Mr. Eddie Ward:

There is obviously an evidence base supporting the use of reduced hours timetables and there appears to be some confusion, at local and national level, regarding how the issue should be managed. It is very clear from the Department's point of view that every child is entitled to receive a full education. If there are examples or situations where children, because of a medical or some other pressing need that is supported by expert evidence, require to have that curtailed for any reason, it should be part of a plan about which parents are consulted. There should be timely engagement and there should be defined objectives as to what the outcome of the plan is. That should be reviewed and it should not happen as a surprise to the parent, with he or she just being called in to bring the child home on a recurring basis. This should, very clearly, be a response. There are support services available to help schools around individual children, such as the National Educational Psychological Service, for example, and there may be others.

On the legal side, it is clear that, under the Education (Welfare) Act, there is an obligation on schools to record attendance and to report on non-attendance. Where a child is sent home and there is no consultation and it is not part of an educational intervention, it is technically a suspension. It should be recorded and should be reported to Tusla, which has guidelines and a range of interventions in place through its education welfare service for that to be followed up.

On the broader issue, Mr. Harris made very valid points about school culture and teacher competence. The OECD carried out research a number of years ago which stated that the quality of teaching in a school cannot exceed the quality of the teachers. That has been central to Department policy-making and thinking in recent times, as well as to the emphasis on how we address that from a strategic and policy point of view. The establishment of the Teaching Council was a very strategic move in order to guarantee in terms of quality what we now call the continuum of teacher education, which governs the initial teacher education piece, then bridging the initial teacher education piece into teaching, and through to career-long professional development. The whole thrust of policy should be evidence-based throughout and, obviously, it is very much about bringing the profession with us.

While there is clearly a bit to go on that, much work has been done. All of the initial teacher education programmes, of which there are quite a few, have been reviewed and reconfigured since 2012. In the context of the NCSE review to which Mr. Mulkerrins referred, there was clear evidence in terms of these programmes having inclusive modules within them. There may be some work to be done on that and, clearly, the work of Mary Immaculate College will be useful in that regard. However, it is safe to say the council in its work is very much driven by what is the State's policy, what is international best practice and where are our needs currently. In other words, if we want to meet the needs of children who are in school today, we need to respond to that and pick up on the work of our inspectors and the work of Mr. Harris and his organisation.

The other strategic move the Department made was to establish the NCSE. This was an intervention designed to address a lacuna in the Department's ability to respond to the needs of children in special education and to make sure the Department, in responding, was doing so on a very reliable evidence base. Mr. Mulkerrins outlined some of the statistics on the work that has been done. The commitment to supporting children with special educational needs and spectrum disorders cannot be second-guessed because the position regarding what has happened since 2011 is very clear, particularly in the context of the number of special needs teachers and SNAs, as well as the variety of supports going into schools, in place.

The emphasis on training cannot be understated and this is very clear in terms of the advice we have been getting from the NCSE, and we will see more on that. We know that, last year, something of the order of 15,000 teachers were trained on special education in general terms. There are further statistics, if the committee wishes to break that down, but that is a very clear statement in its own right of the commitment of the State to support the upskilling of teachers.

We have made a number of other innovative moves on the advice of the NCSE. There is currently a school inclusion model in development which will see a range of new therapies being brought into schools. It is happening in 75 schools currently and will be piloted for a further year. It is about bringing occupational therapy, speech and language and behavioural practitioners into schools so we support teachers in a way they have not been supported before. While special needs assistants are doing a magnificent job, it is clear they do not have the skills and competencies in some of the areas where children exhibiting needs in schools need to be supported. The outcome of this pilot will further inform policy as to how we might extend that model into the future.

The point I am making is that we recognise there is an increased need, our understanding and knowledge is building the whole time and we are trying busily to catch up, given that resources are not unlimited. Currently, almost 20% of the total education Vote is being spent on supporting special needs and that investment will grow. We need to be sure we are doing it based on good, sound evidence, which is our intention. Teacher education and general training have to be central to that.