Ms Teresa Griffin:

I will work my way through some of the issues raised and will finish with my wish list. I may then ask Ms Hickey to talk about some of the matters relating to teacher training.

Senator Ruane raised the issue of disadvantage. There is a whole overlap between special needs and disadvantage. It was one reason for insisting that under the new model, which is allocating 13,000 additional teachers, the social context of the school would be a big determinant part of that because some of the issues are broadly very similar, in particular, the question of a child having a diagnosis or coming from a socio-economically disadvantaged background. There is a lot of research evidence that teacher expectation and parental expectation of what that child is capable of achieving automatically goes down. It is a very destructive thing. We are trying to move away from the whole issue of diagnosis and we also need to do something in respect of disadvantage.

The issue of lack of money and being unable to access a diagnosis was one of the motivations for changing the way that we allocate special education teachers in order that it is not linked to disability because for so many people, it is not simply a matter of funding.

It was driving people who had children who were not developing in line with normal goals and milestones to get a particular diagnosis so they could get additional resources, which was very destructive. There is now a recognition in the education system of disadvantage with a view to changing how these children are supported. Boston was mentioned. I visited a preschool there for children with autism. It is an integrated preschool. One of the big benefits was for children who do not have special educational needs and children who came from disadvantaged areas. Children are incredibly adaptable. What they found was that for children who were developing typically, their communications skills improved hugely because as normal communication was not working they had to come up with a way of communicating with a child who does not communicate back. When they were leaving the preschool their communications and interactive skills had developed hugely. It is hugely beneficial for children who had a disability and children who did not have a disability.

In regard to the workload of education welfare officers, I regret I cannot be helpful in that regard. In regard to resource teaching hours, members might recall that at a previous meeting we outlined that when we were doing our report in 2013 we found that primary resource teaching hours were being used by principals as timetable fillers, which is not their intended purpose. One person could be really good but another might not have any idea of a child's needs, especially at post-primary level. It is a really difficult area.

In regard to junior certificate level 1 and level 2, it is very important that these programmes would be rolled out in mainstream post-primary schools because this benefits all children. It is fantastic development. In regard to students not doing Irish, I am concerned that so many children are being relieved of the task of learning Irish or, more important, deprived of the opportunity of learning Irish. The new model provides huge opportunities for schools to be more innovative in how they use hours to support children who might have reduced timetables for various reasons and not simply because they are not doing Irish.

In regard to access to speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy, this is a major issue. I have noted with interest that the national behaviour support service, which currently only operates at post-primary level, has contracted in speech and language therapists and occupational therapists because it considers it so fundamental to improving the educational outcomes for students who have behavioural issues in post-primary. I am looking forward to learning more about it as a model.

In regard to co-teaching and how it works, co-teaching is part of the programme that is now available for continuing professional development, CPD. CPD is available through dedicated CPD courses, online e-learning and in-school support. Co-teaching will form part of the supports to schools around the roll-out of the new teacher model. We believe it is a big part of the solution. Everybody must be aware that teachers need to buy into it. People cannot be forced to work together. If we try to do that it could backfire. Teachers generally do buy in to initiatives that are working.

In regard to what are the most important recommendations that have not been implemented, the Department has been incredibly open and embracing of the recommendations we have made thus far in regard to roll-out of the new model. That will be in place from next year. In regard to the early intervention scheme that embraces preschool children, we identified a huge gap in the system in that children who had disabilities were being excluded from the ECCE schemes and mainstream preschools. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs took that on board and has now developed an access and inclusion model. We also made a recommendation on the schools admission scheme will I understand will be discussed tomorrow by the committee. It is important that schools are not allowed to put up soft barriers that prevent children accessing a special class placement or a mainstream class. Schools exist to provide an education for all children in their communities. We are very strong on that point and we are very grateful that the Department has taken on the admissions to school issue.

In terms of the priorities going forward, mindful that eaten bread is soon forgotten, the main issue is teacher education because the quality of teaching is important, especially around the area of challenging behaviour. We have made a recommendation that in every school there should be one teacher who is skilled in the area of the management of challenging behaviour but all teachers need additional CPD around child behaviour. In regard to the availability of clinical supports, children are only children once and if they need speech and language therapy, occupational therapy or physiotherapy they should not be left waiting for it. We believe that the expansion of NEPS is very important. There are a small number of children who have life threatening and complex needs who ten or 15 years ago would never have attended school. In fact, they would not have survived. We need to look at what are the right supports for these children in special schools. I am speaking in this regard about children who have had tracheotomies and other life-threatening conditions. We need to identify the rights supports to ensure their safety within the school environment. That is crucial.

In our 2013 paper we made a recommendation around the need for a new model of special school. Special schools are changing. They are now catering for children who have much more complex needs and equally children who are capable of doing the junior certificate and leaving examinations and therefore they need different rules and so on in that regard. We recommended in our challenging behaviour policy advice that for the tiny number of children whose behaviour is such that they need very intensive supports, we need to develop a model that supports them in the short term. I could go on forever but I will leave it at that.