Ms Teresa Griffin:

I, too, thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the invitation to attend this meeting. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, takes seriously its role of providing the Minister for Education and Skills with independent, expert evidence-informed policy advice on the education of children with special educational needs. It is one of our key roles. In preparing this particular piece of policy advice on supporting students with autism spectrum disorder we reviewed an extensive range of relevant national and international research. We commissioned two specific studies to establish the most up-to-date position in terms of research to evaluate practice in our schools and to identify good practice in other countries. We attended national and international conferences and we consulted widely, with over 30 meetings held with students, parents, education partners and stakeholders, including the HSE.

We visited ten schools and we had 16 presentations made directly to council members from parents, teachers and academics. In terms of findings, we established that 14,000 students or one in every 65 students enrolled in Irish schools has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, ASD. This school prevalence rate of 1.55% is substantially higher than previously reported in Ireland but it is in line with more recent rates reported in the UK and the US. We found that 86% of students with autism were enrolled in mainstream schools, with 63% in mainstream classes, 23% in special classes and 14% in special schools. We found that in schools students with autism are generally well supported. There has been considerable improvement in provision since the 2001 position set out in the report of the task force on autism. For example, we now have over €300 million specifically being invested in supports for children with autism, including, teachers, SNAs, grants and so on. There are 2,500 teachers specifically allocated for children with autism. There are 950 special classes for children with autism and 69% of students with autism need and have access to SNA support. There are 20 special schools specifically for students with autism, although many more special schools enrol children with autism.

We found that students with ASD have access to an appropriate curriculum. There is generally a good and improving range of placement options available. Obviously, there are some things about which we remain concerned, particularly the continuing soft barriers to enrolment and our inability to require schools to open special classes as needed by the children in the community. This can lead to a delay in delivery of sufficient specialist provision where a special class is needed. We found that support for students with ASD is generally good at primary school level but that provision at post-primary level requires further development. In terms of what was established by the research, there is an awful lot of research in this area but its quality is variable. Some interventions are recommended without a clear evidential basis, which is very worrying for parents and teachers. The research supports an education system that is flexible and responsive to students, who can have very different needs and respond very differently to interventions. Our policy advice identifies some 34 evidence-informed interventions that may have some affect on some aspects of autism for some students. While that statement seems very weak, children with autism are very different. Two children with an identical diagnosis can respond very differently to interventions. That is as strong as we can make it.

We have made 11 recommendations which were sent to the committee. I will take this opportunity to highlight a few of them. We identified a need for further investment in teacher professional development so that they have the expertise to identify students' needs and to be able to select and use evidence-informed interventions appropriately. We recommend that teachers should have a minimum of three years' experience post-probation before being appointed a special class teacher because these classes have children with the most complex needs. We found significant difficulties with the lack of consistent and sufficient access to therapeutic supports. Investment in both health and education supports services is needed. We have raised concerns about two educational support schemes. We were unable to establish a robust evidential basis which justifies the Department's early intervention scheme being limited to certain categories of disability nor could we establish a robust basis for the Department of Education and Skills extended school year, also known as the July provision scheme, being limited to students with ASD. We have advised the Department that it should seek legal advice in respect of the potential and equitable nature of these schemes. We are also concerned that the current extended school-year scheme - July provision scheme - might result in potentially unsafe environments for students and staff. We recommended that the current scheme be replaced with a safe, social summer day activity programme that is available for all students with complex educational needs. I will now hand back to Mr. Tattan.