I thank the Chairman for this invitation to our committee to meet the joint committee. Our delegation consists of Mr. Jeff Ennis, the Labour Party MP for Barnsley in the UK; Deputy Glennon; Ms Audrey Nelson, the clerk to our committee, and Ms Elaine Holloway, the shadow clerk. Both clerks were deeply involved in the drawing up of the committee. I co-chaired the committee with Mr. Kevin McNamara, who has since retired from politics and to whom we paid tribute at our last meeting. Mr. McNamara brought great authority and sagacity to our deliberations.
British-Irish Interparliamentary Body: Presentation.
On behalf of the committee, I welcome the delegation.
Mr. Jeff Ennis
It is an honour and privilege to give evidence to such a prestigious committee. As a member of the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, I am aware of the good work such committees do in terms of scrutinising legislation, leading the Government down the correct path and checking the power of the Executive. I have great sympathy for the causes this committee is pursuing.
Senator O'Rourke has already mentioned my friend, Mr. Kevin McNamara, the former MP for Kingston upon Hull North, who co-chaired the committee with her for a considerable period of time and who stood down at the last general election in the UK. The great expertise he brought to the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and issues connected with Northern Ireland for the last 25 years will be missed. His retirement leaves a large gap.
I will provide the committee with some background information about how we produced this report and committee D of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. Committee D has been charged with examining environmental and social issues. In recent years, its inquiries have dealt with waste management, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and special educational needs. Committee D agreed to inquire into special educational needs at its meeting during the plenary session in Clonakilty, County Cork, in April 2004 and has visited Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, London and Barnsley to gather evidence from officials at national, regional and council level; parents; non-governmental organisations and special schools.
The report was well received at the plenary session in Bundoran, County Donegal, in March 2005. Comments were made that this report was the kind of value-added inquiry the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body could engage in. My fellow delegates and I are proud of this report, which is the best inquiry produced by committee D during the my membership of it.
Early in the inquiry, committee D realised that the subject of special educational needs was too broad for all aspects of it to be considered in depth and decided to concentrate on autism spectrum disorder. We conducted the inquiry over five days which were spread out between September 2004 and February 2005. Although the report can be termed broad-brush, it demonstrates many of the innovations and policies being pursued throughout Ireland and the UK and highlights best practice and gaps in provision.
Committee D is very impressed with those who devote their careers to caring for and teaching children with special educational needs. We were concerned that insufficient training and remuneration was provided for professionals who face daily attacks from difficult children but who give so much. One principal we met offered to adopt a child at her school after he was orphaned following a parent's drug overdose. This underlines the commitment of the staff who work in our special schools.
The report highlights the problems with diagnosis in England and Northern Ireland. The process known as statementing is too general to be useful as Department of Health officials who diagnose are unwilling to commit the Department for Education and Skills, which provides the care, to spending money. The report has been mentioned in several specialist journals and was the subject of two articles in the Times Educational Supplement and the Daily Telegraph, respectively. I presented the report to the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, which is now conducting a major review of all aspects of special educational needs, including autism spectrum disorder. I like to think this is a direct consequence of committee D’s report. Although we have begun taking evidence on special educational needs in general, we have already received 180 very weighty submissions from different agencies and organisations, which I am currently wading through.
I will discuss certain brief statistics, which came to light as a result of a report we are conducting into special educational needs in England. English and Welsh statistics show that 27% of children with autism spectrum disorder have been excluded from school at some point, while 23% have been excluded from school more than once. I expect the figures for Ireland and other states will be very similar. We visited the Robert Odgen School in my constituency, which is the largest specialist school for children with autism spectrum disorder in western Europe. A total of 30% of children attending this school had been permanently excluded from previous mainstream and special schools. A total of 72% of children who suffer from autism spectrum disorder lag behind in their scholastic achievement and ability while 40% of children in England are more than two years behind in their education. These statistics illustrate the scale of the problem.
One in five appeals to the special educational needs and disability tribunal in England concerns children with autism spectrum disorder, although less than one in 20 children with special educational needs in England and Wales has this particular disability. Research shows that one in 166 pupils under eight years of age can be identified as having autism spectrum disorder, which equates to two or three children having the disorder in an average primary school in England. They may or may not have been identified.
A recent education supplement of The Times dealt with an inclusion survey, in which 511 teachers and 208 head teachers were canvassed. It primarily addressed the issue of the paucity of good in-service training, initial training, etc., for those teaching children with SEN needs, which I am sure questions will concentrate on. According to the survey and of those teachers currently in classrooms, 37% have received no initial teacher training or instruction in special educational needs. A total of 23% received either half a day or one day in initial training, 14% received between two and five days and 18% received over five days.
The survey went on to examine the issue in main schools rather than in special school settings. One question asked was whether autistic children should be taught in mainstream schools. For members' information, approximately 90% of children with ASD in England go to a mainstream school setting. Of teachers surveyed, 51% of primary teachers said autistic children should be taught in mainstream schools and only 24% said they should be separated. Of secondary school teachers, 47% said they should be educated within the mainstream and 33% said they should be separated. The inclusion agenda has been highlighted recently by a pamphlet produced by Baroness Warnock, who gave evidence to my committee on this subject. She seems to be turning away from the inclusion agenda.
The survey shows the need for continuing professional development. One of the issues raised is that one cannot train teachers for every disability children may suffer within classroom settings. One suggestion tabled was that if a teacher taught a child with ASD, a course should be provided, namely, teachers with such children in their classrooms should receive training simultaneously. This warrants further discussion. It goes without saying that teachers should be supported by trained staff, physiotherapists and speech therapists.
I do not know whether I am speaking for too long and the Chairman might ask me to abbreviate my submission. There has been a significant increase in the number of children with ASD identified in recent years. We must have a spectrum of improved provision to meet a spectrum of need. Referring to the evidence Baroness Warnock gave to the select committee, one question I asked of her that the members might find interesting involved an example of a Down's syndrome child. This reflects the views of other elected Members' constituencies.
Parents of Down's syndrome children have very strong views regarding integration and inclusivity or sending their children to special schools. For every parent of a Down's syndrome child in my constituency who wanted the special school option there has been a parent who wanted his or her child to be integrated into a mainstream school. I put this question to Baroness Warnock and asked her which parent is right. Her answer was very wise in that she said they were both right, as it is essential that parental choice and the relationship between parents and the school, local education authority or board are totally self-fulfilling, that everyone can speak as equal partners.
Turning to the situation in Northern Ireland identified by the report, it is true to say children are being let down by our SEN system and lack of resources. Many view our system as being too legalistic. It can be very time consuming, as a statement could take up to seven months to come to fruition. Often, the statement will say the child's needs will be ongoing or subject to review rather than specify the number of hours of service provision needed. This reflects the conflict between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills within our system in respect of funding provided, to which I referred. The tribunal process favours better-off parents because legal aid is not allowed.
Currently, Wales is reviewing its SEN provision. The principle behind the review is that SEN children should have their needs met, a philosophy we can all agree with. Scotland is the most interesting case study currently, where a new system started on Tuesday, 15 November. The Scottish authorities have removed the statement process and introduced a new system based on the requirement for additional support needs through what we call a co-ordinated support plan. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 aims to give more rights to parents and provide more duties to authorities, etc. This is referred to in paragraph 17 of the report.
In paragraph 21, the report addresses another important issue I feel strongly about, where it indicates that the Scottish Act also considers the needs of a young person with SEN moving into adulthood. This transition phase is a large problem area in all jurisdictions. The example I quoted in evidence to my committee was of a young man of 19 years of age in my constituency who suffered Asperger's syndrome. He was bright but became very violent. It got to the stage that when he finished school and because Doncaster social services only provided a half day attendance at an adult training centre and another half day of mentoring on a one-to-one basis with a social worker, he felt his life was going nowhere. He started thrashing his house and attacking his 15 year old sister. It became so bad that she needed to leave their home and live with relatives. I am pleased to say that, due to my intervention, the young man receives five days of attendance at different types of educational facilities. He also receives a weekend attendance provision. The situation has calmed down. Getting this type of provision once the child moves from the education phase into the social services and adult phase should not depend on the intervention of a local councillor, Deputy or Member of Parliament.
Returning to the Scottish system, the co-ordinated support plan will not be available to those children with just one barrier to learning, such as dyslexia. Those whose needs fall within the autistic spectrum will only be provided with a CSP if their needs extend beyond one barrier and therefore require joined up provision. The Scottish system is the best case model of those currently available within the island states.
I do not intend to say much about the Irish system as I am sure the committee could say more about it than I. Before concluding I briefly refer members to the eight main recommendations of the report contained in paragraph 50, which are all excellent and to which this committee should give serious consideration during its deliberations.
I thank Mr. Ennis for his contribution. Members of the committee can now comment, make observations or ask questions.
I welcome our esteemed Leader of the Seanad, Senator O'Rourke, Deputy Glennon and our guest, Mr. Ennis. I welcome this opportunity to engage in dialogue with him. I wish to address a number of areas. Broadly speaking, we in this jurisdiction share many of the concerns contained in the recommendations. One of these concerns is the number of trained professionals and we hold the same view of speech therapists, educational psychologists and physiotherapists. The delegation will be aware that legislation, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, has been passed.
It is mentioned in the report.
This is not fully implemented. When it is, we will have assessment of need and educational plans for children with special needs.
The pilot project was to take place in late autumn. Did this happen?
I am not aware of it.
Department of Education and Science officials told us a pilot project would take place in autumn 2005. Has it come to the attention of this committee?
No.
I do not think it has been completed. The council for special education has been set up.
Are people in place on the ground?
We are still awaiting the implementation. Specifically regarding autistic spectrum disorder, is there demand for the applied behavioural analysis method in Britain? A number of schools have been established in Ireland, mainly by parents who seek the one-to-one method. These schools were established and then sought funding or recognition from the Department of Education and Science. A small number have been recognised. Is there parental demand for this in the Britain?
Some parents want their children to receive special education and some want mainstream education. Mr. Ennis's comment that it should be a matter of parental choice is true. Legislation has been passed but is dependent on resources, an age-old problem. The Opposition believes there should not be constraints on resources but the Government believes there must be a clause that makes provisions dependent on available resources.
The Middletown centre was mentioned in the report. It is not yet up and running and there is interest on both sides of the Border in getting it activated. I met the education spokesperson for the SDLP recently, who conveyed the party's interest in activating this centre. The interparliamentary body could be active in this area as it is of interest to all of us.
Mr. Ennis referred to transition times, namely, before children attend school and when they reach the age of 18. In our legislation there is reference to both areas and an education assessment can be done though the Department of Health and Children before school and when legislation is fully implemented there will be a liaison to the school period. There is also reference to developing a plan for when students leave school, although the legislation does not apply to those over 18 years of age. It provides for a plan for the child's future to be drawn up while he or she is under 18 years. More work needs to be done in this area.
I welcome Mr. Ennis and thank him for his detailed submission. Mr. Ennis referred to a survey of teachers' opinions on mainstreaming which was somewhat inconclusive. Some teachers were of the opinion mainstreaming was a positive option and others disagreed. Is there such a survey in respect of parents? Would they not be in a better position to give an opinion? Mainstreaming is not a good idea as it is a means by which the Government of the day can minimise the resources required, as no additional buildings are required to accommodate children with autism.
We have also discussed what happens children outside school times, particularly in the summer months, and steps backwards can occur if they are in mainstream education. The jury is out on this matter, particularly at the most serious end of the spectrum. What are Mr. Ennis's views on the survey? Does he agree that it does not tell us a great deal?
I welcome Mr. Ennis; the Leader of the Seanad, Senator O'Rourke, and Deputy Glennon. According to the report there are many parallels between the systems. The failure to provide in-service training on this in Ireland must be highlighted. The report also highlights the statementing process, which we call the individual education plan. The report indicates that much time and resources is spent on this, detracting from the amount of resources available to the child in need. Scotland is moving away from this process and I hope for a realistic response to this in Ireland. If we have too much red tape the focus moves away from the child.
I refer to the rights of parents and children to demand a service, a very important issue for many groups who made representations to the Minister when legislation was being introduced. According to legislation, these demands depend on available resources at any given time. Some 90% of the children in the survey to which Deputy Andrews referred are mainstreamed. Is there a lesson to be learned in this regard by either the British or Irish systems?
There is a considerable difference of opinion between primary school teachers and secondary school teachers regarding the choice to go to a mainstream school or specialist schools. What is the main reason given by secondary teachers for preferring specialist schools? Can anything be done in this regard?
If a child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, is placed in a class, the teacher must then be trained. How much training is needed for a teacher to adapt? Can we make changes to the training programmes so that adapting the training would not require much time or resources?
Mr. Ennis stated that parents should be given the choice on where to send children. However, that is not the current situation and parents are often told what to do. How far can the issue of parental choice be taken? We accept that some parents are not in the best position to choose but in the majority of cases parents know their children best, and they know what they want but cannot receive it or get someone to explain why they are wrong. There often seems to be a struggle in this area and we must address the issue of informing and educating parents. The constant conflict between the authorities and parents is a shame because everyone should aim for what is best for the child. That does not always come across.
Some of the recommendations are clear. We all know of the importance of intervention at the earliest possible stage. I do not mean that flippantly. Matters of economics should not come into it and it is a pity that they do, but they always will when it comes to spending money and resources. Is there a study which proves or supports the idea that investing money much earlier provides massive returns socially and economically? We must prove the case in order to obtain more resources. It is the same in every country where resources are not in place at an early stage.
I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that professionals are not available but that is true only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. There is no problem accessing professionals outside of those hours privately. The problem is a lack of resources. The professionals are available if we are willing to pay for them. It is a little more costly but perhaps we can find a way around it. It is not good enough that a person has to wait a year to be assessed. We must do all we can to eliminate such unnecessary delays. It is too easy to find barriers and make excuses. I congratulate the delegation on the report.
I welcome Mr. Ennis and thank him for the research and comparative work he has done. I also welcome Senator Mary O'Rourke, the Leader of the Seanad, and Deputy Glennon.
Was the instance of autism examined in any depth by the working committee? I recall from previous visits by various alliance groups working with autistic children that they firmly stated it is on the increase in Ireland. I appreciate the argument that it is only being diagnosed now and perhaps that is the reason. Has much research been done on the rise of autism? What findings explain the cause rather than deal with treating the symptoms afterwards?
I have a question on independent living. We have many services in place, as is clearly recognised in the report, and many have availed of and indeed benefited greatly from our system. While in school the child has access to a special needs assistant. I believe we will struggle with the HSE on the issue of providing personal assistants for adults with autism who wish to live independently. I am interested to know what happens in the British Isles on this. As the delegation is aware, the Department of Education and Science has responsibility until a person reaches the age of 18 at which time the health board takes over.
Paragraph 42 of the report states that boys' schools are in greater need of funding while girls' schools simply do not require the level of funding or service provided by the Department of Education and Science. I do not know whether any girls' school in the country would agree with that. I agree that boys' schools are in greater need of funding and the Minister recognised this in the provision of special needs resource teachers. What is the basis for that statement?
I, too, welcome the delegation. A number of issues arose. Mr. Ennis spoke of the special or integrated approach. I agree the emphasis should be on the choice for parents. Recent legislation seems to place emphasis on the integrated approach. Some of the comments in the report are hard-hitting. The main message that comes across in speaking with any parent of a child with special needs is frustration with the lack of services. The document does not reflect that to a large extent.
The situation in Middletown was mentioned and again the slowness involved is frustrating. Part of the reason was the transfer of land. Does the delegation have a date for its completion and opening? Has any progress been made on an all-Ireland special needs module for teacher training? Is the delegation aware of any complaints from parents that children with special needs were given a bus pass instead of special transport? Some parents find that frustrating. Has any progress been made on harmonisation of qualifications, which would facilitate specialist staff? Regarding one-on-one assistance for pupils with learning difficulties, the model is veering towards an emphasis on integration. The report states that there are 108 special schools.
The difficulty is with children who have a mild spectrum disability. I am aware of a case which I find bizarre. The parents needed to get an assessment abroad because they could not get one here. The child was placed in a school with children with severe spectrum disabilities. The parents had great difficulty in getting the child with mild autism and dyspraxia into the school. When the child entered the school, she received five hours tuition and home tuition. The child progressed in leaps and bounds. She was eventually placed in a school specifically for autistic children. She receives two and a half hours' tuition and no longer receives home tuition.
It is bizarre and neither I nor the family can understand why that happened. Home tuition is supposed to be on an interim basis until the child gets a place in a special school. It highlights the inadequacies of the system. The family gave me a list of the hurdles that had to be overcome. Ideally the parents would like to send their child to school in California, particularly for speech therapy, which they heard about from parents of children who attended school there. It costs €20,000 or €25,000 to send a child there. It seems that if a family has money their child can progress in leaps and bounds.
The difficulties of funding in the North was mentioned. The figures I was given are a €100 million shortfall between 2005 and 2008, with the loss of 500 classrooms assistants for special needs teachers. The North does not seem to get adequate funding. I welcome the initiative taken by the Scottish Parliament. We should examine it for the future.
I apologise for being late. I was attending a forum for graduates with disabilities. People also experience difficulties when they enter the workforce. I have three questions. I missed the presentation and I hope they were not dealt with. In drawing up the report, what regard was given to the recommendations of the task force on autism? How strongly was the delegation guided by that report? Did it contain recommendations that the delegation felt were not urgent? It was a comprehensive report and little has been done with it since its publication.
I support the Middletown Centre in Armagh, particularly as it is a cross-Border issue. I am concerned that it was announced shortly after the task force on autism reported. The task force never recommended that such a place be set up. In light of that, there is a concern among parents of children with autism that we are giving them a Rolls Royce, so to speak. The Middletown Centre for Autism in County Armagh will be fantastic but if parents come from Cork and their child spends a week there, only to return to Cork where there are no services, they will be deeply disappointed. In that sense, they would be better off not knowing what the Rolls Royce of autism services is like.
Did the representatives examine the issue of information for parents to provide them with a greater understanding of what is involved if their child has special needs or autism? Has work been done on enabling parents to access the services that are in place and making them aware of their existence? In my constituency a group has been set up, Laois-Offaly Families of People with Autism. It is a shame that such people have had to form a group and attend regular meetings in order to try to meet the needs of their children. Information should be available to them in document form either from the Department of Education and Science or the HSE.
I thank members for their questions. I now call on Mr. Ennis to reply.
May I make a number of points before Mr. Ennis responds?
Yes, of course.
It is intended that Middletown will be a research centre, which is gravely needed. We are only beginning the voyage of understanding autism, as committee members know only too well. To date, the bulk of the research into autism as been done in the United States. It is only in recent times that research has begun on these islands. There is an amazing lack of research into autism in England, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is an enormous amount of goodwill among people and much legislation has been put in place, but there is very little primary research in the area on why and how children develop autism and how it can be tackled. Autism is one of the imponderable mysteries.
The recognition of autism in Ireland only came about in the last 40 or 50 years. The Middletown centre will conduct much needed research and I am very annoyed that it is not yet up and running. Deputy Enright is correct when she says that it was intended that Middletown would be the Rolls Royce of autism centres and the one to which we would all look for inspiration.
Several members raised the issue of training for teachers. There are several good examples of specialist teacher training services. Strathclyde University in Scotland has an amazing educational record and recently, St. Patrick's training college has linked up with Birmingham University to provide a one-year training course for teachers, either during normal teacher training or at postgraduate level. However, the aforementioned are the only two places where we could find any mention of specialist teacher training.
Of all of the issues in this area, this is the one that struck me most forcefully. We are plunging teachers into schools, whether mainstream or special needs, and expecting them to learn as they go along. In some professions that would be fine but it is not acceptable in teaching. Teachers need proper training to be able to deal with young children with special needs and the universities should pay special attention to this issue.
To answer Deputy Hoctor's question, there has been an increase in the levels of autism but that is due to more precise analysis and diagnosis of children. The issue of one-to-one assisted behaviour analysis, ABA, has been quite controversial here. Some people support it, while others do not but if desperate parents can set up a group and obtain ABA, they will work very hard to ensure that their children progress and develop. The high level of parental involvement in the ABA system has contributed to its success, however limited that may be, in improving children's learning and behaviour. Parents become heavily involved in ABA, having worked so hard to obtain one-to-one attention and become determined to make it work. They give so much of themselves to the ABA process. Of course, early intervention is crucial. Early intervention for children with Down's syndrome is easily done because the condition is so apparent. However, autism sometimes does not manifest itself until a child is three, four or even older. Finally, I wish to point out to Deputy Hoctor that the incidence of special education needs is much more prevalent in boys than in girls.
In advance of the response from Mr. Ennis, I wish to make a number of points. Frustration on the part of parents was mentioned by a number of contributors and that is a given. There is also enormous frustration on the part of staff across the board.
The vocation that is caring for autistic children struck me forcefully, particularly in Belfast, where there was an adoption issue concerning the principal of one of the schools we visited. The positive aspect of autism is the tremendous bonding that takes place between child and carer. However, the downside of that is that it exacerbates the frustration that people feel with the difficulties in the system. Nevertheless, the frustration can become a positive force if it is addressed and released. Then the potential for the entire system to improve exponentially is enormous.
The importance of early intervention should be stressed. I am conscious that this committee focuses on education. I have heard the phrase "early intervention" so many times since I came into the Dáil that it has almost become a cliché at this stage. Do the representatives believe that there is a need for a total reassessment of the early years of our education system? Perhaps we need to examine early intervention from numerous perspectives. I am thinking, for example, of obesity. Early intervention is needed from a health, educational and social perspective. In that context, I wonder about the role of primary school teachers and about their training.
There is much talk of early intervention, but it is an issue in itself. The debate on the issue may need to be concentrated, with contributions from all the relevant areas in which it is currently being discussed. This is something that we, as legislators, should be examining.
It was a pleasure to work with the group and I particularly thank Mr. Kevin McNamara. As an exercise for the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, of which we are all very proud to be members, it was enormously worthwhile. Hopefully, this will be the first of many such working groups, which have great potential in terms of increasing our understanding of issues that affect all of our lives.
Can Deputy Glennon clarify whether the frustration he noted was mainly among frontline staff? Were the administrative staff, for example, frustrated with trying to deal with frustrated parents and frustrated frontline staff? It appears that there is a lot of red tape in this area, which must be causing complications. Perhaps a training course for administrative staff is also required.
The frustration was evident across the board. In fact, the level of frustration was a measure of the extent of people's vocation. If people were not frustrated, then they were not really interested.
I was struck by our visit to Belfast, which showed us that the Northern Ireland system had got very caught up in legal rights. It was often a year or 18 months before that single issue was resolved and in the meantime, children were not getting the type of care and education they needed.
Would Mr. Ennis like to respond to some of the concerns of the members?
Mr. Ennis
I will do my best. Members have asked some very good questions which merit good answers. I am not sure I am up to the task. I did not remark on the model that Ireland has adopted but it appears to be on the right lines by reflecting the Scottish rather than the English system.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised the issue of ABA, on which I am not an expert. There is parental demand for it in England and a number of national bodies serve autistic children, the most famous being the National Autistic Society, which funds the Robert Ogden school in my constituency. Autism in Mind has similar objectives and is pursuing the agenda of choice in provision and other issues. Rather than focus on ABA, I will describe the system for dealing with autistic children used at Robert Ogden school. That school uses what is called an inclusion resource timetable to manage its five to 19 year-old students. Secondary students in particular are given a timetable of units to follow according to their states of mind and conditions. Students are given a lot of freedom, especially at key stages 3 and 4, for 14 and 15 year-olds respectively, to attend lessons when they want, provided that they cover all the units. Such flexibility is needed for students with severe problems.
Deputy O'Sullivan and others pointed out that we have been driven down the integration route. This is particularly so since the Warnock report of 1978, which introduced the statementing process through the education Act of 1981. That model has become popular in a number of jurisdictions, although Baroness Warnock is expressing second thoughts on her report. It is understandable that there is financial pressure on local education authorities to follow the integration route when, for example, the two special schools dealing with autism in Scotland charge them between £100,000 and £120,000 per student per year for residential places. Similarly, placements in the Robert Ogden school range between £50,000 and £70,000 per year. I have always believed that the mixed ability and inclusion policy should be applied in classrooms as much as possible. However, Baroness Warner recently said that in some mainstream settings children can be physically included but emotionally excluded. That is a danger for these children.
While Deputy O'Sullivan asked on the transition times between early and adult years, I concentrated on the adult situation. As Deputy Crowe noted, a programme called Sure Start has been introduced in England to deal with pre-school children aged two and above and focuses on those from deprived areas. The programme has been successful in identifying ASD in children between two and three years of age. Early intervention is important and, even if the programme only manages to identify children with special educational needs, it will be for the good.
How widespread is the Sure Start programme?
Mr. Ennis
It covers every authority in the country but, because it is based on needs, it is more active in deprived boroughs. With regard to the transition to adulthood, only 6% of students who leave school in England with ASD enter the workforce. Continuing social and educational support is needed when they reach adult.
Deputy Andrews raised the issue of forced mainstreaming and asked whether any parental analysis is available. I will write to the National Autistic Society to ascertain that information. Our schools White Paper has been controversial, primarily because of the trust school concept and the prospect of schools becoming independent of local education authorities. However, I am excited about the initiative contained within it for an extensive programme called Building Schools for the Future. My country has never allocated so much in capital funds to the building of new schools. The UK Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Ms Ruth Kelly, MP, remarked that there should be no reason primary, secondary and special needs schools should not be located in the same campus.
There is one in Limerick.
Mr. Ennis
There could be a flow of pupils with special educational needs from a special needs school to a mainstream school for certain subjects. It would also be possible to take advantage of special needs teachers who are able to apply their expertise to other educational settings. That idea is worthy of further consideration by this committee.
Deputy Andrews raised an important point in terms of regression during summer months. That is a major problem and one we need to address more effectively. Senator Ulick Burke raised the key issue of in-service training. Mechanisms should be introduced to bring special needs schools teachers into ordinary schools.
Deputy English raised the issue of the disproportionate number of secondary teachers who ask that children be taught separately. That is primarily because it can be difficult for students with ASD to cope with the more formal nature of secondary schools. I referred earlier to the large number of students with autism who are permanently or temporarily excluded. I learned of a 14 year-old boy with autism who attended a mainstream school and who, because he did not understand its concept, went straight to the top of the lunchtime queue. A teacher told him to go to the back of the queue. The youngster ignored the teacher because he did not understand what the teacher was saying. One can guess the reaction of a teacher when a student openly disobeys. He or she would go berserk.
Did he get no dinner?
Mr. Ennis
He was excluded from school. The school brought in an expert in autism who explained the child's problems to the teacher and the principal. They introduced a system whereby the child wrote his name on a card, which he put in a box in the dining hall before joining the queue. With this system he understood what he needed to do. It is about communicating with these youngsters because many of them, particularly in secondary school, cannot cope with the more formal setting.
Deputy English raised the point about ongoing training. As the concept has just been brought to my attention, I do not have an answer but it is worthy of further deliberation. He also raise the issue of parental choice being a false ceiling, which it is. In England the parents with the most money and the biggest shout get the best for their children.
Deputy English also asked if there has been conclusive research on the effectiveness of early years programmes such as Sure Start. There is no long-term research. Ongoing research by the Department of Education and Skills has not reached any conclusions yet but I am excited about the positive effects that will emerge in the medium to long term. It was brave of our target-driven Government to invest heavily in such a long-term programme with targets for the children not at age two or three but at 16 or 18 years.
Deputy Hoctor asked about research on the incidence of autism. It is poor and Senator O'Rourke has covered that in her point about the American situation. Senator O'Rourke also covered the gender imbalance. In a special school setting the incidence is usually one female student in six or ten. The disparity in funding is not as stark in England as in Ireland because we have fewer single sex schools. Deputy Hoctor also asked about independent living after school. As only 6% get into employment, ongoing support is needed for independent living.
Deputy Crowe is correct about the frustration of parents and Deputy Glennon referred to the frustration of professionals in the field, particularly teachers. It will be a while before the Middletown Centre for Autism, County Armagh, will be open.
Yes, but they have done some research.
Mr. Ennis
The Deputy also mentioned transport, which is another concern. A specialised school may be across the border from the local education authority, LEA, and if the school is 30 or 40 miles away, the parent may have to fund transport. In this case the parents' situation influences the level of choice among education institutions.
Deputy Enright raised the point about the task force guidelines. We approached the subject with an open book without guidelines or prescriptions. On parental choice, parents from poorer backgrounds are at a disadvantage. We must consider having a key case worker to work not just with the child but to advise the parents.
Paragraph 9 of the report states:
Many parents are not provided with the information on where to go for help. This means that the least able parents, financially and otherwise, are not obtaining the help that they require. It is the responsibility of the local authorities to provide adequate information for parents. We are not convinced that they were doing all they could to inform and assist parents with children who have special education needs.
This sums up the frustration we talked about.
I agree. In mainstream schools teachers know best, but the parent is the main educator and knows his or her child better than anybody ever will. I have noticed in my constituency work that parents are bewildered by the jargon associated with autism. It must take time for committee members to absorb this jargon. Parents must deal with the emotional aspect of having their children labelled and try to understand what the labels mean. There should be a greater effort across the island to tell parents in ordinary language what their children's difficulties are and what they need.
I thank Mr. Ennis and Senator O'Rourke.
Mr. Ennis
Once we have concluded our report, which will not be before Easter 2006, I will circulate members with a copy of its conclusion covering not just autistic spectrum disorder, ASD, but all special educational needs.
Guests and members are welcome to lunch in the Members' restaurant.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 December 2005.