Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

This debate offers a timely opportunity to examine some of the issues relating to the provision of educational services for children with special educational needs. Admittedly, the Government has made some progress but it has also been found wanting in a number of areas.

During my relatively short contribution I would like to examine a number of aspects of education for persons with special needs as they relate to this debate. Before going into detail, it is worth pointing out the Green Party's broad support for this motion. We support the thrust of the motion and call for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Report on Educational Provision and Support for Persons with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. It goes without saying that we believe that existing schools which cater for pupils with special needs are under-resourced and this is another area that needs prioritisation. In addition, we share the concerns regarding the development of the Middletown Centre for Autism.

The time available does not allow for an in-depth analysis of all these areas but there are a number of key issues in other areas that I would like to address. They include concerns over the weighted system of allocation of special needs teachers to schools; the need for the Government to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children at primary school level, particularly those under the age of nine; and the fact that many families still consider it necessary to take legal action to ensure their children receive an adequate education.

Like other speakers, I recognise the work that has gone into the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. It is certainly a major progression. The Minister's predecessor and the collective Cabinet worked hard to ensure that the Act was far-reaching, but however far-reaching it appeared, it was not far-reaching enough.

The issue of education as a basic fundamental right for all our citizens remains an illusive goal. Ireland has signed up to a number of international and regional conventions, including the UN convention on economic, social and cultural rights, which clearly outlines the desirability of a rights-based approach to education. Economic factors even under a rights-based approach will always come into the equation but there must be recognition that the rights take priority, all other factors being considered.

For all its benefits the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act did not go far enough. The Government needs to address a number of important areas. In terms of this motion, the significant number of people who have sought redress through the courts and are continuing to do so is cause for alarm. Media reports under the Freedom of Information Act point to more than 100 High Court cases having been initiated by parents of children with special educational needs. Some were taken by parents seeking compensation for failing to provide services in the past. However, most cases were taken by parents to force the Department of Education and Science to provide services for their children in recent times. Many of the cases have been adjourned and facilities for the children introduced but I am sure the Department is rightly worried that the cases will be reactivated.

Another issue arises in this regard. The Department, for obvious political reasons, will try to make sure that many of the services are provided for those parents who take court cases. If this is seen by other parents to be the only way they will get facilities, more court cases will be taken over the years, and that will result in a dangerous vista.

Parents mistrust the Department based on past record and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act does not go far enough to restore confidence. As stated in the motion, I express my concern that court action is still seen as somewhat of a necessity rather than a luxury.

Where resources are provided schools and parents still have to deal with the spectre of the proposed weighted system. I spoke to a number of parents around the country regarding the proposed weighted approach to allocating resources for children with special educational needs at primary school level. They are greatly concerned that their children will lose existing services. In this respect, I acknowledge, as does this motion, the statement by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, that she wishes to see a system introduced that would not result in the loss of services to any child. However, while the new weighted approach has potential to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and the unacceptable length of time it takes the Department to respond to particular specific requests for children with special educational needs, it also has a number of pitfalls. That is the reason a review of the current system needs to be completed and its findings implemented before any new weighted system takes hold. I await the publication of the review with great interest.

A number of groups such as the INTO and the Irish Primary Principals Network have suggested that rather than having a weighted system, it is a way of spreading limited resources in an even way using a quota system. A real weighted system was suggested under the special education review committee in the 1990s but that was never implemented. Following the review, what is needed is a genuine weighted system with a points rating for each child with a special educational need. This would be supported by a proper and transparent national pupil database obviously only accessible to certain groups of people.

Similar to my call for an audit of sports facilities by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, we need a nationwide audit of pupils and their needs. This would go beyond educational disability but it is specifically relevant to this case.

I mentioned the issue of legal cases taken. If parents of children who up to now have enjoyed one-to-one resourcing for special educational needs suffer under the quota system in any way, they might be inclined to take legal action. I take on board the Minister's statement and hope this will not happen. There has been a number of such examples. Deputies Gregory and Finian McGrath mentioned small schools in the inner city and in rural areas.

Another issue relates to gender in terms of the difference in the level of support given to boys and girls. While we acknowledge that boys tend to need extra support more often than girls, that does not necessarily mean that girls should suffer under a weighted system vis-a-vis the situation that pertained previously. Why we welcome the reduction in the ratio from 150:1 to 140:1 for boys, girls should not be penalised unnecessarily.

Other improvements are put forward under the existing proposal such as an 80:1 pupil-teacher ratio for schools designated as disadvantaged, but there are many schools with significant numbers of pupils who are disadvantaged which do not fit into the disadvantaged category. The quota system benefits some but is it truly needs based let alone rights based and how will it work properly without additional teachers? The INTO stated that another 650 teachers are required to make the system work effectively, which we must take on board, acknowledging that the increase in special needs assistants is welcome. The INTO at its consultative conference made a number of recommendations, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I would like to outline the recommendations but I do not have time to go into them in detail.

I wish to deal with the need for the Government to fulfil its commitment to reduce class sizes for children at primary school level. In 2002, the programme for Government stated that by 2007 the class size target of fewer than 20 for children under nine years of age would be reached. There is no timeframe for this, however, it will not be reached and could appear as a last minute election promise. That is not good enough; primary level must have a reduction in class sizes not just for special educational needs cases and notwithstanding special needs assessment.

Speaking of elections, last night the Green Party candidate in Meath told a forum of principals and deputy principals how the Government broke its pledge on primary class sizes. County Meath is 33rd out of 34 in the league of maximum class sizes. That is an embarrassing track record on which to fight a by-election.

I support this motion and urge the Government to take on board the concerns raised by the various Opposition Deputies.

See this speech in context