Ms Lorraine Dempsey:

Yes. On blended learning and our comments regarding the home tuition scheme, our previous survey was taken during the time when pupils were out of school. We had an extensive survey with more than 1,000 respondents. It was a fairly clear picture of the volume of children who were not able to engage with that blended learning.

What is proposed for children who cannot return to school because they are at very high risk from Covid-19 is again a similar situation of blended learning. If the same children potentially are to be out of the school building setting for an extensive period, not just a couple of weeks or months, we propose that the children who so are identified should switch over to the home tuition scheme, which offers far more extensive one-to-one tuition of anywhere between ten and 20 hours depending on the age of the child. What is currently proposed under the continuity of schooling report given to schools early last week is that a teacher would be appointed to the individual child who is unable to return to the school building. While there is a framework there, we do not feel it would be anywhere near enough to just have remote-style tuition on a highly intermittent basis for children who cannot return to school for medical reasons.

That guidance also does not cover children who are at high risk and or indeed those who may have a parent or sibling who is at very high risk. That continuity of support for children in the home setting is only for children who are at very high risk themselves and the document clearly states that no other circumstances will be considered and it only applies to those pupils. As such, we do have a number of families where there is a child with disabilities who is at very high risk and is remaining at home and we believe that the proposals are less than satisfactory, particularly for those with very complex needs. In the document appendix, some samples are provided. The first three relate to children in mainstream school settings and special class settings and are focused on the teaching intervention being proposed. When it comes to the child in a special school setting where there are more complex needs, it reverts to measures such as alleviating any issues in the home setting around behaviour and frustration and does not really engage with their educational input. It is more about what can be done to alleviate things for the child at home. We consequently have major concerns that children in that very high-risk cohort that cannot attend school and who have complex disabilities will simply be managed, as opposed to educated, during that time.