Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking time to come before us to discuss the issues arising from the proposed new model for allocating teaching resources to students with special educational needs. I welcome the principle underpinning the proposed change and the objective it is hoped it will achieve.

I commend the two previous speakers on their contributions. There is nothing worse than politicians engaging in opportunistic party politics on the issue of special needs education. The most unedifying spectacle I have observed as a politician has been people playing with the fears of the parents of children with special needs. It was horrendous to see this and in commending the two previous speakers I am not suggesting that either of them has done this.

I attended a briefing given some months ago by the National Council for Special Education in the clock tower of the Department of Education and Skills. I raised the absence of STen scores at junior and senior infants level and representatives of the NCSE addressed the issue.

I concur with Deputy Jonathan O'Brien on the timeline. All of us want the new model to be introduced sooner rather than later. A two tier system has emerged in the allocation of resources for special needs education. Parents who have sufficient resources to pay for a private assessment can jump the queue and obtain resources, which influences the overall allocation of resources to schools. While we all want the new model implemented, schools are already overloaded with change because the previous Minister was extraordinarily dynamic and introduced many changes in the education system. Change is always difficult. I sit on the fence on whether we should rush to implement the new model before September 2015, as per the current objective, or whether we should aim to have it implemented the following year. I do not have a definitive view on that matter.

Ms Dempsey referred to a 15% reduction in resources for children with special needs. I understand this is a reference to the decision to withhold some resources until enrolment has been completed in September and subsequently distribute them on the basis of enrolment numbers. I ask the representatives of the National Council for Special Education to clarify the matter. I have always championed the need to maintain existing levels of resources for children with special needs and I was forthright in commending the previous Minister on holding the line on this issue during very difficult times. The number of special needs assistants stands at 10,575, the same number in place on the day the Government took office. The number of resource teachers stands at 10,600 and the figure was increased in the previous budget. I ask for clarification regarding the 15% reduction in resources to which Ms Dempsey referred.

As a former member of the Irish Primary Principals Network, I have the highest regard for the work the network does for school principals. I do not often make comments of this nature but it is important to praise every bridge as we cross it. During my time as a school principal, I held the IPPN in the utmost regard especially for providing assistance and resources to school principals to upskill.

While I accept that profiling is difficult, we must accept that it is already in the system. DEIS schools have engaged in profiling since Adam was a boy, so to speak. I have been contacted by three school principals from my constituency expressing concern about the issue of profiling. It was interesting to note their profile - I ask the witnesses to excuse the pun - as they were from schools with an unusually large allocation of resource teachers and special needs assistants. It is a fact that some schools provide a much more hospitable environment for children with special educational needs than others. Some schools keep a distance and do not encourage parents of children with special educational needs to enrol their children, while others are extraordinarily hospitable and have made into a fine art the provision of education to children with learning needs and the creation of a favourable environment for them. By any comparison, these schools are top-heavy with resource teachers and special needs assistants. I am not suggesting for one moment that the allocation to these schools is overstated. The reason for the higher allocation is that they have provided a more hospitable environment which has resulted in them having a higher enrolment of children with special needs. One can understand, therefore, that such schools are concerned about profiling. I certainly understand from where the three principals who contacted me are coming. They are, however, missing the point because profiling is only one element in the proposed new model, which features two further criteria. Moreover, the Department will not seek the level of detail that has been suggested by some sources. The profile will be, I believe, broader than some principals realise. The Department must provide some assurance to schools that they will not lose resources as a consequence of providing a profile.

I ask the witnesses from the National Council for Special Education to comment on the current position regarding English as an additional language support hours.

I am intrigued by Mr. Goff's comment that a diagnosis will still be required for the allocation of a resource teacher. I ask him to clarify the matter as I has not given any thought. Would it not be counter-productive to require a diagnosis for the allocation of one resource and not for another?

It is great that teachers will no longer be required to crisscross between schools.

I presume the new model will have a positive impact on demand for NEPS psychologists. Is that the case?