Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection debate -
Wednesday, 8 Oct 2014

Proposed Special Educational Needs Model: Discussion

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members 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.

The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting. I ask the witnesses to turn off their telephones or switch them to flight mode. Otherwise, they will interfere with broadcasting equipment. This meeting is to consider the proposed new model for special needs education published by the National Council for Special Education in June. We have discussed education for children with special needs previously, for example, in the context of children with Down's syndrome. I welcome Mr. Eamon Stack, Ms Teresa Griffin and Ms Mary Byrne representing the National Council for Special Education, NCSE; Ms Lorraine Dempsey representing the Special Needs Parents Association, SNPA; and Mr. Pat Goff and Mr. Seán Cottrell from the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN. I invite Mr. Stack to make his presentation and ask him to remain within five minutes.

Mr. Eamon Stack

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to attend the meeting. I would like to introduce my colleagues, Ms Teresa Griffin, CEO of the NCSE, and Ms Mary Byrne, head of special education at the NCSE. I intend to address three main areas: the reasons change is necessary, an outline of the proposal for a new allocation model, and the implementation process for the model.

The NCSE submitted a wide-ranging policy advice paper on special education to the Minister for Education and Skills in May 2013. One of the issues raised in that paper was our concern that the current schemes for allocating more than 11,000 learning support and resource teacher posts to schools were inequitable and that a different allocation model should be developed, one based on the profiled need of each school without the need for a diagnosis of disability. I accepted the Minister’s invitation to chair an NCSE working group to develop a proposal for a new model, taking account of factors that identify educational profiles of schools and the recording of outcomes for students with special educational needs.

The working group comprised people with a wide range of expertise and experience in special education, including parents, teachers, principals, inspectors, the Education Research Centre, ERC, and NCSE council members. The central focus of the group’s work was at all times on meeting the learning needs of students with special educational needs. We took great care to ensure the proposed new model was informed by national and international research findings. We are satisfied the model takes into account many complex factors identified by research as contributing to a school’s need for additional teaching support.

We also engaged in a widespread consultation process with the education partners. This involved more than 22 meetings. There was recognition of the complexity and sensitivity of the task as well as general consensus on the need for a more equitable model, one which included levels of achievement societal context and significant needs and which did not rely on a diagnosis of disability. The working group proposal was published last June.

There are good reasons the current allocation model should be changed. I will cite three such reasons. More than 5,000 learning support teachers are allocated to all primary and post-primary schools to help students with learning difficulties on the basis of the number of class teachers in the case of primary schools or the number of students in the case of post-primary schools. This means two schools with the same number of students enrolled will get the same level of learning support even though one school could have ten students who qualify for learning support and the other school could have 75 students. This is both unfair and inequitable.

More than 6,000 resource teachers support students with a diagnosis of disability. We know there can be long waiting lists for a formal professional diagnosis of disability. While on the waiting list, resource teaching support cannot be provided to a student's school. Some parents circumvent public waiting lists by paying large sums of money for private consultants to diagnose their children. We believe a child should not have to wait for additional teaching support because his or her parent cannot pay for diagnostic services. The current system can reinforce disadvantage because children from less well-off families have to wait longer for a diagnosis of disability and supports in school.

The third reason I cite for the need for change is that many professionals have told us they feel obliged under the current system to assess and label children with a disability, even when an assessment may not be indicated for health or social care reasons, to ensure a school gets additional resource teaching hours. We know these labels can stay with the child for life. We also know there is a spectrum of ability within every category of disability and the label, by itself, does not necessarily inform a child's teaching and learning needs. The professionals have told us this time could be better used to provide necessary professional treatment, intervention and therapeutic support for the child.

The NCSE believes that changing the system should not wait for the implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act. The proposed new model recommends one scheme to allocate all 11,000 additional teachers to support the inclusion of all children with learning difficulties and special educational needs. Approximately 15% of these would be allocated to ensure every school has upfront resources to enable it to be an inclusive school and to support any early intervention and prevention programmes. The remaining 85% of teachers would be allocated in accordance with each school's educational profile. The educational profile would be based on the number of students with very complex special educational needs, the results of standardised tests in reading and mathematics, and the social context of each school. Under this new model, there would no longer be a distinction between learning support and resource teachers. They would instead all be known as support teachers.

The working group also proposed that existing support services for students with special educational needs should be combined into one unified inclusion support service for schools. The working group is confident its proposed model is a better and more equitable way of delivering teaching resources for students with special educational needs.

The implementation of the proposed new model would bring real benefits to students, their families and schools. For example, students would no longer have to wait for a professional diagnosis of disability before being provided with additional teaching support in schools. They would no longer have to be labelled. The new model is breaking the link between the need for diagnosis and the allocation of teaching resources. Parents would no longer have to pay for private consultants and schools would have greater certainty about their teacher staffing levels which would enable them to plan for appropriate further training where necessary.

We have advised the Department of Education and Skills to consult further with parents, teachers, and other education partners to ensure their views are taken into account. The Department is currently engaged in a further consultation process with the education partners and has set about collecting information necessary to examine the feasibility of the proposed model.

Our proposals are in keeping with many of the proposals in the recently published Better Outcomes Brighter Futures: the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020. I thank the Chairman.

Ms Lorraine Dempsey

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to represent the voices of parents of children with special educational needs. The Special Needs Parents Association is a voluntary registered charity run by parents for parents which exists to support all parents of persons with special needs and disabilities, irrespective of age or diagnosis. We strive on a national level for improved treatment, education, welfare and acceptance for our children.

Since its establishment in 2010, the SNPA has been actively involved across Departments and with other agencies and organisations to further our mutual goals. I am also the chair of education sub-committee of Inclusion Ireland and I am on the board of directors of Inclusion Ireland and the Genetic and Rare Disorders Organisations to further that aim. In a previous presentation to this committee on 7 November 2012, the SNPA referred to the current resourcing model and its inadequacies. It stated:

The special educational resource allocation system administrated by the NCSE under Department of Education policy is currently based on diagnosis. SNPA would like to see an alignment of the model of special education resource allocation with the needs-based approach being proposed in the area of disability service provision.

In 2013, following the consultation on special education provision and subsequent publication of the NCSE report, Delivery for students with special education needs - A better and more equitable way, in 2014, the SNPA was again invited to participate in a consultation on the new model for teaching allocations on behalf of our members whose children span the broad spectrum of disabilities and special educational needs. We are encouraged by the development of such a proposed new model and support it in principle as it reflects much of the input of SNPA members who contributed to our verbal and written submissions to the NCSE.

The proposed model is complex in so far as it is a whole new vision for special educational allocations in a mainstream school setting and we appreciate it will take some time for stakeholders, including parents and public representatives, to gain an understanding of the overall vision as it is incomparable to the current system in which many inequities have been identified due to its prescriptive nature.

Notwithstanding the potential of a new model for allocating additional teaching supports and the increase in the number of resource teaching posts, the overall provision of hours over recent years has led to a 15% reduction in resource teaching hours across the board since 2011. The Special Needs Parents Association cannot stand over a new model whereby the reduced pool of resources is seen as a baseline from which the new model will be implemented. The 15% reduction must be addressed in the upcoming budget. As the implementation of the model will involve a major change in how teaching supports will be delivered and a shift towards self-management of those supports in school, educators, parents and pupils must have assurance that the overall pool of resources will be available to deliver a system to meet the educational needs of children presenting and that children with learning difficulties at the milder end of the spectrum, in particular, will not lose out in the long term due to pressure as a result of historic reductions to special teaching supports which have not been reinstated.

The full implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 has not been realised a decade on, thus undermining the once envisaged framework of rights for children with special needs. The Special Needs Parents Association, SNPA, would request that the Department of Education and Skills sets out a timeline and costings for the full implementation of outstanding parts of the Act and that the development and implementation of the new model will be in line with the Act with particular reference to individual educational plans.

The following observations are based on feedback from parents about the NCSE working group report. The Special Needs Parents Association is fortunate to have a diverse profile of parent members, among whom are parents who work in the current special education system as well as having personal experience of supporting their own child through the education system and parents who have detailed knowledge of the educational and social challenges associated with a broad range of learning difficulties and disabilities.

I will touch on aspects of the model that Mr. Stack presented. I will deal with the allocation of additional teaching supports to schools. The current methods of allocating teaching supports to schools and individual children have served many children well, but it is recognised that anomalies and exclusions exist when using a system of allocations based on diagnosis and numbers of pupils and teachers without regard to the need for such allocations on an individual and school level. SNPA supports the implementation of a model based on needs and in line with reforms currently ongoing in the children’s disability services - progressing disability services for children and young people - but would add caution that any new model be properly tested before being fully implemented and that a further and final consultation period be planned for a later date once work on outstanding finer details in the model framework have been completed.

Mr. Stack broke down the observations on proposed new model in respect of the school educational profile into three component parts. With regard to complex special educational needs, the descriptors for complex special educational needs need to be robust. The current descriptors of the NCSE working group report use the word “extremely” on two occasions and this would need a definition in order to have transparency and a clear understanding of what level professionals and parents identify behaviour in particular as extreme. It is our understanding that the NCSE, NEPS and HSE are currently consulting each other on the development of clear descriptors to identify students with complex educational needs and these should be subject to a further consultation period once drafted.

On the question of standardised test results, parents have indicated concern over the use of standardised test results in developing a school profile. This comes from experience of their children who have high STen scores of 8-10, but have significant impairments requiring teaching and other supports. In pages 40 and 41 of the NCSE report, it outlines the many caveats that were considered and recommendations 7-8 have addressed this concern. The Department must ensure that resources are available for accessible teacher training and that NEPS or the proposed inclusion support service, ISS, have the staffing resources to support schools to process and analyse test results in a timely manner, minimising the administrative burden on teachers.

We were trying to limit the presentation to ten minutes. Will Ms Dempsey just give the heading because the document has been circulated? She will have the opportunity to speak in greater detail when responding to questions.

Ms Lorraine Dempsey

In the absence of full implementation, we would look for individual educational needs plans to be made a mandatory requirement for every child with special educational needs, but in keeping with the levels of needs. Once the weightings model that Mr. Stack has described is further finalised, we would seek further consultation on the weightings model as we think all stakeholders are concerned about various aspects of the weighting model.

The schools that would be facing a significant reduction in support teaching numbers as a result of calculating both the baseline component and the school profile should be allowed a significant transition period in order to allow for staffing adjustment in line with the reduced numbers.

In recognition that the Department would move from a diagnosis based system, we have addressed an issue with the Department that it looks to its other schemes that currently require a diagnosis in order to access different ranges of supports, including special class provision, and certain assistive technology autism units. We have flagged the Department on what systems it may need to look at to coincide with a non-diagnostic based system. That applies to access to scribes at second level and examination supports.

On the inclusion support service, SNPA would like to see that the new body be developed and incorporate the national education psychological service, NEPS, the behaviour support service and the special education support service. We believe that one integrated model of educational support working on a geographical basis, giving in-school support and outside school support with the ability to network with disability network teams, thereby providing a whole school package of supports, is the direction to follow. We would like to have an input into the group that is looking at the framework for the inclusion support service.

A proposal that goes beyond the model is that the Department of Education and Skills would look at the feasibility of establishing an independent education appeals office which would carry out the function of processing the appeals for every educational scheme in the Department of Education and Skills and not restricted to the current model and appeals system that has yet to be established.

In conclusion, the process of change is always challenging for parents, schools and all involved in the educational sector. SNPA would like to see a periodic review of the model once it is rolled out. We support a model based on needs and run in conjunction with the health services and the disability service for children under the age of 18 years. We understand that in order to have successful educational outcomes for children with special needs, they are intrinsically linked to the provision of therapeutic interventions to support their development, particularly in relation to communication and behavioural support. Both of these are often the greatest barriers and in some instances, the teacher does not hold the keys to opening the door.

It is beyond the remit of the committee to discuss issues in relation to the health sector and disability services support, but we know from a recent report from Inclusion Ireland that we are probably at 50% of the level of speech and language therapists required to provide an adequate service. I understand from teaching bodies they have a focus on the therapeutic interventions that would support the teachers to be able to deliver a proper education to children with special educational needs. I ask members to take it up with the relevant Ministers.

I thank Ms Dempsey. I will give Mr. Pat Goff five minutes.

Mr. Pat Goff

The Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, accepts the rationale behind this proposed new model of allocating resources for students with special educational needs in mainstream schools. It is always desirable that schools with the greatest need for additional supports have a mechanism whereby those supports can be accessed. It is also desirable that equity prevails and that the school with the greatest needs receives the greatest level of support.

Staffing and financing schools to reflect the additional resources required for children with special or additional needs is a complex process. There is a very real fear among principals and teachers nationwide that the proposed new model could be used to further reduce special education needs allocations to primary schools. It is imperative that the 15% reduction in resource allocation to primary schools imposed in recent years is immediately restored and that this be used as an initial alleviation for schools who will be losing staff. In addition, there is an increase in the school-going population, probably increasing by 2% every year, and one has to factor in that the limit on the number of teachers supporting special needs pupils has not increased because of the cap on that figure. Effectively, the number is down 20% on where it would have been without those reductions.

The Irish Primary Principals Network would like certain observations and recommendations to be noted. We believe the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 should be fully implemented. It is hard to believe the Act was first introduced ten years ago. We are still waiting for it to be fully implemented and enacted.

I would like to deal with a few of the concerns that are affecting principal teachers around the country before setting out what we consider to be the benefits of the proposed model. The school profiling element of this model has caused deep concern. Many principals, particularly in rural and smaller communities, are worried that the gathering of personal information could damage the school-home relationship. Given that this information is already held by the Central Statistics Office in one form or another, one would have to ask why it was not gathered from that source rather than from schools.

Principals are also concerned to have been told that if they do not survey parents, they are entitled to come up with a guesstimate that they consider to be an accurate reflection of the current position. As future resources and audits will be based on those guesstimates - it might be one's best professional estimate, but it is still an estimate rather than a fact - there is a high level of unease among principals.

I would like to mention three areas in which clarification has been sought by principals. Will high-performing schools be punished for efficient use of available resources and lose some of their current allocation? Is profiling guaranteed to deliver a more equitable distribution of resources? Can the NCSE and the Department guarantee that profiling will not lead to the establishment of school league tables without regard for complexity of need and social context? This is causing a certain amount of concern.

Many schools will inevitably lose supports as a result of school profiling and the establishment of a baseline allocation. When many schools examine their profiles, they feel the proposed baseline allocation of 15% is much too low. Even though they might agree in principle that the reallocation or redistribution of resources is to be admired. The numbers of many small rural schools have already been affected by changes in the pupil-teacher ratio. Such schools, which are being asked to be inclusive, are finding it difficult to come to terms with the possibility of losing their supports.

Everyone around here will know that all politics is local. If a school is losing resources, it will not be happy with the new model. This is what we are hearing back on the ground. Smaller rural schools, in particular, are afraid they will no longer enjoy the supports they availed of in recent years as they brought pupil scores from 20 to 30, from 30 to 40, or from 40 to 50. This is a major concern for them.

We fully accept that the new model has many benefits. The streamlining of the allocation process will bring benefits. It will introduce greater equity to the system. Large numbers of Traveller children, newcomer children and children with complex needs will have unhindered access to adequate supports. As teachers, parents and principals, we fully support the elimination of the labelling of children. If that can be done, we will be delighted.

It is proposed to provide for automatic access to necessary supports without the requirement for a diagnosis. However, a diagnosis will still be required for SNA support. That will be a dilemma. We would have loved the SNA system to be structured in line with this. A package of supports, including the services of a National Educational Psychological Service psychologist if one is available, is provided in schools. It is not just a support teacher, a SNA or a class teacher. We hope there will be an increase in the number of psychologists.

We welcome the decision to start using the term "support teacher". We have been looking for that for nine years, since 2005. We do not feel there should be a distinction or separation between learning support and resource teachers. In the last year, teachers have been passing themselves on the road going to and from different schools. We are delighted that this is coming to an end.

Overall, we welcome the thrust of the new proposals. Consideration needs to be given to the implications and impact of the proposal with regard to profiling. There is a vacuum at the moment because schools are looking at the 15% allocation and nothing else. They are filling that vacuum by saying "we are going from two teachers down to half a teacher". That will have a knock-on effect. The bottom line is what is best for the children in our schools. That is where our concern will be.

I thank our guests for coming in today to discuss this matter and the work they put into their presentations. In particular, I thank the National Council for Special Education for the work that has gone into these proposals. I would like to follow up the presentations by asking a few questions. Can the representatives of the National Council for Special Education give some more information on the sort of timeline that will be required when this is being introduced? Is it expected that all of this will be introduced at once? Ms Dempsey mentioned the need for testing. How does she envisage that this will be done? Does she think testing will be required across the board before this is introduced?

It has been indicated that the baseline allocation will be 15%. Can the witnesses outline how they expect the allocation to break down between the three components that will considered when a decision is made on a school's application - the level of special educational need in the school, the social profiling of the school and the standardised testing? In general, what type of balance are we talking about at this stage? Mr. Goff of the Irish Primary Principals Network mentioned the social profiling element of this process, which is the subject of a great deal of concern among teachers. I know from talking to principals, in particular, that they are worried about the profiling they have been asked to do in recent weeks. They have been asked to say how many people have medical cards and to provide financial details. The vast majority of the people to whom I have spoken are not in a position to access that type of information. They do not feel it is fair to ask them to get it. Most of them guessed what the correct details might be. One principal told me he had given an honest assessment even though he suspected his school might have got a higher allocation if his estimates had suggested there is more disadvantage in the school. It is very unfair to ask principals to engage in this profiling. They are being put under pressure to adjust their guesses in a way that might bring their schools closer to the disadvantaged category. Other than asking the school principals to act in this way, is there any other way of establishing these facts? As I have said, I do not think it is fair to do it in this way.

I welcome our guests. I commend the working group on the model it has proposed. It certainly has a great deal of merit. When it was initially published, I spoke to the Minister about the timeframe that might be used to roll it out. I was a little surprised to hear her say she does not think it will be ready for next September and that it might even take until September 2016 to prepare it. The more I read about it and the more I became familiar with it, the more I accepted the need to press the pause button. A great deal of work has yet to be done on certain aspects of this proposal, such as the weighting system. The descriptors will have to be put in place. The issues with regard to the surveys that are currently being undertaken by schools will have to be resolved. We must ensure the weighting system that has been proposed is well thought through. The third highest weighting in the weighting system relates to the social context of the school. Concern has been relayed to me about the information that will be gathered as part of this process by means of surveys or guesstimates. Who will have access to that information? Maybe that could be clarified here today. What will happen with the information when it is gathered? There is a reluctance on the part of some parents to provide this information.

On the move away from allocating resources on the basis of diagnosis, we are all aware of the merits of the proposed new approach and the difficulties associated with the current system. Ms Dempsey referred to consulting other Departments on the need for a diagnosis to access additional supports. The Department must examine this matter internally. Some capitation grants, for instance, are allocated on the basis of the number of diagnosed students in a school. A school is allocated a baseline capitation grant and receives increased capitation for every student who has a learning difficulty. If we move to a system where a diagnosis is not required to secure additional resources, which we would all welcome, we must avoid circumstances where diagnoses are delayed as this would have an effect on schools' funding and finances that goes beyond the current model. The Department must take this factor into account. Was it taken into account in the deliberations on the proposed new model?

Budget 2011 included a commitment to increase the number of National Educational Psychological Service psychologists to 210 from the current figure of 173. As a significant number of these are on maternity or sick leave, I do not know how many of NEPS psychologists are currently working.

I welcome the proposed new model. Once detailed discussions of the proposal have concluded, there would be merit in having further consultations, particularly in respect of the waiting system and descriptors. Overall, I commend the report, which proposes a model that is much better than the current model.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking time to come before us to discuss the issues arising from the proposed new model for allocating teaching resources to students with special educational needs. I welcome the principle underpinning the proposed change and the objective it is hoped it will achieve.

I commend the two previous speakers on their contributions. There is nothing worse than politicians engaging in opportunistic party politics on the issue of special needs education. The most unedifying spectacle I have observed as a politician has been people playing with the fears of the parents of children with special needs. It was horrendous to see this and in commending the two previous speakers I am not suggesting that either of them has done this.

I attended a briefing given some months ago by the National Council for Special Education in the clock tower of the Department of Education and Skills. I raised the absence of STen scores at junior and senior infants level and representatives of the NCSE addressed the issue.

I concur with Deputy Jonathan O'Brien on the timeline. All of us want the new model to be introduced sooner rather than later. A two-tier system has emerged in the allocation of resources for special needs education. Parents who have sufficient resources to pay for a private assessment can jump the queue and obtain resources, which influences the overall allocation of resources to schools. While we all want the new model implemented, schools are already overloaded with change because the previous Minister was extraordinarily dynamic and introduced many changes in the education system. Change is always difficult. I sit on the fence on whether we should rush to implement the new model before September 2015, as per the current objective, or whether we should aim to have it implemented the following year. I do not have a definitive view on that matter.

Ms Dempsey referred to a 15% reduction in resources for children with special needs. I understand this is a reference to the decision to withhold some resources until enrolment has been completed in September and subsequently distribute them on the basis of enrolment numbers. I ask the representatives of the National Council for Special Education to clarify the matter. I have always championed the need to maintain existing levels of resources for children with special needs and I was forthright in commending the previous Minister on holding the line on this issue during very difficult times. The number of special needs assistants stands at 10,575, the same number in place on the day the Government took office. The number of resource teachers stands at 10,600 and the figure was increased in the previous budget. I ask for clarification regarding the 15% reduction in resources to which Ms Dempsey referred.

As a former member of the Irish Primary Principals Network, I have the highest regard for the work the network does for school principals. I do not often make comments of this nature but it is important to praise every bridge as we cross it. During my time as a school principal, I held the IPPN in the utmost regard especially for providing assistance and resources to school principals to upskill.

While I accept that profiling is difficult, we must accept that it is already in the system. DEIS schools have engaged in profiling since Adam was a boy, so to speak. I have been contacted by three school principals from my constituency expressing concern about the issue of profiling. It was interesting to note their profile - I ask the witnesses to excuse the pun - as they were from schools with an unusually large allocation of resource teachers and special needs assistants. It is a fact that some schools provide a much more hospitable environment for children with special educational needs than others. Some schools keep a distance and do not encourage parents of children with special educational needs to enrol their children, while others are extraordinarily hospitable and have made into a fine art the provision of education to children with learning needs and the creation of a favourable environment for them. By any comparison, these schools are top-heavy with resource teachers and special needs assistants. I am not suggesting for one moment that the allocation to these schools is overstated. The reason for the higher allocation is that they have provided a more hospitable environment which has resulted in them having a higher enrolment of children with special needs. One can understand, therefore, that such schools are concerned about profiling. I certainly understand from where the three principals who contacted me are coming. They are, however, missing the point because profiling is only one element in the proposed new model, which features two further criteria. Moreover, the Department will not seek the level of detail that has been suggested by some sources. The profile will be, I believe, broader than some principals realise. The Department must provide some assurance to schools that they will not lose resources as a consequence of providing a profile.

I ask the witnesses from the National Council for Special Education to comment on the current position regarding support hours for English as an additional language.

I am intrigued by Mr. Goff's comment that a diagnosis will still be required for the allocation of a resource teacher. I ask him to clarify the matter as I had not given any thought to it. Would it not be counter-productive to require a diagnosis for the allocation of one resource and not for another?

It is great that teachers will no longer be required to crisscross between schools.

I presume the new model will have a positive impact on demand for NEPS psychologists. Is that the case?

I welcome the witnesses. Will they confirm that the proposed new model would eliminate the practice whereby more affluent parents have been able to secure professional guidance and assessment and thereby jump the queue?

I welcome the witnesses. I also welcome the proposed new model for the allocation of resources. I understand the new model would be cost neutral as it would be based on current numbers and would not result in the creation of new posts. Is that the case?

On the rationale for not relying solely on the medical model, is it the case that some students who may not have a medical need will require assistance? If the waiting times for obtaining a medical assessment were significantly reduced, would that have an impact on the proposal? I am aware that concerns have been raised about social profiling, specifically on the possibility of making allocations on socio-economic grounds.

Would the NCSE have any suggestions as to how schools could go about that? I know Mr. Goff raised concerns about how that would be estimated and how it would be done. There are pupils with a medical diagnosis of a condition who may also have a high or above-average STen score and that often would have an impact on the number of resource teaching hours they may be allocated. Also, is there any research or data that indicates that this particular method would have more positive outcomes?

I welcome today's presentations. In my experience, it is probably the first time at a committee hearing that all of the stakeholders have broadly supported what has been proposed, which is good. Has Mr. Stack, as part of the further consultation, which is to be welcomed, heard anything that would suggest the method could be modified or is it too early in the process to suggest that?

Mr. Goff has expressed the concern of members of his organisation that the proposal could be used to reduce resources. Has there been any analysis on whether it would result in the provision of less resources, the same level or more? Could it result in greater resources being required?

Are there any implications of the use of the new term "support teacher" for people who are currently working in this area - there are two types of work - and are there any implications for job descriptions?

I am also interested in clarification on the 15% reduction. Is it a case of the numbers remaining the same and the number of students increasing thereby resulting in an effective 15% reduction? Is that really what we are talking about?

I welcome all of the attendees. My understanding is that we are trying to get better, fairer outcomes using existing resources for children with special educational needs. If that is the goal, that is very welcome. However, I have an initial question and perhaps Mr. Stack will have the answer to this. Does Mr. Stack know the number of teachers at second level who currently do not have any special educational needs training despite the fact that they have children in their classrooms with special educational needs? We are trying to implement a new model without a diagnosis or an assessment, without the little bit of teacher guidance a conversation with a psychologist would give, and with a majority, I suspect, of second-level teachers having absolutely no special educational needs training at all. This weekend, I spoke to a person involved in a school in Galway city. This school is considered to be a very high-performing school. It has 56 teachers none of whom have specialist training in autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and so forth. What are we doing? Teachers are exhausted. One teacher described a child in his class who spends the whole day playing with a key-ring. The child is instructed to take out a piece of paper and put it on the board. The child needs someone to help him take out the piece of paper. He has to be prompted. This child does not have a special needs assistant, SNA. Teacher education and upskilling is fundamental. I am sure Mr. Cottrell and Mr. Goff would accept this. Have we any figures on the matter? Today I have set about tabling a parliamentary question on that issue.

The model refers to 15% up-front resources and 85% based on the school educational profile. Where does a child with a very specific learning need, difficulty or syndrome - such as ADHD, autism or Asperger's syndrome - or challenging behaviour figure in that 85%? I have grave concerns about very demanding parents, although I understand why they are demanding, putting pressure on a school and their children getting more resources than the child with a very definite need who needs a lot of personal attention. Where do these children figure in this? The standardised test is taken into account. What else is? Syndromes exist and learning difficulties exist independent of social class. I have done research on this area myself. Ultimately, the question I am asking is how effective is the policy of inclusion if we do not have basic teacher training. I have a final question. With this new model, and I understand it is well-intentioned, are individual education plans, IEPs being wiped out? I think it is good - I was watching and listening to Mr. Stack on the monitor upstairs - that people are not waiting for a child to be diagnosed before doing something. However, what if the child's underlying difficulties are not understood by the teacher? That is a critical question.

I welcome the delegates and thank them for the presentations and for outlining the terms of the new model. The questions I was going to ask have already been asked, in particular by Senator Healy Eames. If there is no assessment and no diagnosis, is it for the principal of the school to decide who gets what resource teaching hours? Are we now putting the onus on the principal to make an assessment of the child's needs? I wonder how principals will react to that. As Senator Healy Eames has already stated, parent pressure is a big issue. Are parents now going to be blaming the principal of a school for allocating to Jack more resource teaching hours than Billy? How is that to be managed?

There were a lot of questions. Perhaps if we start with the representative from the National Council for Special Education.

Mr. Eamon Stack

I thank everyone because the session has been very informative and very helpful. Plenty has been asked that we need to reflect on and we will do that. There are two parts to this. There is the new model and its rationale. There is also the implementation or the operational issues. The positive responses so far about the model are very encouraging. I think it is almost unanimous that we need to move to a new model. The legitimate question has been raised of whether we do it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Further, the question of what t's need to be crossed and i's need to be dotted has been asked.

I cannot give the Senator a number on how many teachers at second level or post-primary level have appropriate training. However, we have published a guide for parents. Question 2 and its answer might be helpful. It asks if school principals and teachers are equipped to make decisions about a child's education that previously required a report from a psychologist or other professional. That question is answered although I will not go through that answer in detail now. However, this kind of matter has been dealt with by the working group. We say that the model proposed is the model on which to build the house and the foundations have been laid.

What is the answer, Mr. Stack?

The Senator will be afforded a further opportunity later on.

Ms Mary Byrne

What we say in our booklet is that it must be remembered that assessing children's needs is part of good teaching. Teachers in schools are already engaged in assessing, on an ongoing basis and in a number of different ways, their students' learning needs. They also use their professional judgment on how best to use resources in schools. We would hope this good practice would play an important part in the proposed model, if it is accepted.

However, we have recognised in our papers that schools will need additional guidance in that regard.

We have identified the area of professional training and development of teachers as perhaps the most important element in all of our policy advice. This applies in the most recent paper and in an earlier paper on how children in general should be supported in schools. We have said consistently that the teacher and the quality of teaching in the classroom are probably the most important things in a child's education. In the documents we have set out a framework for the professional development of teachers and our recommendations in that regard. A central concern of the National Council for Special Education is the need to have in place an appropriate framework of professional development for teachers.

In looking at children's needs in schools and identifying and assessing those needs to determine the level of support required in schools, we envisage schools would receive support from the National Educational Psychological Service. NEPS has already issued guidelines around the continuum of support and how children should be supported in schools.

Ms Teresa Griffin

I will echo Ms Byrne's point. In each of our policy advice statements we have identified teacher training as absolutely crucial. However, we need to manage expectations. This proposal is about how to allocate the resources and the use of those resources. It cannot answer every issue. It is simply a mechanism to determine if there is a better way to allocate the resources that are available to the school system. It stems from an equity issue more than anything else. Our supports paper, published in May 2013, had 28 recommendations and this change is simply one of them. For example, in respect of the work of individualised education plans and so forth we have recommended that schools should be required to develop learning plans for students.

There was a question on timelines. The question of timelines is very much a matter for the Department at this stage. The Department hosted a process of consultation last week involving several partners. The assistant secretary said that September 2015 would be the earliest date. That is literally one year away and the change must be introduced at the beginning of a school year. The Department listened to people's concerns and advice but, as far as I know, no decision has been taken on a timeline.

The issue of piloting was brought up. The working group advised the Department to take time to listen to people's concerns. One concern of the National Council for Special Education is the need to support children with special educational needs, ensure they are supported well in schools and that they receive the right amount of supports. We have no wish to send an absolute shock to the system and we do not believe this should necessarily be a shock to the system. There are over 11,000 teachers at the moment in the system. Whether they have received much training, they are in place at the moment and they are working. It is about a fairer distribution of these teachers.

There are three components to the baseline. The working group made a recommendation to the effect that at the top the most weighting should be given to children who had very complex needs, followed by the results of the standardised tests and then the social context. Those are the three components.

Some concern was expressed last week - those of us on the working group were aware of it - on the survey and the use of the survey and estimates. It is fair to say that a good deal of time was spent around the table trying to establish whether we could find another way rather than putting out a survey to schools. Teachers were represented on the working group and it was a matter of concern for us. Actually, the feedback from partners following our consultations was that it was very important for the voice of the principal to be heard when describing the social context of the school. Partners were strong about the need for this voice to be heard.

One question that arose was whether there was one source of information that could give us this information independently and objectively. There was a concern about what would happen if a person from one school did not exaggerate but someone from another school did and this was tossed around. Anyway, the reality is that because of the mobile nature of students they are not simply linked to the demographics of a given area. In many cases there is only one school in an area but in the case of many urban and city schools children travel. One example might be a fee-paying school in a disadvantaged area. If we considered the demographics of that particular area, the school might get many supports but it may not necessarily have a large number of children who need those supports.

An extraordinary amount of time was taken over this. We were advised by the Educational Research Centre that surveying would be an appropriate way to get data. It is not an ideal way but it is a valid way. When the ERC has examined the exercises over the years on DEIS schools, the survey has stood the test of time, even with all of its difficulties. Obviously, we were aware that there would be concern.

Who has access to the information and what happens to it?

Ms Teresa Griffin

The ERC has access to that information. The NCSE does not have access to that information and at the moment the Department does not have access to that information. It is with the ERC and the centre has the original DEIS programme information as well.

Reference was made to moving away from diagnosis. I take on board absolutely the issue of the need to align with other Department of Education and Skills schemes and to consider the impact on other departmental schemes. We emphasised to the Department that it should take time to consider the matter and I know the Department will do so. I will pass on the comments about the need to increase resources for NEPS to the representatives of the service. I imagine they will be delighted to hear that the committee believes support for NEPS needs to be increased. I will pass it on to the Department as well.

Reference was made to the 15% reduction and I wish to clarify the matter. Previously, if a child had a severe and profound learning disability and was attending a mainstream school it would have been unusual. Anyway, the child would have received five hours per week additional resource teaching hours. Some years ago, because of the financial difficulties of the State, that was reduced to four and a half hours and then four hours and 15 minutes. This is the 15% reduction that was referred to. However, to provide some reassurance - I imagine the Department will provide this information - when our original paper was published in 2013 there were approximately 9,600 resource and learning support teachers. The figure is now above 11,000. Therefore, even though the number per child has been reduced, the actual number of teachers being allocated by the Department to the NCSE for us to allocate to schools has increased substantially.

Ms Byrne will address the question on English as an additional language.

There was a question about special needs assistants. I emphasise that the terms of reference were specifically with reference to teaching support and therefore we did not examine the linkages with SNAs.

There was a question on whether it was a cost-neutral model and whether it would have more or less resources. This was a proposal for a better way to allocate whatever level of resources were available. It did not take the level of resources into account. The idea was actually to try to find a better, more equitable and fairer way to allocate resources, whatever the level. The NCSE does not control the level of resources; that is a matter for the Minister.

Reference was made to support teachers and the implications for job descriptions. The emphasis should be on whether support teachers will have an appropriate level of training or access to an appropriate level of training rather than a description stating that they need X amount if they are learning support staff or Y amount if they are resource teachers. We have emphasised in our overall recommendations that every teacher who is acting in this role should have additional training made available to him or her. We believe that is very important.

Is there any outcome data in the existing set-up?

There is very little outcome data when one looks to analyse it. The research is very clear that there is no single best model. It provided the principles that informed the working group's proposals.

One of the working group's recommendations was that there should be some reporting on impact. A figure of 11,000 teachers out of approximately 60,000 is a very significant level of support that is being provided for children with special educational needs. It is very important for parents, schools and ourselves in the NCSE to know the impact this is having on the education of children with special educational needs. Is it the right support? If it were having no impact, for example, that would be a real worry. We would like to collect that data and that is one of our recommendations.

Senator Naughton asked a question about the waiting time for diagnosis. If this were reduced, would this have an impact on our recommendation? Probably not, because a diagnosis in and of itself does not actually inform a school's or a child's real needs. It gives broad indicators, but there is such a spectrum of ability within every category of disability. All the research is telling us that it is the wrong basis to use for the allocation of resources. Children have very complex needs. A child who has many different conditions could just miss out on every single one of the cut-off points. This is a better and a fairer way of doing it.

There was some concern that schools will have nothing, which I would like to clarify. The NCSE absolutely believes in assessment for children. If we take professionals away from having to spend all of their time assessing a diagnosis, they will be able to assess for teaching and learning. That will provide much better quality information to schools.

Deputy Conaghan asked if jumping the queue will be disallowed. It will not be needed for the child to access resources. It does away with the concept that a diagnosis of disability is needed in order to gain access to supports. The supports will be given to the school. Parents may wish to have a child diagnosed - many parents would like a diagnosis to know how they can best help their child - but that is a separate issue. The benefit of this model is that, in school, the child will not have to wait for two or three years in order to access the supports that he or she needs.

Ms Mary Byrne

There were one or two other questions that arose that I would like to address. One concerned English as an additional language, EAL. In our consultations it was put to us that the social context element should include children with English as an additional language because schools felt it would be very important that those children would be included in building the profile of the school.

Another question was asked about junior and senior infants classes, which would not have standardised test results available. We are trying to build a profile of the school, so we would have, or would hope to have information about junior and senior infants pupils who have complex needs. In relation to standardised tests, we would be picking the instances in the school where those tests are done, like second class, fourth class and sixth class, and we would be using those results to build a profile for the rest of the school and that would include the junior and senior infants cohorts.

In addition to the point that Ms Griffin made about us emphasising the importance of assessment, one person asked if this would wipe out individual education plans, IEPs. On the contrary, it places great importance on planning for children in schools and we have recommended that, at the end of the year, schools might provide some information on how the targets that were set in the plans for children were reached. It thus places an importance on individualised planning for children.

One person asked about a child with very high medical needs who might do very well on the standardised STen scores, but might still have learning difficulties in other areas. It is important for people to understand that our proposed model is about how we get the resources into schools. The school can then decide what the needs of the children are. There is nothing in our model that precludes a school from identifying that a child needs particular support in an area.

Ms Lorraine Dempsey

A few of the Deputies raised the issue of affluent parents 'queue jumping' - I believe that was the expression. This came up in the report on special education provision in 2013, and the phrase 'affluent parents' has been used quite regularly since then in relation to assessments. It is a misnomer, because all parents from all socioeconomic groups were trying to find methods to privately fund assessments. It was not just affluent parents. The St. Vincent de Paul was actually helping individual parents to pay up to several hundred euro for psychological assessments, because the parents knew that the overall impact on their family of their child not getting support in education was significant. It was not just rich parents who were trying to obtain private assessments and paying for them. It was all parents. I would like to put that notion to bed.

Senator Healy Eames and one of the Deputies asked about special needs assistants and diagnosis being needed. It should be clarified to avoid confusion, especially for any parents who might be reading the transcript or listening in, that a diagnosis is not needed for an application for SNA support. The needs of the child, though, and the care needs, have to be expressed in the reports and assessments that are sent in with the application. There are children who will never have a diagnosis for the conditions that they have. They are children who would be classed as having syndromes without names. There will never be a diagnosis, yet they might have significant physical care needs, for example. A diagnosis is not actually needed. In some respects we are now looking at a system of teaching allocations where diagnosis will not be needed either, thus taking away pressure.

Deputy O'Brien made reference to the fact that while we are potentially moving towards systems in education, and actually moving towards systems in health, where a diagnosis will not be necessary in order to access supports, it is important that there are still pathways to diagnosis for children. Although diagnosis will inform teaching to some degree, children should be viewed as individuals. Their needs should be assessed, not necessarily whether they have autism or ADHD. Those specific diagnoses have been used to put our children into boxes and if they do not tick the box on the form they get nothing. We have always advocated for moving away from the box-ticking.

Deputy O'Brien referenced several diagnoses. In order to get to grips with what this proposed model is, it is necessary to take off what I would refer to quite frequently as 'disability blinkers'. Do not look at the specific diagnosis, but look to the range of needs within diagnoses. Every child is an individual. Parents will recognise that when they get more familiar with the system. Hopefully communication with parents and educators about what this will mean for their children will alleviate some of the concerns. We are moving from a system where the child has a label and he or she gets X number of hours towards a system where the child's needs are being met. He or she may not necessarily get a prescriptive number of hours and that is something for everyone at this meeting to understand. That special allocation may not be a specific number of hours. It may instead fluctuate throughout the school year depending on the child's needs. It may be two teachers working together within a classroom or working with that child in a group of children. It is a fluid system whereby the schools themselves and the teaching team will hopefully be able to assess the varying needs of the children and how those needs fluctuate depending on different difficulties that arise with the individual children. No child remains static, and their needs never remain static. We hope that the model will allow for that flexibility to meet our children's needs.

On teachers not having that extra level of special educational training, a study found that about 50% of the overall teaching body - 60,000 teachers - did not have additional special educational needs training.

This is a cause of concern. Some teachers will learn when they have good teaching support teams around them, that is, peer learning within the school environment. The teaching profession already assesses children's learning needs, so this other assessment will not be entirely new. As regards assessment tools, being able to differentiate the curricula further and meeting the challenging needs of some children, there should be ease of access for teachers to training and an examination of how it is delivered, especially to part-time teachers. For example, there could be more web-based training. Training in respect of special educational needs, for example, behavioural support, could also be rolled out to special needs assistants. I am not referring to direct education or training, but SNAs currently do not have the luxury of receiving any training that would help the entire school body to meet the children's needs.

Mr. Seán Cottrell

I will address a few questions that have not been answered so far. Everyone needs extra resources, but if a school does a good job and its scores increase, will it be punished by having resources removed? Removing resources from a school that has been effective is a major blow psychologically. This should be kept in mind, as it can be demoralising for people. There are few workplaces where the better one does one's work, the fewer resources one is given to do the same work next year. There may be such places, but I have not encountered them.

I welcome the model. Great work has been done in this regard and I commend the group, but I will make a couple of points. It is a breakthrough in terms of equity, with "equity" being the key word. The model should be extended to include not only children with special needs, but also children facing socioeconomic issues - those in the DEIS programme - Traveller children and children with English as an additional language, EAL. New Zealand has combined aspects and put together a framework. Under its weighting system, a child with autism might be considered the same as, for example, 2.5 non-autistic children, and a child with no English might be considered to be an additional 0.5. In this way, a school with 200 children might have a total allocated resource base of 275, with the extra 75 stemming from the additional weighting. Perhaps this suggestion could be considered. We do not want there to be differences in allocation between different aspects of school life.

I acknowledge Deputy Jim Daly's remarks, but we have never encountered anything like the level of commentary and anger on our helpline for principals about their having to ask parents questions concerning sensitive information, particularly in the case of medium to small-sized schools where everyone knows everyone else. Indeed, the principals might even have taught the parents. The questions are about social welfare payments, whether parents have mortgages, whether they are living in local authority housing, and so on. This is not a good idea. Some people have referred to the advantages it provides and a number of partners may believe it has some value, but I am not sure they would say the same if they had to stand at the school door asking parents these questions.

Guesstimation is not acceptable in today's world. I spoke to the CSO which has not only electoral districts but also small area districts on which it can churn out phenomenal amounts of information. These typically comprise household groups numbering 300 people. The CSO can produce information about, for example, the primary earner in a home, whether family income supplement is being received, whether a mortgage is being paid, parents' education levels, and so forth. The breadth of its information far exceeds what has been collected by the survey. Perhaps the CSO should be reconsidered in this context. The senior official to whom I spoke claimed that producing the relevant data would be possible if the CSO were given the brief. Those data would be based on clusters of 300 people. Principals have no difficulty with providing or reporting data on educational matters, but whether a family is receiving income supplement or paying a mortgage is not a school's business and asking questions like that damages the trust between school and home.

Mr. Pat Goff

I will make a couple of brief points in response to some of the questions. Senator Moloney asked who decided who got what. As Ms Byrne stated, there is a continuum of support. We assess children from junior infants upwards. If someone's support is dropped, it creates a problem, as is currently the case in schools. Many of us operated a support teacher system even before this was introduced. Having resource teachers for Traveller and EAL children meant that those children could have had four or five different teachers. We changed that system years ago in order that a single support teacher would support a particular class grouping. This model is in place in many schools.

Individual educational plans are good practice, and teachers would not want to get rid of anything that is good practice. We need to decide, however, who will receive an IEP. In many schools, if a child receives resource hours, he or she also receives an IEP. If a child is under the general allocation model like the old learning support, however, he or she might have a group IEP only. Schools probably need clarification on who will qualify for IEPs. A large number is not possible.

There is a greater role for the National Educational Psychological Service. We would love to see it doing what it should have been doing, namely, coming to schools and working with teachers, support teachers and children. All that NEPS can do under the current system is make a couple of assessments in order that a child might qualify for resources. In fairness, NEPS is good and I would not quibble with its work. Some of its staff have come to my school.

Profiling and data have always been a problem. Ironically, I am in a band 1 DEIS school, so we had the information to hand and did not experience the same issues. The entire system probably should have been examined this time. The survey questions I answered were those I answered during the mid-1990s on the original survey of disadvantage and in 2005 on the last DEIS survey. The questions for DEIS schools have not changed, so this would have been an ideal opportunity to examine the entire system, although I know there was a different brief.

We do not have a problem with Standard Ten educational norms scores except for the fact they are a narrow measure. They were submitted originally on the basis that they would be used to examine trends in education, literacy and numeracy levels. What we are hearing from principals is that it almost constitutes a breach of trust that the scores are being used to examine staffing levels instead of trends. This is the problem with STen scores, but they are otherwise a good measure of trends.

Initial teacher training presents a good opportunity for the inclusion of a significant element of special needs training. That is where it should be done. There is major concern about potential continuing professional development as this is only one of the initiatives being introduced in schools. For example, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment will be running a number of CPDs on changing the curriculum.

It is not only continuing professional development for one item. It is the overall package coming in to schools.

I apologise for being late. I was delayed. I will get the written transcript from the clerk and read it. I have no wish to repeat any of the issues touched on earlier. It is good to see the consensus that there is room for improvement and that it would be much better to have an equitable model that is fair to everyone. The meat will be in the detail and in knowing how it is applied.

I realise the deputation is not in a position to give a commitment on extra resources but the transition from the current model to the new model will be crucial and there will have to be extra resources. It will be impossible to take teachers out of one school overnight and put them somewhere else, in particular if some schools are going to see a significant drop in their allocation. There will have to be some additionality, even if it is only on a short-term basis, to deal with the change and to ensure the system can be implemented smoothly. To ensure a longer term success the Department will have to bite the bullet on the short-term costs.

Another crucial issue is the survey. I accept all the difficulties with the survey approach but, like everyone else, I see no better way of doing it, unfortunately. One of the difficulties with the DEIS survey is that it is now horrendously and ridiculously out of date, and yet there is an unwillingness to look into it because it would mean additional resources and moving resources and there are always difficulties moving resources from one school to the next.

There are schools whose social profile has changed dramatically in the years since the survey and they are being starved of resources because of the social change. There may be situations in which the principal perhaps was not as creative as she could have been or did not stress the social profile as much as she should have. Perhaps a new principal came in three or four years later only to be left wondering how on earth the school did not have DEIS band 1 status given the group of children and yet there is nothing the new principal can do to change it. It will be crucial not only to get the right type of survey in place in the first place but to ensure a real commitment that it will be reviewed regularly. Otherwise no one will have any faith in the system. The DEIS programme is fantastic but the fact it has not been reviewed is causing issues for schools and resentment in the system. It is long out of date.

The process of transitioning and ensuring the survey is up to date will be crucial in ensuring this works properly. These are both resource issues and, therefore, I respect that they are issues for the Minister more than for anyone before the committee. This will be the meat in respect of whether it works and whether and how it takes off properly as a model.

I thank the deputation for the answers and I appreciate the responses. Everyone is saying we are all in agreement around this table, but it is not a matter of being in agreement as much as getting this right. Answers are still needed. Equity is a prerequisite and I expect we should have equity. We are discussing education as a human right for the child.

I am not about to say all is fine and dandy. I fully accept that every teacher, whether class teacher or subject teacher, is formatively assessing the child all the time and making judgments about the child. There is a major difference, however, between that and the teacher coming to the conclusion a child is not learning and deciding what to do about it. That is the question. Differentiated teaching is an ideal but how does it fit with large numbers in classes? Let us suppose there is a class of 30 children, including a child with Asperger's syndrome, although we may not wish to call it that, a child with autism, children with challenging behaviour or a child who perhaps is having a difficult time at home. It is about coming to grips with all that. I am not about to accept that this is an easy job. That would be to ignore my entire background. Without professional development and upskilling for all teachers, the job is impossible. We are denying the right of children to education appropriate to their needs. What are the plans for professional development of all teachers, including class teachers and subject teachers? I accept it should be a prerequisite at teacher training colleges. That area is improving but there are still many teachers in the system who have not had any such training.

Is there any thought being put into videoconferencing? For example, it could show a classroom with varied needs and how a teacher is responding. There is a considerable difference between knowing a child is not learning and there is something wrong on the surface, and knowing what is underpinning that. Nine tenths of the iceberg is below the surface and that is the professional support to which I refer. I do not accept that all teachers are capable of managing without help. That would be to deny my experience and that of many others. The question remains. What are the plans for a mass offering of upskilling?

Mr. Goff said he is keen to see NEPS in schools more often. What are the plans for speech and language therapists to be devolved into clusters to support schools? I had a child who used to lose three to four hours out of a classroom day by the time she got to Galway for her 45 minutes support and got back to school again. That is not effective deployment of resources, especially not for the child. We should consider a model where there is one speech and language therapist for a set of eight schools. Nothing is as sure as the need for speech and language intervention. The deputation will have the figures from the profiling. I look forward to hearing the answers.

One of my questions concerns the profiling of a school. The deputation touched on it in the recommendations about the possibility of an independent appeals process if a school disagrees with the decision. Will the deputation provide more information on that? Is it something the deputation will tease out in the coming period through consultation? I am unsure whether the deputation is willing or keen or has any views on the proposal from Ms Dempsey in terms of an independent appeals body for all education. What is the position?

Reference was made to the inclusion support service. The book goes into some detail on recommendations and so forth. Will the deputation expand on the inclusion support service and its role, as envisaged, from the implementation process through to how it will operate and who will sit on it? Proposals have been put forward to the effect that the four bodies would come together and amalgamate. Does the deputation have any views on the matter?

I have some questions myself on Ms Dempsey's point that all parents pay for psychological assessment. The committee has often been told that people with more money have an advantage over parents who have to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Is there any evidence of that?

We have discussed profiling. Let us consider the examination of the social context of schools. Could the education and training boards be a resource in this regard? For example, at one stage the local authority in my area carried out a social profiling of Lucan. It produced some information that would not have come out otherwise. We have a large amount of social housing but it is actually private rented accommodation. It is not what is usually counted as traditional social housing. Since education and training boards have a local governance aspect, could they assist schools and perhaps take the matter away from the principal, who may take the view that it is difficult to ask these questions?

When I talk to parents and teachers, one thing that seems to come up often is feedback to the effect that there seem to be a higher number of children with special needs and particular learning needs than there were five or ten years ago. This comes up often. I am unsure whether it is being identified more clearly now or what exactly the dynamic is, but I am keen to hear the views of our guests in this regard because they would probably have a better steer on it than most.

What has the feedback been from teachers and principals on the use of the STen, standard ten, score in standardised testing?

Those that have made a great deal of progress in recent years and that have been particularly successful and performing well in supporting students who need additional supports and, therefore, have improved their test results feel they will be punished and not rewarded under a new system which takes those scores into account, even though they have managed to improve them bit by bit.

The greatest weighting will be given in the allocation of resources to the special educational needs requirement of a school. How will that assessment be conducted under the new system? Who will assess what the special educational needs requirements of a school are? Will the resources be available to ensure that happens?

Ms Teresa Griffin

I should have mentioned earlier that the NCSE is working with and holding meetings with the Teaching Council regarding the need for a comprehensive professional development service to be provided in this area. We have recommended to the Department that upskilling in special education should be mandatory because our previous research has shown that one child in every four learns differently, whether he or she has a special educational need, or is perceived by his or her parents or teachers as having a learning difficulty. It is not simply that there may be one child with such a need in a school; it could potentially be one in every four children in a class. Every teacher needs to be knowledgeable about children who learn differently. We have passed that on to the Teaching Council and we are meeting its representatives in this regard. I understand that special education is a permanent feature of the initial teacher education, ITE, course and the council is working on a framework of continuing professional development for all teachers. It will finalise that over the next year or so. We are, therefore, in the middle of discussions on that. However, our discussions focus very much on the children who have learning difficulties and special educational needs.

With regard to the inclusion and support service and providing additional assistance to schools, one of the aspects that strikes everybody when we take time to look and see where we are now as opposed to where we were 15 or 20 years ago is that many different services have been developed. There is a national behavioural service, a special educational support service to provide training for teachers with special educational needs and many other different services. Over the past few years, there has been a huge turnover in principals. Currently, many principals have little experience. While it was fine to have many different services in the system as long as everybody knew who did what, it became clear during our consultations for our May 2013 paper that there is a great deal of confusion about who does what and there were questions about overlap. One of our recommendations regarding inclusion and support is to bring all the groups and all the functions relating to teacher training, advising schools and so on into one service, which we suggest should be called an inclusion and support service under our management. By bringing people together, there will be clarity and it will be much easier for school administrators to understand what supports can be made available in order that they do not spend all their time ringing one person to be told it is another person and so on. That would be an improvement.

How we envisage that happening will have to be discussed over the next while in that the Department has to agree that such a service would be a good idea but if there was one place for people to go, which provided a holistic service to the school, there would be less opportunity for things to fall between the cracks, which is an issue currently. We also envisage that where schools might enrol a child with special educational needs and they do not have experience in supporting such children, there will be a means within the inclusion and support service to provide an outreach service in the school to help the staff support the child. It would be a good innovation and a good service and it would enhance the ability and capacity of schools to support children with special educational needs, but the details have to be worked out over the next while.

There is a much higher incidence of special needs now than five or ten years ago and we have identified three principal areas in which there has been an increased diagnosis. The first is autism, which is unsurprising given it was only recognised in 1998 and, therefore, one would expect an increase. There is capacity in the system for 1% of children with autism which is in or around the international prevalence rate for the disease. The second is speech and language disorders. This not unconnected with a decision a number of years ago by the HSE to recruit many speech and language therapists leading to an increase in diagnosis. The third area is generally in the category of a physical disability and includes illnesses such as dyspraxia, which were not looked at a number of years ago. We asked the professionals in our paper why they thought there was an increase and they said it was due to increased awareness among parents, teachers and professionals that children do not just sit back in the class not learning and an approach can be taken to reach them and help them to learn.

The Deputy referred to the use of standardised tests and whether schools will be penalised even if they are performing well. One of the examples given earlier was a school helping children in the 30th or 40th percentile and bringing them even higher. It is important to emphasise that the proposal from the working group is that all children who are below average will be counted in developing a school's educational profile. If a child is deemed statistically to be in STen 1, 2 or 3, he or she is below average. That is positive because it increases the number of children who are counted because, currently, it is only the tenth percentile of children who are counted. Every child who is below average will be counted in future and that will assist schools. It must be remembered that the use of standardised tests is only one aspect. There are children with complex needs and there are socio-economic indicators.

On the issue of ETBs being a resource, we examined almost everything that we could and we were desperate not to add to the administrative burden for schools in the survey. No matter what way we looked, people said "But". Ultimately, the working group was persuaded by people wanting the voice of teachers and of principals to be heard. Although there is a recognition that it is difficult, the Educational Research Centre, which will analyse and scrutinise the data provided, has other quality assurance mechanisms it can use. For example, if the staff in a school in a socially advantaged area said 90% of its children was in the first or second STen, there is a natural balance to that. There is also a natural balance in that schools will publish data under the literacy and numeracy strategy. There are nice balances in the system. I appreciate the concern people have but it is just one aspect of the overall role.

There were people who anecdotally were going to moneylenders to get money. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, cannot stand over a system in which parents are so driven as to borrow money, be it from banks, friends or whomever. At one point, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was assisting parents. Placing parents in such a position is unfair regardless of whether they are wealthy. Before resources can be allocated, the system requires a diagnosis of disability that is not readily available to all parents. This is fundamentally inequitable. In addition, affluent parents can jump to the top of the queue.

I will revert to Mr. Stack, but Mr. Goff wished to contribute.

Mr. Pat Goff

I will make two brief points in response to the questions raised. A model for speech and language services is in place, as our school has it. A speech and language therapist attends one day per week. I would love to see this model expanded to include occupational therapists. I am referring to an overall package of support for schools, including the special needs assistants whom I mentioned earlier.

Is that a pilot scheme?

Mr. Pat Goff

No. It is just the practicality on the ground. The workload for a speech and language therapist exists.

Was the decision made by the HSE?

Mr. Pat Goff

Yes. I would love to see it become the policy, as it is a local arrangement that works well.

Regarding the Standard Ten educational norms, STen, scores and whether schools will be penalised, I know of no teacher or principal who will not do the best for the children in front of him and will only worry about next year's resources. Teachers do not think that way. One does the best for the child, and whatever the knock-on effect is, so be it.

For a number of years, the intake at junior infant level caused problems. This was not because the children were not diagnosed, because the free preschool year solved many problems. Certain children could have benefited from a second year, but that was not possible. The free year is outside this committee's remit, but members need to consider the totality of the situation.

I invite Ms Dempsey to contribute, followed by Mr. Stack.

Ms Lorraine Dempsey

On the question of speech and language therapists attending schools, I am involved as a parent representative in the progressing disabilities subgroup within the HSE and the Department of Health under the value for money structure for disability services. Under the current model, services are delivered on the basis of a child's home address. However, a part of that model is the recommendation that services be delivered through schools, where appropriate, for children of school-going age. Speaking as a representative of parents, however, and setting my direct involvement with that framework aside, the resources needed to build this model are not available. Progressing disability services is based on the same principles as this proposed model, namely, equity of access. What it is not necessarily about is the delivery of services, as they are resource dependent. In an ideal world, the model that Mr. Goff has outlined - a speech and language therapist attending a school specifically - makes sense where it is a special school or there is a special class with a cluster of children who require such support. In the current climate, though, and without the ability to provide enough therapists to give that support, it will not happen.

As this is the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection, the matter is slightly outside members' remit, but people should not always view issues in silos. Where children with special educational needs are concerned, education and health are intrinsically linked in terms of support and planning. Government planning and policy must view them this way. One cannot be considered without the other. Although there may be good local models, without the resources to support that framework, the new models for disability, speech and language and occupational therapies - occupational therapy is the next most significant therapy provided into schools, along with psychology - will not provide for such local arrangements unless there are adequate speech and language therapist numbers, for example, on disability network teams. In the view of our parent representative organisation and Inclusion Ireland, which recently issued a report on speech and language therapy services, it is imperative that we adequately resource child disability services, particularly for those aged between five and 18 years where they and their teaching staff are wholly dependent on the inter-relationship. Without resources, one leg of the stool that is required to achieve successful outcomes will be missing.

Mr. Eamon Stack

I will refer to the working group. I did not have to make its members work hard. Rather, they wanted to. The group comprised experts from various fields. Reference has been made to STen scores, surveys and so on. We went around the houses in that regard. We kept reminding ourselves that we were not claiming that this was the best or perfect model, but we do claim that it is a better and more equitable model than what we have now. It is not perfect and there are t's to cross and i's to dot in its implementation and operation. Usefully, many of those t's and i's have been raised by this committee.

Our model is a starting point. International research showed that nowhere was there a perfect model that we could import and apply. We had to start from scratch and develop it as best we could.

If no one has anything to add, we will conclude. I thank the representatives of the NCSE, the Special Needs Parents Association and the Irish Primary Principals Network for their attendance, presentations and replies. I also thank members for their questions. We will consider this issue as it progresses, so we may have further meetings on it.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.10 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 October 2014.
Top
Share