Mr. Jim Mulkerrins:

The legal advice we got was subsequent to the implementation of those sections. For example, the ones that were implemented already were the ones that included statutory provision for the NCSE and a number of other relatively minor provisions. We then sought advice and that was that the rest of it needed to be done in one lump or none. As such, we are caught on the horns of a dilemma with that. It is something on which we are engaged in consultation because EPSN does not stand alone. The Disability Act is a sister Act and there are issues about the roll-out of that also. Therefore, we need to know what our colleagues in the Department of Health are thinking. We have had a number of conversations with them and it is an ongoing dialogue.

Senator Gallagher mentioned a couple of issues which I would like to address. He asked if class sizes were an impediment to identifying children with special educational needs. I do not think so. Of course, we would all like class sizes to be smaller and that would be easier. As to whether it acts as an impediment, we think we are providing schools with the tools to be able to identify children who are falling behind. Of course, it has always been the case that children may not be faring well in a large class, which might be missed by the classroom teacher. However, providing these additional resources and requiring proper planning will encourage teachers to assess the whole class and to identify at an earlier stage those children who are beginning to struggle. The earlier one identifies this, the greater the chance the child has to catch up and perform at a higher level without necessarily having a label or diagnosis. Some children will fall back into line with the class while others will need ongoing support. Class size is not the significant thing. The capacity of the teacher is a far more important factor here and it is the focus of the Department to ensure that teachers are equipped with the skills to identify those children.

In terms of rural schools, there was a concern that rural schools might lose out. We considered rural schools because we are conscious that there are a significant number of small rural schools with small class sizes. In addition, they might have multiple classes in a room and there are all sorts of difficulties and context with that. We have been conscious in the development of the model to ensure that rural schools are protected by and large. Our ambition is that no school will lose out and that includes rural schools. We believe that when we have the final work done on the model, the concerns that have been expressed to the Senator will have diminished somewhat.

In terms of teaching principals and an increased workload, during the last consultation that we had with the principals participating in the pilot scheme I was prompted by the director of operations in the NCSE to ask a question that had not occurred to me. I asked all of the principals what they welcomed from the model. Their universal answer was the significant reduction in the current administrative burden on principals because of the application process and the uncertainty that the current model gives them in terms of what their allocations will be in the coming year. In the way the current model was configured, schools might only have learned in May the first round of allocations. Now, schools will know from the beginning of the calendar year in January what they will get next September. They will not have to go through a tortuous process with no certainty at the end of it that they will get the resources, notwithstanding the fact that they have procured assessments and signed all of the documentation. That uncertainty was a burden, as was all of the work around it. When the principals said that, I asked them how would they rate that in terms of its importance. They replied it was of paramount importance and was the most significant issue in terms of the introduction of the new model.

A number of people did say to us that there were additional burdens. For example, the new engagement paradigm in terms of how principals engage with parents and the new language to be used is a bit of a worry, and maybe also the requirement for an annual report. The principals felt all of that was in the ha'penny place compared with the savings made in terms of the administrative burden. We are conscious that there will be burdens for teaching principals in particular.

In respect of autism, we said that further work is needed. Having the autism policy advice is step one. We have a number of years to implement all of the recommendations, or those that can be implemented. Some recommendations can be introduced fairly quickly in teacher training for example. Some of the stuff is already in place. A lot of progress has been made already with early intervention stuff under the access and inclusion model, AIM.

In terms of the July provision, clearly we are not going to pull the scheme and introduce something in its place immediately. We must carry out a lot of consultations with parents and schools on whatever change happens. The work is going to be in implementation. There will be ongoing engagement with stakeholders, both the education partners and in particular parents, to ensure that gets carried out.