Ms Lorraine Dempsey:

I thank the committee for the invitation to present on this issue today. This is not the first time we have referenced the issue of restricted school timetables at the committee, but it is the first time that it is the sole focus of the meeting. This will allow us to examine the issue and seek solutions.

The issue of reduced timetables was brought to the attention of the Department of Education and Skills and the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, in previous years, but few data are available on the prevalence of the use of reduced timetables in our educational settings. The latest figures from Tusla indicate that 117,000 post primary pupils have missed 20 or more school days in the past school year, but we have no idea how significant the figure is for reduced timetables or whether some schools are adopting this approach more frequently than others. The evidence we have is primarily anecdotal and comes from parents who contact us when the situation is imposed on them by a school. There are other situations involving a voluntary reduced timetable for the benefit of the pupil, and we do not take issue with such cases.

Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, does not proactively engage early on when children are on a restricted school timetable and restricted from accessing the school environment and curriculum by the school, but it will take action against parents when they are deemed responsible for restricting access.

Tusla has indicated that there is no legislation to support the use of reduced timetables and that the constitutionality of imposing a reduced timetable is questionable.

The main reason we have encountered for the use of reduced timetables is a school stating that it does not have the resources required to support a child.Most often referenced is a lack of a special needs assistant, SNA, to cater for the child’s needs. A child’s access to school is, therefore, limited by the availability of that support. This view is often in contention with the opinion of the special educational needs organiser, SENO, when he or she is contacted by a parent. The child is stuck in the middle of conflicting opinions and loses out educationally and socially. A child’s behaviour is typically the primary reason cited in these circumstances. Whether an SNA is the most appropriate support for a child where behavioural management is required is an ongoing question. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy McHugh, has stated that reduced timetables should not be used as a behavioural management technique or as a method of de factosuspension or expulsion.

Article 24(2)(a), (b) and (d) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, stipulate that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education on the basis of disability. The article goes on to recommend that "Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education". Article 30(5)(d) of the UNCRPD also provides that all states parties, including Ireland since we have now ratified the convention, should "ensure that children with disabilities have equal access with other children to participation in play, recreation and leisure and sporting activities, including those activities in the school system". The cost of reduced timetables to parents, as well as the emotional cost, is of particular concern. The risks involved include threats to employment. This is rarely a consideration when the school imposes reduced timetables but it is a reality for some families. The use of reduced timetables should be a last resort which is time bound, reported to the Department and monitored. The use of reduced timetables should trigger a multi-agency response. That should involve a holistic review of and response to the impact and risks associated with a reduced timetable for the child and family.

The key points we would like to get across to the committee are included in our written submission. One of those is that a child has a constitutional right to an education, regardless of where that education takes place. We propose that a supplemental scheme be put in place to support a child's education when he or she is on a reduced school timetable. The parents of a child in that situation do not qualify for home tuition payments. The lack of educational provision would put the child at a further educational disadvantage when he or she tries to reintegrate into a full school day.

We are not targeting schools for blame in situations where the use of reduced timetables is a last resort. The Department must, however, step up and support our schools appropriately. As we do every year when we present to this committee, we have to raise the issue of the lack of therapeutic interventions and the very long waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, and children's disability network teams. This time last year, I mentioned to the committee that the last children's disability network team to be formed was in 2014. We are still in that situation today.