Ms Teresa Griffin:

On training, the NCSE is very clear. Where children have specific needs the people who are supporting those children should receive appropriate training. For example, if it is a specific piece of assistive technology, it is important the SNA who helps and supports the child in its use should be trained. We in the NCSE are quite clear on that.

On some of the more specific questions, which I will not take in any particular order, on was to explain the role of the SNA. I get depressed that we are still explaining the role of the SNA some 20 years on, but it is not simply just to parents. We have just finished a round of consultation on autism. This is policy advice which we will publish shortly. It was not only parents but also teachers, principals and school management who ask about SNAs. Sometimes a teacher would say they thought the SNA was to help them in the classroom as opposed to helping a specific child. I do not know what it is but we have tried to be helpful in our information booklet for parents. We have had positive feedback on that general information booklet for parents, which is now on its third run and which we are going to bring up to date this year. The SNA scheme is a handy flyer for people to take away because it is really important we are all on board on the same thing. It is a worry. One of the reasons is because the role is so broad. It is not a specific role, but it is particular to the child and the child's needs. Therefore, one will find in one school the SNA is doing one thing and in another school an SNA is doing something else and in a third school something else again. With respect to the Department, it is very difficult to capture that in a circular. Parents are talking to each other and teachers are talking to each other and all of a sudden there is a multiplicity of roles, so we have to try to be quite clear. It is an easy to read leaflet and I hope it will help in the process.

On the issue about any research that teaching assistants are good or what is happening in other jurisdictions, again this is an issue the NCSE looked at in the preparation of its 2013 policy advice. It is also an issue we have looked at in terms of the current advice we are preparing on autism. It is fair to say that every jurisdiction we have looked at experiences difficulties in the area of, as Ms Lynch would say, the appropriate supports for children who have special educational needs. There is no one model that people would say is the correct or perfect model. They range from some jurisdictions that have absolutely no SNAs to some jurisdictions where children who have quite profound special educational needs have no teachers, and there is everything in between. It is quite difficult and the research is therefore quite difficult to interpret in that way.

When trying to consider objectively what are the right supports for children with special educational needs, we have a look at the research. In some longitudinal research published a couple of years ago in the UK it was clear that while one could make a case for teaching assistants or one could make a case for more teaching or whatever, in general and not just for children with special educational needs, the evidence is that the longer a child remains with a teaching assistant, the poorer the academic outcome. That is quite strong evidence. The other evidence, which is quite widely regarded, is the impact of the teacher and the quality of the teaching. On Senator Mary Moran's point about the teacher, people who are newly qualified, the role of the role of the teacher and so on, while that is an issue, it is the professional teacher, the quality of their teaching and how they understand how a particular child learns that is important in terms of delivering better outcomes, which is what all of us would like to drive.

If it is acceptable to the committee I will leave the questions relating to the current allocation process to the Department which I think is happy to deal with those.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien raised a number of issues about the 3,000 who were refused applications and how many appealed and the role of the Ombudsman, who is not present.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but from memory, a couple of years ago, out of a total of 24,000 applications for resource teaching and SNA support, we had 150 appeals, and of those, the majority were for SNAs. As a result of the appeal, three or four of these received SNA support. Last year, there were approximately 100 formal appeals, but I am not aware how many went to the Ombudsman.

In regard to individual education plans, IEPs, and SNAs not being at the IEP meetings, while this would not be a formal matter for the NCSE, we maintain strongly that whoever is in a position to assist in the child's development and the development of the IEP should be at the meetings.

On transition from one system to another, we looked at this issue closely and we are doing work currently on providing advice on transition from preschool to primary level and on to post-primary level and on transition into or from a special school and on to special classes. We hope to have that work completed this year. We have spoken to parents, teachers, school management bodies and advocacy groups and much work has been done, particularly in regard to transition from primary to post-primary level. Significant work has been done on this. Using an iPad, one school filmed the entire school, filmed where the child coming into post-primary would go, where the child would sit and who the teachers would be. The parent and child were able to download that film and rehearse and reinforce it over the summer break. There is positive work being done in regard to transition. Special education and inclusion is well embedded at primary level. Good work is being done at second level, but more is required in some schools.

I am happy to answer any further questions members may wish to bring to my attention.