Ms Caroline Quinn:

Children with low-incidence complex needs generally fall into three categories: those whose needs have been clearly identified and whose transition to school is anticipated, planned for and resourced; those whose needs may have been identified but have not been flagged to the school and, accordingly, have not been planned for and resourced; and those whose needs emerge when the child is in school.

The adequacy of a school’s quantum of resources is compromised largely, but not exclusively, as a result of children presenting in the school whose needs have not been flagged to the school or children with identified complex needs who may not be linked in with a disability team. Notwithstanding the excellent work of public health nurses, GPs, early intervention teams and early childhood educators, it is not uncommon for a child to present in school with clearly identifiable complex needs that have not been flagged in advance to the school. Parents may not have identified their child as having complex needs nor have engaged with services, feeling the school placement may be compromised. Either way, when such circumstances arise, it can have a profoundly negative impact on the experience of the child and a consequential impact on his or her peers in the class.

It is crucial the system is agile enough to respond quickly to an emerging need so as not to compromise unnecessarily or unduly the school’s ability to meet and respond adequately to that need. This is not currently the case. Most children with low-incidence complex needs can thrive in a mainstream class setting or in a special class in a mainstream school if their needs have been identified to the school in a timely manner; there is sufficient time to plan for and put in place the supports the children require; and the school’s allocation of supports in the areas of teaching, special needs assistance, technology, furniture, building modifications etc. is adequate.

In summary, the following key issues need to be addressed. There need to be adequate resources and funding, including staff and board of management training regarding supporting children with autism. The low-incidence complex needs profile of a school needs to be considered as a separate entity to high incidence needs. The exceptional review process, by which schools can seek to have the accuracy of their SNA allocations considered, is unwieldy and slow in responding to emerging need. The IPPN notes the targeted review process that is referred to in circular 0035/2022 and supports its piloting as a matter of urgency.

The IPPN acknowledges the increase in funding announced in the budget, including the extra 370 special classes to be opened, 234 at primary level, as well as the extra SENOs to be recruited. Having an efficient number of SENOs in the system has a knock-on effect. We do not want to go back to SENOs having between 60 and 70 schools on their caseload, which is not sustainable. Where the resources allocated to a school are not sufficient to meet the needs, it makes no sense that the parent would appeal the allocation of resources to the school leader who has had no influence over the level of resources allocated to the school.

The pilot school inclusion model has merit with the access to additional assistance, such as behavioural support, added psychological support and therapy services. There is significant doubt whether such a model can be delivered countrywide given the dearth of such qualified professionals available. That causes an issue at school level, meaning people cannot be substituted or they are on maternity leave in the health services. That adds to the burden on school leaders trying to access the reports for children in their schools.

There are other issues which we are more than happy to discuss with the committee today. We thank members for taking the time to listen.