I thank the committee for the opportunity to give voice to that group of special needs pupils who attend our school and all mild general learning difficulty schools throughout the country. They do not seem to have a voice. I have a petition signed by 6,322 people who agree that these cuts are an attack on the most vulnerable children in society and more petitions are on the way. The full presentation I made available to committee members will fill in the background of the points I wish to make.
Cutting the number of SNAs in special schools and for children with special educational needs is wrong, unjust, unfair and quite patronising regarding the work carried out in special schools throughout the country. We are a special school catering for children with mild general learning difficulties but we are among the large number of special schools which describe themselves as "mild plus". The children who present in our schools in 2010 are not the same as those who presented in 1993 when the SERC report was published. Page 166 of that report states the review committee accepted the contention that as more pupils with milder disabilities remain in ordinary schools, some special schools would be required to cater for a greater number of difficult and demanding pupils than heretofore. It also stated this assertion would appear to hold true particularly in the case of special schools traditionally serving pupils with a mild degree of mental or physical handicap. However true that may have been in 1993, it is even more so in 2010 as the complexity of needs of children with a mild learning difficulty involve physical, psychological, medical, emotional, behavioural and educational issues.
All of the needs of the children in our school are listed on pages one and two of our presentation document. This leads to asking what is an appropriate education as outlined in the Education Act and the subsequent EPSEN Act and Disability Act. Our school's aim is to deliver a child into society who is independent, has socialisation skills and the backup of education. The SNAs in special schools help provide an appropriate education. The provision of cookery and woodwork classes and social skills activities for children with mild general learning difficulties without SNA support would be extremely difficult if not impossible on safety grounds alone. The meaningful inclusion of children with other conditions such as autism without SNA support to aid comprehension, socialisation and skill development is extremely difficult in a class where, as Mr. Hennigan stated, all pupils have their own varied and demanding special needs.
Why do special schools appear to be discriminated against under this review? For example, there is inequality in the treatment of professional reports. The professional opinions of teachers and principals should be given as great a credence and weight as those of medical and health professionals who may not even have set foot into our schools and should be valued by the NCSE in the review. Page 10 of the EPSEN Act refers to the fact that an assessment should be carried out with the assistance of persons possessing such expertise and qualifications, including the principal or class teacher. Unfortunately, parts of the EPSEN Act have not been implemented. The principal or teacher is best placed to give a very good professional expert opinion on what the child's needs are in the school.
As Mr. Hennigan stated, there is no mention of any Act subsequent to the SERC report, including the Education Act, the EPSEN Act, the Disabilities Act and health and safety legislation. The SERC report of 1993 is all that is being considered, and that is almost 20 years old. No credence or value is being given to what is happening at special schools today. The NCSE would state that perhaps our schools are better resourced than mainstream schools and we would have to disagree. The pupil-teacher ratio is lower and the SERC report proposes that in a mild special school it should be 11:1. However, unfortunately every child in the class has complex needs. They have a learning disability and other disabilities. We need lower pupil-teacher ratios. Every special class in a special school for children with mild general learning difficulties, GLD, is entitled under the SERC report to a quarter of a special needs assistant, SNA, provision. That is impossible in reality and is an exercise in numbers on paper. That SERC report recommendation should be discarded. Children attending the special school have complex and varied needs and without the smaller classes and additional SNA support we have to enable those children to access their education, the teachers would not be able to do their job and get the children to learn what they can to the best of their potential ability.
It is also recognised that parts of the SERC report may be applied to this review. On page 69 it states, "The fact that special schools are not recognised as post-primary schools has meant that the level of provision which they can make for the teaching of practical subjects is not equivalent to that available in ordinary post-primary schools." It is a straightforward fact that special schools cater for children from the age of four to 18 and yet we are lumped with mainstream primary schools under the national school system. We have needs for those aged 12 to 18.
The review committee of SERC was of the view that special schools should be allocated such resources and personnel as would enable them to develop and implement a sequential range of appropriate programmes for pupils of post-primary age which would prepare them adequately for life at home, at work and in the community at large. It explicitly recommends that the senior sections of special schools should be provided with the necessary resources and personnel to cater for those students capable of following modified forms of the ordinary post-primary school programme.
In our school we have part-time teaching hours for practical subjects such as cookery, woodwork, physical education and music. In 2002, the school was given a guarantee in writing of two SNA posts specifically to help cater for the needs of the senior class students in the school. In 2010, we were informed that this was gone and everything given to the school, even in light of the SERC report, had been withdrawn. The two SNA posts will now not be considered at all despite the Department approving them in 2002. That was part of the SERC report so why was it ignored?
There is a conflict between the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the Department over the role and duties of the SNAs, and that must be addressed. Where are the written criteria described in the care needs that the NCSE quotes to us when representatives arrive in our schools? Circular 07/02 is used as the basis on which this review is also being carried out. The care needs on the first two pages of the circular are quite specific but some of the nine duties listed by the Department of Education and Science as being acceptable, realistic and applicable to SNAs are being ignored by the special education needs organisers, SENOs, coming to the schools and not being afforded the value they deserve.
We cannot find out the needs of the care capacity being applied by the NCSE. We need practical supports for the senior children in the school. With regard to those aged 12 to 18, the Minister stated that the needs of students can increase as they get older and mature. We agree that such students need more support.
Our point of contention with this review is that the severe cuts are unfair, unwarranted and shameful in that they attack the most vulnerable. There is an inequality in the treatment of special needs children in special and mainstream schools and in the taking of reports from principals and teachers that must be addressed. Children with mild general learning disabilities in special schools are not just classic mild cases, they have physical, behavioural, medical, safety, emotional and care needs. The SNA in a special school cannot be compared equitably with an SNA in the mainstream school in their roles.
The holistic service delivered by SNAs in special schools should be supported by the Department and the NCSE. The SERC report should be consigned to history and not the future and the NCSE should act on its own initiative in trying to deliver a better special education service. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 should be implemented rather than having the service going backwards. Under whose authority are these cuts being implemented during the year?