The subject that I raise is a very serious one which is in need of urgent attention. I have tried to raise it on a number of occasions since before Easter. I thank the Chair for accepting it for the second time within a week.
Scoil Iosagáin, Buncrana, County Donegal is a very special school with a very special ethos. Its aim is inclusion and the overcoming of marginalisation. It aims not just to achieve things on paper but to achieve them in practice, in line with the concept of cherishing all of our children equally.
Already, alongside the mainstream school with an enrolment of 552 pupils, Scoil Iosagáin has a class for 12 Down's syndrome children with a moderate handicap. Plans are at an advanced stage for another class to cater for children with a profound mental handicap which will be the first of its kind attached to a mainstream primary school in Ireland. The school is providing two types of service at present and is moving on to cater for children with a profound mental handicap. That is another issue. The issue I am interested in this evening is the class for children with a moderate handicap.
These children vary in their physical, educational and emotional needs, but one thing recognised by anyone looking on is the need for classroom assistance. This is acknowledged in that they currently have an assistant, but this assistant is to be taken away from these children and placed in the newly created class for the profoundly handicapped. How can the Minister, as a former teacher, justify the removal of this classroom assistant? How can a school that is dedicated to promoting inclusion and developing the children's varied abilities be abandoned in such a fashion? Where does that fit into the Programme for Government, or even basic human rights? Education is a right, not a privilege. These children are currently catered for by a teacher whom they highly respect and who is ably assisted by a person they know and trust. The level of provision is not in question but rather the abandoning of the teacher, parents and students by removing their help. The rejection of the concept of cherishing all our children equally is similarly in question.
In June 1995 the Department informed the school that one child care post would be allocated to the school to help meet the needs of the pupils attending the special classes at the school. That assistant had been in the school for only a month when the school received notice that she would be removed.
I could talk for hours about how the parents feel about this matter. Their feelings of anger, frustration and helplessness are totally understandable. They are aware of the resources needed for their children. They appreciate greatly the advances made in the school to ensure their children are accommodated and cared for as individuals. The proposal to have a second separate class for the profoundly mentally handicapped proves that the school is moving in the right direction. All those involved are at a loss to understand the reason behind the decision to remove the classroom assistant and not have her replaced. They find it unacceptable that the saving in terms of finance should warrant such disruption to the children's lives.
The school issued a letter to the Department outlining some practical issues. A poignant example is that one child who suffered kidney failure needs to have an external bag changed regularly, a procedure which takes about seven minutes. With the removal of the assistant, who will look after the rest of the class while the teacher is tending to that child? Incontinence, hygiene and puberty are other issues that arise and it is difficult for one teacher to cope with them while caring for the remainder of the class. The children attending this school need special attention in the class and the playground. There is often a need for them to be in two separate groups, whether for visits to clinics, psychologists, speech therapists or the swimming pool, or even for behavioural reasons, because time is needed for those who display inappropriate behaviour and for the educational development of children on individual learning programmes.
The loss of this assistant will result in a lack of social skills development and the children will never be in a position to leave the classroom. I ask the Minister to consider this case and understand the merit of the work involved. It is important that the school retain its assistant. We have heard many statements about education and people with disabilities, and this is an opportunity to act on those statements. To remove the assistant from this school is inhuman, senseless and incredible in these days of economic boom. I appeal to the Minister to retain the classroom assistant at this school, not only for the moderately handicapped but also for the profoundly handicapped class.
