JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 21 Sep 2006

Special Educational Needs: Presentation.

Chairman

The purpose of this meeting with officials from the Department of Education and Science is to consider two evaluation reports. The first of these relates to the evaluation of educational provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders and the second to the evaluation of special classes for pupils with specific speech and language disorders. I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Gabriel Harrison, assistant chief inspector, Ms Teresa Griffin, principal officer, Mr. Don Mahon, inspector, and Ms Emer Ring, inspector.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Copies of the Department's presentation have been circulated to members. I call on Mr. Harrison to commence the presentation on behalf of the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Gabriel Harrison

I am accompanied by Ms Teresa Griffin, who is a principal officer in our special education section, and by two of my colleagues, Mr. Don Mahon, who will speak about the evaluation of special classes for pupils with specific speech and language disorder, and Ms Emer Ring, who will talk about the evaluation of educational provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Children with specific speech and language disorder have a severe primary communication difficulty, that is, they have severe difficulties in understanding language, in expressing themselves or both. It is estimated that the prevalence of this disorder is approximately six children per 1,000. There was a small level of provision for pupils with specific speech and language disorders prior to the publication of the report of the special education review committee in 1993. A significant increase in provision occurred in the years following the publication of the report.

The level of intensity of the provision that is made for the children in question, compared to the provision made in respect of other categories of special educational need, is significant. For example, each group of seven children in a special class in a mainstream school is supported by two professionals — a teacher and a speech and language therapist. The children are removed from their normal classes to be brought to special classes. That level of provision, compared to the provision made in respect of many other disabilities, is quite intense. After a few years had passed, it was decided to review the programme to see how it was operating and how effective it was in meeting the children's needs. That decision led to the publication of the report I mentioned.

Children with autistic spectrum disorders present with a triad of impairments — impairments in social interaction, impairments in communication and a lack of flexibility in their thinking and behaviour. They may also have a range of other difficulties which impact on their learning, such as sensory difficulties and general learning disabilities. In the past, such children were enrolled in special schools of one kind or another. They were mostly enrolled in schools for children with general learning disabilities or emotional and behavioural difficulties. Since 1998, autistic spectrum disorders have been given discrete recognition as a category of disability. This has brought about a transformation in the range of provision. Over 160 special classes have been established in existing special schools and mainstream schools. More than 1,500 children with autistic spectrum disorders are being supported in mainstream classes. A number of stand-alone settings are in operation on a pilot basis, using an approach known as applied behaviour analysis, or ABA.

Autistic spectrum disorders are not widely understood. There has been a great deal of controversy about the ideology relating to the disorders, the complex nature of autism and the treatment and educational approaches. There has been a large degree of soul-searching in the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children, as well as the Health Service Executive, as they have tried to make appropriate provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders. The levels of support offered to those affected by the disorder are intensive. A teacher and at least two special needs assistants are made available for every group of six children. The applied behaviour analysis centres are staffed on a one-to-one basis. A high level of support is allocated from psychological and therapeutic services. The demand for high levels of support and the intensity of provision are of concern to the Exchequer because the funds required are disproportionate to the funds made available in respect of the other disabilities which are dealt with.

It was decided that the provision being made by the Department needed to be investigated to determine its appropriateness in meeting needs, to ascertain its overall effectiveness and to make recommendations to improve policy and practice. The inspectorate decided in recent years to publish reports such as those before the committee. The Department is committed to that policy and intends to continue it. The Department's intention is to inform the public about matters of educational importance and to assist legislators and policy makers in reaching decisions. It hopes those goals will be achieved by the publication of the two reports being considered by the committee. I invite my colleague. Mr. Don Mahon, to talk about the speech and language report.

Mr. Don Mahon

I will comment on the speech and language report. The presentation the Department submitted to the committee is quite long, but I will ensure that my contribution is short. I propose to provide a summary of the Department's submission. I hope that is in order.

I will start by commenting on the number of children with specific speech and language disorder. The term "specific speech and language disorder" has been adopted in Ireland. However, the disorder is defined differently in other countries — different terms are used to describe it and there are no agreed criteria for identifying it. In Ireland, it is stipulated that for eligibility for enrolment in special classes for children with specific speech and language disorder, children should have an assessment of non-verbal intelligence in the average range and, at the same time, they should be functioning in one or more of the basic areas of speech and language at a level that is at least two standard deviations below the mean.

I would like to speak about the provision that is currently available for pupils with specific speech and language disorder. Children who are enrolled in a special class for specific speech and language disorder may attend that class for up to two years. Each special class has a pupil-teacher ratio of 7:1. Enhanced capitation grants are paid to schools which provide such classes.

In 2002, at the time of the evaluation of provision, there were 54 special classes for pupils with specific speech and language disorder in mainstream primary schools. All 54 classes were involved in the evaluation. Questionnaires were sent to the principals and teachers and these were used to collect data on all 54 settings. Analysis of the questionnaires provided a comprehensive picture of the pupil population and how issues such as admission and discharge were managed.

A more detailed evaluation of 16 of the special classes was carried out. This involved classroom observation by a member of the inspectorate, a review of school and classroom documentation, questionnaires and separate structured interviews with school staff, speech and language therapists and parents. A follow-up survey of past pupils of special classes for specific speech and language disorder was also conducted. To conclude the evaluation a one-day seminar for professionals was organised.

A summary of findings of the evaluation follows. On enrolment, at the time of the evaluation 367 pupils were enrolled in special classes for specific speech and language disorder, of whom 74% were boys and 26% were girls. On compliance with enrolment procedures set down by the Department of Education and Science, the inspectors found that the profiles of 70% of pupils were fully compliant with the enrolment criteria, 13% were partially compliant with the criteria and a further 13% were not compliant with them. Some profiles of the children did not meet the criterion for non-verbal intelligence in the average range and others did not have speech and language functioning at or below two standard deviations under the mean.

All those who were interviewed, that is, the principals, teachers, speech and language therapists and parents, expressed dissatisfaction with the criteria for enrolment currently in use. Their criticisms included the following: the existence of regional discrepancies in the application of admissions criteria for enrolment in the classes; non-inclusion in the admissions criteria of children in the IQ range 80 to 90; the fact that there were too many referrals for too few places; and the limitation to two years of enrolment in a class.

On staff training, less than half of the teachers had completed specialist courses in special education or learning support at the time of the evaluation. It was reported that 33 of the teachers had no specialist training beyond their initial teacher training.

On resources for teaching and learning, for most classes the inspectors commented very favourably on the provision of a range of teaching and learning resources, attractiveness of teacher designed curriculum resources, quality of displays in the classrooms and creation of a language rich environment for the pupils. In a small number of classes a potential for development was noted. While three quarters of the teachers expressed a high level of satisfaction regarding the quality of teacher aids generally available, 52% of them stated their access to teaching aids which relate directly to specific speech and language disorder was below average and 31% stated it was not satisfactory.

On professional collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists, all the teachers interviewed affirmed the value of collaborative practice in meeting the needs of the children. However, almost half of the teachers stated principals were rarely or never involved in programme planning and almost half of the speech and language therapists were rarely or never involved in the planning of the children's teaching and learning programmes. The teachers identified a need for non-contact time to enable the teacher and therapist to plan together. Similarly, speech therapists indicated that collaboration between the speech and language therapist and teacher was in need of improvement and training was needed in teamwork and team building. The inspectors identified successful professional collaboration in almost half of the classes. In contrast, in the other 50% of classes it was evident to the inspectors that collaboration in planning presents a professional challenge to teachers and speech and language therapists.

On written preparation for teaching by the teachers, for 50% of classes the inspectors expressed satisfaction with the level and content of short-term written preparation, noting detailed individualised planning and preparation of work programmes, planning to meet specific needs and well-ordered lessons. In contrast, the inspectors reported a lack of adequate and effective long-term and short-term written preparation by teachers in the other 50% of classes. Similarly, the inspectors noted considerable scope for development of individual education plans, IEPs. In 50% of classes, IEPs were either not in evidence or were incomplete. Greater collaboration by teachers and speech and language therapists in the preparation of IEPs was also identified as an area for development.

The overwhelming majority of teachers stated that the primary niche English curriculum is a useful basis for planning and teaching a programme for children with specific speech and language disorder. Two thirds of teachers, however, indicated dissatisfaction with the provision of specific curriculum guidelines for pupils with specific speech and language disorder. The inspectors noted that effective language development activities are an established priority in almost all classes. In the majority of classes there was effective integration of language development activities in teaching and learning across various areas of the curriculum. The inspectors reported that in the majority of classes, the lessons observed were purposeful and that active and appropriate learning opportunities were provided for the pupils. The inspectors observed attractive displays of examples of the children's own work in writing, social, environmental and scientific education and visual arts.

Principals, teachers and speech and language therapists stated that placement in a special class in a mainstream school is of great benefit to the pupils in providing a range of integration opportunities and possibilities. For the majority of the special classes, the inspectors reported their observations of good practice in the integration of children in mainstream classes for learning in certain curriculum areas, particularly social, personal and health education, physical education, social, environmental and scientific education and arts education. Inspectors also reported the beneficial use of reverse integration in some schools.

There was considerable variation in the amount of speech and language therapy available. In 19% of the classes, speech and language therapy was available for four or more hours per day, the amount recommended. In 25% of classes, however, there was less than three hours input in speech and language therapy, with some classes having very restricted inputs with frequent turnover in speech and language therapists and delays in making appointments.

Teachers and speech and language therapists confirmed the importance and value of formal and informal contact with parents through structures such as school notebooks, homework, telephone calls, incidental visits and scheduled meetings. A notable finding in the report was that the great majority of parents — 94% — expressed satisfaction in the placement of their children in special classes for SSLD and 86% expressed satisfaction with their children's progress. Parents found the placement to be beneficial to their children's academic progress, their personal social development and their ability to relate and communicate. Parents were particularly pleased with the low pupil-teacher ratio, the secure class environment, the availability of two professionals to give focussed and individual attention to each child and the opportunities for integration with pupils in other classes. Parents indicated that their involvement was encouraged and welcomed but sought clarification on the exemption from Irish — querying the need for the children to learn the language and expressing their concern that children would be obliged to study it on return to mainstream education without an exemption.

Parents, in particular, expressed anxiety about the prospect of their children being discharged from special classes and returning to mainstream classes. They worried about the large class sizes and the attention that could be given by a mainstream class teacher in such circumstances to a child with communication difficulties. They claimed that children had residual difficulties in speech and language and said they continued to need regular speech and language therapy and support from a psychologist. It was found, however, that 70% of children who returned to mainstream were without speech and language therapy and most of those receiving therapy were getting it outside of school.

It was apparent in the evaluation that, in general, the provision that is made for pupils with specific speech and language disorder through the establishment of dedicated special classes is contributing effectively to meeting their needs. To address the shortcomings that were observed, recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations directed towards the special needs organisers and the National Council for Special Education included the compilation of a database of children with a specific speech and language disorder in order to plan for early intervention. They pointed to the need for pre-school classes and the establishment of additional special classes at primary school level and special classes at post-primary level where deemed necessary. The monitoring of admissions to existing special classes to ensure children with the greatest needs were enrolled was also recommended.

The other recommendations included liaison with the health service and the National Educational Psychological Service in the provision of psychological and therapeutic services for classes; the investigation by the National Council for Special Education of international best practice regarding the diagnostic criteria for this population and how to support these pupils, including the use of alternative approaches and models of provision.

Recommendations for the HSE and the National Educational Psychological Service included the establishment of agreed practice in the provision of psychological support for special classes for specific speech and language disorders. It was recommended that the HSE consider the possible role of occupational therapists in the provision of education for children with specific speech and language disorders. There were also recommendations on in-career training for speech and language therapists, including joint training in collaborative working to be arranged by the teacher education section of the Department of Education and Science in collaboration with the relevant training sections of the HSE. It was recommended that the Department examine the appropriateness of teaching Irish to pupils with specific speech and language disorders and whose home language was English. It was also recommended that school staff find agreement on a common assessment and recording procedures to cover pupils' progress in speech and language programmes and across the entire curriculum. It was further recommended that school principals draw up formal plans for the integration of pupils with specific speech and language disorders.

Ms Emer Ring

My presentation will cover what having an autistic spectrum disorder means for a child, service provision at the time of evaluation, the evaluation process and the setting out of findings and recommendations.

A child with an autistic spectrum disorder exhibits deficits in social interaction, communication and flexibility of thinking. He or she also experiences significant difficulties in processing sensory information from the environment. It is reported that 70% of children have a general learning disability. As prevalence rates continue to rise, it is estimated that 60 to 90 individuals per 10,000 of the population may be affected.

The inspectorate evaluation was carried out between 2002 and 2004. At that time there were 161 special classes for children with autistic spectrum disorders which were held in either special schools or attached to mainstream schools. Some 1,500 children with autistic spectrum disorders were included in mainstream schools. These children would have been supported by resource teachers and special needs assistants. There were also 11 early intervention classes for children with autistic spectrum disorders attached to mainstream schools and 11 centres in which applied behavioural analysis was largely or exclusively implemented.

The evaluation process was concerned with the work of the inspectorate in acknowledging, affirming and identifying good practice and promoting continuous development in the education of children with autistic spectrum disorders. There were five phases to the evaluation, each of which consisted of three strands. There was the evaluation in four centres in which applied behavioural analysis was largely or exclusively implemented.

There was also an evaluation of provision in two schools dedicated to children with autistic spectrum disorder and three special schools for children with mild general learning disability, moderate general learning disability, and severe to profound general learning disability who also had autistic spectrum disorder. Provision was also evaluated in ten special classes in seven mainstream schools and for eight individual children of the 1,500 included in such schools.

Reports were furnished to each setting following the evaluation. The model of school inspection then in place was called the "tuairisc scoile" or "school report", distinguishing it from the whole-school evaluation model in which the schools inspectorate currently engages. Owing to the sensitive nature of evaluating a child, no individual reports were furnished in that regard, but schools were provided with extensive feedback on their provision.

Before engaging in the evaluation, the schools inspectorate conducted an extensive literature review to examine the variety of approaches to meeting the learning and teaching needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders. The literature review strongly concluded that there was no definitive evidence to support exclusive use of a single methodology for all children and their families.

However, it emerged very strongly that there were elements of appropriate provision that should be in place when we in the Department try to meet the learning and teaching needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders. I direct members' attention to the pyramid diagram on page 16 of the presentation, which shows the key components that we found should form part of a learning and teaching programme for children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Starting from the apex of the pyramid, they include parental involvement, early identification and intervention, the availability of multi-disciplinary assessment and support, and knowledge and understanding of the implications of autistic spectrum disorders and general learning disability for learning and teaching. That is particularly important in view of its having been reported that 70% of children with autistic spectrum disorders also have a general learning disability. Access to an appropriate curriculum is also important, with a co-ordinated approach to curriculum planning and implementation, and opportunities for integrating children with autistic spectrum disorders with their peers who do not have such disorders.

The three strands of each phase of the evaluation consisted initially of gathering a great deal of information regarding the availability of support services, staff training and qualifications, and pupil profiles in all those settings. The schools inspectorate also undertook evaluations, which involved extensive document reviews in all settings and the observation of learning and teaching. Questionnaires were distributed to parents, teachers, and directors and tutors at ABA centres. Finally, all the data, of which there were a great many from such wide research, were analysed.

The findings and recommendations, which I will go through with members, are from page 16 onwards. There were clear differences in the various settings, for example, in pupils' access to a broad curriculum and in staff training and qualifications, but there were also similarities between them. The findings and recommendations are very largely reported in terms corresponding with the pyramid diagram when it comes to elements of appropriate provision.

On early identification and intervention, on average a diagnosis of ASD was made in all settings when children were aged between three and four. Almost all had availed themselves of a combination of part-time and full-time provision before enrolling in the various settings. In general, children obtained access to ASD-specific early intervention services at between four and a half and six years of age. Most parents stated that they were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the procedures and processes for diagnosis and assessment of ASD.

The schools inspectorate made various recommendations regarding the development of services by health and education authorities to address the gap in early intervention and diagnosis and provide for a multi-disciplinary team approach to assessment at that level, and the compilation of an ASD-specific education plan with not less than 15 hours per week if the child is under four and full school attendance if the child is of school-going age. Educational setting should be determined by parents' informed choice and the child's special educational needs.

The next heading under findings and recommendations concerns the goals of education and the curriculum. We were concerned that there is no single ideal curriculum for children with autistic spectrum disorder. That emerges very much from the literature review. Curricular access has to be planned and differentiated in accordance with each child's needs. Our curriculum should address the triad of impairments: the special educational needs arising from the general learning disability or other co-occurring difficulties such as dyslexia or oppositional defined disorder — during the evaluation we found the latter to be co-occurring difficulties; tend to develop mental and adapted needs; and address the management of behaviour that interferes with the children's learning and which is concerned with the holistic development of the individual. By holistic development we mean that in accordance with the principles of the curriculum, the physical, aesthetic, social, imaginative, spiritual, moral and cognitive development of each child should be fostered through the curriculum.

Children in applied behaviour analysis, ABA, centres had access to a hierarchical skills based curriculum that included a range of approaches. It relied heavily on discreet child-training and individual learning with less emphasis on group and class teaching. Children in all other education placements had access to the primary school curriculum, which was differentiated to meet the needs of individual children. There are also draft curriculum guidelines published by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, which are concerned with mediating the curriculum for children with mild general learning disability, moderate general learning disability and severe to profound general learning disability. These guidelines will be utilised in all other educational placements as well.

Recommendations were made with regard to that issue, basically providing all children with access to the curriculum which was seen to be broad and relevant, addressing the triad of impairments, accommodating the special educational needs of the child and other co-occurring difficulties, while tending to develop mental and adaptive needs, address management behaviour and provide an holistic curricular experience. We felt it was also important to include modules relating to the management of behaviour in autism spectrum disorder, ASD, in in-service training.

The next section relates to the professional qualifications, training and development of staff members. Teaching qualifications were not required for staff in ABA centres. In other centres all staff had recognised professional teaching qualifications. Therefore, staff in ABA centres were less familiar with the range of approaches to the learning and teaching of children with autistic spectrum disorders that have been developed such as the TEACCH approach, which is the treatment and education of autistic and related communication-handicapped children, the PECS approach, which is the picture exchange communication system, or the use of social stories. There was a difficulty in that only a few of the resource and class teachers in mainstream schools who were working with individual children with autistic spectrum disorder had a specialist qualification as regards the learning and teaching of children with special educational needs or had attended courses relating to ASD. The recommendations in that regard are involved with intervention learning and teaching programmes for children with ASD. Those doing so should have a recognised teaching qualification and also have access to ASD in-service. Addressing the in-service needs of resource and mainstream class teachers should be undertaken within these guidelines, with appropriate training courses being provided for special needs assistants.

Closely related to what I have just spoken about is the question of staff members' knowledge and understanding of autistic spectrum disorders. It is very important and the literature review points out that understanding the particular needs of individuals with autistic spectrum disorders and listening to the voices of individuals as regards their need for visual structure and opportunities to generalise what they learn in other situations, should be adhered to. Again, that is closely related to staff training and development.

The next issue is the importance of accommodating general learning disabilities and other co-occurring difficulties in planning and implementing programmes. In almost all school settings, due consideration was given to the implications of autistic spectrum disorders and general learning disabilities as well as co-occurring difficulties for children's learning and teaching. The recommendations in this case expressly consider the implications of autistic spectrum disorders, general learning disabilities and co-occurring difficulties for learning and teaching — referring to the draft curriculum guidelines for teachers of students with general learning difficulties during curriculum planning.

A commendable emphasis is placed in ABA centres on the importance of parental involvement. Parents had access to continuing support and training from the centres and were provided with regular information about their children's progress. In other educational placements the involvement of parents in their children's education was acknowledged, promoted and facilitated, inter alia, through the use of home school journals, involvement in the children’s individual education plans, parent-teacher meetings and the provision of progress reports. We recommend that the role of parents should be acknowledged strongly in all educational placements for children with autistic spectrum disorders.

In regard to whole-school planning, co-ordinated approaches to curriculum planning are particularly important, especially for children with autistic spectrum disorders who require a consistent approach in their education across all settings. There were no school plans available in ABA centres, as defined in the Education Act . However, planning for individual children's education programmes was systematic, coherent and detailed. Cohesive links between long-term planning, short-term planning and classroom practice were evident. A school plan was available in all other educational provision, which defined schools' educational philosophy and aims and how they proposed to achieve them. The school plans defined the planning, implementation and teaching of the curriculum, as well as the organisation of the schools' resources, and they contained a range of policy and practice documents. In almost all instances, coherent links between the content of the school plan and the teachers' long-term, short-term and individualised planning were evident. Our strong recommendation was that there should be a school plan compiled in all educational placements.

Due to the very different needs of all children with autistic spectrum disorder, individual planning is particularly important. Planning for the children's individual learning and teaching programmes in ABA centres was systematic, coherent and detailed, and was contained in an individual education plan. In all other settings, there was a two-pronged approach to individual planning. There was an individual education plan and also a process of curriculum differentiation, to which teachers with a professional qualification would be very adept. Differentiation was put in place with regard to the level and pace of the lesson, the children's identified interests, their responses, the structure and sequence of lessons, the mode of questioning, teaching approaches and the use of resources. This is particularly important as there is no one ideal curriculum for children with autistic spectrum disorders. A teacher needs to be very adept at these differentiation skills, in order to mediate the curriculum for all children.

There was a range of assessment procedures in the centres in which ABA was used. These involved direct observation, video observation and discreet trials. In other educational placements, children's progress was regularly assessed and monitored through a variety of assessment tools, namely, multi-disciplinary assessment, teacher observation, teacher-designed tasks, the retention of samples of children's work, curriculum profiles, check lists, questionnaires, consultation with pupils, standardised tests, reading logs, screening tests and progress reports. Rather than having a focus on quantitative assessment, we would advocate that a continuum of assessment should be there to meet the needs of every child.

From the literature review, children with autistic spectrum disorders respond particularly to information and communication technology. The role of ICT in meeting children's needs associated with the triad of impairments and in facilitating curriculum access is very clear in the literature. In ABA centres, there was less emphasis on the use of ICT in these two areas. In schools, the emphasis was on promoting ICT to augment the curriculum. However, we recommend that it should be used both to augment the curriculum and in addressing the social, communication and inflexibility of thinking deficits of the triad of impairments. It is important that children with autistic spectrum disorder be included with their non-ASD peers and to have clear procedures for promoting inclusion. It is not just good enough expect that a child will develop by placing him or her in an inclusive setting. There must be clear plans, targets and so on.

There was a great variety in the level of support services available in all educational placements. However, geographic location was an important factor in the availability of supports. Where an adequate multi-disciplinary support service was available, it was observed to contribute in a positive manner to the content of children's IEPs, the management of children's behaviour and staff members' awareness of the implications of the triad of impairments for the children's learning and teaching. All principles of the mainstream schools where children were enrolled in ordinary classes were satisfied with the availability of the supports provided by the National Educational Psychological Service. Our recommendations were very strong in providing children with ASD with access to an adequate, systematic and co-ordinated multi-disciplinary support service, considering the findings and recommendations of professional supports in planning and implementing children's learning programmes. If a child has been assessed by an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, or a psychologist, these recommendations should be taken on board when planning the child's individual education programme, and they should inform the programme in a multi-disciplinary and cohesive manner.

Deputy Enright

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentations. I will deal first with Mr. Mahon's presentation and then that of Ms Ring.

Mr. Mahon outlined some of the difficulties being experienced by people in the provision of speech and language and the criticism expressed in that regard. In terms of the two year rule, is that more of a financial consideration? I presume that is the case. There must be a degree of flexibility if the child has not reached the standard the assessment indicates he or she should have been able to reach in two years. There should be flexibility for a third year if it is necessary.

Also, issues arose this summer to do with transport for children to those classes — that information came from a psychologist as well as the parents — in that there appeared to be some assessment based on their IQ level to determine whether they could get transport. The children either need to be in those special speech and language classes or they do not. If they have been assessed as needing them I do not understand the need for another test to determine whether they are entitled to transport. To take the constituency with which I am most familiar, there are only two schools in County Offaly and one school in County Laois and therefore people have to travel considerable distances to get to those classes.

On the 50% of classes where individual education plans were not in evidence or not complete and where greater collaboration was needed, one of the main ideas in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, the EPSEN Act, was the multidisciplinary approach and the provision of individual education plans. That is not happening. I realise the Act is still in implementation stage but what is the timeframe for those aspects to be achieved? It sounds like an excellent idea but it appears it is not being put into practice on the ground. Does the Department have any plans to address the shortage of speech and language therapists? I realise it is a Health Service Executive function or whatever but we cannot continue to say it is a problem without trying to come up with solutions. Is that being examined?

Another question I have, and it relates to both presentations, concerns the huge reliance on the National Educational Psychological Service. If the individual education plans become 100% operational throughout the system, that will involve even more work for NEPS. It will have to liaise with SENOs, the HSE, schools and now, since the weighted model came in, there is a level of discussion with the school principals also. The reality is that NEPS is not even in 50% of schools. It is all very well to say that this, that and the other should be done by NEPS but it cannot even do the job it was meant to be doing before the EPSEN Act came into place and now we are placing more responsibility on it. That is right in a sense but there is no point in talking about something having to be done by NEPS if it cannot do it because nothing will happen. I am aware that a limited amount of private assessments are available but that is only treating the tip of the iceberg. It is not reaching the children who need to be assessed. It is the principal who has to make decisions under the weighted model but if they are given reports it is a very difficult position for them to decide which child in a school should get the service. That is the current system but there must be a fundamental rethink of the resourcing of NEPS if any of what the witnesses talked about in terms of their evaluation is to be realised in the future. I understand NEPS got an extra €2,000 last year in the Estimates. That is crazy when we talk about how much we expect NEPS to do.

This is a difficult question but from a policy perspective does the Department have a plan to upskill teachers to allow them get the specialist qualifications? Are there any incentives available? What will make them want to do it? We hear anecdotally from teachers that the reason they are teaching special needs this year is because the principal made out the list and one teacher was given first class, another second class and someone else could do third class without necessarily having the required qualifications. As I said when making my point about NEPS, we talk a great deal about early intervention and it is accepted that it is necessary and that, even from an economic perspective, it can save a lot of money in the long term but how are we addressing it? If children do not come into the education system until they reach the age of five, what liaison exists between the Department and the HSE to deal with that from that perspective?

I want to move on to the report on autism even though some of the questions relate to both presentations. In terms of the ABA schools, when will a discussion take place or a decision be made in the Department on moving forward the pilot project status that appears to apply to these schools, which is similar to the pilot basis on which Youthreach has operated for the past 18 years? The Department feels the model is either a good intervention or it is not. A decision should be made on it. The parents of children who attend those schools are happy with the model followed. The fact that the schools have a pilot status means it is not easy to recruit teachers unless the schools can show that there is definite progression structure for staff.

I have heard from parents whose children attend ABA schools that the SENOs do not have a particular role in assessing, checking or trying to secure places for children in those schools, whereas they would have a role in that respect in mainstream schools. Is that the case? What are representatives' views on that?

From the Department's report it is not particularly clear if it is recommending the inclusion model, although having listened to what the representatives said I gather it is recommending that model. I do not have a difficulty with that, but parents have a right to choose and to decide what is best for their child. I believe parents will take into account the recommendations of experts, including psychologists. However, if they are of the view that the ABA model is the one they want to follow for their children, will the Department provide sufficient support for that, or is there an element of it trying to ensure the inclusion model is followed?

I have a few more questions to which the representatives may wish to reply in writing given the time constraints that apply to this discussion. Where do the recommendations of the taskforce report on autism fit into the Department's evaluations on this area? I presume matters have moved on following the passing of the Act, although some good recommendations were made in that report which were not implemented. What is the position in respect of them?

What is the process for drafting individual education plans? Is the position black and white as to who specifically should be involved and who is in charge of reviewing the process? What concrete plans are in place for co-ordination and contact between the HSE, the Department and the SENOs?

Given the very long period children have to wait to have a first assessment carried out, when parents receive that assessment, it can take a long time before they receive another assessment and at that stage perhaps the right interventions are not being made because there is no updating mechanism to ascertain what is working. Is there a time period and place for examining that area?

Home tuition has been a major intervention in recent years. Are there specific criteria for the awarding of or withdrawal of that service? As public representatives, we are approached by parents when the service is withdrawn in respect of their children. Sometimes parents must accept that their child has moved on. If a child has an SNA or receives home tuition, sometimes the parents are of the view that the children will receive that assistance forever, but that is not always what is best for the child. When explaining that to parents, they often see the withdrawal of such assistance as a cost-cutting exercise.

What is the budgetary element in respect of NEPS? Do those involved in NEPS have to bear in mind that it can only make a certain number of awards in that respect or are the psychologists removed from budgetary decisions and can they carry out the assessment based on the needs of the child?

Are assessments carried out in respect of the needs of pupils in second level education? Some 1,500 children come into this category at primary level and those children will move on to second level education. Will we wait until there is a crisis when those children are in the first year of secondary school and then consider how we can provide for the needs of those children or will we make plans at this point for those needs?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the representatives of the Department and other people in the Visitors Gallery who are also interested in these issues.

I wish to address Mr. Harrison first because I am concerned that he is worried about money. He indicated in his introduction that he believed a considerable amount of money was being allocated for provision in respect of these two disabilities, perhaps disproportionately in comparison to the needs of children with other disabilities. That sets off alarm bells in my mind. What limited service is available for children under these two categories needs to be maintained and developed. We also need to develop services for children with other disabilities. I am concerned that there is a cutback scenario in this regard. I say that in the context of having spoken to a principal of a school in my area who has a special autism class. She has interpreted changes in her school over the summer as cutbacks to this special autism class. l would like Mr. Harrison to clarify that he is not being unduly constrained by financial considerations.

I share Deputy Enright's concerns regarding the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. We spent hours on Committee Stage trying to ensure the legislation would be as strong and as good as possible. We devoted a great deal of time to debating individual education plans, early intervention and co-operation between the HSE and the Department of Education and Science to ensure intervention takes place as early as possible for children with special needs. However, financial restrictions are a much stronger criterion than any provision in the legislation and I am concerned about this issue. While I acknowledge the officials are constrained within their sections about what they can do, reports such as these need to recognise what is in the legislation and identify a way in which we can go from where we are to where we should be under the legislation, to which all of us signed up, even though a number of us opposed the section regarding resources.

The question of early intervention is raised in both reports as well as the criticism of parents who have difficulties securing early assessments. Everybody is aware of the importance of early intervention but neither report makes a strong recommendation to ensure co-operation with the HSE and to implement measures to ensure early identification. The speech and language report does not recommend changes to the criteria and this implies one of the main reasons is the lack of resources so that if the criteria are changed, more children will be allowed into special needs classes. The report should clearly recommend that more speech and language therapists are trained. Progress has been made and additional places have been provided at undergraduate and postgraduate level in the past few years. Perhaps it is not the role of the officials because they deal with one sector but, if not, the committee should reinforce what they say in the reports and propose the training of additional speech and language therapists and educational psychologists.

The speech and language report states there are not sufficient individual education plans and planning needs to be strengthened through the involvement of teachers, parents, principals and professionals. This needs to be developed and emphasised in the context of the legislation. Will the officials continue to work with the people concerned to ensure that is carried through?

I refer to monitoring progress and linking up with the mainstream school. The report recommends that the monitoring of progress should be strengthened and when the children return to the mainstream school, communication and liaison should improve regarding information about the children. According to the report, 70% of mainstream schools receive no information about what happens in the special classes. Many parents are worried when their children are about to return to the mainstream school and the recommendations in the report in this area need to be implemented so that support is in place for the children when they return and the school understands what has been happening in the special classes. During the summer I met a speech and language therapist who operates a private practice in the west. She has developed a CD for the use of parents of children with speech and language disorders because she saw a need for parents to have information on what to do for their children before they can avail of services. This underlines my point about early intervention. Before a child is assessed and receives services, there is a considerable period during which a parent will know he or she has a problem and will want to do something about it. It should not be left to a private practitioner to identify and fill that gap. The report on autism services placed a strong emphasis on parents' dissatisfaction with diagnoses.

I note the Barnacoyle parents group's submission, a copy of which members have received, which raises the issue of ABA schools as opposed to the other classes. I note the Department's recommendation that everyone should have a teaching qualification. The Barnacoyle submission makes the point that the professionals were consulted in the preparation of the speech and language report but not in the preparation of the report on autism. In dealing with children with autism spectrum disorders, are other skills at least as important as teaching qualifications? I come from a Montessori background and know that Maria Montessori began working with children with disabilities before her involvement in mainstream education. For children with autism, their autism is a huge factor and many teachers in special classes have not received specific training. Is it more important to know about autism than about teaching? Ideally, a teacher should know about both. How were these two approaches weighed when the report was being written?

The Barnacoyle submission asks the extent to which the progress of children in different settings was evaluated. The Department acknowledges the strong parental involvement in ABA schools. Parents are pleased with all interventions, probably because they are delighted to secure some kind of autism specific intervention and all methods of intervention are beneficial to children. However, I wonder how fair the report is to the ABA system. It does not appear to emphasise the progress made by individual children. Could this point be clarified?

The issue raised by Deputy Enright is of importance to parents who have established ABA schools. They are not recognised by the Department and many are struggling. The Barnacoyle group, for example, is seeking recognition for St. Catherine's school. In my constituency an ABA group is seeking funding. I have concerns regarding the Department's plans to mainstream ABA schools. I know this is costly and I am conscious of the point made by Mr. Harrison. However, we must consider what parents believe is good for their children. We must acknowledge that we are behind many other countries in terms of these matters. We need to make progress as quickly as possible in the interests of these children. If we intervene early and properly, we can make a huge difference to the lives of the children in question. If we ensure that the children benefit from proper intervention at an early stage, we can help the State to avoid accruing additional costs at a later stage.

Deputy Gogarty

I will continue the discussion on the theme raised by Ms Ring. I would also like to express my support for Barnacoyle parents group, which has highlighted issues relating to the applied behaviour analysis system as it is being operated under the umbrella of St. Catherine's services. I invite Ms Griffin to tell the committee why the pilot schemes are still in operation after so many years. Is it not time for the schemes to be put on a more formal basis?

The first thing I would like to say about applied behaviour analysis is that the report presented to the committee today does not seem to deal with outcomes. In speaking about outcomes, I do not mean outcomes as they are seen in terms of the departmental curriculum. Given that the providers of applied behaviour analysis are education centres rather than schools per se, they should not necessarily be judged on the same merits as mainstream schools. The assessment does not seem to take the form of a general analysis of the abilities of children with autistic spectrum disorders within the applied behaviour analysis system. Assessments should be made of whether the children have improved and of how well they interact with other children and their parents. The Barnacoyle parents have expressed high levels of satisfaction with the system, but is it possible to compare like with like? Can the agreed outcomes be compared in general terms, rather than in curriculum-based terms? The Barnacoyle parents group seems to think that its outcomes are as good as the others, if not better, when they are compared in general terms, as opposed to curriculum-based terms. However, those outcomes do not seem to have been assessed. I am not an expert in this area but I feel the matter should be examined. I would like the departmental officials to explain why it was not considered as part of this report. Perhaps it did not come under the remit of the report.

The Barnacoyle parents group made certain accusations. The parents are of the view that the process was flawed from the outset. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, they believe that the level of cross-referencing with experts that was done in the case of the speech and language report was not done in this instance. The officials from the Department can clarify the matter if the parents are incorrect on this occasion. The Barnacoyle parents have convincingly raised an issue that is also relevant to the mainstream education system. The draft guidelines which have been produced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment relate to general disability rather than to autistic spectrum disorders. I ask the delegation to correct me if I am wrong in this regard. Even if the guidelines related to autistic spectrum disorders, there is no actual curriculum that the applied behaviour analysis centres could ask to be applied. The Department will be obliged to address this shortcoming.

I take the point made by a previous speaker about the 450-hour requirement during the training of teachers. I accept that people who work with children on a one-to-one basis in applied behaviour analysis centres do not have teaching qualifications. They might have training in other areas, however. Ms Ring mentioned other approaches, such as the PECS, TEACCH and the social stories approaches, which may be desirable. It can fairly be said that the standard teacher or special educational needs assistant does not necessarily have training or skills in those areas. To what extent is such training available in teacher training colleges? Would the Department be in favour of a like-with-like requirement, whereby if it were requested of applied behaviour analysis centres that they meet the 450-hour requirement, a grant system would be made available to enable the staff in question to accrue the 450 hours they would need and, in return, the 450-hour requirement would apply to all teachers? There is a general insinuation in the report in that regard. Would it be possible to obtain clarification on the matter? Do the members of the delegation believe that all teachers, and not just those working in applied behaviour analysis centres, should meet the 450-hour requirement?

I would like to mention a further contradiction. The applied behaviour analysis centres have indicated their belief that they are being singled out in a negative manner. Additional training for teachers is not identified in the report as a specific area for development, despite schools indicating that teachers need further training and the majority of principals indicating that they are not satisfied that staff members are adequately equipped in training and teacher experience. Is that not a contradiction? Perhaps recommendations need to be made in that respect.

I reiterate the point made about Barnacoyle which made a submission and took time to rebut or otherwise some of the claims made in the report. The system it has operated for, I believe, eight years has still not been sanctioned. Perhaps it is time to officially sanction schools given such a commitment a long time ago in order that they do not have to worry on a year to year basis. The point made by Barnacoyle regarding how autism links in with speech and language brings us to the issue of funding. Unfortunately, instead of being rights based, section 12 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, to which speakers have referred, is funding linked. Irrespective of what we seek, the bottom line will always be that if funding is not available, this section will not be emphasised.

I will address a point raised by Mr. Mahon. Those with specific speech and language disorders may attend special classes for up to two years. An argument can be made for extending this period. The recommendations made in the report propose a comprehensive review of each pupil's learning needs and strengths before discharge from the special class. Is this an implicit, albeit not specific, recommendation that in some circumstances pupils may attend for more than two years? I ask for clarification. If two years is the maximum attendance period, regardless of circumstances, some of the parents of pupils will be screwed, for want of a better word.

I recall raising at a previous meeting of the committee the fact that departmental recommendations on a child's entitlements supersede any recommendations obtained in a private assessment. In other words, parents waiting for an assessment who secure a private assessment and are told, for example, that their child needs eight hours' tuition per week would only receive four hours because this is the number proposed in a departmental circular. As a result, children receive the bare minimum of tuition. As the report noted, only one fifth of pupils receive more than four or more hours of speech and language tuition per week, with one quarter receiving less than three hours of tuition per week.

It was brought to my attention recently that a pupil with hearing difficulties who attended Ard Mhuire national school in Tallaght for two years and was supposed to receive tuition from a speech therapist did not receive it because a speech therapist was not available for reasons of sick leave or a delay in making an appointment. Such cases are not specific to the school in question. While a considerable number of children may receive an average or above average number of hours of tuition, a significant number are not receiving the requisite number of hours and are suffering as a result. In that context, should the report not include an additional recommendation that if a child does not receive the bare minimum, his or her entitlement covering assessment and special intervention should extend beyond two years until such time as he or she receives the appropriate level of tuition. I ask the delegation to comment on this. Is parental choice or the provision of a bare minimum of tuition more important? In some cases, parents get het up about having a choice. In policy terms, is it more important to ensure a child is entitled to a bare minimum rather than have a parent wait to be given a choice? Funding issues also arise in this regard.

Deputy Hoctor

We are dealing with two different areas but I want to concentrate on autism before proceeding to language disorders. We learned from representative groups that visited the committee when we were dealing with the legislation that there has been a significant increase in the incidence of autism across the country. The simple answer might be to say that we now have a name for a condition that always existed. We must, however, go further. Is the Department of Education and Science engaged in research on this in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children? We must find out why the incidence is increasing significantly.

Most parents can afford the assessment of children with suspected autism but it is expensive, costing upwards of €300, with further assessments sometimes necessary. Primary school principals are limited in respect of those they can recommend for psychological assessment. What happens to those children whose parents cannot afford private assessment? They may rely on the teachers who identify the autistic tendencies. We must commend our teachers for doing such a great job. Often they are the first to alert others to a child's difficulties.

I thank the Department for its assistance in the past with the establishment of an autism unit in my constituency. While the ABA units exist in some areas, there are other areas where autism units are working well. What are the basic requirements for the setting up of an autism unit, particularly for qualifications for teaching staff? Is there a specific programme for those appointed to staff these units? Does the Department intend that autism units that are working well will graduate to specific learning programmes such as PECS, which is very expensive, and ABA? Is that the long-term plan for autism units?

I have been approached by parents who are dismayed that their children are not recognised for language disorder assistance within the current system. Some of them have been told by psychologists that if the criteria had not changed two years ago, their children would be catered for but, because his or her IQ is too high and the language disorder not serious enough, the child gets no assistance. Are children falling through the net because they are not getting the help they need? What will we do about that?

The Department is aware of the importance of early intervention, which has been so successful with autism. In the area of language disorder, further complications arise with confidence and the ability to learn and communicate properly if there is no early intervention. Mr. Mahon referred to the concerns of parents regarding regional discrepancies. A special school in Cashel is served by two HSE area divisions, the south-east and mid-west areas. The speech therapist employed by the HSE, south-east area, deals only with the children from that HSE area and not those in the same class who come from an area served by a different branch of the HSE. This does not make sense. I hope we have vision rather than focussing on geographical or HSE boundaries.

There are children who cannot avail of speech and language services at present. We have difficulty in getting therapists into the system despite the fact that college places have been provided. The committee must seek to ensure these specialists are provided and trained, as Deputy O'Sullivan has recommended. Some children, who have been adopted from other countries, have not been identified by the Department or the authorities. At the crawling stage of childhood, children develop reflexes that can be dispensed with as they develop through babyhood. These are needed once more at the learning stages of primary school. Language concepts and communication skills are compromised by the experiences they had in their mother country before they were fortunate enough to find families in Ireland. These children, whose IQ is often very high but who have language disorders, are falling through the cracks in the system. I look forward to the comments of the Department.

Teacher training at both primary and secondary level is imperative in dealing with this issue. I recall the time when, as a secondary teacher, Asperger's syndrome was a new term. The syndrome was explained to us over a coffee break because a child with the syndrome had been admitted to the school. That was no fault of the school staff or the Department but teachers do not have the option to learn about disabilities and learning disorders. This should be part of the primary school training curriculum and also the higher diploma in education curriculum. We need greater awareness in the teaching sector and adequate in-service training.

Deputy English

Some of my comments may be biased as I come from the north east. There is a difference between the service provided to the north east and that provided to the rest of the country. Some of my colleagues may say I am incorrect. Reference was made to early intervention but many of my constituents must wait 18 months for an assessment. We have spoken of it at many committee meetings but I do not see change happening on the ground. Without early intervention, what are we doing with recommendations, theories and investigations? If someone must wait 18 months to be assessed, something is seriously wrong. We should have a system which operates similar to the National Treatment Purchase Fund whereby if someone waits more than four months, another scheme should ensure the child is assessed. I am aware of cases where people cannot obtain an assessment yet if they spend €500 they will be assessed that day. There is something wrong with that. Some agency, be it the Department of Health and Children or the Department of Education and Science, should take responsibility in this area. Someone should guarantee that children are assessed in a set time. There should be targets at which we can aim. If a person is informed by their health authority or someone involved in education that there is a one year waiting list, they should say that is not good enough and expect better. I would like to hear the witnesses' comments on what we can do in respect of that matter.

I accept the comments regarding some teachers not having qualifications. The ABA schools were referred to a good deal in that regard. I visited some of those schools during the summer and many of the staff possess degrees in psychology and various other subjects and are highly trained in other areas. They may not be trained teachers but I get the impression that this report might insult them in some way in terms of the qualifications they possess. We should talk more about enhancing their qualifications. I accept the reference to the 450-hour course. However, that is a different course that mainly relates to teachers who are trained in mainstream education. We should recognise that in some cases a degree in psychology may be better than a teaching qualification in terms of the ideas put forward. I may be wrong in that regard but I would like to hear some comments on the matter.

Mr. Mahon said there are no set criteria across the board in respect of diagnosis. Is that also the case in terms of people's qualifications? In other words, would there be a problem with someone from a European country coming here to work in this area because of the absence of agreed criteria across the board?

There are various recommendations relating to teacher training but I would like to hear the comments of the representatives on where we go from here if these are accepted. Who will take responsibility in that regard? The recommendations may be very good. However, we had recommendations in the past and nothing came from them. I want to know who will take responsibility for that and the Department of Education and Science representatives are the best people to advise us in that regard.

The submission states that in the absence of an adequate supply of therapists nationally it would be unwise to change the qualifying criteria. That does not appear to be the right reason to make a decision. That aspect was also raised by one of my colleagues but I have a strong view on it. Either we agree that the criteria should be changed and then try to solve the problem of lack of resources or staff afterwards or we do not do so. However, to agree on something because it is not possible to address it is not a fair way to proceed.

Regarding the lack of staff such as speech therapists and occupational therapists, one of the recommendations is that the latter be more involved, their advice sought and so on, but we do not have sufficient numbers of these people. They are not available yet and no one can show us a plan indicating when they will become available or how we intend to address that problem. If the growth in the number of people with autism and other specific needs continues, we will need more professionals and recommendations on the way we can achieve that. Will they be recruited from abroad? Should we send some Ministers on a recruitment drive to other countries to bring people here who we urgently need? We do that for business but we do not appear to do it for people who need services. That problem must be addressed.

If we do not have the staff in the various Departments to buy in the service, that is a problem we should examine. We do not appear to be prepared to go the extra mile to provide the service. I have met many parents who have been told by various people who make the decisions that the money is available to provide the service but that they do not have the requisite staff. That is a cop-out. The impressions being given by those people is that they want to help the parents involved but it is not their fault that we could not get the professionals they need. That happens a great deal in my area and it is not good enough. It is not an acceptable excuse to say that the staff could not be found or that someone was on maternity leave and someone else went off on sick leave when she returned. A great deal of time is wasted in obtaining support and services for people.

Regarding parents making a decision on the best route for their children to take in respect of their education and so on, who helps them make that decision? Who gives them advice? Why do many parents not seem to want to take that advice or do not believe it? Why do they link up with another group on the Internet and then go down a different route? What is going wrong in that regard? Is it a case of the parents pushing too far or are we not moving fast enough to provide the service or recognise best practice in other countries? I would like the representatives opinion on that. We deal with that problem regularly and we are not experts on it but we have to try to address parents' concerns that they believe their child would be better off getting a different method of education. In County Meath I am aware of three or four projects involving four families — four seems to be the magic number — who have come together to buy or rent a house and pool the resources they receive for the various treatments to which their children are entitled. They use these resources to employ one or two professional staff and three or four unqualified personnel to help them out. The parents are happy to do this but in doing so they have incurred a massive debt. Their efforts do not seem to be recognised or supported by the Department. What are the representatives' views on this? Is such an educational provision acceptable because it seems to be commonplace in County Meath, although not in other areas? Parents are incurring massive debts to secure what is best for their children. If one's child has autism or other special need, one will have a tough and difficult life in trying to cope and give of one's best to one's child. The Government and the Department of Education and Science should play their part in helping such parents who should not have to constantly fight for everything. I would like to hear the representatives' comments on this aspect.

On the point about parents making choices, if the Department of Education and Science is of the view that one, two or three methods constitute best practice, there is an onus on it to educate parents to ensure they understand the reason it recommends certain methods. There is cynicism that it will always recommend the cheapest or most cost effective method. I am not saying that is true but that is what some believe. If the Department convinces the parents involved that the method it recommends is the right one, it will make matters much better.

With regard to upgrading the skills and qualifications of teachers, the people best qualified to do so, even though they may not have received the necessary training, are the parents because they have the requisite knowledge in caring for their children. Are any efforts made to encourage some of them to work in this area and use the experience they have gained to help other children? Such an approach might be more cost effective and prove a speedier method of recruiting more qualified and trained personnel.

Senator U. Burke

When we read the report of an inspectorate on education, we are bound to get a particular view, that of the inspectorate. We heard that school centres were selected for the evaluation to reflect the current range of educational provisions available. This immediately begs a question about the schools where there are few, if any, services available. When I reflect on the statement made by the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, when he introduced the concept of automatic entitlement to support for children with special educational needs, irrespective of geographical location or general disability, the reality of what is happening in small rural schools and the lack of awareness in sections of the Department hits home.

We heard yesterday about a school in Deputy Hoctor's constituency where services for children with special needs were being provided in a renovated toilet. In the Seanad recently I highlighted the conditions in a particular school which had an intake of 32 students, six of whom were in the category of special needs, three of whom had autism. An assessment of needs could not be secured. That is the reality. We asked the Minister to move the children concerned. When I visited the school after Christmas, I found a special needs assistant working in the middle of 12 children in one room, while the mainstream education teacher tried to proceed with her work. There is no way in which an input could be made. The reports are fine but Mr. Mahon stated the centres were selected to reflect where services are available. Do the reports reflect the reality? While listening to the presentations on the reports by Ms Ring and Mr. Mahon, I felt I came from a different planet on the basis of the delivery of services I witness.

Towards the end of the last school year, a child in Gort, County Galway, was transferred from the Brothers of Charity who were the service providers during the child's early years. The parents were told to return the child to the mainstream national school in the town and they made provision to do so. However, the principal said speech therapy would be available to the child only in September 2007, despite the child having access to such a service under the auspices of the Brothers of Charity.

Mr. Mahon outlined various statistics regarding provision but many children who need services do not have access to them and that is not identified in these reports. The inspectorate has a job to do and it must reflect the intentions of the Minister and the Department to provide a service but it is hiding the reality regarding provision. Seven centres are listed in the reports covering various categories but the reports are very biased towards urban centres. How many categories were analysed nationally? If that were done, I would have believed the statistics.

There are serious problems and no move has been made on the provision of additional speech therapists. The parents in Gort were told that if they had access to a speech therapist privately, they should avail of this service until September 2007. Many colleagues raised the issue of resources and finances. If restrictions are in place, it is time the Minister stated this is not the fault of the people on the ground. When the legislation was published, all those at the coalface embraced it enthusiastically but that enthusiasm has faded into despair in many cases. Mr. Mahon referred to the absence of a planning programme for many children but principals are badgered to secure an assessment on the recommendation of individual teachers until it is carried out. The reality is the principal cannot say definitively when the assessment will be carried out. Parents deliver their children to school every day and they want progress. Many parents identify their children's disabilities and needs before the professionals. As soon as parents discover their child has special needs, they are anxious to ensure early intervention. Are they to live in a wilderness for three years, fighting the health and education systems? It is no wonder one does not find programme planning within schools. Reports will not solve this problem, unless resources are provided. We could all provide examples but none worse than those I have cited. They clearly show the state of the services provided. If extra resources are required, someone within the Department must say so. These reports smother a sizeable proportion of the existing problems. I accept them for what they are but they suppress the real problems.

Mr. Harrison

I will begin with the question raised by the Chairman regarding financial worries. It is not my function to be worried about finances. There are several disability categories. The provision made for these two is in excess of that made for other categories. The parents of children with other disabilities might be concerned about this. We allocate resources to various categories and make choices as to which we evaluate first. We examined those categories in which considerable resources had been invested to see how they were working and how effective they were. We asked if we were getting a good return on what we were doing. The answer is that we are. People were satisfied, as we were, with what we saw in both situations. We are pleased with what is happening in classrooms and schools, although there are deficiencies which need to be addressed.

That is separate from the point made by Senator Burke. Many children are not getting what they should be getting. We did not look at this. We particularly zoned in on the provision in these two categories, where it is made and how good it is.

Deputy O’Sullivan

Can Mr. Harrison assure the committee that the purpose of the evaluation was not to cut funding?

Mr. Harrison

No. The choice of which areas we should concentrate on was made by officials who produced the reports. We could not do everything. Neither did we look at the progress of specific children, as that would have involved a research study. It would have necessitated earlier studies of the abilities of the children before the programme started. The approach taken in the programme would have to have been discrete trial training to the exclusion of all other approaches. If one is to attribute success to a particular methodology, one must be sure all other methodologies such as PECS or TEACCH have been excluded. One would have had to consider the maturation of the child and the improvements which would have taken place naturally. We could not have carried out such a study. We were severely stretched to do what we did, as well as in other areas of concern. We examined global situations and how a particular category of provision was made. We drew up our own frame of reference and questionnaires. Considerable work was involved in this. We applied that frame of reference objectively in each of the settings and obtained these results.

We did not set out with any preconceptions that one thing was better than another. Our position on matters like applied behaviour analysis and the TEACCH and PECS approaches is that we do not think any one of them is better than the rest. In fact, all the evidence we have seen in various literature, etc., indicates that no single method or approach is seen to be superior for all the children all the time. That evidence is in keeping with our own findings. We emphasise the good things we saw in the ABA settings. The involvement of parents in those settings was far more concentrated than it was in other settings, for example, which is not surprising when one considers that parents were actively involved in the establishment of all those pilot settings. It would be surprising if they were not involved. Other parents, who were sending their children to local centres of provision where classes had been set up, were also involved in those projects and were equally interested in their children, but they were not involved to the extent of having established the centres in the first instance. One of the good things we saw in the pilot settings was the involvement of parents and the roles given to them in those settings. We also noted that training was given to parents in those settings by the staff and consultants there. That is something we would like to see being made available to all parents, regardless of where their children go to school.

I emphasise that we do not have preconceived ideas. We saw good things in all the places, just as we saw deficiencies in all of them. I will speak about the kind of deficiencies we identified. When one reads the literature in this area, one always comes across references to teachers. We feel teachers are more likely to do this job well than other professionals. When we consider our framework for the sort of people who should work with autistic spectrum disorders, our first thought is that they should be teachers. If we insist that those who work with all other children should be qualified teachers, why should we have a different requirement for a particular subsection of children? The professional teaching qualification should be available to everyone who engages with children. As far as we are concerned, the ideal line of progression for someone who wishes to work in this area should be to gain a qualification in teaching, then a qualification in general special education, then an autism-specific qualification in special education and finally a qualification in the range of approaches within the latter sector.

There was a time when we did not provide special education in this concentrated way for children with autism. Such children were all over the place before 1998 — they were in special schools, for example. As 70% of these children have general learning difficulties, there was a tendency to refer them to schools for mild, moderate, severe and profound general learning difficulties. The behaviour of some of the children meant they were referred to schools for the emotionally disturbed, even though they did not have an emotional disturbance. That is the way it was done. It was no different in any other country. That is the reality. It was the same in most countries until the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. Greater insight has prevailed in recent years, however. It was decided in 1998 that this country would start to provide autism-specific education for such children. Therefore, new channels such as special classes were opened up. The special classes which are in existing special schools were organised for children who were already in those schools. The new special classes in mainstream schools were generally established for younger children. All those opportunities became available. It is possible to attend to the needs of individual children who tend to have less severe difficulties. Facilities which were not in place have now been made available.

After it was recognised that there was a need for these services, there was an explosion in the level of demand in the sector. That is why there are now so many demands on the psychological assessment service. People have realised that assessments need to be done before services can be accessed. It is hard to think one's way out of that one. We put in place the general allocation system to try to take the emphasis away from the need for an initial assessment. We did not apply that to the people about whom we are speaking today, obviously, because they are children with severe needs. It was thought that if the schools were given the resources in advance, they would be able to acquire the personnel needed to work with children with difficulties. We were trying to cater for smaller schools in that way. We do not claim it was 100% successful, but it was a step in the right direction. When schools become aware of children who are falling behind, for whatever reason, they are able to do something about it and to go through various stages until they reach a point at which just a small number of children do not make it, despite all the efforts of their staff. At that point, one calls in an assessment but not all children need to be assessed.

I worked as a psychologist 30 years ago. At that time, the general problem in the referrals sent to me for assessment was a difficulty in learning in school. In my experience a general learning disability was suspected in only one child, with all the other children referred to me having what we now describe as reading difficulties or difficulties with mathematics. Addressing these problems would now be the work of a learning support teacher. I assessed seven children to identify one who had severe needs and required attention.

Deputy Enright

Does the approach suggested not carry a risk that the child identified by Mr. Harrison would not have been assessed and would have spent two or three years in school where the teacher may have attributed the problem to language or maths difficulties? In that case, several years would elapse before the child would be assessed by a psychologist and an opportunity to adopt a targeted approach would be missed. That is my concern with the model.

Mr. Harrison

The difficulty is the absence of a diagnostic marker for many of these problems. For example, Down's syndrome can be identified from birth, whereas autism cannot be identified from birth. Although the research is being refined all the time, it must filter through. For example, certain signs can be observed in children in their first year of life. They are subtle markers which are not always picked up by parents, although many parents will notice some but perhaps not all of them. If our services were fully up to strength, people who are able to detect these signs would be employed at, for example, child development clinics. Certain things that parents might have observed — such as being able to make eye contact, which is very subtle — could be picked up. Autistic children do not make eye contact or engage in what is referred to as joint referencing, whereby a person follows another person's gaze to see at what he or she is looking. These are subtle signs and most people are not aware of them.

When I was involved in psychology 30 years ago, these issues were not raised and their significance was not known. It is only in the past ten or 15 years that the significance of indicators that were always referred to as developmental scales has become observable and people have begun to become aware of them. In the past, the only such markers ever mentioned were children starting to walk or become toilet trained. Work in this area is slow and a great deal of effort needs to be expended on it.

Ireland is neither further advanced than nor lagging behind other countries. In terms of our identification of children with autism, as we noted, most children with autism were receiving services before they entered the autism specific service because their problems were picked up. If one bears in mind the 70% who have a general learning difficulty, GLD, it was stated their development was slow and they were not talking in the way one expect a child of three or four years to talk. While the children were receiving a service, it may not have been until they were subsequently diagnosed that the multidisciplinary teams realised an issue other than a GLD was involved. The teams will ask what is the other issue, which was not the case in the past because no specific service was in place. Now they can provide a service tailored to the child's needs.

Autistic children have a specific way of learning and interacting with the world which they do not hold in common with the way other children learn and this must be taken into account. It is another reason teachers need to know about autism. Matters specific to autism are not part of the normal developmental frame of reference and not shared with other children who have special needs. I hope I have addressed the Deputy's concerns.

Mr. Mahon

I do not know if the two year rule on the placement of children in a special class for specific speech and language disorder was laid down as a result of financial considerations. The idea behind placing these children in special classes for two years is that these children have the potential to be educated within the mainstream school system and it is hoped that will happen. The placement in a special class for two years is for intensive intervention from both the teacher and the speech and language therapist with the expectation that the child is able to learn within a mainstream class at the end of the two years with support from a resource teacher and perhaps continuing support from a speech and language therapist.

Children are sometimes kept for more than two years but the difficulty is deciding how much longer to keep them. If it goes beyond two years, they are in a special education setting for a substantial period of their primary education and the longer that is the case, the harder it is to re-enter the mainstream. If children remain in the classes for more than two years, it also reduces the availability for other children who have applied for places. There are balances to be struck for those in the classes and those who are not in them.

Alongside that, there is a wish for children with special educational needs to be included in mainstream education as far as possible. The supports that now exist in mainstream schools for learning support teaching and resource teaching, particularly at primary level, with allocations under the general allocation scheme to primary schools, allow for support to be given to children with speech and language difficulties who do not qualify for an individual allocation of resource teaching support as a result of having a speech and language disorder. Those children are eligible for speech and language therapy.

As was found in the report, however, the shortage of speech and language therapy means that often these children are not getting what we would like to see them getting in terms of therapy. They are on waiting lists and the amount of therapy they get is well below what they need. That comes back to the question of expanding the criteria. There are swings and roundabouts here. The intention when establishing the classes was to cater for the children with very significant needs at the severe end of the spectrum. If the classes are to be expanded and more children allowed in, it will inevitably mean the establishment of more classes and given the shortage of speech and language therapy, the services are likely to be spread over a far greater number of children with greater difficulties in securing the necessary support for those children with the greatest levels of need. It is linked to the availability of services. I cannot speak for the HSE or the Department of Health and Children but I am aware the number of posts has increased and that speech and language therapists were recruited from abroad. The number of training places for speech and language therapists has also increased. There have been some improvements and we can look forward to others. It will take time, however, to fill all places. Outside of the population of children with speech and language disorders, there are great demands and significant pressure on the HSE for speech and language therapy services for children with other difficulties. This also impacts on early intervention services.

With regard to the finding that only 50% of children at the time of the evaluation had an IEP in class, significant progress has been made since under the EPSEN Act and following the recent publication of guidelines on IEPs for teachers by the National Council for Special Education. A timeframe is set out under the Act. We are also aware that the National Council for Special Education is developing its implementation report which will be submitted to the Minister by 1 October. It will set out timeframes for implementation of various sections of the Act to do with assessments, provisional services and so forth.

Ms Ring

With regard to the upskilling of teachers' professional qualifications, the teacher education section of the Department of Education and Science is committed to providing appropriate in-service education for all teachers in the teaching of all children with special educational needs. Under the terms of circular No. 0036/2006, a combined course for teachers of students with special educational needs has been initiated.

With regard to the recommendation of 450 hours training, a course has been in place in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra since 2001 with 25 teachers trained each year. This year the Department of Education and Science has extended the contact time of the course to seven weeks. Previously it was two weeks and for the rest of the 450 hours, teachers spent time in their classrooms where they were supervised and engaged with assessment materials and children.

Linked to this is the establishment of the special education support service, SESS, based in the Cork Education Centre. The SESS has a national co-ordinator, several assistant co-ordinators and associate members. All are practising teachers with skills in a wide range of special educational needs. Schools may access the support of the SESS at any time. In addition, the service organises visits by experts from Ireland and abroad in the area of special educational needs. For the provision of training for teachers in the area of autistic spectrum disorder, the service has provided in-service courses in PECs, TEACHH, ABA, in-floor time and play therapy. It plans to bring in Carol Gray who developed the notion of social stories within the next few months.

The teacher education section also works closely with colleges. It is concerned to ensure teachers have access to training in all elements that support the learning and teaching of children with autistic spectrum disorders both at primary and second level. The Department's view which stems from extensive research is that teachers should take a combined skills approach, including the use of ABA. Regarding provision at secondary level, the Department continues to develop provision for students with autistic spectrum disorders. It is hoped guidelines for teachers at secondary level in meeting the needs of all students with special educational needs will be published shortly by the Department.

On why the professionals were consulted in the SSLD report rather than the ASD report, as Mr. Harrison pointed out, those are thematic evaluations. The process was concerned with consulting those working on the ground with children. Speech and language therapists were in the classroom full-time with them. Similarly, all the relevant players on the ground in provision for children with autistic spectrum disorder were consulted. Questionnaires were sent to parents, directors, tutors, principals, resource teachers and other staff.

On whether teaching qualifications are necessary, teaching children with autistic spectrum disorders is a particularly challenging task. It is very important, therefore, that there be a teaching qualification to ensure teachers are aware of what a typically developing child can achieve, as well as the range of approaches and methodologies to teach all children. To understand the developmental and adapted needs of children, it is important to have a teaching qualification and, on top of it, training in the teaching of children with special educational needs. There must also be training in a combined skills approach to their learning to meet the needs of all children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Regarding the draft guidelines for children with general learning disabilities and the absence of a curriculum specific to children with autistic spectrum disorders, the research and experience of the schools inspectorate evaluation show that there is no single ideal curriculum to meet the needs of all children with such disorders. They comprise a heterogeneous group and it comes down to research.

Why can one not compare the outcomes of one group of children with those of another? It is very difficult because of the children themselves. A professional teaching qualification enables teachers to mediate the curriculum regarding the pace of the lesson and the interests of the child. For instance, if one is teaching a child with an autistic spectrum disorder to read, he or she may be very resistant and uninterested in a given commercial reading scheme. One would identify the child's interests. He or she might be interested in Postman Pat, Thomas the Tank Engine or dinosaurs. One child with autism whom I taught was particularly interested in Father Ted, of all things. The teaching qualification means that one knows how to teach someone to read. One can then identify that a child is interested in something and motivate him or her to want to learn to read because he or she is interested. One can transfer and generalise those skills. That is why there is no ideal curriculum and why we need a set of very complex skills. The Department of Education and Science is committed to ensuring teachers have them.

The significant increase in the incidence of autistic spectrum disorder is not peculiar to Ireland, being a worldwide phenomenon. There are many international research projects to identify why that might be. It may be increased diagnosis or something environmental. As yet, we do not know, but research is being conducted to try to identify the reasons.

On the ASD units and what a basic qualification for their teaching staff is, circular letter No. 25/00 of the Department of Education and Science sets out all the recognised teaching qualifications, including Montessori qualifications. On the question of whether it is intended to graduate to such programmes as PECS and TEACCH, it is related to the thrust of the combined skills approach and ensuring teachers are upskilled in ABA, PECS, TEACCH and so on, allowing us to do our best to meet the very complex needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders.

I will be happy to answer further questions from members.

Ms Teresa Griffin

I am concerned too much emphasis will be laid on financial worries and related matters. I emphasise that there is an automatic entitlement to an education for children with special needs. The Department has put enormous resources into this area since an automatic entitlement was provided for in 1998.

I welcome the evaluation of educational provision. Some of the Deputies and Senators present referred to the need to have an outcome evaluation also. This was part of the intention of the inspectors' report, whereby we assess whether the resources provided need to be tweaked and how services may be improved. The fact that recommendations were made means it was a worthwhile exercise. We will need to look at the recommendations made to see how they may be incorporated in current and future provision. I want to allay any apprehensions members might have about cutbacks, which is not an issue in the context of children with special educational needs.

Much emphasis was put on speech and language therapists and the inability to gain access to assessments. The committee should be aware that assessments by speech and language therapists generally fall within the remit of the HSE. However, I can advise it that we have put in place an interdepartmental agency team comprising officials from the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, the HSE and the National Council for Special Education to look at the issue of how we can work together to ensure children with special educational needs have access to the full range of support services required. We can all agree that this is vital.

Many members referred to the EPSEN Act. The National Council for Special Education is finalising its implementation report on how the Act can be fully implemented in the coming years. The report will be presented to the Minister in October and we all look forward to seeing it. There are requirements under the Act to make assessments within specified periods. Therefore, these issues will have to be addressed, including the resources which need to be provided.

There was a question about who was to advise parents and put provisions in place. Essentially, this is the role of special educational needs organisers, SENOs, employed by the National Council for Special Education. Their role is to ensure children with special educational needs have access to appropriate education services. Where parents encounter difficulties in trying to access services in their local schools, the SENOs will help them get over any transitional difficulties. One of their roles is to work with the health service to try to overcome any difficulties in accessing services.

A question was raised about transport. I was not ware of the particular case mentioned but the Department works extraordinarily hard to ensure every child with special educational needs is provided with school transport to bring him or her to a special class or school. Something like 33% or 34% of the entire school transport budget is spent in this way. This reflects the commitment of the Department towards ensuring transport is made available.

The Department is absolutely committed to ensuring early intervention. This is one of the areas we are reviewing with the Department of Health and Children and the HSE to see how improvements might be made. In this context, we have provided for pre-school classes. Where there are no such classes available for children of pre-school age, home tuition is provided for.

The question was asked as to why the pilot scheme had not been formalised. For the record, the Department's preferred approach to the provision of an appropriation education for all children, including those with autism and speech and language disorders, is through the primary and post-primary school networks. That may be through placement in mainstream classes, in special disability specific classes or in special schools. It is important that children have access to fully qualified teachers, with a range of individualised educational programmes which can draw from more than one particular intervention. By having a child in a mainstream school, a special class attached to a mainstream school or a special school, the option of integration is enhanced. It is important for children to have access to integration where that is appropriate for the particular child.

Deputy Gogarty

The second last page of the submission made by Barnacoyle refers to research carried out.

Ms Ring

We do not have a copy of that.

Deputy Gogarty

The submission refers to research at California State University, where the psychology faculty carried out an assessment of various methodologies in dealing with autism.

Ms Ring

I am sorry, but I will have to look at that. It is a complex area.

Deputy Gogarty

It is suggested that applied behaviour analysis was the most effective form, but that debate will continue. In terms of outcomes, Ms Ring stated that a variety of methodologies and approaches be integrated, that people receive training in these and that, where possible, the curriculum recommended by the Department should be used.

The Constitution recognises the right of the parent as a primary educator, but many parents who educate their children at home are not teachers. They do not have teaching qualifications but as long as they broadly follow the curriculum, they can have a considerable amount of their own input without being seen to have training. Would the same analysis not apply here? If a centre of education is specialising in a particular area by its very nature and its staff are trained in one discipline or another that is not necessarily teaching, should as much emphasis be placed on training in specific methodologies if they are trying to promote a certain methodology? Perhaps the reason for the ABAs is to push one particular methodology. More assistance could be given to these centres within their own chosen methodologies. It is the outcome that is important for them rather than the input, no more than a parent at home teaching a child. While I agree with the 450 hours to be completed in the course mentioned, greater emphasis should be placed on information relevant to their own methodologies as opposed to learning other methodologies for the sake of it.

Ms Ring

The Deputy is speaking about home education, where any parent in the State can decide to educate his or her child at home and provide him or her with a certain minimum education and where the State is happy to support such a decision. However, the State does not fund home education in that sense.

Deputy Gogarty

I agree, but there is a half-hearted attitude towards the ABAs. There are pilot schemes in existence, but the State needs to decide whether to endorse them fully or not to agree with the model and let it fall by the wayside.

Ms Griffin

I think the Department has made its position fairly clear. Our preferred approach in respect of the education of children with autism, for the reasons we have stated, is through the school network. The Department has engaged in discussions with the Irish Autism Alliance regarding the pilot project but these have not yet been finalised. However, for the clear reasons we have articulated, our preferred approach is to support the education of children with autism through the primary, post-primary and special school networks.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for providing the Department's response. Unfortunately, some members were obliged to leave because of other commitments. This was an extremely informative meeting and I thank all concerned for their patience and presentations.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.05 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 October 2006.