Vol. 500 No. 2
43 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science the proposals, if any, he has to respond to the issues raised in a submission concerning the establishment of a centre for dyslexic children (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1400/99]
The educational needs of primary pupils with specific learning disability, including those with dyslexia, should generally be capable of being met within the ordinary school system, with the support, where appropriate, of the remedial teacher service.
Fully qualified primary school teachers are trained to deal with a variety of reading problems, including those which are accompanied by perceptual difficulties. The level and quality of this training is one of the important issues to be addressed by the review group on primary teacher training. In addition, the special training programme for remedial teachers includes a mod ule on specific learning disability. At present, there are 1,302 remedial teachers in the primary system. I recently announced my intention to extend the remedial teacher service to all first and second-level schools with effect from September 1999.
Second level pupils with specific learning difficulty are normally integrated into ordinary classes where they may receive additional support through the remedial teacher, guidance counsellor and subject teachers.
Where more serious cases of difficulty arise, provision is made in one of four special schools and seven special classes dedicated to such children. These special facilities operate at a reduced pupil teacher ratio of 11:1.
In 1998 my Department allocated a sum of £38,111 to the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities (ACLD) to assist in its administration service and to facilitate access to workshops and summer schools for children from disadvantaged areas. In the current year an allocation of £50,000 is being made available to the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities.
The submission referred to by Deputy Higgins claims that at least one in every ten of our population is dyslexic. The special education review committee, which examined this area, indicated that estimates of specific learning disability are usually within the range 1 to 4 per cent, depending on the definition adopted. There is a conflict of opinion.
The recent package for special needs children announced in November is available to children with specific learning disability, including dyslexia.
I have asked my officials to review current supports, including in-service teacher training, for children with dyslexia and other learning difficulties. This review will be open to considering the full range of possible supports for the pupils involved.
With your permission, since we may run out of time, and also to be economical I ask the Minister what answer he was preparing for Question No. 54 which asks what is to happen, in the absence of another premises, to the dyslexia support centre in Limerick which is due to vacate its premises in March 1999? Given the gap between the estimate of the two percentages, will the Minister agree a different approach is adopted to remedial teaching in the case of dyslexia? The argument is that people with special needs can be dealt with through remedial teachers. However, in other departmental publications it is acknowledged that remedial teachers need in-service training for recognising conditions such as dyslexia, a learning disorder. It is acknowledged that only new teachers coming out of teacher training will be at an early level of awareness. Given that we do not dispute that, why not make special provision for the centres? Why take refuge in an argument about the percentages?
My second question relates to how this issue progresses to testing. I am aware of a case submitted to the Department regarding a child being considered for doing the leaving certificate who has been offered either a scribe or a word processor that, effectively, has been degraded in vocabulary. I do not understand this type of crazy thinking. The Minister appears to acknowledge a need but at the same time he is using the dispute on the percentages as a refuge.
I am not taking refuge in the conflict between the percentages. People need to knock heads together and sort out that, in terms of getting an estimate. The real issue is what approach to take. I said in my reply that the SERC report, which was the last major review of this area with all the partners involved, made it clear that children with dyslexia should be dealt with by the remedial service, visiting teaching service and the resource teaching service.
I used the phrase "should be capable of being met" in my reply. There are 1,300 remedial teachers in the service and it should be making a significant contribution in this area. That is a matter of debate, but what is not open to debate is whether it should. In my view, it should.
I indicated that my officials and I are reviewing this area with a view to examining in-school and out-of-school provision. There are difficulties with the Limerick centre in that it is considered by the Department to be a private operation. A once-off grant of £14,000 was approved by my predecessor and it was paid in autumn 1998.
I am open minded about how we should approach this issue. I am extremely interested in the work of ACLD, for example, which organised workshops throughout the country. I gave it additional support and I would like to do more. We must agree on the models. This matter has been in limbo in recent years.
What will happen in the meantime? We await more acutely aware teachers emerging from the training colleges and hope for the best possible performance from the remedial service. I, too, pay tribute to the remedial service. In the interim, while these needs and provisions are adjusting, is the Minister willing to indicate that he will give financial support to services that are increasing due to the existence of need?
The Department has given financial support to ACLD, for example, particularly for its services for disadvantaged areas. A number of Deputies have made representations about the situation in Limerick and I met a group of parents last week. I have asked my officials to meet representatives of the centre involved.
It is a private centre which charges fees from the students. I do not know the full background of the centre; I met the individual concerned about a year ago. I am concerned, but I will not make a specific commitment today in relation to a centre.
The question put down by the Deputy raises the issues that emerge from the document prepared by the group. I am trying to deal with those issues. The recently announced package deals with children with dyslexia. Resource teachers will have a role to play in this area and there are ongoing in-service programmes. We are reviewing the situation and the provision. Up to now the Department held the view that the provision would have to be in-school, but I am open to the in-school and out-of-school options.
One of the issues raised in the document is the difference between the Department's estimate of 1 per cent to 4 per cent and the submission's estimate of one in ten children with dyslexia or associated disorders. Politicians come out in a cold sweat when parents come to them to discuss the problem of dyslexia because they know how difficult it is to get the necessary facilities. Does the Minister agree the assessment procedure used by the Department is seriously flawed for assessing assistance for examinations? Getting basic facilities, whether scribes, computers or tapes, is similar to banging one's head against a brick wall. Does the Minister agree the difference between the two estimates is the root cause of the problem?
It is not the root cause of the problem in terms of State examinations. The issue there is the balance between preservation of the integrity of the examination for every student who sits it and—
That is a joke.
The Deputy asked a question and I am answering it. The 1 per cent versus 10 per cent does not matter. What does matter is how a child is treated in the examination process when that child presents with dyslexia or any other difficulty. We are reviewing that and I hope the outcome of the review will be ready for the State examinations this summer. The issue is the examination system that applies to all students and to ensure the integrity of that system is not undermined. That has been a matter of concern with regard to concessions, which are made on an ongoing basis and we hope to improve them.
Does the Minister accept the decision about examinations has caused consternation for parents of dyslexic children? Previously, an examiner was informed that a child had a problem with dyslexia or had a similar communication difficulty. The new procedure is to refer script an examiner finds difficult to read. Is that not a far more blunt instrument than giving a clear indication to an examiner that the child has an identified communication difficulty? If a teacher in a classroom finds it difficult to recognise dyslexia, how can the Minister expect an examiner to do so when he or she has only a single script by which to judge? Surely the old system was fairer.
I am informed the old system was a myth, and not as the Deputy described it. The Department has dealt with that in written responses to Deputies—
The responses did not say that.
There is probably greater safety in the scripts being referred to a senior examiner.
That would not be understood from the Minister's replies.
I believe that process is safer for the student concerned.
A final supplementary from Deputy Higgins.
There is a sense of justifying the indefensible by the use of language such as "defending the integrity" of the examination system. If a child is faced with a choice of a scribe or a word processor and chooses the latter and if the parents of that child are told that should a spell check facility be available it would have to be in a debilitated form, how could that be required by the integrity of any examination system? If that is the case, should the scribe not be disabled as well? This is manifestly crazy. It represents a Dostoyevskian lack of sensitivity to suggest to a child and parents that they can have permission to use a word processor but cannot use the spell check facility. As one parent said, it is similar to asking a child who wears glasses to remove them during the examination. It borders on cruel insensitivity.
I am not aware of the individual case, but if the Deputy will refer it to me, I will deal with it. It is worth pointing out that this has been the system for years—
That does not defend it.
No, it does not.
We have been doing bad things in education for years.
I will not go down that route, but it has been going on for years.
This did not happen today or yesterday.
It certainly did not. One gets the impression it has suddenly emerged.
No, not at all.
There are other issues. It is not as simple as the Deputy might like to portray to the House and we should not cod ourselves in pretending it is simple to resolve.
The Minister needs to give a clearer statement than the one he has given.
It can do with significant improvement. We should be more supportive of the students with difficulties in the sense that the examination system should allow those students to illustrate their talent and ability and not penalise them for whatever learning disability they have. That is the philosophy informing the review now taking place.
