Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 November 2004
269 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Education and Science if she has satisfied herself with the new method of allocation of special education needs teachers; her views on whether the proposals will cause gender imbalance; the action she will take to overcome the problems; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28720/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, the proposed new system for resource teacher allocation involves a general allocation for all primary schools to cater for pupils with higher incidence special educational needs, borderline mild and mild general learning disability and specific learning disability, and those with learning support needs, that is, functioning at or below the tenth percentile on a standardised test of reading and-or mathematics. An additional 350 teacher posts are being provided to facilitate the introduction of the new system.
The proposed allocation mechanism is as follows. In the most disadvantaged schools, as per the urban dimension of Giving Children an Even Break, a teacher of pupils with special educational needs will be allocated for every 80 pupils to cater for the subset of pupils with higher incidence special needs. In all boys schools, the ratio will be one teacher for every 140 pupils. In mixed schools, or all girls schools with an enrolment of greater than 30% boys, the ratio will be one teacher for every 150 pupils. In all girls schools, including schools with mixed junior classes but with 30% or less boys overall, the ratio will be one teacher for every 200 pupils. In addition, all schools will be able to apply for separate specific allocations in respect of pupils with lower incidence disabilities.
The rationale for the different pupil teacher ratios in boys of 140:1 and girls of 200:1 schools is twofold. International literature on the incidence of disability indicates that, across all disability types, there is a greater incidence in boys than in girls. International and national surveys of literacy and numeracy have found that these difficulties are more common among boys than girls. The rationale for the level of support proposed for schools in areas of urban disadvantage is that evidence shows that there is a significantly higher incidence of literacy and numeracy difficulties in urban disadvantaged compared to other schools, including those in areas of rural disadvantage. It is important to emphasise that applications may be made for specific resource teacher allocations in respect of pupils with lower incidence special educational needs regardless of gender of pupil or status of school.
I am conscious of difficulties that could arise with the revised model, particularly for children in small and rural schools, if it were implemented as currently proposed. The proposed system is intended to improve and streamline the special education resource teacher allocation process. The model will obviate the need for cumbersome individual applications, while at the same time ensure that pupils currently in receipt of service continue to receive the level of support appropriate to their needs. In that context, the additional posts being put in place represent a very significant investment to ensure the success of the measure.
Nonetheless, I am conscious of difficulties that could arise with the model, particularly for children in small and rural schools, if it were implemented as currently proposed. Accordingly, I will be reviewing the proposal to ensure that it provides an automatic response for pupils with common higher incidence special educational needs. The review will involve consultation with educational interests and the National Council for Special Education before it is implemented next year.
