Ms ?ine Lawlor:

In response to the question as to whether progressing disabilities is working, we would agree that the model which focuses on the child and takes away access based on a diagnosis is a good model. The issue, as the Deputy said, is that it has been in place for so many years but is still not fully implemented. It has not had the policy backup and funding required. We can have a policy but if we do not actually implement and audit it, we do not know if it is effective and doing what it is meant to be doing. That is the state we are at with regard to PDS. Even to start to audit it, when we know there are such fundamental issues with the set-up and roll out of the programme, is a challenge. We need to go back and look at what is happening and really target some of those structural issues underpinning the set-up of PDS. At its heart it is a model that supports the child and we all support that.

On the rapid prompting method, RMP, the IASLT, as we outlined in our submission, advocates for the robust assessment and use of augmentative and alternative communication, AAC, for children. We support systems that can appropriately support a child and evolve over time with children to allow them to access school, home and their community and that needs to be a really robust AAC. It might be a whole variety of AAC that a child uses. A child might use some gesture with family, use a device in school and might have a communication book or board when outside. It is not just one device or one strategy and it needs to be a system that a child can use in school that can support him or her to learn language and learn how to communicate. It needs to support children's communication interactions but also help them to develop literacy and access education. Based on current evidence, members of the IASLT and our international colleagues would advocate for other methods of AAC. When we have restricted budgets with which to support children, there are more effective methods that we would advocate for over RPM.