Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005

Vol. 598 No. 2

Special Educational Needs: Motion.

Mr. Crowe

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—noting that progress has been made in the area of special needs education, including the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004;

—expresses its concern that families still find it necessary to seek redress in the courts for the failure of the State to meet the educational needs of their children;

—urges the Government to ensure that there is further progress in delivery of promised improvements, including allocation of the resources required to meet the special needs and equal rights of all pupils and to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools;

—notes the widespread concern among parents, teachers and principals that the proposed weighted system of allocation of special needs teachers to schools would, in practice, be a "quota" system which would result in the loss of teachers to many schools, especially in disadvantaged and rural areas, and loss of support to many pupils with special needs;

—acknowledges the statement of the Minister for Education and Science that she wishes to see a system introduced that would not result in loss of services to any child;

—calls on the Minister for Education and Science to immediately conclude her Department's review of the proposed weighted system, to publish the outcome of the review and to initiate a revised and improved system for deployment of special needs teachers as soon as possible;

—urges that such deployment of teachers be based on the right of each individual pupil to have his or her special educational needs assessed and on the right of each pupil to the resources required to ensure that each can reach his or her full potential;

—calls on the Minister for Education and Science to immediately approve the enhanced support and investment essential for existing schools catering exclusively for pupils with special needs;

—calls on the Minister for Education and Science to recruit the additional 650 teachers needed to implement the programme of improved education for persons with special needs;

—urges the full implementation of the recommendations of the Report on Educational Provision and Support for Persons with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, the report of the task force on autism 2001;

—calls for the immediate provision by the Irish and British Governments of all the necessary additional financial, personnel and other resources required to accelerate delivery of the Middletown Centre for Autism, County Armagh; and

—urges the Government to take immediate steps to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children under nine to less than 20 and to plan for future teacher supply requirements, including by the immediate establishment of a forum on teacher supply.

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Morgan, Gregory, Finian McGrath and Gogarty.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Crowe

The motion before the House acknowledges in its opening lines that progress has been made in the area of special needs education, including the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Deputies on all sides of the House will agree that the Act was a positive step forward. The Minister acknowledged last October that the record of the State over decades in providing for children with special needs had been poor. She stated that, in many ways, the State was playing catch-up.

We acknowledge that recent years have seen additional resources put in place. They are most welcome, if long overdue. That said, we do not hesitate to raise this important issue in the House again and to devote our Private Members' time thereto. The people concerned deserve all the attention and support the Oireachtas can devote to them. Since we last debated this issue in the Dáil, there has been growing frustration and concern among parents, teachers and principals at the plans for future provision for those with special needs.

My fellow Sinn Féin Deputies and I have been in touch with many people and it is no exaggeration to say that anger and dismay are felt among broad sections of people in the education sector, especially among the hard-pressed parents and other carers of children with special needs. Old chestnuts that arise time and again when talking to parents include the lack of psychological services, speech therapists and occupational therapists and the inability to gain access thereto. The Minister must address these issues urgently.

Let no one be under any doubt that the situation is extremely serious. The Irish Primary Principals Network, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Irish Learning Support Association and many others have expressed grave concern at the proposed weighted system for the allocation of special needs teachers. The new system is due to be put in place for the start of the next school year in September 2005, which is only just over six months away. To plan properly, schools need to know as soon as possible what resources they will be allocated. Principals, in particular, bear a heavy responsibility under the Act and as time passes the pressure on them will undoubtedly increase. However, far worse is the pressure on children with special needs and their parents, many of whom face the actual loss of services under the system as proposed.

In December last the INTO released the results of a survey of almost 300 of the most disadvantaged schools. It was carried out in October and November and replies were received from a total of 289 schools, representing 3,600 teachers. The results point to the major difficulties in the areas of special needs and in staffing, funding and attendance.

The survey found that under the new system of allocating special needs teachers to schools proposed by the previous Minister for Education and Science, more than one third of the country's disadvantaged schools were set to lose teachers. The survey also found that 117 schools would lose teachers, compared to the 102 schools that would gain teachers. This vindicates the view of the learning support teachers who described this system as a quota system rather than a weighted system.

The Irish Primary Principals Network has acknowledged the commitment of the Government to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory system of special needs education resource delivery. However, it states the following about the weighted system:

Circular 09/04 refers to a ‘weighted system' of teacher allocation for SEN. This is actually a misnomer, as it is more of a Quota System using pupil teacher ratios as a blunt instrument that does not address the many nuances of disability. A true weighted system would address each individual child's educational needs giving a points rating appropriate to their learning disability or impairment. Each child would be individually rated in terms of their additional teaching and learning needs and the challenge they present in a mainstream classroom situation.

Consequently the overall points rating of the school would reflect each individual child's educational needs and would ultimately determine the staffing level for the year. This system would be both fair and transparent.

The Minister stated she would review the proposed new system and was committed to ensuring that no child would lose resources to which he or she is entitled. I welcome that commitment.

One of the main reasons we tabled this motion was to give the Minister an opportunity to outline the results of the long-awaited review and to set out a revised and improved system for the deployment of special needs teachers. As I stated, doing this is becoming more urgent. Schools now need to plan in detail for September of this year.

I hope the Minister will respond to other serious questions raised, especially regarding the range of special needs which will be addressed under a new system. There is concern that children who have been identified as having mild general learning difficulties will no longer be entitled to access resource teaching. Under the old system, each pupil in this category was entitled to two and half hours of one-to-one resource teaching per week. If the Minister is to fulfil her commitment that no child with special needs will lose out, this must be addressed.

What of the position of children with severe specific learning difficulties, otherwise known as dyslexia, or children with Down's syndrome? In this regard, there is concern that the move to a new system will mean that many of these children will have to move back to special schools and out of mainstream education although the whole thrust of an enlightened policy is to ensure that these children are educated with their peers and with all the assistance they need. I hope the Minister has noted very carefully the view of the Irish Primary Principals Network that Circular 09/04 appears to be in conflict with the Education for Persons with Special Education Needs Act and the Equal Status Act. The individual's entitlement to an assessment of needs and an individual education plan is emphasised in the Act. As the Irish Primary Principals Network implies, the provision of resources on a quota basis whereby many schools' total resourcing will disimprove does not appear to be compatible with the thrust of the Act. The legal implications of this anomaly need to be addressed urgently.

I want to cover some of the other key issues raised in the motion. I have mentioned the case of schools in disadvantaged areas. There are a number of such schools in my constituency. It would be scandalous for any school in a disadvantaged area to lose out under the new special needs allocation. I urge the Minister not to allow this to happen. However, disadvantaged schools have other pressing needs. One of the main issues is the high turnover of teachers and the relatively high number of inadequately trained teachers working in these schools.

The INTO survey states that more than one in five pupils in disadvantaged schools misses more than 20 school days per year. This is substantially higher than the State average in primary schools, which is roughly 10%. In the most disadvantaged schools, nearly one third of all pupils misses more than 20 days per year.

Another statistic speaks volumes about the education system and highlights what people often call the myth of free education. In disadvantaged schools only approximately 8% of income is from fundraising and voluntary contributions from parents, whereas in non-disadvantaged schools over 30% of income on average is from parents' contributions and fundraising. That is a massive gap. In addition to the fact that children in non-disadvantaged schools can avail of paid grinds, this is another real indication of inequality at the heart of our education system. Our primary schools should be places of equality in our communities. Instead, inadequate State support means that they reflect directly, in the classroom, the social and economic divisions outside the school gate.

Our motion focuses on primary education but it is important also to point out that there is a huge shortfall in the provision of special needs education at second level. Applications for resources for second level schools have risen from 3000 in 2001 and 2002 to 12,500 in 2003 and 2004. This motion is about real people. It is about families and children who often struggle against the odds and about people with disabilities who demand their right to education. It is about parents whose lives revolve totally around their children and the struggle to allow them to reach their full potential. All they ask for are the proper supports and rights that the Government has promised them repeatedly. This is a constructive motion and I urge Deputies to support it. I look forward to the Government's response and the debate this evening and tomorrow night.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Despite the denials by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, Sinn Féin believes social and economic rights are human rights. These rights include the right to education which is not adequately protected in the Constitution of 1937 or in Irish law. It is, however, a right enshrined in international instruments. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone, without discrimination, has an equal right to education. This right is also recognised in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The new draft international convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignities of persons with disability develops this further at draft article 17 which recognises "the right of all persons with disabilities to education". It states that the aim must be:

c. the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

d. take into account the best interests of the child, in particular by individualising education plans;

2. In realising this right, States Parties shall ensure:

a. that all persons with disabilities can choose inclusive and accessible education in their own community (including access to early childhood and pre-school education);

b. the provision of required support, including the specialised training of teachers, school counsellors and psychologists, an accessible curriculum, an accessible teaching medium and technologies, alternative and augmentative communication modes, alternative learning strategies, accessible physical environment, or other reasonable accommodations to ensure the full participation of students with disabilities;

c. that no child with disabilities is excluded from free and compulsory primary education on account of their disability.

3. States Parties shall ensure that where the general education system does not adequately meet the needs of persons with disabilities special and alternative forms of learning should be made available. Any such special and alternative forms of learning should:

a. reflect the same standards and objectives provided in the general education system;

b. be provided in such a manner to allow children with disabilities to participate in the general education system to the maximum extent possible;

c. allow a free and informed choice between general and special systems;

in no way limit the duty of States Parties to continue to strive to meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education system.

This draft convention sets the standard. We welcome this and have called for it and hope that eventually Ireland will ratify it.

Despite Government rhetoric, children with special needs do not receive the education which is theirs by right. Families find it difficult but necessary to seek redress through the courts for the State's failure to meet the educational needs and ensure the equal rights of their children.

Deployment of teachers is not based on the right of individual pupils to have their special educational needs assessed, and the right of each pupil to the resources required to ensure that he or she can reach his or her full potential. When education is not provided on the basis of equal rights for everyone the vulnerable are left behind. That happens every day. For example, yesterday in my constituency, the mother of a four year old with special needs, who attends a school in Ballyfermot, contacted me. The child is sent home from school early each day because a special needs assistant is not available to him, despite the recommendations made at his needs assessment in September 2004. This is unfair, puts the child at a further disadvantage and is an act of neglect on the part of this State, in denying the child's right to education.

The 1916 Proclamation commits republicans to ensure that all children of the nation are cherished equally. This is a core task for republicans and the source of our equality agenda. Sinn Féin believes in building a rights-based society, an Ireland of equals in which social and economic rights are fully protected in the context of human rights-based governance. This is why we recently recommended constitutional amendments, including a new article on the rights of the child and a stronger article on the right to education. I also commend the leadership and initiative of the former Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Martin McGuinness, who made education for people with special needs a priority under his tenure.

I call on Deputies to put aside their politics of condemnation for one night because there is a significant consensus among us on the rights of children with special needs to education. I commend this motion, not because it concerns the rivalry of political parties but because it concerns children and our future. Let us move forward together.

Mr. Morgan

This motion concerns the unacceptable hardships people face in attempting to secure education for their children. It aims to ensure access to education for people with disabilities and special needs by applying pressure on the Government to provide this urgently.

Sinn Féin acknowledges that progress has been made in special needs education, including the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004. Like every other Deputy, however, I encounter numerous ongoing cases of parents fighting for access to education for their children. For example, the parents of a child in Ardee diagnosed with dyslexia, progressing from infants to first year, were told he must wait 18 months to be assessed by a psychologist. Imagine the effect of that on the child's education.

Officials of the Department of Education and Science refused to grant co-operation hours for teachers of practical subjects in St. Brigid's school for children with mild general learning disabilities in Dundalk. This would involve an additional four hours and 45 minutes per day in the school. The result is that students with disabilities receive practical subject input on a week on, week off basis, which is not acceptable.

It is also important to provide proper training for special needs teachers. There are instances in my constituency of ordinary teachers — perhaps they are extraordinary teachers — with no training or experience who are asked to cover resource hours. This needs to be addressed.

The motion urges the Government to take immediate steps to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children under nine years of age to less than 20, and to plan for future teacher supply requirements, including the immediate establishment of a forum for teacher supply. This is particularly important for children with special needs. Last November, the INTO expressed its shock and disappointment at the announcement by the Minister for Education and Science that class size for all children under nine years of age will not be reduced below 20:1, a commitment made in the programme for Government.

Class size is linked to special needs education. Reducing class size in the early years is a preventative rather than a remedial approach. A smaller class size gives pupils a better start and enables teachers to identify the particular needs of individual children. In the words of the INTO, "It is not that we cannot afford to reduce class size — we cannot afford not to reduce them".

This State has the second largest class size in western Europe, with over 80% of children under nine years of age, 170,000 children, in classes of greater than 20. According to the INTO, to reduce average class sizes to under 20:1 will require approximately 2,500 more teachers. More will be needed to provide a smaller class size for children under nine years of age.

Average class size here is 24.5 while the OECD average is only 22. Most states in the European Union have an average class size considerably lower than here, including Denmark at 19, Belgium at 20, Italy at 18 and Luxemburg at 15. Average class size at second level is 21 in the European Union while the OECD average is 24. The Government must place the issue of addressing class size at primary level at the top of its agenda. It needs to ensure that the commitment given in the programme for Government is met in full.

Each Member could easily recall many representations regarding difficult individual cases in this critical area. We have chosen not to deal with individual cases tonight but to consider the broad issues. I hope the Minister will take on board the content of the debate, particularly the contributions of my colleagues.

Mr. Gregory

Tugaim lán-tacaíocht don rún seo de chuid Shinn Féin i leith oideachais speisialta. I fully support the motion with particular emphasis on the need for the allocation of resources to meet the special needs and equal rights of all pupils, including the need to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools, the need to conclude the review of the proposed quota system for the allocation of special needs teachers and the right of each individual pupil to have his or her special educational needs assessed and the resources required to reach his or her full potential made available.

I have always felt strongly that these are the initiatives that should have been taken at a time scarce resources were squandered on free fees for the affluent in third level institutions. This seemed more to do with attracting middle class votes than with achieving equality in education. I am not blaming the current Minister or Government for that. However, I hope the Minister will try to make rapid and radical progress on the reduction of class sizes, particularly in disadvantaged schools. I have spoken to many teachers in such schools, and those few who were lucky enough to have participated in the Breaking the Cycle programme were unanimous in the view that the scheme made a real difference to children's educational development, the only drawback being that the programme was only introduced on a pilot basis in a small number of schools. Even in these schools, it was only introduced in the junior cycle. If the principles of that scheme were put in place in all disadvantaged primary schools at junior and senior level, it would constitute the single most significant step in tackling inequality and disadvantage in the education system in this State.

On the issue of the quota system for the allocation of special needs resource teachers, many of the very small primary schools in inner city areas are extremely concerned that under the proposed quota system they will lose out and larger schools in more affluent areas will benefit at their expense. I hope this is not permitted to happen. I tabled questions on this to the Minister in October-November 2004, including one which suggested that, under the proposed system, small inner city schools could each lose a special needs teacher while, at the same time, two national schools in Foxrock could between them gain up to seven teachers. That assessment was made by people involved in education and I had no reason to doubt them. I hope it does not happen. In her reply on that occasion, the Minister accepted that she was conscious of the difficulties that could arise, particularly for children in small and rural schools. She went on to say that the proposed model would be reviewed. However, we are still awaiting the outcome of the review. I support the call in the Sinn Féin motion that the report be published and an improved system of deployment of special needs teachers be initiated that will not disadvantage small inner city or rural schools.

A number of parents of children with dyslexia raised with me one of the 60 recommendations of the task force on dyslexia which they believe has great validity, namely, that a database system be set up in view of the widespread need for such a service. I raised this matter in a number of Dáil questions with the Minister. For example, where children with learning disabilities are transferring from one school to another, arrangements should be put in place so the new school can link into a central database to inform itself fully of the child's needs arising from its disability. The reply I received from the Minister was far from encouraging. It stated that there is currently no central database available in the Department of children with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia, and that the responsibility rests with the school to apply to the Department for the necessary supports if these cannot be provided from within the school's existing capacity. This simply does not work. I hope the Minister will re-examine that particular recommendation of the task force and act on it.

Many parents have put forward their experience that a great deal more needs to be done for children with basic dyslexia, but who have no other learning or behavioural difficulties. Many of these children simply do not have their needs identified early enough. When I raised this issue in yet another Dáil question, the reply I received from the Minister was that these children are catered for in the mainstream primary schools by the learning support teacher service or the resource teacher service. The reality appears to be that in large and difficult classes, especially in disadvantaged schools, the needs of many of these children are not realised or responded to, despite the best efforts of teachers. Many more children with more difficult behavioural problems have far too long to wait for the necessary psychological assessment.

Mr. F. McGrath

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this excellent motion on special needs education and the broader issue of all children with disabilities. While I welcome the debate, I believe we have had enough debate and it is now time to fucus on the needs of the children and provide services on the ground. I fully recognise that progress has been made in regard to some services, but that does not mean we should take our eye off the ball and ignore the reality of children in this State without services or adequate back-up.

Last week, a young mother of a child with autism contacted me about her reality. There was no place for her child who wanted to commence school. First, she was told there was no place and when she visited a particular school she was told there was a long waiting list. She then contacted me and I made representations to the Department of Education and Science. I am also making representations to the Minister on the case. The Department is now working on the case to try to assist that young family. However, that is not the point. It is unacceptable that a young family with a child with a disability must walk the streets looking for a place for their child, or contact a Deputy to get a place. It is a disgrace and shame in 2005. It is also blatant discrimination. It is a reminder to the Government that rights-based legislation in regard to disabilities is the way forward. It is no longer acceptable in a wealthy country to have children with disabilities on waiting lists. This scandal and crime must end now.

I support strongly sections 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the motion, which offer a solution to the issue. I urge the Government to ensure there is further progress in delivery of promised improvements, including allocation of the resources required to meet the special needs and equal rights of all pupils and to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools. I also raise the widespread concern among parents, teachers and principals that the proposed weighted system of allocation of special needs teachers to schools would, in practice, be a quota system which would result in the loss of teachers to many schools, particularly in disadvantaged and rural areas, and the loss of support to many pupils with special needs.

I acknowledge the statement from the Minister that she wishes to see a system introduced that would not result in the loss of services to any child. I commend her for that statement earlier. I now call on her to conclude immediately her Department's review of the proposed weighted system, to publish the outcome of the review and to initiate a revised and improved system for deployment of special needs teachers as soon as possible. I urge that such a deployment of teachers be based on the rights of each individual pupil to have his or her special educational needs assessed and on the right of each pupil to the resources required to ensure that each can reach his or her full potential. These are all sensible proposals in the motion and I call on all Deputies in the House to support the pupils, teachers and parents.

On the issue of the courts in section 2 of the motion, as a parent of a child with a disability, I find it insulting and degrading when I see other parents forced to go to the courts to get a service. This should not be happening, especially with the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Bill 2004. Parents of children with disabilities have enough on their plate besides having to go to court and all the hassle that entails. The simple solution is that all children with special needs get a service as a right. For those who have not woken up, this is all part of the equality agenda and we need to quickly get on with it. We need the Minister to quickly move to recruit the additional 650 teachers needed to implement the programme of improved education for persons with special needs.

There seems to be much confusion, bureaucracy and delays in assisting children with special needs. These genuine complaints must be dealt with head on because the children are losing out. One school I know of was granted 1.6 resource teachers but this allocation is being delayed by the Department. Children are losing out and these delays in the provision of a service are not good enough. People are forced to jump through major hoops and obstacles and the fact that the IQ must be below 55 excludes thousands of pupils. There is no automatic entitlements for some children with special needs. I am concerned about provision for children with dyslexia. I urge the Minister to act on these complaints. Teachers are being dragged all over the place, meeting various agencies and dealing with bureaucracy when they need to be in the classroom with the pupils. I urge the Minister to listen to parents, the views of teachers and those in the schools trying to provide the service.

I thank and pay tribute to the many teachers working in this field. They deserve our support and deserve action from the Department of Education and Science. We have had enough talk. We should get back to basics and let teachers get on with teaching.

I wish to raise the major crisis of the lack of speech therapists and occupational therapists. This shortage of such personnel must be dealt with. I urge Members to support this motion. It is about children, assisting teachers, education, providing a quality educational service for all our pupils and, above all, giving our children a chance to go forward in the future. I urge all Members to support this motion.

Mr. Gogarty

This debate offers a timely opportunity to examine some of the issues relating to the provision of educational services for children with special educational needs. Admittedly, the Government has made some progress but it has also been found wanting in a number of areas.

During my relatively short contribution I would like to examine a number of aspects of education for persons with special needs as they relate to this debate. Before going into detail, it is worth pointing out the Green Party's broad support for this motion. We support the thrust of the motion and call for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Report on Educational Provision and Support for Persons with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. It goes without saying that we believe that existing schools which cater for pupils with special needs are under-resourced and this is another area that needs prioritisation. In addition, we share the concerns regarding the development of the Middletown Centre for Autism.

The time available does not allow for an in-depth analysis of all these areas but there are a number of key issues in other areas that I would like to address. They include concerns over the weighted system of allocation of special needs teachers to schools; the need for the Government to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children at primary school level, particularly those under the age of nine; and the fact that many families still consider it necessary to take legal action to ensure their children receive an adequate education.

Like other speakers, I recognise the work that has gone into the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. It is certainly a major progression. The Minister's predecessor and the collective Cabinet worked hard to ensure that the Act was far-reaching, but however far-reaching it appeared, it was not far-reaching enough.

The issue of education as a basic fundamental right for all our citizens remains an illusive goal. Ireland has signed up to a number of international and regional conventions, including the UN convention on economic, social and cultural rights, which clearly outlines the desirability of a rights-based approach to education. Economic factors even under a rights-based approach will always come into the equation but there must be recognition that the rights take priority, all other factors being considered.

For all its benefits the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act did not go far enough. The Government needs to address a number of important areas. In terms of this motion, the significant number of people who have sought redress through the courts and are continuing to do so is cause for alarm. Media reports under the Freedom of Information Act point to more than 100 High Court cases having been initiated by parents of children with special educational needs. Some were taken by parents seeking compensation for failing to provide services in the past. However, most cases were taken by parents to force the Department of Education and Science to provide services for their children in recent times. Many of the cases have been adjourned and facilities for the children introduced but I am sure the Department is rightly worried that the cases will be reactivated.

Another issue arises in this regard. The Department, for obvious political reasons, will try to make sure that many of the services are provided for those parents who take court cases. If this is seen by other parents to be the only way they will get facilities, more court cases will be taken over the years, and that will result in a dangerous vista.

Parents mistrust the Department based on past record and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act does not go far enough to restore confidence. As stated in the motion, I express my concern that court action is still seen as somewhat of a necessity rather than a luxury.

Where resources are provided schools and parents still have to deal with the spectre of the proposed weighted system. I spoke to a number of parents around the country regarding the proposed weighted approach to allocating resources for children with special educational needs at primary school level. They are greatly concerned that their children will lose existing services. In this respect, I acknowledge, as does this motion, the statement by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, that she wishes to see a system introduced that would not result in the loss of services to any child. However, while the new weighted approach has potential to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and the unacceptable length of time it takes the Department to respond to particular specific requests for children with special educational needs, it also has a number of pitfalls. That is the reason a review of the current system needs to be completed and its findings implemented before any new weighted system takes hold. I await the publication of the review with great interest.

A number of groups such as the INTO and the Irish Primary Principals Network have suggested that rather than having a weighted system, it is a way of spreading limited resources in an even way using a quota system. A real weighted system was suggested under the special education review committee in the 1990s but that was never implemented. Following the review, what is needed is a genuine weighted system with a points rating for each child with a special educational need. This would be supported by a proper and transparent national pupil database obviously only accessible to certain groups of people.

Similar to my call for an audit of sports facilities by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, we need a nationwide audit of pupils and their needs. This would go beyond educational disability but it is specifically relevant to this case.

I mentioned the issue of legal cases taken. If parents of children who up to now have enjoyed one-to-one resourcing for special educational needs suffer under the quota system in any way, they might be inclined to take legal action. I take on board the Minister's statement and hope this will not happen. There has been a number of such examples. Deputies Gregory and Finian McGrath mentioned small schools in the inner city and in rural areas.

Another issue relates to gender in terms of the difference in the level of support given to boys and girls. While we acknowledge that boys tend to need extra support more often than girls, that does not necessarily mean that girls should suffer under a weighted system vis-a-vis the situation that pertained previously. Why we welcome the reduction in the ratio from 150:1 to 140:1 for boys, girls should not be penalised unnecessarily.

Other improvements are put forward under the existing proposal such as an 80:1 pupil-teacher ratio for schools designated as disadvantaged, but there are many schools with significant numbers of pupils who are disadvantaged which do not fit into the disadvantaged category. The quota system benefits some but is it truly needs based let alone rights based and how will it work properly without additional teachers? The INTO stated that another 650 teachers are required to make the system work effectively, which we must take on board, acknowledging that the increase in special needs assistants is welcome. The INTO at its consultative conference made a number of recommendations, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I would like to outline the recommendations but I do not have time to go into them in detail.

I wish to deal with the need for the Government to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children at primary school level. In 2002, the programme for Government stated that by 2007 the class size target of fewer than 20 for children under nine years of age would be reached. There is no timeframe for this, however, it will not be reached and could appear as a last minute election promise. That is not good enough; primary level must have a reduction in class sizes not just for special educational needs cases and notwithstanding special needs assessment.

Speaking of elections, last night the Green Party candidate in Meath told a forum of principals and deputy principals how the Government broke its pledge on primary class sizes. County Meath is 33rd out of 34 in the league of maximum class sizes. That is an embarrassing track record on which to fight a by-election.

I support this motion and urge the Government to take on board the concerns raised by the various Opposition Deputies.

Minister for Education and Science (Ms Hanafin)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—notes that progress has been made in the area of special needs education, including the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004;

—commends the Government for the significant additional resources made available for the education of pupils with special educational needs; and welcomes the legislative and administrative measures being taken by the Government to improve the framework within which services are delivered to pupils with special educational needs, their parents and schools; and

—further acknowledges that there are over 4,000 more teachers in our primary schools and over 2,000 in our post-primary schools than there were in 1997, that these extra teaching resources have been used to reduce class sizes, to tackle educational disadvantage and to provide additional support for children with special needs, and that the Government is committed to reducing class sizes further."

Listening to the Deputies, I know we can have a constructive debate on this and I welcome the acknowledgment in the motion of the level of progress that has been made. It should also be noted that in the four months since we last discussed this, the National Council for Special Education has been established on a statutory basis, 80 special educational needs organisers are working on a local basis with schools, parents, children and teachers, an extra 500 children got the benefit of a special needs assistant, new units have been opened and the weighted system, as announced last year, is being reviewed. All that has happened in four months and credit should be given that in recognising that the progress that needs to be made is being advanced.

We all share the same aim, that every child should have the opportunity to reach his or her potential and it is my aim, as Minister for Education and Science, to create the environment where that can be achieved. In the case of a child with special needs, a particular targeted response is needed to enable that child develop his or her abilities, enhance his educational level and prepare him for participation in society.

The record of the State over decades in providing for children with special needs has been poor. Without doubt we are now playing catch-up. In any area of historical under-provision it takes time to improve services to an appropriate level. We have accelerated our investment and efforts to ensure that people with special educational needs and their parents are provided with appropriate services in a timely, efficient and customer friendly manner. Significant advances have been made in the past six years which have made a real difference to the lives of many children with special needs and their families.

We are not there yet, however, and I will not pretend we are — we have progress still to make. While I record achievement, I also acknowledge that services provided for the education of people with special educational needs, including services provided by my Department, were not always as developed as we would have liked. The recent establishment of the National Council for Special Education and the transfer of functions to it will resolve many of the difficulties that existed in the past.

I remind the House of the progress made in the allocation of resources and the increase in staff in this area in the past six years. There are now more than 2,600 resource teachers, up from 104 in 1998. There are 1,500 learning support teachers, more than 1,000 teachers in special schools and more than 600 teachers in special classes. There are nearly 6,000 special needs assistants in our schools — there were only 300 such special needs assistants six years ago. More than €30 million is being spent on school transport for special needs students and more than €3 million goes on specialised equipment and materials, up from £800,000 in 1998.

The scale of resource allocation has facilitated the provision of education for children with special needs in mainly mainstream national schools. However, education for children with special educational needs is provided in a variety of settings. In addition to supported provision in mainstream classes, placement may also be made in special classes and units and in special schools. Pending such a placement, arrangements have also been made for tuition to be delivered in the child's home.

Where appropriate for the individual child, integrated provision with necessary supports is the desired choice of most parents. For children for whom mainstream provision is not appropriate, placement may be made in one of the 108 special schools and the 654 special classes and units located throughout the country. To appreciate the scale of improvement in the provision of resources to primary schools for special needs, it is worth reflecting on the fact that, at approximately 10,700, the number of adults providing services to children with special educational needs in primary schools today is more than half the 21,100 teachers in the system in 1998. The debate cannot question, therefore, the Government's commitment to providing resources for special educational needs.

In 1998, the Government took a decision that has transformed the level of provision for pupils with special educational needs. Pupils with such needs would be entitled to an automatic response to meet those needs and the allocation of resources to meet those needs no longer depended, as it had in the past, on the limited resources that were available to meet those needs. Instead, the response was based on the nature of the disability involved and, once the required supporting professional assessments were made available, the resources were automatically allocated. It was this decision that gave rise to the enormous expansion in resourcing levels to which I have referred.

While the Government decision of October 1998 authorised the allocation of significant resources, it posed significant challenges to the Administration in processing the significant level of applications which were made in response to the Government commitment. I pay tribute to the staff of my Department's special education section, the inspectorate and the National Educational Psychological Service for the efforts they have made to service the demands which were exacerbated by the lack of investment in the past.

It must be acknowledged, however, that despite their efforts, service delivery in this area has not always been adequate to provide the level of service that pupils with special educational needs, their parents, their schools and teachers require and deserve. The Department recognised that it was neither properly resourced nor structured to deliver these services. Arising from the report of an internal planning group, which was endorsed by the Cromien report on the Department of Education and Science and its operations, the Government decided to establish the National Council for Special Education to coordinate the provision of service to children with special educational needs.

The council was established in December 2003 as an independent statutory body with responsibilities as set out in the National Council for Special Education (Establishment) Order 2003. The council currently has 12 members all with a special interest in or knowledge of the area of education of children with disabilities. Since September 2004, 71 special education needs organisers have been employed by the council and deployed on a nationwide basis, with at least one SENO being deployed in each county. Each SENO is responsible for the primary and second level schools in their area and they have made contact with each of their schools and informed them of their role. A recruitment process for a further nine SENOs has been commenced by the council to bring its total up to 80 persons nationwide. In addition to the SENOs, there are 17 staff employed at the head offices of the council in Trim, County Meath.

With effect from 1 January 2005, the National Council for Special Education has taken over responsibility for processing resource applications for children with disabilities who have special educational needs. Under the new arrangements, the council, through the local SENO, will process the relevant application for resources and inform the school of the outcome. The council will also co-ordinate the provision of education and related support services with health boards, schools and other relevant bodies. This will help those parents who find it difficult to get speech and occupational therapists because it will now co-ordinate the delivery of services for the child.

The people with whom we deal in the special education area frequently raise the issue of the lack of co-ordination between the health services, with parents feeling excluded from such decisions, and the role of the teacher locally. Placing organisers in the locality will enable them to work with the parents and the schools, particularly to co-ordinate the services on a local level, ensuring that when a child has been identified as having a special need, the services can be put in place immediately.

The special educational needs organisers are responsible for ensuring that all special educational needs in their areas are addressed in an effective manner. They are charged with facilitating access to and co-ordinating education services for children with special needs in their areas. They will do this by liaising between local providers of educational services, necessary ancillary services, the council, the Department and parents. In many cases provision will be based on individual education plans for the children involved.

The SENOs were recruited in an open, competitive process and all have previous experience of direct service provision to people with disabilities and have wide-ranging experience from which the whole system can benefit. The SENOs who have been appointed are being assigned responsibility for specific primary, post-primary and special schools in their areas. The council and the Department have put transitional arrangements in place to ensure a smooth transfer of functions. The establishment of the NCSE will greatly enhance the provision of services for children with special educational needs and will result in a timely response to schools which have made application for special educational needs supports. The local service delivery aspect of the council's operation through the SENOs will provide a focal point of contact for parents and guardians and for schools and will, I am confident, result in a much improved service for all.

Arising out of the ongoing review of the resource allocation process, it was clear that the automatic response was operating in a manner that was far from automatic. The reality was that every single application had to be accompanied by a psychological or clinical assessment and had to be processed individually. The requirements of the process diverted school principals and psychologists from other work and delayed the processing of applications. The process was both cumbersome and time consuming.

In light of the reality that pupils in the high incidence disability categories of mild and borderline mild general learning disability and dyslexia are distributed throughout the education system, my Department, in consultation with educational interests, has developed a model of general teacher allocation for these disability categories. This model, which was announced in 2004, to come into effect from September 2005, was designed to put in place a permanent resource in primary schools to cater for pupils in these categories. The model was constructed so that allocations would be based on pupil numbers, taking into account the differing needs of the most disadvantaged schools and the evidence that boys have greater difficulties than girls in this regard, as Deputy Gogarty accepted.

The logic behind having a general allocation model is to reduce the need for individual applications and supporting psychological assessments, and put resources in place on a more systematic basis, thereby giving schools more certainty about their resource levels. This will allow for better planning in schools and greater flexibility in identifying and intervening earlier with regard to pupils' special needs, as well as making the posts more attractive to qualified teachers.

I am, however, very conscious of difficulties that could arise regarding the model announced last year, particularly for children in small and rural schools, if it were implemented as currently proposed. For that reason I announced in October that I would have the proposed model reviewed to ensure that it provides an automatic response for pupils with common mild learning disabilities, without the need for cumbersome individual applications, while at the same time ensuring that pupils currently in receipt of service continue to receive the level of service appropriate to their needs. In carrying out the review, my Department is consulting representative interests, including the National Council for Special Education. I have received a number of submissions from around the country and these have been taken into consideration. The views of the council, which is comprised of people with a particular expertise, will be considered as part of this review.

I have made it clear that I am in favour of using a general allocation model to ensure that we have in place a permanent resource in our primary schools to cater for pupils with high incidence mild disabilities and learning difficulties. However, it will not be as announced last year. The revised procedure for providing a general allocation of resource hours to schools will be announced in the coming weeks, in time to be implemented for the next school year. The revised system will reduce the administrative burden on schools and allow them to concentrate on the delivery of services to pupils with special needs. It will also allow psychologists to devote more time to advising teachers on planning for individual children and for whole school provision. It will reduce pressures placed on principals, teachers and psychologists by the previous allocation system, which was time-consuming and could delay the allocation of resources for special needs. Action had to be taken to reform the system and the model now being introduced will, over time, significantly improve the capacity of the system to cater for children with special needs in a speedier, more effective way. In the lower incidence disability categories resources will continue to be allocated on the basis of individual applications.

Judging by some of the comments made tonight, there seems to be some confusion about that. It has always been the case that the more serious disability will continue to receive individual allocation. It is important that where there is a particular and special need in the low incidence category these children are considered individually. The resource will be allocated to them according to their individual needs. These pupils are not evenly distributed among schools and a general allocation model would not be appropriate. However, the involvement of the National Council for Special Education and the organisers will greatly enhance the speed of response to such applications.

The general allocation model will allocate an appropriate level of resources to schools. The deployment of those resources is, as it should be, a matter for the schools and in particular for school principals in consultation with their staff. The needs of children change over time as they develop and as programmes devised by their teachers take effect. I know it is the aim of every parent that their child would have no need for a resource teacher. The best people to recognise such a need are the class teacher and the principal. Decisions in this area are best taken at school level rather than at a remote distance by the Department of Education and Science.

My Department has supported and will continue to support schools and principals through the provision of advice and not least through the support of the national educational psychological service. Applications for special needs assistants will continue to be made on an individual level in accordance with the criteria set out by the Department. The criteria referred to a significant medical need for such an assistant, a significant impairment of physical or sensory function, or where the child's behaviour is such that he or she is a danger to himself or herself, or to another. There was a significant care element included in those criteria. It is important that we continue to highlight that because the last thing we want is that children should become unnecessarily dependent on a special needs assistant. I know it is the aim of parents that where possible that dependency should reduce over time to give the child the skills to survive in school and in society in a more independent fashion. The processing of these applications for special needs assistants has been transferred to the National Council for Special Education with effect from 1 January last.

In addition to the changes made in the delivery of resources to date, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 provides a map for the future development of special educational needs services. The Act reflects the Government's commitment to putting in place a strategy to address the needs of people with disability. It will begin in steps over the next few years, in accordance with an implementation plan to be drafted by the National Council for Special Education. The Act creates enforceable rights to an educational assessment for all children with special educational needs, the development of an individual educational plan and the delivery of education services on foot of the plan. It also ensures that the resources necessary to vindicate those rights will be available to schools, the Health Service Executive and the council.

Resources are of major importance to the provision of the service. There are duties on the Ministers for Finance, Health and Children, and Education and Science to ensure that adequate resources are provided for the delivery of services. In particular the Minister for Finance is obliged to have due regard to the State's duty to provide for an education appropriate to the needs of every child under the Constitution and the necessity to provide equity of treatment for all children.

One of the principles underpinning the Act is that parents must have a right to be consulted and fully informed at every stage of the process. If they feel their views are not being fully recognised or the plan is not being implemented effectively, they have a right to appeal decisions concerning their children to an independent review board. The board will have the power to compel bodies, including the Health Service Executive, to take specific action to address matters before it. Nothing in the Act will restrict the right of recourse to the courts, rather it will simplify the process of enforcing the right to an appropriate education through the appeals board and the introduction of a mediation process prior to full scale litigation if the parents remain dissatisfied with the appeals board's findings. None of us wants to see parents forced to go to court. We would much rather see the resources that go into fighting court cases put into the delivery of services. That is the aim and, I believe, the outcome of this Act.

Of equal significance is the facility under section 29 of the Education Act 1998 which provides parents with an appeal process where a board of management of a school or a person acting on behalf of the board refuses to enrol a student. Where an appeal under section 29 is upheld, the Secretary General of my Department may direct a school to enrol a pupil. Separately, the National Educational Welfare Board can assist parents who are experiencing difficulty in securing a school place for their child. The welfare board has indicated that it will treat children for whom an appeal under section 29 has been unsuccessful as priority cases in offering such assistance. While the rights under section 29 and the assistance of the NEWB are not limited to children with special educational needs, they nevertheless provide an important mechanism for parents of all children in attempting to resolve difficulties surrounding enrolment issues. The rights of the parents are protected to ensure that they are satisfied with the provisions of the findings on the needs of the child and the services to be provided for that child. I appreciate that previously parents of children with special educational needs felt they had little option but to resort to the court to meet the educational needs of their children. I am confident that increasingly parents will not find such actions necessary in the light of the extensive funding and statutory measures the Government has introduced to provide for the special educational needs of our children.

The Cornhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 will provide an advocacy service for parents, so that in addition to the support to be provided by the special needs organisers there will be another source of advice and support for parents. Taken together the provisions of the Acts amount to a comprehensive framework to address the gaps in the system, a framework which deals with the issue not in aspirational terms but gives parents the means to enforce their rights easily and quickly.

The Opposition motion referred to the full implementation of the recommendations of the task force on autism. These recommendations provide an invaluable basis for the development of educational services and supports for persons with autism. However, in responding to the recommendations, my Department has had to give priority to a number of key areas before detailed individual recommendations can be addressed. These key areas involve the implementation of the core legislative and structural measures required to underpin service development and delivery. This approach is critical to the implementation of many of the individual recommendations of the task force including those relating to assessment, parental involvement, service delivery, information dissemination, promotion of inclusion and co-ordination between health and education authorities.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 has been enacted while, on the structural front, I have already outlined the position on the establishment of the NCSE on a statutory basis. These developments represent significant progress and I am confident they will have a positive impact on services for children with special educational needs, including those with autism. The issue of the ongoing implementation of the recommendations of the task force continues to receive detailed consideration within my Department. This work will be carefully planned and executed over the coming months in consultation with the council and other interested parties.

However, it is the case that my Department has already acted on many of the recommendations of the task force and it is continuing to develop the network of special educational provision for children with autism. The extent of progress can be measured from the fact that, since 1998, when autism was first recognised as a distinct special educational need, the number of dedicated facilities that have been developed is as follows: 141 special classes for children with autism, attached to special schools and mainstream schools, have been created, ten pre-school classes for children with autism have been established, eight autism facilities, some of which are providing an applied behavioural analysis model of response to children with autism, are being funded, and five special classes for children with Asperger syndrome have been created.

My Department sanctions home tuition grants for children with autism for whom a home-based applied behavioural analysis programme is considered appropriate or in cases where such children are awaiting an appropriate school placement. In addition, the task force on autism put forward a range of important recommendations in the area of continuing professional development. The Department continues to address these recommendations, on a phased basis, through existing supports, through newly established structures and through specific interventions.

Some developments worthy of note are the establishment of the special education support service in September 2003, the provision by the Department on an annual basis for 140 places on a post-graduate diploma programme in special educational needs and 20 places on a postgraduate programme in autism. The Department also funded the development of an applied behaviour analysis training programme in Trinity College Dublin and funded the participation of 12 teachers on the course in 2003-04. The successful participants are now available to the Department, as classroom teachers and as a further training resource.

The role of the special education support service is to manage, co-ordinate and develop a range of supports in response to identified training needs. The service is hosted in Laois Education Centre and is funded by the Department.

As part of its response to the growing demand from teachers for support and training, the special education support service has established teams of trainers to deliver training in four specific areas of autism, challenging behaviour, dyslexia and inclusion at post-primary. This training is delivered locally across the State through the education centre network. In addition, the service provides immediate responses to requests from schools for support in a variety of autism-related areas. The service also funds the provision of on-line training courses, including a course on autism, during the summer months of July and August and during the autumn and spring terms. The service funds approved approaches to the teaching of children with autism such as picture exchange communication system known as PECCS and Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children known as TEACCH and the Hanen approach.

Another major landmark in the development of autism specific services was the joint launch last month by my predecessor and the Minister with responsibility for Education in Northern Ireland of the Middletown Centre for Autism to which the Deputies have referred in the motion. This marked the successful completion of the purchase of the former St. Joseph's Adolescent Centre, Middletown on behalf of the Department of Education in the North and the Department of Education and Science in the South. Both Departments plan to refurbish the property to meet the needs of a centre of excellence for children and young people with autism throughout the island of Ireland. The centre will be dedicated to improving and enriching the educational opportunities of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders.

Four key services will be provided by the centre: a learning support service on a residential basis, an educational assessment service, a training and advisory service, and an autism research and information service. The motion further refers to the matter of accelerating delivery of the Middletown Centre. A number of working groups are continuing to address the legal, financial, organisational and infrastructural aspects of the proposal. For example, work is continuing on the development of a campus masterplan for the Middletown property which, when complete, will guide the commissioning of any necessary infrastructure and refurbishment works. In addition, the process for recruitment of a chief executive officer to operate the centre is being formulated.

The steps taken in recent years and those in hand represent significant progress in the development of services for children with autism. However, I fully recognise that further progress is required and my Department in consultation with parents and existing service providers will seek to ensure the recent rate of development is maintained.

The record of this Government in the area of special education is one of action. We have greatly expanded the level of resourcing for pupils with special needs. We have put new structures in place through the establishment of the National Council for Special Education, which will improve and speed up the delivery of services to pupils with special needs their parents and schools. For many years there was a deficit of recognition for these children or their needs. It is because of that we can point to so much development and so much resources in the past six years, as well as further improvements that I hope to put in place to meet the needs of the children more efficiently. We have also provided a comprehensive legislative framework to govern the delivery of these services. During my tenure as Minister for Education and Science I will look forward to making further improvements in services for pupils with special educational needs.

On the issue of the pupil teacher ratio in our schools and the class sizes at primary level, significant improvements have been made in recent years. More than 4,000 additional teachers have been employed in our primary schools since 1997. These additional teaching posts have been used to reduce class sizes, to tackle educational disadvantage and to provide additional resources for children with special needs.

The allocation of posts for children with special needs and improvements to the staffing schedule have helped ensure the overall pupil teacher ratio in primary schools has improved substantially. The type of improvements implemented include: the appointment and retention figure for the first mainstream class teacher has been reduced to 12 pupils; the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools where there are nine or more teachers including ex-quota posts; the enrolment figures required for the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools and Gaelscoileanna have been reduced; the allocation of resource teacher posts to either individual schools or to a cluster of schools where a need has been identified; the allocation of teaching posts to schools where 14 or more pupils with significant English language deficits are identified and the allocation of additional learning support teachers.

As a result of the allocation of these extra teaching posts, the pupil teacher ratio at primary level has fallen from 22.2:1 in the 1996-97 school year to 17.44:1 in 2003-04. The average class size at primary level is now 23.9, down from 26.6 in 1996-97.

Significantly smaller class sizes have been introduced in disadvantaged schools involved in the Giving Children an Even Break-Breaking the Cycle programme, with approximately 47,700 pupils in 243 participating schools availing of reduced class sizes of either 15 or 20 pupils per class. In line with the commitment in the programme for Government, class sizes will be reduced still further. It is interesting to note, in light of the figures quoted by some Deputies, in regard to the OECD figures that the outcomes from the classes in Ireland are far better than those with smaller classes in some of the OECD countries. However, we can only reduce class sizes on a phased basis having regard to the available resources. The deployment of additional posts will be decided within the context of the overall policy that priority will be given to pupils with special needs, those from disadvantaged areas and pupils in junior classes. Obviously there are factors in respect of teacher supply and the work which has been done in that area.

My colleagues will expand on the work being done in that regard in tomorrow's debate. As I have outlined in my contribution, it is evident that in the past six years, particularly in the past few months, substantial progress has been made in providing services for children with special educational needs to ensure they are given the opportunity, in an environment suitable to their needs, to reach their potential, while recognising that the progress which has been made must continue.

Ms Enright

I wish to share my time with Deputies Pat Breen and Keogh.

The motion has been put forward in the names of the Sinn Féin Deputies. This motion is on a matter of grave importance to many children, families and schools throughout the country. I wish to speak on the motion in my capacity as education spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party.

However, I cannot speak to a Sinn Féin motion without first expressing Fine Gael's deep concern and disgust at the revelations of criminality which have come to the fore in recent weeks regarding members of the republican movement. I and my parliamentary colleagues have listened to the recent verbal gymnastics of representatives of Sinn Féin with a growing sense of outrage and disbelief. It is difficult to swallow the expressions of sympathy by Sinn Féin for children with special educational needs, given its links to an organisation that has made orphans of children on this island. I remind Sinn Féin that those children are real people too.

In speaking to this important motion, I will not forget that the Sinn Féin Deputies in this House do not regard the murder of a young mother as a crime, battle on behalf of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe and do not recognise the legitimacy of the Garda Síochána. This evening I will not forget that Sinn Féin election material turns up in peculiar places, surrounded by most peculiar electioneering tools, and that a man convicted of membership of an illegal organisation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should speak to the motion.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

That is not relevant.

Ms Enright

It is relevant to the motion. A close associate of a Sinn Féin Deputy was listed as a contact person on the Sinn Féin website for Dublin South-Central until earlier this month when his e-mail address was quietly removed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should concentrate on the motion.

Ms Enright

The motion addresses a number of areas of considerable concern regarding the education system. While the main thrust of the motion is towards the enhanced provision of resources and supports for children with special educational needs, it calls for more generalised improvements in primary education through the reduction of class sizes.

Of principal concern is the introduction of the weighted system for the allocation of special educational resources and I welcome the Minister's statement tonight that the scheme will not be in the same form as was announced last year.

Historically, children with special educational needs were poorly provided for within the education system. However, in 1998 with the advent of the Education Act, a clearer intention was signalled to provide education for children with special needs. This was followed by the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, which was a flawed document in many ways when first presented. Fine Gael tabled more than 300 amendments to that Bill and, by working with parties, ensured that the Act significantly improved upon the presented Bill. The Minister at the time, Deputy Noel Dempsey, accepted many Opposition amendments.

Following the Education Act 1998, a number of circulars issued from the Department of Education and Science. One of these, circular 08/02, is of particular interest. This departmental missive listed, in appendix one, categories of disability and the corresponding number of hours per week that a pupil experiencing such difficulties should expect. Circular 08/02 acknowledged the need of children for resource teaching hours. For example, for borderline and mild general learning disability, the weekly allocation was listed as 2.5 hours. A similar 2.5-hour allocation was indicated for children with a specific learning difficulty, such as dyslexia. However, just before the schools closed for summer holidays last year a new procedure was instigated and the details of this new departure were included in circular 09/04. This was the new weighted system which the Minister has dealt with in her contribution.

In appendix one of this more recent circular, the specific time allocations for the categories of mild general learning disability, borderline mild general learning disability and specific learning disability have disappeared to be replaced with the words "Access to SET support-weighted model". When the former Minister for Education and Science was questioned on the result of the implementation of this circular, he stated clearly that some schools would lose resources under the new arrangements. I am pleased that the Minister is considering a revision as I believe it cannot be allowed to continue.

Where resources have been allocated to meet assessed needs, the needs do not change and the resources should remain in place. Why was no mention of this system made in the lengthy discussions on the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act? It would have been a major mistake for the Government to have continued in the direction in which it was heading with circular 09/04. Following her statement tonight will the Minister clarify whether from September 2005, children with special educational needs will be entitled to the allocation of resource hours as was their right under circular 08/02 or whether this will change? These 30-minute per day allocations cannot be lost. It is not the appropriate response from the Department of Education and Science, which should seek to meet learning needs and not curtail its response to them. The Minister has provided the House with some explanation in her contribution tonight as to the reasons for the weighted system.

Ms Hanafin

The Deputy was given it last October.

Ms Enright

My party raised this issue last October but we did not receive a clear reason from the Minister for proceeding with this system. Why is the Minister now changing the system if she believed her own reasoning? The reasoning was flawed because the situation was not improved in the case of many children. As the previous Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, admitted, it would disimprove the lot of many children.

I remind the Minister that learning difficulties come in many guises. The appendix to circular 09/04 lists 14 disabilities that come under the consideration of that departmental directive. I again ask whether this will be changed. The Government must realise it cannot neglect borderline, milder or specific learning difficulties to meet the needs of students with more moderate or severe difficulties. All students are entitled to be treated equally and fairly. Borderline and mild difficulties can become compounded if ignored over time. In addition, children with specific learning difficulties can be assisted, but can also suffer a considerable lack of confidence and educational attainment if they do not receive the right help at the right time. In my experience and in that of my party colleagues, since last summer many children with borderline and mild difficulties are being ignored. To put it bluntly, it appears that their disability is neither obvious enough nor apparent enough, nor is it causing enough disruption in the class to warrant attention from the Department of Education and Science. It is this new direction which causes me most difficulty. There may be no circulars specifying it but it is certainly one of the single biggest issues that I deal with in my constituency offices and clinics, and I know other Deputies have the same experience.

Children who up to this year had 2.5 resource hours teaching per week find they have none because they no longer fall within the Department's guidelines. It does not seem to matter that their psychologist, the only person making a decision who has met and examined the children in question, has recommended that they need resource hours. Their parents who know the child better than anyone feel that they need this help. The teacher who has the child in his or her class every day believes that the child should be given extra assistance. The resource teacher who had previously been teaching the child is of the opinion that much more progress could be made if the child could continue with the resource hours.

What will the Minister say to the parents of a six year old boy whose psychologist recommends he attend a special school because of his speech problems and discrepancies between his verbal and performance domains and who cannot even get resource hours from the school he is attending? The only response given is "number of hours recommended, zero". What will the Minister say to the parents of a little boy whose school has been unofficially giving him five resource hours per week and which is allowing him for the first time to make what his mother described in a letter to the Minister last December as "slow but steady progress", but the Department is refusing him resource hours from September of this year, despite the assessments recommending this? What will the Minister say to the numerous parents whose school principals have told them that they will have to await the outcome of her review of special education and the introduction of the weighted system before their children will receive resource hours?

The nonsensical situation still remains that young boys and girls are allocated special needs assistance but only until lunchtime or 2 p.m. when the school day continues to 3 p.m. Despite promises, this situation has not been improved in many instances.

Referred to also in this motion is the commitment to reduce class sizes which was made by the Government in An Agreed Programme for Government 2002. The commitment made was clear and unambiguous and stated that over the next five years, maximum class guidelines would be introduced to ensure that the average size of classes for children under nine would be below the international best practice guideline of the ratio of 20:1. The importance of this commitment should not be underestimated. It is somewhat surprising that the Minister for Education and Science so casually discarded this commitment last year.

By describing this undertaking as a "noble aspiration", the Minister entirely failed to take account of the conviction of those in the education sector and the parents of children being taught in crowded conditions that this was not an aspiration but a sincere promise. At the time the Minister withdrew from this commitment, her Department stated it would take at least 2,000 extra teachers to meet the target and that it was not feasible to recruit this number in the time set out in the programme for Government. I dispute these figures and I have always thought that the Government was hiding behind the fig leaf of teachers' supply when they simply do not want to hire the additional teaching staff.

The INTO claims the target was achievable and pointed to the fact that almost 2,000 new teachers would be trained over the coming year. This figure included those graduating from St. Patrick's College and Mary Immaculate College as well as the smaller colleges. The reduction of class sizes is a very important step in improving general primary education. There are currently approximately 215,000 children under nine in classes from junior infants to second class of whom over 80%, 170,000 children, are in classes with more than 20 children. The average Irish class size is 24.5 while the OECD average is 22. Most EU countries have significantly smaller class sizes. It is unacceptable that today more than 110,000 children are in classes of between 30 and 39 in number.

The Government amendment to the motion notes the extra resources being allocated to tackle educational disadvantage, yet there is no evaluation of the results of this investment. One thousand children per year are still failing to make the transition from primary to post-primary school. The Education Welfare Board is still critically underfunded and the problem of truancy is greater than anticipated. Fine Gael and the Labour Party raised this issue in the House last October. The Special Education Council, which had been planned long before then, has since been established. How much longer must children wait?

Mr. P. Breen

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a topic which touches every citizen, namely, the need to address the educational needs of our nation's children. I will focus first on the psychological assessment of children in primary schools. While this debate concentrates on the important issue of the provision of services, psychological evaluations of children with special educational needs and those experiencing difficulties in school are vital. Whether one's child attends a school covered by the National Educational Psychological Service can be a simple matter of geography. For example, whereas in some counties almost 100% of general primary schools are covered by NEPS, the figure in County Clare is 27%.

The failure to address special needs of children is closely associated with educational disadvantage and is a major contributor to early school leaving. This phenomenon has wide social repercussions. We must ensure that improvements promised in special educational needs are delivered to meet the special needs of children as of right and for the good of society.

The Barnardos 12-year strategy published in January last shows that, of those experiencing difficulties at school, children with special needs are falling through the cracks in the State's educational services. Children are not being assessed in time and, as a result, not assisted on time. Confirmation in the Barnardos report that 1,000 children per annum do not make the transition from primary to secondary education demonstrates that the Government's actions are not good enough.

I heartily endorse calls on the Minister to improve and enhance supports for children with special needs, especially in the context of the Disability Bill 2004, which was before the House today. The system pertaining to special educational needs proposed by the Minister could have a detrimental effect on smaller schools. For example, if the Department proceeds to implement the allocations announced last June, special educational needs provision in County Clare could be decimated. The ratio being applied for special educational needs nationally is one special needs assistant per 240 pupils, which is much too high for small schools, including many in my constituency, particularly west Clare. This approach would require a teacher to double as a learning support teacher and resource teacher for special needs.

The Minister stated that so-called lower incidence children, the bottom 2%, would receive additional hours. Notwithstanding this provision, current special needs assistants would still be badly hit by the proposed ratio, which will result in fewer teachers working with children with special needs than is currently the case. For example, in terms of teacher equivalents, including part-time teachers, County Clare could face a loss of 20 full-time special needs teachers. The Minister's approach means small schools, of which there are many in west Clare, will be hardest hit. Irrespective of the progress being made at a broader level, the people of County Clare will not accept a loss of services for children with special needs or learning difficulties.

It is necessary to acknowledge that some progress has been made and resources for special needs have improved in some schools in recent years. Many children receive the support of special needs assistants and the current level of support sustains many of them throughout primary school, although special needs pupils are often in classes of up to 30 pupils. Considerable praise must be reserved for parents who sought to vindicate the rights of their children in the courts. It is regrettable that in many cases they were forced to do so in the face of significant opposition from the Department.

While it is important to acknowledge the Minister's sanction in October last year of 295 additional special needs assistants to support children in almost 500 schools, the response to special needs applications is much too slow and must be speeded up. The House must insist that applications for special needs supports are processed as quickly as possible and every child is given the necessary resources once his or her requirements become known at school. Children's needs must be assessed as a matter of priority. As Deputy Enright noted, many children who have received special needs assistance until junior level are left unsupervised, perhaps for an hour in the afternoon, when they move to first class. As the INTO in County Clare has demanded, this matter must be addressed immediately. The Government must provide what is needed, when it is needed for the good of all our children and the wider society.

Mr. Kehoe

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this important motion. All Deputies are contacted regularly by parents concerned about children who require a special needs assistant or other needs met. As the Minister pointed out, it is important to look after children from a young age.

Although I agree with her that we must have an automatic response to meet the needs of pupils, it is a pity her Department does not pursue such a policy. If such a policy was at the top of its agenda, I and other Deputies would not need to table parliamentary questions regarding specific pupils every week. I accept the Minister was appointed only recently and wish her luck.

I will give two examples from the many cases of parents who visit my clinic. Two weeks ago, I received a call concerning a child with a major behavioural problem. The school indicated that its teachers were no longer able to facilitate the pupil because of his behavioural problem. The boy in question comes from a broken family and is being looked after by his grandmother. It is sad that a child has been sent home from school because teachers are unable to look after him. The grandparent of the child has had a number of meetings with the board of management and principal of the school. I would love to be able to tell the grandparent that, having spoken to the Minister, a special needs assistant will be provided for the child and everything will be fine. Unfortunately, I will not be able to do so due to red tape, which is worse in the Department of Education and Science than in the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Ms Hanafin

It has become easier; one must apply to the Special Education Council.

Mr. Kehoe

It is easy for the Department to adopt a position that someone else should be blamed.

Ms Hanafin

That is part of the Act for which the Deputy voted.

Mr. Kehoe

I am not lecturing the Minister but informing her about what is happening. Another case I have encountered involves a parent who has a child with a behavioural problem attending a special needs school. The child in question was kicked off a bus by a driver and the parent was told that the child's behaviour could not be tolerated. The woman in question travels 90 miles per day from the heart of the Enniscorthy district to Wexford and back because of a child's behavioural problem on a school bus. She was offered 60 cent per mile to bring her child to school. When I asked her whether it would not be much handier to have an assistant on the bus, she replied that the Department was not prepared to provide an assistant but had offered her money to bring her child to school. It is neither acceptable nor fair that a parent must travel 90 miles per day to take a child to school.

Ms Hanafin

The parent was offered €54 per day.

Mr. Kehoe

I am not sure of exact figure.

Ms Hanafin

That sum would cover the cost.

Mr. Kehoe

The woman in question must give up her job to bring her child to school.

The school in my parish of Bree has a class size of 34 pupils, one of the highest average class sizes in the European Union. In Denmark, the average class size is 19 pupils.

Ms Hanafin

It has low incomes.

Mr. Kehoe

Belgium has an average class size of 20 pupils.

Ms Hanafin

It has appalling results.

Mr. Kehoe

The average class size in Italy is 18, while Luxembourg has an average of 15 pupils. These figures are a major cause of concern given that my local school has an average class of 34 pupils. Will the Minister work to reduce the red tape that applies in cases where parents are seeking special needs assistance for their children?

Debate adjourned.