We will move on to the next item, a discussion on the role of special needs assistants, SNAs. As part of the work programme agreed by the committee, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin will prepare a report on the role of SNAs. Policy briefs on this issue have been circulated to all members. The remainder of today's meeting will be devoted to initiating the preparation of the aforementioned report. In that regard, I welcome representatives of the National Council for Special Education, the NCSE, Ms Teresa Griffin and Ms Mary Byrne. I also welcome Ms Áine Lynch and Ms Carmel O'Shea from the National Parents Council Primary and Mr. Don Myers and Mr. Jim Moore from the National Parents Council Post Primary. Finally, I welcome Mr. Dessie Robinson and Ms Joan McCrohan, representing the trade union IMPACT. I now invite Ms Griffin to make her opening remarks on behalf of the NCSE.
The Role of Special Needs Assistants: Discussion
Ms Teresa Griffin
I thank the committee for the invitation to today's meeting and wish to introduce my colleagues from the NCSE, Ms Mary Byrne, head of special education and Mr. Sé Goulding, head of operations.
The NCSE is a very strong supporter of the special needs assistant, SNA, scheme as we know that without SNAs, many students would be unable to attend school. The intention of the scheme is to provide sufficient support to meet a student’s care needs but to fade this support over time as the student’s needs reduce. Schools’ SNA support can change year on year as students leave, enrol and develop greater independence. This year 56% of schools experienced no change, 21% had an increased allocation and 23% a lower allocation, which is broadly in line with what happened last year.
We have allocated almost 10,500 SNA posts to schools to support 22,000 students and are continuing to respond to ongoing applications for SNA support. Approximately 7,000 of these students attend special schools and, generally speaking, have considerably more complex needs and greater care needs than mainstream students. Special schools and special classes have an average of one SNA for every 3.3 students. In mainstream settings,the ratio is one SNA for every 1.47 students supported.
Members can easily see from these figures that, per qualifying student, mainstream schools have more SNA support than special schools. This is because even though some students in mainstream may only require SNA support at transition times during the day or at break times or for toileting reasons, it may be necessary to allocate a full-time post to the school because the support may be required intermittently during the day. Mainstream schools can, therefore, have additional capacity to cater for significant care needs of other students as they may emerge during a school year. For example, this capacity enabled schools to support the care needs of some 2,000 additional students between September and December 2012. I wish to reassure members that additional SNAs were allocated where there was need and that the NCSE is confident that the schools were resourced to meet the care needs of the students concerned.
Members might like to know that this year, over 99% of the 22,000 applications processed by the NCSE for additional teaching or SNA support have been processed without any appeal. We have had 76 appeals in total, 54 in respect of SNAs and 22 in respect of resource teaching decisions, out of the 22,000 processed applications. Some appeals are not necessarily about a SENO’s decision, but because there is confusion about the scheme itself. That begs the question as to why there is confusion. There is clear evidence that the role of the SNA has been informally expanded by schools to include an educational remit. Some parents, schools and professionals consider that an SNA is allocated to help with literacy difficulties or to provide therapeutic support, such as speech and language therapy. Often, when SNA care support is being faded or withdrawn completely, a school might advise that they would like the SNA to do other work with a student such as improvement of language, literacy, numeracy and so on. Over 30% of this year’s applications were declined for these and other reasons. This is very serious as each application raises expectations and hopes and when applications are declined because they do not meet the criteria for the scheme, there can be disappointment, concern, anxiety and anger and a belief that the NCSE is not doing its job properly or that cuts are the reason for non-allocation.
It has occasionally been suggested that teaching assistants should be introduced to provide additional educational support to these students. Some recent research studies raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of teaching-assistant support for students with special educational needs. While finding some positive effects on teachers’ workload and stress levels, these studies found that the more support students received from teaching assistants, the less progress they made in subjects such as English, maths and science.
The research also found that students with special educational needs spent over a quarter of their school time away from mainstream class, their teachers and peers and they were almost constantly accompanied by a teacher assistant who bore the greatest portion of responsibility for planning and teaching them. As a result, they can become overly dependent on teacher-assistant support and socially isolated from other students. Despite the good intentions of teaching assistants, these students received a less appropriate and lower quality educational experience than other students. One US study noted that the substantial increase in teacher-assistant use in US schools had taken place without any compelling evidence that it is educationally sound to deploy the least qualified personnel to provide primary instruction to students with the most complex learning characteristics. On the other hand, research findings consistently demonstrate a strong relationship between the quality of teaching and the outcomes achieved by this group of students.
Given these research findings, that paraprofessionals can act as a barrier to a student’s access to the teacher and full participation in classroom activities, and that it is the quality of teaching which determines better educational outcomes, the NCSE in its recent policy advice to the Minister on supporting children with special educational needs argued that there is insufficient evidence at this point in time to support the introduction of a new teaching-assistant grade to work specifically with students with special educational needs.
We have recommended that the Department of Education and Skills should clarify the role of the special needs assistant, SNA, and that SNA work should at all times be focused on developing independent living skills.
The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, believes students with complex learning needs should be taught by fully qualified and experienced teachers equipped with the necessary skills to meet their needs.
I now invite Ms Áine Lynch to make her opening statement on behalf of the National Parents Council Primary.
Ms Áine Lynch
The National Parents Council considers the special needs assistant scheme effective in meeting the needs of children who have specific care needs. It supports children who have care needs that could not be ordinarily fully met by the teacher to access school placement. The council believes the SNA scheme has contributed significantly to the enhancement of students’ experiences in school.
Notwithstanding this however, the council believes the role of the SNA in the school needs to be reviewed and more clearly defined. Research has shown that, despite the defined duties in circular 07/02, SNAs often engage in extended functions. Children with special education needs require the most specialised and skilled professionals to support them to access the curriculum. While the SNA entry requirements are appropriate for the role as set out in circular 07/02, it is the view of the council that they are not appropriate for the extended functions they may be engaging in as cited in the value for money report. In particular, the council has significant difficulty with the role of the SNA as set out in the circular vis-à-vis children presenting with behavioural challenges.
Behavioural challenges alone do not qualify a child for SNA support. However, the circular states a child is entitled to SNA support when “their behaviour is such that they are a danger to themselves or to other pupils”. A child whose behaviour is a danger to themselves or to other children has very complex needs. This shows a clear example of where a child that requires the most specialised of supports is receiving support from a person who has not had the training to effectively work with this child. When a person who has not received the appropriate training engages with a child with such complex needs, the outcome can often be extremely negative for the individual child involved, the SNA, other children and the teacher in the classroom.
The council believes the allocation of SNA support should be clearly linked to an individualised plan which has been prepared for the child. This plan would clearly identify the care needs of the child, how these needs would be met while ensuring that at all times a focus is maintained on the development of a child’s independence skills. The council is concerned that an overdependency on SNA support can lead to social isolation of children as the presence of an adult can create a barrier and so make normal interaction more difficult. We would suggest other types of support including peer support be examined further at school level. There is some evidence to suggest that peer support can have a positive impact on student's behaviour and can lead to a reduction in the need for SNA support.
The council believes parents should have support and information about the different resources available for their child in the education system and the function of each support. Parents often get caught in a fight for any resource rather than a fight for the right resource, due to lack of information on their child’s needs and how these needs should effectively be met.
Circular 07/02 lists the duties of the SNA in detail. They are varied and wide ranging from tidying classrooms to assisting children with their intimate hygiene needs. The council believes there should be an overarching statement of priority regarding these duties. This role needs to be strongly child-centred with a statement of this principle present in all references to the post. When there are competing demands on the SNA’s time, the child must always be prioritised. It is important for this to be stated rather than assumed.
The council believes there should be an accredited compulsory basic training course for all SNAs. SNAs are often supporting the most vulnerable children in the school and basic training regarding understanding children’s needs, communication skills and basic child protection knowledge should be included in a short initial training course. The mere fact the SNA is working under the supervision and guidance of the classroom teacher will not ensure they are able to effectively carry out their duties.
I now invite Mr. Jim Moore to make his opening statement on behalf of the National Parents Council Post Primary.
Mr. Jim Moore
The National Parents Council Post Primary welcomes the opportunity to address the committee today on the issues relating to the role of special needs assistants. In addressing this issue, we wish to draw on work carried out by our organisation in supporting our young people in education.
In April, the National Parents Council Post Primary participated in a major research activity with partners in the post-primary education sector through the post-primary education forum, PPEF. The PPEF is an umbrella group comprising representation from parents, teacher unions, school leaders and management bodies involved in the post-primary education sector. Parents have been keen to address common issues and establish a shared viewpoint on priorities for the future development of second level education.
The forum published A 2020 Vision for Education in Ireland, a coherent and authoritative position for the future for education. This document articulates common aims and ideals, presenting a view of the direction in which education should be moving. Parents strongly support this unique strategic approach of collaboration in planning future developments.
The debates that took place in the 1990s regarding the principle of students' voices in decisions that affect their lives and work in schools led to student councils being established through the Education Act 1998. Beyond these formal views of student engagement in schools, there is a pedagogical requirement which is not always realised. The relationship of teacher and student is never a one-way activity. Rather this is a relationship which centres round a sharing of a range of experiences. These are varied and they highlight the critical importance of establishing positive relationships in an environment of learning.
There has been a demand to ensure school practices are consistent in areas of equality and inclusion such as entrance policies, streaming of students, providing for special needs, as well as meeting the needs of newcomer students. Work is under way in many of these areas. Streaming of students into ability groupings is a practice that has been decreased significantly. A consequence for teachers is to become more accomplished in the delivery of teaching and learning. According to the report of the inspectorate considerable progress has been made in promoting these new forms of grouping of students in schools. This has been achieved through national support programmes for teachers.
The inspectors’ report states more work needs to be done in the achieving of integration of previously streamed students and previous special education needs students into learning environments that are more diversely constituted. While more work is not defined it is certain that it is not just about upskilling of teachers. A more long-term programme of continuous professional development is required.
The situation that now prevails in our schools has evolved and appears not to have been envisaged in scale, capacity or cost management. It is now the case that fewer than 1% of students now attend a special school. In the majority of cases, parents now choose to send their children to the local mainstream school. In line with legislation, children with special education needs should be educated, wherever possible, in an inclusive school environment with other children who do not have such needs.
What is striking in this approach for inclusivity in schools is the range of support skills that may be required. The SNA may require particular skills in the role of supporting a student with particular needs. Indeed, a range of skill sets may need to be employed in supporting a student and in a classroom where a number of students with special needs are enrolled.
Parents rely on the provision of appropriate and essential supports for their child in the classroom. They need reassurance that their decision in the first instance was in the best interest of their child. In our view, there is a particular challenge for the present system to adequately provide such supports. The classroom learning environment needs to be sustained while the teacher delivers to a classroom of students.
It must also be noted this structure is provided with the aim of increasing the independence of the student with special needs while they move through the curriculum and school life. Again, is the present structure of the delivery of these supports effective for the learning environment in the classroom? The SNA is asked to contribute and support the individual student's learning and, indirectly, the learning environment of the classroom. Many SNAs display a commitment to advancing their own capabilities by undertaking continued professional development and advanced studies. Such initiatives provide an invaluable asset to the special needs student, teacher and the entire classroom.
We also see the role of the supports required in the school extend to State examination activity where there has been an extensive requirement for reasonable accommodation for students. A review of this process should be considered as part of our proposed review for the provision of all special needs and welfare supports available in schools with a view to devising an appropriately resourced comprehensive service in this area.
The council also raises the issue of critical further provision to supporting the special needs of young people irrespective of whether they are in school or not and the provision of a 24-7 social service network.
This would address the reality that difficulties in the lives of our young people occur not only during school hours. NPC Post Primary calls for an urgent, comprehensive review of the special needs and welfare supports available in schools. We have circulated an executive summary listing those four points.
Mr. Dessie Robinson
I present my colleague, Ms Joan McCrohan, who is seconded to IMPACT but who spent several years as a special needs assistant, SNA. I thank the committee for its invitation to IMPACT to outline some of our concerns and views on the role of SNAs. During the last year or so IMPACT has invested heavily in education. We have established a dedicated education division and recruited additional staff to organise and represent workers in the sector. IMPACT represents approximately 10,000 education staff, of whom 60% are SNAs, and we are increasing that number all the time.
Demand for SNAs has increased steadily in recent years, while the number of SNAs remains fixed at 10,575. The number of SNAs has been capped for the last four years against a significant increase in demand for this service. One special school took in an additional five children with severe or profound needs with no increase in the SNA allocation. This is in marked contrast to the position regarding educational supports whereby the Minister, after his initial announcement of the allocation, revised the decision and increased the amount of resource teaching posts, which IMPACT fully supports. This was in recognition of the educational needs of the children, but their care needs are not being dealt with in a similar fashion. In some cases we could have one SNA looking after the care needs of seven children with special needs.
We have been asked to address issues relating to the role of SNAs. From my interaction with SNAs on a daily basis I have quickly come to the conclusion that one of the main issues is respect, rather than reward. In the context of their role this means a number of things. On one level it is about recognition by the school authorities and management that they bring a range of important life skills and experience to their work. In many cases - but not all - they fail to receive parity of esteem with others within the school community. This can be a source of irritation, especially if the SNA is older than the teacher, which is often the case.
The absence of full respect for the role is due to the insecure employment position of SNAs. Their employment is linked directly to a particular child or children. Consequently, when the child's attendance at school finishes the SNA is made redundant unless another opportunity arises. This is an undesirable situation because their employment is precarious and uncertain; but it is also undesirable from the point of view of children with special needs, as there is a reduction in knowledge, skills and experience within the system. It would be preferable if SNAs were treated similarly to teachers, enjoying continuous employment.
We raised the issue of job security, citing the commitments contained within the public service agreement and pointing out that SNAs' situation is virtually unique within the public service as they are subject to redundancy and enjoy very limited job security. Job security was the subject of a Labour Court hearing. The Labour Court issued its recommendation in June 2012, which was that a redeployment scheme be established. We found it difficult to get the Department of Education and Skills and the management bodies to accept and implement the recommendation and it was only in the talks earlier this year, which eventually led to the public service stability or Haddington Road agreement, that we obtained a commitment to implement such a scheme. It was only possible to put in place a limited version of the agreement. It would be a much better use of and development of the resource if there was greater certainty surrounding employment and it would ensure retention of the skills and knowledge gained by SNAs.
Our concerns in this regard have increased since the announcement of the 2013-2014 allocations. There has been an increasing trend on the part of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, to allocate portions of posts rather than full-time SNAs. We are seeing more advertisements for JobBridge placements instead of full employment positions for SNAs. If this trend continues unchecked it will lead to more and more casualisation of employment. Apart from anything else, this is against the spirit and the principles underlying the public service agreement. The Department tries to wash its hands of complaints on this, citing the independent statutory function of the NCSE. There is a grave danger that in all of this the interests of the child will suffer.
Clearly this approach reflects the limited resources that are being made available to meet the increasing demand. More and more children are having their care needs met by approximately the same number of SNAs. Some SNAs work with multiple children and others work with just one. There have been unfortunate examples in which school managements have sought to direct SNAs away from the care of their assigned children to other duties. In many cases harmonious relationships exist within schools; however, there are many instances in which SNAs are being used as a whole-school resource. This is wrong and deprives the child of a support he or she has been awarded and is entitled to expect. Consideration of any change to the current model of resource allocation must focus on ensuring that the child gets the important support that has been allocated to them. Far from adopting a rigid or restrictive policy, IMPACT would like to see the role of the SNA grow and develop. We would like a programme of continuous professional development to be introduced that would add value for children and schools while giving added stimulation and a greater sense of worth to the SNA.
The issue for most SNAs is respect, not reward. It makes sense that the scheme should be continuously examined given the period of time since its introduction and the significant spend involved. However, the best way to proceed is by improving job security, avoiding casualisation of the work, introducing standard training and professional development, ensuring full parity of esteem for SNAs within the school community by retaining their skills, and protecting the resource for the benefit of the children who need it. It would make sense for these things to be addressed in a collaborative manner. If there is a willingness on the part of the Department and the authorities to do this, IMPACT will not be found wanting.
We have agreed to take questions in order from the spokespersons, with a limit of three minutes per speaker and no supplementary questions until everybody has spoken, after which people may speak again if time permits.
I thank the groups for their presentations. As we have only three minutes, I will be brief. Each group has touched on the fact that SNAs are asked to do other educational or whole-school duties. I appreciate the research regarding the role of teaching assistants and anybody who is not properly educationally qualified in working with any child, particularly a child with special needs. The reason for that is that gaps exist elsewhere in the system with the pressures over the last few years due to cuts. Ms Griffin will correct me and say the cap in resource teachers, which has resulted in an effective cut in hours, has meant there is less educational support. That must be part of the picture.
We all agree that the SNAs should be restricted to a care role rather than being given educational duties for which they are not trained, but what is the impact of being stricter on that in the context of the other cuts? Will the child ultimately lose out? I was struck by a good idea in the NPC presentation, which was that of peer support. Does the council have a particular school in mind where it has seen that work, or has it been done elsewhere internationally? It strikes me as an interesting idea to encourage a child, rather than becoming too dependent on an adult, to have greater social interaction with their peers, as both sets of children gain from that relationship, not just the child with special needs. Does the council have a model in mind?
The NPC Post Primary presentation mentioned the lack of information for parents on the types of support available and the appropriate use of them.
Where exactly is this gap? The guide produced by the NCSE last year on supports for children with special needs was quite good and relatively easy to understand. Is it that parents do not have access to it or is there a gap in the materials which the witnesses feel needs to be addressed?
I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which I found interesting. My interest in compiling a report on this partly arose because the question of special needs assistants, SNAs, arises at budget time and is then forgotten about. We need to have a discussion about the role of SNAs beyond budgetary corrections. I hope in a few years time we will not be speaking about budgetary corrections. The service has expanded a huge amount over a relatively short period of time. Every presentation suggested the role has changed and needs to be re-evaluated. A suggestion was made that roles should be differentiated or we should have a better definition of what the role is.
My interest in this was also partly inspired by a trip I took to the IMPACT special needs assistants' AGM, where I saw the effect working as a special needs assistant has on the individual. Special needs assistants sometimes experience a lack of respect from members of the teaching staff, principals and boards of management. They are sometimes asked to perform menial tasks which are completely outside what they envisaged the job to be. They want to be better trained, have job security and have a career in education. Many schools need special needs assistants very much but, given the fact that the role has expanded beyond what the NCSE envisaged, perhaps we need to re-evaluate the role in totality and see if we can recast it for another person working in education. If everybody in the committee came to this with a completely open mind about what a special needs assistant, an educational assistant or somebody working in the education system could be, perhaps it would be an exciting process of complete re-evaluation.
What we spend on special education has increased from €450 million in 2004 to €1.3 billion now. Increasing numbers of children present with special needs, which creates challenges in the system. This year we have seen an 11% increase. I am making a statement of intent rather than asking a question and I apologise for this. I am very much taken by the presentations. Everybody will accept that, like the Seanad, the role of the SNA does not necessarily need to stay in its current form and perhaps it should evolve.
Sometimes when one speaks about examining the role of SNAs, the people themselves wonder whether they will be undermined and whether it will be suggested that their role should be eliminated from the system. It is quite the contrary. We need to focus heavily on the lack of career structure and certainty the average SNA has in the system and the respect the system gives them, which comes from the Department and filters through boards of management and principals. There may be a question in what I have stated but I wanted to set out the stall as to where we are going with the report. Perhaps we can publish a draft report, after which people can come back to see the type of discussions we are having. We could really get something out of this process.
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I enjoyed the presentations. Deputy Ó Ríordáin touched on the question of the apparent increase in demand for SNAs and resource teachers. I have spoken to principals and others in schools in my constituency who raised the issue of people seeking private assessments to get the decision they want after receiving a decision they did not like from a public assessment. I am interested to hear the witnesses' comments on this. What difficulty does this present? Do they accept that demand has increased in the way it appears?
What progress has been made on rolling out the 118 new classes for special needs which were announced? Families are delighted to get a place in a school but they are disappointed they do not have support services such as speech and language therapy. There appears to be a real gap and a mismatch between school places and the support services required. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' comments on this.
I wish to ask Ms Griffin a question on geographical gaps. Previously, and to be parochial, there was a big gap north of Swords to Balbriggan where no school places were available. This has changed in recent years. In general, do geographical gaps exist throughout the country and are they being addressed?
Ms Teresa Griffin
We addressed the issue of the expansion of the role in our supports paper and people do think there might be a gap in the system. Much of this is driven by the fact that everybody wants the best for children with special educational needs. Everyone working in education wants children with special educational needs to grow and thrive. We are almost desperate to do everything we possibly can and get every resource. I was struck by a comment made by Ms Lynch on the fight parents feel they have, and that it is a case of any resource as opposed to the right resource. Perhaps the discussion must be about the right resources children should receive.
Many SNAs are very well qualified and have improved their skills, but many of them have not. These children have the most complex learning needs and the most skilled people are required to intervene, educate and support them. It is of concern that for a long time throughout the health and education sectors SNAs were the only demand-driven support available, until the cap was put in place. This led to a huge increase to plug gaps.
The needs in some schools are very intermittent. Perhaps at post-primary level an SNA is needed to help a child during a practical class but support is not needed outside of this, perhaps a child has toileting needs which can be anticipated, or perhaps an SNA is required at break times. No one in the education system wants to leave an adult walking around or sitting outside a classroom doing nothing, which happened at the beginning of the scheme when SNAs sat outside classrooms reading a book until called on. There has been an evolution over time with regard to perceived gaps, but the perceived gaps are with regard to the right supports as opposed to anything else.
I thank Senator Power for her comments on our material for parents. We have produced another document quite recently, because the more information we can get out to professionals and parents on how the education system supports children the better. We recently launched a document on helping parents choose a school for their child and we have outlined the types of supports made available.
With regard to Deputy Ó Ríordáin's comments, we undertook quite a wide degree of discussion and consultation when we were working on our supports paper. We consulted SNAs, and what was remarkable was the discussion that took place among the SNAs on the different types of role they had. SNAs in special schools undertake quite different duties from SNAs in mainstream schools. It is quite interesting that there is acknowledgement that the initial and original reason for the scheme still exists in special schools where children have enormously complex needs and needs for very direct care support.
It reflects the fact the duties of SNAs have expanded because in the mainstream schools the children do not have the same level and extent of address of care needs as in special schools. In terms of how the role has changed, that is certainly an interesting aspect, as we found during our consultation process.
In response to Deputy Ryan, what we found recently is there has been a very extensive increase in the demand for resource teaching supports. We are currently working on consideration of a new model for allocating teaching supports to schools and we have been engaging in widespread consultations. One of the questions we have asked some of the professional groups that have come in to us is why there is such an increase in children who have assessed conditions. There seem to be multiple reasons rather than one reason. One reason that is given, for example, is that there is a greater acceptance and awareness that children learn differently and that there can be underlying reasons for that. Given that psychology and therapeutic programmes and the professions have developed their thinking in that regard, it is now much easier to put a label on a child.
Another reason, and one I am very concerned about, is the fact that our entire education system and the way we allocate resource teachers is driven by the need to attach a label. There is almost a search for a label to put on a child in order to get the resources. Again, this is driven by the fact everybody wants to get as much as possible into the system to help children with special educational needs. I spoke to one speech and language therapist who said she knew absolutely that the child in front of her did not have a specific speech and language disorder but she was able to make the child fit the criteria. That is a concern because labels are for life. Even though they are just there to provide a resource into schools, it is a very serious issue to put a label on a child, particularly if a child has been assessed as having an emotional or behavioural disturbance, or a mental health illness, specifically to get additional teaching resources into schools. We find that is one of the reasons for the increase.
With regard to the private assessment against HSE assessment, we are certainly aware anecdotally that this is going on. We know there are very significant waiting lists in regard to HSE supports, some of over a year for CAMHS supports and in regard to some other diagnostic services. We address this in our supports paper. It is one of the reasons we have to move away from the current model of allocating supports on the basis of diagnosis. It is worrying there is not a consistent assessment across private and public. People sometimes say to us they would prefer to wait until the child is a little older to see if the child has a certain condition but we know that people, because they want the resources, will go private and get the diagnosis they want.
With regard to the 118 classes, those classes were sanctioned for this year. My understanding is that they are open or they will be open soon this year, and while some might have to wait for building work and so on, they have been sanctioned for this year. The 118 were spread across 24 counties specifically for the reason mentioned, which is that we try to identify gaps. We know there are gaps but the NCSE currently does not have the ability to require a school to open a special class. This can be difficult in areas where we perceive there are gaps as the SENOs are sometimes going from school to school, telling them to please open a special class, which can be quite difficult. Increasingly, however, schools are seeing the benefits of special classes in terms of their ability to be much more inclusive and to have children in more inclusive settings in mainstream schools.
I could not agree more with the Deputy in regard to the issue around the special classes. There is a difficulty in regard to the therapeutic supports, which is an issue that has been ongoing for some time and something I have raised with the HSE. This goes back to Ms Lynch's comment about the right supports being in place. The NCSE is a very strong supporter of the current reorganisation of therapeutic supports that is happening in the HSE in terms of progressing disability services. It is developing school-based teams, which we believe is the right way to go. We are working with the HSE and are part of its national co-ordination group on that. The reality is, however, that there is a gap for children.
Mr. Dessie Robinson
On the issue of increasing demands, we are basing the evidence on the SNAs coming back to us to tell us of huge increases in demand in their schools. Rather than having an additional SNA to look after one or two children, they are now looking after seven, so it is clear to us there is a definite increase in demand. When we spoke earlier about what is required, I point to the range of duties SNAs perform throughout different schools. Schools dealing with profoundly handicapped children are different to schools where a child may need catheterisation. The SNA would be expected to perform that invasive procedure on the child and we have to consider both the time needed for that and the qualifications and training required.
The SNAs see this as a vocation - like a teacher or a nurse, they would have to, given some of the functions they carry out. The work they carry out and the level of respect they receive are issues, as Deputy Ó Ríordáin noted. If we are to do anything to ensure SNAs are brought up to a level that would generate respect, if nothing else, we need a professional development scheme to ensure they move along and perhaps provide some of the services that are needed. While my colleagues in the teaching unions might have a problem with this, the fact is some of the SNAs are highly qualified. As my colleague from the NCSE said earlier, there are different levels, but some are so well qualified they could teach children. There are teachers doing this function, believe it or not, who would rather take that part than actually teach on a full-time basis. There is a need to look at the whole situation. We will not be found wanting in this area in terms of help and taking part in the attempt to find a way forward that would improve the services our members provide to the children who need it.
Mr. Jim Moore
With regard to the question on gaps in information, we would pinpoint a couple of areas of grave concern with regard to that aspect of how to communicate with parents. One of the great concerns is the transfer from primary to post-primary, particularly the parental involvement in that process. Moving from primary to post-primary is a very particular change for the pupil and parental engagement with that change is a big problem. How do we get the parent to be informed in advance of moving from primary to post-primary, given it is a totally different world, both for the student and the parent, particularly the parent of a child with special needs?
We mentioned geography. There is a particular problem where there is a standalone post-primary school which is servicing a very broad area, given the element of choice in the post-primary school is very limited. Particularly in rural areas, there are some very large post-primary schools that are catering for the needs of a huge population. The ability of a particular school to address those needs is not certain given the allocation process can sometimes be very crude with regard to entitlement of a school to engage teacher resources. This is a big problem.
Parental involvement is also a big problem. I am sure everyone in this room has been involved in a parents' association of a primary or post-primary school at some stage of their lives. A recent study states:
The most recent evidence of parental engagement in the Irish post-primary schools, carried out by the ESRI as part of their Post-Primary Longitudinal Study, confirms the traditional commitment of the individual parent to the child’s educational welfare. The study further shows that the collaborating activity of parents collectively in the school community is weak.
That is a real problem. We find that we lose parents who no longer become involved in the child's education in moving from primary to post-primary. There is also a question around the ability of parents to organise themselves, either in the primary or post-primary sector.
We have too many schools that do not have an active parents' association. This issue must be dealt with at board of management level at each school, in other words how are they responding to particular needs in their area.
With regard to our endeavours to be collaborative with partners in education, the model of the post-primary education forum has been very successful in highlighting the issues for everybody in education.
Ms Áine Lynch
I am very conscious of the fact that we are discussing the role of the SNA but it is very difficult not to go outside of that with some of the questions that have been raised. To respond to Senator Averil Power's questions, there are gaps elsewhere in the system. One of the difficulties is that the resources that are available to a school are SNA or teaching resources and yet children with special educational needs in the system may have therapeutic requirements that are necessary for their education and are not general therapeutic services that they will need outside of their schooling. For instance a child may need speech and language or behavioural therapies that are very specific to their education but that are not necessarily specific to the home environment. I think that is where the gap is. If a child with a particular behavioural difficulty, a speech and language difficulty or any other type of difficulty is in a school, one is faced with the choice of an SNA or resource teaching hours, neither of which will address the needs of that child in terms of accessing the curriculum. That is where the gap lies. It is not necessarily that we do not have enough resource hours or enough SNA people but we do not have the right resource for the child presenting in the school. Sometimes the confusion can be about linking the health service with the education service.
There are some specific therapeutic services that are specific to the educational system that do not exist currently. We see how the psychological service has become education-based, specifically addressing the psychological services within the educational context. There are other therapeutic supports that are needed for that as well. There are other gaps but the fact the school only has an option of a SNA or resource teaching support is one of the significant difficulties in terms of gaps. The SNA is seen as the most flexible resource, particularly because it is not capped, but even with the cap the evidence suggests it is the most prolific resource in the education system. Often the SNA is with children who have very complex needs. I gave the example of the behavioural issue. Having had personal experience of working with children in child psychiatry previously, I am aware that children would exit the mental health services and the following day they would be back in school. The mental health services have the most qualified professionals dealing with those difficulties and when the child returns to school the person who is trying to support that child is somebody who has no education or skills in this area. That is negative for everybody in that classroom system. It often then becomes a matter of containment; how does a teacher teach others in the classroom with this behavioural issue going on? Then the negativity around that child increases. There are gaps but I do not think we can talk about those gaps in respect of just talking about the role of the SNA. It is a much bigger issue.
There is emerging research around peer support but at a personal level I have seen the Portuguese system, where they do not have special schools and all children are in the mainstream system, with some special classes for children. They have quite a significant model around peer support. I have seen that work very positively, but I think we need more research to back that up.
We referenced the gap in information for parents. The guide from the National Council for Special Education was excellent and we were very supportive of it at the time, but there are guides for parents that are specific to education and to health, but the child is not split like that. When parents have a guide about what is available in the education system for their child, explaining the different resources, and their child needs something specific which is not in that guide, it does not make sense to them. It does not give them a clear understanding of where they are supposed to go. They need information about their specific child. Guides will help but they need to be linked and joined up as well so that parents can get that information.
There should be discussions on recasting the role but we need to be very careful because there are children who require care. We need people in the education system who can specifically address those care needs of the children. At present, the SNA system works extremely well in that care role. If we start saying that somebody who can address those needs very well can also have an educational role we are looking at a very different skill set. Perhaps there is another role needed in the classroom but I think moving the SNA role, which is addressing a very important need within the classroom, to something wider may not be the right thing to do. If we recast a new role within the education system, we need to ensure that it is child-centred and inclusive so it is not dealing only with children with specific needs but all the needs of the children in that classroom. We may come up with the teaching assistant role or the education assistant role and if that is the role assigned to the children with the most complex needs we are back into the system of the least qualified people addressing the children with the most need. Quite often those roles can be supplementary to children who are doing very well and need less support.
How we manage that new role, if there was to be a new role, would be very important. That addresses Deputy Ellis's point about very highly qualified personnel in the SNA role. We cannot create a national system based on that. If the SNA entry requirements are such and such then we need to create a system around that, not around the people who happen to find themselves in that role. There must be a baseline for what we are creating. In all walks of life one finds people who are over-qualified for positions because they chose to do the job. We cannot create a system based on that. The system has to be based on the entry requirement and perhaps we could find new roles for those people.
I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. I totally agree with Ms Lynch's comments on the baseline qualifications. We end up with too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The problem arises from the lack of clarity of the roles of the teachers and the SNAs. Parents are unclear, as has been said, on the role of the SNA. Parents may say their child has an SNA whereas the SNA has been appointed to the school rather than to the individual. I know that the guide produced by Ms Teresa Griffin last year was excellent but we need to get it out to all parents as I know several parents have not read it but would like to read something much simpler.
I am concerned about the role of the Special Educational Needs Organiser, SENO, in all of this. The SENO has a very important role. The National Parents Council has raised the issue of the individualised plan. All children in a special needs school have an individual education plan, IEP, which is an aid to better relations with the parents when they discuss the individual education plan with the teacher, with the SNA and with the SENO. I have asked before whether the SENO sits down with the parents to discuss the individualised plan before the child goes in. Clarity is being lost because of confusion about different elements that need to be pulled together.
The NCSE document states that students with complex learning needs should be taught by fully qualified and experienced teachers, equipped with the necessary skills. What extra qualifications should be provided? What is their opinion of teacher training for national school teachers? Teachers in special schools need specific skills on learning in this area.
I welcome the panel. I get a little frustrated with the role of SNAs. A large amount of resources have rightly been put into special educational needs. However, we must work together to find the best way to achieve the best outcomes for children with special educational needs. We must make that our sole purpose and ensure that the children get a level playing field. The assistance can range from the provision of a special needs assistant to learning support or resource teaching. The right resources must be provided for a child, which may mean more than care.
I have read many reports on the subject. I have read the report by the National Council for Special Education on its concern about role creep and moving from care to education. We must face up to the fact that we need a combination of care and education, so let us stop fudging. We are spending a fortune on the matter. There are some incredible special needs assistants, some of whom have been educated to junior certificate level while others have a double master's degree. We must discover what is the best model of care and education that will achieve the best outcome for a child. I have examined what happens in other countries and some countries use the teacher assistant model that Ms Lynch mentioned. The teacher is the key person in the classroom because he or she is responsible for the teaching and learning outcomes for a child. A teacher assistant could take care of any care needs and also provide educational support to a child, so we should examine such a scheme. We should also provide an SNA with a pathway to becoming a teacher assistant if he or she so wishes.
There will be extreme cases where the overriding need is care, and it is fine for an SNA to fulfil such a role. As has been said, we must ensure that it does not end up as all care and no education. Both are required. I would like the delegations to answer my question, particularly Ms Teresa Griffin whom I know is faced with the job. I would like to hear their views on the matter.
Earlier Ms Griffin mentioned the danger of labels and, theoretically, I agree with her but not in practice. Labelling may be a pathway to securing resources so parents must be greater than it and the child's esteem must be built up to be greater than the label. I agree with her that labels are a problem for peers. Can she tell me what is the correct way to resolve the matter?
The Senator has gone over the three minutes allotted so I ask her to conclude.
I am sorry. I have just one more question. What do the delegations think of the idea of a cluster of schools providing speech and language therapy, a key need of most children with learning difficulties?
Perhaps replies can be given in a different order this time, so I call Mr. Robinson to commence.
Mr. Dessie Robinson
One must agree that the ultimate aim is to ensure a child is not disadvantaged in any way and gets the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no doubt in my mind about that objective.
I agree that there are different levels of attainment. As far as my organisation is concerned, the bar was set a bit low when it came to the qualifications required to be an SNA, which are three subjects in the junior certificate or level 3. It may be part of the reason for a lack of respect for the work done by SNAs. Some people may wonder what qualifications does an SNA need other than being nice to a child. A child needs much more. A child places a great deal of trust in his or her SNA after a while, particularly if the SNA holds a certain level of qualifications. There is nothing more joyful than when an SNA learns that the child that he or she assisted in their early years has gone to Trinity College or somewhere else.
With regard to different levels, I favour them and Ms Lynch hit the nail on the head when she expressed her views on the matter. Obviously there are different levels of requirement and levels of SNAs or a combination of both. As I said earlier, some schools have a requirement for categorisation while others require behavioural needs to be met. They are at different levels so there is nothing wrong with us examining whether we can change the level. Therefore, we must provide the time, resources and necessary training in order to ensure the child gets the care that he or she deserves to allow him or her to continue in life, as we all expect to be cared for.
Ms Áine Lynch
My answer to the Senator's question on the provision of speech and language services by a cluster of schools is yes, there is a great need. I know of a project that was part of a previous community partnership scheme where the Childhood Development Initiative in Tallaght compiled a report on the subject of speech and language support services in the school system. The scheme seemed to be greatly beneficial but it costs a lot more. The children who engaged in the scheme made dramatic improvements. They did not need it after a certain amount of time because the support got them back on a good path. Sometimes we see either the gold standard or what we have now and there is a view that we should do nothing until we reach the gold standard. The project in Tallaght showed some things that were not of a gold standard yet still were very effective. One initiative meant teachers in the school were trained, during an 11 to 17 hour session, on early identification of speech and language problems and early intervention at a very low level. The course was very short but made a dramatic difference. It allowed teachers to identify speech and language problems very early in the early education sector and the first few years of primary school. It also showed teachers what they could do and share with people at home in order to remedy many problems. In addition, it highlighted the fact that if problems were not addressed early on they would become very big problems as children grew older.
Of course we would like the school-based interventions when it comes to educational and curriculum access. If we do not reach the standard tomorrow there is still a lot of support that we can give but all of the work cannot be left to the teacher, as often described. However, if one does not address such problems early on then a teacher's workload will be much greater. A short intervention course that gives teachers skills to monitor children and implement early intervention strategies will make the classroom much more manageable. Also, the children will be much better able to communicate.
Labelling was another issue. Parents struggle with labelling and I get the point made by the Senator that parents need to get over labelling. However, society caused the problem and, therefore, has the same ability to get rid of the need to label, particularly in the education system. A label in the education system does not convey the educational needs of a child.
What if it is a physical diagnostic label?
Ms Áine Lynch
No. A physical diagnostic label does not necessarily mean a child needs a certain level of educational support. For instance, two children with Down's syndrome may have very different levels of need. A label does not convey the educational support that a child needs. We need to get away from labels because they do not tell us anything. We need to assess what education and type of support that a child needs in order to access either the primary or post-primary school curriculum.
On an individualised basis.
Ms Áine Lynch
Anything other than that is outside of the educational system and needs to be dealt with as such. There is a good argument against labels. They do not give us any more information on what a child needs in a school context.
Mr. Jim Moore
I wish to echo the same point of view with regard to the flexibility that is made available through the system. Labelling is a problem. We have our reports from schools on the time children transfer to the post-primary sector.
The relationship between the SENO, the school and the parent at the time of that transition is an extremely important part of the process of moving to the upper level of education. Any review should create the flexibility to match the students' needs and, perhaps, changing needs when moving from primary to post-primary.
There is a gap with regard to SENOs engaging with parents. I have a huge issue with that. It should be everybody working together.
Ms Teresa Griffin
I shall address that particular issue. We have planned information evenings for parents. We are testing the model to ensure we are getting the right information and that it is providing what parents need. We have done so in Carlow and Dublin 8 and another test will take place next week or the week after in Tullamore, County Offaly. The whole point is to get parents in, especially parents of newly diagnosed children or children who are just about to go to school. I take Mr. Moore's point that transition is the key for children with special educational needs and that information should be provided on how the system supports children - for example, through their interaction with the HSE, as stated by Ms Áine Lynch. It is not just what happens in the school that must be communicated; the parents need to be given the whole picture. Following the evening in Offaly we will review whether the information is right and, if so, the idea is that it would be rolled out by SENOs in each of the 80 SENO areas throughout the country during the course of the school year to specifically address the points made and also to introduce the SENOs. How does a parent know that a SENO exists? Often they go along to the school and that may be the first time they hear of a SENO. We are trying to get the information out that the SENOs are a really good resource for parents in terms of providing information. I hope that will address the information deficit in some way. We will keep it under review because we think it is crucial to try to support parents more and ease the system in terms of transition.
We hope, at some point when we have a little more time, to look at transition points to ascertain how we can better support children who are making the transition not only from primary to post-primary but also from preschool to primary and, perhaps, from junior national school into senior national school and, at the end of school, from fifth or sixth year into wherever their pathways bring them, whether to adult services, supported employment, continuing education, further education or third level. Those are plans over a few years because we have limited resources. We are prioritising the parents of newly diagnosed children and children about to enter the school system and we hope that will roll out and feed through.
With regard to labelling, in case members misunderstood what I said, when we speak with parents we find that some value having a label because they like to know what the issue with their child is. The main concern is that labels should not be allocated simply to drive educational resources. We have to find a better way and that was the thrust of our supports paper and our policy advice paper to the Minister earlier in the year. There has to be a better way. Actually, the Minister has given us the go-ahead. We are looking at how to get away from a disability or a medical model in terms of allocating teachers and we hope to come up with a better way. We are in the middle of our consultation phase in considering that issue.
On the issue of qualifications, with regard to what should be provided and what the teachers in special schools need, one of the central themes coming through all of our policy advice, whether in respect of children who are deaf or children who have challenging behaviour, through our supports paper and in all our research is that the specialist knowledge of teachers is what is important. Not only do they have to be subject specialists but they also have to be specialists in what the child needs to learn, because children are different. Some are visual learners and others are more logical learners. For example, children who are deaf have specific requirements with regard to maths. They find the maths concepts very difficult. Much specialist knowledge is needed.
With regard to undergraduate or initial teacher education and CPD in initial education, Ms Mary Byrne and I sat down with the Teaching Council last week to see how we can feed into the development of initial teacher education and how we can provide more information and inform the process of initial teacher education. We were pleased that the subject of special education, which was hit-and-miss in initial teacher education for so long in that the amount of information one got depended on which college one attended, is now more standardised and is one of the critical areas that has been identified by the Teaching Council to cover in initial teacher education and CPD for teachers. I appreciate Mr. Moore's point. The NCSE believes a framework needs to be put in place for teachers. The reality is that a large number of children who have special educational needs learn differently. They may not necessarily need additional support in the school but the teachers need to know how they learn and differentiate their approach and language accordingly. In our policy advice we have recommended that a framework for the professional development of teachers be put in place. The framework includes initial teacher education and induction but also CPD. All teachers need to be trained in CPD. If there are children who do not have an assessed special educational need, they may have underlying reasons for learning differently. Obviously in special schools, children with complex needs need dedicated learning.
The whole ethos of the NCSE is that the child's needs must be at the centre and plans need to be put in place around the child. Whatever CPD the teacher needs to put a proper IEP, individualised education plan, in place for the child, a structure needs to be in place to enable the teacher access that. We went one step further in our supports paper when we said that this training and CPD must be mandatory. All teachers must have a qualification in the area of special education and must have at least one day's training-----
At undergraduate level?
Ms Teresa Griffin
No, at CPD. At undergraduate level it is being addressed. We were with the Teaching Council just now. Obviously, there are 50,000 or 60,000 teachers for whom the issue of CPD was not focused on in their undergraduate training. We believe every teacher needs to be trained in this area.
My question on the joint role of care and education for the teaching assistant has not been responded to by anybody.
Ms Teresa Griffin
The Senator asked how to achieve the best outcomes. In our supports paper we recommend strongly that the EPSEN, Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, Act 2004 remains the best way. Its full introduction provides for individual assessment and the right resources to be delivered to support those. Obviously we are not there yet. We have made 27 other recommendations that we think can be implemented in the short to medium term. That includes a move away from diagnosis, which will free up professional time for assessments to inform teaching and learning. That is crucial. Rather than spending hours diagnosing a child with a disability, people should assess what the child needs to succeed in the classroom. Where additional resources are allocated, whether SNA resources or teaching resources, they must be part of a comprehensive individualised plan for that child. Personalised planning must happen at school level. It is reasonable if we are allocating additional resources that the school should plan how they are going to use those resources and that the outcomes are monitored.
In regard to the teaching assistant or SNA, we undertook some research in that area and looked at models in various countries. It is an issue that is not easy to crack and everybody is struggling with it. There are countries that have no special schools, there are countries where there are no teaching assistants, and there is everything in between. We need to go back and focus on what the child needs in order to progress. What does the child need to learn? How can we free up the professionals in order to carry out that assessment and increase the skills of teachers to enable them to intervene? In our supports paper we struggled with the issue of how to make a recommendation in this area.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that where we have teaching assistant-SNA professionals, they impede the ability of the child to access the teacher. These people are linked to the child and working with the child and because of this they form a barrier not only between the child and its peers, but also between the child and the teacher. This happens not because people are not working well together but because the teaching assistant is working with the child while the teacher is working with the rest of the class. Where children have such complex needs and learn differently, we need the most skilled person to support those children. Special education is a much broader issue than one of teaching assistants and SNAs. Also, research is very mixed in terms of impact and outcomes. We must be concerned with how to deliver the best outcomes. If we tell parents of children with special needs that they should taught by somebody other than the teacher, that is the wrong message to send out. All children, including those with special educational needs, deserve to be taught by fully qualified teachers who understand their needs.
I have some questions in that regard. One of the issues for us as politicians is that this is a difficult subject politically. Sometimes when a proposal is made, there is a campaign against it and it is difficult to try to persuade people to shift the way they look at the issue. Does the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, work with the parent councils or with SNAs and different stakeholders to try to move people along in the context of the debate? Does it try to get some movement so that there is no block against change from what might be a vested interest? I do not mean this in a negative way. We all have a vested interest in society, but what can be done to ensure people do not block changes because they think things should stay as they are? Ms Griffin has said the NCSE talks to parents, but does it talk to other groups to try to move this debate along?
Ms Teresa Griffin
Is the Chairman talking about the debate about the need for SNAs?
Yes, but also the debate about encouraging people to be more open-minded and to examine whether they are doing things the right way.
Ms Teresa Griffin
Much of our work is focused on producing policy advice for the Minister and the advice we gave was very clear about the centrality and importance of the role of the teacher. Our parental programme is being rolled out, but we are aware this area is very fraught. The SENOs are there in the middle of decision-making about when to allocate an SNA and when to phase out an SNA. We fully appreciate the anxiety of everybody involved, including schools, SNAs, children and parents. The SENOs try to explain their decisions to principals. We believe the number of appeals made to us reflects some level of success in terms of our ability to explain why changes and moves are made. In 22,000 application processes, we have had only 76 full appeals, because explanations for decisions have been provided.
We also have meetings with professionals and voluntary bodies. We try to go out to people with our consultation process to explain issues. It is important to point out that at this point in time, we could not recommend a specific teaching system model for children with special educational needs. However, we are keeping the matter under review. Trying to persuade parents to accept the loss of an SNA or an adjustment to hours or less support for their child, particularly when other supports are not available, is very difficult. This is a difficult concept for them. We are trying to meet and work with professional bodies and the HSE on this so that people do not just automatically tick a box and say a child needs additional teaching or SNA support. We want to encourage them to sit down to consider what they would expect an SNA to do for that child. It is only when they start thinking through that process and through the individual care and education plans that people realise it might be involve more of a pedagogical role than a care role.
A delegation from this committee went to Finland and attended a discussion on its system for dealing with special needs. Finland seems to have a flexible system along the lines of what Ms Griffin suggests, whereby a child is removed temporarily from the class and then brought back. The system there seems to be based on the child's needs more so than here. Children there might have intensive help for a while and then may not need it any longer or may drop in and out of the system. Has the NCSE looked at any systems such as that?
Ms Teresa Griffin
We looked at lots of systems when we were trying to come up with our supports paper. However, there is no magic wand. Even in Finland, the system varies from school to school. We also found that whereas models in some countries changed six years ago or more, these countries are now returning to their previous systems. We need to look at the issue in terms of focusing on the child and its needs. This is a challenge for the system, because the needs of children change from year to year. As soon as one structure is put in place, another child comes in with a different need. Therefore, there must be flexibility in the system.
Our proposed tailored allocational model for teachers will give schools that flexibility. Therefore, the position will not be that a child is allocated three or five hours or whatever every week or that children who have not been assessed will have no hours. The model will give the schools flexibility to think about providing intensive support at key transition points and then fading those out over time. This is the position we are trying to get to. We are trying to change the system and to introduce a different culture in terms of how schools can use the supports that have been made available to focus on the needs of a specific child. It should not be just literacy and numeracy that are looked at but issues such as assistive technology, mobility and different ways of learning. That is the position we need to get to.
Any there any other questions?
I would like to put a supplementary question.
I will not move on to supplementary questions yet, but will take any other speakers who wish to put questions.
My question is for the Chairman. Are we going to seek more submissions from the public and from different groups and what dates are the meetings on those submissions? What period of time is being allowed for the acceptance of submissions from interested groups?
We could do that. We can invite submissions. A consultation process is ongoing currently, so we may hold off for a month or so. We intend to produce a report on this issue and will seek further submissions. Today's discussion has been a very good start.
I am delighted that the NCSE emphasises the central role of the teacher, particularly at second level. It is impossible to get through to some second level subject teachers who do not understand learning difficulties. Common comments from these teachers would be that the child is distracting others from the learning process, unaware that the child might suffer from ADD, specific learning difficulties or receptive language difficulties. There is a reason the child is distracting others from the learning process. Ms Griffin was spot on when she said the child with those needs deserves the attention of the most skilled person in the room. She said that continuous professional development would be made mandatory. How will that be done?
Ms Teresa Griffin
I said we would recommend that to the Department.
It must be mandatory, because these children are lost. At primary school the teacher gets to know these children, but when these pupils have seven, eight or nine teachers in a day, school can be a living hell for them, even if three or four teachers are brilliant.
Anybody who wishes to make a comment at this stage may do so.
Ms Joan McCrohan
We are all in agreement that we want to enhance services for children with additional needs. The needs are very varied and unique to every child. Job security for special needs assistants is crucial and there needs to be an end to casualisation, but I do not think that was addressed today. It is very worrying for special needs assistants. If there was a bit of security of tenure there would be a foundation on which we could build to provide professional development opportunities for SNAs. They are very well placed to provide holistic support. Ms Lynch and Mr. Moore are very knowledgeable of the situation. They both spoke very passionately.
Close to my heart is the issue of transitional care when coming from a care service or psychiatric service back into a school. If an SNA is involved, he or she can provide a link or training to cope with the challenging behaviour. When I started as an SNA 15 years ago, I worked with a child with cerebral palsy who needed walking aids. I went to Enable Ireland after school every evening with him and his mother and I learned the little physiotherapy bits that I could do and I supported that in school. There was a continuity of the service as he was not going to get physio every day. Opportunities are there if only there was a little bit of inclusiveness, and I think that is what is missing. The continuity of care for transition periods is hugely traumatic for a child to go from mainstream to special school or from primary to secondary school. If we were a little bit imaginative, children could have that one bit of continuity in a transition period and the SNA could carry that out even for a brief period, so that everything is not new.
The peer group support is very important. Fostering peer group acceptance is a huge part of the role for SNAs, but if an SNA thinks his or her hours are going to be cut or if he or she is now working only eight hours per week, which have to be spread right across the week, that imposes hardship on the individual. It is difficult to maintain a living wage on a whole-time post, not to mind when an SNA's hours are reduced to a portion of a job. I do not think that would work in any sector. If we are serious about providing an efficient and effective service, we must look at inclusivity and we must include SNAs in training. The SESS had a fantastic budget last year for training teachers in special education. We were told by representatives of many of the education centres around the country that there were empty seats at every single training session. If a child with challenging behaviour presents in a school, the teacher will ask the SNA to withdraw the child so that she can continue with the teaching lesson. However, the SNA has not had any training whatsoever in how to manage the challenging behaviour. I was recently in a school in Waterford where a child with very significant needs and very challenging behaviour had access to support for the first time ever. The principal cannot allow that situation and must have an SNA with the child on a full-time basis because, through no fault of his own, he is a danger to himself and to the children around him. It is an awful pity that there is no inclusivity as a best practice across the board, because where it is in place it is very effective.
Ms Áine Lynch
In response to the comments made about how the NCSE brings people along with them, I do not think there is any "bringing along" for parents, because parents obviously want the right thing for their child. The difficulty we have with the system at the moment is that if a child has been identified with any need from birth onwards, it becomes a fight for that child. His or her family are fighting for resources all the time. Sometimes people fight when they do not need to fight, because they are just locked into the fight, but when people have fought for a resource and have got it, they will not let it go until another resource is in place. It might not be the right resource and parents might think it is not the right resource for their child, but until another more appropriate resource is offered it is very hard to let go of the resource that they have. That can often be misunderstood, and parents are seen as marching on the gates for their SNA provision or resource teaching hours. When we talk to the individual parents they say they know their child does not need a particular resource but does need another resource, such as a speech and language therapist, but they might be on a waiting list for a speech and language therapist for four years, so what do they do? The overall message that can come across as fighting against change is not actually the underlying message, but it is just that they hang on to the resource that they have until the get the right resource. It would be a very easy door to push open with parents. I do not think there is resistance to it.
Ms Teresa Griffin
In any review of the SNA role, I ask the committee to ensure that the focus is on the child. At the end of their school years, they are independent. The focus of the SNA is on developing independence in the child rather than dependence, and that is the concern in the literature.
We have had a very good meeting here today. This is an ongoing thing. Today is the initial meeting for a report that we will write on the issue. We will be in touch with all of you again. I would like to thank you for your contribution today, and I thank committee members as well.
At our next meeting we will begin hearings on the Gender Recognition Bill 2013. I hope that committee members can all attend.