Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

The motion before the House acknowledges in its opening lines that progress has been made in the area of special needs education, including the passage of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Deputies on all sides of the House will agree that the Act was a positive step forward. The Minister acknowledged last October that the record of the State over decades in providing for children with special needs had been poor. She stated that, in many ways, the State was playing catch-up.

We acknowledge that recent years have seen additional resources put in place. They are most welcome, if long overdue. That said, we do not hesitate to raise this important issue in the House again and to devote our Private Members' time thereto. The people concerned deserve all the attention and support the Oireachtas can devote to them. Since we last debated this issue in the Dáil, there has been growing frustration and concern among parents, teachers and principals at the plans for future provision for those with special needs.

My fellow Sinn Féin Deputies and I have been in touch with many people and it is no exaggeration to say that anger and dismay are felt among broad sections of people in the education sector, especially among the hard-pressed parents and other carers of children with special needs. Old chestnuts that arise time and again when talking to parents include the lack of psychological services, speech therapists and occupational therapists and the inability to gain access thereto. The Minister must address these issues urgently.

Let no one be under any doubt that the situation is extremely serious. The Irish Primary Principals Network, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Irish Learning Support Association and many others have expressed grave concern at the proposed weighted system for the allocation of special needs teachers. The new system is due to be put in place for the start of the next school year in September 2005, which is only just over six months away. To plan properly, schools need to know as soon as possible what resources they will be allocated. Principals, in particular, bear a heavy responsibility under the Act and as time passes the pressure on them will undoubtedly increase. However, far worse is the pressure on children with special needs and their parents, many of whom face the actual loss of services under the system as proposed.

In December last the INTO released the results of a survey of almost 300 of the most disadvantaged schools. It was carried out in October and November and replies were received from a total of 289 schools, representing 3,600 teachers. The results point to the major difficulties in the areas of special needs and in staffing, funding and attendance.

The survey found that under the new system of allocating special needs teachers to schools proposed by the previous Minister for Education and Science, more than one third of the country's disadvantaged schools were set to lose teachers. The survey also found that 117 schools would lose teachers, compared to the 102 schools that would gain teachers. This vindicates the view of the learning support teachers who described this system as a quota system rather than a weighted system.

The Irish Primary Principals Network has acknowledged the commitment of the Government to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory system of special needs education resource delivery. However, it states the following about the weighted system:

Circular 09/04 refers to a 'weighted system' of teacher allocation for SEN. This is actually a misnomer, as it is more of a Quota System using pupil teacher ratios as a blunt instrument that does not address the many nuances of disability. A true weighted system would address each individual child's educational needs giving a points rating appropriate to their learning disability or impairment. Each child would be individually rated in terms of their additional teaching and learning needs and the challenge they present in a mainstream classroom situation.

Consequently the overall points rating of the school would reflect each individual child's educational needs and would ultimately determine the staffing level for the year. This system would be both fair and transparent.

The Minister stated she would review the proposed new system and was committed to ensuring that no child would lose resources to which he or she is entitled. I welcome that commitment.

One of the main reasons we tabled this motion was to give the Minister an opportunity to outline the results of the long-awaited review and to set out a revised and improved system for the deployment of special needs teachers. As I stated, doing this is becoming more urgent. Schools now need to plan in detail for September of this year.

I hope the Minister will respond to other serious questions raised, especially regarding the range of special needs which will be addressed under a new system. There is concern that children who have been identified as having mild general learning difficulties will no longer be entitled to access resource teaching. Under the old system, each pupil in this category was entitled to two and half hours of one-to-one resource teaching per week. If the Minister is to fulfil her commitment that no child with special needs will lose out, this must be addressed.

What of the position of children with severe specific learning difficulties, otherwise known as dyslexia, or children with Down's syndrome? In this regard, there is concern that the move to a new system will mean that many of these children will have to move back to special schools and out of mainstream education although the whole thrust of an enlightened policy is to ensure that these children are educated with their peers and with all the assistance they need. I hope the Minister has noted very carefully the view of the Irish Primary Principals Network that Circular 09/04 appears to be in conflict with the Education for Persons with Special Education Needs Act and the Equal Status Act. The individual's entitlement to an assessment of needs and an individual education plan is emphasised in the Act. As the Irish Primary Principals Network implies, the provision of resources on a quota basis whereby many schools' total resourcing will disimprove does not appear to be compatible with the thrust of the Act. The legal implications of this anomaly need to be addressed urgently.

I want to cover some of the other key issues raised in the motion. I have mentioned the case of schools in disadvantaged areas. There are a number of such schools in my constituency. It would be scandalous for any school in a disadvantaged area to lose out under the new special needs allocation. I urge the Minister not to allow this to happen. However, disadvantaged schools have other pressing needs. One of the main issues is the high turnover of teachers and the relatively high number of inadequately trained teachers working in these schools.

The INTO survey states that more than one in five pupils in disadvantaged schools misses more than 20 school days per year. This is substantially higher than the State average in primary schools, which is roughly 10%. In the most disadvantaged schools, nearly one third of all pupils misses more than 20 days per year.

Another statistic speaks volumes about the education system and highlights what people often call the myth of free education. In disadvantaged schools only approximately 8% of income is from fundraising and voluntary contributions from parents, whereas in non-disadvantaged schools over 30% of income on average is from parents' contributions and fundraising. That is a massive gap. In addition to the fact that children in non-disadvantaged schools can avail of paid grinds, this is another real indication of inequality at the heart of our education system. Our primary schools should be places of equality in our communities. Instead, inadequate State support means that they reflect directly, in the classroom, the social and economic divisions outside the school gate.

Our motion focuses on primary education but it is important also to point out that there is a huge shortfall in the provision of special needs education at second level. Applications for resources for second level schools have risen from 3000 in 2001 and 2002 to 12,500 in 2003 and 2004. This motion is about real people. It is about families and children who often struggle against the odds and about people with disabilities who demand their right to education. It is about parents whose lives revolve totally around their children and the struggle to allow them to reach their full potential. All they ask for are the proper supports and rights that the Government has promised them repeatedly. This is a constructive motion and I urge Deputies to support it. I look forward to the Government's response and the debate this evening and tomorrow night.

See this speech in context