Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Mar 2010

Special Educational Needs: Discussion with Interested Parties.

I propose holding a private session at the end of the formal part of the meeting because of time constraints. Is that agreed? Agreed. We have a busy agenda, considering the matter of special education. This was originally proposed as a round table discussion with a number of schools along with the IMPACT trade union. Due to time constraints, members indicated that it would be more useful for the issues raised by the visiting delegations to be put directly to the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the Department of Education and Science. In that context, I will grant leeway to the group making presentations. They should stick to the three-minute limit on presentations but if they have key points they want to emphasise, I will grant leeway. The quid pro quo is that the delegations will not be able to speak afterwards but I have asked the clerk of the committee to assist me in providing cards to the delegations or those in the Gallery who may have pertinent questions they want committee members to ask. Members are also capable of asking their questions but if the delegation wishes to raise questions with the NCSE through the elected Members of the Oireachtas, there is a facility for these comments to be collected and handed to committee members, particularly the lead Opposition spokesperson and the Government spokesperson.

I welcome Mr. Brendan Hennigan, principal of St. Joseph's Special School, Balrothery, Tallaght; Ms Fiona Byrne, principal, St. Anthony's Special School, Castlebar, County Mayo; Ms Sinéad McLaughlin, principal, Scoil Íosagáin, Buncrana; Ms Siobhán Keyes-Ryan, principal, Scoil Aonghusa, Cashel, County Tipperary; and Mr. Phillip Mullen, assistant general secretary of IMPACT trade union. We have been provided with an e-mail from Ms Bernadette O'Grady, principal of Scoil Catríona, Renmore, County Galway. Following a review, the school has retained all existing teacher and SNA posts and the principal does not feel the school has any issues to raise at this meeting. In the circumstances, she declined the invitation. Other schools would like to attend this meeting but, given the time constraints and the fact that some had been before this committee already, we were not in a position to invite them. A number of representatives are in the Gallery and they are also allowed to provide information and questions to committee members.

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

Mr. Brendan Hennigan

I am the principal of St. Joseph's Special School in Tallaght, a school catering for people with mild general learning disabilities and associated disabilities. We held a review of our SNA postings in October and the review findings were published in February 2010. The board of management and the entire school community are of the opinion that this review was seriously flawed on a number of grounds. From the outset the SENOs seemed determined to achieve large staff reductions irrespective of arguments put by school staff, me or the board of management. They failed to seek the opinions of parents, staff, the principal or the board of management. They requested documents from outside professionals only, including psychological reports, occupational therapy reports and reports from consultant doctors but no signed reports from the teachers or the principal. The review lacked openness, transparency and proper consultation. There was no negotiation or agreement with the board of management. There was no reference to the social or economic circumstances of the students. There was no task analysis of the SNAs who were to lose their jobs. No evidence was produced to show that eight people were unemployed.

The criteria used by the NCSE was the SERC criteria, which was researched in the early 1990s and published in 1993. These criteria are outdated and inappropriate. They were published prior to health and safety legislation, child protection measures, individualised teaching known as IEP, modern parental expectations, modern teaching methodologies, the revised curriculum of 1999, the Education Act, the EPSEN Act and the SNA scheme. In the early 1990s, there were a handful of child care assistants available in special education. The SERC criteria are not generally experienced as adversely in mainstream schools because resource teachers teach children on a one to one basis. They take one child at a time, four or five a day. The equivalent teacher in a special school, under the SERC criteria, will work all day with at least 11 children, making individual teaching and learning programmes impossible. In a special school, the SERC criteria are experienced like a black hole in space, sucking the life blood out of a school. The SERC criteria impose a ratio of at least 11 students to one teacher in a mild general learning disability school. It withdraws all SNA support from the child. If a child has a mild general learning disability only, the child has no access to special needs assistants unless he or she has a significant associated disability.

The Department of Education and Science, the NCSE and the SERC criteria attempt to impose a strict designation on schools. We have been informed by the NCSE that we should not have enrolled 23 of our students and that we should only enrol children who fall within the narrow band of intellectual functioning without associated disabilities. This is at odds with the Education Act, which insists on parental choice and requires a school to offer a place to a pupil provided it has the space and the ability to meet his or her needs. Its provision for inclusion has led to schools throughout Ireland accepting children with a range of abilities and disabilities. Now the Minister and the NCSE are telling us we should refuse all children who do not have a strict mild general learning disability diagnosis. Why are they discriminating against us?

The SERC criteria roll the clock back 20 years, to the early 1990s. Can members imagine the outcry if the health service was returned to 1993? That is happening in special schools. Let us consider the effects of the recent review. The NCSE ordered the board of management to dismiss eight staff members in the middle of the school year. To do so in the middle of a school year is unheard of. A school organises its staff at the beginning of a year and organises the pupils and classes around that. To take out eight people in the middle of the school year, weeks prior to the exams, is inhumane and should never occur again.

The board of management believes that without the eight people who will lose their jobs it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee the safety and well-being of students and staff because we have a significant number of children with behavioural and emotional problems. The NCSE ignored custom, practice and legislation by reverting to SERC criteria on enrolment. Over the past 17 years, since the SERC report was published, the Department inspectorate encouraged mild general learning difficulty schools, such as ours, to broaden their enrolment policy to include children who had a range of disabilities other than mild general learning difficulties. Without warning, the SERC criteria have been resurrected and are being strictly implemented. This means that we must revert to being a mild general learning difficulty school only and we feel this is unfair to our students and staff.

I recognise that many children with mild general learning difficulties should attend their local mainstream schools. Many do so and I am very happy that is the case as often it is the best option. However, there is a section of the mild general learning difficulty population who, as well as having a low IQ, also suffer from psychological, social, emotional and educational disorders. These children often begin their schooling in their local mainstream school but they fail to prosper in this environment for a number of reasons. Most of our students attended mainstream schools before coming to us. They come to us because they require more adult supervision than is available in mainstream schools. They require a more individualised education programme and the intimacy that a school such as ours can offer. In such a school they do well and they thrive. We would like the NCSE to consider this and to consider supporting and promoting such a school.

The 17 year old Department and NCSE criteria being used hurt these children. The criteria operate as one single formula applied to mainstream schools — urban, rural, large, small, secondary and primary — throughout the country. They operate like a broad brushstroke covering everything in its wake. The criteria take away the intimate, individualised environment I have spoken of by depleting the staff, which is the lifeblood of a school.

At St. Joseph's, in common with many mild general learning difficulty schools in Ireland, we have developed an expertise in teaching unmotivated and often disruptive and disturbed pupils to pass with good grades the junior certificate and leaving certificate applied, and to achieve highly in FETAC programmes. We achieve this through the expertise of the teaching staff and with the help of our special needs assistants. By dramatically reducing our staff, the Minister for Education and Science is reducing the opportunity and level of achievement of these students. We need a high level of teacher and special needs assistant staffing to achieve certification for all our pupils. The new policy will have dramatic effects on the education of mild general learning difficulty students in special schools throughout Ireland and we ask how this could be happening.

Will the members of the committee help us to ensure that vulnerable children such as those about whom I am speaking do not suffer? Our children have already failed in mainstream schooling. Do we want to remove staff and risk them failing again due to excessive staff cuts? I encourage the Department of Education and Science and the NCSE to treat our students and parents with respect and compassion. On behalf of this small section of the school-going population, I plead with the Department to recognise the value of our schools and to recognise the wonderful things that happen in special schools throughout Ireland. I plead with the Department not to roll back the clock 20 years and destroy the achievements of an entire generation.

I plead with members of the committee to ask the Minister to set out new and modern criteria which would reflect educational as well as care needs; at present the focus is on care needs but educational needs also need to be considered. I plead with the Department of Education and Science to recognise that our schools are refuges for children who require a specialised education. I want the committee to help us to ensure that the State sees to it that children with mild general learning difficulties and associated difficulties are given what they need to take their place alongside their mainstream colleagues and to contribute to the future of this country.

Ms Fiona Byrne

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?

I apologise but I will have to ask Ms Byrne to conclude. Her points have been well made.

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

I am the principal of Scoil Íosagáin, a mainstream primary school in Buncrana, County Donegal, with an enrolment of 700 pupils. There are 25 classes for pupils from junior infants to sixth class, as well as six classes for pupils with special educational needs, including classes for children with autism and moderate and severe and profound general learning disabilities. There is a staff of 41 teachers and 25 SNAs, two of whom were appointed in September 2009.

All pupils with a diagnosed special educational need follow individual education plans and in some cases individual behaviour plans. All pupils with special needs have an opportunity to integrate with their peers who do not have special needs in an inclusive educational setting.

I am concerned that the reduction in the levels of SNAs and teachers in our schools will remove the child from the hub of the teaching and learning process and dilute the philosophy of our primary education system which enshrines and espouses a child-centred curriculum for all pupils, including those with special needs. I am concerned that the legal entitlement of pupils with special educational needs to have the same right to avail of and benefit from appropriate education, as do their peers who do not have such needs as defined for the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, will be denied if there are reductions in the numbers of SNAs and teachers.

An appropriate education, while a somewhat ambiguous term, can be characterised as the correct or best education for the child. It is an education that reflects individual strengths and needs and sets long-term goals and short-term objectives. It results from collaboration among parents, school staff, other professionals and, where appropriate, the child. An appropriate education recognises that if basic needs are not met, the child will not meet his or her potential. It is an education that provides the resources and interventions necessary to ensure targets are achieved and goals are realised.

An appropriate education that is child-centred requires individual education planning that focuses on a child's strengths and needs. There should be methodologies and approaches suiting the child's learning style, including intensive one-to-one teaching and group learning opportunities where appropriate. Successful individual education plans will ensure the right of the child to leave school with the skills necessary to participate to the level of their capacity in an inclusive way in the social and economic activities of society and live independent and fulfilled lives as outlined in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act.

The appointment of a special needs assistant to meet a child's care needs has been a significant and enlightened development in Irish education and a key resource for our children. The role of an SNA is clearly defined in circular 17/02 in so far as it relates to the child's care needs, and it goes without saying that the child's educational needs are on the flip side of the same coin. SNAs are recruited specifically to assist in the care of pupils with disabilities in an educational context.

Only when the child's care needs are properly addressed can any engagement in the learning process take place. Providing for the biological, physical and safety needs of the individual, as outlined in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, is a prerequisite to ensuring personal growth and fulfilment. The special needs assistant plays an indispensable role in meeting such needs by assisting with toileting, feeding, personal hygiene, mobility, medical procedures, communication and in supporting behaviour modification in order that the child can access and benefit from the primary school curriculum.

I am concerned that reductions in the numbers of SNAs and teachers in our schools will cause increased and unmanageable levels of challenging behaviour in our classrooms, resulting in serious injury to children and staff. Unfortunately, in many of our schools there are frequent incidents of a critical nature every day. If a child with special educational needs does not receive an appropriate education taking account of their individual strengths and needs, they may be marginalised within the school community and society in general.

I am worried about the mental health of children whose individual needs are not met and whose individual strengths are not developed, where opportunities for success are not experienced and where anxieties and fears are not managed. Studies show that children with a learning disability are at a higher risk of mental health difficulties than children who do not have a learning disability. The prevalence of mental health problems is considered to be two and half to four times higher in children with an intellectual disability than those with normal intelligence.

I am concerned that the recommendations in the special education review committee, SERC, report of 1993 relating to pupil-teacher ratio and SNA provision in special classes, if applied in the context of a revised primary school curriculum where all pupils have a right underpinned in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act to an appropriate education, will invalidate such rights, turning them into aspirations rather than entitlement. SERC was published in a very different educational climate before the advent of rights-based education as enshrined in the Education Act 1998, the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, the Equal Status Act and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Investment in special education, therefore, must remain a priority.

To summarise, my concerns are that the principles of the primary school curriculum, which is child-centred and requires support for pupils to access and participate fully in it, will be compromised. The legal entitlement of pupils with special educational needs to have the same right to avail of and benefit from appropriate education as do their peers, as defined in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, will be denied. The legal entitlement of pupils to leave school with skills necessary to participate, to the level of their capacity and in an inclusive way, in the social and economic activities of society will not be attainable. Pupils' care needs will not be met and therefore personal growth and fulfilment will not be achieved. Levels of challenging behaviour will escalate, resulting in increased injury to pupils and staff, and pupils will be at increased risk of developing mental health difficulties.

I thank Ms McLaughlin. We now call on Ms Siobhan Keyes-Ryan, the principal of Scoil Aonghusa.

Ms Siobhán Keyes-Ryan

Scoil Aonghusa special school, Cashel, County Tipperary, was founded in 1978 as a school for children with moderate general learning difficulties. Since 1995 and 1997, respectively, the school now also caters for students with severe to profound general learning difficulties and students with a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and moderate or severe to profound general learning difficulties. Currently, the school has 64 students with a range of disabilities including intellectual, physical, social, emotional, behavioural and sensory. The majority have a diagnosis of a specific syndrome such as Down's syndrome, but the disabilities of others are non-specific, such as disabilities resulting from brain damage at birth.

All students attending Scoil Aonghusa have been recommended for special schooling by a psychological assessment deeming that both their level of intelligence and their adaptive functioning are significantly impaired and that they require an education specific to their individual learning profile, which, when provided and supported in a co-operative fashion among parents, school staff and other professionals, will enable them to grow and develop to their maximum potential. Our review was carried out in October 2009. We started the process with 30 SNAs, and we had eight new applications for September of that year. We ended the process with 30 SNAs. One could surmise it was a game of numbers.

We are all familiar with the Education Act 1998 and the reference to the constitutional right of children with special educational needs or those who have a disability to an appropriate education to meet their needs and abilities. The EPSEN Act 2004 provides for an appropriate education for all children, including those with special educational needs — an education from which they will benefit and which will allow them to acquire skills to participate to the level of their capacity in society. There is no doubt that in theory there has been much support for special education in the last number of years. However, one decade into the 21st century, we as schools are now seeing a serious threat to the delivery of appropriate education in the form of cuts in human resources — that is, SNAs and teachers.

Throughout the country there are up to 40 schools catering for the needs of children with moderate and severe to profound general learning difficulties. The principals of these schools would strongly agree there has been a drastic change in the level of functioning of children attending these schools. No longer is the presentation of a child with moderate learning difficulties straightforward or textbook. The majority of students now have more complex needs and are presenting with multiple difficulties, such as physical, behavioural, sensory and medical difficulties. These added complexities require a full range of supports for the school and students, enabling them to access the curriculum and a full school life.

The 1993 special education review committee, SERC, report was a ground-breaking document of its time in the context of the Irish special education system, and supported a vision of an education system that featured a continuum of educational provision to meet a continuum of special educational needs. This report was followed by the Education Act 1998, the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the EPSEN Act 2004.

All of these documents were clear indicators that special education needed to move forward towards appropriate provision but, while they were obviously well intentioned, one would have to surmise that these documents are largely aspirational, as we now find ourselves in the 2009-2010 school year reviewing SNA resources allocated under the criteria of SERC in 1993. Under these criteria, within the allocation of general class staffing, a class of pupils with moderate learning difficulties should have a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1 with an SNA resource of 0.5, while a severe to profound class or an autism spectrum disorder, ASD, class has a ratio of 6:1 and two SNAs. The allocation of 0.5 SNAs, or 16 hours of special needs assistance, to meet the needs of a class of eight children with moderate learning difficulties is in no way adequate to deal with the level and complexity of needs in such a class. SERC is outdated and is not in touch with the realities of a special school in 2010.

As educationalists, we have the incredibly important task of improving the educational welfare of children with special needs. It is fair to say these children are the most vulnerable in our society. We undertake to accept each child as an individual, and this is a starting point in the educational process. Although all the children fit the criteria of functioning with a moderate or severe to profound general learning difficulty, one size does not fit all, and each will access the full curriculum on an individual basis. This is no mean task for a teacher of children with such complex needs and, while a multi-disciplinary approach is recommended in an IEP — that is, individual education plan — formulation, the reality is that most schools do not have sufficient access to clinicians, so it is the expertise and experience of the school staff, in conjunction with the parents, that is used to plan and deal with these issues. Yet we find that when resources are required or questioned, it is the clinician's report that carries weight in the decision process. The voices of the principal and class teacher are insignificant, although they are the main professionals involved with these children on a daily basis.

All school principals were informed of the SNA review process and the format it would take. It was stated on the correspondence received that the review would be broadly based on SERC and key circulars from the Department of Education and Science; any allocation above this would be reviewed and discussed during the process but would require sufficient paperwork from relevant clinical professionals stating the specific need, either care, sensory or behavioural. While on paper the needs were clearly stated, and evidence given to support this, a visit to a classroom gives only a snapshot of the true picture and level of need within the setting. A student who, on paper, is recommended support for behavioural issues but who, on observation, does not have an incident cannot be concluded to have a diminishing need. The reality is that the student is coping due to the presence of SNA support around him or her.

Similarly, support sanctioned on grounds of care needs cannot be disposed of as quickly as may be desirable. Care needs within the special school setting are ongoing; while they may diminish in one area, there are other skills that must be taught and built on. As these students develop they face all the normal challenges of growing up but, for them, the gap is widening all the time. Coping skills must be taught alongside an understanding of what is happening to them. We must consider the total child and not just specific areas in isolation.

I must ask Ms Keyes-Ryan to conclude.

We have three special schools and one mainstream school before the committee today. When the National Council for Special Education comes in it will be considering the wider issue as well as the specific impact on special schools. In that context, the IMPACT trade union made a request to appear before the committee because its members are at the coalface and can speak about both contexts. I ask Mr. Phillip Mullen to speak for five minutes.

Mr. Philip Mullen

IMPACT is concerned that the current round of cuts to the SNA service are not driven by a reasoned approach to the needs of children. We believe they are driven more by crude and ultimately bogus financial considerations — that is, they are driven by the conclusions of the McCarthy report rather than by any attempt to vindicate the rights of children with special educational needs in a fair and efficient manner.

All stakeholders accept that while there is an obvious need to ensure the service delivers in a cost-effective and transparently accountable way, it must continue to be a needs-based service with the best interests of children at its heart. Special needs assistants are committed to finding better ways to provide for the children with whom they work, as long as the rights of these children are protected and their needs met. They must also have confidence that their entitlements as employees are similarly respected.

In November 2008, we made a submission to the value for money and policy review of the SNA scheme which made suggestions for more efficient use of resources and spoke of the need for clarification of the role of special needs assistants, professional qualifications and the basis of employment which would best facilitate redeployment of staff as required. Our contention is that the outcome of that review would have provided a better and more reasoned approach to ensuring that the rights of these vulnerable children were protected.

The failure to fully implement the EPSEN Act 2004 is at the root of our current difficulties. There is inadequate provision for an independent appeals procedure and, ultimately, we do not feel the rights of children with special needs are being fully vindicated. The appeals procedure introduced by the NCSE from 22 February this year is too late to address the bulk of the recent cuts and, in any case, fails to meet the standards of natural justice for which we hope.

The independent review is restricted to examining the process applied rather than the decision made in respect of the child's needs. In its current form, the appeals procedure merely reviews NCSE, National Council for Special Education, internal decisions. Ultimately, the outcome is that jobs are shed from the system despite a continuing need for the service. While the procedure is drawn out, vulnerable children will lose out on continuing access to education which the EPSEN Act is supposed to facilitate. The reality is that we are dealing with a system which evolved and developed on its own without proper strategic planning. Clearly, this is something that must be addressed. Our belief is that it must be addressed in the cold light of dawn with everyone on the same sheet agreeing from the start that this is about providing for the needs of children.

If one could buy a machine that could do the job of the people I represent better than they do, they would build the machine. It is unusual to find my trade union in the position of representing special needs assistants while sitting beside people who I would normally meet in a managerial capacity, but we are totally at one on this issue. We also believe the political will is necessary to provide for the needs of these children. The people within the NCSE and the Department of Education and Science all share the same goal as us but, for some reason, it is not happening. We should focus on ensuring that what we all seek is delivered at the end of the day rather than getting bogged down in the detail of the blame game.

We believe we need to plan this system better and we are pleased to engage with that process. We believe the basis of employment could be better to allow for redeployment of staff and to ensure a consistent delivery of the service throughout the country. This is something that must be addressed and I do not believe any of the stakeholders would have a problem with that.

We believe the EPSEN Act should be fully implemented, especially in respect of the appeal against decisions made. As it is currently constituted, if my child was losing out because of a decision that I did not agree with, I could not walk away from that appeal system with the view that he or she had a fair hearing. We call on the committee to intervene in this regard. I realise the committee has many questions for the people in the NCSE and I will take up no more of the committee's time.

I thank Mr. Mullen and all the other principals for coming in and providing us with a very informative briefing which, hopefully, will queue up the members for questioning with the NCSE and the Department of Education and Science. To facilitate a changeover in the Chair we will go into private session.

Sitting suspended at 10.53 a.m. and resumed at 10.55 a.m.

A Dáil vote has now been called. Normally we allow the bells to ring for six minutes and then we leg it to the Chamber and come back again. However, given that the vote has just been signalled, I do not want the NCSE delegation to start and then have to interrupt it mid-stream. If people could remember where they were sitting, some of the notes have been handed out for anyone who has any questions they wish committee members to ask.

The bell will ring for ten minutes and it will then take another two or three minutes. There will be approximately 15 minutes for people to go upstairs and have a coffee, relax and then come back after the vote. We will suspend the meeting. It is a crucial issue for many Members. We cannot proceed with an ad hoc arrangement because we have to go and vote. I have taken the decision to give people a break for 15 minutes and go straight into the NCSE presentation at 11.15 a.m.

Sitting suspended at 10.55 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.

I welcome the National Council for Special Education delegation, including Mr. Sydney Blain, chairman, Mr. Pat Curtin, chief executive officer, Mr. Sé Goulding, head of operations, and Ms Mary Byrne, special education adviser. The NCSE will brief the committee today on a number of issues, one of which is the overview of the nature of the review being carried out on special needs assistants and its impact on the wider education sector, which would be of interest to mainstream schools. We also want to examine the reduction in SNAs and the numbers of teachers in special needs schools and whether the review is in conflict with the roll-out of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act which was passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas six years ago. I understand the NCSE delegation was in the Gallery for the previous presentations, so I will dispense with the advice on privilege. I ask Mr. Curtin to begin his briefing.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I thank the Chair and committee for the invitation to address the allocation of SNAs. I have already made a written submission to the committee which I am sure has been circulated, so I will not discuss it verbatim. I will try to address some of the key issues which might help to enlighten our discussion in terms of questions and answers. The discussion I heard this morning was much broader than the issues which I was asked to address. However, during the question and answer session we will do our best to address some of the wider questions in so far as they are within our compass.

It is useful for me to comment on the status of the organisation. It is a statutory body established under the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. In our operations we are required to implement the policies of the Minister for Education and Science, which includes resource allocation and other areas. I would like to elaborate on several issues which might be helpful to our future discussions. These are the role of the SNAs; our understanding of care needs; and the NCSE approach to decision making on resource allocation generally. Special needs assistants are recruited specifically to assessed schools to make suitable provision for pupils with special educational needs who have additional care needs. Understanding this is important. Not all children with special educational needs will have special care needs and that is a core issue to help our understanding. Those care needs are significant arising from a disability and may be in the area of physical or sensory impairment, an underlying medical condition or very significant behavioural issues arising from a variety of sources. It is important that in making our decisions we consider that. We are required to do so in the policy framework for addressing the issues.

SNAs are employed in schools under the supervision of the principal and operate under teacher direction. It is important to understand that SNAs are neither teachers nor assistant teachers. They are recruited on the basis of helping with care needs and helping a child to participate in and benefit from education. It is very useful to understand that care needs may be permanent. However, they may also be temporary or transient. In addressing those care needs, we need to have an objective, which is to enable the child to participate in the educational programmes in the school and help the child to develop independent living and socialisation skills, if they are issues, and to adjust behaviour through behavioural programmes. This is to prepare the child for living outside and beyond the school system. We would celebrate a reduction in those care needs and the need for a lesser level of support for the child. We achieve one of the aims of education by increasing the independence and socialisation of that child. We must also be very mindful of cases where a child needs continued support and ensure it continues to be available. That is our focus in looking generally at the provision of special educational support for these children, particularly SNA support.

With regard to the NCSE approach to allocating SNA resources, we are required under Department policy to have a professional report that diagnosed a disability in the first instance and identified the care needs. That is a starting point. Beyond that, we need to gather evidence from the school on the issues. What are the care needs? What evidence has been provided? What level of support should be provided from within the school? We need evidence of the frequency of the care need and how it occurs over the school week. We look at the possibility of how that care need may be met in a meaningful way from within the school's existing resources. Not every care need requires the allocation of a full-time SNA. We need to look at how the resources already in the school can be used to manage efficiently and effectively providing the supports needed to that individual child. The issue may not always be a dispute on whether the child has care needs and whether any resource is provided. It may be how that assistance can be provided from the resources available to the school. The issue I want to emphasis is that this is our method of allocation. We receive applications from schools, usually at this time of the year with a view to intakes in future years. That is a key issue as to how we go about our business.

In the limited time available to me I want to address specifically the questions posed to us on the overall SNA review being conducted at present. On the basis of a request from the Minister we undertook a review of SNA allocations because, as committee members are aware, the Minister had reservations about the use of SNAs in some schools and whether they were being deployed appropriately in accordance with the terms of the policy. In conducting this review, I emphasise that there was no change in policy. The method in which we examined schools and addressed the issues is precisely the same as in a normal application process. There was neither a cap nor a target set on the numbers of SNAs that should emerge at the end of the review. The approach we took in the review process was the same in special and mainstream schools.

An important factor in our allocation of SNA resources is that unlike other areas, there is neither a cap on numbers nor a financial cap. If we determine there is a need that requires additional resources in a school they can be provided forthwith. It stands to reason that we can immediately sanction a resource in such a case. If we find a resource over the allocated requirement, it needs to be withdrawn. We appreciate that we need to target resources at the areas of most need at any given time. In a review or allocation process there will be schools that get increases in SNA allocations and those whose allocations will decrease. Many schools will stay static.

I was asked to focus specifically on the reduction of SNAs in special schools. It is exactly the same for special schools.

Specifically in terms of making changes mid-term.

Mr. Pat Curtin

In terms of mid-term changes, at any time during the course of the year regardless of a review we examine applications for additional resources and we provide them at that time. The increase would be on the basis of the needs of the children. We were asked to ensure that in the course of the review if we identified SNA allocations which were not in accordance with the policy parameters we would address them forthwith. I have been asked to address the reduction. It is fair to say that exactly the same position will apply to special schools. Some will remain the same, some will have increases and some will have reductions. There are specific issues arising in special schools, especially in schools for those with a mild general learning disability. In many of these, because of increased inclusion, total enrolment would have been falling in recent years while staffing levels may have remained static. That may indicate a greater gap between what would be sustainable under the policy and what would be sustainable for the present cohort of pupils on its own. However, I acknowledge fully the points made by the schools that many of the schools for children with a mild general learning disabilityhave a greater variety of disability within them and would cater for children with greater needs.

In addressing the allocation we have not applied the criteria for mild general learning disability to those children. If we have children with autism or a severe and profound disability, we apply the criteria appropriate for that level and resource accordingly. Therefore, very few, if any, schools for those with a mild general learning disability are restricted to the SERC report limitations. The SERC support is a baseline support at this stage and there are significantly more resources in many of these schools because of the individual examination of the needs of children than would be designated by the SERC report recommendations.

I have been asked to address the issue of the full implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act and whether this review impacts on it. My firm view is that it does not for the reason that the Act, if fully implemented, would confer rights on children with special educational needs in several specific areas, especially in regard to assessment and the provision of an individual education plan and to an appeal process for schools and parents in regard to decisions in those areas. It does not, however, provide any specific resourcing level or type of resource to be provided. Obviously, that is provided within the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act for the Ministers for Education and Science and Health and Children of the day to develop policies in respect of those which would be consistent with the Act. The review of resources does not have an impact on the full implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. That is a separate and distinct issue.

Thank you. Other members of the delegation will get questions that might be relevant to their areas of expertise. I wish to lay down a couple of the ground rules given that we are under time constraints. We have been delayed and there could be more Dáil votes. I propose to allow the lead spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party, the lead spokesperson for the Labour Party and the convener of the Fianna Fáil Party five minutes each for questioning, which will include an opportunity to come in and out. After that, I propose to allow each other member two and a half minutes. After two minutes I will give a 30 second warning. Because of the time constraints I will be very strict on that which I hope will allow people to come back in later with follow-up questions. If members have a question that is related to a question somebody else is asking and it is relevant, I will allow a quick intervention. I ask members to play fair in this context, otherwise some members will not get a chance to speak. If we all adhere to the rules, we will have a very interesting debate. In that context I will start with Deputy Brian Hayes.

It is not appropriate to cut people off in the context of a strict adherence to two and a half minutes if they are in the middle of a contribution. I ask for some flexibility in that.

There is flexibility. When I spoke to the clerk I was originally going to allow two minutes to each member. I am allowing members 30 seconds to wind up. Given the high standard of debate in these Houses, any member would be able to wind up within 30 seconds. I am sorry I have to be strict today. Normally I allow a good deal of leeway but there is a very high Oireachtas attendance and we have to share the time fairly.

I thank the Chairman and welcome the National Council for Special Education and all the schools that have participated in this debate. I thank Mr. Curtin for his presentation. Since the start of this review, how many posts have been withdrawn by the NCSE?

Mr. Pat Curtin

This is an ongoing review.

I apologise to Mr. Curtin but I have a limited time.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes.

I listened patiently to Mr. Curtin. This is a committee where Mr. Curtin has been asked to give evidence. The NCSE is a statutory body. Moneys have been voted to it from this House. May I have the number please?

Mr. Pat Curtin

At this point in time I cannot give a number because it is changing every day. It would be unfair on the school and the school system.

With respect to the NCSE and Mr. Curtin, this is a committee of the Oireachtas made up of Senators and Deputies which has asked us to work. We expect statutory bodies, in the evidence they present, to be up-front and honest about that evidence. Mr. Curtin is the chief executive of this organisation and he cannot tell me, since the start of this review, how many posts have been withdrawn.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The number of posts withdrawn over this review would be part of this review, part of the ongoing applications process, and would vary from school to school. We are concluding this review at the end of which——

With respect to Mr. Curtin, this committee is taking evidence now. We have asked the NCSE, as a statutory body, to appear before the committee and give evidence to this committee.

It would be helpful if I clarified whether Mr. Curtin is actually aware of the number or whether he is not in a position to give the number.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I am not in a position to give a number now.

Mr. Curtin will not give it. With respect, does Mr. Curtin know the total number of SNAs who have been withdrawn from the system since the start of this review?

Mr. Pat Curtin

No. If I was——

He does not. As the chief executive of an organisation he does not know that.

Mr. Pat Curtin

If I was to give——

Mr. Curtin does not know that.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I am trying to explain myself and to be very straightforward with the committee as one would expect of me. I have an ongoing review with new results coming in each day, right around the country——

What is the current position?

Mr. Pat Curtin

——and there are issues from school to school in relation to how many are withdrawn.

I find it incredible that Mr. Curtin, as the chief executive of an organisation established under statute and accountable to this House and to the people of this country, cannot tell me the number of posts he has withdrawn from the system to date.

Deputy Hayes has asked a question. It may be that Mr. Curtin considers it is not pertinent to answer the question. In that context, will he clarify the reasons he is not in a position to answer it.

I know the reasons.

For the benefit of the committee——

I have a related question to Deputy Hayes' question.

Not yet.

Mr. Pat Curtin

In regard to this issue, this is an ongoing process. There are schools being reviewed day on day. There is a final figure——

Does Mr. Curtin have the information, yes or no?

Mr. Pat Curtin

As of now I do not have that information with me today.

Will the Deputy please move on to another question?

I will. This is quite extraordinary that Mr. Curtin——

Can that response be furnished to the members when the information comes to hand?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The request to the council was that we would carry out this review in total and that we would report to the Minister on it. First, I have to report to my council in regard to the outcome of the review and then report to the Minister. I think that is appropriate.

Mr. Curtin has the information but he is not telling this committee.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The information is changing literally day on day.

On a point of order——

I am in possession.

On a point of order that I believe will be helpful——

Is it a point of order?

It is a point of order. On 24 February, information given to my office indicated that 250 to 300 special needs assistants were cut at that point. I am trying to be helpful.

I thank the Senator. The record will show that Mr. Curtin has not answered the question I put. I find it extraordinary that an organisation established by statute by this Parliament cannot give evidence to this committee on a straight question, given that it is supposed to report to its counsel by the 24th of this month, as I understand it. It is extraordinary that Mr. Curtin does not know the current number of posts he has withdrawn.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The current number is changing and I do not want to give erroneous or misleading information to the committee.

I will move on to another question. Could Mr. Curtin confirm to the committee that when the review process was started, no appeals system was in place?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes.

On that issue alone, if my child had a special need, an SNA was appointed to my child but lost that SNA and I decided to take a judicial review in the courts, would the courts not take a dim view of Mr. Curtin's organisation for not putting in place not only an appeals system but an independent appeals system were I to challenge that decision?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I will deal with that by referring to two issues. We have now put in place an appeals system. It is not an independent appeals system. Under its establishment arrangements our organisation is not in a position to put in place an independent appeals system as a council.

Has Mr. Curtin got legal advice on that? He set up a process which had no independent appeals system from day one — he admitted that in his evidence to the committee — and he expects the courts to take a good view of that.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not know the view the courts will take.

On another issue——

I will allow the Deputy ask one more question.

——the special education review committee, SERC, criteria have been in place for 17 years. Does Mr. Curtin believe it is appropriate to have criteria that are 17 years old when the most recent report from Dr. Ware and Dr. Travers, of which Mr. Curtin is probably aware, found evidence of increasing complexity and severity of pupils' needs in special schools?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The SERC report is the basis of departmental policy and I am obliged to apply departmental policy. I am also prohibited from commenting on departmental policy but——

Can I ask Mr. Curtin——

Mr. Pat Curtin

Would the Deputy allow me comment on the SERC report and the de facto position? The de facto position, as I have already stated to the committee, is that the SERC report ratios of staffing for schools form a base line. All of the schools are now examined on the basis of the individual needs of the pupils in those schools and they are resourced far above that base line. That is done across the system.

I want to ask Mr. Curtin a final question before other colleagues contribute. Mr. Curtin has told the committee that there is no change in policy. He has not been able to tell the committee the number of SNAs he has withdrawn but he said there is no change in policy and that the Minister asked him to do this review on the basis of value for money. Is it Mr. Curtin's view——

Mr. Pat Curtin

Sorry, Deputy——

I know the value for money aspect is separate but the Minister asked Mr. Curtin to do the review initially on the basis that he felt some of the SNAs were misplaced. I put it to Mr. Curtin that the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, has been asked effectively to do the Minister's dirty work for him in this review process.

Mr. Pat Curtin

No. I cannot accept that. We have been asked to carry out our statutory functions, to ensure we apply them equally and equitably across the system, to ensure we operate competently in accordance with the policy, to ensure in this time of scarce resources that the resources are directed to where they are most needed and that, if there is a freeing up of need, those resources are redirected to areas where there is most need.

Mr. Curtin and his colleagues are welcome. We are all citizens and equal in this State and Mr. Curtin must not feel he has to defend something with which he is not comfortable or that he is being interrogated about something for which he is responsible. Mr. Curtin's statutory responsibility, ultimately, is to the Oireachtas, not to the Minister. The Minister is the intermediary but we, the citizens, who elect the Members of the Oireachtas hold the ultimate responsibility under this Republic and its Constitution.

I will return to the question asked by my colleague, Deputy Brian Hayes, but I will put it another way. Does Mr. Curtin know the number of additional SNAs, approximately, that have been appointed in the past six months? Does he have that number?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not have those figures here.

Can Mr. Curtin furnish the committee with those figures within a short period?

I ask the question because Mr. Curtin said earlier that the figure is constantly changing. I accept that because on the basis of what he said, and I am not an expert in this area and most of the people in this room know far more about this issue than me, I understand that a report comes in, a decision is made and an SNA is appointed. That is a net additional person but Mr. Curtin must know the approximate number. Was it 100 or 200 additional SNAs which are subtracted from the number of those who no longer need an SNA? I ask Mr. Curtin to recognise that his ultimate responsibility is not to protect the Minister but to do his job, which is to report, ultimately, to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I appreciate that, but the issue of accuracy arises also. I must be accurate in regard to figures I do.

I would live with an order of magnitude at this stage.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The 200 to 300 figure already mentioned is probably reflective of the order of magnitude across the entire country.

Based on 1,000 schools being reviewed, which is what I was told. I say that for clarification purposes.

Is that an increase or a decrease?

Mr. Pat Curtin

It is probably a decrease but I must put a caveat on that——

I accept the caveat.

Mr. Pat Curtin

There is an outcome——

I do not want to be rude and interrupt Mr. Curtin but I have time constraints and I want to ask two other questions. How does Mr. Curtin, as a professional civil servant, deal with the reference in his organisation's document to the fact that the critical factor in the allocation of SNAs by a special education needs organiser, SENO, is that the care needs must be identified in a report from the health professional or education psychologist who diagnosed the disability? It further states that such a test costs in or around €1,000 and asks whether the person who will adjudicate on whether that person gets an SNA have the same level of qualifications. Will they be a matched professional who will be able to evaluate whether a colleague professional had said that Seamus or Sheena needs a particular level of special needs assistance? It is not an educational care but a special needs assistant to enable them do their job. How does Mr. Curtin feel about somebody making a decision without the same level of qualifications and adjudicating and rejecting a recommendation for an SNA?

Mr. Pat Curtin

It is not about the same level of qualification. There are three distinct inputs to trying to determine the level of support needs to be provided in the school to assist a child. A very reasonable one is that the person who identified the disability will help to identify the needs and articulate those needs. Another is to examine those needs in the school context and how they impinge on that child getting full participation in the educational programmes and in terms of the way the school can manage and facilitate that. Another input is to examine the resource already available in the school and how that might be managed efficiently and effectively.

On that point, when the SENO makes the decision to deny the SNA on the basis that resources are already available and freely disposable within the school, does the SENO in question consult with the school principal or with any others to determine if such a resource is available?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Absolutely. This process would go on in discussion with teachers and principals in the school. It is fair to say that there is not always a meeting of minds on that nor would one expect that to be the case.

Mr. Curtin could assume that the resources available to a principal are far in excess of what he or she believes are available.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I would not assume that. Any decision here must be sustained by evidence that would be provided or the absence of evidence in certain cases where somebody might take a particular case. It is not an opinion, it is a decision.

I am conscious of the time available and I have a final question. I am not trying to put Mr. Curtin on the spot but I ask this question in the spirit in which we are all here today. There is a general understanding in this territory among educationalists, Oireachtas Members and people in the special needs area that an instruction, request, direction or suggestion has been given by the Department of Education and Science to reduce the number of special needs assistants by approximately 10%, which would result in the removal of approximately 1,000 from the system. Has Mr. Curtin received such an instruction or has such an instruction been intimated to him in any way?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I can absolutely refute that. I have not received any instruction — oral, written or implied — to that effect. The one instruction I have received is to ensure current policy is applied.

I call Deputy Flynn.

I welcome the representatives from the schools and from the NCSE.

In terms of the ballpark figure that between 200 and 300 SNAs have lost their jobs, how many hours have SNAs lost? I refer to SNAs that have retained their positions but whose hours have been reduced as a result of the review. Does Mr. Curtin have that information to hand?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not have that information. I must explain to the committee that we operate on the basis of identifying the reduction that should occur in a school. The school would be the decision maker in terms of what SNA may leave the school or what reduction in the hours of an SNA or SNAs may occur to achieve that reduction.

I would like that information made available because I do not believe the figure of between 200 and 300 accurately reflects the number of hours in this respect that have been removed from schools. Has any school that has been reviewed to date had any additional resources added?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes.

In how many school has that occurred?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not have that figure readily to hand.

Can Mr. Curtin give me a ballpark figure? Is it 1, 10 or 100?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I could not hazard a guess in reply to that question but a very significant number of schools have had no change.

Mr. Curtin is at pains to point out that the review——-

Mr. Pat Curtin

Some have had increased resources. I am not concentrating on either reductions or increases; I am concentrating and have asked my staff to concentrate on applying the policy parameters fairly and equitably across the system. That is the reason it might seem I am not overly anxious about numbers.

I take Mr. Curtin's point but he must appreciate that from our point of view if the integrity of the review, as he stated, is that additional resources might be allocated and some resources might be removed, it is reasonable to expect that a number of schools would get additional resources. It is important that we would know the number of schools involved. A circular related to this review — we all note the case involved — states that the SENOs carry out reviews regularly in their various counties on an annual basis and sign off in writing for the various schools on their entitlements year in year out. St. Anthony's in Castlebar in my area, had a review in 2007, which was signed off and the school was approved in 2008 in writing and it was approved in 2009 in writing. I would like to know what has changed so drastically in the period from when the SENO signed off at the end of 2009 that St. Anthony's school was entitled to 13 SNAs and this short period into 2010, and how can one justify withdrawing SNAs from a school mid-term when it makes its plans at the start of the year for the duration of the year? If a teacher is to be withdrawn from a school, that is done at the end of the year. I note when Mr. Curtin spoke about additional resources, he said that if additional resources are needed, they are added mid-year. If a child begins in a school at the start of the year and remains in the school for the duration of that year, how could the NCSE possibly justify removing any resource mid-term? Does Mr. Curtin accept that point?

Mr. Pat Curtin

No, I cannot fully accept that point because care needs are a changing phenomenon.

In September and February?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, at some point there will be a reduction in needs and I expect it will not always be coterminous with the beginning of the year and will not fit nearly into that timescale. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that.

I do not appreciate that. For a school to plan its yearly activities, it must know at the start of the year what resources it will have and it must reasonably expect that it will have them until the end of year. If a school starts the year knowing that recourses could be pulled mid-year, how could any school plan its activities having regard to that?

Mr. Pat Curtin

We evaluate in schools the current level of care needs, how they can be met and how resources can be deployed. The evaluation consists of an evaluation of the current care need at a particular time. If it is evaluated that there is not a care need, we are required to withdraw the sanction for that resource.

Mr. Curtin will appreciate my time is limited. If at the start of the year a particular need has been established and it has been signed off on by SENO, as a public representative, I ask Mr. Curtin to ensure that those resources are left in place until the end of the year. If he decides at the end of the year, in conjunction with the SENO negotiating with the school, that there will be a change for the following year, then that is something that is discussed. I ask that no SNA be taken out of a school mid-term. That is not an unreasonable request.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I hear that request loud and clear. My response to it is that if the policy guideline on which I must operate allows me to do that, that is what I will do. The policy guideline under which I operate currently——

I want to come in on that point. I would like to know what is the policy guideline that does not allow Mr. Curtin to make that decision. My understanding is that he has the freedom to do that. I am aware that other schools have been told they will not lose their SNA until the end of the year. Therefore, Mr. Curtin must have that authority. I ask him, on behalf of all special needs schools, to ensure that SNAs are left in place until the end of the year. It is a reasonable request.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The answer to that question is that I do not have that authority. If there are cases where SNAs are being, as the Deputy stated, allowed to remain in place until the end of the year, that may be in circumstances——

Because they were approved.

Mr. Pat Curtin

——where it is deemed that the SNA is needed until the end of the year but there may be circumstances where it is deemed that the movement of the pupil population within the school in the previous period now warrants freeing up that resource. The most obvious example is children who had a significant care need who have left the school, and that may free up resources.

If I may interrupt Mr. Curtin at that point. I can speak——

I must interrupt the Deputy. We will have to conclude on that point. She will be able to speak again later. The Department officials may be able to answer some of the questions that were not answered later. A number of speakers have indicated and I will take four speakers at a time and they will each have two and a half minutes. I will call Senator Healy Eames followed by Senator Keaveney, Deputy O'Mahony and Senator Ryan.

I welcome the representatives of the NCSE and the representatives of the schools. I thank them for their presentations. It is great to have the opportunity for this discussion and I appreciate the accuracy of the information they give the committee.

Mr. Curtin confirmed that the same criteria is being used to review SNAs in mainstream schools as in special schools, according to the Special Education Review Committee, SERC, Report of 1993.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The SERC report is not relevant to the SNA allocations we are examining. We are examining the individual needs of the child and are applying supports on that basis. The SERC report puts a floor in place, so to speak, uniquely for special schools. There is no floor in place in terms of SNAs in the resourcing of mainstream schools.

The SERC report is only applicable in the case of special schools, is that correct?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, in terms of SNA allocations.

I am reading information from St. Anthony's school in Castlebar, for example, which states that two SNAs are being taken from it who were providing help with practical subjects to get students up to the age of 18. They got these SNAs in the first place under the criteria of the SERC report. Under what criteria are they now being taken from them, given that the SNAs are needed to help those children get their examination and practical subjects?

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am taking a number of questions together and the Senator is eating into her time.

Will I continue with my questions?

The Senator has time for one more question, and then I will call Senator Keaveney.

What specific standardised qualifications and competencies do SENOs, the special educational needs organisers, have to decide that the care needs of the child are over and adequately remediated? From my experience of visiting schools, this seems to be totally dependent on the SENO. They have a psychological report to get the care needs, but what exit strategy do they have? What is the standardised competency that each SENO must have to be fair to all children who are now losing SNAs or resource hours? We have had no clarification on how many teaching resource hours are being lost. Is there a plan by the Department to get rid of special schools for children with mild learning difficulties?

I thank the schools and the NCSE representatives for being here. This is an important issue for us. It was interesting to see that one of the schools did not turn up because it did not lose anything in its review of SNAs. We should still have had schools here whether they lost or gained because this discussion is about special needs in future and where we stand now. When the NCSE was established I thought it would be the guardian angel of special needs, rather than the guardian angel of any departmental funding mechanism. We are trying to move towards the sense that it is the guardian angel of special needs. We have had our own interactions in my area with the NCSE and have got to know some of its representatives very well.

How can we get a consistent approach? We have had professional reports that in some instances seem to be ignored. Teachers and SNAs in schools feel that their contribution to producing evidence is ignored. The witness said that the evidence should be provided, including the consistency and frequency of events, which will lead to a picture of the child, which in turn will lead to the resources. Yet across the country I am hearing all the time that when principals, parents and SNAs try to make an input they are pooh-poohed. The SENO is in charge and makes the decision irrespective of what evidence is coming forward. What can the NCSE do to ensure a consistent approach that will embrace in a real and meaningful way what the SNAs, teachers and parents are saying, so that they do not feel they are on an outside track? Recently I have heard that the SNAs feel as though they are interrogated and are nearly afraid to use the wrong word in case they lose the necessary child support. That is not the way to proceed.

I cannot understand why SERC is causing an issue now, whether in special schools or elsewhere, if no change in criteria has occurred. I am concerned about the timing of this. People know in preschool that a child may have certain difficulties. We are talking about trying to mainstream some children with general learning disabilities. If schools do not know what support is going to be there for the child, they will not be confident to take the child. Such children therefore tend to go to a special needs school. We have a big difficulty at the moment concerning preschool to primary, primary to secondary, and beyond secondary. That uncertainty means that parents feel the difficulty is too big to overcome. I do not want to end on that note, however. A lot of progress has been made. It is only by having discussions such as this, involving all relevant parties, that we can drive the necessary changes so that the NCSE does become the guardian angel of special educational needs.

I welcome the witnesses who are attending the committee. I wish to refer to the number of SNAs that have been reduced. The NCSE representatives say they are not in a position to give that figure. They have also confirmed that some schools have increased SNA numbers. Can the witnesses give any proportion? Obviously, more schools have lost SNAs than those who have increased numbers. Can the witnesses give a proportion of the number of schools that have lost SNAs compared to the number that have gained? It was mentioned that the NCSE's approach was that evidence was taken from schools. We have already heard evidence from school principals who said their professional competence was not taken into account in the reviews that went on. There is a conflict obviously, so I would like to hear the NCSE's comment on that because the principals feel they are not being listened to.

Some children were granted special needs assistants in mainstream schools and were then moved into special schools, but then lost that entitlement. Why is that? The indication I get is that special schools are being discriminated against more than mainstream schools.

I wish to refer to St. Anthony's, which I know about at first-hand. It was initially indicated that St. Anthony's would lose four special needs assistants. It was told last week, however, that it will only lose three. Did the NCSE make a mistake in its initial assessment or was the criteria in some way changed?

Can the NCSE's representatives understand the trauma it causes in a school when changes have to be made in the middle of a school year? Have they any idea of the trauma and difficulties that causes for teachers, principals and parents?

I have a number of comments and questions. In my view, the SERC criteria used for the review are totally outdated, good and all as they were at the time. The evolution of thinking in terms of legislation in this general area must be reflected in the reviews, but it has not been. That is the feedback I am getting. The "danger to self or others", which is the key phrase used in all of this, is totally outdated. The educational impacts must also be considered but I am not sure if they have been given due weight. Behavioural issues must get sufficient weight also. The concept of appropriate education for children with special needs must not be abandoned, although I feel that to some degree it has been. Essentially, the views of school principals and teachers must be taken into account, and must be given proper weighting. The evidence before us, however, is that they have not been.

How have the NCSE's reviews taken into account the evolution in changed thinking contained in the EPSEN Act of 2004. The NCSE was established under that Act, so is it not ironic that all the other good things contained in EPSEN were left out of the reviews and that the NCSE is the big chief in this respect? Is it the case that since 2002, when the NCSE undertook its responsibilities in the area of processing applications in a range of areas, the NCSE has approved SNAs in the last five years which it is now in the process of removing? I need clarification on that. How can the NCSE explain that, if the policy has not changed? As regards the review that has been under way for some time, and is due for completion at the end of March, whose decision was it that there would be an instantaneous cull of SNAs immediately after the individual school review, rather than waiting until the review was completed at the end of March? Would it not have been fairer at least that everyone would have got to the end of the review period?

Finally, I would just make this comment. Making SNAs redundant and paying them dole instead of helping the kids who need the attention is a stupid economy in my view.

Mr. Pat Curtin

There was a wide range of questions and I will take some of the later questions first. Senator Ryan spoke of evidence that the views of principals are not taken into account. I do not believe we have any evidence in that regard.

My staff are encouraged and trained at all times to take into account and seek the views of both parents and principals, but they also must make a decision on the allocation, which is part of their function. They must weigh up the issues and make decisions. There will not be always acceptance or agreement.

Deputy O'Mahony asked why would something have been tweaked by a decision, and moved from where it was. That, in itself, is evidence that if new or additional information comes into play, it is considered at any given time and that decisions will be changed and will be overturned.

Has Mr. Curtin evidence in that case?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I am not aware of the specific case. The committee would not expect me to be aware of that specific case.

There was no new information.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I am not in a position to comment without looking.

What might it be?

Is anyone else here in a position to respond?

Mr. Pat Curtin

An example of something might be that evidence was provided, maybe by a school, of an incident that shows that the child has needs on a much more regular basis than is being taking into account. I am surmising. There are issues. Through force of argument that might be made by a school principal, in particular, we may change our minds from time to time, and that is a reasonable way.

Would it have anything to do with the school in question and the parents standing up and deciding to fight it?

Mr. Pat Curtin

No. In these cases it is fair to say that we can anticipate where there are major changes in the school resources where there will be these issues. We will look at them more carefully than ever, if anything, to see that we can justify our decision in terms of equity and how we do our business across the system. If anything, we are more careful in those cases to ensure that these schools are being treated on a par with other schools.

On the policy and the establishment of the council, let us be clear that the council has been established under statute, under the EPSEN Act. Part of that statute sets out clearly that we, as a council, are required to implement Department of Education and Science policy. It was a decision of the Oireachtas that such is what our role should be in that regard. We do not have freedom to depart from those policies in implementing them.

How is the policy communicated to the council?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The policy is communicated to us through the Department of Education and Science.

Telephone calls, circulars?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Circulars or written communications.

I thank Mr. Curtin.

What is the formula and what are the principles, and does the council review at any point in time whether it is happy with its input or the parents' input? There is now a review of the SNAs. Is there a review of how the NCSE is interacting and communicating with parents, SNAs and principals?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Linking that to the question of our staff and our staffing qualifications, all of our staff at senior level are graduates. That is a requirement. There was also a requirement that they should have had experience of at least two years of dealing with children with disabilities or with children in the education setting.

Mr. Pat Curtin

No.

Mr. Pat Curtin

What is not the case?

Mr. Curtin stated there was a requirement that they would have had at least two years experience with children with disabilities. Is that the case?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, in the disabilities sector, in schools dealing with children with disabilities or on a teaching basis.

How is it that——

I am sorry, Senator.

It is just a clarification.

I am going to move Mr. Curtin on to some of the other questions that were not answered, including some of her own. I am just going to give him the leeway to respond to some more questions.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Briefly, I will finish on that one to give the committee some understanding of our senior cohort. Approximately 60% of our senior cohort would have come with what I would broadly call a teaching background or experience. Approximately 40% would have come from the disability sectors of experience, either in the health sector or in the voluntary disability sector. That is broadly the background of our staff. They are graduates. Many of our staff would have masters degrees in special education, etc. There are a variety of qualifications right across that system.

On the issue of being guardian angels of special educational needs which takes a broad look at some of the other questions asked, we are required to apply the policy on the allocation of resources. Under the EPSEN Act when it is fully implemented, we have distinctly different roles in some of the provisions in the Act — in the provision of IEPs and providing guidance to schools and in helping develop those IEPs. There are different roles within that.

Is the spirit of that being implemented at present?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The spirit of that is being implemented and it is represented. If one looks at some of the staffing ratios in schools, even those of schools that were represented here this morning, where there are staffing ratios of three pupils to every adult staff member or even two pupils to every adult staff member, those are significant staffing ratios.

What has that to do with the role of the SNA, which is a non-teaching role? It is completely separate from the teacher-pupil ratio. It is not a teaching role. It is to facilitate access.

Mr. Pat Curtin

It is not a PTR, but it is relevant to the levels of support, both teaching and care, that are there to provide an education service for those children, and it is at a significantly high level. It is nothing compared with what the SERC baseline staffing ratio is.

I do not accept that. The council is at pains to point out in its own circular that the SNA is a non-teaching role. It states that not once or twice, but ten times. What has the teacher-pupil ratio to do with the role of the SNA?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The staffing ratios to look after the children within a particular school are complementary roles to look after the children with special needs. One is looking after the care; one is the education. In terms of the totality of resources in a school, however, a ratio of two pupils for every adult is by any international comparison a very strong ratio.

Where is that in operation?

Irrespective of where it is, one cannot compare one special school with another special school. One cannot compare the 40 children in St. Anthony's in Castlebar with their 40 distinct needs with another special school with a completely different range of pupils with a different range of needs. On this argument about consistency in applying the criteria, one cannot have consistent criteria for special schools when needs are completely different.

I think the point is made. I am also conscious that other Members want to contribute.

All of the questions have not been answered.

Senator Healy Eames will have a chance to contribute again. We will hear contributions from Deputies Ulick Burke, Feighan, Hoctor and Stanton, and Senator Norris. I understand that Senator Norris must leave by 1 p.m.

Do not worry about that because I am not a member of the committee. However, it would be a privilege to say a few words.

That is fine. If everyone sticks to their allocation of two and a half minutes, the joint committee will be able to accommodate Senator Norris by 1 p.m.

I welcome before the joint committee the representatives of the schools and of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. I reiterate the completely unsatisfactory response from the NCSE to the questions that have been put and how ill-prepared for this meeting its representatives appear to have been. Can Mr. Pat Curtin indicate that the NCSE will review current practice in respect of in-house reviews in schools? I refer to what has been described to me as a heavy-handed approach towards carrying out such reviews in schools, in that in some cases there has been no consultation. Perhaps this has been caused by the professionals the NCSE has employed, notwithstanding their qualifications and so on. Alternatively, it may be that to a great extent, the NCSE is relying on outside information, which greatly hurts those who have given their lives to management and care in the school in this respect. What drove these cuts at a time when the value-for-money policy review was at such an advanced stage? Over the years, the Department of Education and Science has spent huge sums in legal actions defending the indefensible. Does the NCSE, which represents the Department, recognise that there will be legal challenges in the future regarding this emerging issue whereby the rights of individual special needs kids differ from those of their peers in some schools?

I thank Deputy Burke for finishing his contribution early.

May I have permission to put a question to the Chairman before the meeting's conclusion? It is relevant to this issue.

Absolutely.

I apologise for missing a considerable part of the meeting as I had meetings to attend in my office, where I kept an eye on proceedings on the monitor. In common with Deputy Burke, I am amazed that although the NCSE was invited to appear before the joint committee today, its representatives lack answers to very simple questions. While I do not wish to go back over questions, has the NCSE noticed a difference of approach on the part of its inspectors to various schools? It appears as though approaches differ on a regional basis. Has the NCSE been obliged either to discipline any of its inspectors or to recall any of them to outline the terms of reference? I have been informed that differences of approach appear to obtain between different areas, based on whatever inspector visits a particular area. Has disciplinary action been taken in this regard or has this issue been discussed with some of the NCSE's inspectors?

As I am not a member of the joint committee, I am grateful to the Chairman for the opportunity to contribute. Although not a member at present, I served on the committee with the Chairman and many of the members present when the legislation was being drawn up. I fully accept that Mr. Curtin is not in a position to provide accurate numbers while the review still is ongoing. I hope he is in a position to tell members when the appeals process will be ready to be delivered.

When the aforementioned legislation was enacted, a heavy burden was placed on the shoulders of the special education needs organisers, SENOs. I agree with my colleagues that practices differ widely from region to region. Moreover, I have encountered instances of poor interaction on the part of SENOs with parents and school principals. I have heard of schools in which the principals dread the arrival of the SENO, which never was members' intention when devising this legislation.

Mr. Curtin should outline the degree of discretion given to SENOs, who have much on their shoulders, in making their assessments. Their interaction with parents is crucial because no one knows a child as well as does a parent. It appears as though at times, perhaps due to time constraints, SENOs do not always get the full picture. However, serious decisions have been made by SENOs that have led to this meeting. There must be a serious review of the manner in which they interact with the parties with whom they were put in place to interact, namely, the principals and obviously, the pupils. How, in the space of ten or 20 minutes of observation in a schoolyard, can a SENO assess how a child is doing and whether he or she needs additional hours? In some cases, a child may require reduced hours if the plan is working correctly, people are doing their jobs and the child's independence is increasing.

My point is that members require answers to some of the questions that were not answered today. My question pertains to SENOs' discretion. Are they obliged to adhere completely to the black-and-white print on the page to the effect that a child either has or does not have special needs? Some children present with challenging behaviour that is not clearly classified under special needs.

Are all recommendations made by SENOs that go before the NCSE's board followed and agreed with or does the board have a second look at them before their implementation? On the Special Education Appeals Board, which was established in 2007, I understand that while €300,000 has been spent on it since then, it has not been allowed to do any work. Has the NCSE any interaction with the aforementioned board? Is it true that this amount of money has been spent on it since 2007?

What exactly is the current position on appeals? I understand there was a pilot phase and that the NCSE intends to introduce a structured appeals process for all schools. Moreover, I understand it also intends separately to set up an independent appeals advisory committee comprised of an independent chair, a parents' representative and a school management representative. Has this been done and can Mr. Curtin provide an update on what has happened regarding the appeals process to date? Does Mr. Curtin agree that as a colleague has observed, it is both unfair and wrong to make a decision without having in place an appeals structure in which parents or schools may appeal that decision? Natural justice suggests an appeals process should be in place. Will it be possible for decisions that have been taken thus far to be appealed under the new process, if and when it is established? While I am open to correction, I understood Mr. Curtin to indicate that this committee would not be independent. However, in response to Question No. 639 of 2 February 2010 that I tabled, the Minister stated "Separately, the NCSE will then set up an independent Appeal Advisory Committee". Will this committee be completely independent from everything else? Has it been established and how will it operate?

I understand that at present, the NCSE has undertaken to review decisions taken by SENOs on foot of requests from parents or schools. How many such reviews have been carried out and what results emerged therefrom? I understand this process will obtain pending the imminent establishment of the independent appeals advisory committee. As far as I can discern, three different structures regarding appeals exist and I seek clarity in this regard. The proposed new independent appeals advisory committee is not the same as the Special Education Appeals Board, which also is sitting and is costing a great of money but which cannot do any work. Is there not something odd about this and can Mr. Curtin explain it? Perhaps that is not his role and the Minister should do so. However, it appears odd that €330,000 has been spent on a Special Education Appeals Board that has not been able to hear any appeals since 2007, even though parents nationwide are at their wits' end as they are unable to appeal.

As for SENOs making recommendations, Mr. Curtin should outline whether his board has a role in having a second look at such recommendations without being asked. What kind of written evidence does the board receive from SENOs regarding schools? In the case of An Bord Pleanála, I note that while its inspectors forward recommendations, its board then adjudicates on them. It can take them or leave them, as the case may be. It may overturn them and is not obliged to follow such recommendations. Does the SENO or the board make the decision?

That is a good question.

I am very grateful for being facilitated. Like other colleagues, I am attempting to bilocate and I am not a member of the joint committee. My first observation is that members bear no ill-will towards their guests. They must be struck by the fact that there is all-party consensus in that both Opposition members and distinguished Government backbenchers all have voiced serious criticisms. This may be because this measure has been perceived to be a cost-cutting exercise rather than a principled decision. This leads to a serious situation in which, for example, one has the application of an inappropriate mathematical model. It cannot be strictly mathematical because there are children who have multiple disadvantages because they have multiple disabilities. That has to be taken into account and may not emerge during the strict application of certain criteria. I know of one young person who has various disabilities, including epilepsy. If an epileptic attack is imminent, he needs to have someone sitting next to him all the time in the classroom. That is also disruptive for other students. While 2:1 sounds wonderful, there are certain circumstances in which it has to be 1:1.

Recently, the Seanad had a Private Members' motion on this issue. I was particularly struck by the example given of St. Joseph's special school in Tallaght at which there had been a 66% reduction. That was astonishing. If that was appropriate, then the previous situation was highly inappropriate and it must be asked how it arose. This appears to be a cost-cutting exercise and the criteria used to evaluate the decision and whether documentation was received needs to be examined again.

I have a case of a man with an autistic child who is having his home repossessed. He will probably have to leave the area and the link with his child's school will be broken, resulting in the child's development going backwards, which would be a disaster. Another part that needs to be reviewed is when such families move from an area.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Since the foundation of our organisation, the issue I have most concentrated on is getting consistency in decision making on operational directions for special education needs organisers, SENOs. We have impressed on our staff the need for discussions with schools and parents, developing relationships not just at the beginning of the allocation process——

That is not happening with parents.

Mr. Pat Curtin

It seems to me it is happening.

SENOs have been classified as hit squads or like an executioner arriving.

Would the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, be open to a review with parents and principals?

Mr. Pat Curtin

We are open to examining how we can better improve our relationships with schools.

There are areas of good practice.

Mr. Pat Curtin

As SENOs are controlling a resource allocation, they are not always well received. It is one issue on which there will be different opinions. It requires greater interaction between schools and the SENOs in explaining decisions. If that is not happening, I will devote as much energy as possible to address that. I accept it is difficult to ensure it is happening evenly at every location. Given the views expressed by members today, we will refocus on the matter. It is receiving continuous attention.

It is not very effective.

Does Mr. Curtin accept people are afraid to speak out in case it may affect their allocation? A confidential survey would get useful feedback. There are areas of good practice and others where people are genuinely terrified.

Mr. Pat Curtin

My staff would also have opinions as to how they are dealt with.

As we are reviewing the SNAs, why can we not review the entire system in place?

Senator Keaveney, I have allowed you to come in twice.

I am asking the same question I asked him at the start.

Mr. Curtin has a long list of questions to answer.

Mr. Pat Curtin

There has been no case of disciplining SENOs. We do have regular discussions with them on how they operate and how to improve.

Like in every walk of life, be it teachers in schools or nurses in hospitals, are there times when SENOs are acting beyond their scope and that there should be a mechanism in place to deal with such events?

Mr. Pat Curtin

There is a disciplinary process for SENOs acting beyond their scope. That, however, cannot be dealt with on the basis of a person's opinion but on an even-handed approach.

Has the council received complaints about SENOs?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, we have and investigated each of them.

Have any of them been taken out of circulation?

Mr. Pat Curtin

No.

Can Mr. Curtin move on to Deputy Stanton's questions? He is a former member of the committee with an interest in these issues and attended to ask specific questions.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Under the Act, there is a special educational needs appeals board with specific functions outlined which relate to sections which have not yet commenced. I am happy for an independent review of SENOs' decisions at any time. Within my capability and my staffing allocation, I have no authority to establish such an independent board. I have, however, put in place a system of appeals where there is dissatisfaction with a decision. The SENO makes a decision but the 11,000 decisions made every year cannot come before a board. I am putting in place a system whereby another member of staff who was not involved in that decision can review it.

Will the decisions be put on hold until the appeal is decided upon?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, that will happen under the scheme we are introducing.

I have been told by the Minister that the NCSE will set up an independent appeals advisory committee.

Mr. Pat Curtin

That is a further stage for cases where a school unhappy with an outcome of an appeal would have the opportunity to make a submission to this independent group which would be representative——

It is not in place at the moment.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The first meeting will be in October of next year.

When all the posts are gone. Mr. Curtin cannot be serious.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The committee will not review specific decisions. It will advise whether the process was carried out in a reasonable fashion and whether changes should be made to it.

Many people already believe the process has not been reasonable. It is not right that they would have to wait a year and a half for an alternative opinion.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The system will have to be reviewed.

This is a critical time in these children's lives.

Has a structured appeals process for all schools been established following the completion of the pilot phase?

Mr. Pat Curtin

That has been completed. Details of the appeals system are available on our website. It can be operated on the grounds that the policy has not been complied with and there was an error in the decision-making process.

Is Mr. Curtin saying the council does not have a structure in place to appeal the decision of a special education needs organiser, SENO, based on the needs of the child, that no one will take a second look at this and that the SENO is omnipotent in this case?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not have anybody else to look at that at the moment other than another member of staff.

Yet, at the same time we have spent €330,000 on the establishment of a Special Education Appeals Board which is not allowed to hear any appeal. What kind of farce is that when we are talking about the most vulnerable children in our society? I am not blaming Mr. Curtin. Ultimately, the Minister is responsible.

I was very much involved in drafting the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Bill and suggested its title. This goes totally against the spirit of that Bill. Its purpose is to protect the most vulnerable children in our State with disabilities and special needs. If an appeals process of any sort is to be put in place it should be done immediately. We should not have to wait 11 months. SENOs, the council and the Department should ask parents of children with special needs what they can do to help them, not what they can do to block them and take their supports away from them.

This issue must be examined. I have never got as many e-mails from people expressing concerns on an issue. Throughout the country people are very concerned and upset about what is going on, and I want Mr. Curtin to get the message loud and clear that the way the process is established is not good enough. It does not work and is causing terrible damage to children with special needs.

There is no transparency.

There is no transparency. There is no appeals mechanism. It is beyond belief.

The points have been made, Deputy. I will now allow Mr. Curtin to respond.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I have listened carefully to what the members have said. In terms of the appeals system, I can only provide what is available within my staffing system. I am most anxious that there would be some second opinion where decisions are contested. However, the majority of our decisions are not contested.

People are fearful.

Mr. Curtin should look at all the people who are present.

One child is enough.

Mr. Pat Curtin

They are not contested because the resources are being provided. They are being identified. We are conscientiously going about the task of trying to help the child within the policy framework within which we are required to operate. We are communicating with parents. We are meeting with parents on an individual SENO level. I meet groups of parents——

What if the SENO is wrong? What if the SENO makes a mistake? There is no come back. There is no check or balance in place.

They are not taking the views of staff members into account.

The SENOs are not all-powerful and infallible. Nobody is.

It is subjective.

Mr. Curtin said very few decisions are appealed. As a matter of interest, how many appeals have been lodged?

There is one here anyway.

Mr. Sé Goulding

The appeals process formally commenced on 22 February. Schools have a three week period to submit an appeal. The process is that all decisions issued since 22 February will contain, at the bottom of the decision slip, a note to the effect that the person has the right to appeal the decision and if they wish to do so, they must e-mail me immediately because SENOs may not be in their office and they want to signal to the schools that they are contactable while they are out of their office visiting other schools.

They will then set out to the school expressing dissatisfaction with the decision the rationale behind the decision and forward the appeals forms to the school. The school will return the appeals forms to the SENO on which it will state the way the SENO misinterpreted the Department of Education and Science policy or how he or she failed to take due account of the evidence. The papers are then passed on to the senior SENO to process the appeal. That is the process currently in place.

When we say the number of appeals that have been submitted, I am aware that there are 20 or 30 cases which have got to the stage where they have been formally submitted. Quite a number of schools have requested the appeals forms but have not returned them as yet.

Is that unusual compared to previous years because Mr. Curtin said——

Mr. Sé Goulding

There are 20 or 30 cases——

Does Deputy Flynn want to ask another question?

Mr. Sé Goulding

Can I just make one point?

Mr. Goulding said that approximately 20 or 30 have formally appealed and how many have——

Mr. Sé Goulding

I have no idea. We will look for statistics on that at the end of March because——

How many schools have been reviewed so far? I want to know how many appeals have been received relative to the number of reviews that have been done.

Mr. Sé Goulding

The appeals system was launched on 25 February and therefore I cannot say——

Mr. Sé Goulding

In the two weeks I cannot say how many——

The council has 20 appeals on its books in two weeks. Am I right in saying——

It is probably more.

Mr. Goulding has 20 appeals on the books in the past two weeks. Can those decisions that were made before 25 February also be open to appeal?

Mr. Sé Goulding

The decisions made before 25 February can be the subject of appeal.

Has Mr. Goulding informed parents of that?

Mr. Sé Goulding

We have informed schools that we have an appeals process. It is the schools——

Schools are saying they have not been informed.

I have a copy of the circular on the appeals process and the council is specific on the number of days. Once the school is notified of the decision of the review it has five working days in which it must notify the SENO that it would like to appeal. The SENO then has ten working days to forward the appeal form to the school. If a decision has been made a few weeks prior to 25 February, the five days has now elapsed. Are those schools eligible to appeal?

Mr. Sé Goulding

Schools which have a difficulty with the decisions can appeal.

Irrespective of the conditions.

Mr. Sé Goulding

Yes, but in terms of the circular the Deputy must bear in mind that the circular refers to schools retaining resources pending the outcome of the appeal. In all of those cases the resources will probably have——

That prompts my next question. If the school lodges an appeal will it get its SNAs back until the appeal is heard?

Mr. Sé Goulding

No. We will process the appeal. It would be virtually impossible to do that. We will process the appeal based on the information the school provides us.

Why was an appeals process not put in place at the start?

Is it not the case that Mr. Goulding and Mr. Curtin are wide open to any challenge that could be made? My second question is on this issue. Will they accept that it was a major mistake to start an appeals system without an appeals system in place?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Before any review we would have wished to have----

So why did they start it before they had an appeals system?

Mr. Pat Curtin

It is a question of managing that within the staffing level available when establishing a relatively new organisation and making sure there is consistency of decision making. All of those issues must be addressed.

How much has the council spent on legal fees in the absence of an appeals system?

Mr. Pat Curtin

We have not spent any money on legal fees.

Does the council have any interaction with the Ombudsman for Children?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes. We have had interactions on occasion with the Ombudsman for Children.

Were many cases referred by the Ombudsman for Children to Mr. Curtin's office?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Approximately 30 would have been raised with us.

That raises questions.

Mr. Pat Curtin

It is an issue. The Ombudsman for Children has raised issues with us but has not made any finding.

I have a final question for Mr. Curtin.

I will call Deputy Burke followed by Deputy Hayes and then Senator Healy Eames. I ask them to be brief.

Does Mr. Curtin have a responsibility to report the effects of these cuts to the Minister? When will he report to the Minister on the position? I ask the Chairman to be aware of when the Minister is informed of this, and he may have to intervene as happened previously.

Is that the question the Deputy intended to ask——

Yes. I included it in the other question.

Mr. Pat Curtin

We hope the report on the outcome of the review will be with the Minister by the end of March.

We will know the net loss at that stage.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The committee will have a clear statement of the figures in terms of the schools that gained, those that stayed the same and those who lost at that stage.

Am I right in thinking that review will go to the board first before it comes to the Minister?

Mr. Pat Curtin

It will, and we are timing it to ensure that going to the board will not delay it going to the Minister.

I advise the Chairman to take note of that date. We have expectations of the council's statistics——

On Mr. Curtin's reply to Deputy Quinn's question about the ball park figure being somewhere between 200 and 300 net loss of SNAs to the system, does he expect that to change?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I do not expect it to change in a major way.

Is the newspaper report of a loss of 1,200 SNAs wildly over the top?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The newspaper reports took a crude——

Extrapolation.

Mr. Pat Curtin

——extrapolation from a figure published at an early stage. This is not targeted at a set reduction in numbers across schools. Despite what people might believe, we are giving this matter serious consideration. We are examining the needs within the current policy parameters and are trying to ensure that is what applies and nothing else. It is not reasonable to extrapolate from the figure in that article and apply it across the school population.

I will take brief interventions, the first one from Senator Healy Eames.

The Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, said clearly to me in the Seanad on 24 February and to the other Senators that every child who needs an SNA will get an SNA. I am aware of a case of a 12 year old boy, who is 6 ft tall, living in a care home who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and autistic spectrum. He is a danger to himself and to others.

A question please, Senator.

He presents with severe and challenging behaviour with high frequency so much so that when a SENO came to evaluate him, she did not feel safe in the room with him.

The Senator should get to the point.

This boy has now been denied an SNA. His case has been documented. How does Mr. Curtin think——

We cannot discuss the details of that specific case.

My question is how does Mr. Curtin think the Children's Ombudsman will rule in this case?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Based on what the Senator has described, my first reaction is that I would want to look at the case very quickly——

Mr. Pat Curtin

——because I cannot comprehend on the basis of her presentation the result of such a ruling.

This is the type of inconsistency we are seeing in SENOs' decisions.

I cancel that question because we cannot hypothesise here. Other members are waiting to speak and we could talk ad infinitum about hypothetical situations. If the Senator knows the details——

These are the facts.

——of this case, she can forward them and get a response but we cannot deal with it here in the limited time available. I call Senator Keaveney.

I reiterate the question regarding the timing of resources. Have we a capacity to anticipate the care needs of children moving from preschool into primary school and from primary school into secondary school? What is the NCSE doing to drive the enhancement of such capacity? Moving from primary school to secondary school is a major concern for some pupils. There is almost a new circular to the effect that pupils who would normally have stayed in a school from the age of 12 to 18, or from the age of four to 18 in a particular school, are now being told they will move from that school at the age of 13, 14, or 15. Is the NCSE responsible in this respect or, in the spirit of the EPSEN Act, is it doing anything to ensure the smooth transfer for a child from one school to another and that the promised allocations will be in place before the child arrives at the new school? If I had a child that was due to start primary school, I would know if that child would need help starting off in September, but children have to start primary school and spend a few months there before the required allocation is given. The same position applies for children moving into secondary school. Therefore, the safe option for a child is to go to a special needs school because it will have a certain number of special supports in place. If there is willingness to have special needs schools, mainstream schools and mainstream-special needs schools, of which there are a number throughout the country, surely the quicker and earlier decisions can be made the better will be the choice for parents and the better will be the support for multi-type schools throughout the country.

Senator Brendan Ryan has been waiting a while to contribute.

Deputy Hoctor said she was prepared to forgive Mr. Curtin for not answering questions and giving us the detail we required on the basis that the review has not yet been completed. I do not accept that on the basis that while the review has not been completed, the NCSE has begun to cull SNAs. Whose decision was it to commence the cull of SNAs rather than wait until the review was completed?

Prior to February 2009 when the NCSE was directed by the Minister to carry out this review, I suggest to Mr. Curtin that he was quite happy with the way he was doing his work and were it not for the fact that the Minister asked him to do this, he would not have undertaken a review. He would have been quite content that the NCSE, as an organisation, was meeting its requirements. Subsequent to the direction from the Minister, Mr. Curtin gathered that the Minister was not happy and that he wanted a reduction in the number of SNAs and, therefore, he is doing the Minister's bidding in making these cuts. We would not have this debate were it not for that.

On the matter of the proposed cut of 200 to 300 SNAs that Mr. Curtin will notify to the Minister at the end of March, he said that he does not expect a change in the figure that will be reported to the Minister. Given that 20 appeals have been submitted and perhaps 50 or 60 more people will notify they want to submit an appeal, it does not hold out much hope for the appeals process, if Mr. Curtin does not expect there will be any change in the figures that will be reported to the Minister.

I refer to the removal of SNAs mid-term in the school year. That some SNAs have been removed prior to the availability of an appeals process for many schools shows that the loss of SNAs mid-term is not an acceptable way of doing business. For how long is a SENO's report valid? It is good and valid for two months, three months or a year? It is reasonable to expect that a SENO's report is good and valid for a year. If Mr. Curtin accepts that point, he would have to accept that SNAs cannot be removed mid-term. If nothing else emerges from this meeting other than the fact that Mr. Curtin were to concede that no SNA would be removed from a school mid-term, it would be a fair and reasonable concession given that SENOs have already approved these SNAs at the start of the year.

Unless the allocation was made after that.

This is an observation not a policy.

There may be time for Deputy Stanton to contribute but a vote is due to be called in the Dáil at 1.30 p.m.

For the information of Oireachtas Members, delegations, and guests in the public gallery, we have had discussions with officials of the Department of Education and Science. I understand that at least one of the officials had to catch a flight to Brussels at 1 p.m. and, obviously, we were inadvertently delayed. It was the cross-party consensus of the members present that the officials of the Department have been following this debate and given that they cannot comment on policy issues, they will be able to give a written response to the committee on the issues raised. Therefore, we do not need to hold them for several more hours today given the delay. The officials have been taking notes and they will give a written response.

If the officials will not be here, I would like the Department to indicate what is being done to set up an SNA panel to provide that when a person loses his or her job as an SNA in a school he or she can be redeployed to another position within an area. I did not raise this point earlier because I knew it was not the direct responsibility of the NCSE. If officials of the Department are listening to this debate in the ether, I would like a response to that question.

The principal officer is still in the room and I understand that all the issues raised here will be addressed in writing.

The point I raised is a matter specifically for the Department.

I support what speakers said about mid-term assessments and cutbacks. From a purely human perspective no more than anything else, it beggars belief that this can be done. A pertinent point was made by a representative of St. Joseph's school. I understand from the programme for Government review that there was pressure in terms of the McCarthy report recommendations to make cuts in any event. I understood that a review would be carried out on the basis that SNAs were being inappropriately allocated and Mr. Curtin and his team have indicated that the NCSE is not making any recommendations on the basis of diktat from the Minister regarding cuts. The Minister can comment later on that when he comes before this committee.

There seemed to be a greater number of inappropriately positioned SNAs and there are other areas that might warrant extra SNA places. We still do not have information as to what the final figure will be. Mr. Curtin said that he cannot answer questions because there is toing and froing of information and discussion on this. In that context, it is highly inappropriate to cut the number of SNAs mid-term when the NCSE does not know the overall position. In schools where the situation was 50:50 in terms of whether a school could retain an SNA position pending the overall review, those positions have been cut. The NCSE might discover later that such positions are warranted in those schools. All the principals made valid and pertinent points.

I know of St. Joseph's in Deputy Brian Hayes's constituency, as it is adjacent to my constituency. I wish to cite an example regarding its position. It made pertinent points regarding the assistance SNAs provide. They are helping them prepare, for example, for the examinations period and for the end of term. It is callous and heartless for them to be cut half-way through. We have seen it in other aspects of the health service over the years. I cannot comprehend why someone could not countenance the impact that would have on a student. Even if the child did not warrant that position, he or she has grown to depend on it and there is a relationship. That relationship is being cut off half-way through and is causing an untold amount of damage. Purely from a human point of view, it is appalling. If it can still be reviewed, well and good.

I understand that teacher posts in St. Joseph's are being cut also. Is it the NCSE that is asking for these teaching posts to be removed? If so, why and what power does the NCSE have to do that? Is it the Department that is asking? There seems to be a little buck passing in this regard.

I note Castlebar is well represented here today. Between the eight SNAs in St. Joseph's and the teachers, there are a great many posts. As Senator Norris pertinently pointed out before he left, someone was acting incompetently to allow such overstaffing to carry on for so many years. It just does not make sense if the same criteria had been applied. Maybe someone is being over zealous here, but we do not have a SENO who can be questioned and we do not have an independent analysis. That is what all of the Members are saying, that this needs to be looked at again.

IMPACT made some pertinent points as well. I had a meeting with IMPACT yesterday. One matter that was not raised today is that IMPACT has asked to meet with the NCSE and to my knowledge, there has been a refusal to meet with the union. It is bad practice to refuse to meet with anyone, even if one cannot give a commitment.

IMPACT has made suggestions whereby cost savings could be made that might facilitate a better spread of resources. Mr. Curtin stated in his contribution that it has nothing to do with resourcing, which will not impact on the roll-out of the EPSEN Act. I am speechless. There is only one other time last year I was speechless and that was in the Dáil, and I apologised for that. I am speechless——

The Chairman would not do it again, would he?

——that anyone could state before this committee that the services provided with the roll-out of EPSEN bear no relation to resourcing. They have absolute bearing to resourcing. Circulars have been issued previously on the number of hours of special intervention that are given and if an independent examiner stated this child needs ten hours of speech therapy, departmental circulars have issued stating that it is six hours. Resources must be there. In so much as Mr. Curtin can come clean and speak freely, can he acknowledge at least that resources have an impact on the roll-out of SNAs and that if they have an impact, it is a little premature to start sacking people before the NCSE has done its final review because there may be resources left over where people could get back in? I ask Mr. Curtin to meet with IMPACT, which could come up with some good suggestions.

If the NCSE is sacking people too early and then finds it must take on people again, that would involve a considerable waste of resources. In this day and age we cannot afford to do that. Perhaps "slowly, slowly catchy monkey" might be a more appropriate approach.

Is there any reason the independent appeals advisory committee cannot be set up straight away? Why must Mr. Curtin wait until October? Would he look at that and perhaps set it up immediately?

Has Mr. Curtin any interaction whatsoever with the Special Education Appeals Board, which will cost €70,000 this year and cannot hear appeals? Does he know whether that board will be reappointed in April of this year as it is due to be?

Mr. Curtin may make a written response to the committee on the following. Has the NCSE any involvement in the home tuition scheme, which, I believe, has been curtailed for children with special needs who are being taught at home? There is a review ongoing in that regard also and I have had reports that it is proving difficult for parents.

Finally, what is Mr. Curtin's view on ABA schools and education for children with autism in those schools? Has he a policy position on that?

There are several questions and comments from a number of members. We will take them together because there will not be any comeback afterwards.

Does Mr. Curtin accept the finding of the most recent report by Dr. Ware and Dr. Travers in Drumcondra of "evidence of increasing complexity and severity of pupil needs in special schools"?

Given that Mr. Curtin confirmed that it is the same criteria the NCSE is using to withdraw resources from special schools and mainstream schools as is used to give them, in the context of what he has heard today will he commit to review St. Anthony's, St. Joseph's and the other special schools that have been cut so callously?

Will he reconsider the decision to cut mid-year? I completely concur with the Chairman, Deputy Gogarty. By the way, I subscribe to developmental theory. Given the vulnerability and given the lack of preparation of the children and, indeed, the parents and the staff, that was most unfair. Will Mr. Curtin commit to reconsider both of those sets of decisions?

In view of the fact that we asked Mr. Curtin here today and he was not able to answer basic questions on numbers, what did he expect to be asked?

If Mr. Curtin was not able to answer some of those questions, the committee will expect a written response based on the information on this date.

Mr. Pat Curtin

I expected to be asked many of the questions that had been posed to me. I expected to be asked about numbers. On those numbers, the scene is changing continuously and the commitment to provide that report, first, to my council and, then, to the Minister could give a misleading impression by taking any figures at a given time.

Is Parliament to be cut out of all of this?

Mr. Pat Curtin

No.

Parliament establishes the NCSE and funds it, but Parliament is irrelevant in all of this.

Mr. Pat Curtin

There is a requirement that I would be very accurate in the information that I would provide to the committee.

Mr. Curtin could have given information up to a certain date.

When Mr. Curtin is clarifying, he can give us accurate information within a matter of a week or so.

Mr. Pat Curtin

We are processing that information. We are double-checking that such information will be correct when it is issued. We have got to go through that process. It is an important process to ensure that such information is accurate.

There were questions and points raised.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The question the Chairman posed to me about the EPSEN Act was whether the SNA review would impact on the full implementation of the Act.

To clarify, Mr. Curtin stated that a review of resources does not have an impact.

Mr. Pat Curtin

And that it would not conflict with the full implementation of the EPSEN Act. If the EPSEN Act had been fully commenced and implemented, there would still be the policy parameters to be decided by the Minister. I would have to observe those policy parameters, whatever they might be. The council is operating under the policy parameters of the Minister. That is what we are statutorily required to do, to operate and implement those policies.

On the commitments being sought here today, it is not in my gift or in the gift of the council to respond and give those commitments because the policy is that when we decide, we implement the findings of the decision. It is the policy going both ways, where we give additionality and where we give reductions.

Once they appeal, will the council reconsider?

Mr. Pat Curtin

The appeal requires a re-examination to see whether that decision can be upheld or not.

Will they be granted the re-examination of their cases subject to appeal?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, they will be subject to appeal.

Mr. Pat Curtin

On the schools, are we speaking in general terms or about specific schools?

I have mentioned particular schools, whose representatives are present, which are fighting hard to hold on to resources for vulnerable children.

Mr. Pat Curtin

As matters stand, we are engaged in discussions with those schools pertaining to issues arising in them. We are engaged in a process. I revert specifically to another issue raised by the Chairman, namely, the reduction in teacher numbers. I wish to be absolutely categoric: we have neither reduced nor indicated an intention to reduce teacher numbers in special schools.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Into the future——

The NCSE did not tell St. Joseph's school that it would lose six teachers.

Mr. Pat Curtin

No.

That never happened.

I note there are many raised eyebrows among the delegation from St. Joseph's.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Allow me to explain. We raised issues because it is a school for children with mild disabilities. We found a range of children there with other disabilities who have much greater needs. We indicated to the school that by next September, we wanted to enter into discussions with the Department to clarify the school's designation to be in a position under the policy to provide resources to it in accordance with the needs of these pupils. These issues must be clarified. As a council, we do not wish to be in a position next September wherein we will be obliged to tell the school that as it is a school for children with mild disabilities, we can only resource it as such. We wish to deal with, anticipate and resolve those issues now. This also is the case for other schools for children with mild disabilities, as well as in other schools in which there has been an intake of pupils at present that is not consistent with the school's designation.

Mr. Curtin should respond to my question on the transfer from preschool to primary school and from primary to secondary school. Does the NCSE have a policy in this regard? Does it support schools with early decisions to ensure the receiving school is aware that it will receive the requisite resources?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Such schools will make applications and we will deal with them. We normally deal with such applications and endeavour to have the process completed by the end of the school year so that schools that receive such pupils will be in a position to put in place contracts to support them.

I refer to a school that is aware of a child with special needs who will attend the school from 1 September. If it makes an application now, will it get a decision before the end of the year?

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes.

I ask because for a while, it was necessary for the child to have entered a school before a decision was made and therefore, schools did not accept such children.

Mr. Pat Curtin

We already have issued a circular regarding the current applications process to encourage people to send in applications immediately so that the NCSE can begin to process them as early as possible. Unfortunately, there has been a trend in the past whereby we have received an avalanche of applications in the last months of May and early June, which makes it almost impossible to manage to get them out.

This is very important and is a good news story.

Mr. Pat Curtin

We operate to a timeframe of responding to applications within six to eight weeks. We have kept to this, despite staffing difficulties and so on. However, we cannot deliver on this promise if we receive an avalanche of applications towards the end of the school year.

I asked a question about the NCSE's interactions in respect of appeals.

Mr. Pat Curtin

As for the Special Education Appeals Board, I have had contact and discussions with the personnel who were appointed to it. Neither the council nor I have a function regarding either its establishment or ongoing operation. It is quite a separate and independent appeals board established by the Minister for Education and Science. Were the EPSEN Act fully implemented, our decisions on issues such as assessments and individual education plans, IEPs, would be appropriate matters to go before that board. I would be quite happy, were there such an independent board.

What powers will the independent appeal advisory committee the NCSE is establishing have? Can the NCSE bring it forward earlier if it will be of any use?

Mr. Pat Curtin

I will examine the possibility of bringing it forward. However, I make clear to members that this committee will not review individual decisions but will consider the appeal system the NCSE is putting in place at present to ascertain whether it is working well or if not, what can be put in its place. There is a limit——

It appears to the joint committee from the presentations that with all due respect, it is not working well. Consequently, rather than waiting until September of next year, this must be expedited to September of this year.

Mr. Pat Curtin

To be clear, as our appeals system is just starting, the jury is out on it.

The NCSE got off to a bad start because even though it did not have in place an appeals system, it still started to get rid of people.

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes, but we must start.

The consensus from members is that things must be improved sharpish.

I had two further questions that were not answered. I refer to the NCSE's role in the home tuition scheme and ABA schools.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The NCSE has no involvement in the operation of the home tuition scheme, which is a matter for the Department. As for the ABA schools, I understand the question of how they are supported and what structures are in place is a policy area for the Department to decide on. As of now, we have no function in respect of resourcing ABA schools.

Do the Department and the NCSE have plans to upgrade SNAs to teaching assistants as has been done in the United Kingdom? Does the Department plan eventually to get rid of special schools for children with mild learning difficulties? With regard to children within the autistic spectrum, has the NCSE received many submissions suggesting the ratio of 1:6 is too high? Practitioners and teachers repeatedly suggest to me that it should be 1:4. I seek answers to these three questions.

Mr. Pat Curtin

The first two questions are matters for consideration by the Department as they are policy issues. The answer to the question on ratios for autistic children is "No". We have not received any representations about particular ratios. We have had constant representations on the issue of making provision for autistic children.

What of getting rid of schools for children with mild learning disabilities?

Mr. Pat Curtin

While this is a policy matter, the NCSE position is that we are charged with ensuring there is a continuum of education. I believe I can speak for the council in saying that it believes that such a continuum and variety of provision is needed.

I have three brief questions. First, will the NCSE meet IMPACT? Second, what does "full-time shared" mean? If a person is allocated a full-time SNA, how can that resource also be shared? Third, on appeals, I note the NCSE has been established for five years and that no appeals process was in place until 25 February. Consequently, I suggest the appeal process in place is completely inadequate given that it only considers the process and not the needs of the individual children.

I now wish to thank the delegation——

I seek answers to those questions. Will the NCSE meet IMPACT?

I apologise as I was being premature.

Mr. Pat Curtin

As for whether we will meet IMPACT, there is only——

Mr. Pat Curtin

Yes. The only reason we did not meet IMPACT is that we are not the employer of SNAs.

Mr. Pat Curtin

We are not their employers. If its representatives wish to meet us, we will do so——

That is great as they have some suggestions.

Mr. Pat Curtin

—— on the clear understanding that we are not the employer and are not negotiating on employment and conditions.

What does "full-time shared" mean? If a person is allocated a full-time SNA, how can that resource also be shared?

Mr. Sé Goulding

It means that the child's needs are such that he or she can have access to an SNA, but the SNA, given that we resource the school to meet the care needs of children, may be able to provide full-time support to that child as well as another in the class.

How could that be done?

Mr. Sé Goulding

It depends on the particular care needs of a child, for example, toileting. The SNA providing care support to that child could provide care support to another child.

I do not understand. If a person has——

We will not let the debate conclude on this point. That sort of information can be provided in private. What was the Deputy's last question?

The last question was on the inadequacy of the appeals mechanism. People have asked about hurrying it up from October or November, but it is a complete waste of time if it does not examine anything other than the process.

Deputy Flynn's point has been well made. I thank the NCSE for its patience today. I also thank the other visiting delegations, which patiently stayed and helped with the questions. We will enter into private session because we have a small number of housekeeping matters to go through.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.50 p.m. and adjourned at 2 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 April 2010.
Barr
Roinn