Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

He spoke about the broad consultation used to compile the report in 2012. Every adult possible was consulted but children and students were left out, which was a mistake. I did research a number of years ago on children with dyslexia whom I had taught a number of years earlier. When one is teaching in the classroom one knows it is very important to vary instruction in order that one does not bore children. When I interviewed the children with dyslexia they asked me to continue with a subject until they had learned it and to repeat the information. They needed over-learning to impart information to their long-term memories.

A failure to listen to what students want, particularly at second level, is a huge disadvantage in seeking to devise the best possible outcomes for them. Mr. Sydney Blain observed that thinking in this area has been evolving for 20 years. It is a little like the X case in that a great deal has happened in the meantime.

I agree that the report, when and if it is implemented, will bring about a significant improvement in the education of children with special educational needs. It does, however, require careful consideration. There is a great deal contained in the report and a plan is needed for its implementation. Will the Minister indicate his plan in this regard? Does he hope to implement the report's recommendations by 2016, which is when the next election is due? I understand he has been given a detailed background costing for the full implementation of the plan. Will he indicate the costs involved? What are his own hopes and preferences in this regard?

There are two particularly interesting elements of the report. First is the focus on outcomes-based education rather than inputs, which is very welcome. I have substantial experience in this area as a teacher, observer and mother of a child with learning needs. We can have all the inputs we want, but if a child is not learning and we are not getting results, then we are failing that child. Finding No. 10 in the report refers to access to qualified teachers who know how to differentiate learning and how to teach children so that the desired outcomes are achieved. It is an incredible skill to be able to help children in this way and the teachers involved should be paid more if necessary. The problem, however, is that support for children at second level is not subject-based. Under the general allocation model, all children with special needs are going to the same teacher and it is generally about literacy. They are getting no support whatsoever with mathematics, for example, or with languages such as French and Spanish, even though they may be experiencing huge difficulties with those subjects. In short, the general allocation model is not working at second level for children with learning needs. It is not always, by the way, about one-to-one support. Children with learning difficulties want to be mainstreamed and to be considered the same as their peers, yet they need additional help. I am getting a great deal of feedback from parents, which matches my own experience, that subject-specific help is needed for children with learning difficulties at second level. If the Minister has a proposal in this regard, I am eager to hear it.

A second interesting aspect of the report is the focus on needs rather than diagnostic classification, that is, breaking the linkage between assessment and resource entitlement, as set out on page 30. That is very important but who will make the decisions in this regard? There must be some scientific basis to it. Is this not the argument in regard to Down's syndrome? In order to meet children's needs, we must take into account a classification or diagnosis of those needs. We have to consider the diagnostic assessment of need if we are to be fair to the child. A teacher without a specialist qualification in educational needs might read a child's needs totally differently than would a teacher with expertise in the area. In such a scenario, we might not be getting the full picture. However, the report seems almost to suggest that we should get rid of educational psychologists. Will the Minister clarify exactly what is envisaged in this regard?

I support Senator Rónán Mullen's comments in regard to inclusive enrolment policies. I agree that all children, irrespective of special educational needs, should be welcome and facilitated to enrol in their local schools. That is fine in theory, of course, but the practice is rather different. Parents of children with Down's syndrome and other disabilities have told me how they were gently persuaded to try the school down the road because they were told the latter had better resources to cope with their child's needs. Exclusive enrolment policies are not acceptable.

I generally welcome the report, although I have difficulty with some of the findings. I hope the Minister will clarify the issues I have raised. This report is deserving of more detailed discussions in this House, but much depends on the timeframe the Minister has in mind for its implementation. It would be helpful if he could break the report down into sections so that we might have a series of narrower discussions on the different aspects.