Mr. Eamon Stack:

In general, I welcome all of the questions posed which are valuable and are signposting issues for the NCSE. They are not tricky but are legitimate questions about the challenges for special needs. I will start with the new model and the pilot project, which several members raised. The purpose of the pilot project was to test out all of the documentation prepared by the Department of Education and Skills to see what elements needed to be amended or changed. As we all know, change can be difficult for people. The idea of a pilot is to introduce change and to learn from that change before it is formally implemented. There will be changes to the changes, so to speak, based on the experience of the pilot project. The schools involved are located all over the country and are of different sizes. The pilot includes a representative sample of schools and none of the education partners have any problem with the selection of the schools. The selection process was fair and honourable. Hopefully, we will know the outcome of the pilot by the end of the school cycle in 2016. It will take a full school year cycle to get a good understanding of what is happening.

I will tie that into the questions posed on resources related to that. We were very clear in the working group report that we were resource free in designing that plan. There was no precondition about resources. I had long discussions with the Minister at the time, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, to clarify that point. I told him that if he tied my hands behind my back and asked me to produce a report with current resources, it would not work. That said, it will present resource challenges. The NCSE is happy that the report has been accepted by the Minister, the Department and all of the education partners and the next step is the implementation. There is no resource condition attached to its implementation. That is as much as I can say on the matter. The Department will have to address that issue. In terms of the issues that emerged, resources were never raised by the Department with me. I was never told that will cost too much. That kind of dialogue never took place, formally or informally. The whole purpose of this, as we put on the front of the document, is "delivery for students". Those three words remain in our head as our main purpose. It falls where it falls and if the need is justified, it will be met.

Deputy O'Brien asked about transferring resources from primary to post-primary and there was food for thought in his question. I cannot give him a short answer but I accept his question as legitimate and one which is worth reflecting on. He also made reference to examinations. The challenge there is that the State Examinations Commission is in charge of that area but that does not prevent us from having a dialogue with the commission so that we understand the totality of the situation. At the end of the day, whatever section or agency we are dealing with, we are dealing with people, with children who will become adults. They have special needs and we must be aware of all aspects of those needs. I would approach that issue from an open perspective. I like to have open discussions, with no limitation to people's thoughts. Then it is a question of working things out.

Reference was made to gaps in the system and to the role of the NEPS. I was responsible for the establishment of the NEPS. In the early days, the NEPS was part of the inspectorate, before it was called the NEPS. That was a working group with which I was involved way back in the last century. I understand the role of the NEPS but we have more work to do with that service, in co-operation with it. We can all be in separate boxes at one level but we must get out of those boxes because we are providing a service to children. It does not matter if it is box A, the NCSE or box B, the NEPS, or whatever. Part of the inclusion support service that has emerged and is being put together is about joining the boxes and providing supports for teachers as well as for children. All of them will be under the NCSE in the future which will give us a better basis for working out, more logically and fairly, the provision of special needs support.

A question was posed about teachers and their qualifications. Continuous professional development is vital in this area. We are working with the Teaching Council on the proposed new framework, Cosán. We are part of that and have included the Teaching Council in our group, so that we can inform each other and stay connected. Reference was also made to assistive technology. As we speak, session 2 of the conference in Croke Park is discussing "Assistive Technology for Students with Special Educational Needs". Who is attending that session? Parents and students are there, talking about their experience of using assistive technologies. It is not about theory but about practice, how it works, what is positive or negative and so forth. That is happening as we speak.

We have eight different speakers on the topic, led by Dr. Chris Abbott from King's College in London. He is an expert on the role assistive technology can play. If we have technology everywhere in our lives, it is only appropriate that we get the right fit for students with special educational needs.

No doubt I have left out answers to some questions. I am not avoiding them on purpose. It is simply that there were many questions. We have a note of all of them. There was a question on resources and the new model as well as a specific question on the 28 recommendations. All those recommendations will be implemented. I cannot give an indication of where we are on the list, but they are all on track under the Department of Education and Skills and they will be put into operation in the fullness of time. If I am before the committee this time next year, I will come back with the list done and all 28 boxes ticked. None of them is being dismissed or ruled out. It is a question of getting to them.