporting, and (c) considerable supplementation of the AC from other resources when educating SWD. Overall, participants expressed a lack of confidence in translating the AC framework into a meaningful curriculum for SWD. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.

Past research has demonstrated that anxiety disorders represent a significant mental health concern. A review of the literature in the area indicates that there is limited information regarding gender differences on the basis of cognitions in clinical or nonclinical samples. The current investigation sought to determine whether any observable gender differences existed in the expression of symptoms, cognitions, and anxiety sensitivity for a nonclinical sample of 48 males and 49 females. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed support for gender differences in the expression of physiological hyperarousal, catastrophic cognitions and a general level of anxiety sensitivity in a nonclinical population. The strengths, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.