Mr. Pat Goff:

I will make a couple of brief points in response to some of the questions. Senator Moloney asked who decided who got what. As Ms Byrne stated, there is a continuum of support. We assess children from junior infants upwards. If someone's support is dropped, it creates a problem, as is currently the case in schools. Many of us operated a support teacher system even before this was introduced. Having resource teachers for Traveller and EAL children meant that those children could have had four or five different teachers. We changed that system years ago in order that a single support teacher would support a particular class grouping. This model is in place in many schools.

Individual educational plans are good practice, and teachers would not want to get rid of anything that is good practice. We need to decide, however, who will receive an IEP. In many schools, if a child receives resource hours, he or she also receives an IEP. If a child is under the general allocation model like the old learning support, however, he or she might have a group IEP only. Schools probably need clarification on who will qualify for IEPs. A large number is not possible.

There is a greater role for the National Educational Psychological Service. We would love to see it doing what it should have been doing, namely, coming to schools and working with teachers, support teachers and children. All that NEPS can do under the current system is make a couple of assessments in order that a child might qualify for resources. In fairness, NEPS is good and I would not quibble with its work. Some of its staff have come to my school.

Profiling and data have always been a problem. Ironically, I am in a band 1 DEIS school, so we had the information to hand and did not experience the same issues. The entire system probably should have been examined this time. The survey questions I answered were those I answered during the mid-1990s on the original survey of disadvantage and in 2005 on the last DEIS survey. The questions for DEIS schools have not changed, so this would have been an ideal opportunity to examine the entire system, although I know there was a different brief.

We do not have a problem with Standard Ten educational norms scores except for the fact they are a narrow measure. They were submitted originally on the basis that they would be used to examine trends in education, literacy and numeracy levels. What we are hearing from principals is that it almost constitutes a breach of trust that the scores are being used to examine staffing levels instead of trends. This is the problem with STen scores, but they are otherwise a good measure of trends.

Initial teacher training presents a good opportunity for the inclusion of a significant element of special needs training. That is where it should be done. There is major concern about potential continuing professional development as this is only one of the initiatives being introduced in schools. For example, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment will be running a number of CPDs on changing the curriculum.

It is not only continuing professional development for one item. It is the overall package coming in to schools.