JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 2006

Special Needs Education: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Maura Nash, chief executive officer of the COPE Foundation and chairperson of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies education sub-committee, and Ms Maria Walls, director of research and membership services at the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies.

Before I begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses who appear before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. On behalf of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies, I invite Ms Nash to make a presentation.

Ms Maura Nash

I thank the Chairman. We are delighted to have the opportunity to present our report to the Oireachtas committee. I am chairperson of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies education sub-committee and chief executive officer of the COPE Foundation. Ms Maria Walls is director of research and membership services at the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. I believe everyone has a copy of the report. Ms Walls will take members through the first part, and I will do the same for the second. We will take any questions at the end. I will hand over to Ms Walls. If there are any questions at the end we shall be happy to answer them.

Ms Maria Walls

I thank the committee for inviting us here today. I imagine members are familiar with the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. The federation is the umbrella organisation for voluntary agencies providing services for people with intellectual disabilities. We have 61 members around the country and the report we are referring to today relates to information gathered from 33 of them which provide services to children with a range of disabilities.

I will take the committee through the report. The first part is concerned with general points and after describing it I will go through details of the survey we recently conducted; from that I will raise particular issues as regards the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and also the Disability Act.

In recent years there has been a trend towards the involvement of children with disabilities in mainstream school provision. That was reinforced through the survey we undertook. The survey was triggered by the EPSEN Act, its implementation and our attempts to try to plan and make recommendations in respect thereof. We consulted our members to find out who provided services to children. There were 33 in all and most of the data I am presenting relate to 31 agencies that provide services. Two agencies were excluded because the data were not comparable. Overall, it was felt the comments made were representative of all agencies.

When we looked at the EPSEN and Disability Acts, we found that they were significant steps forward as regards the implementation of provisions on inclusion contained in both. We also felt there was a need for greater vision as regards what the legislation would look like in practice. We have the legislation, but there is a gap as to what that vision will be. We welcome the invitation to appear before the committee today, but feel this vision needs to be developed through collaboration by all the stakeholders in order that a picture may emerge of how far we are going and what we are seeking to achieve. At the moment we know there will be a mandatory individual education plan, IEP, and support towards inclusion. How far do we need to go, however, and where is the Government commitment as regards that? That is the picture we should like to see developed further and elaborated on.

From our point of view it is very important to have the EPSEN Act taken with the Disability Act. The two Acts followed one another. There are particular implications in each of them for children, which we shall deal with at a later point, as regards assessment. However, we note there are some tensions between the Acts in terms of the different definitions used. The definition of disability is different as to whether it could be whole-life or led purely by educational needs. There is some tension around that. There is also the question as to whether it is the child on his or her own who is being provided for or whether this occurs in the context of a family. Those points need to be elaborated on and also the process of how the IEP and the statement of need will merge in practice, because essentially they are about one and the same thing. We therefore see the need for an integrated approach. This is something we will come back to.

When we spoke to our members we discovered there had been a very significant increase in referrals, particularly in respect of non-Irish children. In one agency, that represented 40% of new referrals. Therefore some very particular issues need to be addressed as regards translation and the provision of information in a range of languages. It must also be borne in mind that different cultures can interpret disability in various ways. New questions must be addressed with which we did not have to deal before.

Our members provide services to over 5,000 children out of the 8,537 currently on the intellectual disability database. This represents a substantial proportion of services. Some 1,110 of those children are in early services, that is in the nought to six age group; 1,363 pupils are in mainstream schools; some 2,262 are in special schools; and 225 are in child educational and development centres. The greater proportion of the children are in special schools but a substantial number are in mainstream education as well.

Our members provide for children with all levels of disability, in the main. It is noteworthy that just five of our organisations provide to children with autistic spectrum disorder only. A significantly greater proportion provide to children with an autistic spectrum combined with intellectual disability. We will take each of those service areas, one by one.

As regards early services, 26 of the federation's members provide to the 1,110 children in that category. There has been a particular increase in terms of an upward trend in the referral numbers in early services. Currently over 500 children are on a waiting list for that category. We regard provision in the nought to six age group as a legislative opportunity within the EPSEN Act that has not been usefully explored. The potential to explore it further exists because meaningful inclusion, particularly in pre-schools, will impact on meaningful inclusion later. The first is needed in order for the second to happen, so we cannot overlook that age group in terms of the Act. I want to draw the committee's attention to that part of the report in particular. The essential supports at that early stage could prevent much difficulty being experienced later. If good and proper support is provided early on it means that many other potential costs are removed in the later process, as well as removing the upset that can be caused for families.

We recommend full team support for that early stage. Different models are being explored as regards one-stop shops and how children can access the services. Those should be researched, tested and piloted in Ireland to see whether they will work best here. In particular we want to draw attention to the supports that are needed as regards pre-school provision, most of which is in the private sector at the moment. However, a whole range of supports is needed to further enhance inclusions within mainstream provision and we will return to those.

As regards mainstream schools, only 12 out of the federation's 33 members provide supports for this area. From our viewpoint, it is an area of services to which people are committed, but the schools are not currently resourced or funded. Part of the difficulty here has been the gap in opinion as to who should fund such an initiative. Should it be the Department of Education and Science or the Department of Health and Children? We see this as an area that urgently needs investment in order to fulfil the inclusion aspiration within the Act.

We discovered that of the 1,353 children who are currently in mainstream provision, there are an additional 481 who have transferred in recent times from mainstream to special schools. On exploring the reasons for this we found that there were two key issues. One was the lack of support within the mainstream schools. The second was the transition from primary to secondary schools. The secondary school presents particular challenges that are difficult for children to overcome. In primary school there is one class with one teacher. Suddenly students find themselves going to 12 different classes or more and having to negotiate an elaborate and complex system. In the absence of a whole range of supports that are needed the mainstream system is currently failing some children and this must be examined.

A significant number of the children transferring are under the age of 12. As they come closer to that bridge which transfers them from primary to second level, people are feeling that it is too big a hurdle. Then there are 249 under 15 who are transferring, and obviously the challenges of secondary school are becoming too great for them. Further details of those difficulties are outlined in the report for the committee, as are the issues that need to be addressed. Certainly we see the need to examine the cultural change that is required in mainstream schools and the range of supports — particularly where children are expected to function without supports for a majority of the day. Supports are in place only for a certain number of hours, so they must work on their own for a significant portion of the day.

The role of learning supports to the whole range of resource teachers is another area with which the report deals. We can better help special needs assistants to support the children in a more meaningful way. There is a need for an interdisciplinary team in mainstream schools similar to what is currently available in special schools. We see that as a significant way to resolve the current difficulties.

In countries where significant strides have been made, regard was had to class sizes, the structure of classrooms and how that works. We need to look at that in much more detail.

Ms Nash

Currently, 24 national federation members have at least one special school and there are 2,262 children in the special school system. To meet the needs of pupils, a broad range of teachers and other staff is employed directly in the school and in the interdisciplinary team which supports the work of those working directly with the children. In meeting the needs of people with more significant disability and complex needs, all schools, but especially special schools and child education and development centres, are providing services to pupils with more complex needs. The special schools are picking up the children with more complex needs.

Member organisations make the following proposals. They wish to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio from 1:6 to 1:4. When reviewing staffing levels, consideration must be given to the significant complex needs of pupils in our schools and centres, for example, looking at the high incidence of emotional difficulties, challenging behaviours, the physical and health needs and the physical structure of the school availability of quiet rooms and so on. The regular classroom size does not suit the needs of children with significant disabilities. A broad range of extra rooms, such as therapy rooms, is needed to meet those needs. Mainstream subjects on the curriculum have a time allocation each day and that cannot be met when pupils have highly individualised needs. If we want such pupils to attend mainstream schools, we must look at their individual needs and how they can fit into a regular school system.

The National Federation of Voluntary Bodies welcomes the opportunity to participate actively in the debate on the future of special schools. We propose the maintenance, recognition and continued resourcing of special schools while mainstream school supports become more developed. Our research has yielded two emerging proposals. One proposal is to free up special school resources to support directly mainstream schools in their provision of education to people with intellectual disabilities. This could include the exploration of the future role of special schools and the shared use of resources between specialist expertise, such as that between special education teachers and mainstream teachers. The second proposal is to explore the dual enrolment model of special and mainstream schools, as well as to improve integration with mainstream schools and for some pupils in mainstream schools to facilitate greater integration with peers in their mainstream school based on each individual child's needs.

We also examined the management structure of the schools. The difficulties experienced by boards of management need to be explored. The range of staff involved in providing education to children with intellectual disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder should be represented on the boards of management. This is not the case to date. The member organisations' recommendations on special schools include smaller class sizes, the maintenance and recognition of special schools, the immediate discussion on the future of special schools, as well as the resources to meet the complex needs of children using these services. We recommend that the Department of Education and Science provide extra staff to support the management of challenging behaviour.

The adequate provision of appropriate health care for pupils with complex needs and life limiting conditions in an education setting needs to be addressed. It is a new experience for teachers to come across children who have very significant disability and life threatening conditions. Death and bereavement are a big part of that experience.

There are currently ten member organisations operating 21 child education and development centres. There is a growing trend in these centres towards seeking a transfer of funding from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Education and Science. We recommend the continued exploration of the transfer of funding from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Education and Science for these services.

There are a number of key issues for the implementation for the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004 and the Disability Act 2005. The National Federation of Voluntary Bodies has identified that there is varied familiarity with the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act and Disability Acts. We recommend that a key task for all stakeholders be to raise awareness of the Acts, their key provisions, their linkages and the potential implementation process and issues. We recommend that the national council, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children provide clarification of roles and responsibilities in this new process.

The interface of the assessment elements of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004 and the Disability Act 2005 means that such engagement with the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies is imperative. An effective co-ordinating mechanism between the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science and the Health Service Executive is also imperative. We recommend the joint implementation of the EPSEN assessment and individual education plan procedures with the Disability Act assessment procedure. For most organisations, IEPs have been part of current practice for some time. Although they have not had the legal status now conferred by the Act, they have determined the supports and services available to children and pupils. A wealth of knowledge of the IEP system already exists within the member organisations of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies.

The foundation principles of the IEP are based on holistic and whole-life-focused approaches, which are strengths and needs driven, and framed in a person-centred planning context. We strongly recommend the development of a person-centred, holistic, whole-life, strengths and needs driven joint integrated assessment and IEP process to meet the requirements of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004 and Disability Act 2005 for people with intellectual disability. That is illustrated in the diagram in front of each committee member. One assessment should suffice for both the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004 and the Disability Act 2005 in a person-centred context.

The disability legislation has the potential to make the true inclusion of people with intellectual disability in mainstream society a reality. However, this will not materialise without the commitment by the Government of the necessary resources to provide appropriate facilities and services, such as interdisciplinary teams, equipment, buildings, transports and assisted supports. We are in no doubt that there is a direct link between the level of resource allocation and the extent to which true inclusion can be achieved. We recommend the commitment by the Government of the necessary resources. We propose that there be general areas of funding which address the needs of a wide range of stakeholders. These areas include information on both Acts, a general disability information service, provision for cultural and language diversity, staff training across a broad range of issues, capital investment in accessible schools and services, parent support, family support, equipment and transport.

We recommend the provision of adequate full early service interdisciplinary teams. The diagram before members identifies the core of a team and the cost of that team. These include family support workers, home teachers, occupational therapist, psychologists, physiotherapists and so on. We based the cost on the top of the basic scale to allow for people who might be within the senior scale. The cost of a team is €741,256.

We also recommend that the required preschool supports include increased State involvement in preschool provision, increased early services interdisciplinary team support to the preschools, a range of support to preschool teachers, preschool support workers provided for mainstream preschools when required and financial support to access private preschools. For mainstream schools, we need teams which would be similar to those outlined for the early intervention services. A team costs between €750,000 and €1 million. The significant developments required to improve the capacity of pupils to experience a successful education in mainstream schools include a reduction in mainstream school class sizes, which is a major issue, particularly given that we are talking about moving from primary to secondary school. This cannot be emphasised enough. Other necessary developments for mainstream schools are additional school resources and teachers, family support and intervention and information materials.

Developments required for special schools include interdisciplinary team members, a reduction in class sizes, behaviour management support, additional school resources and staff training. The developments required for CEDCs are similar, and include the appointment of interdisciplinary team members, a reduction in CEDC school class sizes, additional school resources, training, behaviour management, support and the transfer of funding from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Education and Science in these areas.

I hope that gives the committee a flavour of the research of our member organisations.

Chairman

Thank you for what was an excellent presentation. We will now hear comments from members.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome both witnesses and thank them for an excellent presentation. They have clearly outlined the major challenges that lie ahead and the need for significant extra resources in this area. During the committee's earlier session I suggested that we need to meet with the National Council for Special Education because I and other members have heard of difficulties experienced by schools and parents with regard to children with special educational needs. The presentation made the specific point that we need clarification of the roles of the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science, and the National Council for Special Education and its staff, because of the many difficulties on the ground.

A particularly disturbing statistic was that there was a transfer of 481 pupils from mainstream schools to special schools. I assume this happened because the parents had hopes their children would be able to function well in a mainstream school but this did not materialise. Such a transfer would be a negative experience for any child as well as for the schools and other children involved. One of the difficulties is that we have the legislation but have not yet had its proper implementation, and there is much confusion about the type of supports available.

An issue came to my attention this morning when I received a telephone call from a school principal. I would like to know if it is the type of experience the federation hears of. The school involved has catered very well for children with learning difficulties. It has taken children from other schools but only on condition that the special needs assistant, SNA, comes with the child. The school now finds that when other SNAs are needed for other children, it is being told that it already has one SNA. In effect, the child that came to the school with the SNA is now losing SNA support. In other words, the experience on the ground is that the child-centred delivery argued for by the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies, and which was argued for by the committee when the Bill was going through, is not happening on the ground. There seems to be a division of resources that does not cater for the individual needs of children — I refer specifically to mainstream education. Is this the experience in mainstream schools?

I do not know whether special educational needs organisers, SENOs, have a specific budget which they must stretch across particular areas but that is the impression the schools have. A school with many children with special needs does not seem to be getting the resources — I refer to general supports and do not want to get into the argument on the weighted system — needed to cater for the needs of these children. We are all aware that some schools do not take any children with special needs. The ones that do so do not seem to receive the support required. I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses in this regard.

I was interested in the comments on the issue of the non-Irish, which is an increasing sector of the population. What does the federation believe should be done in this regard? Do particular areas or schools need extra supports? We need to figure out a mechanism for getting that support for such areas and schools, which is what I proposed during the earlier committee session. We need to meet representatives of the National Council for Special Education in this regard and, at the end of this meeting, the committee should decide how it will proceed with the issues the witnesses have brought before it today.

How do the witnesses view the implementation of the Acts? Are schools getting new individual education plans for school children, followed by statements of need, or are they simply getting the plans that were already in place under the Department of Health and Children? Can a school suggest that a child needs an individual assessment plan and can this be carried out on the ground? My experience is that there is not much movement in this area so far.

The witnesses referred to core assessment teams or full interdisciplinary teams. Again, the experience on the ground is that the SENOs are making these decisions, perhaps with a psychological report, but that these broad teams are not available. The witnesses referred to the cost of one team. How many teams are there? Is there one in each county?

Some 100 children with autism have lost their home tuition grants. A policy decision has been made that there will not be home tuition grants for children in full-time education. What are the witnesses' views in this regard? Particular issues arise with regard to children with autism in mainstream schools, some of which were referred to by the federation. Are extra supports being provided in mainstream schools for children who have lost grants and for other children?

I have dealt to a great extent with the special schools but I take the point that there is need for a better pupil-teacher ratio and more resources generally. We need to keep a watch on the issue of children moving back to special schools. If that is happening on a large scale, we must provide supports in the mainstream schools but also ensure that the special schools, where they are getting extra students, have the supports they need.

I thank the federation for a very good presentation. From what the witnesses have told the committee, we need to progress the issue further.

Deputy English

I thank the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies for its report. It seems to cover all the issues and will take time to dissect. However, it clearly outlines the current situation and what is needed.

The witnesses referred to class sizes in other countries. What countries are doing best with regard to class sizes and what is the optimum size? I agree that the smaller the class, the better, but we must set targets to aim for.

What is the greatest difficulty in moving from primary to secondary education? What are the top three priorities for change?

With regard to special needs pupils attending mainstream schools, I know of cases where boards of management have stepped in and tried to prevent a pupil from attending a school because they felt it would disrupt other pupils. That is sad, but I have come across a few such cases lately. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on what can be done and on whether boards of management are provided with briefings or education in this area. It seems very unfair. The attitudes of some parents can be understood, but they should know better at this stage and should demand better resources for the school rather than trying to block students from attending.

On the future of the special schools, which is connected to the issue of the multidisciplinary teams, I find that some special schools end up operating as a minding service; staff are sometimes not fully trained and pupils are looked after but do not really get the education or help they need. This is because the multidisciplinary teams are not in place. How many special schools are delivering effective results? Parents are often afraid to complain because they are pleased their children have the opportunity to avail of specialised care in an environment where there are others with the same difficulties. The support that is available is helpful but often inadequate. I am aware, however, that some special schools are excellent and members intend to visit some of them.

It seems we sometimes accept a lower standard for the pupils of special schools in terms of the quality of their buildings and so on. This is not good enough. It may be a problem that originated from the former health boards delivering the service. We should be seeking to go a step further in providing for these pupils. There are also concerns in regard to some of the staff in the health service who deal with special schools. I am not convinced some of those making decisions have adequate training and are qualified to manage these schools to the extent that they can deliver the desired level of care. Does the delegates' feedback indicate there is concern about who is making decisions in this area?

As the delegates indicated, it is clear serious investment is needed in this area and that the current level of funding is completely inadequate. What magnitude of increase is required? Given that an interdisciplinary team requires funding of approximately €750,000 to €1 million, how many pupils can such teams cater for? Should we be concerned with establishing more centres of excellence and better transport services? What is the long-term aim in this regard? Should there be one team per county?

Ms Walls mentioned the increase in referrals and that non-nationals now account for 40%. Does that 40% relate to the increase in referrals or the total?

Ms Walls

That figure referred to a particular agency. I cited it as an example but all our members have reported a significant increase in the numbers of non-Irish children being referred. This raises particular difficulties in regard to translation of information and cultural interpretations of disability. It is a challenge for us in terms of promoting positive disability awareness and devising effective strategies for supporting people.

Deputy English

It will be a significant drain on funds.

What is the feedback from different groups in terms of family support? Are families pulling their weight in most instances? I am aware of cases where parents expect support from others but are prepared to do little themselves. They are entitled to such support but they must also play their part. I understand this is difficult for some families as a consequence of work demands and so on. I am sure the majority wish to do the best for their children but there are some who let themselves down and one wonders what can be done in such cases. Does this put a strain on service providers?

Ms Nash

In society in general there are families who are more committed to their children than others and it is no different for children with special needs. If anything, there is probably a greater input from the families of such children. They strive to do their best and are generally focused on the welfare of their children.

Chairman

This document will be the starting point of our examination of this issue and we intend to visit several special schools and service providers throughout the State in coming weeks. We will then try to formulate a policy in this area. There is no doubt the organisations under the auspices of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies Providing Services to People with Intellectual Disability are doing Trojan work. This committee will do what it can to enhance and improve the service for children with special needs. This will be our agenda in the next several weeks. Perhaps the delegates will return for further discussions after we have visited the schools.

Ms Nash

I understand Deputy O'Sullivan asked about the security of service for primary school children receiving support from special needs assistants?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I am concerned that there should be a child-centred approach in this regard.

Ms Nash

We stress the importance of the individual education plan, IEP. If a child requires a special needs assistant or other support, it must be set out in his or her plan and resourced and delivered as part of that. Otherwise, it will not work.

Deputy O’Sullivan

My point is that most children are not given such a plan but are merely assigned a special needs assistant because a psychologist has said they should have one. It seems to be the practice that the support of these assistants can be arbitrarily withdrawn or the hours of support reduced, not always on the basis of a psychological report.

Ms Nash

The use of IEPs has been developing in recent years. The feedback from special schools in this regard has been generally positive and it seems special needs assistants are usually provided when they are required. I cannot, however, speak for mainstream schools.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I am talking about the mainstream service.

Ms Walls

Our questionnaire findings indicate that 50% of organisations reported flexible use of resources while the other 50% sought more flexibility in their use. Schools sometimes try to work with the resources in as discreet a way as possible so that children are not labelled because of the presence of the special needs assistant. The provision of such support is sometimes not linked directly to the needs of a particular child even though it is secured for that reason. Special needs assistants are used in different ways within the system and there is some desire for more flexibility in this regard.

Many of our members have worked with special educational needs organisers, SENOs, since that role was instituted. In most cases, there has been improved decision-making and access to resources for special needs assistants, learning support and resource teachers. SENOs operate on the recommendations of the team which has been working with the child. There has been a significant improvement since they began their work, particularly in regard to the transition points for children. The responsibility is clearly with the SENO for such issues as transport and equipment.

Ms Nash

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the issue of multicultural change, which is highlighted in the report. There must be a greater awareness of different cultures and it is important to have teachers from those other cultures. There is an entirely new way of looking at service provision in this regard. Our feedback shows people find it challenging.

Deputy O’Sullivan

Are they getting the support they need?

Ms Nash

They probably need more support in this area. It is a new issue that has arisen quickly.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked whether individual education plans, IEPs, were being drawn up. In the main, our experience has been with special schools. As for mainstream schools, IEPs were not mandatory up to the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. As we outlined earlier, IEPs have been developed in recent years. While core disciplines exist in special schools, resources in mainstream services are still inadequate to fulfil the IEP process to the same extent. Our recommendations to the committee advocate that core teams and interdisciplinary transfers between teams should be available in the community to support mainstream schools in order to ensure that an interdisciplinary approach is provided for people with special needs in mainstream schools. Deputy O'Sullivan's assessment is correct in this regard.

Ms Walls

As for the number of core teams, the survey assisted us in responding to the national council's consultation process on the plan's implementation. In that context, we offered to resurvey in order to establish the exact number of teams. However, one matter on which agreement must be reached is the caseload mix or what constitutes an appropriate caseload for different disciplines. This question goes beyond the education sector. While a team might have a fair capacity, it depends on the needs of the children to whom the services are provided. When children have a broad range of needs, the team can provide a wider service. However, if the service is being provided to children with an extremely high level of needs, obviously the team's capacity will be more limited in terms of numbers of children with which it can deal. It depends on such circumstances.

As far as early services are concerned, a number of teams are in place. We are concerned with identifying any gaps. While there is a smaller gap with regard to early services, there is a significant gap as far as mainstream schools are concerned. We suggest that the majority of the investment should go in that direction. As established teams already exist for special schools and child development centres, the gap in that regard is also smaller. While it is clear that different areas of need exist, early services and mainstream schools are the two priorities.

Ms Nash

I cannot comment on the autism grants and whether those people who went to mainstream schools would have lost their home tuition grants. I am not in a position to comment because I am not sufficiently familiar with the issue.

Chairman

That is fine.

Ms Nash

Deputy English asked what we would consider to be the biggest obstacles encountered when moving from primary to secondary school. The report highlighted the point, which chimes with my own experiences with my children, that when one moves from primary to secondary school, one goes from a class with one teacher to encountering up to 12 teachers. Moreover, one is obliged to move around the school during the day. Trying to cope with such a major change is a challenging experience for someone with an intellectual disability. Such children, or adolescents, face major changes as far as schools and their structures and models are concerned. The supports required by children while going through this process must be examined. Perhaps a special needs assistant could be provided to support them.

In this context, Ms Walls has observed that at this stage, one does not want to make children feel different. In that sense, this is a minefield or a challenge which must be addressed. It is an obstacle in the sense of being a challenge. How does a child with special needs cope when going from one teacher to 12, in a school environment without a fixed class? While a child without a disability can study, read or whatever, it may be necessary to set up something separate for a child with a disability.

Chairman

Can Ms Nash elaborate on her comments in respect of dual enrolments?

Ms Nash

One could opt for either greater integration between special schools and mainstream schools or for some form of dual enrolment, so that pupils could attend mainstream schools for certain subjects, while returning to special schools for more specialised support. This has been attempted in the area in which I am involved, namely, the provision of early services. We provide specialist morning sessions for children who attend for two mornings a week. In addition, we support them in mainstream pre-schools, which works well. It would be worth exploring whether this approach can be transferred to both primary and secondary schools. However, as children become older, they become more aware of their distinctiveness. We must be mindful of the possibility that such an arrangement would challenge them and make them feel overly different. Nevertheless, it is worth exploring and certainly works at the earlier stages. It is something that should be borne in mind as children move on in life.

Ms Walls

As for the question regarding class sizes, the Nordic countries, Canada, and New Zealand have looked extensively at reducing class size to facilitate inclusion. While I do not have figures to hand for their class sizes, Ms Nash has visited some of the services provided in such countries.

Ms Nash

I visited some of the services available in the Nordic countries and Canada. Roughly speaking, they had a ratio of six children to a special needs teaching assistant. However, such classes contained a wide mix of abilities, including children with significant disabilities. In both cases, the number of teachers within a class has been increased. Hence, one might encounter three teachers within a class instead of one teacher, along with some special needs assistants. Consequently, children do not leave the class at all. It is a good model to examine.

If one considers the secondary school model, there may be 25 children to a class, of whom three or four may have special needs. It may not be possible to address the junior or leaving certificate curriculum in addition to trying to cope with the curriculum for children with special needs. In such a scenario, it might be useful to have more than one teacher, as well as special needs assistants within a class, as teaching can be delivered within smaller groups. However, this begs the question as to whether one requires bigger class sizes and a revised school mode for that type of approach. As countries such as the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries have made efforts in this respect, it is worth exploring.

Deputy English referred to the future of special schools and asked whether they were merely minding services. Our experience suggests that to date, they have been to the forefront of education and the delivery of a good service. Special schools are funded by the Department of Education and Science and all have recognised teachers teaching within them. Hence, I do not see them as a minding service. I see them as——

Deputy English

I know that many of them are not. However, my point is that some schools have been allowed to slip through the net and because the staff have not been fully trained, this is what takes place.

Ms Nash

Yes.

Deputy English

We accept a standard that is too low.

Ms Nash

There could be inconsistencies around the country. I can speak only for the data we gathered from our members. While child education and development centres are a different matter, special schools are funded by the Department of Education and Science and have teachers and special needs assistants systems in place.

In general, special schools have provided a good service, particularly for people with significant disabilities, challenging behaviour or complex needs. Many children now within the educational system have complex needs which would not have been present heretofore. The schools have certainly served that group well.

As we move forward, the agreed ratio for the teams mentioned by Ms Walls will be critical. Should the active ratio between speech and language therapists and children be 1:30, 1:40 or 1:20? A ratio must be agreed so that we can plan for the required resources. This is the only way in which we will achieve proper case loads and case mixes. At present, we certainly do not have them.

Ms Walls

If one takes speech and language services as an example, we envisage that speech and language programmes for children will move into the school system. If the interdisciplinary teams are in place, they will be able to support whoever works with a child, be it the teacher, resource teacher or special needs assistant in implementing the programme, so that it does not occur in isolation for half an hour once a month. Instead, it will be an integrated part of the child's day. Consequently, one gets the maximum benefit from the input. It would change our approach quite considerably.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the joint committee. The meeting has been extremely informative and this document will form the basis of our work as we proceed. We will follow up this. We will revisit the issue, possibly visit a number of the schools in the next few weeks and discuss the issue again with the delegation and, possibly, the Department of Education and Science. I thank the delegation for its deliberations.

Ms Walls

This report is part of a larger report so if the committee sought further information about certain points, we could provide such information to it.

Chairman

The committee could hold a brief meeting of between ten and 15 minutes on 2 March 2006 to agree how it should go forward. The next full meeting of the committee will be held on 9 March 2006 at 11.30 a.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.40 p.m. until Thursday, 2 March 2006.