Mr. Jim Mulkerrins:

Deputy Catherine Martin asked about cherry-picking, something we are very conscious of under the current model. We have been aware all along that some schools put up soft barriers to the admission of children with special educational needs.

We have also been aware that, as indicated in the ESRI's report and various others, there are various special educational needs or various categories of disabilities that are more commonly found in some areas than others, particularly disadvantaged areas, which is the reason we have included the disadvantage element in the criteria used in profiling schools. Part of the reason for the high concentration of children with special educational needs in particular schools is often location or the soft barriers put in place by schools where parents have suggested their child might be better off in a school in which there are more resources or smaller class sizes. We are conscious of this. In particular, we are conscious that there are children who cannot get into certain schools because they have a special educational need and that barriers are being put in front of them. This is an issue we are considering in the context of the forthcoming school admission policies legislation. We have been in discussions with the NCSE and other departmental colleagues on the issue and there may be an opportunity for us to address it in that way. There are a small number of schools that might be reluctant to open special classes, again for similar reasons, and we are looking at opportunities to provide the NCSE with greater authority to encourage schools to be forthcoming in opening special classes.

I note Deputy Catherine Martin's point about siblings. A number of cases in which that has been happening have been brought to our attention. The Deputy also made a point about whole-school and other evaluations and whether in that regard we should question schools about the reasons they do not have children with special educational needs. The Deputy's point is well made and it is one we will raise with the inspectorate. There is a working group overseeing the introduction of the new model and we have received representations at a high level from the inspectorate. We will put the issue raised by the Deputy on the agenda for the next discussion. I cannot guarantee that it will be discussed, but it seems to be a sensible suggestion.

On whether teachers will have tests available to them to identify needs, the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, has been working hard in the development of the model and the pilot scheme on the development of the guidelines about which I spoke to ensure schools will be provided with the skills the need to identify needs. There are assessment tools provided for teachers, in respect of which, as part of the pilot scheme, we held a number of workshops with principals and various other teachers. We worked through a number of examples and the schools involved appeared to be very happy with that approach. Again, some tweaking will be required, but once all of the guidelines have been agreed to, we will forward them to the committee and the Deputy can then judge for herself whether teachers will be appropriately equipped to do what is required.

Ms Griffin will respond to the recommendation that schools be required to produce annual reports and on the definition within the report of ASD, the need for quiet spaces and so on. On the need for quiet spaces, we have had ongoing discussions with various parties in which various names such as "time out rooms" have been suggested, to which rooms children might go in the event of a meltdown. However, we need to be careful about the language we use to ensure we are seen to be supportive such that they are spaces in which children's senses will not be overloaded. We are strongly of the view in the Department that excluding a child and placing him or her in isolation, particularly unsupervised, is not an appropriate answer to a child in a meltdown.