Ms Lorraine Dempsey:

I will answer the questions in no particular order. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and the Chairman queried the primary status of special schools. One of the aspects that has not been discussed is how the children in special schools view themselves. My personal experience is that my daughter set up a campaign for lockers because she saw her twin had a locker in her post-primary school when she went to visit on an open day. She saw all the major differences in facilities between her twin's school and her own and questioned why she did not have those facilities in her primary school. She did not know it was a primary school but she could perceive all the differences between the two settings. Perhaps there is a bit of work to be done on this.

Despite having the designation of primary school, the special schools where they run from three years of age right through to 18 years could have a little more awareness about the environmental set-up within those schools, particularly for those who are of post-primary age. The children need to feel they are growing up. If they are in a school that also has special preschool classes, those schools need to distinguish between the three year olds, the seven year olds and the 16 year olds in the school. If the status cannot be changed for practical reasons, there are practical steps the schools can take to create a sense of self-identity around being a post-primary pupil. Furthermore, when there was a surplus of staff in special schools and prior to perhaps 2009, when there were reviews about additional staffing such as SNAs, there were special schools that were doing dual placements whereby while one school would be funded - that is, the student would be on the roll - they would also access the mainstream primary and post-primary schools for part of their school programme, and perhaps an SNA would accompany the students to the mainstream school setting. All this was rolled back once the numbers were reviewed. The school may not have capacity to have that local arrangement with the special school, which may be where the pupil is designated as being registered. Again, dual placement or its efficacy is something that possibly could be studied. Someone else on the panel mentioned bringing post-primary teachers in to perhaps support certain modules being taught within special schools.

In some respects, Senator Ruane should have been sitting on this side of the room. She mentioned many fundamental issues that parents are voicing because she is now finding herself in that personal space, and I wholly empathise with her. As a parent, I am in a similar position at present with one of my children. Senator Ruane specifically mentioned restraint and isolation rooms. We are talking about special classes. This is a serious problem. We cannot quantify it because the Department is not collating any data on the number of incidents involving restraint or the use of seclusion or isolation rooms, sensory rooms or other rooms or closets - call it what one will. It is the misuse of a space for a purpose other than that suggested by the name the space is given. There are parents who, under anonymity, have gone to the press and highlighted what their children's experience has been in the school setting. There are parents who have been in contact with officials from the Department of Education and Skills without anonymity and who have set out their children's experience of what they consider to be abusive behaviour in schools.

There is a big issue with section 29 proceedings. Someone mentioned the use of disciplinary processes for pupils with additional needs or challenging behaviours in the same way as they would be used with any other pupil, without taking into account the sensory overload or the lack of behavioural support plans. Even when there are behavioural support plans in place, they may not be used.

Mr. Harris mentioned a teacher staring a pupil down. A parent contacted us a couple of years ago to say that properly informing staff is impossible at post-primary level. The parent had printed out laminated information sheets for 12 teachers and put them in their pigeonholes in the school office but the sheets were not given to the teachers, some of whom specifically targeted the pupil and told him to keep his eyes on them. That was a primary trigger for aggressive outbursts by the pupil. That highlights the need for awareness and training. We need data on the use of restraint, isolation rooms and injuries arising therefrom in regard to the pupils we are not tracking. The Mental Health Commission reviews the use of and collates data on the use of restraint within mental health settings but that is not done in schools funded by the Department of Education and Skills. That is a big gap.

As co-chair of Inclusion Ireland, I was involved in a formal gathering and survey a couple of years ago of parents whose children had been restrained and put in isolation rooms to see how prevalent it was because the Government is not getting those data. There is huge risk involved in those practices. We are a very short step from a child dying due to prone restraint practices such as a child on the floor being suffocated by four adults leaning on his or her back to restrain him or her. The State has an obligation to get data on this issue and have formal protocols in place. The National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, has a continuum of behaviour approach which mentions restraint and seclusion being a last resort but the Department building advice includes separate rooms within buildings. Parents are concerned as to how those spaces would be used. I reiterate that any space may be used for those purposes. Children have been locked in cupboards in schools on purported health and safety grounds and to protect the child but such actions traumatise children, whose parents then take section 29 appeals against schools which are not fit to provide an education to the child.

Resources for therapeutic supports in schools were mentioned on several occasions. I must labour the point that there is an estimated deficit of 900 health service therapy staff to scaffold supports around pupils, in particular those with more complex levels of needs who attend our schools. That is scandalous. The official response received to parliamentary questions from public representatives regarding waiting lists and the lack of therapeutic supports is that disability services for children and young people are being rolled out across the country. That is not the case and those services are is not being funded. There has been zero funding for the past two years. No additional therapists have been funded. Other Departments are trying to fill that gap and need.

Special school transport was mentioned. It is a big issue, in particular for children with autism spectrum disorder, ASD, who require time to prepare for any changes. The Special Needs Parents Association met with the special school transport section a couple of years ago on this issue and was given an outline of why the process takes several months. Decisions are made in late August on which bus and bus escort will be on each route and collect each child but the process begins in March due to the enrolment application processes within schools and the Government tendering processes. It is hugely problematic. I said goodbye to my child's bus driver this morning, said to them they had my phone number, asked them to find out who would be on my route and to let me know that the night before it recommences. My daughter does not have neuro-developmental needs or require social stories. However, a child who badly requires preparation through social stories needs to know the colour of the bus, who will be on it and what the escort looks like in order to avoid a total meltdown on day one. Some parents have total meltdowns the night before the first day or even second, third or fourth year of their child's school experience as they do not know who will be driving the bus or at what time it will arrive. That is a serious practical issue in terms of trying to be child centred. I ask the committee to consider taking up that issue.

Capacity within the National Educational Psychological Service was mentioned. It has a role in terms of evaluating individual pupils with special educational needs and whole school support but is severely underfunded in terms of capacity and the growing school population. Although it does not come under the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, support service, it is a cog in the wheel which makes everything work well.

On teacher training and the use of sensory rooms, it is one thing to fund a sensory room but it is another to know how the equipment in the sensory room should adequately be used. For example, without an occupational therapist to demonstrate to teachers of mainstream as well as special classes how to use the equipment, the sensory room just becomes a play zone. Schools are missing out on therapeutic benefits. Parents have significant difficulties with therapy recommendations being given to a school but not carried out, which leads to a breakdown in school placements. There is nobody apart from the parent to advocate for the children who end up at home but do not qualify for home tuition as they are still technically on the school register. For some children, particularly those who do not have special educational needs, there is a meitheal process whereby various agencies collaborate to try to get the child back into school. There should be a robust process specifically for children with special educational needs in cases of whole school placement breakdown whereby agencies are obliged to sit around a table to get the child back into school when that is what the parents want and the removal of the child from the school was not because the parents did not want their child to attend it but, rather, wish for their child to have a quality educational experience that will not traumatise him or her.