Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

In reviewing the education plan, the focus will be on establishing if the child is achieving the targets that have been set for him or her. There is a danger that what is proposed in amendment No. 121 could blur the focus by concentrating more on the provision of services rather than whether the targets set are being achieved.

Deputy Crowe quoted me correctly in what I said on Committee Stage, namely that there could be a situation where the services have been provided but the child did not reach the goals set for him or her. That is as likely a scenario as the opposite being the case. In such cases, the purpose of the review would be to change the plan. While my advice on the acceptance of this amendment is that it could end up blurring the focus, I am inclined to think the provision of the services will be laid out in the plan. They will be set out for all to see and the person who comes in to review the plan will be able to see fairly quickly whether the services have been provided and that might help to focus the blame on where it is to be attributed. If there is an education plan detailing services to be provided and the child does not achieve the goals set because the services have not been provided, it probably would be important that we would know that and that the person reviewing the plan would know that. I will accept amendment No. 121 on that basis, as it probably will strengthen the case here.

In regard the rest of the amendments, we have tried to be as positive as we possibly can be in the language we have used. In respect of the definition of educational disability and the definition of special educational needs, a negative view was expressed on Committee Stage regarding the phrase "the child concerned failing to achieve the goals specified in the education plan". For that reason, I tabled amendments Nos. 123 and 125 which propose to change the language used in this section to refer to the goals in the plan not being achieved. It is a more neutral phrase and I hope it is one on which the Deputies can agree. Therefore, I do not believe that amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127 are necessary. For instance, in respect of one of those amendments, we are referring to the parents having reason to believe their child is not achieving the goals specified. Deputy Enright's amendment in regard to lines 1 and 2 on page 16 refers to that. The parents will make that decision rather than somebody outside the family. Therefore, that amendment is not necessary.

In relation to amendment No. 128, I do not agree that we should reduce the prohibition to seek a review of the plan within the first six months following its preparation. Eloquent arguments have been put forward that the review should be done on a term by term basis, but despite the fact that a review after four months would cover the period from September to Christmas and fit in with the school calendar time scale, that is not a sufficient reason for changing the period of the review. We should make provision to allow every opportunity for the plans to be put in place and implemented.

Most of us would be aware of the developmental stages of some children, particularly those with special needs. Some of them can take to a task straight away, show reasonable progress and achieve all the goals set perhaps in even fewer than six months, but others may be slow to start and then in the last few months of the time frame set show signs of achieving what they want to achieve. Therefore, on balance, six months is a more reasonable time frame to use to allow for the different developmental stages for the child concerned.

In relation to amendment No. 151, I have reconsidered the issue following our discussion in committee, but I still believe the section, as it stands, effectively covers the objective the Deputies have in mind. The section, as a whole, ensures that deficiencies in education provision caused for whatever reason are identified and addressed. That underlines the section.

See this speech in context