The original concept of a subculture of learning support in secondary schools developed from a study of 'Support Teachers, Learning Difficulties' in New South Wales, Australia. The study examined the influence of school culture on the service delivery model used by these support teachers in three case studies, one of which is reported in this article. Both research and policy recommend consultation and co-teaching with a minimum of withdrawal of students with learning difficulties for intensive instruction. To employ the recommended service delivery model it was found that support teachers need to be immersed in a subculture of learning support within the school, which involves interacting with others who share similar values and beliefs about the education of students with learning difficulties. If such a subculture does not exist the support teacher must play a major role in its development. The use of the recommended service delivery model will enhance the education provided for students with learning difficulties.

Differentiated instruction is a proactive teaching model and philosophy with demonstrated potential to cater for diverse learners and create inclusive classrooms. There is little research, however, into the implementation of this approach in the senior secondary classroom. Teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction has been shown to be linked to teacher attitudes and self‐efficacy in other settings. This study investigated the impact of teachers’ self‐efficacy and attitudes towards the implementation of differentiated instruction in the senior secondary context across two Australian states with a total of five participating teachers. The A (Affective) B (Behaviour) C (Cognitive) model was employed to define teacher attitudes from interviews concerning differentiated instruction. Findings indicated that teacher knowledge was a major factor influencing differentiation, in addition to attitude and self‐efficacy. The discourse analysis demonstrated that teachers held a greater knowledge of differentiation strategies than the concepts that underpin the differentiated instruction framework. Additionally, time constraints and feelings of failure in implementing differentiation strategies impacted teacher attitudes. Teacher knowledge, attitude and self‐efficacy were interrelated and impacted on teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction in the senior secondary classroom. Implications for professional development to address student needs through differentiated instruction in the inclusive senior secondary classroom teacher are discussed.

There is a paucity of research around Differentiated Instruction (DI) in Australian senior secondary education even though this approach has been shown to have the potential to cater for diverse learning needs in inclusive classrooms in other school contexts. Investigating how DI is understood and implemented by teachers in a senior secondary context will allow for a deeper insight into, and possible improvement in, teachers' knowledge and use of the DI approach. This qualitative study focussed on how four teachers from one school viewed DI and how they employed and documented DI practices in their senior secondary classrooms when catering for the needs of diverse learners. The teachers noted positive outcomes such as happy students and a sense of fulfilment for the teacher, as well as enablers for implementing DI effectively, including teacher collaboration and reflection. Challenges to effectively implementing DI were mentioned, such as a lack of time and large class sizes.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is a pedagogical framework to which all students can be engaged in their learning and achieve academically in their schooling. While DI is for all students, there is little research in DI for students with learning difficulties, in senior‐secondary schools in Australia. This research formed part of a larger study, which recruited 12 participants across two Australian states, to investigate how teachers in senior‐secondary schooling, differentiate for students with learning difficulties. Findings indicated that when students had labelled learning difficulties as recognised by other professionals, teachers expressed being able to differentiate more easily with greater self‐efficacy, as compared with differentiating for students who teachers themselves considered were experiencing difficulties in their learning but had no label assigned to them. Teachers voiced that learning difficulties was a broad concept, with each teacher defining learning difficulties differently. This suggests that with the broad nature of learning difficulties, teachers may struggle to differentiate accordingly, leading to lower self‐efficacy beliefs. While labelled learning difficulties provide guidance for differentiating, this may also see teachers differentiating based on preconceived ideas and for students with special needs, rather than individual students' current understanding. Implications for future practice are discussed.

No abstract