JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION debate -
Tuesday, 18 Oct 2011

Special Educational Needs: Discussion

Chairman

From the Department of Education and Skills I welcome Mr. Jim Mulkerrins, principal officer, and Mr. Terry Reynolds, assistant principal officer, of the special education section, Mr. Hubert Loftus, principal officer in the teacher allocation and school governance-policies section, and Mr. Don Mahon, assistant chief inspector. I welcome Mr. Sé Goulding from the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and Ms Maureen Costello, director, National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of that evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings should be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Mr. Mulkerrins to begin the briefing on current and future proposals for special educational needs, with specific reference to the use of special needs assistants, SNAs, Traveller education from primary level to further education, resource teacher allocation and the number of resource hours available to children with Down's syndrome. I thank him for the comprehensive submission he sent to the committee and I look forward to a good discussion and plenty of questions and answers. He is mad to get going.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. I am delighted to attend. A number of those on the other side of the table will remember my history of sitting in the clerk's chair at this and other committees. I am grateful for the invitation for my colleagues and me to attend this meeting to discuss these important issues.

I have been the principal officer of the Department's special education unit since last May and it may be the case that matters will arise today of which I have no direct experience. In the event that I am not in a position to answer questions, we will be in a position to provide members with material thereafter, but we will do our level best to answer questions as they arise.

During the past decade, there have been significant developments in special education through enhanced provision and new structural and legislative frameworks for the delivery of services to pupils with special educational needs. The Department provides a range of placement options and supports for schools that have enrolled pupils with special educational needs, including SNAs for children with care needs, resource teaching support in mainstream classes and special classes and special school placements supported through lower pupil-teacher ratios. In all, approximately 15% of the entire budget of the Department of Education and Skills, some €1.3 billion, will be spent in support of children with special educational needs this year. This provision is in line with expenditure in 2010.

Some 10,575 whole-time equivalent SNA posts are being provided for primary, post-primary and special schools this school year. It is a significant number of posts and, unlike other areas of the public sector, vacancies are being filled up to this number. This represents an increase over the December 2010 position where 10,543 posts were sanctioned and in place. My Department considers that, with equitable and careful management and distribution of these resources, there will be sufficient posts to provide access to SNA support for all children who require such care support to attend school.

The NCSE has advised all mainstream schools of their SNA allocations for the 2011-12 school year and has published details of these allocations on its website. A review of SNA allocations in special schools is under way. This year, 475 of the 10,575 SNA posts have been retained - we will go into further detail later - in order to allocate them over the remainder of the school year to deal with emergency cases, appeals, acquired new injuries or new school entrants with special care needs. The NCSE expects to respond to emergency cases on hand within the coming weeks.

Regarding Traveller education, significant progress has been made in recent years and evidence shows continuing improvements in positive educational outcomes for Traveller children. A key development in terms of advancing education for the Traveller community has been the report and recommendations for a Traveller education strategy, which covers all aspects of Traveller education from preschool through to further and higher education within a lifelong learning context. The principle of inclusion is at the core of the current strategy and future provision will focus on the development of more inclusive school practices. Future provision will focus on individual educational need rather than Traveller identity.

Improvements in Traveller participation rates in education in recent years have been recorded at primary, post-primary and further education levels. In September 2009, for example, 8,301 Traveller children were enrolled in mainstream primary schools and that compares to just short of 4,000 in 1988, which is much more than double in the space of 20 years. A total of 3,014 Traveller pupils were enrolled in mainstream second level schools in September 2009. That was almost three times the number enrolled in September 2000, which was 1,165. There are also a growing number of Traveller students participating in the back to education initiative and third level courses.

The decision to discontinue some particular Traveller designated services such as resource teachers for Travellers from September 2011 was taken as part of the 2011 budget. In recognition that some schools suffer disproportionately as a consequence of that, alleviation or adjustment measures have been applied to assist those schools with the highest numbers and concentrations of Traveller pupils previously supported by resource teachers for Travellers.

Work is ongoing in the Department to identify what can be done within the limits of remaining resources to address the acknowledged ongoing needs of the Traveller community. To achieve better outcomes for Traveller students, all stakeholders, including parents, educators and Traveller groups, will have to work together to overcome the barriers that impact on educational achievement and encourage greater participation in education by members of the Traveller community.

My Department will also work closely with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, the school completion programme, home school community liaison scheme and Educational Welfare Service of which will have a renewed focus to more effectively target and support all children at risk, including Traveller children. Members will be aware that the NEWB transferred to the new Department earlier this year.

On the allocation of resource teachers, mainstream class teaching posts make up the majority of resources allocated to schools and are allocated on the basis of pupil numbers in schools. Schools also receive additional teaching allocations for resource hours teaching support in order to provide additional teaching for children with certain special educational needs.

Other than in respect of permanent resource teaching posts provided under the general allocation model, resource teaching hours are allocated to schools by the NCSE.

The number of resource teachers to be allocated for 2011 has increased since last year. There were 9,600 whole-time equivalent posts for 2010. For the current school year this number will rise to 9,950, which represents an increase of 350 posts in a calendar year. Notwithstanding this increase, it was recognised that because of the limits imposed on the Department under the employment control framework, it was necessary to introduce prudent controls on the allocation process to allow for demographic increases and to ensure that numbers remained within the overall allocation. Accordingly, based on an analysis of the number of applications received by May of this year, it was decided to allocate 90% of schools' identified resource teacher needs in the first instance. This enabled us and the NCSE to meet the majority of schools' demands while retaining the capacity to cover late or emergency applications and any redeployment gaps that may arise.

Schools were asked to forward as soon as possible any outstanding applications, or additional outstanding materials to support incomplete applications, to the NCSE for consideration but in any event by no later than 16 September 2011. The NCSE is currently considering the applications received up to that date to establish the extent of resource teaching allocation that can be applied to the new applications and whether there is any capacity to revisit the 90% allocation already made.

On the number of resource teaching hours available to children with Down's syndrome, it is the case that pupils with Down's syndrome are entitled to additional teaching support in schools either under the terms of the general allocation model of teaching supports if the child's educational psychological assessment places the pupil in the high incidence disability category of mild or borderline mild intellectual disability or the child may be supported through an allocation of additional teaching or care support or both if the child is assessed as being within the low incidence category of special need, that is, if the child has Down's syndrome in conjunction with a low incidence disability such as moderate general learning disability. As such, Down's syndrome has not been designated as either a high or low incidence disability. Children with Down's syndrome may qualify for teaching support under high or low incidence provision based on the extent of their general learning disability level.

The issue of whether Down's syndrome should be classified as a low incidence disability in all instances, regardless of assessed cognitive ability, has been raised with the Department subsequent to the introduction of the general allocation model, GAM. The issue of whether there is an equitable basis for re-classifying Down's syndrome as a low incidence disability is therefore a matter which is under review by my Department in the context of its review of the general allocation model. I thank the Chairman and the members and I am happy to take questions on that.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Mulkerrins. We will now have questions. I call Deputy Smith.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I join the Chairman in welcoming Mr. Mulkerrins and his colleagues to the meeting. I thank Mr. Mulkerrins for his presentation. Some 475 of the total number of special needs assistants for this school year have yet to be allocated. Schools have been opened since the end of August and it is now two months into the school year. Mr. Mulkerrins said that hopefully the applications will be processed within the next few weeks by which time more than three months of the school year will have elapsed. All members would have received representations from schools and parents who are anxious that decisions would be made as soon as possible. Hopefully, this issue can be resolved as quickly as possible and all the applications that meet the criteria can be approved. Does Mr. Mulkerrins have to hand the number of applications for special needs assistants for this school year that have not yet been approved? He mentioned that a review of the special needs allocations for special schools is under way. I presume that applications for mainstream schools are currently being considered as well.

There is often general commentary, and I do not know how fair it is, that duties are often assigned to special needs assistants that are strictly outside their role. Is this an issue that is being addressed by the Department or by the National Council for Special Education, or is it exaggerated and unfair commentary? We would all have heard mention of this type of misuse of the special needs assistants. I would like to know if the Department has addressed that issue.

Mr. Mulkerrins mentioned that over a 20 year period the number of Traveller children attending mainstream schools has more than doubled. Has a tracking exercise been done on the outcomes for those children as they went on, hopefully, to second level and moved into training or employment? Is there evidence-based research available to show the benefits gained by those children from the Traveller community attending mainstream schools?

An issue arose during the summer regarding the withdrawal of school transport for some children within the Traveller community attending second level schools. Has that impacted on attendance at second level schools? That question may be outside Mr. Mulkerrins's role and if it is not possible for him to answer it today, he might come back to the committee with the relevant answer.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I thank the Deputy for his questions. He has raised a number of issues and I will ask one of my colleagues to respond to one or two of them, in particular the review of the mainstream schools. Working backwards on the questions raised, the Deputy is right in that the issue of school transport is outside my remit. I can provide him with a more detailed response at some stage but, in general, a decision was taken by the Department that in regard to school transport, as is the case in regard to participation in primary and post-primary schools, Traveller children should be mainstreamed. It was determined that having a special provision for Traveller children where Traveller children only would travel on a school bus was not in their interests. As a result, provisions were put in place that Traveller children who did not qualify for the special school transport arrangements would be treated the same as ordinary children who do not qualify under that provision, and that there was in almost all circumstances no need for a special provision. However, some arrangements were put in place in cases of extreme hardship. There were a number of individual cases where arrangements were sought to be put in place because, for example, there might not have been a footpath between a halting site and a school. In those cases, where it was not possible to deal with the issue, special arrangements were put in place but our preference would have been to resolve the real issue, that is, putting the footpath in place rather than putting the school bus in place.

We got down to a micro-management level of the school transport arrangement before the service was removed. It took approximately two years to put all of those arrangements in place. There is no evidence to suggest that post-primary students, or primary students, are attending less at school because of the withdrawal of the service but it is only impacting on school since the beginning of September last and the information would not have been gathered.

With regard to whether there is evidence on outcomes historically, our participation rates for Travellers were surveyed and studied by the visiting teacher service for Travellers. Other work was done at a school level and from some of the research agencies but we got the bulk of our information from the visiting teacher service, which was discontinued at the beginning of this year. The Department is now looking at ways and means of gathering more robust information on participation rates.

Participation rates, lead to outcome rates. There is an issue about gathering outcome data in respect of certain categories of children, particularly Travellers because Travellers have a right not to be self-identified. Nonetheless, the participation rates at examinations have been improving, although, admittedly, slowly. That is indicative of the fact that the strategies in place for the past number of years have been working. The evidence seems to point to the fact that what is working most is the move from segregated provision to mainstream provision at primary, post-primary and further education level, and that includes the closure of the senior Traveller training centres in favour of boosting the provision for back-to-education initiative, BTEI. The provision rates at BTEI and other further level courses have been increasing significantly and that is indicative of the fact that Travellers are now participating in third level courses that are more meaningful than those that were available to them in the senior Traveller training centres.

There is still a very low level of participation at higher education. That is something that is of concern to the Department. The social inclusion unit and the higher education section have been consulting on this in the context of the higher education review. The committee will be familiar with the higher education access route, HEAR, and disability access route to education, DARE, schemes. There is a commitment under the review to give a greater focus to Travellers.

The biggest issue facing Travellers, aside from school transport and from the historic disadvantage associated with the community, is the general antipathy that resides within the community towards education. There is a real fear among the older generation of Travellers, who will admit this in many forums, that education may ultimately end many of the cultural aspects of Traveller lifestyle that they want to retain. There is a recognition of some value for education but it is difficult to bridge the gap for many older Travellers to recognise the absolute importance of education for children. This is evidenced in the poor school attendance rates and participation rates of Travellers.

This is an area that would have been largely the responsibility of the National Education Welfare Board, with the school completion programme, the home school community liaison scheme and the welfare service itself, which has now transferred in its entirety to the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs. We have put arrangements in place for consultation with that new Department to ensure that its focus remains firmly fixed on Travellers to ensure that participation rates continue to be improved because only with improved participation will we get improved outcomes.

On the 475 SNAs, the Department took a prudent decision to retain 475 of the 575 allocated SNAs, essentially to cater for what were expected to be late applications arising when children are simply late enrolling into schools. Initially, the schools were asked to make applications for SNA provision by March of last year. We got the majority of applications submitted and all of those allocations have now been made. However, it was recognised that there would be late applications, late enrolments, emergency cases and late diagnoses and such like which would arise over the course of the summer. We thought that by the end of the first two weeks of the commencement of the new school term we would have a fairly good picture of the totality of requirement. For that reason we set the mid-September deadline. Most of those applications have been submitted and the NCC is currently working on that. My colleague, Mr. Sé Goulding, may wish to elaborate.

Mr. Sé Goulding

To update the committee, as of 16 September we would have had approximately 800 applications received. Not all of these applications would automatically result in additionality in the school. We are focusing on urgent cases and have allocated between 15 and 20 SNAs to schools where there was a clear identified need for an additional SNA in the school. We are focusing on the applications on our hands as our priority relates to the allocation of these supports to schools. As Mr. Mulkerrins stated, we will be taking a prudent approach. We are also planning for the review of the special school sector which will take place over the next three months or so.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Deputy Smith asked about the role of the SNA and the concern that it had expanded beyond what was originally intended. The value for money and policy review of the SNA scheme pointed directly to concerns about the unplanned expansion of the role of the SNA beyond that of care provider. Concerns have been expressed on this issue by schools, individual teachers, principals, groups of management bodies, etc.

I point to page 5 of the brief that we provided to the committee where we point to the actual role and duties of the SNA. There is a degree of flexibility within the listed duties of SNAs but it stops short of the pedagogical role. Essentially, the requirements for SNAs are that they be qualified up to junior certificate level. I suppose the Department would have concern that persons qualified to that level would be engaging in teaching-related duties, particularly for those who are most marginalised and most disadvantaged in the school sector.

We would also be of the view that there is flexibility here within the list of duties so that principals and teachers would have capacity to assign specific tasks and roles to SNA depending on their individual capacities and abilities. The intention here was that the Department would not be rigid in its approach nor that there would be an extension of roles and responsibilities that would intrude upon the teaching roles. It must be also remembered here that not only are there 10,575 SNAs in the system - 10,100 at present - but there are also 9,950 resource teachers and learning support teachers whose role is to support the mainstream class teacher in teaching children with special educational need.

I emphasise that the person with the principal responsibility here is the mainstream class teacher. Every child with a disability is assigned, in the same way as every child without a disability, a class teacher on the basis of the existing pupil-teacher ratio. In special schools, that ratio can be quite low; in mainstream classes in mainstream schools, it is the standard allocation. First and foremost, there is the mainstream class teacher, then there is the resource teacher and learning supporting teacher, to look after the educational needs. Thereafter, care needs have to be addressed and it is the role of the SNA to do that.

The VFM review pointed to a blurring of that relationship. We are anxious that in the context of implementing the recommendations of the VFM review we will address that. We believe that in addressing it we will be able to free up a quantum of the existing resources in order to ensure that those children who could do with additional support can get it from within that.

I should point out on this, because it touches on the area of the reduction of overall levels of SNA, that it is in the context of this review work that we are doing at present that the 227 posts have been identified for what has been categorised as a cut. The reduction in the number to 10,575 has happened by and large because children with care needs whose care needs have diminished had the posts withdrawn. Children who have left school have had the posts withdrawn. We are at a stage where we can say, hand on heart, that in all cases children who require support are getting it. There may well be individual cases where it may be there is a view that more support is required but that is something the NCC can deal with in the context of its ongoing review.

Deputy John Halligan

I thank the officials for what is a comprehensive report. If one were to read it one would imagine there was no shortage of SNAs throughout Ireland. I would not like to give that report to the many families I meet or to the many families who came to the Dáil to protest regarding the provision of SNAs. I chaired a meeting in Waterford some weeks ago which was attended by approximately 400 people, including SNAs, teachers and parents, who all made the same argument that there are not enough SNAs. I have a letter here with me from a school in which it is stated that the NJS has only one SNA currently.

Chairman

The Deputy should not name the school.

Deputy John Halligan

I did not name the school. Originally, that SNA served only one child, but she now serves five. Her first appointment was for a child with significant autistic behaviour. Now she has another with diabetes, a third with emotional behaviour difficulties and so on. At one stage, a letter was sent out to schools - I know it was sent to schools in Waterford - saying that no junior infants class would be allocated special needs assistants in the coming school year, except where the behaviour is extremely challenging and dangerous.

I am not sure how many new pupils start school each year. I think it is approximately 8,000, but I may be wrong about this and perhaps it is significantly more. The difficulty many parents have is with the assessment process and what they need to know is what assessment is made of those children who come into the system. What percentage are assessed for SNAs? The first assessment is always made by the family, who recognise there is something wrong with the child, whether sensory, emotional behaviour or whatever else. Parents are aware of this and then they go to the school. How is the assessment made by the Department? If 8,000 come into the system, the allocation of SNAs should be based on the assessment of the new pupils coming into the system with a problem, perhaps a behavioural problem. This problem is identified first by the family and then by the teacher. Then the pupil is assigned to an SNA, but the SNA in the school may be overburdened. Many are and they would say they have far too many children to deal with. I think it is a fallacy that we have adequate numbers of SNAs, although I do not suggest it is the Department putting that out. We have all met the many families who say that their children are not getting the services and that there are not enough SNAs for the number of children who present with behavioural difficulties.

One further point, how was the situation assessed with regard to the decision to discontinue the Traveller designated services and resource teachers? How did the Department go about making that decision in each area? Was it made city by city or constituency by constituency? How did it make the decisions on resource teachers working with Travellers? I know that the same decision was made in Waterford as in Wexford. How did the Department come to its decision and on what criteria was it based? How did it decide on the limit? Did it decide to limit the number of teachers or did it base the decision on the number of Travellers receiving teaching in particular areas? Traveller families I know feel they are missing out because they are not getting that service.

I would like to put several other questions, but there are many other members who wish to put questions. I am concerned to know how many pupils who come into the system suffer with behavioural difficulties.

Chairman

We may get some time to come back in with further questions at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

The Deputy has raised a number of issues. My colleague, Ms Costello will address the assessment process in detail shortly. The Deputy mentioned the number of SNAs and whether we represent their number as a significant number. Clearly, if we had the capacity to have more, we would be happy to have more, provided they were being utilised as intended and meeting a recognised need.

In 2001, there were just shy of 3,000 SNAs. So far this year, there are 10,100 SNAs and provision for 10,500. This is a significant increase - in excess of 300% in the space of ten years. I do not suggest the increase is too high, but I suggest these SNAs are a significant resource and that a significant amount of public money has been spent on providing that resource. On average, it costs approximately €342 million to provide that number of SNAs and it falls to the Department to ensure that level of resources is managed prudently and that the purpose behind the scheme is being adhered to appropriately and that if there is a surplus within the scheme, it should be identified and withdrawn. We recognise that identifying surpluses and removing them, even in favour of moving them somewhere where they might be more needed, will have an impact on communities, but the impact is often in perception rather than the reality.

I recognise there are real fears among parents and I would be sympathetic, on behalf of the Department, in respect of the real fears that might be expressed. Occasionally, the fears are misguided. We are aware that allocations have been made in respect of children whose care needs will diminish over a period of time. In some cases, the role of the SNA should be to support the development of the individual learning skills of a child or to develop the independent living skills of a child. Sometimes, if an SNA is retained too long, the child is inhibited from developing the independent living skills he or she should develop. In such circumstances, the Department would have a real concern that the SNA would be counter productive in the life of that child and that the care needs would exist long after they should have diminished. This concern has been expressed to us by school bodies and principal and teacher bodies. We are conscious that the SNAs form a large resource that needs to be managed prudently, particularly in the current economic difficulties. We recognise that in the event that there is an identified additional need over the coming years, this will have to be looked at.

We did not look at the issue of the resource teachers for Travellers, RTTs, on a city by city or constituency by constituency basis, but on a school by school basis. I suppose we were restricted by the number of posts that might have been left available to us in order to meet the needs of those schools with high levels of Travellers. It was evident immediately that the disadvantaged schools, the DEIS schools, which represent approximately 22% of the country's schools, had the highest number of Travellers. They account for approximately 50% of the Travellers, which means they outnumber the non-DEIS schools by approximately four to one. As a consequence of that, the DEIS allocation and pupil teacher ratio had to be readjusted in order to include the Traveller children who were not being looked after by RTTs. Essentially, all the Travellers who were attending DEIS schools were not having a significant diminution in service.

Those Travellers who attend the non-DEIS schools are far more dispersed and we had only a small number of schools with high concentrations or high numbers. We set aside teaching posts for schools with 33 or more Travellers and we set aside teaching posts for primary schools with 17% of their enrolment or higher of the Traveller community and post-primary schools with 10% or higher of the Traveller community. We recognise that there will be a number of schools that are close to those limits that do not get any service or alleviation support under this. However, it was always the intention, and good management would dictate, that the learning needs of all children, including Traveller children, in schools should best be supported by the learning support teacher. There is little argument supporting having a designated separate support for Traveller children simply because they are Traveller children. It almost stigmatises and labels Traveller children having this resource in place. It was our intention that under the general allocation model, Traveller children would be counted and supported under the general learning support provisions that are there and that those Traveller children who present with low incidence special needs or just a higher level of special need would be supported under the resource teacher provision. That is the case now. There may be other questions about the level of support that is provided under the general allocation model, but that is for a different part of the discussion.

I will pass over now to Ms Costello who will fill in the members on the assessment process.

Ms Maureen Costello

The Deputy asked about assessing the need of children coming into school for an SNA. Since the Disability Act was enacted, we have worked with the NCSE, the Department and the HSE to ensure that where children are identified as having a need to access this kind of resource, the school will apply to the NCSE, be allocated the resources and put them in place. We have had significant dealings with the HSE and the NCSE and other groups in trying to ensure that children get the access they need to resources in education and have found that there can be a misperception in other areas. We and our colleagues in the HSE have had many meetings to try and outline for people how education and classrooms work and the kind of resources that exist in the schools and to explain where access to a special needs assistant for certain children may be appropriate. However, there has been a trend over a number of years for people who do not work in the education system perhaps to say a particular child must have a full-time SNA beside him or her all the time. Much of the time, this is not appropriate to the child, particularly those coming in at junior infant level and learning to do things with everyone else. Access is often needed. I have spoken on the telephone to parents who were very distressed and when I spoke to them they realised that a person is available in the room but that the child does not need that person and that there are contraindications to having someone glued to the child all the time. That can resolve the problem. Mr. Mulkerrins mentioned the fear factor and that parents fear that if the child does not get what was written down or said, the child's education will suffer. If the child needs this assistance, we will not say that the child will be fine. However, in many cases, there is a case to be made for planning how the child will fit into the particular class and school.

As educational psychologists in the Department, we spend much of our time working with schools on how to use the resources for the pupils who need it most. If a child in junior infants needs this urgently and no other SNA is available, we liaise with our colleagues in the NCSE, carry out an assessment and get in touch. The system is working better than is perceived and much of the concern about SNAs concerns the fear of the parent, who thinks the child will be disadvantaged without it. As psychologists, our job is also to make sure that children have the access to resources if they need it.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

When it is determined that a child needs an SNA, that is not the end of the matter. The NCSE will look at the resources available in the school, where there may be a surplus. The assessment may recommend a certain number of SNA hours and if there is spare capacity in the school, that should be called on first rather than providing a new post. That accounts for much of the work of the NCSE.

Mr. Sé Goulding

The NCSE looks at the care needs as they arise in the professional reports and discusses with the school how the care needs arise in a school setting and their frequency and intensity. We allocate SNA support to schools and schools manage and deploy the level of SNA support to meet the care needs of the children. In excess of 3,100 schools are provided with SNA support and there are approximately 10,100 SNAs in schools. In mainstream schools, there are approximately 13,000 children accessing such SNA support and 5,500 in special schools. SENOs discuss with the principals, teachers, SNAs and, in some cases, the children how SNA support in the school is being managed and applied, how the care needs are arising and schools are then provided with the opportunity to provide details of incidents. Such incidents may relate to behaviour and may involve incident reports. Through that process, we determine the level of SNA support to be allocated to the school to meet the overall care needs of the children concerned.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the witnesses for their reports. I was a school principal with 600 pupils and 12 SNAs. Much of what the witnesses say is correct. Parents present their children and they are terrified because they do not know the school system. A huge mistake was made this summer because the letter went out much too late and principals did not have the chance to inform parents in some cases. Parents were left in limbo and they were upset. They did not know what resource hours or what SNA hours their children were getting. That was not right and it should not happen in future.

The SNA hours are allocated to the school. I was a principal up to six months ago. The Department should write to the parents so that they know exactly what they are entitled to and what their child is entitled to. We must examine the duties and roles of SNAs. This was determined nine or ten years ago and has not changed since. Parents do not understand the role of the SNAs. The junior certificate level of qualification is not appropriate for people who are in a classroom dealing with children. In many instances, whether we like or not, they are teaching children their ABCs, numbers and doing work they should not be doing. We should have teaching assistants or classroom assistants with better qualifications and better training and a recognised qualification across the country because, at present, discrepancies exist.

The increase in SNAs to 10,500 is huge and I ask all our colleagues here to consider what is missing in the system when we introduce the SNAs. I believe that speech therapy and occupational therapy are missing and we should look for a service to be provided in the school to children with autism and Down's syndrome. Some children need help with clothing, feeding, the toilet and general hygiene but for the most part children do not. We must consider how to get speech therapy and occupational therapy into schools because any mother I know with a child with Down's syndrome or autism is mostly worried about the child's speech and communication.

It is important that the message goes out that children are to become independent, not dependent. There is something wrong with the SNAs, the principals or teachers if the child needs the full-time care of an SNA eight years later and is looking for the same support.

A cohort totally ignored in this argument are the children who have gone through our schools with special education needs and SNAs and are now going to secondary school. There is not support or a class to integrate them into mainstream secondary school. We do not need SNAs in those cases but we need special classes. I know at least 12 children in Dún Laoghaire who are leaving sixth class and they have no mainstream school or special class because they are not being accepted. This is not only an argument about SNAs, there is a bigger picture. Too many resources are going into the SNA argument instead of speech therapy. I say this as a parent and as one who has dealt with other parents. They want their children to be able to talk and they want speech therapy. We should write to parents to explain the role of the SNA. Many parents think that the SNAs are for the education of the child.

That message has not gone out and I ask that this committee looks at the bigger picture and put in place supports that differ from the 1999 model. We must look further and I hope my colleagues will support me on this point and support children who really need support.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank Mr. Mulkerrins and his committee for the presentation. I am reminded of a comment made by the Minister for Justice and Equality at the UN to the effect that Ireland may move to having a special ethnic designation for Travellers. I wonder if this will have an impact on the education system and the provision of education for Travellers.

The delegates indicated that the National Educational Welfare Board has come under the aegis of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. What is their view on the fact that there is currently no requirement on parents to send their children to school until they are six years of age? As such, there is little the board can do in respect of enforcing attendance for four and five years olds.

I am a long-time critic of the general allocation model to the extent that it favours larger schools over smaller schools. For example, a child attending a small, disadvantaged school who is in the 40th or 50th percentile for reading - 30% of children are below that level - will not be entitled to resource hours, while the same child, if he or she is enrolled in a larger, middle-class school, will receive that benefit. There is an inequality built into the system which does not target the areas of greatest need. I understand a review of the general allocation model is ongoing, but I ask the delegates to comment on this aspect.

In regard to special needs assistants, will the delegates comment on the availability of private psychological assessments to some schools? I do not wish to cast aspersions on the professionalism of educational psychologists, but it has been proven that schools which are totally dependent on the National Educational Psychological Service receive a lesser allocation of resources compared with those which can avail of private psychological assessments. Will the delegates comment on that?

Do the delegates have a figure for expenditure on taxi transport for pupils with special educational needs? If they do not, I will submit a parliamentary question seeking that information.

On admission policies under the general allocation model, will the delegates comment on the policies of certain schools which restrict access for children with special educational needs? The reality is that some schools have a high proportion of such children, because they do not practise restrictive access policies, while others have a disproportionately low cohort of such students as a consequence of their restrictive policies. What can be done to equalise the system so that every school in receipt of State moneys takes its fair share of children who require additional supports?

In regard to low or high-incidence designations and so on, is it possible for the Department to consider a separate designation entirely for Down's syndrome children and their particular special educational needs? What is the likelihood of thinking outside the box in that regard? I have asked a great number of specific questions and I look forward to the replies.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

Will the delegates explain why children with autism who attend mainstream schools are not eligible for speech therapy whereas those attending a special school will receive the support of a speech and language therapist? It is an inequitable situation.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Before responding to members' questions, I ask Deputy Ó Ríordáin to repeat his point regarding the general allocation model and children with reading difficulties.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

To clarify, the general allocation model benefits children attending larger schools. This means that a child who is in the 40th percentile for reading and who is attending a small school with a high percentage of children with special educational needs will not receive the resources available to his or her counterpart attending a larger school where there is not the same level of special educational need. In other words, where there are two children with the same level of educational disadvantage, the child attending a larger school will benefit from resource services simply because the allocation is done in terms of enrolment, while the child attending a smaller school will miss out.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Does the Deputy's point relate to total enrolment?

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Yes.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I will begin by dealing with Deputy Mitchell O'Connor's questions. We accept that the letter went out very late in the year, which caused some degree of difficulty for schools and perhaps even upset for parents. This year was the first in which the Department has had to operate within a cap. As a consequence of that, new arrangements were put in place, including the arrangements for retaining the 475 posts. We did a good deal of work with the education partners - representative bodies, management bodies and so on - to ensure the arrangements we were putting in place were workable. However, this led, of necessity, to a delay. In addition, this is also the first year of the annualised allocation model. The arrangements in place this year will be refined and improved for next year so that the same problems do not arise. While we accept there was a difficulty this year, it will not be repeated in the future. It arose because of the circumstances in which we found ourselves and the new limit within which we must work. I hope this will address any future concerns that may arise.

There is an issue regarding the information that is being provided to parents. The national co-ordinating committee has been working on an information leaflet for parents explaining the supports being provided to children, including resource teachers and SNAs - what they do, how they are allocated and so on. That process is in the final stages and should obviate the need for individual letters. There is a concern about writing individual letters which may, on the face of it, appear, for example, to contradict a recommendation associated with a private assessment. The Department does not want to get into frightening individual parents where it may not be necessary. In most cases, it will be enough to provide an information leaflet. Many parents, when their children are given an assessment, will contact the Department directly, and our staff deal with parents' concerns on a daily basis. In the vast majority of cases parents go away significantly comforted by that level of exchange. My colleague, Mr. Goulding, may wish to comment further on this presently.

The definition of the role of SNA has drifted over the years. I accept that the duties listed in the brief we provided were formulated several years ago and may well be outdated. It is in this context that we are conducting a review of the value for money audit so that we can consider restating the role. In the event that it requires to be changed, that will be considered. Deputy Mitchell O'Connor suggested there should be a new classification of the role of teaching assistant. That would be a policy issue and it would not be for me to interpret what a Minister might say on it. We will take the message back and feed it into our considerations. I will make the Minister aware of her view on this. Even if we are not looking at reinterpreting or revisiting the role of SNA or even the new teaching assistant role, there are concerns regarding the level of qualifications for the existing set of duties. We will examine that in the context of a review.

I accept the Deputy's point on the independence of children. While recognising that there is a dilemma for SNAs at a human level, it is our view that it should be the SNA's role to promote the independent living skills of children so that they do not remain dependent throughout their lives. We acknowledge that some children will never be able to develop such skills, but in many cases they could and should be developed sooner. There is a problem for SNAs in this regard in that they are essentially working themselves out of a job. We recognise there is work to be done in perhaps making arrangements so that SNAs can be protected from the inevitable consequences of doing their job properly. That will also be analysed in the context of a review.

In terms of speech and language therapy, I do not want to give the simple and trite answer that this is a responsibility for the Health Service Executive. We recognise that the classroom is a good place to introduce speech and language therapies. We recently established a cross-sectoral working group, including our Department, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of Health and a representative of the HSE. Speech and language therapies, as well as psychological assessments, are central to our discussions. That is something we could feed into that working group. I cannot give an answer on what the outcome of that will be but at least the work is being done on it. Ms Costello might want to address that in more detail.

Ms Maureen Costello

To add to what Mr. Mulkerrins said, this work is happening in the Health Service Executive which is designed to ensure that therapies such as speech and language and occupational therapies are made available more equally across the country following on from the primary care initiative. The Department is represented on that working group, which is progressing disability services for children and young people. The idea is that many of the therapies will be provided in schools, where possible, that the team will be available to schools and that there will be a school catchment group. That is the policy direction in that regard. There are only so many resources to go around but at least whatever is available will be shared out in a way that is equitable and targets those most in need but also that, where possible, they would be approaching it by doing the work in the schools.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

That is a great breakthrough. Second level children-----

Chairman

That is not-----

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I know but this is important. Children who have come through the system are now going on to second level-----

Chairman

I presume that was on the list of questions. Mr. Mulkerrins should be given a chance to go through the answers.

On speech therapy, that is a cross-committee discussion with the two committees dealing with education and health. We can discuss this document again and feed into that but it is not an issue for today.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Mr. Goulding might like to mention the National Council for Special Education handbook.

Mr. Sé Goulding

The NCSE is considering how information can be conveyed to parents. We met with a number of parents' organisations in the past few months. We acknowledge that greater clarity is probably required around the role of the special needs assistant in particular, and to that end we are providing an information booklet, which is in the final stages of production, for use by parents. It is a handbook on the way a child's special educational needs can be met in a school setting. We intend that a number of specific pamphlets will be produced following the production of the booklet, which is all part of the plans for this year and next year. The reality for parents is how the schools will manage to deploy the teaching and the SNA supports they are allocated to meet the special educational needs of the children concerned.

On the Deputy's question about the transition to second level, this year the council established an additional 38 special classes in primary and post-primary schools. In terms of the figures it would be approximately 21 primary and 17 post-primary classes. We recognise there are probably a number of children progressing through the primary sector who may need a specialist setting at second level and we are planning in that regard. We recognise that a lead-in time is required to do that planning and to enable the Department to plan. We are examining situations where children may be enrolling in second level now for 2012 and 2013 and are working with the schools in particular areas to determine which schools may establish classes in those years.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank Mr. Goulding. I draw his attention to the fact that there is a particular problem in Dún Laoghaire-----

Chairman

That can probably be dealt with separately afterwards.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

To answer Deputy Ó Riordáin's questions, regarding the Traveller position and the announcement by the Minister at the recent United Nations meeting that he will examine the claim for ethnic status, this time last year the Department was questioning whether there would be a value for separate ethnic status for Travellers because they are being treated as a special category group anyway in terms of provision of supports and resources. The question was raised validly with Traveller groups, in the context of national fora, as to whether there would be any advantage for them in it. I was a member of the National Traveller Monitoring Advisory Committee for four years until last year and I also sat on the Northern Ireland task force for Travellers, the high level group for Travellers and a number of other national fora. I can tell the committee that the Traveller community is fairly evenly split on the question as to whether there would be value in it. I am aware that Pavee Point is progressing the argument by saying it would be of immense value if only just to recognise the difference, so to speak, but other representatives are not in that space. I believe the Department of Justice and Equality is conscious of the fact that going one way or the other on this might create a split. In terms of our own thinking on this issue, until such time as we have seen what is being proposed we do not see it having any impact but if the proposal becomes formal we will examine it and determine whether it will impact.

Regarding the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, and children over the age of six, it is somewhat off our agenda today but if the Chairman would like me to address it I will do so quickly. The Education (Welfare) Act provides that children aged between six and 16 should attend school. In terms of children under the age of six, as the Deputy stated, the NEWB does not have a formal mechanism for addressing children who are not attending school. The Minister is conscious of that and stated publicly in the not too distant past that it is something he would like to examine in due course.

Notwithstanding that, the significant efforts of the NEWB and its associated parts, including the home-school community liaison group, the school completion programme and the welfare officers, are focused on the children under six years of age, the only difference being that they do not issue school attendance notices and they do not prosecute parents of children under six who do not attend school. That is not to say they are being ignored. They are being attended to very well because it was recognised that the earlier the intervention, the more likely it was that bad attendance patterns would not develop but we take the point and the Minister is aware of it.

I will deal briefly with the review of the general allocation model. My colleague, Mr. Loftus, might want to deal with the issue of the allocation of teachers, which is a central issue. On the GAM issue in larger and smaller schools, I am not sure I would agree with the Deputy's analysis that children attending smaller schools do not have the same benefit. The point might be moot because the spread of GAM resources is determined by the 2005 allocation and essentially has not been altered since then. It is anomalous in the extreme and because of that the Department has conducted a review of it and is working towards resolving the issue. There is a need to examine the distribution to ensure it is more equitable. We recognise that currently it is not equitable. Within the distribution there are separate allocation criteria. For example, DEIS schools get a favourable allocation and all-boys schools get a slightly more favourable allocation than all-girls schools, and also small schools. I will hand over to Mr. Loftus who might go into more detail on that and while he is doing so he might also respond to the question on enrolment.

Mr. Hubert Loftus

On the Deputy's comment about the general allocation model, we would be slightly surprised about that and we might talk to him afterwards about it because the way the GAM is structured it is very much geared towards an increased allocation for smaller schools. We might have a word with the Deputy later in terms of the detail on that.

Mr. Mulkerrins made the point that the GAM allocation to schools generally has been in place since 2005 and bar new and developing schools, it is largely unchanged since that time. We are aware of that and it is an issue the Department is anxious to address but it must be dealt with in the climate of fixed ceilings on teacher numbers, etc.

Deputy Ó Riordáin made the point about admission policies and that some schools may be taking a greater share of pupils with special needs than others. Under the Education Act each school operates its own enrolment policy and that is something that is dealt with at school level. The Department would have a view that schools should co-operate in terms of enrolment within their own areas.

In terms of the overall position, in implementing their admission policy schools must comply with equality legislation, etc. They cannot discriminate for certain reasons. Notwithstanding that, the Department is aware of issues. It is not necessarily a huge issue because a review of enrolment policies was done in 2008 which found that it was working reasonably well in many cases but there were instances where it was not working well. Following on from that there was a commitment in the previous programme for Government to develop a better regulatory framework for enrolment policies and our new Minister has followed up on that with the publication earlier this year of a discussion paper. Submissions on that are invited from the various education partners and the public. It was a comprehensive discussion paper that set out the issues, areas and suggestions and how they might be met. The closing date for those submissions is later on this month. The Department will be following through on that in terms of potentially new legislation and regulations, which essentially would strengthen the hand of the Department in terms of dealing with any particular issues and also give better clarity and transparency to the operation of enrolment policies at the school level.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

To return to Deputy Ó Ríordáin's question on the availability of psychological assessments in the better off schools compared to those in the less well off schools, I recall that the Deputy raised the issue during Private Members' business before the summer recess. I was relatively new in the job at that stage and I was surprised when I heard it and I researched it, because that would be a significant concern. I presume the Deputy heard what Ms Maureen Costello, the director of the NEPS had to say in regard to a similar issue, where a privately procured psychological assessments may recommend a quantum of support which may not necessarily be the recommendation of a NEPS psychologist. Since the introduction of the EPSEN Act, the role has been formally assigned to the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, to make the recommendation about the quantum of supports that are required. A private psychologist might make recommendations, the NCSE takes this into account but makes a recommendation based on the allocation criteria which are fixed and rigid. However, there is now a degree of flexibility within a fixed and rigid system where, in the event a special education needs organiser recommends, and has the capacity to recommend, enhanced support for a school, that can be done. In theory, it should not happen that a school in a better off community should have enhanced access to special needs assistant support because of the availability of private psychological assessments. None the less we are conscious of the point. We will be watching this very closely.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

That is fine.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

The Deputy raised the question of the transport and the taxi arrangements. I have no such figures with me, but can provide them to the Deputy.

The Deputy also raised the issue of whether Down's syndrome would be classified as high incidence or low incidence. Perhaps we should look at a separate category. There is a general equity issue and we are conscious that when we make decisions in respect of any category or group - the Deputy mentioned autism earlier - we need to look at whether the same case needs to be made for any other group as well. If there is merit in having a separate category that might extend to other groups. We would be open to suggestions and any discussion on it. We will never be closed as to how we categorise.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I have a question as to why a child with autism in mainstream education is not allowed to get speech therapy while a child that goes into a special class will.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I agree.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

It is under the remit of the Department of Education and Skills.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I was not aware that was a problem in the advanced skills teacher, AST units in the mainstreams schools.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

It is.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I will take up this matter and will come back to the Deputy on it.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I am worried about the child with autism in an ordinary mainstream. They do not get any speech therapy.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

The Deputy is not referring to children in the AST units?

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

No.

Chairman

May we have a report on that?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I will submit one. I would have thought that if a child is in a mainstream class and is capable of engaging in a mainstream class that there may not be a speech and language therapy issue.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

Let me assure Mr. Mulkerrins that there are many children with it.

Chairman

We will follow up on this separately. We will get a report on it as well. We will now take questions from three members, Deputy Collins, Senator Healy Eames and Deputy Butler.

Deputy Joan Collins

What I am hearing is that everything seems to be all right and things are moving on, yet people are still approaching me. The principals are approaching me saying they have problems which are not being resolved. I know I cannot name schools but teachers are being brought from other schools and they are covering three different slots, which is causing problems. One school reports that while in theory the hours are being provided, it was done in the context of a disjoined and unplanned system that does not allow for collaboration between teachers since they are all based in different schools. They were given 23.3 hours out of 25 hours and they did not get a full SNA. There are still major problems.

It has been admitted here that there is a cap on the SNA resources. I am getting reports from another school about children from the Traveller community, where the Traveller resource teacher has been pulled. It is not all rosy in the garden. The problem stems from when the schools were asked, which was late in terms of planning .

Will Mr. Mulkerrins clarify when schools will be approached about their needs for the 2012-13 school year? I understand that 455 special needs assistants have been held in reserve. There are 800 applications and 15 to 20 special needs assistants have been dealt with. How many of those 800 applications received a service? Is it a matter of concern that there are still more applications to be processed when it is almost the end of October?

The point was made that demand has increased substantially since 2007, but the needs have risen since 2007. How confident is the Department that it is meeting the increasing needs and is there a commitment to meeting those needs in the future?

Chairman

If Mr. Mulkerrins has the figure, it might be useful to clarify how many have been refused the support of a special needs assistant.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

It is good to see Mr. Mulkerrins and his team. The idea of the special needs assistant as being the answer to all our problems has been accepted for far too long. Our only concern must be with what will enable the child with special education needs to learn in the mainstream classroom. The SNA is only part of that answer. We had this issue during the last term and now again. The SNA may only be part of the answer.

I agree with Deputy Mitchell O'Connor when she said that we need to look at a school or cluster-based model for speech and language and occupational therapies. We must offer a level playing field for the child in the mainstream classroom. What I have been seeing for a long time, and I have discussed this with schools here and in the UK, is that the missing piece is the parent. Nobody is working with the parent. The parent has the child for 17 or 18 hours a day. The parent is worried and-----

Chairman

We can have a policy discussion on this but today we are dealing with questions that will feed into a policy discussion and recommendations.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

My question is whether the Department has looked at working and providing training for the parents of children with special education needs, particularly when the Department's report points to the fact that a large proportion of the SNAs are allocated to children with behavioural difficulties. Behavioural difficulties are in the home and the school. Of those children with SNA hours, how many have had a professional assessment from a psychologist, a speech and language therapist or an occupational therapist, and not just based on the opinion of a special education needs organiser? How much is spent by the Department on a negative psychological assessment, in other words, a non-result?

This brings me to the upskilling of teachers because the ultimate responsibility for the child with the special education need is the class teacher. Has the Department looked at the upskilling of teachers to conduct basic psychometrics, an initial assessment so that the teacher can say, in a timely way, that one child definitely needs a psychological assessment and should be moved up the list while another child may need learning support. I am keen to hear the response to that. We need to think of the children with special education needs and how to spend the money we are spending in this area to meet that need. It is not just about increasing the number of SNAs, which is only part of the answer.

Chairman

That will become part of the committee discussion.

Deputy Ray Butler

The Deputies have covered the questions I was going to ask. I welcome the fact that the reclassification of Down's syndrome as a low incidence disability is a matter under review by the Department in the context of the review of the general allocation model. I hope this will lead to a great deal of thinking outside the box. There is a young girl in my area who did her junior certificate this year and she received honours in all subjects.

I agree with much of what Deputy Mitchell O'Connor said about speech therapy. My sister has Down's syndrome and is now 40 years old. When she started mainstream school she would not sit down and was sent home. There was no place for her in the school. My late father and my mother had to engage a retired Protestant school teacher and convert the front room of our house into a classroom. The teacher taught Aisling for five days per week in that classroom and environment. We have come a long way in the last 30 years when one sees €1.3 billion being spent on SNAs and helping people with disabilities and Down's syndrome. Many people are to be congratulated on pushing these issues forward.

Of the 475 who were kept back, will all the SNAs be used and when will they be placed in mainstream schools? I am astounded that €1.3 billion is being spent on SNAs and special needs people in mainstream school when one considers the difficulties my parents had to go through 30 years ago.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Deputy Collins's questions applied to all of us. Mr. Hubert Loftus will be able to respond on the distribution of teachers and teachers coming in from other schools. Essentially that is a function of the clustering arrangements that are in place and which, by and large, work very well. He will talk to the committee about that. Mr. Sé Goulding will be able to discuss the process of allocating against the existing level of applications. The Deputy mentioned 800 applications and the Chairman asked how many had been refused. Mr. Goulding can address that.

There is a point which I can address. There is a growing population and as a consequence there is a growing level of need. We recognise that. We are not saying that 10,575 will always be enough to meet the growing population but that within that 10,575 there is spare capacity and surplus. There are SNAs being used for purposes for which they are not intended. There is overlap, duplication and anomalies all over the system. We hear that throughout the country and we recognise that there is job to be done to ensure that children who have care needs continue to have them supported. Those who do not need the SNA should have them removed. There are two reasons for doing that. First, it is a waste of resources and, second, it is counterproductive to the interests of the child. I was discussing this earlier with Mr. Don Mahon, the deputy chief inspector. The Department would be quite strong in ensuring that children's rights in this area are vindicated. However, vindicating their rights is not just a matter of leaving the SNA in place but taking them away when that is appropriate.

Mr. Hubert Loftus will refer to clustering and allocated teachers.

Mr. Hubert Loftus

With regard to clustering, at primary level, in particular, many of the resource teachers are shared posts. They are perhaps full-time in one school but they also work in other schools. This year the arrangements are that all schools that had full-time resource posts were automatically rolled over in the school system. They were available to meet the resource needs in their own school and if there was any surplus capacity in those schools, that was made available to neighbouring schools. Any school that was unable to pick up on that surplus capacity was able to come to the Department directly to get any additional part-time hours that were required.

I accept the point about the lateness in the system. That is something we will examine to see how we can do our business better. This is the first year that the Department was operating with a fixed ceiling on teacher numbers and obviously, as part of that, there is a learning curve for the Department as well. It is something we will examine to see if we can better ensure earlier certainty in the system in terms of teacher numbers and so forth.

Mr. Sé Goulding

There were some queries relating to the NCSE. First, with regard to the new applications process and the closing date, we are commencing discussions with the school management bodies to identify what type of time scale might apply next year. As Hubert Loftus said, it was the first year we were working within a capped environment. We also accept that decisions issued fairly late. In one sense, however, it was a necessary evil because we had to have all applications processed before we could determine what level of SNA support could be allocated to each school. In previous years we processed applications from the schools and gave a decision immediately after completing the process attached to the school. We are in discussions with the management bodies and we will learn from the process that was rolled out this year. We have 87 SENOs and senior SENOs processing the 800 applications on hand. As I mentioned earlier, we hope to have these processed in the next couple of weeks and definitely before Christmas.

With regard to the number that were refused, a number of the 800 applications on hand would be applications that did not necessarily meet the criteria back in June, but the parents or the school might have submitted a further professional report over the summer. We will be better placed to have an analysis of the complete applications process towards the end of the year.

As to the numbers allocated and the numbers that are not, in our last two annual reports we identified the percentage of applications that do not meet the criteria year on year, although I do not have the figures to hand. It could be approximately 20%. In some cases that could be down to care needs not being sufficiently identified or the needs of the child that are identified being almost educational needs or health support needs and therefore a reference is made to access to an SNA perhaps because there is no access to a particular therapeutic support. We will be better placed to have an examination of our applications process towards the end of the year, as was the case in previous years.

Reference was made to the assessment, how many have professional reports and how many are based purely on the decision of the SENO. All applications are supported by professional reports.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

All of them?

Mr. Sé Goulding

Yes. The SENO determines the level of SNA support to be allocated to a school, taking into account the professional reports, the references in those reports to the significant care needs and the frequency and extent of the care needs. The SENO would know to what extent there is already SNA support available to the school and to what extent there might be additional SNA support allocated to schools.

In that regard, generally 80% of SNA support in schools does not change year on year. There is an ebb and flow in different schools. One would find that approximately 20% of schools would receive an increase year on year and 25% or so might be adjusted downwards. There are natural changes happening in allocations to schools, primarily because children are moving on, for example, from primary to second level.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I had other questions.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Yes, I have all the Senator's questions and I will address them now. The Senator mentioned a perception among the public that the SNAs are the answer to our problems. That perception is part of the problem because it does not enable the Department and the NCSE to conduct the level of allocation in the manner in which we would like to do it, because sometimes there is a demand, and sometimes an unreasonable demand, and expectation that the SNA is the answer whereas, in fact, a different level of support or service might be correct. That is a concern we would share with the Senator.

The Senator mentioned the model needed for speech and therapy, language and occupational therapy. As I said earlier, we are working within the cross-sectoral group and examining these issues. Ms Maureen Costello addressed that in her response and I am not sure there is anything I can add.

The Senator is correct that the missing piece is parents. Indeed, working with parents would account for much of what we do, but it is only at telephone level or in correspondence. There is, perhaps, a need for training for parents of children with a special educational need. I wonder whether one would view that need as one that resides primarily within the Department or should reside across the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the HSE and ourselves.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

The Department of Education and Skills should give the lead on it.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I would see that as an issue that we can raise also in the context of the cross-sectoral approach and I undertake to do that.

The Senator asked two other questions about the upskilling of teachers and, in particular, about where we have looked at the conduct of basic psychometric testing and so on. I was involved in a discussion on this early in my tenure in this post but I am not familiar with it. Perhaps, Mr. Mahon will deal with that.

Mr. Don Mahon

We are anxious that class teachers would carry out assessments of children in schools. The Senator may be aware that the Department now provides funding to schools for teachers to carry out assessments at two points in a child's time at primary school - at the end of first class-----

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I refer to assessments that would determine their level of special education need, not the end of year tests.

Mr. Don Mahon

They are important milestones and it is important that they are carried out and the results communicated to parents. However, in regard to carrying out diagnostic assessments, there are learning support and resource teachers in all schools and they have access to courses run and funded by the Department in six centres in the universities and training colleges. Teachers have access to courses, which have an important-----

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

They do not hold when it comes to the SENO, for example. The teacher needs more upskilling in order that he or she dovetails with the psychological assessment that will validate the need for more support for the child.

Mr. Don Mahon

I accept the point but I do not want to go too far down the road of assessment for resources. Any assessments we want educational psychologists to carry out are to give information to teachers and parents as to what intervention should be put in place for children and maybe give some guidance as to how the intervention will be put in place. That is an important part of assessment and the assessments carried out by learning support. The resource teachers identify individual special educational needs of children and they base the programme implemented in the school on those assessments. That is an important part of it.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I am not seeing that level of confidence in teachers.

Chairman

That is a policy change, which we will discuss as a committee. It is not for Mr. Mahon to go over that policy issue. It is a policy change on which he cannot comment.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

He is saying it is there.

Mr. Don Mahon

I believe it is there. The information can be used and provided in discussions between the school and the SENO around an application. That information is given over to SENOs and can be taken into consideration by them. This is valid information that can be taken into consideration.

Chairman

Is the Senator suggesting the teacher can make the decision? That is something we can look at.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Teachers must have more confidence in their own skills relating to the assessment and they do not have that currently. I am interested that Mr. Mahon is saying they have because that is more prevalent than when I was in the classroom observing teachers. It takes too many years for a psychologist assessment of a child about whom there is a doubt. Teachers must have more confidence and a better pathway to identify a child's need because timely support is everything. The child sometimes misses key years and there has to be a closer meeting of minds at that level.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Ms Costello might have a view that might help the committee as well.

Ms Maureen Costello

I take the Senator's point. As Mr. Mahon said, in terms of the kind of work we do, one of our core objectives is to try and have teachers upskilled and have them feel a sense of self-efficacy in terms of teaching and assessing these children. We have also worked hard over the past number of years to get out documents from the Department that NEPS has worked on, which are guidelines for teachers and schools on how to assess the problem at the earliest stage and intervene at the appropriate level. What we are then looking at is an assessment through intervention or response to intervention model. In the past people felt they needed to put their child's name on the waiting list for a psychological assessment, which is counterproductive. If one does that, one will have a list a mile long of children waiting for an assessment, which will not necessarily improve their situation.

We are looking at helping schools to identify, as Mr. Mahon said, what is the appropriate intervention. The learning support teachers can help the mainstream teachers to put it in place. We know the sorts of things that help children who have social, behavioural, learning or reading difficulties and we get going on putting those in place. It is only the children who then have difficulties and fail in that situation that we get more involved with. In this context - earlier a member of the committee expressed concern about the number of assessments available - the psychologist then intervenes at this point and helps the school and resource teachers when we have identified the child who is having difficulty and for whom all the good interventions we have tried do not work. It is much more appropriate to use our resources - there are not that many of us around - most effectively at the level where the child has failed consistently no matter what we have tried and where there is a higher level of need.

Reference was made to children with Down's syndrome. Again, it is a question of need and in terms of the general allocation model, where a child has Down's syndrome, we have circular 02/05, which states clearly that our psychologists must try to help schools to understand that they must give good and adequate teaching time out of their general allocation to a child who has significant needs and not just divide it evenly among all those who have needs. That is our approach. The Senator raised a good point.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I thank Ms Costello.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

The Senator asked about the negative psychological assessments and the cost of same. The question could be broadened to the cost of assessments and the proportion that does not generate a result. Perhaps Ms Costello could send on material on that.

Ms Maureen Costello

It is hard to get it, given the way information is stored. We recently asked the NCCA how we could identify those cases. We tried to do some in NEPS when we move into a school or take on a new school. We try to assess what use they put their psychological assessment to. Where schools have an assigned psychologist from NEPS, the process I referred to earlier is gone through and we try to identify those who need our assessments most. Where schools, for one reason or another such as maternity leave, do not have the assigned psychologist, they can commission a private assessment from a panel we have.

We have anecdotal evidence that some of those assessments are carried out by teachers who feel they just have to jump to the psychologist assessments. This does not always result in resources. It can be helpful to have the outcome of the assessment and the recommendations but many of them do not get resources through the NCSE. I am not sure of the figure.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

That goes back to my original assertion that the more the teacher knows and the more confident he or she is, the less need for negative psychological assessments.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I welcome Deputy Butler's endorsement of the proposed review of the Down's syndrome arrangements. It would anticipate the outcome of the review that it would naturally end up with them being designated as low incidence. I am not too sure that was what he intended to imply. We would not anticipate an outcome of this but we recognise it needs to be looked at.

I also recognise the Deputy's endorsement of what we said about speech therapy. The Deputy asked about the 475 SNAs that have been kept back and whether they will all be used. That is a key question and it is not something we had addressed. They will only be assigned against valid applications but on the basis that there will be valid applications justifying their allocation, they will all be allocated. There is no proposal to keep any back beyond the end of the year.

Deputy Brendan Ryan

It is timely that it is linked. The holding back of 475 SNAs is a departure from previous years. What was the pattern of allocation last year against the 10,543 in terms of timing and demand? Does that pattern suggest that the 475 SNAs will be used given that resources are scarce? Given what we know from our clinics, as a Government Deputy I would be very disappointed if next year the 475 SNAs were not allocated.

Deputy John Lyons

I come from a teaching background, having just come out of the classroom in February so that I am in tune with the debate. The information has been exceptionally informative. It is a pity that the public rounds information has been skewed, leading one to believe that not many SNAs would be allocated. An example of this is the 39 new special classes announced by Mr. Sé Goulding's section earlier in the year, and that not one newspaper, radio station or TV programme picked up on that piece of good news. I was very disappointed but it puts a perspective on the narrative out there. It does not want to speak about what is happening but to skew information and deliver misinformation. In some cases it has used vulnerable people who care about the children's education as the target group. That is unjust.

The challenge for the Department is to communicate the roles and responsibilities of the SNA. It will not change overnight even if one tries to communicate it. Mr. Goulding suggested that a leaflet be compiled. I suggest that if possible we go one step further and arrange local meetings within the school in conjunction with the teachers, the home school liaison teacher or some contact person where people are explicitly told. Sometimes parents do not read the notice that goes home in the journal for the children. We need to ensure the people who need to know about this are informed and it is the responsibility of the witnesses to ensure that happens. The leaflet will just fall short of the table.

There is a misunderstanding in regard to the special education provision. While I do not think she meant it, Deputy Joan Collins mentioned a special needs teacher. That is part of the problem. There is a complete misunderstanding. It is a special needs assistant, very different from that of the role of the teacher. That happens everywhere.

There is a huge discrepancy in regard to the school management team, the principal and the board of management. Ultimately, the resources are handed over to the school and they can be as creative as they wish to ensure best delivery of the available resources. I am aware of examples of 16 and 17 year olds who have a full-time SNA whom they do not need. That must stop. As the witnesses have said that is an injustice to them as well as to somebody else who needs that resource. We need to clamp down on such issues. The role of the SNA is not to make tea and coffee, when it comes to the mid-morning break, or to do some of those other jobs. It highlights the fact that there is a need for other things to be done. That is where somebody has to come in and fill the gap and do what the SNA has been doing.

Ultimately, any policy that a school makes must have special educational needs provision at its core before it begins to make any other decisions. It is clear from all the evidence today that not enough schools practise what they preach which is that special needs should be at the heart of the policy of every school. If every school has special educational needs provision and the needs of those children at the heart of its policy it begins to fan out from there on all of the policies it makes on issues as simple as yard time. When making policy around behaviour in the yard do they think of special needs children before making their decisions? In regard to erecting signs on corridors, do they ensure they can be read by children with special educational needs? I do not think so. The Department has an obligation to hammer home that ultimately, a huge amount of the responsibility for the day-to-day delivery of the service lies with schools. Boards of management, principals and so on must play their role in ensuring that service is delivered on the ground.

Chairman

Again, that is something the committee can take on.

Deputy John Lyons

Yes.

Deputy Nicky McFadden

I apologise for my late arrival. I agree with Mr. Mulkerrins in regard to the waste of special needs assistants. There has been monumental waste in this whole area. I am aware of a child who is as bright as a button but has a deafness problem and wears two hearing aids. The special needs assistant assigned to her is being used by every other facet of the school. That is wrong and I would have a difficulty with it.

In his presentation, Mr. Mulkerrins said that future provision will focus on individual educational need rather than Traveller identity. That is the way forward. We need to look at each child individually. A Traveller parent who came to me has asked that her child be kept back. However, the principal of the school cannot afford to do that because there is a problem in the school. The child is way behind and is not being looked after. His individual educational need is not being looked after. I commend the fact that twice the number of Traveller children attend school as heretofore. However, I am disappointed that resources are being taken away from Travellers.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

There is a fair amount to be covered here. Deputy Brendan Ryan raised the issue of the 475 posts held back, how they will be delivered and the pattern in previous years. To compare with previous years would be misleading because this is the first year we brought forward the March deadline for applications. That did not happen in the past. Essentially what we had was an open-ended arrangement where applications would arise as children were signed on and were enrolled. They could, theoretically, run out over the course of the summer and even into September and October when the bulk of them would be in place and thereafter emergency cases and new enrolments would come on stream. We asked the question in anticipation of the committee asking it and we understand that at present, we have allocated 10,120 posts. We would have been at roughly the same point last year at 10,200, a difference of 80.

We looked at the previous experiences of the NCSE in determining the number we need to hold back. The number of 475 was not just a random number picked out of a hat, it reflected essentially what the allocation process had looked like at various times throughout previous years. On that basis it was a percentage of the overall allocation. It is broadly in line with where we would have been in previous years, notwithstanding the fact that we had an advanced deadline for schools.

Not every school would have been able to cope with that and it was not something we enforced rigidly as we recognised that schools would not be able to comply with it. It helped us for accounting and administrative purposes but we recognised we would allocate by and large the same number as in previous years. It enabled us to retain a sufficient number of posts to meet the emerging needs without breaking the cap. I am aware it has been mentioned in the media but the cap is relevant only on one particular day, that is, the last day of the current financial year. Theoretically, we could go beyond it provided we get back to it by the last day of the financial year.

Deputy Lyons mentioned that the public reaction is a bit skewed. We would see that as being part of the overall problem. Many members mentioned the need for parental guidance, parental training and so on. There is no doubt that would help the public perception. In fact, we had hoped appearing before the committee today would provide a good opportunity to put what is essentially a broadly positive message that there are posts. There is a significant spend on special education needs. Some 10,575 special needs assistants is a good solid number with which to work. I will not say it is too few or too many but it is a very significant resource. This is an opportunity to get that message out there. It was said by the Minister in Private Members' time before the recess but it is worth repeating. We are getting up to allocating the full amount and parents should not be worried or frightened that there are significant cuts currently. There are not. I thank members for the opportunity to raise that.

If there was not such economic turmoil and we were in good times, it would still be prudent to manage the resources and to look at what they are doing. It is through that level of interrogation of what is going on and the prudent restructuring of the governance of it that we will be able to ensure it is meeting its targets and serving the children it needs to serve.

I fully welcome the sentiments on the role of SNAs. I mentioned in response to Deputy Nicky McFadden's point that we have all heard of cases where SNAs are being inappropriately used. Clearly, under the new arrangements in place, we hope to be able to identify that at a much earlier stage and have those resources redirected to where they are needed and would be better used.

In regard to the issue of people needing to be explicitly told, I take the point and it is something we can raise with the NCSE in the context of its production of the information leaflet for parents. There may be opportunities to provide information in different ways to parents. Indeed, we discussed recently with the NCSE its communications policies because there are huge opportunities. The NCSE is a fine organisation full of professional and well qualified people who know what is going on at national, regional and local levels. It has the information to hand and it can be a source of information and comfort to families of children with special education needs. We see that as a useful role for it in the future.

Mr. Sé Goulding

I wish to put everything into perspective. In fairness, we should compliment the bulk of schools which meet the special education needs of children who are enrolled because we resource in excess of 4,000 schools each year with teaching and SNA supports. We work well with the vast majority of these schools where no issues arise between the school and the council or the parents and the council. There are a number of cases where tensions arise and that is understandable. We are trying to work through those issues with the schools and the parents.

In regard to the issue of the pamphlet not being the only way to deal with parents, I agree entirely. I should have said what Mr. Jim Mulkerrins pointed out that we are now trying to develop a communications strategy taking into account that we may not necessarily be engaged in resource allocation on a year round basis which, effectively, consumed an awful lot of the time of the organisation. We hope we will use the information booklet and the pamphlets as one strand of a multifaceted approach whereby we would hold information sessions for schools and parents outside the allocations process. Where communications occur during the allocations process, they generally boil down to what is happening in regard to one's child whereas if we can have these information sessions at a time when the allocations process has been concluded, we will be able to discuss the issues in regard to the role of a special needs assistant and how schools manage and deploy their supports and how we work with professionals in terms of the assessments, etc. at a time when there is no resource allocation at issue.

In regard to the 38 special classes, there was quite a high degree of publicity in respect of the establishment of such classes because we would track the national and the local newspapers and most of these announcements featured in the local newspapers in Galway, Waterford or wherever the special class was established. There would have been some positive comments about the fact that a class was now established in a particular area.

Deputy John Lyons

My point was that the national media chose not to pick it up. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, the national media dictates the narrative that one goes by on a day-to-day basis. The good news local stories always win out in the local newspapers. Unfortunately, the national media did not pick up on it and it was a piece of good news.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Deputy John Lyons's final question related to the need to have special education need at the heart of school policy. Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Don Mahon will speak briefly on that.

Mr. Don Mahon

I very much welcome the comments made in regard to that. I echo some of what Mr. Sé Goulding said earlier about schools. The vast majority of schools have embraced children who at one stage might have been considered vulnerable to exclusion, whether children with special education needs, Traveller children or children who have come from abroad, of whom we have many and for whom English is not their first language. Schools are generally making very stringent efforts to include those children and to arrange their policies, accommodation and arrangements so that all the children get the best chance for an education. When one walks into schools, it is interesting to note the number of languages used. On the bulletin board, one notes the various languages which welcome one to the school. Schools are making great progress and we would encourage them to continue to do that.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Deputy Nicky McFadden raised a number of points and I welcome her endorsement of some of our views on the SNA scheme and on the relatively modest success of Travellers in recent years since the introduction of the Traveller education strategy. The key point of that strategy was that the identity of Traveller children does not necessarily mean they should be educationally disadvantaged or that they should have a special education need. The core point of the strategy was that they should be resourced and supported on the basis of their need rather than simply on the basis of their identity. That element was negotiated with Travellers and they broadly welcomed it.

Notwithstanding that, there are still issues largely vocalised through their representative groups that perhaps quantums of support should remain to support what is essentially a historically disadvantaged group. Since 50% attend DEIS schools, there is still a significant level of support there.

The Deputy raised the case of the parent who wanted the child kept back but the school did not want that. That is an issue which would have to be dealt with outside the scope of this forum and I would be happy to discuss it separately if the Deputy believes we could help to address the concern.

Generally, with the Traveller population, the issue is that of equity and whether they are getting equal treatment and equal opportunities. Historically, they did not get equal opportunities and were essentially being damned by kindness which was not helpful. The current approach is that Traveller children should have higher targets and higher levels of achievement set for them, to which they can reasonably aspire. That starts early but it spreads throughout the lifelong process so there is a reason for children to participate and they have an objective and an aim at the end of it. That is the focus currently.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the witnesses for their very good answers. I was glad to hear them say that children who really have special needs will have special needs assistants in the future.

I wish to ask about one category of children, and Deputy Nicky McFadden mentioned a child who is deaf. I am aware of children who are deaf but who do not have hearing aids. I am also aware of a child who had epilepsy and who lost the power of her voice and cannot communicate. That child has been allocated a special needs assistant. The problem the parents have is that the special needs assistant cannot communicate with the child because the SNA does not have Lámh or Irish sign language.

The witnesses spoke about a review. We need to talk about upskilling our special needs assistants. We should call them something else, and I made that point. What message do the witnesses have for those parents whose child has a special needs assistant who cannot communicate with the child? What is the value of that?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

There are many individual circumstances into which we could get but a number of things are going on in the Department currently. The inspectorate has been doing work on assisting children with hearing impairments as has the NCSE. One of its roles is to provide the Department and Minister with advice on certain areas and significant work has been undertaken in the recent past. We have had a number of presentations on it and are conscious of the various difficulties in the area.

My section operates an assistive technology scheme and makes significant provision for children who require additional help to aid their participation in class. I accept individual cases will fall outside the existing provision and the Department is always willing to consider individual needs and cases.

Mr. Don Mahon

On ISL tuition, the SESS, will support teachers who wish to take courses in ISL. If a child's teacher wishes to take a course he or she could apply to the SESS and get funding. I do not know the extent of funding to SNAs.

Chairman

On the assessment of schools, if the SENO visits a school and is conscious that it is reaching its cap of available people, does that affect his or her judgment? I would like to see a SENO stating a school still needs another person even if one is not available. Is the advice of the SENO that resources are capped, regardless of the needs of a school? We need clarity on that. As policy makers it is best if we know a number of people cannot avail of funding. There is some confusion in schools about who is deciding what.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I could give the Chairman a quick answer and Mr. Goulding could visit the issue in more detail. We have not reached the number yet-----

Chairman

I am asking the question because some principals believe the Department has, and have been told that.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I want to assure them that we have not reached that number yet. When the NCC reviews schools' allocations it may well free up additional resources. While 475 posts have gone, more may be freed from the review of individual circumstances in individual schools. The figure of 475 should not be viewed as a fixed number.

Chairman

It should not, but I fear some SENOs are.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

Mr. Goulding can address that issue.

Mr. Sé Goulding

It is fair to say it is not affecting their judgment. The fact that there is a cap in place affects the process because SENOs were able to make a decision and respond immediately on the basis that there was no cap on numbers. We have systems in place to ensure that if a SENO in west Cork is considering allocating an SNA to a school we are aware of it and are taking it into account to ensure there is a consistency of approach, whether in west Cork or Donegal.

I mentioned we received 800 applications and I expected the figure to rise slightly. The general trends we experienced since we took over this job in 2005 is that 60% to 65% of applications for SNA support are received from April to June when children seek to enrol in schools. We have to bear in mind what we are resourcing. There are children with identified special educational needs, and there is no question that they have those needs. However, we need to determine to what extent they have care needs.

The bulk of children with significant care needs currently enrolled in schools, such as children with physical needs, toileting, self-care, etc., have already had their needs identified. Between now and the end of the year we need to identify children whose needs may gradually or suddenly emerge. With a cohort of 475 SNAs left to be allocated we are fairly confident we can allocate them. We are not asking SENOs to take a different approach. However, we need to ensure we are on top of the allocations process as it is rolled out. We will probably check in on a monthly basis to ensure we are within the cap.

Chairman

That will be useful for schools. I have some final questions. One concerns a policy issue. Many schools tell us it would be better to allocate a number of SNAs to schools and let them manage them. A lot of money is spent on administration and conducting checks and investigations. Is that part of the review? Is it something the committee can work on? Is the concept viable or has it been decided not to proceed?

We have discussed instances where parents demand an SNA. In some cases they are doing the opposite and do not recognise that their child needs extra support. That causes difficulties for schools in terms of getting assessments done. Is that a major problem or can it be fixed? Is it an issue we need to examine?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I would be happy if the Chairman decided to stop there. In terms of allocating SNAs to schools rather than individual children, it is a policy question therefore I will not get into its merits. However, there are issues the committee might consider. We essentially allocate SNAs to schools but the criteria for allocation are the care needs of the children attending them. Where we allocate SNAs in respect of those identified care needs, the allocation is essentially given to the schools and they are charged with managing that resource.

If we dispensed with that and said that a school, based on its size, would receive X quantum of SNA support we would then have to consider its impact on schools' policies of enrolling children with and without care needs. If there was a school with ten SNAs which did not enrol children with care needs we would be before the committee with a larger difficulty. We have to get around the issue. If the committee wanted to comment on the review of enrolment policies which is on the website it is something we could consider.

Chairman

Is the review specifically examining that?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

It is-----

Chairman

I am concerned about the money spent on administration. It may be better used doing other jobs. Has the issue been examined in the context of value for money?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

It is not something I am fully aware of. I have been advised about 600 schools that do not have any SNAs because they do not have children with care needs.

Chairman

That might answer the question.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

On parents not wanting their children to have SNAs, in some cases it is good practice but in others it might create difficulties for schools. Very few schools would not have some level of SNA support they cannot use discreetly in the event that there is an emergency or immediate need. Schools are responsible for managing the resource. If a parent has expressed a preference, a school needs to deal with him or her to identify where the crisis point might be.

Chairman

We are aware that in some cases it is cultural issue, which puts pressure on schools which are trying to compete.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I appreciate that and I take the point. It is not something that has been brought to our attention.

Chairman

Is Mr. Mulkerrins the point of contact for members who might have concerns? Sometimes we come across cases which we believe are extreme or have slipped through the net. Who is the best person in the Department to contact?

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

In terms of the allocation of SNAs it is the NCSE because it manages the process. I am the point of contact for everything else that was discussed today, with the exception of Travellers which is the responsibility of the social inclusion unit in the Department.

Chairman

We might need to have further engagement with the delegates because the committee will do a lot of work on the issue. We might revert to them over the next couple of months. I thank them for the informative discussion today.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 October 2011.