Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 19 February 2004
15 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Education and Science if his Department has received correspondence in relation to the guidelines issued to NEPS psychologists for the assessment of children with special needs; if the reasoning behind such guidelines is wholly financially based; if it intentionally or unintentionally compromises the professional standing of educational psychologists; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5220/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department receives a large volume of correspondence and telephone calls in regard to the allocation of additional resources to children with special educational needs. I am glad therefore to clarify the matter. My Department has issued no guidelines to NEPS psychologists on the assessment of children with special educational needs. The nature of such individual psychological assessments, in terms of the test instruments used and the recommendations to schools, is a matter for the psychologists conducting the assessments.
Psychological assessment reports normally include recommendations as to the individual programmes to be followed by the assessed children. In many cases, the psychologists find that additional resources are needed if the recommended programmes are to be implemented. In conjunction with circular letters 7/02 and 8/02, my Department has issued guidelines for all professionals who may be involved in assessing children, including NEPS psychologists, on the levels of additional resources that may be allocated to the different categories of disability. These guidelines are based on the recommendations in the report of the special education review committee, 1993, which drew on extensive national and international research and review of practice and provision at that time. The guidelines were drafted in 1999, without reference to financial constraints, and have not been changed since.
The National Council for Special Education has, as part of its remit, a review of the levels of resources appropriate to different disabilities. Pending this development, NEPS psychologists implement the Department's current guidelines on resource allocation and usually recommend accordingly, certainly in regard to initial allocations.
It has become clear over the past year that certain professional reports from outside the Department have recommended resources above the parameters laid down in Department circulars. I, therefore, asked the NEPS psychologists to read these reports and to advise me as to whether or not the children concerned were eligible for additional resources according to the criteria in circulars 7/02 and 8/02. I wish to make it clear that they were in no way questioning the professional findings of their colleagues, but were merely stating whether the assessment data provided conformed to the criteria.
In exceptional cases, a NEPS psychologist may arrive at a professional judgment that a child would benefit from resource levels above or below those set out in the guidelines. In such cases, the psychologist will so recommend to my Department which takes the final decision. These arrangements do not compromise the professional standing of NEPS psychologists.
