Despite legal protections, couples in Australian residential aged care facilities experience institutional interference in their intimate and sexual relationships. Panoptic surveillance remains widespread in aged care. Little attention is given to privacy. Some residents' doors are kept open at all times. Couples may be separated or provided with single beds only, unable to push them together. Staff frequently enter without knocking, commonly ignore 'do not disturb signs' and often gossip about residents. This culture has its origins in colonial institutions. Attempts at legislative reform to redress this situation have been met with mixed responses, with the most vociferous opposition coming from religious conservatives. A recurrent source of conflict is the tension between the 'rights' of religious and political institutions versus those of individuals. This article identifies systemic issues faced by partnered aged care residents, their historical origins, and the legislation that is designed to protect residents. Using a thematic analysis methodology, it reviews political debates in the past 40 years, in both federal Parliament and newspapers, and provides a critical analysis of recurrent themes and ideologies underpinning them. It concludes with recommendations for legislation that is consultative and 'person-centred' and recommends proscriptive privacy protections. Adoption of these ideas in future policy reforms has the potential to create more positive outcomes for partnered aged care residents.

A third of Australians living in residential aged care facilities are married or partnered, however, institutional interference in residents' relationships is not uncommon. Practices in some establishments include keeping residents' doors open; staff entering without knocking, ignoring 'do not disturb' signs, and gossiping about residents. Partners are variously accommodated in separate beds, separate rooms or separate wings of a facility. Many are not permitted to enter care together. Such conditions make it challenging for couples to maintain their relationships. To date, insufficient research has focused on supporting older couples’ relationships subsequent to one or both partners being admitted into care. From July 2018, a public policy of consumerdirected residential aged care will take effect, developed in anticipation of the postwar 'baby boom' cohort becoming aged care consumers. This thesis reports on a study that explored the needs of Baby Boomers as aged care consumers, given that they represent almost a quarter of Australia's population. The aims of this study were to identify (1) which aspects of Baby Boomers' intimate relationships they considered essential to their wellbeing; and (2) practical measures that need to be implemented to support those valued relationship elements in residential aged care settings. To address these aims, a predominantly qualitative, three-part mixed methods study was designed. It adopted an interpretivist-constructivist perspective, drawing on grounded theory and phenomenology. The findings indicated that, in practice, a broad policy focus on 'person-centred' aged care did not adequately address the needs of couples as they envisaged them. Instead, this thesis argues that, in the case of partnered residents, what is called for is an industry-wide 'couple-centred' model of aged care. Conclusions drawn were that: (1) ageist attitudes to older adults' intimate and/or sexual relationships are pervasive at every tier of the aged care system; (2) the sector is failing the needs of many older couples; (3) these issues are not unique to Australia; (4) partnered Baby Boomers' needs are unlikely to be met by current aged care policies and practices; and (5) Baby Boomers' are already exploring alternatives to current models of residential aged care. These issues have wide-reaching implications at a societal level, for public institutions, the aged care sector as a whole and Baby Boomers themselves.

This study investigates the barriers to and facilitators of the inclusion of learners with special education needs (LSEN) in the schools of three member countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Students who require special education provision continue to face challenges in accessing quality equitable education in schools in the OECS. As a result, members of this marginalised group could face negative educational and employment outcomes (Armstrong et al. 2005; Miller 2000; Peters 2003). Inclusion has been embraced by educators as a means of creating equitable, informed and democratic societies. The successful practice of inclusion that meet the needs of diverse learners could see LSEN and communities reap the full benefits of a quality education system (Acedo 2008; Ainscow, Farrell and Tweddle 2000; Kelly 2012; Peters 2003; UNESCO 2005). The study is significant because it specifically explores the practice and strategies of inclusion within the education systems of the often overlooked small island developing states of the Eastern Caribbean, thereby contributing to the literature available on the sub-region. Underpinned by a qualitative approach to research design, and using a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) to collect and analyse data, the research engaged five groups of participants with in-depth interviews: special education teachers, special education students, parents of special education students, Ministries of Education policy actors and staff members of disabled people organisations. The CGT qualitative approach lends itself to reporting the lived experiences of the members of the five participant groups and provides insight into the barriers that have negatively impacted the access to quality equitable education for LSEN. Inclusion has been a global education goal as early as the Salamanca Statement in June 1994 and the Education for All mandate (Ainscow and Sandhill 2010; Miles et al. 2014; Peters 2003; UNESCO 2005). In the OECS, broad strategies intended to facilitate inclusion into education systems include the implementation of universal secondary education and the placement of special education teachers in some schools (Browne 2007; Hinds 2007). However, the findings of this research indicate that deficient policies and supportive structures, a lack of availability of suitable adaptations for LSEN, a failure of parents to advocate on behalf of their child, among other hindrances, continue to frustrate the successful inclusion of LSEN and the successful practice of inclusion in schools. These research findings highlighted eight major themes in which both positive and negative outcomes manifest: legislation and policy; teacher training and professional development; adaptations; resources and support; attitudes and perceptions; education and advocacy; parental involvement; and collaboration and networking. In addition, the evidence adduced indicates that a level of purpose must guide OECS education stakeholders in order to strengthen supportive structures and engage in the transformation of barriers to inclusion into facilitators of inclusion. The study is important because it explores the current provision of special and inclusive education in the OECS from the perspective of not only those charged with the development and implementation of policy, but also from those most affected by the policy. Indeed, a particular research focus is on the challenges participants face and the solutions they suggest. It is hoped that the conclusions drawn from this research can be used to inform the future development and implementation of effective policies and strategies for inclusion in the OECS.