Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to put a wasp in the butter. We are discussing Down's syndrome educational equality, with which I absolutely agree. I do not necessarily define equality as inclusion. I tend to define equality as what best befits a child, whether he or she has Down's syndrome or is a musical or mathematical genius. He she could have a different kind or level of ability. Inclusion is not necessarily the answer.

Many of witnesses' arguments could be used to make a case for specialised education. They argue for specialised teaching and assistance, one-to-one supports and resource teaching and suggest that the fourth year of teacher training should produce teachers who are all things to all men. These teachers are supposed to be able to lock in to specialised and mainstream education, whatever that means. That is not necessarily possible, as the witnesses acknowledge when they point out that the assistants who might not have received teacher training, such as women who return to the workforce, are brilliant in this area thanks to their life experiences.

Their submission includes mainstream education and special schools among the benefits of inclusive education. According to one graph, the two are on par when it comes to daily living and socialisation but are not on par in respect of communication. However, the one-to-one nature of resource teaching could happen anywhere. It does not necessarily have to happen in a mainstream setting. It is not simply all right to say we are going to mainstream all children with special needs because we appear to have a problem with the pushing in process in terms of making it all things to all men.

The submission cites two or three studies, including one by Buckley, Bird and Sacks. Where are the Irish studies on inclusion over the past 15 years? It may be a case of ignorance on my part but they are what I need to read.