Mr. Dessie Robinson:

I present my colleague, Ms Joan McCrohan, who is seconded to IMPACT but who spent several years as a special needs assistant, SNA. I thank the committee for its invitation to IMPACT to outline some of our concerns and views on the role of SNAs. During the last year or so IMPACT has invested heavily in education. We have established a dedicated education division and recruited additional staff to organise and represent workers in the sector. IMPACT represents approximately 10,000 education staff, of whom 60% are SNAs, and we are increasing that number all the time.

Demand for SNAs has increased steadily in recent years, while the number of SNAs remains fixed at 10,575. The number of SNAs has been capped for the last four years against a significant increase in demand for this service. One special school took in an additional five children with severe or profound needs with no increase in the SNA allocation. This is in marked contrast to the position regarding educational supports whereby the Minister, after his initial announcement of the allocation, revised the decision and increased the amount of resource teaching posts, which IMPACT fully supports. This was in recognition of the educational needs of the children, but their care needs are not being dealt with in a similar fashion. In some cases we could have one SNA looking after the care needs of seven children with special needs.

We have been asked to address issues relating to the role of SNAs. From my interaction with SNAs on a daily basis I have quickly come to the conclusion that one of the main issues is respect, rather than reward. In the context of their role this means a number of things. On one level it is about recognition by the school authorities and management that they bring a range of important life skills and experience to their work. In many cases - but not all - they fail to receive parity of esteem with others within the school community. This can be a source of irritation, especially if the SNA is older than the teacher, which is often the case.

The absence of full respect for the role is due to the insecure employment position of SNAs. Their employment is linked directly to a particular child or children. Consequently, when the child's attendance at school finishes the SNA is made redundant unless another opportunity arises. This is an undesirable situation because their employment is precarious and uncertain; but it is also undesirable from the point of view of children with special needs, as there is a reduction in knowledge, skills and experience within the system. It would be preferable if SNAs were treated similarly to teachers, enjoying continuous employment.

We raised the issue of job security, citing the commitments contained within the public service agreement and pointing out that SNAs' situation is virtually unique within the public service as they are subject to redundancy and enjoy very limited job security. Job security was the subject of a Labour Court hearing. The Labour Court issued its recommendation in June 2012, which was that a redeployment scheme be established. We found it difficult to get the Department of Education and Skills and the management bodies to accept and implement the recommendation and it was only in the talks earlier this year, which eventually led to the public service stability or Haddington Road agreement, that we obtained a commitment to implement such a scheme. It was only possible to put in place a limited version of the agreement. It would be a much better use of and development of the resource if there was greater certainty surrounding employment and it would ensure retention of the skills and knowledge gained by SNAs.

Our concerns in this regard have increased since the announcement of the 2013-2014 allocations. There has been an increasing trend on the part of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, to allocate portions of posts rather than full-time SNAs. We are seeing more advertisements for JobBridge placements instead of full employment positions for SNAs. If this trend continues unchecked it will lead to more and more casualisation of employment. Apart from anything else, this is against the spirit and the principles underlying the public service agreement. The Department tries to wash its hands of complaints on this, citing the independent statutory function of the NCSE. There is a grave danger that in all of this the interests of the child will suffer.

Clearly this approach reflects the limited resources that are being made available to meet the increasing demand. More and more children are having their care needs met by approximately the same number of SNAs. Some SNAs work with multiple children and others work with just one. There have been unfortunate examples in which school managements have sought to direct SNAs away from the care of their assigned children to other duties. In many cases harmonious relationships exist within schools; however, there are many instances in which SNAs are being used as a whole-school resource. This is wrong and deprives the child of a support he or she has been awarded and is entitled to expect. Consideration of any change to the current model of resource allocation must focus on ensuring that the child gets the important support that has been allocated to them. Far from adopting a rigid or restrictive policy, IMPACT would like to see the role of the SNA grow and develop. We would like a programme of continuous professional development to be introduced that would add value for children and schools while giving added stimulation and a greater sense of worth to the SNA.

The issue for most SNAs is respect, not reward. It makes sense that the scheme should be continuously examined given the period of time since its introduction and the significant spend involved. However, the best way to proceed is by improving job security, avoiding casualisation of the work, introducing standard training and professional development, ensuring full parity of esteem for SNAs within the school community by retaining their skills, and protecting the resource for the benefit of the children who need it. It would make sense for these things to be addressed in a collaborative manner. If there is a willingness on the part of the Department and the authorities to do this, IMPACT will not be found wanting.