Updated on 23rd December 2024
Our Position on School-Imposed Fees for Providing On-Site Services
Introduction
Recently, we have observed a concerning trend among schools introducing additional fees for external providers to deliver essential allied health services, such as speech pathology, on site. These practices raise significant questions about their alignment with the principles of public education and their impact on students and families.
At Joyful Speech Pathology, we believe public schools are entrusted with the responsibility to provide accessible education for all students. Policies that hinder access to essential services undermine this mission and create unnecessary barriers for students with additional needs.
Concerns About the Policy
We acknowledge the operational challenges schools face in accommodating external providers. However, the introduction of fees for on-site services lacks transparency and clear justification, often appearing to prioritize revenue generation over student welfare. While some schools rationalize these fees as "hiring a space" or providing amenities, their own agreements frequently state:
A designated space is not guaranteed.
Student privacy cannot be assured due to logistical limitations.
These disclaimers raise concerns about the integrity of such justifications. Charging providers delivering essential services to students—many of whom are striving to meet critical developmental milestones—introduces additional costs that risk limiting access or increasing expenses for families.
Furthermore, the Non-Education Service Providers in Preschools, Schools, and Educational Programs Procedure from the South Australian Department for Education explicitly prohibits schools from charging administrative fees to external providers. Rebranding these fees as "facility use" or "space hire" appears to be an attempt to circumvent this restriction. Such practices lack transparency and undermine the trust required for effective collaboration between schools and providers.
Schools may argue that these fees represent a fair exchange for facility use or aim to prevent financial burden on families. However, restricting providers from passing on costs interferes with standard business practices and suggests an attempt to deflect accountability for these policies. If these fees are genuinely necessary and justified, there should be no need to obscure their impact or restrict cost-sharing arrangements.
Recent Interactions with the Department of Education
We have since raised our concerns with the Department of Education. Their response has indicated the following:
They are operating within their policy.
It is within policy to not guarantee a space after offering it to be "hired," as the space required at schools is “coveted”.
They have consulted NDIS and have been advised that it is inappropriate to pass on costs to parents - without clarifying whether this directive was directed at the department of education or providers.
The revenue generated is not for profit but reflective of the cost for the space - without providing any documents to support their claim.
The Department of Education's response was disappointing because of the following:
Over-reliance on linguistic manipulation such as stating the fees collected are not for profit fails to address the ethical implications of generating revenue from students who require additional support. Profit in this instance was, in our opinion, purposely interpreted to mean in the traditional sense. As most schools are running on a deficit, in this instance, their response is technically correct. But what we are concerned about is revenue.
We speculate that the NDIS has advised the Department of Education that it is inappropriate to pass on costs to parents because schools are not disability service providers and are not allowed to benefit directly from children accessing the scheme. If this is true, it suggests that the Education Department and schools have effectively designed a way to bypass this directive by exploiting a loophole—charging providers instead.
Over-reliance on policy—failure to understand or engage with our concerns: Our concerns are not about whether the actions of schools or the Department of Education are technically 'within policy.' Rather, we are questioning the ethics of generating revenue from providers who deliver services to children with NDIS plans on school grounds. The Department of Education claims these fees are for 'space hire,' yet they explicitly state that a space cannot be guaranteed. If any business in the community advertised a space for hire but simultaneously stated they could not guarantee its availability, they would either quickly go out of business or face regulatory action from consumer and business services. This feels akin to offering a product under false pretenses, defended through linguistic contortion, which we believe reflects questionable ethical practices.
Failure to address any ethical concerns raised—particularly how a public school generating revenue by proxy through students accessing NDIS undermines trust and fairness. Fees are paid in the form of money, and whether this revenue can technically be labeled as profit is beside the point. Generating income indirectly from children with additional needs, in our opinion, is ethically questionable at best, especially for a public institution. If the Department of Education can provide a justification for how these fees directly benefit the students they serve, they have yet to share it. This approach fails to address the root challenges faced by public schools, such as limited resources and funding.
We believe the Department of Education's response endorses these behaviors—exploiting a loophole to indirectly generate revenue from students accessing NDIS services. This is deeply disappointing for an institution funded by taxpayers to serve the community, not to capitalize on the current climate to generate revenue. The Department of Education's unwillingness to take on this feedback, coupled with its deflections and reliance on policy as a shield instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, is both concerning and telling.
Our Position
At Joyful Speech Pathology, we uphold integrity, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of our work. Imposing fees without clear rationale or demonstrated benefit to students directly conflicts with these values. Consequently, we have made the decision not to provide services at schools that impose additional fees. Our commitment remains to support families by exploring alternative ways to deliver high-quality and accessible services to children and young people with additional needs.
We acknowledge that schools may face financial pressures and operational challenges. However, charging external providers delivering critical services to students with additional needs is not the appropriate approach. These fees risk diverting focus away from student support and indirectly leveraging NDIS resources, a practice that conflicts with the core mission of public education.
Our concern is not solely about the amount being charged. Although we disagree with the principle of imposing fees on providers, our primary concern is the apparent circumvention of the restrictions outlined by the Department of Education and NDIS while employing tactics seemingly designed to avoid scrutiny or backlash. If schools choose to impose a fee, we suggest they be transparent and acknowledge that it is being implemented as a means to generate additional revenue, likely due to funding challenges faced by public schools.
Renaming these fees as "space hire" and restricting therapists from passing on the costs to families appear disingenuous and unfairly shift the financial burden onto providers. If schools are restricted from passing these costs onto families due to objections raised by the NDIS, it suggests a need for significant reflection on the broader implications of this approach. By charging providers instead, schools are essentially exploiting a loophole to indirectly benefit from NDIS funding without directly imposing fees on families. This tactic forces providers to absorb the costs, potentially reducing their earnings, while masking the revenue generation behind a veneer of compliance.
If schools intend to access these resources, they should at least be transparent and upfront about their intentions, rather than masking it behind misleading justifications and word play.
A Call for Reflection
Schools and the Department of Education should take the opportunity to reflect on the rationale behind this policy.
We are deeply disappointed with how some schools have chosen to address this issue and also the Department of Education’s indirect endorsement of these behaviors. While there are certainly alternative solutions available, the approach of imposing fees on providers—ultimately impacting services for children with additional needs—comes across as opportunistic and deeply troubling. This tactic not only seeks to generate revenue but also reflects poorly on the principles of transparency and fairness that schools are meant to uphold. We have now raised our concerns with the Education Minister and will provide an update should we receive a response.
Sunlight is often the best disinfectant, and perhaps the most effective course of action is to shine a light on the situation. By raising awareness, we aim to highlight in our opinion how the Education Department and schools has exploited a loophole to divert resources from providers, as they are prohibited from directly imposing these costs on families and children.
10th February 2025
Response to the Department of Education’s Statement on NDIS Provider Fees
On February 10, 2025, the Department of Education responded to concerns regarding the fees charged to NDIS providers for site access in South Australian schools. While the response outlines the Department’s rationale, several key issues remain unaddressed, particularly regarding the claim that providing space for providers at no cost is no longer sustainable. Link to their response here
Funding and Sustainability
Public schools receive government funding to support student learning and wellbeing. The Department’s statement acknowledges that schools are now charging NDIS providers due to increased demand and challenges in managing space and resources. However, this raises important questions:
How are existing education funds allocated, and why is additional revenue required to support access to therapy?
What specific costs are being recovered through these fees, and how are they calculated?
Is there a long-term strategy to address this issue without placing additional financial strain on providers and families?
Greater transparency regarding how these fees fit into the broader education funding framework would help clarify whether this approach is the most effective and equitable solution.
Impact on Low Socioeconomic (SES) Communities
Research consistently shows a strong link between disability and socioeconomic disadvantage. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, people living in lower socioeconomic areas are more likely to have a disability due to limited access to healthcare, nutrition, and other essential services (AIHW, 2009). Similarly, a study published in the Journal of Public Health Research highlights that disability rates are significantly higher among individuals facing economic hardship (Hosseinpoor et al., 2017).
Given that the Department states that fees are determined by the number of providers accessing a school, it logically follows that low-SES communities—where disability rates tend to be higher—would be disproportionately impacted by these charges. Schools in these areas are more likely to have a greater demand for NDIS-funded services, meaning:
More providers may be needed, leading to higher cumulative fees.
Smaller NDIS providers, which often serve lower-income families, may struggle to absorb these costs, reducing service availability.
Families in low-income areas may face greater challenges in accessing off-site therapy if providers can no longer afford to attend schools.
The result is an unintended financial barrier that disproportionately affects students who need support the most. Instead of promoting equity, this approach risks exacerbating existing disparities.
Access, Equity, and Policy Contradictions
The Department asserts that the core function of schools is education, which is undoubtedly true. However, this raises an important contradiction:
If education is the primary focus, why are schools charging fees for therapists who provide services that directly support a student’s ability to learn?
If space limitations justify fees, wouldn’t the most logical and equitable solution be to cease external provider access entirely?
By this logic, shutting down all external therapy services in schools would be a fairer policy than selectively charging fees. However, the Department has instead opted to monetize access, allowing therapy but only at a cost—an approach that positions financial concerns above student access to necessary support.
Schools cannot have it both ways. Either therapy is essential to student success and should be accommodated as part of the school environment, or it is not and should be removed entirely. The current stance—allowing therapy but imposing fees—undermines the claim that education is the sole priority and creates a pay-to-access model that disadvantages students who need support the most.
The Department’s response boils down to this:
Therapy is necessary, but we're adding financial hurdles.
Schools should have flexibility, but we’re implementing a broad policy that disproportionately affects some schools more than others.
We can’t guarantee space for therapists, but we’ll still charge them for “hiring” one.
Although we are not surprise by this response, in our opinion, it is interesting to see the amount of effort being put into employing ‘double talk’ in their response. In our opinion, it is also telling when our concerns about the Department exploiting a loophole to enrich public schools were not directly addressed nor refuted.
Inconsistencies in Policy and the Disability Discrimination Act
Professor Westwell argues that removing therapy providers from schools would create a barrier for students with disabilities and that taking away principal discretion would be contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). However, this stance is inconsistent with the reality that some schools have already banned external providers from operating on-site. If such exclusions were genuinely in violation of the DDA, then why has the Department allowed them to occur?
This raises critical questions:
Does the Department consider these school-wide bans discriminatory, or not? If the presence of therapy providers is essential to prevent discrimination, then schools that have implemented outright bans should be in violation of the Act.
If such bans are permitted, why is the Department now arguing that removing access would be discriminatory? The logic is contradictory. Either schools should not be allowed to restrict therapy access, or the Department must acknowledge that preventing some providers from operating due to financial barriers creates the same discriminatory effect.
Furthermore, if principal discretion is the justification for allowing or restricting providers, then it must also be asked: why are schools permitted to completely prohibit therapy services, yet simultaneously encouraged to charge for access under the claim that therapy is vital for student success?
The Department cannot have it both ways. Either therapy access is a right under anti-discrimination law and should be protected accordingly, or individual schools are allowed to make decisions that limit therapy access—meaning the Department’s argument about the Disability Discrimination Act is selectively applied.
If the true concern were preventing discrimination, the Department would be taking steps to ensure consistent, equitable access to therapy services across all schools. Instead, its current approach allows financial and policy-based barriers that disproportionately impact students in low-SES areas, undermining the very principles it claims to uphold.
Next Steps
Rather than shifting costs onto providers, a more sustainable solution may involve reviewing funding structures and space allocation policies to ensure schools can accommodate both educational and therapeutic needs without creating additional financial pressures. Engaging in further discussions with key stakeholders—including providers, families, and policymakers—could help develop a framework that is both practical and equitable.
Public education plays a crucial role in supporting students with disabilities. Ensuring that policies align with the principles of accessibility, transparency, and fairness will be key to maintaining positive outcomes for all involved.