Ms Teresa Griffin:

The ERC has access to that information. The NCSE does not have access to that information and at the moment the Department does not have access to that information. It is with the ERC and the centre has the original DEIS programme information as well.

Reference was made to moving away from diagnosis. I take on board absolutely the issue of the need to align with other Department of Education and Skills schemes and to consider the impact on other departmental schemes. We emphasised to the Department that it should take time to consider the matter and I know the Department will do so. I will pass on the comments about the need to increase resources for NEPS to the representatives of the service. I imagine they will be delighted to hear that the committee believes support for NEPS needs to be increased. I will pass it on to the Department as well.

Reference was made to the 15% reduction and I wish to clarify the matter. Previously, if a child had a severe and profound learning disability and was attending a mainstream school it would have been unusual. Anyway, the child would have received five hours per week additional resource teaching hours. Some years ago, because of the financial difficulties of the State, that was reduced to four and a half hours and then four hours and 15 minutes. This is the 15% reduction that was referred to. However, to provide some reassurance - I imagine the Department will provide this information - when our original paper was published in 2013 there was approximately 9,600 resource and learning support teachers. The figure is now above 11,000. Therefore, even though the number per child has been reduced, the actual number of teachers being allocated by the Department to the NCSE for us to allocate to schools has actually increased substantially.

Ms Byrne will address the question on English as an additional language.

There was a question about special needs assistants. I emphasise that the terms of reference were specifically with reference to teaching support and therefore we did not examine the linkages with SNAs.

There was a question on whether it was a cost-neutral model and whether it would have more or less resources. This was a proposal for a better way to allocate whatever level of resources were available. It did not take the level of resources into account. The idea was actually to try to find a better, more equitable and fairer way to allocate resources, whatever the level. The NCSE does not control the level of resources; that is a matter for the Minister.

Reference was made to support teachers and the implications for job descriptions. The emphasis should be on whether support teachers will have an appropriate level of training or access to an appropriate level of training rather than a description stating that they need X amount if they are learning support staff or Y amount if they are resource teachers. We have emphasised in our overall recommendations that every teacher who is acting in this role should have additional training made available to him or her. We believe that is very important.

Is there any outcome data in the existing set-up?

There is very little outcome data when one looks to analyse it. The research is very clear that there is no single best model. It provided the principles that informed the working group's proposals.

One of the working group's recommendations was that there should be some reporting on impact. A figure of 11,000 teachers out of approximately 60,000 is a very significant level of support that is being provided for children with special educational needs. It is very important for parents, schools and ourselves in the NCSE to know the impact this is having on the education of children with special educational needs. Is it the right support? If it were having no impact, for example, that would be a real worry. We would like to collect that data and that is one of our recommendations.

Senator Naughton asked a question about the waiting time for diagnosis. If this were reduced, would this have an impact on our recommendation? Probably not, because a diagnosis in and of itself does not actually inform a school's or a child's real needs. It gives broad indicators, but there is such a spectrum of ability within every category of disability. All the research is telling us that it is the wrong basis to use for the allocation of resources. Children have very complex needs. A child who has many different conditions could just miss out on every single one of the cut-off points. This is a better and a fairer way of doing it.

There was some concern that schools will have nothing, which I would like to clarify. The NCSE absolutely believes in assessment for children. If we take professionals away from having to spend all of their time assessing a diagnosis, they will be able to assess for teaching and learning. That will provide much better quality information to schools.

Deputy Conaghan asked if jumping the queue will be disallowed. It will not be needed for the child to access resources. It does away with the concept that a diagnosis of disability is needed in order to gain access to supports. The supports will be given to the school. Parents may wish to have a child diagnosed - many parents would like a diagnosis to know how they can best help their child - but that is a separate issue. The benefit of this model is that, in school, the child will not have to wait for two or three years in order to access the supports that he or she needs.